Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 8

A resolution approving a proposed On-Call Program Management Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., for program management services of the City Park Golf Course Parks and Drainage Improvements Design/Build Project and the 39th Avenue/Park Hill Parks Drainage Improvements Design/Build Project. Approves a contract with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. for $6 million and for three years for program management services of the City Park Golf Course parks and drainage improvements and the Park Hill parks and drainage improvements projects as part of the citywide Platte to Park Hill: Stormwater Systems project (201735100). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-28-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 7-25-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Espinoza called out this resolution at the Monday, August 7, 2017, Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, August 14, 2017.

DenverCityCouncil_08142017_17-0823

All right. Zero I's, 12 nays. Council Resolution 811 has been defeated. Madam Secretary, can you please put the next item on our screens? Councilman Espinosa, will you go ahead and put counseled Bill 819 on the floor. And move that council bill eight nine to be placed upon the floor for final consideration and do passed? It has been moved. I'm sorry, are we doing a 23 or eight, 1908 19. Next step of my jumping ahead here. Do. We should probably do the resolutions first. 823 823 2426. Yeah. They're out of order. All right. So do we need to do anything to take back the motion that Councilman Espinosa just did? I know. We can just move. We'll go back. Okay. All right. Go ahead, gentlemen. Those are also. Listed as bills, but their resolutions, correct? There are resolutions. Of move that resolutions 823, 24 and 20. 26 be placed upon final consideration? Well, no, that's you know. And do passing the buck. Is that what I'm. Adopted in a black. And be adopted in a. Black. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments from members of council. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. Much has been made over the past year or so regarding the connection or lack of a connection between the plot, the Park Hill Drainage Project and the proposed Central 70 highway reconstruction. Opponents to Central 70 are adamant the two are interrelated. Proponents say Central 70 can go on without it, and P2P is merely redundant. I've spent more than a little time over the past year or so researching the topic, and my conclusion is that not only are P2P and I-70 tightly interwoven, the city is far more than merely an interested party. We are a fully involved partner in facilitating the highway project that I believe will have long reaching negative effects on the communities, North Denver communities to which it passes. And I'd like to read a few things from the IGA that was run through this Council just a few weeks before a new majority of council members took office in 2015. I'm just going to read you some excerpts. Whereas the parties, meaning the city and the state, have determined that there are significant mutual benefits to be achieved by cooperating and working together on the I-70 East Project and related enhancements. Whereas, to the extent permitted by the NEPA process and applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, it is the intent of the parties to set forth their understandings and goals with regard to their respective commitments for funding parts of the costs of the I-70 East Project. The parties believe the Twin Basin Drainage Project is a necessary and important drainage project with benefits for the state and the city respectively. If the Early Action Drainage Project was, which was part of P2P, if the Early Action Drainage Project segment from Pond seven to the South Platte River is not operational by December one, 2017, or the remainder of the EDP is not operational by September one, 2019, and this delays the I-70 East Project. The city workforce will enforce the liquidated damages provision and reimburse the state for actual additional costs to the I-70 East Project in the amount of liquidated damages from the city's contractor. The State believes the Twin Twin Basin drainage project will result in significant benefits for the I-70 East Project and will result in a redundant storm protection system for the I-70 East Project. As a result, the state will pay 40% of the cost of the project, estimated at 53.6 million, and the city will pay 60% of the cost estimated at 8.4 million. The city agrees that its ongoing drainage plans, policies and regulations will be developed with the goal of maintaining the functional capacity of the Twin Basin drainage project to handle the 100 year flood. If the final cost for the project for drainage elements exceeds $134 million, it is the agreement of the parties that any amount above 134 million will be funded 60% by the city and 40% by the state. Provided, however, that the state obligation for any amount in 53.6 million A shall not exceed an additional 6.9 million. And finally, see that I shall have the right to review all plans for the Twin Basin Drainage Project, including the Early Action Drainage Product Project. CDOT will provide comments focused on the functionality of the drainage plans. When plans for the EDP have achieved 30% design, the city shall submit the plans to see for review and comments. See that we'll have ten business days to review and comment. And the same is true for the 60% and 100% design period. I believe that Court could indeed have provided the needed redundancy for the I-70 project on their own dime, but I believe they've chosen not to do so because it's in their financial interest to partner with the city. I believe if they were going to provide their own redundancy, it would cost far more than their contribution to the city. And I believe that because I do not know see that to be intentionally benevolent folks that I guess they're figuring it's a heck of a good deal. And so a partnership with the city makes good sense to them. We continue to struggle to gain full participation from C++ in mitigating the construction effects on nearby homeowners. Where I have had a chance to vote on this idea, I would have suggested that the money we are gaining to help with the P2P project was not sufficient to facilitate the continued debasement of the neighborhoods that this oversize, misplaced and misguided boondoggle will pass through. That being said, Mr.. Mr. President, I will be voting no on these three bills tonight. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Castro. Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. When people ask me what is the most surprising thing about being on city council, I have said for the past two years that it's drainage. It's something I never thought about before. It was a city council member. But now everywhere I go, I see drainage basins and ditches that the city and urban drainage and government entities have built in order to protect our neighborhoods and our city from a serious rain event in 2013. We all remember the horrible floods that we had that destroyed a lot of communities and a lot of homes. I do support these projects. They will protect our city and our neighborhoods. There's been a lot of misinformation out there, and I just want to be clear on some things. Number one, the city park golf course is not going to be destroyed. It is going to be improved into a more beautiful and accessible course. Q Alumnus and Hall of Fame golfer Hale Irwin is designing it so that players of all abilities can play golf together. The new design will attract younger players, and it will be more inclusive. It will also incorporate facilities for the first tee program for children. The historic character of the golf course and views will be preserved. And of the 824 existing trees, 561 will be preserved and 660 760 new trees will be planted on the course or in the area with a net gain of almost 500 trees. We actually have our city forester here tonight who can answer more questions about the trees, but many of the trees that will be cut down are already stressed or damaged. They also will replace the tree canopy. So if you think of a large tree and the size of the canopy of the branches in the leaves, they'll replace that with as many smaller trees that will create that same area of canopy. Many of Denver's parks are already drainage areas to mitigate floods. Just this morning, I rode my bike around Bible Park, which is a drainage area. The other day I ran in Paul Cashman's district on the Harvard Gulch, which is a great plant path and it is a drainage area. Also in my district we have the Goldsmith Gulch that goes through Wallace Park, Rosamond Park and Bible Park, and it's a drainage area. Using parks and green spaces for drainage is a natural, smart way to mitigate a major flood. So with that said, I will be supporting these contracts. All right. Thanks, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Brooks. Protecting people and property from floodwaters is of the utmost importance. I know that we all agree on that. And I'd like to humbly share a little bit about my background so that you can put into context my next comments for close to 25 years. I worked within the field of natural resources. I started out at the Colorado Department of Natural Resources when Ken Salazar served as the executive director. I have also worked for Colorado State Parks and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, which is now merged into the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife. I began my career when the number of women and people of color within federal, state and city natural resource agencies were in the single digits. And sadly to say, we are, we still are. I have dedicated my entire adult life to educating people and advocating for responsible and science led management in regard to our precious natural resources . Prior to being elected to serve my community as a District 11 councilwoman, I was the executive director for Environmental Learning for Kids, a nonprofit organization. I started in far northeast Denver, which is dedicated to educating a diverse population of youth and their families in science, technology, engineering and math and natural resource issues. During my tenure with Elk, I researched, wrote and implemented many U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grants related to environmental justice and environmental education. I have supervised and directly implemented educational programs involving watersheds, water quality, including point and non-point source pollution, and monthly analysis of local creeks, including westerly and Sand Creek for page hardness, alkalinity and other environmental variables through the River Watch program, which is supported by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. First and. Foremost, this is a storm water management project. We must direct the flow of stormwater to detention ponds and the City Park golf course makes the most sense. City Park. Golf course. Is not a native. Ecosystem, a native ecosystem. In this geographic location, as the majority of Denver is a short grass prairie, it would be rolling fields of prairie grasslands with a historic Montclair creek meandering through the prairie landscape. This creek is where the rain and snow melt, which would go on its way to the South Platte River. The historic Montclair Creek riparian zone would move water through this landscape and slowly help the water filtrate through riparian vegetation, much like a sponge would work to clean our water naturally before it drains into our rivers and becomes the drinking water for folks downstream in northeast Colorado. Where my family lives in Brush, Colorado and on out to Nebraska. This design will help recreate the historic ecological representation of what was here, and it will consist of riparian areas and prairie uplands and will sustain cottonwoods, willows and other trees and vegetation that will create a wider diversity of wildlife habitat. The City Park Golf Course is a human created, over watered ecosystem, created to sustain the non-native turf and the trees that have been planted. The majority of trees that you see in a native prairie habitat would be cottonwoods growing along a creek because of their need for a reliable water source. We have an opportunity through this stormwater management project to create a more naturalized native landscape, which will highlight what was here historically, along with creating a more historic environment. The most recent email from Public Works shows that their team, along with the design team, have worked incredibly hard to not only mitigate the loss of trees, but to enhance the urban canopy with the addition of hundreds of trees. This landscape will be more sustainable and will consist of wetlands, areas that will filtrate stormwater drainage, which many times can contain oil, pesticides and fertilizers. Pretty much anything you put on your lawn or in your driveway or on the streets when it rains. We know the roads flood and all of that stormwater has to go somewhere. We will improve upon the non-native environment of the City Park Golf Course, and this is good, sound natural resource management. The bottom line is that along with properly implementing this stormwater management project, we should also stay focused on the public safety and safety of property regarding floodwaters that rise in this area because there is. Not currently. Proper stormwater infrastructure in place. I will be voting in favor of this stormwater management project. Thank you, President Brooks. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. So I think it's important to go back and talk about the fact that we had not only an IGA between Denver and Seaport, but there was a proclamation that was brought forward on the preferred alternative that was approved by City Council before the supplemental draft of the Environmental Impact Statement was released . I did not support that at the time. I did not support the IGA nor the rate increase that was followed, which included a $300 million increase to the rate payers in Denver. I believe there is a need for drainage in the Cole neighborhood. The Montclair Basin was one of the twin basins. There is a separately funded effort or planning process that's underway right now for that particular basin. But I think it's also important to note that when this Twin Basin project, which is now called the PDP Plat to Park Hill Project, was brought forward. This was not in the wastewater five year plan. It was pushed to the front of the line. And, you know, clearly it was to look at how to coordinate the two projects. And I actually had advocated that the $40 million court originally was going to spend on drainage for I-70 should be utilized because the city started talking about trying to address the coal flooding problem. But the project went from $40 million to what I just mentioned, 300 million. And I'm not sure we've seen the end of the costs just yet. Now, eight short years ago, the Globeville neighborhood had been taken out of the flood plain because of work that the city had done to make changes to the river corridor. And those low income residents no longer had to purchase flood insurance. Now fast forward to seeing a lot of the new development that's going on in this area. Anything that is less than one acre does not have to do any on site storm drainage, that's runoff that goes into our sewer system and into the river. We now have a new 33rd outfall that was done as a result of the RTD projects for the A-line. So that's additional water going into the river. And then when you add all of the water from this particular project, that's even more water that now dumps into the Globeville landing outfall, which is a little park right behind the Pepsi-Cola plant. For anybody that's trying to develop in the Globeville neighborhood, they are now having to build four foot high. Detention, not detention, but four foot high foundations to protect their buildings from, you know, being from from being flooded. So when this project came forward, we learned that Globeville will now be called an inundation area. This is not they're not calling their back in the floodplain, but it's an inundation area that is now requiring anybody who comes to our community planning and development agency that wants to build in Globeville on the west side of the river . They have to have a four foot high foundation. My understanding is that residents will also be required to have to start getting flood insurance again until that problem is resolved. I had asked our public works department to address this problem for Globeville. Given the fact that this project was put to the front of the line, there was no reason we couldn't solve the other problem at the same time. That didn't happen. So we were told we want to wait for the Army Corps of Engineering study that's being done on the river. And we're looking at probably ten years before Globeville may see some relief to this problem. We're talking about a community that's being impacted with national Western, with I-70, with Brighton Boulevard improvements, with all the development going on in these neighborhoods. We're going to see Washington Street redone. There will be an Excel pipeline that will go down the Washington Street corridor. So we're talking about a lot of impact to just this small neighborhood alone. Yet we made no effort to try to figure out how to solve this problem. So for all of these reasons, I have not been on board. I do think there is an issue that needs to be resolved with drainage, but I am not supportive of these three bills being approved to move forward. Has nothing to do with well-qualified people who have been selected to do this project. I actually have friends that are part of the team. But those are the reasons why I will not be supporting these three bills tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I. Look, I know we've had this topic in our chambers a few times, and. Of The Jetsons. Yeah. To those viewers at home. There was a weird noise that happens like this. The catcher don't know the Jetsons. So I this topic has been in front of us a few times and I have a very intimate relationship with with it. You know, back in the day and in 2003. I was one of the folks I went door to door with with the survey, knocking on doors, getting the community input . Kevin You know, you remember this? Yeah. I think Kevin wrote the story that I was quoted in. But I was a young guy, and we knock on every single door from Globeville all the way to Green Valley Ranch. Every single one of those. It took us about seven or eight months to do. And we got, you know, everybody along that I-70 corridor. And we got valuable input from folks who said, we don't want this highway in our neighborhood. You don't want the housing in our neighborhood. Right. But if we had the choice, right, we reroute it or bury it. Right. It's better than this thing that is just above our neighborhood. Separating, creating this, casting the shadows. So. So I get it. You know, ever since then, you know, I look, I went through the process, and I saw that it took almost a decade just to make a decision on something that was obvious, right? I mean, it is it is a big deal. But and, you know, a lot of the advocates then are no longer around, but a lot of the residents still feel very strongly about it. And when this proclamation came in front of us, I voted no. Because I still. I believed in a reroute. Now. It was very unfortunate that we didn't go that direction. I think it was a tremendous mistake historically from a state in the city to tend to not fight for the root. Now we have what's in front of us. And I look at this through another lens. And that is a lens of someone who has chaired the urban drainage and flood control front flood control district for two years. Now, I never thought that I that this would be exciting or fun. You are talking about hydrology, you know, drainage. But I learned a heck of a lot. And I chaired this for two for two years, and I chaired it through the floods that we had and in in Boulder County and and Longmont. And and realized that the infrastructure that had that they had that the lack there we had in Aurora and the eastern part of our metro area. And we were even hit harder than they were. But if you if you remember the pictures, their houses were they were the ones that took it. They're the ones that got the the the hard that they were the hardest hit, lost their property, lost their homes, lost some, lost their lives. That's what happens when you don't have the infrastructure in place. They weren't part of the FCD or they weren't part of the urban traditional flood control district. They decided not to opt into that a while back. So in looking at at this through that lens, it is absolutely critical that we have the infrastructure in place for those neighborhoods right now. Um. I find myself in a hard position because here I am thinking about my work. And as somebody who went door to door in my work as a councilman and our vote against the current plan and I vote against the proclamation. And I come to realize that. Even if you vote no on this, it's not going to it's not going to bring back the reroute. Voting no on those. On these bills will not magically bring back the out. And that is what the primary thing that the residents wanted was the reroute or it lowered. And you absolutely is is my absolute truth. That is right. And what I remember from that, all those doors, 8000 doors that we knocked on. Right. People who I sat in interviews for almost 45 minutes a piece. Those are the two things. If it's not rerouted, put it under. If there's no drainage. Let's say that this is all for the let's say, folks. All right. This is all just to support, you know, what's going to happen on I-70. All you're going to have is another bridge for another 100 years. And you know, I get it. I get that there's folks that don't live there, that stand in solidarity with folks that are concerned about the the the golf course and the impacts that it'll make to the golf course. I get it. I respect that. I respect the solidarity. But you don't have to live with another bridge over your head for a hundred, 400 years. The folks in Elyria, Swansea and Globeville do. And all those neighborhoods all the way up to like around Colorado. That's what they said. That was the the thing that stuck in my mind. And I have to tell this story over and over because I see a lot of new faces that that are in the room and new colleagues. And, you know, I make this decision not lightly, but just with that intimate knowledge. Another elevated option cannot exist there. Not on my watch. It is. The I-70 was a grand mistake a long time ago, and it still is a headache. But the killing, the drainage for it isn't going to bring back the reroute, guys. And I fear that killing the drainage only if it does go through. And if the you know, every all the stars lined up. Right. You're only building another elevated bridge. And that is the absolute last thing that should happen on that road. So I will be supporting the the three bills ahead of us. I didn't also support the delay. And because that is our right on council, that was something that was made clear to us a long time ago. And, and and we we should always have room for that dialog in that process. So thank you. Mr. President, it is about lives and property everywhere, right? Both in Elyria, in Swansea and Globeville with the immediate remediation and. And areas that would be impacted by flooding. So. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Last week I was I joined Councilman Espinosa and others in supporting a delay in this final consideration of this contract, because I believe that we should always take the time any member of this council wants to take. Within the time we were allotted to look over these contracts, we get such precious little time as it is. And I hope that with Councilwoman Ortega, we can take a look at that as a group very soon, how we do contracts. I also wanted to thank Councilwoman Ortega for reminding everyone that this plot to Park Hill I always thought it should be Park Hill to because water flows downhill doesn't blow up at all. But I didn't get to name it that the project grew way too much, too fast. And as I said last week is by a significant factor larger than anything wastewater has ever done in a single bite. And it just gives me heartburn to have seen it grown from, I believe it was actually 134 million. When you combine seed out in the city to nearly 300 million without, without full and without enough engineering being done, without 30% design being done on every element that was going to be built, which I regard as normal process. And so I wish that it hadn't happened that way. I voted against a stormwater fee increase. Councilman Cashman reminded everybody how just two weeks before the seven new members were sworn in, I believe I was sitting out in the second row there and watched the council pass the IGA that that kind of locked us into this direction and I regret that. And but at this point, I think to use these contracts as a de facto substitute for the plaintiffs in the McFarland case to file and seek an injunction after we passed the contracts, I don't think the Council should act in the place of the plaintiff and and give a de facto injunction by killing these contracts. So I look forward to the trial in, I believe, two weeks. And I am reminded that despite and I mentioned this last week, despite the optimism of our staff, I'm reminded of the City Park Pavilion case where the Friends of City Park defeated the city's plan to convert the pavilion into parks headquarters. And how shocked everybody was at that. And I remember the headline show, I was a judge, I think Judge Flowers in district court who said that that was not an appropriate use of a city park land. So I look forward to the trial, but I just don't think that this council should substitute its judgment on these contracts by handing the plaintiffs in what, in essence, is an injunction that they have not yet sought themselves. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I just want to say thank you here to all the constituents who've reached out, engaged with me, sat down over coffee and had great conversations with me, were really smart, passionate people on both sides of this issue. I really appreciate that dialog. I spent my entire career prior to this working along the South Platte River. That's why my water bottle serves as PR for South Platte River on one side, and Greenway Foundation, the nonprofit dedicated to the river on the other side. I carry it not just on my water ball bottle, but in everything that I do. And it's Denver's river. I carry it in my heart. So I also take issue with the name of this, but not for the same reasons that Councilman Flynn took up. Because the Platte River is not Denver's River. The Platte River runs elsewhere. This is the South Platte River. And so we should stop calling it Plot to Park who should be South Platte when we were considering the fee increase to our stormwater to our stormwater fees. I met extensively with city and with the folks who I think the absolute world of at the urban drainage and flood control district. I dug in deeply into this, and there was one thing that was glaring for me after having those meetings. And that was that it is better for. The South Platte River to do this drainage project in conjunction with what is happening at I-70. I won't get up here and talk about it has gone past or whether I-70 redo is a good idea or not. What I know is that if we don't do this, we will once again be turning our back on the South Platte River. And we did that for a really long time and we destroyed the river. And it has taken since 1974 when the Greenway Foundation built the first park in the first trail. Imagine that a Denver with zero parks and zero trails along the South Platte River and the Cherry Creek. I can't imagine it in part because I wasn't alive in 1974, but also because it's not a city that I would want to live in. And we have been clawing our way back since 1974 and a hole that we dug and a vote against this drainage project does not stop the I-70 project. But what it does do is it will directly lead to dirtier water in the South Platte River because the I-70 project can continue on without this and they can put dirtier water in the river. And so for that reason, I am that I wanted to highlight why I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman. No, thank you, Mr. President. Even though, you know, I think this project has a relationship to us, I think the most important thing to me is, is the flood mitigation part of this this whole project aspect. You know, my background was hospital management for well over 30 years, for a long, long time. And I went through several floods with hospitals that I managed. And it was devastating. The amount of damage to buildings and all the residential areas around our hospitals was just incredible. So I just have the greatest respect for the flood mitigation part of this that's going to be helpful to all those residents in Cole and and all along that whole route of appear to be. So is this flood mitigation is extremely important to me. Also keep in mind this is I think it's like a over $300 million project, but it's only part of a $1.5 billion plan of mitigation for our city. This is like deferred maintenance. I mean, this stuff we need to be doing. This plan was developed a couple of years ago. So we've got to be respectful to what our city needs in terms of total flood mitigation. And I think that's extremely important. Now for my golfers head on and I'm an avid golfer and I played saved par golf course and it can be improved and needs to be improved. It has the most wonderful views of our city, but this is an opportunity to make it a better course. Hale Irwin on Colorado, a Buffalo golfer, again, is going to do an incredible job of redesigning that course and make it into something that's notable. Our golf course right now is not notable. It's a good public golf course, but it's not a great course. It could be something that could be much more important to our city and and to all the people who play golf like myself. But the most important thing is flood mitigation. We've got to we've got to implement this total $1.5 billion plan over time. And this is the first part of it. So I'll be supporting these tonight. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks to. My colleagues for their comments. And thanks to all that wrote emails to us all. First of all, I'd like to. I also sat on the urban drainage and flood control district for four years, and like Councilman Black, I never knew that I'd really be interested in. Drainage and outfalls and. And all the vocabulary that I learned. Certainly. Learned a lot about this particular issue down in the lower Montclair Basin. Councilman Flynn, the reason why one would call it the South Platte to Park Hill is while water flows downhill, you always start a drainage project from the outfall from where the water is going. You don't start a project from where the water starts. So that's why I think since the engineers probably named it, they did South Platte to Park Hill. We have known on the urban drainage flood control desk. We have known about, of course, the lower Montclair Basin is the biggest flooding issue we have in the city of Denver . We have had it for years. We have on the on the EDF. We didn't know how we were ever going to really manage that flooding problem, a problem that we have there. The while the I-70 project is kind of related, it's because they were going to bury or put below ground part of their highway that. They were going to run into the Lower Montclair Basin issue and they were going to spend the money to help the drainage. On their little part. On their little part. And if we don't and instead they decided to do to partner with the UDC, UDC, FCD and with Denver and to use the dollars that they were going to use to give to the city to also work finally on the Lower Montclair Basin. I've really appreciated that. Comments that Councilman Lopez made that not voting for this doesn't mean the I-70 project goes away. I'd like to turn that around and say. Whether the I-70 project is built or not, the drainage problem is staying. If the I-70 project were rerouted, the drainage problem is going to stay. If the project goes through, the drainage problem is going to stay. If we stopped I-70 and made it a boulevard, the drainage problem stays. We have the drainage problem regardless of what I-70 is doing. And most important, and most importantly for my district, although this isn't related to the Lower Montclair Basin, I firmly believe we need to fix that basin and this is an opportunity. To do it. The large project that. Councilman knew referred to is going to help my district, which is in the Upper Montclair Basin. And I don't know if those those of you are aware, but not every two or three years we get a flood up in at 14th in Jersey and Jasmine and Carney, where we have cars floating down the street. I spent the summer of part, a night of the summer of 2013 with. With. The first responders. Saving people that were floating in their cars. If you can imagine down Jasmine. And 13th and. 14th. And the larger project. Is finally going to help us address the Upper Montclair Basin. But I will be supporting this tonight because. Of the serious. Need that our Lower Montclair Basin needs, whether or not I-70, we're going to be enlarged. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Councilman Newt, you look, you didn't pop back in the just system. You're okay, Councilman Espinosa. Sorry. I feel like I should chime in since I called this out last week too. Specifically to ask the administration to consider essentially postponing and putting in a clause or something for tree protection. We did get a. I did. I did. So I just want to know that I did make an ask specifically. I said that I pointed out that the highest inundation levels north of City Park in a 100 year event as model and in that stormwater plan is 2 to 4 feet and that and because in so what I asked him is because of a known breach in the Platte River levee, there's a levee called the Globeville Levee that's on the on the Western Bank protects Globeville. There's a known breach in that. Because of that known breach, there are several hundred year events that can occur upstream from Globeville. Remember, the South Platte River runs south to north. The there are several hundred year events that can flood Globeville to an inundation level of 15 feet, and that can happen multiple ways. The only way you do this in the Lower Montclair Basin is through a hundred year event in the lower Montclair raising and the. So I asked the administration to help me understand how even in a $386 million commitment to urban drainage, an $863 million commitment to the National Western Center, and now a three $934 million go bond ask. So those doing the math, that's over $1,000,000,000. Closer to two. How We Didn't Address Globeville. And then I went on to proceed in in and I don't understand the rationale because that stormwater management plan that was referenced didn't include these solutions. As Debby Ortega had mentioned, it did include some solutions. But you don't need you don't need a 39th Avenue channel. You don't need City Park. You don't need them both. You need one. And either one of those solutions solves both basins because the waters today that go through City Park, they actually outfall at the Globeville Outfall Landing or the Globeville Landing outfall. But because we're now taking water from a different basin and cutting that off through the 39th Avenue Channel, we have to hold that water. Somewhere in order to. Preserve the 100 year capacity of that channel. Not for the park, but for CDOT. And so, you know, I appreciate my colleagues in council sort of bringing this up and bringing this to light the sort of sense of urgency and connecting it to the Platte Park Hill. Because the response to the council to date and publicly about why this was needed was because there was a sort of finite window in which you can do this work and deliver this thing and still keep golf course sort of viable because of the growing season. And when you have to plant and plant sod and plant trees and what have you. Well, guess what? That happens every year. So we haven't done this to City Park since its creation, and now we have to do it in this window. We can't wait till next year's window or the next year's window. Why? Why is because of somehow something we're not talking about, the administration is not talking about, but this counsel is very clear on it. It's because this is needed in order to preserve its capacity to use stormwater capture the stormwater capacity of the 39th Avenue Channel . Four sedan for the highway. And so I argued, you know, I pushed back. I got a. Response. It was no. I pushed back and said. You know, because I was asking. Why not just complete the design were 30% design involved? Because, again, this is not the administration is not talking about the connection here. So I just pushed and I said, why not complete the design work with the community, complete the course design, hire Hale Irwin to do a fantastic job on the future of City Park. Maybe we could do more tree preservation in the process, get that clubhouse nailed down in the interim while you're preparing to do this project next year and then hire Saunders capable contractor. Very, very good to do this work. The answer was. No. And it's because of. Like I said. What we're talking about here tonight. And so this was not about, you know, this is somehow going to kill I-70. It's not you know, and I don't think anybody who's really trying to fight for city park and the preservation of that asset is saying that this is this thing is going to kill I-70 because, no, they will then put in their stormwater detention that they are not getting from 39th Avenue Channel into their project. They'll have to. And guess what? They'll have stormwater mitigation and water quality requirements for that for that detention that they put in their 100 year thing. I can assure you that if a 100 year event hit City Park or the 39th Avenue Channel, the water quality measures go away because at that level of inundation, there's water just moving. The water quality measures are there for lower flows. And so the reality is, is that we could actually drain these flows that go through city park and inundate areas north of City Park, directly into the 39th Avenue Channel today. He helped, you know, actually solved the drainage problems per the master plan for both the the two basins with just the 39th Avenue Channel and some additional work. And then city park flows will go exactly where they always were going historically to Globeville, Alfa. Our global landing. We are. So it's sort of a. Fallacy that we have to do this per an IGA. The Twin Basin solution is still solved. It's just not solved to the degree that it would want us to. In order to do that, we're taking on this additional work and we're obligating merely, you know, a significant portion of the $400 million which you are getting through your stormwater fees, which you did not vote for, and not solving real flood issues in Globeville and in other neighborhoods citywide, because we have taken on this agreement to sort of leverage. So the thing is the right thing to do is for City Park is to say, no, let's complete the design and move on. But if you vote for this, you're basically saying, look, I am putting the priorities of CDOT over this asset of the people of Denver. That I will be joining my. Colleague, Councilwoman Cashman, in voting no. And that's it. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I will go last to the cheering of the audience. I am. This is my district, and I represent this deal. And I got to say, from the very beginning, I was very frustrated with the administration for how they came talking to the community around this thing. It was it was not well done. It wasn't well communicated. And we had a lot of intense arguments and conversations about it and a lot of open meetings that were very frustrating. Since then, I feel like the administration really began to turn towards the community and reach out to the community and set up . We're talking about City Park here. I know we've talked about a lot of different things, but the city park folks, the North City Park, the city park west neighborhood and put together a stakeholder committee to begin working through the issues around this golf course and this drainage problem. And so let me let me start by saying when we talk about the the lower Montclair Basin. It's it's been said in ways but let me be very clear. It's the worst basin in the city. It is the worst base in any city. And in 2011, when I first got elected and we had a storm like we do in the summers and people's cars were floating down the street. Everybody remembers it then. Right? Got the emails. Councilman Brooks, you just got elected. What are you going to do about this? How will you address this? And I wasn't on the urban drainage, like many of the members here, and I started researching ways that cities do this. The most important work that a city can do is build infrastructure. It's this most important work, but it's stuff that no one wants to pay for and the public really doesn't understand or care about because we like the shiny things. And as I talk to my colleagues around the country. And we talk about different issue. When I tell them that we are having a community debate around drainage and paying for it in our city, they can't believe it. They cannot believe it because they can't find ways to pay for the real infrastructure needs of their city. I'm going to give you a number. 3000 homes. 3000 homes in my district, City Park, North City Park, Cole, Clayton, and into Elyria, Swansea. Will be protected because of this that is protecting my constituents. And so I will be supporting this. Obviously, this there's a lot of issues with the I-70. I live ten blocks away from I-70, and I get those concerns and many of the concerns from the group I actually agree with. Yes. This is this is an oppressive issue. But it's been interesting walking through the neighborhood, having these conversations through the last the last two months and hearing what they're saying. And I think actually, Councilman Lopez, he actually you know, he knocked on the doors back in the day. And a lot of people are saying some of the same things. Yes, I think the reroute would have been. What we want it. But we wanted this thing covered. We want it out the way. And there's a lot of miseducation from other individuals in the neighborhood about this project. I just had to show four homes in North City Park. The design of the new golf course because they believe it is going to be completely cement because they believe their golf course was being destroyed. So, you know, it's hard to have these conversations when we don't get a chance to bring everybody to the table. And this process was not perfect, but I think that we have is far from perfect. I think that we have ended in a good place. I really like the design. I like the team that we're working with. I like that. The architect. Who I see right there. And I forgot your name. But you're looking good today. I'm glad you're here. That that has worked on a large drainage project of this capacity in Palm Springs. Not for freeway. But the exact capacity. And it was incredible to ask them to send me all the information. Thank you for doing that. And he did. And so I will be supporting this and I thank everyone for the smart dialog that carried on today. But I'll be moving these bills forward. So, Madam Secretary, I just want to make sure it has been moved in second and we are moving to adopt resolutions 23, 24, 26, eight, 23, eight, 24 and 826. Is that correct, Madam Secretary? Yes, that's correct. All right, Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. Clark, I. Espinosa No. Flynn i. Gillmor, I. Her dad, Cashman. Can each I. LOPEZ All right. We are new Ortega? No. SUSSMAN Hi, Mr. President. I please. Because voting and US results. Ten ice. Three days. 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?

Recommendation to receive and file the application of Chianina Steakhouse LLC, dba Chianina, for a person-to-person and premise-to-premise transfer of an Alcoholic Beverage Control License, at 5716 East 2nd Street, with conditions. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_02182014_14-0145

Item 22 is a report from the police department with the recommendation of receiving for the application of Tiano for a person to person and premise to premise transfer of an original I'm sorry of an ABC license at 5716 East Second Street with conditions in District three. Similar with conditions. I need a second, second, second and Ms.. Frick, any comment? All right. A any public comment on item 22, please convoke. Name is Larry Goodhue. Clark as the address I believe this item and there's another one like it on the agenda should be held over should it be held over until the issue that will be coming before the council next week, within the next couple of weeks, and that will be dealt with by the parking of the armature of parking commission on this week relative to whether or not to raise yet another house to make room for liquor patrons is what it boils down to. So I would suggest that the wise thing to do is to hold this off. Since the possession of the Belmont Shore Parking Association is they don't have enough parking and they're going to have to now tear down this house that you approved doing in a private session without letting the public know all the details. This restaurant in Naples. Still the same concept, still the same time. Okay. All right. In the area. All right. Two, hop, skip and a jump from it until the parking is impacted. It makes no sense to do that. So let's instead of doing it, that's how we got in the position we are now. You don't take a larger picture to hold it off. The barn's not on fire. Thank you. Any other comment? I am 22. Senior members. We have motion to second guess the votes. And I'm 22. Motion carries nine votes. Yes. Thank you. God, I am 15.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Section 14.04.015 relating to work within or on a public street or right-of-way, obstruction of a public street or right-of-way, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08072018_18-0625

Motion carries. Thank you. Next item is item 30 for. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to work within or on a public street or right of way. Obstruction of a public street or right of way read in adopted as read citywide. Is there any public comment on this item? Please come forward. Janet West, fourth District. Imagine my surprise when I heard that a city employee came to my door and asked for the removal of no. I measure M signs from the right of way. So I am wondering if this. Will. If if people will not be allowed to put political signs on their right of way without getting a permit. It says you need a permit to obstruct any public street or public right of way for any reason. Abstract definition prevent or hinder movement. Someone or someone in motion. So my questions, which I hope the city attorney will answer, is Would this require obtaining a permit in order to put political signs or other signs like slow children present on the right of way? And if yes, how would equality of removal of signs be monitored? Mr. City Attorney, do you want to briefly comment on that? This this agenda item is not targeting signs in the public right away. We don't issue permits for signs in the public right away. This ordinance is intended to help the city enforce during construction projects. When we issue construction permits and they don't follow the terms and conditions of the permit and block the public right away, maybe block a lane of traffic without a permit. That's what this ordinance is geared towards. Thank you. We have a motion on a second. See no other public comment. Please cast your votes.

Approves the designation of 2329 Eliot Street (a.k.a. 2323 W. 23rd Avenue) as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves the designation of 2329 Eliot Street (a.k.a. 2323 W. 23rd Avenue) as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-28-15.

DenverCityCouncil_11162015_15-0768

First thing we have up is Council Bill 768 as amended. Councilman Flynn, will you please put seven 8768 as amended on the floor? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 768, as amended, be placed upon final consideration and do pass. And wait for technology to catch up. And we are still inputting the names in the system. So we will keep that going so that we can just keep the process moving. Council Bill 768, as amended, approves a zoning map amendment. The Council is required by law to conduct public hearings on zoning map amendments, and Council's actions are subject to a court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items placed to the council are marked as exhibits and become part of the record. The public hearing for accountability. 768, as amended, is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, President Herndon, members of the City Council, and Barbara Stockman, steely principal planner for Landmark Preservation. I will be presenting this case for the staff. So this is a landmark designation that is not owner initiated. Ideally, owners are the ones who are applying for landmark designation, and that's been the case for most designations in Denver. But also in Denver, you can have three persons who are residences, residence and or property owners or have a place of business in Denver. And that is the case here. This case was initiated from a certificate of not historic status. A certificate of non historic status is application by the owner or their designee for certification that a property is not historic which allows it to be demolished for up to a period of up to five years. In this case, here we are at the Green Box, which is the city council, a public hearing decision because it is a designation case that came out of a certificate of non historic status. The City Council decision and the action must be completed within 120 days, which in this case is Thanksgiving Day. As indicated, this case came out of a certificate of non historic status. It's one of two designation applications that are being processed out of 592, that of certificates and demolitions that we've reviewed this year. So it's actually a pretty small number. This case is it 23, 29, Elliott or 23, 23 West 23rd Avenue. It's in Council District one in the Jefferson Park neighborhood. The property as initially submitted by the applicants, it was included. BLOCK 34 lost 24 and 25 in the South, ten feet of Lot 26, which was 8400 square feet. The applicant was four property owners and the property owner is James son Lightner, who is opposed. At first reading, the boundary of the designation was modified to B block 30 for the easterly 80 feet of lots 24 and 25 and the easterly 80 feet of south ten feet of construction, which would be a 4480 square foot parcel , are 53% of the original designation boundary as shown on this map. The reduced designation boundary is part of a almost 20,000 square foot assemblage by the property owner and the proposed designation area is 23% of the land area in this assemblage. As shown on the attached map. These are photographs of the house here. The one on the left is a street view of the house from Elliott Street going north, and the other is a front view of the house. These are additional photos of the house. The one on the left side shows the some of the south side of the house. These photos here. The photo on the left is from the south alley, showing the south side of the house and part of the rear of the house. The upper photo on the right is taken from the carriage lot showing the back of the house and the non historic garage. That's not included in the reduced designation boundary. Again, we are at the second reading and the designation deadline is November 26. The Landmark Preservation Commission held a public hearing. There was posting signage for the hearing. There were owner notifications and letters. Registered neighborhood organizations were notified as well as city council members. Staff has met with the owners representatives and has also met with the designation applicants and have communicated regularly with parties from both sides. The application gave the name to the House as the William W Anderson House. The House is a circa 1888 to 1890 House. The proposal is to designate as a landmark structure as recommended by the Landmark Commission. It would be based on history, designation criteria and history c. An architecture a. Under Chapter 30 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, a property to be designated as a structure for designation is required to maintain its historic and physical integrity to to meet one designation criteria and two or more of the following categories history, architecture and geography. And three relate to a historic context or theme. So number one is the ordinance says a property must maintain its historic and physical integrity. And then it goes into more detail and it says what that means. It's not really the physical condition of the house per se, but it's the ability of the structure to convey its historic and architectural significance in being recognized as belonging to a particular time and place. And Denver's history and the seven qualities that define integrity per the ordinance are location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The landmark staff in the Landmark Commission both found that the House maintains its historic and physical integrity. It's largely intact. It has minor alterations and has integrity. The second criteria is that the property must meet one designation criteria in two or more of the following categories. Category one Its history property has to be 30 years old and shall c have direct and substantial association with a person or group of persons who had influence on society. This was the criteria that the Landmark Commission felt was met under history, that the House was the home of William W Anderson. Anderson associate is associated with Alfred Packer. Packer was infamous for his sentence of manslaughter, for killing and allegedly eating other members of an expedition party traveling between Provo and Breckenridge in early 1874. He was very, very well known. Various accounts there are various accounts regarding Anderson's exact association or relationship with Packer. Some of the stories have indicated that Anderson actually did represent Packer. Others say that he was hired by Bonfils and Taman from the Denver Post to free Packer, but then he misrepresented himself to Packer, and there's various other renditions of that story. But clearly he did visit Packer. Clearly there was some relationship with him and Packer and Bonfils and Hammett, as reported by many histories and accounts throughout the years. What we do know is that on January 13th, 1900, Anderson shot Henry Chapman and Frederick Bonfils, owners of the Denver Post, during an altercation at the post office over Anderson's representation of Alfred Packer. And The Denver Post attempts to free Packer and obtain exclusive rights to story. Local Stories Report. Anderson Living at 2329. ELLIOTT The day after the shooting, which is confirmed by city directories and U.S. Census data at the time of the shooting. And many of the pictures that are in the PowerPoint are from the newspaper stories of the day. The shooting made headlines around the United States, including The New York Times and San Francisco, and was a major a major saga, continuing saga. And Denver, Anderson, was tried in 1900 and twice in 1901. He was eventually acquitted of charter charges. He insisted that it was self-defense. Ten men and boxes were eventually indicted and convicted of bribery due to jury tampering on the trial. One of the trials, Packer, kind of on a separate track, was paroled in 1991. This is just some examples of the newspaper coverage of the day. This actually relates to the bribery charges of Born Free in Timmins. But there was I counted over 20 times that this story was in the the in various newspapers. And it was probably more. More stories about the acquittal of Andersen. The in terms of having a direct and substantial association with a person or group of persons who had influence on society. Andersen is associated with Alfred Packer one way or the other, and Alfred Packer's pictures on the PowerPoint. He's associated with Bonfils and Taman, eds and owners, the Denver Post and the events and the persons, including the related newspaper coverage. Trials, acquittals and convictions were high profile and influential events, including coverage of Andersen and his trial. The second designation criteria that the landmark commission thought was met are determined was met with architecture to a embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type. The house is queen and style architecture. It's a substantial example, particularly for Jefferson Park is a 2243 square foot house. There's only one designated structure in Jefferson Park. It's a dramatic hilltop. Location, which sets it apart from other Queen Anne homes in the neighborhood. It has its asymmetrical, has it has multiple materials, decorative brick coursing, original wood windows and porches, wooden brackets, trim details, half timbered porch. And the decoration is pretty much original, with a few minor exceptions. The third criteria is to relate to a historic context or theme. The story of Anderson in the House relate to late 19th century Victorian architecture in northwest Denver and Jefferson Park. Denver journalism hidden history, including the Denver Post involvement with Packer Anderson, the notorious shootings, trials, acquittal and convictions and Alfred Packer. The letters and petitions received have been honestly a little hard to keep track of. I have some notes here, so hold on. Actually, I think I'm missing that part of my presentation. But so we up to the Lpsc public hearing. We had 12 letters of support and two letters of opposition. We have additional information from the owner, which is 89 additional letters of opposition. We have additional information from the applicant received on November 16th, which is 53 additional letters of support. There are petitions of support provided by the applicants and the petition of opposition provided by the owners. They both have over 500 names on them. We don't have standards in Landmark for a petition, so we have some concerns just about the overall validity and consistency between the petitions. The applicant's petition has about 90% of the petitioners are Denver residents, and it was 53% for the for the owners. And many of the applicants also kept track of how many were within a mile. And there was a pretty high percentage that were immediately adjacent to the within a mile of the property. The Landmark Preservation Commission, there's been some questions about the Landmark Commission. They're appointed by the mayor and they have nine members. They include professional historians and architectural historians. They're professionally trained. They are volunteers. The landmark Commission on Public Hearing allowed 10 minutes for the applicant and 10 minutes for the owner, which he delegated to his agent. There were 35 spirit speakers and there was a three and a half hour plus public hearing, including deliberation. The LPC, the main discussion points is they felt the story of Anderson was part of the history and mythology of the West and it was an important story. The nation was captivated by the altercation, which they thought was significant. They thought that Anderson's association with Bond Fee and Tasman's editors of the Denver Post and events relating to the shooting and trials is an important story. Anderson's association with Packer is significant. There are few examples of historic Queen Anne Homes surviving in Jefferson Park, and this example is intact, has a high degree of integrity, is substantial with a spectacular setting. They talked a lot about it wasn't as ornate as high style Queen Anne Homes in Denver and US featured in coffee table books. But it's a very representative and prominent example of a middle class home from the late 19th century in Denver. And they thought it was an increasingly rare example in this part of the city. So the landmark commission recommendation was that it met the Denver landmark designation and criteria and chapter 30. It maintains its historical physical integrity meets designation criteria and history wants and architecture to see and relates to a historic context or theme. Thank you. I apologize for that delays, Kenneth. Okay. So for this first public hearing, we have 40 speakers. And the way for those of you not familiar with the process, we tend to go for and against. So thank you for noting that and we apologize if we might have gone multiples, but if one tends to be more for or against and those speakers tend to go at the end. So I'm a call up the first 5 a.m. ask that you make your way to the front pew so that we can try to have the process go through quickly. So the first one is M Quinn. We could not read the first name, so we apologize for that. M Quinn, Jessica, our Alice Zita, Paul Lloyd, Scott Moore and Carrie Mock. So if you five could make your way to the front pew, that would be great. And then, Quinn, I apologize for not knowing who exactly that was. You can begin your remarks as soon as you make your way to the podium. I'm Marilyn Quinn. Sorry about that. I live at 3249 West Fairview Place, about a mile from 2329 Eliot Street. I'm asking for your vote to designate the Anderson House a Denver landmark. My interest in preserving this House is not financial gain and it's not to prevent development. You've received letters and email messages and petitions from hundreds of Denver residents in support of landmark designation. Over 400 supporters signed online and paper petitions. More than 100 of whom live within a half mile of the Anderson House. A few of these supporters are here tonight, but not all will speak. I'd like to ask all those here who support landmark designation of the Anderson House to stand and then sit down. Thank you. Thank you. Denver has some of the strictest landmark designation guidelines in the country. So far this year, 592 applications for demolition of potentially historic buildings have been reviewed, putting us on track for a 20% increase over last year. Most of these applications are approved this year. 34 properties. About 6% of those reviewed were determined to have potential historic significance and were posted for public comment. Of those, only two nominations were submitted and found worthy of landmark designation. That's about one half, one half of 1%. The Anderson House has met these strict Denver requirements. This House is our last link to a powerful story of justice triumphing over evil in early Denver. Mr. Anderson was a reputable lawyer who ran afoul of the yellow journalism of the Denver Post publishers. A jury ruled he acted in self-defense, but of greater importance today are the guilty pleas by Denver Post publisher Tillman, a court bailiff and a police magistrate for bribing the court against Anderson. Denver cheered the purge of corruption from its courts. Mr. Anderson's story is important to me and to my community and should be preserved along with the House through landmark designation. For tonight, I hope you will consider as your constituents the over 400 people who have spoken so emphatically in support of landmark designation and that you will vote to keep this landmark that has stood in Jefferson Park for over 130 years. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, Ms.. Quinn. Jessica Lazaro. And you have 6 minutes of deferred. 3 minutes for an additional 3 minutes for you. Thank you. Good evening. Members of council. My name is Jessica Serafino. Liz Day 1800 California Street, Suite 2600 Denver 202 and I represent Mr. Sun liner. Jim's here and he'll be speaking to you in a little bit. He's right there and he's at the center of this case this evening, but he'd like to wait until he hears from some other speakers. So we would like to pass out to you just some talking points. Clearly, if you'll indulgence, those are from the sites who are supporting Jim and who are against designation. So in the course of this dialog, the applicant have made this evening about everything but Jim's rights, about price. And now there's a so-called better offer that's alleged to be good enough to take Jim's rights away. But the question is good enough for you. And with all due respect, Jim is well equipped to make those decisions for himself, as any of you would be on a contract for the purchase of your home. We ask you, in your wisdom this evening, to not be distracted from the purpose that we're here. The purpose of the hearing this evening, which is to answer one question Does the community's interest in Jim's house outweigh Jim's property rights? The code says that hostile designation should be limited to extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary architecture, an extraordinary history. And after reviewing this application, the LPC ultimately voted to refer to you this evening. They were conflicted about whether or not Jim's house met the basic threshold requirements for referral. As you'll hear, they found that the architecture of Jim's house to be an example of vernacular. I had to look that up. Queen Anne style. And what that means is ordinary. And I'm no architect. But certainly Jim's house is not. The best example of ordinary queen in architecture in the city. Nevertheless, I'd also like to point out that there are many great examples in the packets that are in front of you, right in Jefferson Park that are along a river drive. So I ask you to take a look at those photos. But nevertheless, we recommend that most of the members of the LPC are architectural experts. So we won't argue with that determination, but we would ask you to take a look in that packet at their determination. And while they were making that and the comments, those are direct quotes that they clearly had the difficult difficulty with this questionable case. So we'd simply ask you to consider does even the best example of ordinary architecture meet the extraordinary threshold set out in your code? Next, even if ordinary is somehow extraordinary, you are well equipped to determine whether a some loose association, to quote Ms.. Stockton's dealing with a swindler and an attempted murder is somehow extraordinary. In the press release from designation proponents, they say that the House highlights Denver's past in the age of yellow journalism. But nothing happened in this House. Even The Denver Post, a central figure in the story that proponents are trying to tie to Jim's home, urged against designation of Jim's house. Lastly, in addition to considering the architecture and history, unlike the LPC, counsel considers much broader issues and implications in designating Jim's home. So for example, if you find that Jim's house is the new benchmark for extraordinary history and extraordinary architecture, then you're likely to see an endless line of individuals concerned with growth in our city, and rightfully so, attempting to designate any building built before 1985 as a way to stop development. And that's already happening there. Applications coming in for that very purpose. So there's obvious pressure building in Jefferson Park, and we acknowledge that in other neighborhoods. Jim's seen that pressure firsthand. Jim's lived there for 40 years. He's not immune to the changes that you're hearing about from other neighbors. And perhaps it's time for the planning department to address that growth through their very collaborative process that exists to do that. Planning and zoning is the proper venue to have these discussions, but historic preservation that take away Jim's property rights is not the right tool. There are many demolition permits issued for older homes prior to this case, and there are likely to be many issued after. But Jim's home isn't a tipping point. We would respectfully implore that it does not meet the threshold to take Jim's property against his will. So thank you very much for your time. We would very respectfully ask you to consider the real issue at hand, which is not the quality or even the existence of a so called offer for Jim that he has determined is not a good deal for him. We believe you will do the right thing, because this case, the in this case, the community's interest in Jim's house does not outweigh his property rights. It is not extraordinary. And we would ask you to consider that it sets dangerous policy. So respectfully, please vote no. Against this designation. Thank you. Thank you. As I mentioned before, the public hearing started that we are required by law to conduct these and all actions are recorded as part of a public review and testimony. It was just brought to my attention that even though the green light is on, generally it is not recording this. So we are going to have to take a recess. Counsel My apologies until we can figure out Channel eight gets back up so that this testimony can be recorded. So I ask for your patience. We're going to have to do it. Are we good now? Well, yes. Let's proceed with the recess. We're trying to confirm whether it's being recorded at this point. That's that's the point that we're at. But, Don, we're not sure how long this may take, but we want to get it absolutely squared away before we resume with the testimony. So with your indulgence, if you take a recess for us to get this figured out. Thank you. We'll take it. We'll take a short recess and try to reconvene a moment soon. And. But you just heard. The audience in the chambers. The Channel eight feed is down, however, Channel eight, so you won't be able to watch it on TV. We are streaming online and it is still recording. So that was the most important thing to know that we are still recording. So there is a testimony so we do not need to bring up the previous speakers as well. So our next speaker should be Paul Lloyd. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Members of Council. My name is Paul Cloyd. I live at 3033 Yates Street and have done so since 1984. I am a Colorado registered architect and professional engineer. I support this landmark designation of this Denver cultural asset. While I have no financial stake in the result of your decision, I do have a stake, I believe, as you do as well, and the quality of life, the sense of place and the sense of history for our city, my city. Denver, Colorado. On January day 1900, William Anderson walked down the steps, those red sandstone steps that you saw in the images. And he entered a historic maelstrom. William Anderson rented the house in the town of Highland as his family residence from 1897 to about 1904. Mr. Anderson subsequently purchased the home in 1915 and lived there until his death in 1930. A well-respected lawyer known for his hat plug hat Anderson practices profession in Denver, the Denver Times newspaper reported. Mr. Anderson found himself granted the power of attorney by Alfred Packer, believing he could appeal his case on a technicality. If you don't know the Packers story, you could get information at a restaurant and grill on the CU Boulder campus. On that day, January day, Mr. Anderson would walk down those steps, bought the number 34 tram and traveled to downtown Denver. He would go to discuss the Packer issue with the reviled Denver Post publishers Harry Taman and Frederick Bonfils. These publishers were known for defaming their enemies at business rivals in their paper. Upon Mr. Anderson's arrival, an altercation arose. Reportedly, Mr. Bonfils struck Mr. Anderson across the face. As you've heard, Mr. Anderson shot. Both men enact that a Denver jury ultimately after three trials determined was an act of self-defense. Headline News raced across the country for the ensuing three years. Mr. Anderson, in the story, remained in the national news. A yellow journalistic campaign by the Denver Post attacked Mr. Anderson in its pages. Competitors to the Denver Post also provided significant coverage. This competing coverage would report complaints from the jurors of the first Anderson trial that the Post publishers working with court officials had attempted jury bribery. In November 1901, a Denver jury acquitted Mr. Anderson of all charges. A grand jury completed their investigation into the jury bribery in April 1903. Two weeks later, April 25th, 1903, just before the start of their criminal trials, Mr. Tillman, the court officials pleaded guilty to the jury bribery charges reportedly to protect unnamed others who had. Mr. Lloyd. Mrs.. Mr. Lloyd, I apologize your 3 minutes ago. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next, scott. Morning. Thank you. My name is Scott More. I reside at 4175 South Acoma Street in Inglewood, Colorado. I'm an architect. And a general contractor. I have no connection with any of the parties involved here. The reason I'm here is because my blood boils when I read about these historic designations in the newspaper. A colleague brought this one to my attention. I took the opportunity to do something about it. I'm the kind of person that will call the police if I see a mugging. Taking place, and that is my motivation for being here. I've had the pleasure of sitting on a building department board of Appeals as a historic preservationist. And I'm here to tell you that although this house is nice. It is not nice enough to merit the taking of someone's pension, which is essentially what's happening here. Vernacular is, by. Definition, ordinary. This house was ordinary. It is ordinary. It is not in the best interest of historic preservation to have. The important work of historic Denver co-opted and used. To circumvent the city's master planning process to. Block development. I am speaking against designation of this property. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Kerry Mock. Ms.. MOCK And you have 6 minutes. And while she's come to speak, we're going to call the next five names. You can make your way up to the front pew. Gerard Seidenberg. Marie Benedict. Elizabeth Rogers. Marie Edgar. And Andre Kilian. So you five can make your way up this month. You may begin. Thank you. Members of council. I'm glad to be here. My name is Corey Ellen Mock. I live at 2101 Clay Street and I am an architect. That's three for. Three. So we're on a roll. Here, I guess. I support this. I support this landmark designation, and I have no financial interest in the outcome of this hearing. I believe the architecture of the Andersen House is significant, as you've already heard from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This building is structurally sound and is an excellent example of middle class, dare I say, vernacular or usual. Queen Anne style home popular in Denver between the 1870s and 1890s. There's a lot of history that's happened in ordinary buildings, and so I'd caution us from using that as a reason not to think of this as a special place. Originally prominent in the early town of Highland. This building remains a unique landmark in the Jefferson Park neighborhood, built in 1888, the home rises from a Rusticated Stone Foundation and includes a well-executed masonry detailing that goes all the way around the front. Gabled roof accentuates the asymmetrical facade with a prominent front porch and decorative trim highlighted with contrasting colors. Brick detailing emphasizes the arched front window that you saw in the photographs earlier and extends around the South Side, which also features decorative elements on the dormer bay, window, side, entrance and chimneys. I only wish so much of our architecture today. Even buildings I work on could afford that kind of detail. When I compare the House of today with the 40 year old photograph I see and Ruth Weinberg's book, Rediscovering Northwest Denver. The level of architectural integrity that remains is truly remarkable. Beyond simply exhibiting the characteristic queen in form and fenestration, this house has retained character defining features that are usually lost by now. Well, you can find more elaborate homes of this style elsewhere in Denver, there are precious few remaining in this neighborhood and none with this colorful history is this one. I learned that a couple of years ago when I was researching the history of my neighborhood for a better block event. I offered to do walking tours, and so I was looking through history books and I found one house in the middle of Jefferson Park, just one house with any sort of historical story written about it. And it was this one house. So we can talk about photographs of other houses in the neighborhood. That may also be pretty, but it doesn't have the historical significance that this one house does. So the existence of other structures in the city do not diminish this home's clear architectural significance, nor would they necessarily be eligible for designation under Denver's strict landmark preservation guidelines. This home, once considered the tall house on a tall hill, has the architecture, the history, and even the geographic location to earn it a historic designation. Members of City Council don't be bullied by by T-shirts or by slogans or by issues that aren't central to what this is this and don't be bully bullied into a false choice. You can create a win win here for our community and for the homeowner. I asked you to take the long view for the community and grant designation tonight. Thank you for your consideration and for your service. Thank you, Miss Bond. Next, we have Jared Seidenberg. Members of council. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity. My name is Gerard Seidenberg. My address is 6825 East Tennessee Avenue, Suite 5525. I'm a business owner within the city and I'm a property owner, Branson's Lake. I'm here tonight to speak in opposition of this historic designation in a hostile manner, as was noted by the LPC. This is an interesting story and I've been following along as a lawyer who does not represent any parties here and has no other interest in this matter. I'm deeply concerned with the ramifications of approving this hostile designation and the direct effect on our property rights. However, I'm not here tonight to talk about this topic tonight. I'm here to address something that's near and dear to my heart. You see, my family has lived in and around Denver for six generations, beginning when we settled around Sloan's Lake in the 1800s. In many ways, my history is inextricably intertwined. Excuse me with that of the Queen City. Whether I walk the streets of downtown around the highlands, where my wife and I buy our first home, our collective history is everywhere, and every house has a story to tell. In that way, our history is alive as it is now. I'm often supportive of historic designations and usually in favor of protecting our valuable history. But in this case, I just cannot. The history reported here is weakly tied to events that impacted society in the homes place, and that history is bootstrapped by time and space in a way that cannot qualify it for historic preservation, especially in a hostile manner such as this. We're not talking about Molly Brown or McNichols or Speer. We're not talking about a house where historical events took place. As the LPC chair suggested, this is a stretch and he was right. This property has no direct or substantial influence on society. And while the story of Mr. Anderson is admittedly interesting, he himself failed to have a direct or substantial influence on society in any positive way. So what do we have here? All we have is the Denver Post puts it is some mighty thin gruel. It is clear that Mr. Anderson lived in Denver at one point, renting 23, 29 Eliot, and then later purchasing the property. He was not the original owner and he was not the builder of the structure. It's clear that he was an attorney. It is purported, but unsupported, that Mr. Anderson sought to undertake the representation of Alfred Parker. But his legal career is otherwise unremarkable and his relationship with Packers tenuous at best. Contrary to the narrative of the Hustle application, Mr. Anderson didn't take any remarkable cases, championed any contemporary causes or influence society in which he engaged. He didn't seem to even move the needle as a lawyer, and I found no one in the community that knows of his story. For Mr. Anderson's most notable moment. It is suggested that a disagreement over his suggested appeal strategy for the defense of Parker between himself and the publishers Denver Post, Bonfils and TEMIN led to a disagreement so fierce that he brandished his concealed weapon and shot both men in their office and Denver Post. Let me repeat that. His most notable moment is that he shot but failed to kill. Publishers of the Denver Post in their office over a disagreement. For this act, Mr. Anderson was tried three times for his alleged crime, but never convicted. Now I find these actions and I find nothing in these actions at a substantial or direct effect on society at all. Fact is that even if one was to concede that Mr. Anderson tried to represent Alfred Parker, and even if you can see that the subsequent trial was garnered by national headlines and sensationalist, there's nothing historical about 2329, Eliot, in a way that's contemplated by the hostile assault designation. No actual history of significance occurred within its walls. It merely serves as a thin, tangential tie to a nefarious history of a man who lived in Denver and acted as a loose cannon, who took a pistol to an argument, lost control of his emotions, and turned to violent violence to solve these problems. Approving the designation does not, which does not have any merit to the premises, and requiring the visitation of the preservation of the structure does nothing to preserve Denver history and does nothing to promote the sense of community. Because, as I remind you, nothing of historical significance happened at 2329, Eliot. History is important. It tells us who we were and it sets the bar for who we want to be. So I ask you, is this the history that we wish to protect? That of a violent shooter, a marginal lawyer? What is the measure of a human being that requires us to forcibly protect the place where he, he or she slept? How low is the bar? To become so notorious that merely living in a structure makes it a part of history. These are the questions that we must ask ourselves, because that is exactly what you're being asked to do. Protect the place that a man slept because he was involved in a sensational shooting, notorious in its time and nothing more. We are a community. That knows too well what affect gun violence has. We're all too familiar with the ramifications of lone wolf gunman. So I suggest to you to review these events surrounding Mr. Anderson through a modern lens. Think about how his story sounds in the context of the events that have unfolded in our own communities. And think about the message we would be sending to our children. Fame and notoriety. The kind of which that leads to the preservation of your home long after your death, should not come from a violent act, but from positive , direct and substantial effects on our community. The type that our community leaders often have landmark designation, hostile or otherwise, should serve to protect iconic structures and people. Hostile designation should be used only in the most extreme cases where failing to do so would deprive us all of a historical roadmap. Should send the right message about who we are, and it should be a proud example of who we want our children to be. Not to perpetuate a myth of gun violence in the West. Unfortunately, here we do not have such an event or structure. And for these reasons I ask that you do not approve the hostile landmark designation before you tonight. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Mr. Steinberg and I failed to mention you did have 6 minutes. Thank you. Next, Marie Benedict. Thank you. My name is Marie Benedict and I live at 3284 Osceola Street. I have no financial connection to this house. If this were a normal landmark hearing, we would simply stop with the history and petition signatures. However, the issue of property rights has been raised and as has the specter of anti-development and loss of financial well-being . To try to characterize our effort to preserve the House, the applicants and those who have supported this designation are like most Coloradans and Westerners in our deep rooted belief in property rights. However, we are aware that we live in a city where. Our property rights are tied to laws and ordinances designed by. Its residents to benefit the community as a whole. The landmark provision excuse me? Yeah, the landmark provision is no different than any other zoning mechanism that is used by the city to shape the character of our town. If designated the owner of 23 323 West 23rd Avenue will receive more than the reported current offer for his property . While a community of residents who feel passionately about the preservation of this building will see it remain. We'll see it remain. To tell the story of their neighborhood, and a Denver developer who will provide characteristic developments will have the opportunity to see a significant profit by restoring and building multiple new units hand in hand with residents. Ultimately, if we do not. Preserve the few buildings that meet Denver strict code, we will have nothing left. When anybody still be talking about Molly Brown if we didn't have the house. This building teaches us important lessons about an. Everyday man who stood up to moneyed. Interests and abuses of power, and one that is a story that would be a shame to forget. As you know, Councilman Rafael Espinoza has recused himself here tonight. And you heard earlier of the 392 Denver residents who have signed the petition to preserve the Anderson House. The vast majority of them live in District one and as such tonight, have no representation. I ask you tonight to please treat all those constituents as you would your own constituents and represent us. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next, Elizabeth Rogers. Hello. City Council. My name is Elizabeth Rogers. I live at 2801 South Sherman Street in Inglewood. I am here to express my concern, and I'm asking city council. To please vote down 0768. And not support this historic designation. I'd like to speak for just a minute to Jim, the person I've known Jim for 23 years. I consider him a close personal friend of mine. Jim is cut from a different cloth. He is one of the hardest working. Ethical people that I know. He very often works seven days a. Week. And. Doesn't complain. He's just a very, very positive, very down to earth person. Jim is old school. The level of ethics that he conducts himself are not very common anymore. And I have a lot of respect for Jim. Jim has done a tremendous amount of work in the community. He has supported people that. Others would not. Homeless people, people that are in dire need that need a. Hand up, not a handout. And Jim has tirelessly helped people in the community for many, many years. And I think it's important for you to hear that. Jim never says no, and I'll speak again on a personal basis for my husband and I. I consider Jim a mentor. He has supported us, like I said, for 23 years in in in our efforts and has been there at critical times when no one. Else could help us. I'd like to speak a little bit about Jefferson Park. My husband and I, we bought our first home at 2732 Clay Street. This is in the early nineties. A very rough neighborhood. I can assure you that this. Was not a desirable place for people to live. It was a risk. To buy in that area. It was a risk that we took on. And. Several years before us, it was a risk that Jim took on. We invested ourselves personally and financially in that area. Our house was one of the ugliest houses on the block. We took our very, very limited money that we had in our early twenties to improve our personal property. And the amazing thing is, as we did that, we looked around on our block and the other owners started to take notice of the condition of their properties. And it continued and it continued and homes were improved. We were the ones that went in to make that initial improvement and commitment and the domino effect went on from there. So I think it's really important that Jim be recognized for being one of those anchor people in the. Area who has invested himself. Personally and financially. Again, as I mentioned, Jim is an extremely hard worker. He's a roofer, very often working seven days. A week and very, very committed. I personally understand the need to designate appropriate historic properties, but I think it's. Rogers. Apologize. Guthrie. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next, we have Marie Eggert. Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Marie. Edgar and I have lived at 35, 32 West 39th Avenue since 1986. Like the owner of this property, I want my standing as a Northwest Denver property owner to be respected. I have no financial connection to the property owners house. I am commenting on the news, the recent news that the property owner has been offered more than $1 million for his property. A story was created in the press that with designation of Mr. Sun like News House, he would see the value of his property reduced to 600 or $700,000. The applicants for designation have argued that this story is a fiction. Yet it has still captured the attention of many. I now understand the reality to be that the applicants have heard from interested developers who would be willing to purchase the property for the same or above the stated offer of $1 million. A developer on Friday offered the owner $100,000 above the million dollar offer. This was a real offer. He would develop the property around this house and he would restore the historic Anderson house. The owner did not sign the agreement, preferring to wait until after this hearing to discuss offers. He and his broker have seen the offer and have even made modifications amenable to Mr. Sun Leitner. These recent events make it clear to me that the owner of this property will not be harmed by this designation. His retirement does not hang in the balance at this hearing. This excellent opportunity, along with historic designation of the Andersen House, creates a win for the owner. A win for a developer and a win for Jefferson Park and the city of Denver. I respectfully ask that you honor the public's interest in designating this House as an historic landmark, allowing many differences and hostilities to be resolved. Your decision to landmark would be in line with the city of Denver's goal of preserving the valued identities and characters of our neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Andre Cooling and I'll call up the next five speakers if you can make your way up. Jerry Olson, Jim Potter, Betty Lou, say who has 6 minutes? Matthew Rock and then Nick Garcia. So you five can make your way up and so you can go ahead. Begin. Thank you, counsel. My name is Andre Kirby on 2202 Iris Street, Lakewood, Colorado. I have successfully taken five different projects through the Landmark Preservation Commission process, and I definitely have a respect and understanding for what the LPC aims to do. As you heard earlier, the meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission hearing on this was three and a half hours. And on the one hand, I was really very proud to see two pretty heated sides discussing in a civil discourse. It was it was I was very proud to see. But on the other hand, that three and a half hours pushed other projects and other deserving landmark preservation cases further down and eventually off of the agenda. There are three things that I want to share with you today, largely procedural, that I wanted you to know as you consider this case. The first one is that this this designation was originally filed specifically to stop development by Nick Garcia. He'll hear from later. It was filed to stop development. The second thing that I want you to know is that the city of Denver already has two directives related to development. The first one is the 2000 blueprint, Denver, which and this is a direct quote, the planning process for Blueprint Denver resulted in a new vision for Denver in 2020, organized organized around the plan's central premise that growth should be directed to areas of change. And in Blueprint, Denver Jefferson Park is specifically designated as an area of change. The second is the Denver zoning code from 2010. This is a direct quote from the intent section of the code. This code is designed to provide standards for compatible transitions of use density, building scale and height between existing and new development. The Denver Zoning Code states that this property is zoned as Jim three, which allows for a very specific amount of density and height. The code also says this The code is designed to provide clear and consistent procedures for appropriate and effective public involvement in land use and development decisions. Section 12 .3.4 of the Denver Zoning Code clearly directs this public involvement to the planning board, not to the Landmark Preservation Commission. And that leads me to the final thing that I want you that I want to present to you. If you allow historic circumstantial designation to be used as a weapon to fight development, you will see more and more of these cases in front of you every Monday night. And they will continue to clog up the agendas of the Landmark Preservation Commission, preventing them from ruling on things that I feel are far more important than this . And you'll be ruling what I feel like is in direct conflict with two of the developers, two of the directives that the city has already put in place to govern development. Thank you. Thank you. Jerry Olson. Yes. Good evening. My name is Jerry Olson and I live at 2195 Decatur Street, one block away from 2329 Elliott Street, the Anderson House. I'm an applicant for the landmark designation. For the past eight years, I've been active in the Jefferson Park United Neighbors Organization, Japon, and I am a board member. First, I would like to say that we in Jefferson Park embrace sound development. And because of our proximity to downtown, we know development is coming. Many homes have been scraped to make way for multi-unit housing, but very few homes are like the Anderson House, which merits landmark designation in the redevelopment. Of Jefferson Park. We have worked very successfully with developers like Silk Law Development and Allied Realty. They communicate very well and they work with us, not against us. And while we have remained. Positive in our in our endeavor, unfortunately, the developer in this case has not done so. Instead, he has blocked community voice. He has. Done. He has colluded. To pull the original application for landmark designation. At the 11th. Hour, he has sued the city and lost, I might say. And he has been pushing the owner into the media, his poor gym. By attempting to intimidate an applicant, also by attempting to intimidate an. Applicant. For the. Designation through their employer. Employer. By forcing a j pun vote. In a manner that has forced the R.A. Board to change its bylaws by shutting also by shutting down all. Attempts by applicants to even sit down with the owner and discuss the issue. While we respect the owners decision to sell to whomever he wishes time and time again, we have not heard from the owner. But instead the. Buyer, his PR firm, his lawyers and other developers connected with the project. While we expect to hear from him today, please know that the community, which is looking to preserve this home, has always been committed to ensuring that the owner will not be harmed financially. In closing, I would like to say that we in District one have been disenfranchized. Mr. Olson, I apologize. You 3 minutes is up. Too bad. Thank you. Thank you, Jim Potter. Jim Palmer. Jim Palmer. That's okay, Betty. Lou saying and you have 6 minutes. Good evening. My name is Betty Luce. I live at 2660 mead in Denver, which is about a mile from the Andersen house. I've lived in the neighborhood since 1990. I'm a senior broker associate with nostalgic homes, and I've been employed there since 2000. I am speaking in favor of landmark status for the property at 2329 Elliot Street. Last week I presented a backup offer to purchase the property on behalf of one of my longtime clients. This offer was was presented to Michael Ayre, who told me that he has a listing agreement with Jim to sell his property. So I've communicated with him several times and the offer was in fact emailed to him. My client has offered $1,100,000 for the property with no contingency related to historic designation of the House. It is his intention to restore the Anderson House and to develop the property. He has investigated the zoning and the building code for the site quite thoroughly and is satisfied that he could build an adequate number of attached dwelling units on the property to justify the purchase price of 1,100,000. In other words, if the landmark status is awarded to the Anderson House and if the owner would eventually accept my client's offer, his proceeds from the sale would be greater than he would net under his current contract. And as we say in real estate, there is nothing better than a back up offer. My client's career in Denver dates back to the seventies when he developed large commercial projects. Later, he created many for sale townhome developments in the metro area. The most recent being Lowell Rowe at 73rd and Lowell near the new light rail station that is going on up there. He has made a name for himself in the North Denver neighborhood in these past few years by renovating and expanding vintage homes. He hires the best architects. His houses are beautiful. They complement the context of the neighborhood. In fact, he and his wife moved into one of their own renovations in North Denver several years ago. And speaking as his realtor, I can tell you that his projects are in very high demand. They sell immediately, some of them even before they're finished. In my years as a realtor in that neighborhood, I have listed and sold many vintage homes and including two of the three houses in the neighborhood that I refer to as our signature houses. These imposing Victorians are part of our neighborhood identity. All have gone through periods of serious decrepitude. They've been faced with demolition, with people who wanted to scrape them. And but fortunately, now through all three are beautifully restored and they're occupied by young families. I would tell you that the house at 32nd and Osceola, for those of you who know the neighborhood, was nearly scraped about eight years ago to make way for ten townhomes. It's hard to imagine our neighborhood without these houses, multiple townhomes standing on these corners instead of glorious houses. It's not a pretty picture. The Anderson House is Jefferson Park's signature house. This is a more humble neighborhood and it's a more humble house. The house is high on the hill because the house looks pretty tired and rundown right now. Many think it would be just okay to scrape it and make way for something new. But a superficial evaluation does not reveal the truth of this house. There are many recent photos, the recent photos of the exterior. It is built on a three foot deep stone foundation. There is a bit of minor cracking near a window on the south wall, but for the most part, the house stands tall and drew. The 22 Redstone steps leading to the entrance are perfectly straight. The idea that this house is a wreck is ridiculous to me, to be quite honest. I can assure you that it would be a very expensive proposition to demolish this house. And I can also assure you that the neighbors would be devastated to have to watch it happen. Now I'm a senior citizen, as well as Mr. Sonn Lightner and I also live in an old house. I'm well aware of the daunting challenges of maintenance, particularly deferred maintenance. It faces us after we've lived in our houses for a long time. And the idea that he would lose 400,000 from the purchase price offered by the buyer if his house is designated? Well, that is a frightening thought to any retiree. There is no doubt that Mr. Snyder is ready to be gone from his house, but his house does not need to be gone from the neighborhood. We have a qualified buyer who has made a higher offer and a better proposition. I can assure you that when my client is finished with the property, it will shine with distinction, will be a source of pride and part of the charm of the neighborhood for many years to come. If we let go of our historic houses without a protest, the coming generations will have no idea of the proud history of Denver. This is a western city and a relatively young city. We have precious few of these great old houses and we need to try a little harder to preserve them. I'm asking you as council members to take a vote to preserve our heritage and to grant landmark status to the Andreassen House at 2329. Elliott. Thank you. Thank you. Matthew Rock. Do not have a matthew Rock. Okay. Nick Garcia. And as Mr. Garcia comes up, I'll call the next five. Mike Ayer, John Olsen, David Bertran, Andy Levinsky, and Dan Rogers. So you five can make your way up. And Mr. Garcia, you may begin. Good evening, everyone. My name is Nick Garcia. I'm here to say that I opposed the historic designation of this property. I owned the property at 2324 Federal Boulevard, and I provide affordable housing for the neighborhood, which is very hard to find right now and very hard to maintain. This historical designation will not only make things very rough for Jim in his future, it's also going to really affect my business and the families that live at my units. I have a four unit building, all three units. There's family that families that lived there several years ago when they widened federal, they took out all my parking on the street. I only have four spaces private, one for each unit, three bedroom units. So if the husband has a car and the wife needs a car to have a kids, she's out of luck. If if I go and I have to meet with my tenants for something, I'm out of luck. If the handyman has to go fix something, he's out of luck. Well, Jim was nice enough during this time to let me park in his in his yard and in his back lot. And also, we began to park in what was then the alley, but now belongs to Jim. So that that really saved my business. I originally did oppose this, this, this whole situation, and I was for the designation to stop parking, just as the gentleman before me said. So I was I was originally for this designation. Thankfully, that really thankfully Nathan Adams reached out to me and he says, Nick, listen, you need parking. I think I can help you. That was a blessing for me to hear that. That was a blessing for my tenants to hear that, you know, which people seem to care very little about. Anyway, Nathan and I did make a deal and he did agree to. He changed his whole plans. I was floored me to help me with my parking, to accommodate me. It was it was really impressive. He did do that and I'm very grateful to him. So bottom line is, if this goes through, it's certainly going to it's really going to hurt my business. It's going to hurt Jim. It's going to make it difficult for me to to to operate. And I am against this project. Thank you. Thank you, Mike Ire. My name is Mike Air, and I'm opposing this designation. I'm Jim, Jim's listing agent, and I've been with Jim since the beginning of the sales transaction. I've been selling and developing real estate for more than ten years in the Denver area, as well as into the mountains. Currently, I'm working on another project in the Sloan's Lake area with 24 units, so I'm very familiar with the property values in the area. I evaluate, evaluate each of Jim's properties and looked at the development potential when deciding to proceed. We felt there was probably a little more value in the land at the time of the contract. More than 15 months ago, when looking at the comparables but felt there was a lot of hurdles to go to get over to get the deal done, we felt that Adams development had the neighborhood experience to get the job done . We felt very good about them having the capital, the layout, to get to the finish line and get Jim paid so he could retire. I want to clear up a couple items as far as a back up offer. We did receive a backup offer. The offer had a number of contingencies, not one regarding the historic designation, but a number of other contingent contingencies. The proposed buyer is interested in doing 10 to 12 units is, which is what he told me on the phone when we discussed it. My understanding with the current zoning code for GMU three is that you require 50 feet of frontage to develop more than a duplex on the property. So by making the property historic, it would take it from being anywhere from 12 to 18 units on a property down to a duplex with possibly a carriage house. And then for this prospective buyer to come in and restore the Victorian home. So I'm not sure where everyone's going with as far as they have, this bona fide $1.1 million offer. Because I heard the guy loud and clear and he said, You want to do 10 to 12 units? And I said, Are you willing to proceed and move forward with the contract based on a duplex and restoring a Victorian home? Then he said it didn't make sense. Then I suggested that he contact the zoning department to reaffirm that. I have as well spoke with Doug Jones of the development services at the City of Denver and confirmed this requirement. Now, I just want to make sure when you guys come to your decision that you don't let this backup offer muddy the water. Tim has lived in the neighborhood for more than 40 years between the north home and his current home. This home has always been Jim's home. He bought these homes with the hope that he would be a good investment. When he when it came time to retire, Jim has been roofing for 40 years, which is very physically demanding. He's ready to retire now and downsize into a more manageable Mr.. Mr.. Air. The idea is you get 3 minutes is up. Thank you. Next we have john olsen. Thank you very much, counsel. My name is John Olsen. I'm the director of preservation. Programs at Historic Denver and a resident of Northwest Denver. Historic Denver is a 45 year old nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing our city's unique identity through education, advocacy and stewardship of local heritage and historic places. While historic Denver is not an applicant for designation of this property, we have been involved with the house since last spring when a neighbor called us and asked for help researching the home's history in response to the Certificate of Non Historic Application. As a nonprofit advocacy organization, we strive to be a resource and because we felt that this home deserved further conversation, we provided that assistance. When that original neighbor withdrew their application for designation, we shared the content we developed with us, with the applicants here today, and they have since expanded on that content. Again, we did this because we think our historic resources add important value to our neighborhoods and our city and deserve thoughtful conversation and full consideration. Because once they're lost, they are truly lost forever. Historic Denver often supports projects that involve both the preservation of historic resources and the creation of new development. And we believe strongly that the dynamic between old and new is a critical part of what is needed for a vibrant city consequent. Consequently, we do not believe the question. We do not believe the question for this property is preservation or development. We think it can and should be preservation and development combined with the carriage lock to the rear. The recently vacated alley, which represents 300 square feet, transferred from the city to the current owner this past July and the adjacent assembled property to the north, there's ample room to build while maintaining the old. We conducted our own analysis of decided zoning and discovered as as has been Eric has been was the backup. When this offer for the property was recently published in the press that the property retains significant development potential and comparable, if not better value offer for the designation was indeed foreseeable. I like to further note that when Dr. Tom Noel wrote in the Denver Post this last week that the United States Supreme Court in the 1978 penned central case has confirmed and reaffirmed in many, many cases since then that local governments have the full authority to regulate private property through historic preservation policy, as they do under current zoning laws. One of City Council's most important responsibilities is a regulation of land use, and at no time is that responsibility more important than during periods of great change. Council already exercises land use authority related to this property assemblage in July and when the when the alley vacation was granted making the site the development opportunity it has become designated 2329 Eliot as an individual landmark as a reasonable tradeoff after receiving such a gift from the city and its taxpayers, one that preserves the properties values. Of the current owner. Preserves significant development opportunity, paves the way for a project that incorporates the old and new adds density, recognizes a unique and influential story in our history, and enhances the. Character character all year. Three Man says, Thank you so much. Thank you. David Burden. I actually have something to hand to counsel. My name is David Burton. I am the architect on the proposed project that's going to be located at 2329 Eliot Street. I am a property owner in the neighborhood, a business owner in a neighborhood. I've been a volunteer in the community for almost 20 years. I coauthored the neighborhood plan for Jefferson Park about ten years ago. This is a usual ordinary home. It's an interesting story, but it's no more than that. I'm generally an advocate for historic preservation. I've brought cases to Landmark Preservation Commission multiple times. But this particular house is not remarkable. I really want to talk specifically about the Jim three zoning. If this if this application gets approved and it gets designated historic, the property will only be able to utilize the urban house and the duplex dwelling form based on the reduced frontage that would be approved with this designation. If this designation is approved, the frontage of this large parcel would be 36 feet, and you would need to have at least 50 feet to do anything more than a duplex where a single family zoned zoning form on this particular lot. I gave you basically the give you three requirements for all the different zoning forms right now. The plan was to use the apartment zoning form. But as you can see, if you look at this detailed information, truly the urban house, detached accessory dwelling unit and duplex dwelling forms would be the only one that would be allowed with a frontage of 25 to less than 50 feet. So again, based on this reduced frontage, the development rights are are greatly reduced. And I believe this would reduce the property value. I implore you not to support this historic designation and don't promulgate the acknowledgment of an alleged shooter in it as a historic location. I respectfully request that you deny this council Bill. Thank you. Thank you. Annie Levinsky. Thank you. I'm Annie Levinsky, executive director of historic Denver, Inc. John Olsen already described our organization, and I want to thank you for taking the time tonight to discuss a piece of Denver's past and a piece of its future. I wanted to speak separately from John so that I could take a few minutes to put tonight's discussion into a bit of context. The demolition review component of our historic preservation ordinance was created by the unanimous vote of Denver City Council in 2006. Council took this step to prevent surprise demolitions during our last boom cycle. It is not dissimilar to some two. It is not dissimilar to ordinances in other cities of our size, although our designation criteria actually set a higher bar than many of our peer cities. The ordinance is intended to give the community time to react to potential demolitions and to seek solutions that are in the best interests of owners, neighbors and the city at large. The ordinance has worked well in this way in several instances, with conversations leading not to this room, but to positive outcomes. It is historic Denver's policy to pursue creative solutions. And I believe because of that, council has been in your shoes only a few times in nearly ten years. So while we are here tonight talking about one specific property, I thought you should know about dozens of other properties and historic resources already lost this year. As one of the first speakers noted, there have been nearly 600 demolitions reviewed this year and only 34 properties were posted as potentially eligible for historic designation of all of those properties. There's only one this designation this evening and one other anticipated by the end of the year. This means you are being asked to consider saving only point 3% of all the buildings we are losing this year, a record year. Some of those other losses that did not come in front of you include commercial properties designed by architects, historic cottages and five points in the Five Points neighborhood. The entire historic hardware block in River North and several fine had homes in hilltop. I bring this to your attention to demonstrate that this property clearly carries significant value, historical importance and community support to have reached this step in a process that requires a great deal of energy from the community. If there had been an opportunity to have a meaningful dialog with the current owner or the owners representative, we would have happily facilitated those conversations as we have in the past because we do believe this property represents a very real opportunity for a win win outcome due to its size, common ownership with neighboring properties and the alley vacated by council earlier this year. Unfortunately, our invitations to meet with the owner and the developer to discuss creative ways to develop the site while retaining the house even without historic designation, were not accepted. The sheer volume of demolition taking place in our city this year means that we have to have hard conversations. Are all those places worth saving? None of them. Or some of them, as you're being asked to do tonight at historic Denver, it is our job to take the long view. What will our city look like, feel like and live like? Not just next year, but ten years from now, 20 years from now or 50 years from now? What will we still have? A unique identity. We hope so. But we need to consider our historic places. And I thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Miss Lipinski. Next, we have Dan Rodgers. And as Mr. Rodgers comes up, I'm going to call up the next five names who all have 6 minutes Diane Irvin, Justin Archuleta, Brad Evans, Nathan Adams and Jude Aiello. So you five can make your way up to Rodgers. You may begin. My name's Dan Rodgers. I'd like to also speak to the contract that's proposed on the table. I'm from the commercial job site. Superintendent is my background and I've done some historic renovation stuff to look at of Heights Catholic Girls School that the Salvation Army currently owns. I've been hands on on a lot of these jobs and have the experience and care very deeply about the work. The whole that the the contract that's on the table has a lot of holes that could get poked in it. Jim shook Nathan's hand. I met Nathan for the first time tonight over 13, 14 months ago. Jim's been wanting to retire since that day. He was looking at nine months ago that he could retire. He was on the roof today, finishing up a roof hump and bundles on a steep pitch. He's 63, almost 64 years old. He needs to get off that roof. No more messing around. He's got he shook Nathan's hand. That's the deal. That's the kind of of of person that Jim's son Leitner is. There's contracts and paperwork. But he told Nathan he was going to sell them that house. Nathan's worked very, very, very hard to get that $1,100,000 offer. Without the work that Nathan has done. That number would never be achieved. Ever. So I've got to tell you, this kind of odd story here you guys are. Call it the Anderson House, the name on the shirts and. Correct. Jim's an old renowned motorcycle road racer. Got my wife and I into it. Him getting us into that sport actually got my wife a college scholarship for road racing motorcycles and helped us with our education. There's a lot of not world renowned but widely known racetrack here in Colorado called Second Creek Raceway. And there's a pretty difficult corner in that particular racetrack that Jim had the opportunity to crash not only his primary race bike, but his back up race bike in the same day and was complaining to the track. Guys, how about what a rat's nest this thing was, right? So from that day forward, Jim became rat and that became the rat's nest across the country that when he'd have the Christmas party for the Motorcycle Road Racing Association and all of our families would come up. It was that rat mansion. That's the name of the house. That's what thousands of people in Denver know it as his rat mansion. We need to get this deal, move forward. He needs to retire. That's it. No more messing around that for that million. One has tons of holes in it. All it's going to do is keep him from retiring. So that's it. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Diane Irvin. And you have 6 minutes. Okay. Thank you. I'm Diane Irvin. I live at 4047. Wyandotte and I have since 1989. I'm a founding member of Sunnyside United Neighbors. I my office, my business that I co-founded in 1989 offers an historic wheeler block building for 18 years in the Highlands. I support the designation and I have no financial interest in this hearing. My focus is our shared interest in economic development in this city and how historic preservation supports it. Businesses in Jefferson Park Town Square support this designation. Owners of both the Jefferson Park Pub and 2914 Coffee have signed to support it out of a commitment to the community, but also because they understand that historic preservation and compatible new development attract paying customers. Give the story of hot tempers and the three year national scandal around the likes of William Anderson and the Denver Post owners and editors and the Adams Mystery Playhouse at 25th and federal will turn it into revenue. Tell the story enough. And entrepreneurs from Union Station to coffee shops around the city will sell t shirts and yellow Denver Times newspaper headlines about the shooting to tourists from California to New York, the Andersen House. History is the entrepreneur's opportunity to generate revenue for their family businesses and for the city. The National Trust for Historic Preservation and United States Department of Housing and Urban Development at the national, state and local levels see historic preservation as vital to urban revitalization. Judith Kremen, executive director of the Baltimore County Historical Trust, lauds the benefits of preservation to local economies. Historic preservation creates jobs, which increase revenue for suppliers and service providers alike. It is an ideal economic development strategy for attracting entrepreneurs and retaining taxpaying, job producing small businesses. It targets blight and neglected properties for improvement. It encourages private investment by visually demonstrating public investment in an area. Denver's Landmark Preservation Commission adds to the list of economic benefits of reserve preservation. It enriches residents and business owners alike by visually representing that we value continuity and connection to places. Historic districts support neighborhood stability, which contribute to long term neighborhood viability. Historic preservation stimulates government revenue. Building permits from. 2010 to 2012 show that construction investment is 3 to 10 times greater in historic districts than in other areas. A 2011 study by Clarion Associates reports that for every $1 million spent on historic preservation, 32 jobs are generated. Those 32 jobs have paychecks. They pay taxes and they support even more jobs in the community. Garrison Keillor on NPR just this past week broadcast from Cleveland. He was extolling the exciting, historic preservation of Cleveland that had to be worth millions to Cleveland. Historic preservation is synonymous with economic development. We learned that with Larimer Square is the redevelopment. Let us build on that wise decision and do more of what we have already proven we can do so well. My company brings money into Denver from across the nation and 30 countries like you. I'm committed to economic development of the city. Let us build on what we have done well and bring more money to Denver from across the nation in good conscience. I ask, how could you not vote to designate the Andersen House as a historic landmark? Thank you. Thank you. Next, Justin Archuleta. And you have 6 minutes as well. Good evening. My name is Justin on your letter. I am a homeowner in District one. Address 1599 West Berkeley Place and I am currently under contract to purchase my own home in Jefferson Park, though I'm not a resident quite yet. I consider myself a part of the neighborhood community. I've worked with local organizations and a volunteer capacity. I've studied the neighborhood plan in great detail. I've attended numerous neighborhood organization meetings, and unfortunately, I likely buy much more coffee and food from local area businesses than many residents. I also work for Adams Development, the small Jefferson Park based business involved in this transaction. My role with Adams is primarily that of development project management. I'm here today to speak about an issue that has come up in conversations regarding Jim's house that of Right of way vacations, commonly known as alley vacations. We've heard about it tonight and we heard it about it also at the Landmark Preservation Commission. To be clear, the issue of right of way vacations has no place in the debate regarding the merits of whether Jim's home is historic or not. It simply is unconnected, and there's no relationship between the two. There is a place for discussion of right of way vacations in a larger context about development. And I believe it's become quite clear that the debate about 23, 29 Eliot Street has transcended historic designation at this point. This property and the debate surrounding it has become an outlet for a portion of the community to voice concerns about development in general. It is to those concerns that I would like to speak. Comments were made by Dennis Gallagher at the Landmark Preservation Commission hearing that the city is choosing to give land away to profit driven developers and receiving absolutely nothing in return. That is simply not true. The city actually maintains a policy statement on street and alley vacations that I think many, including Mr. Gallagher, may be unaware of. I'd like to go over some of the information contained in that policy statement with you now. First to address comments that the city should have sold the land to gym and gotten financial compensation. Those pushing for this are likely unaware that there is actually a state law prohibiting the city from selling dedicated right of way upon vacation. That's outlined in the city's policy statement. Now, that doesn't mean that the city is simply giving land away without thought or without a policy for protecting the public's interest. Vacations go through a lengthy process of review at the Department of Public Works. Alli vacations are only approved if the applicant accommodates the needs of transportation, storm, sanitary utility and other needs. To quote from the city's policy statement, the applicant must understand that the service level of the remaining right of way must be maintained or improve the existing condition. On page 11, in the packet that was distributed to you. Is a photo taken of the land that was vacated? That land was not serving any public interest and has been a dumping ground that attracts waste that Jim has become responsible for. Because for the city, the city has not been maintaining that right of way. That right of way was a pretty small portion of land that divided the property that Jim owned in the front of the lot from the carriage lot that he owned in the rear. There's no other party that could have benefited from that land. It was unpaved and a redundant alley within the block. On page 12, you can see a diagram of the extremely valuable benefits intended as a result of that Ali vacation. The city balances the vacation of land with the requirements of developers that developers actually dedicate or give back land to the city. Though I'm unaware of any state statute prohibiting the city from paying for that land, the reality is that developers are required to dedicate that land back to the city for nothing. Now, not just for nothing. Because developers are also required to spend considerable amounts of money to improve the land that city owns tied to receiving construction permit approval. In the case of 2329 Elliott Street, after considerable time effort of working with the city and the city's requirements for development of that property, we have received what the requirements for development will be from the Department of Public Works. Those requirements are that any development on the property would require that 900 square feet be granted back to the city and no cost. In addition, and the reason for that would be to widen those alleys. Those alleys are all at ten feet. They're recognized by the neighborhood as kind of being dangerous because there's steep slopes. So there's people that won't even use the alleys in the winter for fear of sliding down into pedestrians. So those alleys would be required to be widened. That land given back, as well as all of the alleys surrounding the entire property, would have to be repaved. The cost of that paving is going to be over $100,000. That work. The right of way permits, as well as just the concrete work involved, is not cheap. Now what that will do is benefit all the neighbors of the block, the community in general. I've heard from a member of the Parks Board of Denver that has recognized that the back of that alley as being a place that crime happens, people dump, trash, etc.. So the Department of Public Works is not giving in to greedy developers when it recommends that city council vacate land. The policies of the department actually result in huge benefit to the committee, the community, the city and neighbors. Bringing the issue of alley vacation into any conversation about whether or not to designate gems. Property is inappropriate and only meant to be a distraction to cloud this issue further. Thank you. Thank you. Next to Brad Evans. Evans, you have 6 minutes. Thank you. Council members, thank you for allowing me to speak here today. My name is Brad Evans and I reside at 2835 West 24th Avenue, a stone's throw from this home that is up for a public hearing to council build. 1507 16. The historic designation that has been sought for this property is not being done by a rogue group of neighbors seeking to stop development. It's nor is it a band of outsiders trying to trample on an individual's property rights. It has instead become a narrative about what Denver will become and what it was. Ultimately, the decision you are faced with today is whether or not we as a community have access to and can use already established sets of tools to retain a collective, collective connection to the past. I've been part of the Jefferson Park United Neighbors since 2004, and Japan has been vigilant in its efforts to create a harmonious connection with the past and with its close proximity to downtown. It's also work to find win win solutions for the new development that's coming to the neighborhood. Over the past 12 months, numerous 1900 area homes have been raised on nearly every block of northwest Denver, and more are being slated to be demolished in the coming days. Japan has long supported development, and this house on Elliott is not just another poorly maintained property, long in need of tender loving care. It's also in the middle of what is considered the core residential of Jefferson Park. This is noted in the Jefferson Park plan, which was adopted by City Council in 2005. Blueprint Denver considers this to be an area of stability, and there are few. There are also those that believe that this is one of the few homes left in Jefferson Park that should be preserved. And even Article one of the Denver zoning code allows for a single zone lot to be part of a zone, a part of an assemblage. So the argument that the 92 feet requirement can be is moot because it's the zoning code allows it. Yes, this home has a storied past, but is not the only reason to vote for its preservation. With a yes vote for this historic designation, this House will serve as a beacon to future generations about the Wild West characteristic of Denver and those that resided here at the turn of the century. While I have no financial interest in this property, I do have a long held interest in Jefferson Park and the community that it serves. Having served on the board of Jay Pond and chaired the Land Use Committee in the past, I'm also an active participant in today's development community. I am also familiar with the issues. That we are faced with the exploding. Growth of our city. Please allow me to share a few salient points about the evolution of where Jefferson Park has been and where it's going. Since the sixties, there is a well-known lack of investment in Jefferson Park, and up until the early 2000s, it was a haven for drug dealers and gangs. Jefferson Park has long been populated by cherished groups that include urban pioneers, pawn indigent Latino families, as well as historic residents that were born in the homes they will see that they still inhabit. And haven't the Javon Board has acted as a champion for development and reinvestment as a means to place more eyes on the street and in an effort to combat the criminal activity that had become part of the day to day goings on of this urban core neighborhood. John was approached by the city of Denver in around 23 to participate in the redevelopment of the former district. One police department located at 22nd, Decatur and city leaders thought Jay Pons input on the RFP and so valued input from the community that they gave J.P. and one of the three votes on that RFP. The winner of that RFP was David Zucker. And this is what spurred the development. Jefferson Park. This is the project. It was 42 condos. A lot of them affordable in it. And this company is also still and. Developer, still a participant in the neighborhood. Their next project, which was on Clay Street, was. Literally designed on the neighborhood board's kitchen table. They brought their people in and we put pieces of paper over here and did vignettes and really worked on what that development would look like. That's the kind of participation Japan in this neighborhood has done in development. I'm here to lend my voice in support of this historic designation, not to stop development, but to ask you to allow the neighborhood the ability of self-determination, which in part gave birth to the current development free for all that's happening in my neighborhood. Should you vote against this bill and allow this home to be torn down, not only will we be losing a link to our past, but we will be tearing down a part of our future. I appreciate your time and thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Nathan Adams. So you have 6 minutes as well. Thank you. Good evening, council members. Thank you for your time and for your public service. My name is Nathan Adams. My company, Adams Development, has been working with Jim for 14 months now to purchase the properties of 23, 29 and 23, 21, 23, 31 Eliot Street. You decide very important matters. And tonight you are tasked with the decision as to whether or not to give 2329 Eliot Street landmark status against Jim's wishes. This case is not a theoretical rule change that will apply equally to all constituents. The decision made tonight will have a direct impact on a 40 year resident. 27 of those years living in the home we are discussing. In addition to the impact to Jim, there are ramifications for a small business, a business that I own. I employ 14 people and indirectly employ another 30 to 50 people at any given time. Decisions of this magnitude should be absolutely certain. Designating a home against the owner's wishes should be an extraordinary circumstance. With this in mind, serious questions have been raised tonight about the merits for landmark status. The architecture has been deemed the Denver vernacular of a Queen Inn. Simply put, the home is not monumental. It is rare to find a home that is not a vernacular of some style as to history. There is no direct way to tie the house to history without relying on second degree and tangential connections. Additionally, the attempts to connect the House to Anderson's shooting the Post editors is a glorification of gun violence, violence that did not happen at the house. The criteria for designation is anything but definitive criteria. Cited for designation is a stretch and is in no way, shape or form an extraordinary circumstance worthy of landmark designation. The bar should be raised or at the very least, strictly enforced. Either way, we should not leave here tonight with 2329 Eliot Street being designated a landmark building. The issue being brought by applicants is a small part of a larger discussion around Denver's growth and change spot zoning via hostile designation is not the right approach. Significant time, taxpayer money, financial burden on small business and economic harm to a homeowner have resulted for making the single property the focus of what should be a larger conversation. Resources utilized could have been spent supporting voluntary designation or voluntary historic districts. River Drive in Jefferson Park, pictured on page 14 of the book that you have there. River Drive is an example of a place we should be looking at for voluntary designation. There are eight two storey Queen Anne's on one block alone, many of which are a better representation of a Queen Anne than 2329 Eliot Street. This issue is not simply a developer against the neighborhood or a homeowner against a neighborhood. The neighborhood and city are divided on hostile designation. I personally support preservation when appropriate. I have restored a landmark building. I've renovated over 200 homes. I've lived in the historic district of Potter Highlands. I've owned in the historic district of Potter Highlands and lived. I understand clearly that preservation is a worthy cause. However, I firmly believe that zoning this property with hostile designation against a homeowner's wishes is extreme. Such extreme measures should only be used in the most extraordinary of circumstances. John Olson of Historic Denver told me that hostile designation serves a purpose. He cited Mt. Vernon. Mt. Vernon was saved by hostile designation. John and I can agree that on that end, extreme circumstances like saving Mt. Vernon hostile historic designation serves a purpose. Ladies and gentlemen, 2329. Eliot Street is no Mt. Vernon. Is a house that did not have a known story until a story was needed as a means to preserve, to stop or to alter development. Hostile designation sends a message to anti-development groups that utilizing the landmark ordinance as a tool to fight development is okay. This is becoming all too common. Trammell Crow recently experienced a threat on their 30th and little site and 5115 West 29th Avenue. They will be heard in council in two weeks. Hostel designation is not the correct forum for the conversation that needs to be had. Preservationists should be. Preservation should be a civil discussion on a large neighborhood or landmark district scale for structures that don't stand on their own merits. Like the Molly Brown House does tonight, please say no to spot zoning. Protect Jim's property rights, defend small business, and preserve due process for our constituents. As a show of support. We've submitted 98 letters and have collected over 500 signatures opposed to this designation. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Julie Aiello. And as she would come forward, I'm going to call the next five names to speak, Jim songwriter Dennis Gallagher, Mr. Saca, Sophie, Billy, Zeke and Mary Hendrick. So you five can make your way up beside you may begin and you have 6 minutes to talk. Thank you. My name is Judy along. I live at 909. Lafayette Street in Denver. Although I was a 33 year resident of Northwest Denver, I'm a member of Denver Neighborhood Advocates, which supports preservation of neighborhood character. Please support designation of the Anderson House. As you well know, as council members, your job is almost always about deciding limits. Just like when council re zoned the entire city. Limiting, but not. Taking away what property owners could do. In this case, you. Are to limit what is to be considered and voted on to the preservation. Rules. Does this meet. Two of the three criteria? If you personally think preservation isn't ever needed, or that by limiting what the owner can do to his property that you have somehow. Taken away his rights. This should have. No place in the decision making process. Another Denver commitment. The 2020 sustainability goals also should be considered. It supports keeping buildings and reducing construction waste into city landfills. You've already heard the statistics of the number. Of demolitions this year, a 20% increase over last year. Thousands of demolitions have been approved in the last few years. These applications and decisions required no public notice, meetings or votes. Interestingly, council seemed to have no problem with press, with trusting the City Preservation Department to decide if these. Hostile demolitions from the viewpoint. Of many neighbors who have to put up with them, meet the guidelines and can move forward. Yet when the Preservation. Department. Determines a property does meet historic designation guidelines, a number of hearings and votes are mandatory, and the expert judgment of the Preservation Department is questioned. This four one half of 1% of the demolition applications. The preservation preservation. Guidelines, support designation of structures which meet the strict Denver criteria. Even if the owner is not the applicant. It is not hostile. As a former councilman named them a term which is not used, thankfully, by the Preservation Department. The historical value of some buildings outweigh. The wish of the temporary owner to maximize his financial gain. Ultimately, owners often find historic designation raises the value of the property, even though national and state historic designations in most states and cities require only one criteria out of three. Denver requires at least two and often seems to expect three. I personally think this meets all three, and despite this high. Bar, the Preservation Department confirms the out Anderson House meets Denver's strict criteria. Council recently approved an ally vacation, without which the owner wouldn't have been able to access additional land and access for development. City Council's already given the. Owner this free gift. I'd like to. Talk about what I call the Wal-Mart defense, which is my term, which describes owners claims that only. One type of development is possibly possible or financially viable. This is a. False and unsuccessful tactic that was used in the Highlands and a ninth and Colorado Boulevard. Cases. It's on display by. This owner and possible future developer in this case, as history and the non owners of these properties showed, there is more than one choice for a financially successful development in both the Highlands and ninth in Colorado Boulevard. Examples. The business is chosen. In place of the Wal-Marts. When. Not only much better fit. For the neighborhoods. But wildly financially successful. I think it can be the same way with this property. We need to preserve history and places where. Even tragic. And embarrassing events happened. Future generations shouldn't be shielded from the truth, even if that truth doesn't represent Denver Heights in the best light. I trust that when you vote. Your decision is based on the city's criteria for. Approving the historic designation of this building criteria, which it clearly. Meets. If you find your personal objections. Or feelings prevent you from supporting this. Designation. I request you do the honorable thing and refrain from voting. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Iowa. Next, Jim, sunlight through. And you have 6 minutes. Hello. I'm Jim Sun Lightner. I suppose I'm the whole reason for this. Whole. Ordeal. But basically, I've worked hard my whole life. My plan was the only thing I own out of it is my houses. My plan was to take my houses and use them as a retirement fund. Once I got to all the pound nails anymore and I've never been married, don't have a wife and kids. The historic designation, I feel, is trampling my property rights. I feel I should be able to sell my house without having to go through a rigmarole. But I don't know that, you know, that is the way the system works is is not my problem. But I would I would urge the council to respectfully give me a no vote on this designation. Allow me to retire in peace and possibly build a little house with no stairs. Thanks. Thank you. Next, we had Dennis Gallagher. Who this is who I think it is. I don't see in the chambers. All right. Next, Mr. Sekou. Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou. Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Advocating for poor, working, poor homeless people. You know. But what we're faced with this evening is a conversation where we must put principle before personality. And I don't see any bad people in this. I just see people doing what they feel they need to do with rationalization, justification. And on and on and on. We put the principle at the forefront. What we're really talking about is, are we going to be a city of me or are we going to be a city we see? Because in the we is our culture and our tradition that's bigger and greater than any individual in this room. Now, the spirit of Mr. Anderson is in this room. That's how significant this is, because he put principle before personality, because he had to go up against the power structure that was defaming and slander in his name. And he's decided to take the personal responsibility to fix that, to defend his life, being attacked by people who were considered more powerful. Now, in this room, we have people who have come together as a community to say our culture, who we are, means more than the money. I'm proud to be raised and born in Colorado. I love the wild, wild west. I've been to the East Coast, I've been to the West Coast. And the quality of the people are greater than all of that in this country because we believe in a fair fight and we believe in honesty, man. And I've heard a lot of stories up in there and there's a bunch of lies going on up in here. We're talking about a real estate deal that you got another deal on the table just in case this don't work. That would get you more money and still give the people what they need in terms of their history and their culture. Now, come on, y'all. We got to sort through this thing and look at this rationally with who and what is being told is the truth. And the kids need this history. I wish there was some more Andersons around today that would stand up against those that are powerful and take the personal responsibility to take care of that and then weather the storm and take it to Judge Judy and take it to the people to see if I can if I'm right or wrong, because that's the way our country works. And what we have in this room is an outstanding, outstanding example of why this country is so great. Mr. Speaker. This is year in effect. This is. Kind of every year, 3. Minutes. Is that so? And, Mr. Speaker. You're going to give a 13. Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Sophie and I apologize, Bill. Thank you, Europe. Hello. My name is Sophie Blue and I live at 2822 Race Street in Denver. I'm a lifelong lover of history and I was intrigued when I read about the life of William W Anderson. The act for which Anderson is best known for his shooting about peace and famine is not a laudable act, and none of the applicants are arguing that. However, the story exemplifies many themes present throughout Carlyle's history and ties into an overarching, overarching mythos of the American West. At the turn of the 20th century, Denver in 1900 was a small town, small town stories. These stories tell us something about ourselves and where we came from. They should also give us pause and make us think critically about where we are going as a community at its heart, Denver started as a town run by vigilante Justice Tillman. Bonfils often stoked this fire screaming headlines that got them to trouble more than once. The incident with William Anderson is a glimpse into the past, exemplifying many common themes from Colorado history that students learn about today in class, the role of vigilante justice in the early years of Denver, the rise of yellow journalism and widespread spread corruption in Gilded Age politics. William Anderson's Gilded Age sense of honor led him to confront Tammany Bonfils directly. Denver's history of Western style justice helps explain why he would have chosen this course of action. The rise of yellow journalism helps us to understand why Tillman and Bonfils were so caustic and bombastic in their careers. Thankfully, we as a society have moved from these tactics, but just because we find them unsavory today doesn't mean that they didn't happen. Well, we should edit our history to center out the bad moments. We should ignore parts of our history that make us uncomfortable or which are inconvenient. Another Denver landmark. That's an excellent example of how we as a community can talk about historical events without. Glamorizing them as the House of Mirrors at 1946 Market Street. It's a contributing building in the lower downtown historic district. It also happens to be one of Denver's most infamous landmarks, which was home to not one but two of Denver's most successful madams. The brothel status as the landmark does not mean that we as a community condone prostitution. Instead, we are acknowledging the social history of Denver and the reality many women in the West faced as they worked to create a new life. There's a world of difference between acknowledging and glamorizing the darker parts of history as an important. It is important that we recognize the difference. Not only am I a lover of history and great stories like this, but I'm also a lover of education. I'm I work at Girls Inc of Metro Denver, which is about a mile and a half from the Anderson House. I often drive around the neighborhood and it seems like there's a new development every month. I'm certainly not against development, but I think it's important for today's youth, like the girls that come to girls think especially neighborhood girls, to be able to see history around them and not just read about it in books. I urge you to vote in favor of creating a local historic landmark Anderson House for future generations to appreciate. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Mary Hendrick. And as Mary comes up, I'm going to call the next five, David Zucker, Janice Stice, Trevor Greco, Rebecca Hunt and Amy Zimmer. Good evening. I'm here to ask you to support historic landmark designation for the Anderson House. You've heard the back story. I'm not going to reiterate that. But to save time, I just wanted to share that. I've lived here 43 years, raised a family, and I've lived in all parts of Denver, and I've made Highlands my home for the last 20 years. We've basically seen many changes throughout the Denver metro area over the past 43 years, much of it welcomed and embraced. However, we are witnessing a level of development within our neighborhood that is unprecedented and the result of outside developers who see our neighborhoods as ripe for the picking. With Jim Sant Lightner, the owner of this victory and made it known. And again it's I'm reiterating what everybody knows here that he wants to retire and live out the proceeds of the sale of his home. I understand the first offer entertained by Jim was out of Adams development, who is hoping to be the only offer on the table with what quote unquote appeared to be a generous offer of $1 million. However, Mr. Adams, owner of Adams development, recently purchased a much smaller home south of Jim's home for 1.6 million, which makes Jim's offer pale in comparison. Now, Mr. Adams has said that Jim's home would only be worth 600,000 with a historical designation. What a bit of backpedaling going on here. Nothing could be further from the truth. And those who are familiar with historically designated homes know that such a designation garners far more money than not. As a result, I am asking you to consider. Well, let me finish here. I'm sorry. I jumped ahead here and offered to top Mr. Adams bid by another developer was just presented, as we all heard, for 1.1 million. And as this story gains traction, it may be that other offers will be presented and considered by Jim, which would benefit him and in the process, preserve a gem of historical significance that has a place in Denver's history. As a result, I am asking you to consider granting this historical designation. Other districts in Denver are could conceivably be presented with a loss of historical status if such homes in those areas are considered commodities. For those developers who only whose only concern is to make as big of a profit margin as possible without regard for the home that is being scraped. Just to give some perspective, I had heard recently that approximately 4000 applications for scrapes were presented this past year throughout the whole of metro Denver, with only 41 applications for historical designations. And I just want to finish saying that the current owner will not be harmed, but on the contrary, will be in a much better position to negotiate a higher price for his home if it is given this historical designation it's deserving of. Thank you for listening. Marin, could you say your name for the record? Yeah. Mary Hendrick. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have David Zucker. Thank you. Councilmembers. My name is David Zucker. The developer has chosen to work closely with Jefferson Park neighbors. My office is two blocks away from this property on Decatur Street. I have no financial interest in the outcome of today's hearing, nor am I typically a fan of adverse historic designation. I've always called Jefferson Park the non NIMBY neighborhood. My experience is that residents have been accepting of it, in fact anxious to see change and have always pushed to ensure that this change positively affects the community. When our first condo project got underway as a result of an RFP for the vacant district, one police station, gang activity and gunshots were rampant. Working closely with the Jefferson Park neighbors to put eyes on the park and our subsequent River Clay project designed in concept on a sound on a Saturday morning around the dining room table of the neighborhood president's home. These are still among my most gratifying, professional experiences. Increasingly, and with sadness, I sense that the care and forethought that this neighborhood brought to each proposed project through the neighborhood's Land Use Committee is being lost to a developer land grab. The public, the great public realm, the historic homes, the modest, the walkability of Jefferson Park are at risk. But moreover, the community's cultural and economic diversity is being lost as this once affordable, historic single family homes are lost to redevelopment. Diversity has always been a hallmark of the neighborhood and a goal of the R.A., which formally published a dual language newsletter. Like other great historic urban neighborhoods like Highlands and Lower Downtown, the ability of the neighborhood to steward growth helps past current and future development. From my perspective and having spoken with neighbors and. Are no board members. There's a sense the neighborhood is under siege, that the stewardship of development, the Land Use Committee and the Arnaud itself are being overrun. As I understand it, the Arnaud board is currently working through bylaw changes to be protective of the residents voice. If the Anderson home is designated historic, allowing the Arnaud to effect amendments to this would be protective. But losing the diversity of an architectural, significant mixed income community hangs in the balance. As a supporter and denizen of the neighborhood, I hope to see it thrive, ensuring that this neighborhood retains diversity in architectural history. I'll end with the President. Words of the 25 neighborhood plan. On the first page, it states. Although the neighborhood generally welcomes new residents and businesses, it desires to protect and enhance the historic character of the diversity of its residents. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Zucker. Janice Stice. Good evening. My name is Janice Stice. I have lived in northwest Denver most of my life, currently at 3843 Vallejo Street. I am a founding board member of Sunnyside. United Neighbors. Inc and have been active in the neighborhood in neighborhood. Improvement for 25 years. I know the Jefferson Park neighborhood. Very well. And I support the designation of the Anderson House as a historic landmark. And I have no financial. Interest in this property or designation. I don't believe every structure built in the past 150 years should be. Saved simply because. It is old. But neither do we have to lose all of our history and leave us with block after block of characterless cubes. It's very easy. To simply scrape. Everything and use. Stock building plants to quickly throw up the kind of development we are see all over northwest. Denver. The Anderson House occupies only the southeast quadrant of the total developable site. This is an opportunity for a classy and interesting development. Restore the exterior and remodel. The. Interior. It could house two very nice living units or possibly offices, exercise facilities or party rooms. A more creative, farsighted. Developer could still build up to 15 townhomes on the. Balance of the site with the Anderson House as the centerpiece. This could be a win win for both the community and the property owner. This house is not a grand mansion. It is a fine example of local middle class Queensland architecture. It was the home of William Anderson. His somewhat transitory relationship to Alfred. Packer is not. What makes him important to history. What is important is that William Anderson, acting in self-defense and ultimately acquitted, found himself at the center of a story that led to purging. Corruption in the Denver courts and exposing the. Owners of the Denver Post for. Their yellow journalism, bribery and an unlawful. Partnership with city officials, something the current owners of the Denver Post are loath to acknowledge. Developers come and go, Oh, they'll make their big. Profits and most will move on. The people who have lived here for. Generations. And love our city and its vibrant history will still be here. Please don't make. Us regret what Denver may. Become a place full of nondescript boxes. A boring place with no texture, no memory. Days. You're 3 minutes ago. Thank you. Trevor Greco. Good evening. My name is Trevor Grech. I reside at 3284 Osceola in Denver. I'm also the vice president of West Highland Neighborhood Association. You should have in your packets a letter of support that came from a unanimous vote from our general membership. I also to personally support this designation. Tonight, I'd like to read to you a letter from Joel Judd, the former state representative from the fifth District. And he starts off in 1979 by in his 1893 home. And I'm going to fast forward a little bit in the interest of time. And he talks about his neighborhood getting rough and getting worse and worse. But I'll pick up from there as my corner lot backs onto a steep pitched, narrow alley, two houses sit on the far side of the alley, both owned by my neighbor Jim. Over the years, Jim's told me stories about the bigger house in which he lives. In 1900, a lawyer named Anderson lived there while representing Colorado's most famous cannibal, Alfred Packard. Anderson shot two of its best known newspaper magnates, Harriet Harman and Frederick Bonfils. Their newspaper, The Denver Post, survives as Denver's only Colorado leading newspaper. Well, I suspected Jim was pulling my leg. The story turns out to be true. Bonfils and TODMAN were renowned as extortionate scalawags and ink barrel blackmailers while they turned their attention to Anderson. He fought back. Ultimately, the jury acquitted Anderson. Jurors may have been enchanted by Anderson's repeated excuse me, rapid police statement. And immediately after the shooting, boys arrest me. I just shot a couple of skunks. Today, a developer, Nathan Adams, has a property under contract with plans to build 18 townhomes. While I look forward to meeting some new neighbors. I'm not keen on losing a historical touch stone with such a fine story to it. Fortunately, Jim says, some of other developers have figured out how to pay him just as much while retaining the Anderson House. Adams has put in a lot of time and money in planning this development. I'd hate to see him lose his investment, but not as much as I'd hate to lose the Anderson House. I'm hoping the council votes yes. Thank you for your service. Thank you. Have Rebecca Hunt. Good evening, President Herndon and ladies and gentlemen of the City Council. I'm Professor Rebecca Hunt, a historian of Northwest Denver, just completing a book on the ethnic communities in this neighborhood. And I have lived at 2502 West 32nd Avenue for 22 years. Just finished four years as president of Highland United Neighbors. My only interest in this property is historical. I'm here to support saving the sterling example of our north side and of Denver's architecture. I'm also here because I know firsthand that preservation can pay. In 2014, I spearheaded a hostile designation of the Daniel Lucy House at the corner of 35th and Navajo Street. Daniel Lucy, by the way, was a ten year member of this esteemed body from 1990 to 1929. That designation never made it to this chamber because an enlightened developer, knowing what it meant to the neighborhood, chose to renovate the house and now has it on the market for $1.2 million. That is independent of the money she's going to get for a malibu Modern and an 82 that are also on that property. She'll do okay. She was enlightened. It would have been so simple here if the developer had been as enlightened as the woman I dealt with. We know that there is another developer, at least one out there who's interested in this property. We know that Jim Sun Lightner will not lose. He will still get his retirement nest egg. Preserving significant old houses is right for keeping Denver original and special. Preserving significant old houses is good business. I therefore ask you to approve the historic designation of 2329 Eliot Street. This is right for Northwest Denver. It's right for Jefferson Park. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the Denver City Council. Thank you, Miss Hunt. All right. Our last five speakers, Amy Zimmer and Leo Darnell. Charlene Tebow. Tebow, Joe Bowman and Pat Devore. And Amy Zimmer. You can begin your remarks. Thank you. Good evening, council members. My name is Amy Zimmer. I am a member of the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission. The commission is made up of historians and architects who are qualified to determine the historic and architectural significance of potential landmark structures. The Commission held a public hearing on October 6th, 2015. Hearing lasted nearly 4 hours and included testimony from approximately 35 individuals. The majority of those testifying in favor of designation were nearby neighbors whose own property would be directly impacted by this development. While those most of those testifying against the designation were more developers and business persons, many of whom who supplied addresses outside of the city and county of Denver. Further, the Landmark Preservation Commission questioned a petition submitted by the developer, Mr. Adams, which include mostly names from outside of Denver or even Colorado. While the applicant submitted a petition with over 200 names of signatures from people who lived in Jefferson Park and the Highlands area, the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission is tasked with to turn, determining whether the property under review meets at least two of several criteria outlined under the categories of history, architecture and geography. The Commission found that the Anderson House did indeed meet two such criteria, including history Part C direct association with a person or persons who has had influence on society. This is clearly met by William Anderson's association with Bonfils and Tillman, owners of the Denver Post. While Anderson's association with Alfred Packer may be negligible, his association with Bonfils and Hammon is indisputable. And those men, as owners of the newspaper, clearly had a direct influence on society. Landmark Commission also agreed that the Anderson House meets criterion under architectural significance, which is that it embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type. This home is an excellent example of the Queen Anne style, especially as it was adapted to Denver. The home also retains its historic integrity with numerous original architectural details. And I also want to point out that the packet that was passed out to you earlier this evening was also passed out to the Landmark Commission. And the examples cited by the developer of Queen Anne's in the neighborhood were actually determined by the commission not to in many cases, not to actually be quite Nance. Finally, although it was not specified in the application during deliberations, several commission members also noted that the House would have qualified for geographic. Significance for being prominently sited in a well-known structure in the neighborhood. We have heard a lot of prop about property rights this evening. So I ask you to please keep in mind the property rights of neighbors whose property will be directly affected by the act, by the development of the site. And more importantly, I ask you to please vote in keeping with the recommendations of the historians and architects who make up the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission and designate the Anderson House as a landmark to preserve this link with Denver's colorful past in a neighborhood that is quickly losing all traces of its history. Thank you. Thank you, Lee O'Donnell. Good evening. My name is Leo Darnell. I live at. 3536 Stewart Street in northwest Denver. I'm in Council District one. I'm the assistant dean of. The College of Architecture and Planning at the University of Colorado, Denver. I'm a member of the American Institute of Architecture. I'm also a trainer. I also am trained in study urban design. I would like to encourage. The council to designate the Anderson home. As a structure for landmark. Status. I'm here to speak to you. About why it is important to save historic and specifically this historically significant home. In part delivers a remarkable city because of its collection of unique city neighborhoods. And I've had the fortune to live in several neighborhoods, including. Congress, Park, Ballpark, Rhino and now Highlands. Each neighborhood has a unique vibe and a distinct sense of place. Think how different. Capitol Hill is from LoDo. Both are exceptional places. However, when you're in Capitol Hill, you know you're not in LoDo or Walsh Park. The buildings are different. The streets and the people are different. These neighborhoods were built at different times and often for different purposes. Denver is currently. Experiencing a boom in development. This is a great thing for our region for many reasons. For example, more people have jobs. The real estate market is thriving and architects are working again. That being said, it appears that our haste to build more housing we are jeopardizing one thing that makes Denver a great city to live and work in. We are losing the once. Distinct, unique qualities of. Our neighborhood. Much of the multifamily housing being built or. Recently built. Has no contextual relationship to the neighborhoods they are being built in. The same buildings that are going up in Jefferson Park are going up and low. High. And the Golden Triangle. Are also going up in Dallas, Phenix, Houston and Tampa. I believe this is destroying the sense of place as a distinct neighbor, as distinct neighborhoods that have long been inherent to Denver. I'm not anti-development or growth. I want to see neighborhoods embracing smart growth mixed with buildings that speak. To our history. I understand the city's. Neighborhood plan for Jefferson Park and the other area of change called out around the park for new development. However, I have heard many times Jefferson Park wants to save some of its historical structures. The Anderson. House is one of. The extraordinary well preserved homes or could be. That gives Jefferson Park a sense of. Place and needs to be preserved. I live in a similar house. That is one of the original structures in my neighborhood. I bought it because it contributes to the sense of place that is a collection of buildings that represent my neighborhood. In following this preservation story. I understand the homeowner of Jefferson Park wants to sell to a developer who would move, remove that the historic home and build multifamily family housing. I think this would be a huge loss for the park, the neighborhood and for Denver. I believe there's there there is another option that would allow. Him to make similar money on the Anderson House without destroying it. Mr. Darnell, you're here. 3 minutes is up. Thank you. Thank you. Charlene. Thibault. And you have 6 minutes. Good evening, members of council. I'm Charlene Tebo. I reside at 1475 Monaco Parkway. And I am here this evening to ask you to please support the designation of 2329 Elliot, known to all of you as the Anderson House, Mr. Sunlight and his house. But to me it is known as Barbara and Fred's house. My sister and her husband purchased the home in 1974 when Jefferson Park was an extremely blighted area. The home was a boarding home, and we all we were just pretty dumbfounded that Barbara and Fred purchased this home. But when you got into the home, which I do have pictures of, that they restored, you could see the beautiful architecture behind these boarded up walls, the impeccable foundation of the home. It is it far surpasses anything that you will see in modern structures. The retaining wall that most of you have seen in some of the pictures, my sister and her husband never had to alter or repair that retaining wall. That in itself speaks to the foundation of the home. But more than anything, from 1974 until my sister's death in 1987, she lovingly, along with her husband, restored this home to its natural beauty. They did so without contractors. They did this of their own volition, not to ensure that the integrity was kept and which they did do. Barbara wanted to do. She wanted to have the home. She actually had applied for a historic designation, but because of her diagnosis of cancer, was not able to follow through. My former brother in law is the one that sold to Mr. John Lightner in 1989 when he remarried. If my sister was alive today, she would still be in the home. It would have its historic designation and we would not be in this lengthy proceeding this evening. I ask you with all urgency, please, not in the memory of my sister, but what is right for our history to preserve this home. When Barbara was going to get the historic designation. I remember her telling me, she goes, Sure. Do you know that the the attorney for Alfred Packer owned this home? And I said, Wow, Barbara. I said, That's amazing. I said, Well, you know, C.U. has named their cafeteria after Alfred Packer. And she goes, Yeah, she said, So I'm going to seek historic designation for it. And to this is not this is nothing gruesome in our history. It's just history. Would we would we tear down the Ford Theater because Abraham Lincoln was shot there? No. And right down to in Philadelphia, there is an annual festival there. And they have a tent. And this tent is entitled the Alfred Parker Memorial Dining Hall Serving Humanity since 1874. So this is far reaching, not in just the city of Denver or even the state of Colorado, but this is known nationwide. And it's also it has also I'm sorry, it gets a little motivational, but this has created the dialog citywide as well. I have a resident from Windsor Gardens, Linda Hargrave, who wrote a letter to council saying last summer I volunteered. This is in part last summer. I volunteer that this historic Denver slash discover Denver booth at a community fair in Jefferson Park, an area of the city that I was not familiar with. I was very impressed with the number of Jefferson Park residents who stopped by our booth to share information about their historic Jefferson Park properties and to express their enthusiasm and support for historic preservation in their neighborhood. Many of them also expressed their deep concern about massive redevelopment projects currently underway in Jefferson. Some park that have already resulted in the demolition of numerous historic properties and is changing the character of entire neighborhood blocks. Again, I go back to 1974 and this was not the popular thing to do, but my sister saw what history meant and what it means to this city, and this is why we need to preserve this home. And in the testimony that I have heard, it sounds like there are many alternatives to preserving the home plus moving forward with development. I ask you, city council, please do designate not the Anderson house, but Barbara Fred's house as historic designation. Thank you. Thank you. Joe Bowman. Hello. My name is Joe. My name is Joseph. By then I have lived at 2643 West 23rd Avenue in Jefferson Park since 27. Longtime listener, first time caller. I'm a former vice president of Jefferson Park, and other neighbors work closely with developers as a member of the Land Use Committee around the newsletter for a number of years . I also recently worked to enhance property rights through legislation in Colorado. I have no direct financial stake in the outcome of this hearing today. However, I live in and have a stake in the future of the community. I'm asking you to preserve this home not just for myself, but to maintain an important landmark in history for the future of my neighborhood and city. And I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to take a quick step and repeat a little bit of what people said. But I want to say this. There are many landmark properties in Colorado that remind remind us the story is important or that our story is important to remember but not flattering of our past. Ludlow's Stone Creek Camp, M.A. Even the opium riots where numerous Asian Americans died in Denver, or all stories we must keep so that we do not repeat our past mistakes. However, the Andersen house is not one of those stories. It is the story of a man who caught who was caught in a small stream of events, was targeted by the social elite, and saw his life transformed into a hammer used to purge corruption from Denver courts. I also want to just note that the developer who has already brought forward this alternative option has talked with Ken Brewer at CPD and they verified that 15 units are possible in the property as area after area of Denver is renamed and their story is retold. We are quickly losing the story as a tie as to the character that many have come here seeking. Celebra, rhino, LoDo, Lodi, Uptown, Midtown, Ballpark. All of these names have been coined to reshape the past of neighbor of a neighborhood and the zoning crafted to prime it for change. But even in these places, landmarking has been a tool to connect a new generation of Denver sites to the good, the bad, the ugly inspiring of Denver's rich cultural heritage. Whether it's Matty Silk's brothel, the Molly Brown house, the Quail Chase House, and Thomas Hornsby Feral House, both similar in stature to what we ask, what we are asking today, or the William W Anderson House. These homes preserve the stories of our neighborhoods and our culture so that they are not only not forgotten, but can serve as lessons for the future. The Anderson House represents a true story, not of a tycoon we glorify for achievements while whitewashing their business practices, but of a well-known lawyer who found himself influencing the upper echelon of society after a dispute with the Denver Post owners that led to his becoming a symbol of a middle class disgruntled by corruption in the court systems. Jefferson Park residents have likely had more development going on in their backyard than most Denver sites have experienced. They have worked closely with developers to try and make it a welcome addition to our community. Unfortunately, as we have heard, the development company in this instance has shut down lines of communication instead of committing to them. It is equally unfortunate that its actions to force and Stack of Japan has compel the board to rewrite its bylaws , designed in part by myself believing in the magnanimity of people. Luckily, the applicants have worked to find a solution that is a win win win for the community owner and potential developer for this home. Much as we have done in the past. The deal creates a sizable payment to the owner, allows for increased density for the city, revenue potential for a developer, and preserves the community's past and character. How this company chose to communicate it could have been part of the solution. Was Anderson perfect? No. Did he take the law into his own hands? One columnist said. So is his story and his influence on individuals a power important to Denver? Yes. William W Anderson was well known in Denver before his run in with the publisher The Denver Post. But story became legend, the target of yellow journalism after its argument with the Denver Post owners over his brief power of attorney with Alfred Packard led to a shooting of them in what a jury called self-defense. In a subsequent trial that led to a Supreme Court case, a grand jury hearing and the eventual conviction of one post owner. A magistrate and the court bailiff for bribing the jury against him. As you have heard. This story was covered in the local national papers over three years and helped purge corruption from the West Denver courts and reframe the perception of the city as one of law and order. That is a story verifiable through any impartial historian you might put on the task. The Landmark Commission, a panel of real historians and architects, have approved this designation and been adamant that the architect architecture fits undeniably the criteria. Members of the Commission have commented the story is as good as any in Denver, and they even opined on whether to take time to also use geography to designate it. John Olson. Tom Noel. Thomas Carr, who is the senior staff archeologist at History, Colorado. Mark Barn. Joel Judge Dennis Gallagher, Brad Evans, Michael Kiley, David Zucker. And over 400 Denver residents have asked have asked for this designation and believe that it has. Value in the home and its history to the community, the economy and the people of Denver. Today, there are two options on the table for city council to vote on. One is created by a company that invested in a zero sum game to maximize its profits at the expense of all parties involved. The other is a Nash equilibrium, a deal brokered with the Jefferson Park residents, current owner, potential developer and all residents in mind that maximizes the benefits to the location's future homeowners and all members of Denver community. We, the residents of Jefferson Park of District One and the Denver metro area supporting this landmark would ask you to choose a second option. By doing so, you will preserve an important landmark only the second in the works town of Highland. You will ensure our story, a story that recalls a city of near lawlessness in battle with yellow journalism and corruption that, through a series of nationally publicized events, changed the city and the perception of it is not forgotten. While Los Alamos Development LLC will likely mean a tax write off with a loss to our community if this property is not designated will be irreparable. Please choose to preserve 2329 Elliott the William Anderson house as the landmark of. Denver's past approving your 6 minutes. Thank you. Very much. Thank you. Last speaker, Pat Gaither. I apologize for the fact and you have said you have 6 minutes as well. Well, I won't need 6 minutes because a lot of everything that's been said is in what I was going to say. I Pat Duffy, 29th and Raleigh Street. I'm a 38 year resident of Northwest Denver, and we're in our second home. We have chosen to live in northwest Denver. A lot of it is because of the history and the character that our neighborhood has. I have with me a book that a lot of people in our neighborhood own. It's Rediscovering Northwest Denver, Its History, Its People, Its Landmarks. By Ruth Louise Lieber. Lieber. She has passed away, but she grew up in this community and wrote about many of the of the spectacular homes and and spectacular places in our community. She has a whole three pages about the story that you've already heard. But one of the last paragraph, the grand jury did not find them guilty of bribery. And a third trial was ordered for Anderson at that one. The jury, obviously influenced by the publicity, as well as the deviousness of in the previous two cases, acquitted him. And Anderson continued to live his respectable life in his tall house, on the tall hill until his death. This this book isn't a marked today. Houses that have disappeared from northwest Denver. All of these marks. So we hope that that this is not a house that we're going to lose. The history and the story. Rediscovering Northwest Denver. Ruth Ruth Weaver says, I have long been interested in the history of the northwest sector of the city where I have lived since I was about ten years old, when I would fantasize about the intriguing houses I passed on my way to Edison's school. I have come to some conclusions on the completion of this book, which was written in the mid-seventies. The first is obvious that Northwest Denver is a rare treasury of Victorian and turn of the century houses still well-loved and well-kept. The only problem I have tried to present is the one a preservation of the traditions, the homes, the trees, gardens, views, beauty and pride that make up northwest Denver. Much of this history and the older homes is why my husband and I chose Northwest. Denver's our home. Please learn the Anderson House to be landmarks so that your grandkids can see what made this area so special. Once torn down, it is gone forever. Like the yellow markers in this book. Thank you for your time. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions and members of council and colleagues. I would just ask that we focus on the questions and not bleed over to comments. There will be an opportunity for comments later on. Councilwoman can eat you up. Thank you, Mr. President. I have two questions. I'm guessing the first many of my colleagues are wondering about. We've heard several opinions about what's possible in this site. Did by any chance CPD themselves weigh in on that question? I. Barbara Stockman, Steely. This is kind of zoning on the fly. So I did go over during the speakers and talk to one of the zoning planners who's working late tonight. And it's hard to speculate on a prospective project that's not in front of you. But this site has GMU three you oh three zoning. There is a requirement in that zoning for a 50 foot wide zone lot at the street and a build to requirement for 60% of the front of the of the building to be within 10 to 20 feet. So. So if the property the property is currently proposed to be developed as one zone lot. So if it continued to be developed as one zoned lot, there would not be an issue with the 50 foot minimum with the build to perhaps would be an issue. There is some compensation in the zoning for a block sensitive setback. There's also some provisions for bill to through the administrative adjustment which may or may not apply here depending on the requirements. There's also a historic preservation hardship in the zoning. And then, of course, there would be variances. And a historic preservation designation is a very typical hardship case. At the Board of Adjustment, we often go to the Board of Adjustment, write letters to the Board of Adjustment, supporting those cases. That's probably the best information that I could provide. But we often see cases where there are variances for historic properties to accommodate development, and this could be a case that would meet that. That is very helpful. Thank you. My second question is for legal. One of the speakers mentioned that there was a higher standard of extraordinary importance for non owner applications. I've been combing the ordinance. I find one reference to extraordinary and it's an in or statement just in the criteria. I don't find the reference mentioned by one of speakers. So I want to ask our attorneys, is there indeed a higher standard for non owner designated in the statute or in may be in case law that I can't see in front of me that would would comport with the statement that was made. Adam Hernandez Assistant City Attorney Councilwoman You're correct. The only reference to extraordinary, I believe, is in the history criteria where it states to have historical civic significance. The structure or district shall be 30 years, 30 or more years old, or have extraordinary importance to the historical development of Denver and Shell. And then it lists three criteria underneath there. And no, there is not a higher threshold for non owner. Initiated designations. And that extraordinary. I just want to clarify, I heard you correctly that it's in or it's not in and criteria has to be one of those or the other. Not both necessarily. Correct. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Kenny G. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Nathan Adams. If I can ask you a couple of questions, please. So just to be clear, if we were to choose to designate this property, would you develop? Would I develop around the existing home. With it and around it? I would not. I've vetted the zoning. And contrary to what Barbara has stated, the property would be designated historic with its own zoned lot. The remainder of frontage would be 36 feet. You need a minimum of 50 feet of width to do any semblance of build form outside of an urban house or a duplex or an accessory dwelling unit. We show that really clearly on page ten of the book that was handed out. And the other question is, and this Levinsky from Historic Denver mentioned that you are unwilling to meet with them. What is that correct? We had a conversation via phone. She had talked about potential compromises. I even went so far as to offer her that if they would like the house after I purchased it, they'd be welcomed to the home. It wasn't designated or proposed to be designated on its geographical significance. She told me really clearly that would be of no interest and I opted not to have a meeting. Okay. Is there anyone here from the CPD that can, given which version of the zoning might be correct? Right. Hi. I'm Barbara Stockman Seeley, principal planner and CPT for Landmark Preservation. There's no requirement that a historic property be a separate zone lot. And we've we review projects all the time that have historic buildings with larger construction on the back. So I'm not really clear on what the. That there wouldn't be a zoning requirement for it to be a separate zone. So I'm confused by that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Ortega. Barbara, if you could just come back. So that was my question about whether the historic designation would in any way, shape or form hinder the development site from being one's own lot. I mean, if you wanted to separate it out and sell it separately, then it would need to be a separate lot. But if you were going to incorporate it into the development into one project, it would be one sunlight. So as if it was only be closed with the two properties adjacent to one another. And the notwithstanding the amendment that we did last week, this would still. Allow it to be one. Zone. Correct. That's my understanding, yes. Any clarification on that from the city attorney? So I'm unclear right now if this property is currently one zone lot four 2329 Eliot, and then the adjacent property is another zone lot. My understanding that a. Parcel or. An owner can always come in for a zone lot amendment. Granted, it would have to meet the requirements of the zoning code in order to to have a valid zone lot of amendment there are. You could go through a variance process if it did not meet certain criteria. But as Barbara stated. I don't believe just because a. Structure is designated that would. Preclude any sort of. Zone lot of amendment on. The property. So Adam, in your experience with the Board of Adjustment Process, is there typically greater, I don't know, leniency, I guess, for lack of a better word, for historic properties? I would say there's there's not one way or the other. I would just say that there is an actual specific criteria for a variance dealing with historic properties. And I think by analogy, it's kind of easier to explain if if a house was in a historic district and. The zoning limited the height to, you know, theoretically 25 feet. But the context of the district had houses at like 50 feet. That could be a criteria for a variance in addition to all the rest of the criteria that variance needs to satisfy. And I just have one last question for you, Barbara. What is the height limitation under the current zoning for this these two properties or this particular property? 40 feet. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. Is. Is Mr. Garcia still here? He's not. Oh. Well, my question would be only able to be answered by him, so I guess I don't have a question. Thank you, Councilman Sussman and Councilman Black. So I have a question for our city attorney. I believe in the ordinance. The city council is charged with an additional criteria, which is to look at the owner's wishes. Is that correct? That is correct. It might be helpful just if. I was to read a city council's criteria. Right now it's in. Section 30, Dash 510 action by City Council upon receipt of the recommendations transmitted by the Preservation Commission. The City Council may, by ordinance, designate property as a structure for preservation or a district for preservation. Due consideration shall be given to the written views of owners of affected property, and the City Council shall hold public hearings on any proposed structure for preservation or district for preservation designation. Thank you. Can I ask two more questions? I'm wondering in the Jefferson Park neighborhood how I think I've heard it reference that there's only one house in the neighborhood that is designated right now. And I'm just wondering, with all the interest in this house, are other people applying for designation in the neighborhood, Barbara? Have you had applications from other homeowners in Jefferson Park? We have not had other applications. And is it true there's just one at the moment in Jefferson Park that has been designated? That's correct. Thank you. And I have one final question. Is someone here from the Jefferson Park Neighborhood Association? Yes. Oh, and we didn't hear about the the vote of the neighborhood association. And I know that in the report that Barbara did, it mentioned reaching out to a number of neighborhood organizations. Right. I'd be glad to explain that. Oh. Let's see. It was September. What was it, Nathan? What was the date? September. You know the date. September 8th, I believe. Tuesday night we had a a normal board meeting and, uh, Mr. Adams had, has brought his cohorts from his business office to attend all of that. See, there were nine votes. There are seven votes that are opposed. And those seven votes all had addresses of 28, 99, I guess it's 29th Avenue. Uh, that's a rather small office. And from our perspective, well, these people were also l l and the truth be known is that they didn't represent the neighborhood. And so Mr. Adams here at the very last minute called for a vote. In fact, he forced a vote in which nine people voted in opposition. Seven people voted to abstain. And I'm one of those I'm a board member and we are all board members. The reason that we abstained is because the board had made a decision that we did not want to have this conflict coming into business. So we all abstained. And so the fact is that there were a total of nine votes who voted in opposition to historic preservation. Now, what has transpired since then is that the Jefferson Park Board has signed it necessary to consult with the city attorney to tighten up our regulations. And on the front page of the Jefferson Park News, the last one for November. It states specifically that we're going to go to a vote for the specific purpose of avoiding a developer, stacking a deck with his employees and voting in opposition to what the interest is of the general neighborhood. Now, the people who are really considered to be voting members are residents, businesses. This did not represent a clean vote. This represented and then they paid lation of a vote. Anything else? And Mr. Booth is Mr. else. And could you say your name for the record? Yes. Sorry. Did you say your name for the record? Did you say your name for the record, sir? Just as you answer the question, we just needed you to state your name again for the record. Oh. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Jerry Olson. Yep. That's me. Okay. I'm not sure if it's relevant, but why didn't you go revisit the vote if you felt like it wasn't fair? Oh, yes. As a matter of fact, there was a very large meeting that the board called for our last general membership meeting, and we must have had 50 to 75 people present. Now, all the voting members voted to continue the vote until December, but we were thrilled, actually, that we got 50 to 75 people present at the station, and now we can begin a good dialog with people in the neighborhood, and then we'll go ahead and finalize revisions to the voting rules in Jefferson Park. Yeah. Jason. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Had a one question for maybe zoning or for legal. I'm not sure who can answer it, but the bill that we're voting on says that this is a bill for an ordinance designating 2323 West 23rd Avenue, formally addressed as 2329 Elliot Street. When did the address change? And when I was doing my round of. You can answer this or Adam. When I was researching this, I discovered that no longer in the assessor's record is there a 2329 Elliott Street? It doesn't appear any more, although I can click on it and pull it up. And there is no 23, 23 West 23rd Avenue address in the city. That's over when 23rd becomes Water Street. How? Why does it have this address? It's nowhere near the house. I can't really answer why it has that address. I just know that partway through this process, and I believe it was after the city council approved the alley abandonment that the assessor records showed all of the parcels combined with a new address. Okay, Adam, what is the impact of us saying if we were to approve this designating 23, 23, West 23rd Avenue, which is nowhere near this building, if you look in the bill. It actually gives a legal description, which would be the actual designation. And as Barbara said, I think it's just that the addresses have not been updated as a result of, you know, elimination processes. Under our street, numbering our address, numbering convention. This could not be 2323 Mar 23rd. So that's my goofy question of the night and I'm a little uncomfortable going forward with with uncertainty on that. Mr. President. But my second question, I think is for the woman from the Lamar Commission, was it Amy Zimmer? I know you had represented that you did not believe it was. I don't know if this is your opinion or the landmark commission, but that the houses on River Drive actually typified Queen Anne. And I'm looking at all the pictures. And just as during the testimony, I called up your website, the commission website, and I discovered that the Queen Anne Bed and breakfast on Tremont Street, which is in the Clement's historic district, which is a dominant queen and Italianate style district, that those houses and the Queen Anne bed and breakfast itself do look like all these houses on River Drive. So I'm wondering why you would tell us that, that you didn't believe that the river drive homes look like Queen Anne's? Sure. It's possible that the packet you have has been updated since the one that we were presented at our landmark hearing. But the one that we were presented with had a number of houses not only on River Drive, which, yes, is many Queen Anne's, but also just around the neighborhood in various parts of Jefferson Park. And they included everything from Denver squares to classic cottages, neither of which are Queen Anne's. And the developer was representing those as examples of Queen Anne's around Jefferson Park, not necessarily River Drive, but around the neighborhood. That's fair. Thank you. Because I did drive River Drive during my research into this. And I did know that there are a lot of different styles on that street, but there are certainly a number of Queen Anne's. Yes, there are. Queen Anne's on River Drive. River Drive is not designated historic right now. Okay. Thank you. And what impressed me about that was that these all look more like Queen Anne's than the William Anderson House. The the commission did determine, including the expert advice or opinions of the architects and the historians on the commission, that the Anderson House is indeed a Queen Anne style. Okay. And do you know who Queen Anne was? We've been talking about it all night. I just thought maybe. Yes. A somebody who has absolutely nothing to do with Denver. Okay. I just another name on the stuff. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Thank. Councilman Flynn. Councilman New. Amy, could you let me ask you one question, please? A reverend I represent over. Here you. I. Represent Denver District ten, and we have just the largest percentage of historic homes and districts in all of Denver. And I all during my campaign. And I just had the wonderful opportunity to travel and walk through all these neighborhoods and talk to a lot of the property owners. And they convince me that their property values were significantly enhanced by historic preservation designation and it did not decrease. And I just wondered if that's the experience that the Landmark Commission has. That historic designation does increase property value and does not decline in property value. Yes, that is correct. We have found numerous examples where the historic designation does indeed increase the property value. This covers for several reasons, including the cachet of having a landmarked structure, and also because the error also occurs because designated structures or structures that are contributing to historic districts are required to go undergo design review under the Denver Landmark Commission. And this often results in them having better design and design that that is often more better thought out than properties that do not undergo that design review, which can add to the property value. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilman. Any other questions from the council? Seen none. That concludes the public hearing. Now, moving on to comments and I will just say, colleagues, recognizing that we have another public hearing and a impending blizzard coming. If we could just take the opportunity, if you could be succinct, that would be great. If not, feel free. It's your privilege. I just want to put that out there. Councilman Flynn, you're up. Thank you. We could filibuster and wait out the blizzard if you know, that could be another choice. Thank you. I think by far the most interesting thing that I learned through all this and is that no one ever told me in my 35 years as a newspaper journalist that I could shoot an editor and be acquitted. So I see John Murray furiously taking notes on that. But other than that, I have to say that I am I am completely unimpressed with the case for designating this property. I believe that it fails on both criteria that the Commission recommended. The facts are that this House, not Mr. Anderson, but this House and Mr. Anderson, in fact, has they have no direct or substantial association with any person who had any influence on society at all. Mr. Anderson was not Alfred Packer's lawyer. He was a 48 hour fraud down in Canyon City. He never filed a document. He never represented Mr. Packer. None of the events in the story. Very interesting story. None of the events took place on his property. It's interesting to me that if that if Mr. Anderson's house is worthy of landmarking because of this episode, this brief episode, Endeavor's history, the home of the key figure whose being shot gave rise to this. His house still stands and his house is not a Denver landmark. Harry Tavern's house still sits on Humboldt Street. It's in the Humboldt Island historic district. But it itself is not a a landmark. The house next door is but not Harry Truman's house. Why are we designating the house of the man who shot him when his house and he's a much more important figure in Denver isn't designated the support for this. I just think it's exceedingly thin. It doesn't make it on architecture either. It is not even a remarkable example of Queen Anne's style. I struggled over this because it was it might be well known that during the campaign I had taken a position that I would be very reluctant to do to approve a designation of a landmark property without the owner's consent. And even though the ordinance doesn't require it, I personally would have a higher bar. I'm very relieved, learning that the ordinance doesn't establish that as a basis that I don't have to rely on a higher bar at all. If this were an application filed by Mr. Sun Lightner to designate his own House, I would be voting no on this. I just don't find that it that it meets any of those criteria. If we relied on the stories we heard tonight, there's probably no 30 year old structure in this city that we couldn't find some connection to somebody who lived there once who did something remarkable. Maybe even my own house, which is over 30 years old. So I think the best reason of all that the council has to back away from this dispute in North Denver, which I think goes beyond historic structures. And those issues has been given to us by the broker who found another potential buyer. Because there is. Allegedly another offer on the table and that there is no condition on this. It is not contingent on achieving landmark status. I think the best course of action for the Council is to turn this down and let the market decide, let the owner decide between these two between these two offers. I think the second offer definitely shows that Mr. Swan Leitner has choices and it's not dependent on landmark designation. On the other hand, if we approve the landmark designation, we are making that choice for the owner. We are telling him he cannot accept the first offer and he has to go with the second offer or look for others. And I don't think the strong arm of government should be used in this case. And with that, Mr. President, I think that's the summation of my remarks. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you. Councilman Flynn. That's an interesting take on on the second offer. I, too, am not particularly impressed with the idea of this hostile designation, as I had mentioned in committee. It's interesting that we want to designate the home of somebody who I now learned wasn't associated with a cannibal. Probably, but certainly that was associated with an attempted murder and. I think it was Mr. Soderbergh who mentioned very discreetly that we've had a lot of interest. We've had a lot of issues with shooters that are really very tragic. And the idea that we would historically designate the home of a shooter doesn't doesn't feel right in that any sense to me. We do designate the places where people were shot. I mean, we have the San Creek massacre. We don't honor the home of the people who shot them. We honor the place where they died. The Ludlow Massacre. I think Mrs. Thibeault mentioned the Ford Theater, the places where people might have died. When I mention this question committee, the city person said, Well, he wasn't successful. And I thought, Well, is that the new criteria? We can designate the place of a person who tried to shoot somebody but wasn't successful. It just didn't seem right to me. And what else does it seem right to me? As I have great respect for the Landmark Preservation Society in the historic Denver Historic Society, but actually learning for the first time tonight that the connection with Alfred Parker is unknown and kind of loose and not too sure and maybe could make. And yet, in the document that the LPC recommends for historic status, it says, Let me just try to find this. Anderson's association with Alfred Packer is interesting and significant historically. It seems like if it can't even be discerned what his relationship was. That's perhaps. A little bit. Overstated that it was significant historically when we're not even sure what the what it was. I heard so many people tonight speaking very passionately about historic pieces of property, and I understand that. But I heard more often a fear of development. And it it also. It it resounded with me. That historic designation is important, but it shouldn't be done just to keep development out. That's why I was going to ask Mr. Garcia the question. I'm sorry. I just wanted to clear up. But he did say that he'd lose parking for his property if this project were to go through. And I wondered, is was that the reason why he became one of the people who filed? He even said at the end that he was against this project, which was a little unclear to me. But I assume that what he means that it was against he is against the development but did not speak at all about the his history. I heard people say often that they spoke against development or neighborhood is overrun with developers about how much money is happening. The neighborhood is under siege by developers there. It was a recurring theme that I hear and I can understand that you might want to unite, not want to lose something that you feel is historic . But I didn't hear that as often as I heard. We just didn't want this one this place developed so the are and they again though I think Councilman Flynn's idea that the offer is an interesting place that whether we designate it if we don't designate it, the owner can choose between the two. It was it was difficult for me to hear sort of real estate negotiations, which seemed to me to be such private matters, to be a matter of public discussion about what I will buy, what I won't buy, or whether I should take the offer. My neighbors think I should take this offer. My neighbors think I shouldn't take that offer. That just made me itch that my neighbors would discuss real estate negotiations that I was having at a club in a public forum. So I will be voting against historical designation. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I really appreciate it. Some of my colleagues comments. But I, I think I want to go to the statute. My my former colleague, Jenny Raab, taught me a lesson, which is to always go back to the statute. And so I want to be really clear about the criteria I think we're evaluating before I comment on them. Folks have raised this word significant, and I just want to be very clear. The ordinance does not require that the individual have a significant influence on society, only that there's a substantial association between the person and the property . Right. He lived in the house for many, many years. He owned the house for many, many years. So substantial association, I think is fairly established. The question then is with a person who had influence on society, that part of the ordinance does not state substantial, just says influence. So an influence doesn't even say positive, could be negative, could be questionable as we're experiencing tonight. So so I just want to be really clear that the ordinance doesn't require that there be a substantial influence. And I feel like many of the speakers tonight imply that that was a criteria. So that's why I went there. Secondly, distinguishing characteristic of an architectural style doesn't say extraordinary, doesn't say best in class. So so I think the ordinance sets a little bit lower bar than I heard, with all due respect. And I heard my colleague evaluating it and then I heard some of the speakers wanting us to evaluate it on. So then my question becomes, does it meet those criteria? And then there's the question of taking into account the owners views. So, so that's where I'm at in terms of the bar that I think is set. And in this regard to me, the case has been made that we really do have a case of an distinguishing characteristic. And one of the things that's interesting about anything historical is that the fewer there are of something, even if it was once ordinary, the more special it becomes, right? So there are many, many things at a certain point in time that are very typical. And then as they disappear, the few remaining specimens become more special to us in terms of their importance to reflecting a time. So for me, in fact, it's ordinariness or vernacular is is not at all a counterpoint to the potential that it is distinguishing characteristic style that we don't have everywhere all the time in Denver anymore because of change. I will say that although I did hear a little bit of anti-development sentiment tonight and I'm not one to I don't think anyone's really ever called me anti-development in my term here in the council, I tend to be pretty supportive of change. I tend to be pretty supportive of density. So but I the fact that I may have different views about development with some of the folks that are speaking or in the audience tonight doesn't mean that I change how I evaluate the criteria. So so for me, that's how I'm going through these standards. The last piece that I, you know, in terms of weighing this against the views of the of the owner, I do like Councilman Flynn mentioned, believe that there is a higher standard when you're dealing with someone's home. The last designation we had before us was a church, which I think is a different piece of civic, civic fabric. But when you're dealing with someone's home, I do think that it requires a higher standard. So, you know, looking through the materials and hearing the testimony, to me, what I did not hear is that this is an economically infeasible property to redevelop, and that is the language the ordinance use uses in other areas. It asks. In the review process. Is it economically infeasible to redevelop or reuse? And I did not hear either in the written testimony or in the spoken testimony tonight that it was infeasible. And so I regret the burden that that it's going to place. And I acknowledge the burden. But I also believe that there is this ordinance exists for the preservation of historic fabric in the city. So weighing those criteria, looking for, you know, a case to be made that it's not economically feasible, I did not find that. And so on that basis and and actually without considering the counteroffer, that's not in my opinion, that's not a piece of this right. Analysis. So that was not just for the record, not a part of my analysis. I will be voting to support designation tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman and Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I believe in historic preservation. Many of you may remember the magnificent Republic Building downtown. My grandfather was a dentist there for many decades, and that was a tragedy when that beautiful building was torn down. Thankfully, historic. Denver Dana Crawford. All the preservationists have worked hard to save some of our buildings, and I really appreciate the work they've done. But at the same time, I do believe in private property rights and to designate a structure without the owner's permission, I do believe a higher hurdle has to be cleared. The landmark preservation looked at the Andersen house and evaluated their criteria. We just learned that the ordinance charges City Council with the additional criteria of considering the owner's wishes. So in this case, the owner is opposed. And in reviewing the other criteria, I don't think that a strong case has been made. I, I agree with Councilman Flynn on that. The occupant did have some notoriety, but he didn't have an influence on society. And nothing significant happened in that house. I don't think it meets the higher hurdle that a hostile designation would require. I'm very sympathetic to the residents of Northwest Denver and their efforts to preserve this house. I think it would be great if the house was preserved. I understand their frustrations with the great changes in their neighborhoods. I've received dozens, I don't know, maybe hundreds of letters. And I've listened to the comments tonight. And as Councilwoman Sussman said, many of them have expressed their unhappiness with the development, but that is not a criteria for designation. Many of them have stated that the owner will not be harmed by the designation and that he will win no matter the outcome. I don't believe it's the community's role, nor the City Council's role to speak for the owner or to decide if he will be harmed or not, or to influence who he chooses to sell his property to. Many reference other successful landmark designations like Lower Downtown and the Molly Brown House. I just think the Anderson House dims in comparison and to curtail the owner's property rights. I think that the historical significance should be extraordinary, and in a close case, the owner's wishes should prevail. As council members, again, I think we need to be very careful about placing restrictions on private property. I am in favor of historic designation, just not the hostel's designation of this property. And no matter the income, the outcome tonight, I do hope that the House will be reconsidered and that the new owner will reach out to community members. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman New? Yes. I'm neither a trained architect or a historian, and I really appreciate the professionalism and the talent on the landmark commission. And I really have to respect their work in upholding the ordinance on historic preservation. So I appreciate the three and a half hours that they do do due diligence for this application. I think that speaks highly of the professionalism and making sure that all sides are heard on on this important decision. I also have architect friends and a respected developer who I listen to as well, to have seen this house who understand the historic value of this house. So I do respect their professionalism and an opinion about this house. So to me, the historic story is interesting but is secondary to preserving the historic value of this home and a history of Denver. So I will support this designation. Tonight. And I think that there's what I've heard there can be a real win win situation with the homeowner and any new developer or this developer. I don't think the historic designation will erode the economic value of this home, and I think there will be both a win win situation. Thank you both. Thank you. Councilman there, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I think I'll join in those that feel like the history of this particular designation is a tad thin. It's not the monumental story that would make this very simple. Let's see. I'll trust CPD's interpretation of the zoning. That this property can be adequately developed. While it may not be a spectacular queen and mansion of some sort. I don't think that we're here to worship extravagance or the wealthy. But to maintain a healthy connection to our past, I think is the purpose of this ordinance. I certainly expect that. What is there now at 2329, Elliott is probably a better representation of our past, far better than what will be developed without it. I'm not happy to hear, you know, with preservation of our past so important, such a critical element, no matter how you feel about this particular piece of property. I'm disappointed to hear that a developer was unwilling to sit down with historic Denver and fully discuss what options might be available. So I'm also comfortable while recognizing the importance of this property to the owner. I'm comfortable that there will be a positive outcome for the owner. So I'll be supporting designation as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to explain where I'm coming down on this. I've got 36 years of experience having dealt with the Jefferson Park neighborhood, having worked for Sal Carpio as the councilman, and then I represented that district and have continued to have interface and have seen significant change to not only Jefferson Park, but many of our Northwest neighborhoods, as we are seeing with many of our communities across the city. And I think when we have an opportunity like this where we can, in fact, preserve a structure that still provides the opportunity for the assemblage as one's own lot for development activity to occur, I see that as a win win for the neighborhood and a win win for the property owner. I think the. The fact that historic properties and I was involved with, you know, the the Baker historic designation, the Jefferson Park, I mean, Potter Highlands historic designation, the lower downtown historic designation. I, I know those are larger, you know, community wide designations, but all of those resulted in significant increases in property values to those communities. And we have seen that happen with other single homes that have been done in various communities across the city, including many of our school buildings that this body had been asked to to preserve and protect. And, you know, notwithstanding all of the testimony that we had tonight, I do want to thank everybody for coming and sharing their point of view on all sides. I think this designation is warranted. I will be supporting it tonight and appreciate the work that everybody has done on on both sides to share your thoughts and comments via email and just by being here tonight. But I think this is one where, as someone said, the neighborhood plan speaks to the internal fabric of the neighborhood trying to be preserved. You know, this neighborhood has seen significant density increases on the edges of the community. And I have seen the Jefferson Park community embrace that development that has come in. And it has created the opportunity for some additional amenities to be added to the neighborhood. So the fact that the opportunity still exists for development to occur, I think, again, this can be a win win for both sides. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Lopez, I don't see your name up, but this point you want to weigh in? I think there's a conspiracy. I kept pushing. It doesn't show. Go ahead. I'm just kidding. I first of all, I wanted to thank folks for coming out tonight. You know, I think we've seen times where you've seen these chambers completely lopsided or absolutely empty. When you see something like this, I am going to also are in the side. I think this is this is kind of a stretch when we're looking at the historic designation. And in it it sucks because I'm very, very familiar with a lot of the challenges in Northwest Denver. Councilman Espinoza and I share a boundary on Colfax, and I travel up Irving and I see home after home after home for sale. And in their stead, I see shoeboxes, gray shoeboxes, with maybe a little splash of blue. And they are indeed very concerning and they are a threat to the neighborhood character. I do see a redlining of certain neighborhoods where people live. I see a red lining right where you look at demographics, where people of color live and where people of color don't care for folks living where they don't and their property values and how they access that. I think that there is a huge problem with an overdevelopment in northwest Denver. And but I don't think this is the tool in which we fight it. And let me tell you why, because regardless of what this house becomes, historic or not, there are still a whole bunch of families who do not live in historic houses that can't afford and won't be able to afford to stay in northwest Denver unless they're able to get some kind of loan to access that capital that they now have. Because if they don't, somebody walk in, knocking on the door, offering 200 grand, it's going to look awfully good to pay off all the all that debt. So if they did survive the recession and held on to their homes and have lasted as long as they have, they may not have a home that is eligible for historic designation. So what happens then? What happens to those folks? How we fight gentrification is not necessarily in a historic designation. And, you know, here's here's the issue for me that that that's a big one. And in that and it also doesn't sit right that our colleague who represents this district is an it can't be here and he can't be here for a reason of ethics. And he chose not to do that. And I honor that. I think there's there's a lot to be said there, however, that cause remains. And I think that we have to address it. This is not the way we address it. And it hurts to say that. It absolutely hurts to say that. But to call this house historic is a stretch for me. And also because we have to have a standard in terms of what we're deeming historic. I mean, go on by saying that. Do we remember Leonard? Do we remember Chapman? I remember John Lennon, right? I don't care where Chapman lived. I don't care where his house is in Fort Worth, Texas. But I do care about everything that John Lennon produced. Right now, I'm not comparing the two. But here's another problem in how we designate history in our city. We have a whole neighborhood named after a clans leader. That does not sit well with me. That doesn't sit well with a lot of people in this city. But guess what? It's historic. We have streets in this city, in this in this very city named after people who carried scalps of our ancestors down there. And as a matter of fact, the governor at the time that was cool was shaving ten. The largest mountain we see right here in the front range is named after him. So we have to be very careful in how we honor and who we honor. Now, I don't believe that this Anderson was a revolutionary, somebody that that was worthy of of historic designation, who had a great impact in this city. I don't. Now, do I agree with yellow journalism and maybe some of the shady things that those characters did at The Denver Post at the time? No. I would name after much after that either. But in order for us to create this this city and and these neighborhoods in something, we have to send a message of what we aspire to be, what we aspire to do, and how that history is remembered. I think it's a stretch. That doesn't mean that that the folks who came to the podium and they don't know their stuff or that that for them it's not worthy. It's just for me that that that sits really wrong in my stomach. And I think, you know, I think Councilman Espinoza understands the priorities as part of Denver. He is the elected official in this part of Denver. And I think this is a challenge that is beyond. Like I said, it goes beyond a historic designation on one home. There are thousands if not, I mean, hundreds, if not thousands of folks who are struggling to hang on. And they may not have a house that's historic. And I think last but not least, I think this. Jim, I your stand up guy is somebody who works so hard. And, you know, if there's anything I can relate to is everything I have, everything I worked for is in my home. You best believe it. Everything I've worked for is in my home. I would hate to not be able to to use that one day. Right. Especially if I didn't have a good retirement account here or there. I work with my hands all my life. I mean, that's that's I know that's my grandparents. Investment is their home. This does not nothing historic. It's historic to me, but not to the city. But I know that's everything and the only thing they got. And so having said that, you know, I although I do understand the struggle that we faced in the west and northwest Denver, this is not the answer or the time for it. So I will be voting no on this one. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman, can you speak again? Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be very brief. Reasonable minds can really disagree on this, and I think that's apparent. Regardless of which side folks fell on, it's it's a pretty close call. And so because you don't have a district councilman here tonight, I just felt like it was important to end this by saying that although designation I'm doing the math, it's it's not going to happen tonight. There are choices and I'm disappointed the developer didn't want to hear the choices being presented by CPD. But there's at least two choices that could be pursued here in terms of, I should say to the owner, since you haven't closed yet, but you could combine this zone lot and do a number of units. You could also ask for a variance. So there are paths to still save this house even without designation, and I hope that you will pursue or consider those while maximizing your options. That is your choice when you walk away from this meeting. And I just want to appreciate the respectful dialog among my colleagues even as we disagreed tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, can h. Any other comments? 768 as amended before we vote, I just want to say so. We are going to move forward with our second public hearing on construction defects. I can't imagine most of you are going to stay. So I would just say when you could you please be quiet as you were exiting chamber so we can move forward with the presentation and for the individuals waiting to speak on the next one. So if you could just hold your conversations until you get outside of council chambers and please exit quietly. We would sincerely appreciate that. And safe driving. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call 768 as amended. No, no. Sussman. No. Black. No. Clark. No. Sorry. Flynn. No. Gilmore. No. Cashman. I can. I. Lopez. No. New Ortega. I. Mr. President. No. Madam Secretary, please, first of all, announce the results. For ages 78487. 768, as amended, has failed. All right. Next, we are moving on to we are moving on to 811. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Bill 811 on the floor?

A MOTION requesting the executive to contract with the University of Washington to conduct a retrospective analysis of the impacts of COVID-19 and the actions taken by King County leaders and public health - Seattle & King County to limit the spread of the virus.

KingCountyCC_09082020_2020-0182

And with that will continue to. The second item on today's agenda is a motion requesting the executive contract with University of Washington to conduct a retrospective analysis of the effectiveness of actions taken by county leaders in the Health Department to limit the spread of the novel coronavirus. We were briefed on this item back in June, and I'm sure you remember it intimately by Sam Porter from Central South. This porter is here to give us a short overview and brief this on amendments. Ms.. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sam Porter, Council Central Policy Staff documents for this item began on page 19 of your packet, and as the chair mentioned, since this was previously briefed in committee, our focus on the amendments and proposed motion 2020 0182 would request the Executive to contract with the University of Washington to conduct a retrospective analysis of the current coronavirus pandemic response in King County and transmit the report to council. On page 27 of your packet, you can see Amendment one. This would remove previous language stating that a report should be conducted with Public Health, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, the Gates Foundation and other organizations, and would add language stating that the contract should be made with the Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Washington. For graduate students to conduct an independent analysis to include but not be limited to the health, economic and social impacts of COVID 19 and the actions taken by King County leaders and Public Health, Seattle and King County to limit the spread of the virus. And this would be done using publicly available data and resources. The amendment states that the work should commence in January 2020, 2021 and that the executive can negotiate access to public health and other executive branch leaders in order to prioritize the ongoing pandemic response. The next amendment, amendment two is on page 29, and this would just change the due date for the report from June 30th of next year to July 31st of 2021. And the title amendment on page 31 of your packet would inform the title of the proposed motion to the revised scope of the analysis, as stated in Amendment one. We have current gill from the Office of the Executive and Sally Clark from the University of Washington on the line to answer any questions. And that concludes my remarks. Thank you. Questions of Ms.. Porter. Miss Carr, did you have any comments to make or are you simply simply willing to respond to any questions? You know, I'm actually pinch hitting for Professor Matt Stallworth from the Evans School of Public Affairs, and I'm happy to pass along some of that thoughts about how the student teams would approach the work. But given that this is your second briefing, I'm happy to also sit back and simply answer your questions. I think overall, we just want to thank Councilmember Dunn and for the and the Council on the Executive and Public Health for even considering this at this point. It's a great opportunity for the student teams. Great. See? No questions. Council member done. Is it on the table? Have I moved to get a date movement? Back in July, when we first heard it or not? No. All right. Well, I'd like to move it, if I might. Before the committee, the whole. Council member has moved to give it do pass recommendation to ordinance 2020 182. Councilmember Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And then I'd like to move Amendment One. Amendment one is before us. Miss Porter has spoken to Amendment One. Are there further questions about Amendment One? Let me speak to it, if I might, please. When the when the pandemic began early on, when we were learning what was really happening in China and the first cases had come much to Europe as well and and to the West Coast of the United States. I spent a lot of time looking to try and find more information about the pandemic back in 1918. And it was surprising how little information there was. I'm sure many of you saw some of the data I was able to dig up to the National Geographic and others, but there just wasn't a lot of information, a clue . There's going to be a lot more information about the pandemic of the Corona virus in 2019, 2020. But local information, local analysis sense of how we handle here in the Puget Sound, Iraqi County is going to be really important. It's not about saying, hey, we did it better than other cities, although I think we did, but that it will be a guidepost for future generations. Maybe our grandchildren will have another pandemic. So we worked with the executives office and others in the public health arena to come up with a way that we could do this without getting in the way of our existing pandemic responses. And so I think we've fallen on. The Evans School at the University of Washington is sort of uniquely positioned with their expertize, along with the access to one of the best research universities in the United States, the medical field and the county and other public health information to do it. Sally Clark, always great to see you. Appreciate the university's willingness to do this as well. And we'd like to partner in this, I think gets it out of the way of the executives response. It still gives us a really good work product. So that's what the amendment is. I hope my colleagues can support this and urge your support. Further discussion on coal wells. Amendment one. Councilmember Cole Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And maybe it would've been better to ask this earlier, and I'm not sure that it was mentioned. It's done. The estimated cost for this. Staff. Do you want to take that on? I know that we were going to use existing resources in the Emergency Management Department. Has there been any additional cost with the Evans School besides the contract? Referring to Curran in the office to help answer that. They scowls, remember? I do not know if we have a cost on this right now. Perhaps we could try to narrow that down before we vote on it at full council. Just an I'm. Yeah. We'll get you we'll get you all that information. The last conversation I had was the emergency department. Emergency Services had the money in their budget and that was going to come from that point for the that the study unless something has changed that's my belief. But Councilmember, I'll get that information to you before a vote of full council. Thank you. Especially because we'll have completed our being on budget. Yeah, I just. Just. Just so. You know, the cost and I just got a text as you were speaking is between ten and $15,000. 10%. It's a small. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Amendment one is before us. See no further discussion on this. In favor of Amendment one, please signify by saying I find I oppose nay. Guys have. Amendment one is adopted. Councilmember Dunn. I move amendment to. Amendment two as before as Councilmember Dunn. And this changes the deadline to late July of next summer, allows the winter and spring quarters for the graduate students to work on this and gives them a chance to to complete it right around their graduation in in. Next year. Garcia. Well. I do. And it would be really fun if one of the committees and subcommittees that's really happy to do this would would hear the final report. I think it would be very important to, you know, not only to process all that work, to publicize it, agreed for the students as well. We would get some of them here and well here, meaning the county courthouse hopefully by then and can showcase what they've learned and what we can learn from it. Thank you. Say no further discussion. All those in favor of amendment to please signify by saying i. I opposed nay. The ayes have it. The council member done the title amendment on page 31 of our packets. Two. One. Q one is before a scene of discussion. All those in favor, please say I am opposed. Nay. The ayes have it. The title amendment is adopted. We have ordinance 2020 182 as amended before us. Further discussion. Urge your support, Mr. Chairman. I'll consider it. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Gallucci. Councilmember Powell, due to events, I can't remember how I. Council Member Tim Baffsky. Both I Council member. I. Council member done Bosnian Council Member Coles I Council Member Calwell Spokes II Council Member Lambert I Council Member Lambert Woodside Council Member of the Growth. Councilmember Arturo. Councilmember Bond right there. Councilmember Bong right there. I. I was on Larry King Live as well. Some members only high council members on line votes. I. Mr. chair. I. Chair votes. I. Mr. chair, the vote is eight i's. Council member of the group excused. Thank you very much. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation to where or does 2020 182. And we will unless the objection, we will put that on the consent agenda at full council. Our last item today is a motion related to the unbanked.

Approves a rezoning of 3226 W. 19th Avenue from P.U.D 81 to G-MU-3 in Council District 1. (LAND USE TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE) Approves a rezoning of 3226 W. 19th Avenue from P.U.D 81 to G-MU-3 in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-11-14.

DenverCityCouncil_05052014_14-0154

Thank you, Madam President. I know that Council Bill 154 would be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved. I need a second token. Thank you much. I have moved. It has been removed. And second Ed Constable's 154, 145 and 199 approve zoning map amendments. The Council is required by law to conduct hearings on zoning map amendments and Council's actions are subject to court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the record. They may be picked up from the council secretary after 30 days or after the conclusion of any court cases. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents, and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. The public hearing for Councilor Bell 154 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, Madam President and members of Council. My name is Tim Watkins with Community Planning Development here to present rezoning application 2013 I 53. This is for property located at 3226 West 19th Avenue, located in Northwest Denver Council District one and right at the top of West Colfax neighborhood, just bordering Sloane Lake on 19th Avenue. And here the property is highlighted just half block from Halleck Park to the West, two and a half blocks to the east. As Federal Boulevard, we have higher capacity transit, getting folks to towards downtown and other areas of the city. This is a carriage lot with alleys on two sides. Here's a shot from 19th Avenue. Looking at the property frontage, you can see an alley on either side. This is a view to the south. Along one of the alleys, you can see the rear facing garages of the residential properties to the east or to the west. Excuse me. And this is a neighborhood with a mix of multifamily structures, as well as single family units mixed throughout the neighborhood. This is a property just to the north, just to the south, the other carriage lot, the adjoining carriage lot. So the applicant is Abby House LLC, ABC House LLC, represented by Mary Rivas and the representative is here this evening and available to respond to questions. Comments. The request is from PD 81 to GM. You three were general urban multi-unit maximum of three stories. PD 81 allows for two additional units in addition to the existing single family home. Here's a map of the district map and PD 81 showing the existing single family home and the allowance for an additional duplex option to the rear of a maximum of 40 feet high. The existing contact surrounding the property is you can see the orange colored lots represent multifamily units. These tend to be older structures, one or two story duplexes, some three or four or more units, as well as a number of single family dwellings mixed throughout. In fact, this is a neighborhood undergoing quite a bit of transition. The center image, in fact, if you were to go there today, those homes have actually been demolished and there will be a new project built on that property. This is an example of some of the newer infill development occurring in the neighborhood just to the west excuse me, just to the east is this single family property. And further up the street to the west, you see some of the new infill development. Tivity taking place in the neighborhood. So the public review process has included applicant and R.A. letters and emails to the various groups that you see listed here. There was written notice of receipt of application. There was proper notification prior to planning board. There have been no formal responses. Only one inquiry planning board recommended approval on February 19th and there was proper written notification for Ludie and as well as for this public hearing tonight. Legal posting and written notification. So looking at our review criteria, the consistency with adopted plans includes references in Plan 2000, which encourages for sustainable development and infill development within sites where services are already in place and meeting the needs of increasingly diverse housing. Now, Blueprint Denver actually calls this an area of stability and single family residential. But I would point out the zoning prior to Blueprint Denver's adoption in 2002 was our two zoning, which allowed for two units and then PD 81, which allows for three units, was adopted in 1982, also prior to Blueprint Denver and then in 2010, as part of the comprehensive legislative rezoning, the surrounding properties were re zoned from our two to GMU three. And that's seen here in this zoning map. You can see that on all sides surrounding this property, the new zoning is GMU. Three are general urban multi-unit, three storey maximum height. So PD was not free because there were just too many pads during the comprehensive legislative rezoning to examine each each PD individually. And so 81 was not re zoned with the surrounding area. So the West Colfax Neighborhood Plan adopted first in 1987 re adopted in 2000 supports infill housing at a slightly higher density than what was allowed in our two zoning. And so PD 1881 is consistent with that slightly more dense than our two zoning was prior to 2010. So we find that there is adopted plan support primarily based on the West Colfax Neighborhood Plan. We find that this rezoning would would result in uniform application of district regulations. It would further public health, safety and welfare based on implementation of adopted plans. The justifying circumstances would be that this is consistent with surrounding recently zoned property two, GMU three, and that it is an area of investment in infill development where existing services are in place and transit service and that this is consistent with neighborhood contact zoned district purpose and intent. And therefore CPD recommends approval based on finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you very much, Mr. Watkins. We have two speakers signed up and I will call on Mary Rivas first. Good evening, Madam President. Councilman and councilwoman. I am Mary Rivas, and I live in northwest Denver. And available for any questions. Thank you very much. Thanks for being here. Now we call on Mr. Sekou. Good evening. Chairman CQ flexed our action movement for Self-defense. Advocate for poor, working, poor and homeless people. Well, tonight we have the honor of standing with Sister Mary Bills and supporting this zoning change for a couple of reasons. One, she's outstanding and she's willing to work with us to begin to develop economic units for poor people who can actually own their units through cooperative housing programs that are now existing upon the federal government of $60 million that haven't been accessed by the city yet over the last four years before people own their own unit cooperative housing. So we talked to her. She's also have experience of working with organizations like Habitat for Humanity, which allows us to build the people as we build the houses, because out of that, we get people who are trained in painting and plumbing and this and that and the others so they can actually own and pay for the unit that they build themselves so that we have no more exodus of poor, working, poor and homeless people, no more excuses of unintended consequences of why we don't get the job done when we have everything to work with other than the political will. So we would like for you to approve this. And bottom line is everything else around her is already zoned for this. DMU three And for whatever reasons, not to put any onus on anyone. Things happen. There's unintended consequences. She was missed out and she has every right to be included. Thank you so much. That concludes our speakers for this evening. Are there questions by members of council and seeing no questions, a public hearing is closed. Comments by members of council. Councilwoman Sheppard is not here. Is there anyone else? Councilwoman Kennish. I just as an at large representative, thought it would be nice for you to hear from one of your council representatives and terms of appreciating your willingness to work with our process. We did not. Do the. PEDs during the overall city rezoning, and. We understand that that puts. The burden on some individual owners. But it seems well-planned in this case in terms of the matching of the zoning. And so I would urge our colleagues. To support it. Thank you very much, Councilwoman Kennish. All right. It looks like we are ready for roll call. Kenneth Lehman I Monteiro Nevett. Hi, Rob. By Brooks Brown. I fight. II. Lopez All right. Madam President. I am secretary close of voting. Announce the results tonight. Ten Eyes and the zoning has passed. We'll move on to the next one. Councilman. Councilwoman, first, will you please put council vote 153 on the floor. Thank you, Madam President. I move the council bill 153 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft a citywide ordinance restricting oversized and recreational vehicles in residential and commercial corridors based on elements from the surrounding cities of Lakewood, Costa Mesa and Westminister like: • No RV shall be parked on any street or alley for more than 48 consecutive hours. • RVs and trailers not registered to a Long Beach address cannot park on streets without a daily temporary permit. • RVs registered to a Long Beach address may park on the block they are registered to for no more than 48 hours consecutively. • RVs may not be repark within one fifth of a mile from any prior permitted location within 24 hours. • Nonmotorized vehicles may be parked for the sole purpose of actively loading and unloading for a no more than 24 hours.

LongBeachCC_09202016_16-0876

Great. Thank you again. Moving on then, we're going to go ahead and do item 15. We're going go to public comment right after a couple of quick items. So 15 is the one that's being postponed. I'm going to turn over to Councilman Price. Thank you. This is an item regarding oversize vehicles and RVs, and I'd like to make a motion to move it to October the fourth for two reasons. One, that's the night that we're having our homeless study session. And it makes sense to have this discussion in combination with with that study session and to a councilwoman, Mango is not here tonight. And this is an issue that's really of concern in her district, as many of the public comments that we received in the packet tonight indicate, many of them are her residents. So with that, I'd request support from my colleagues to move this to the next council meeting. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any public comment on moving it? CNN members, please cast your votes. Vice Mayor Richardson. Motion carries.

A proclamation declaring the first Friday in June, June 7, to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day.

DenverCityCouncil_06032019_19-0474

Thank you. Councilman, can you sing no other announcements? We're going to move on. There are no presentations this evening. There are no communications. But we do have one proclamation. Councilman Cashman, will you please read proclamation for some form? Thank you, Mr. President. This is proclamation number 19, Dashboard seven, for declaring the first Friday in June, June seven to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day, whereas every day 100 Americans die by gun violence. And on average, there are nearly 13,000 gun homicides every year. And. Whereas, in 2018, 885 men, women and children died by firearm in the state of Colorado, more than three quarters of which were suicides, which amounts to 15.5 firearm deaths per 1000 residents, the highest rate since 1986. And. WHEREAS, Denver's statistics show 3103 gun related offenses in 2018, including three 300 shootings, 63 cases of domestic violence, including a gun, 35 gun related suicides, 49 gun related homicides, and 1551 gun related violent crimes. And. Whereas, Americans are 25 times more likely to be killed with guns than people in other high income countries. And. WHEREAS, in the past 20 years, beginning with the horrific day at Columbine High School in Littleton in 1999, 14 students and one teacher have been killed in front range school shootings and almost three dozen injured in incidents at Columbine High School, Platte Canyon High School in Bailey, Deer Creek Middle School in Littleton, Arapahoe High School in Centennial, and most recently at STEM School Highlands Ranch. And. Whereas, protecting public safety in the communities they serve is the government's highest priority responsibility. And. Whereas, in January 2013, Hadiya Pendleton, a teenager who marched in President Obama's second inaugural parade and was tragically shot and killed just a few weeks later should be now celebrated her celebrating her 22nd birthday. And. Whereas, to help India and the hundred Americans whose lives are cut short and the countless survivors who are injured by shootings every day, a national coalition of organizations has designated June seven, 2019, the first Friday in June as the fifth National Gun Violence Awareness Day. And. Whereas, the idea was inspired by a group of ideas friends who asked their classmates to commemorate her life by wearing orange because hunters wear orange to announce themselves to other hunters. When out in the woods, an orange is a color that symbolizes the value of human life. And. Whereas, anyone can join this campaign by pledging to wear orange on June seven to help raise awareness about gun violence and honor the lives of gun violence victims and survivors. And. Whereas, we as Council members renew our commitment to reduce gun violence and pledged to do all we can to keep firearms out of the wrong hands and encourage responsible gun ownership to help keep our city safe. 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 declares June seven, 2019, to be National Gun Violence Awareness Day and encourages all citizens to support their local communities. Efforts to prevent the tragic effects of gun violence and to honor and excuse me, honor and value human lives. And 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 copies be transmitted to Moms Demand action. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Your motion to adopt? Yes, sir. I move the proclamation 19 dash 474 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Cashman. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I do have thoughts, and I'm going to do my best to honor our five minute time limit. It is wise when there is an open flame around your home that you keep combustibles at a safe distance, be it a gas stove, a lit candle, a cigar or a fireplace. It's prudent to be sure the flame does its job cooking, illuminating, igniting or heating without causing unintended, disastrous collateral damage. How often have we seen the results in an unexpected breeze from an open window, blowing a cloth curtain onto a nearby candle, a cigaret or a cigar accidentally dropped between the pillows of a sofa or a campfire that is not properly extinguished, resulting in catastrophic damage to property and devastating loss of life. We have chosen to not outlaw the use of fire except in extreme conditions. But over the years, federal, state and local governments have put forth continuing public education campaigns, as well as ongoing changes to our building codes that have dramatically reduced the outbreak of unwanted fires in our communities. Yes, it's still erupt, disrupts our city periodically, caused accidentally or on purpose. But as a society we have been very intentional about recognizing the potential for danger that is presents and doing everything within our power to reduce the frequency with which it negatively, negatively impacts our daily lives. In America today, we have open flames everywhere that some do not recognize as such. The firearms that many of our fellow Denver aides and fellow Americans hold dear for protection, for feeding their families and for recreation. Some 330 million of them sit smoldering as well, free of unexpected situations. These guns and rifles should benignly and holsters, drawers, safes, racks in closets awaiting the call to whatever legitimate use their owner intends. But nearby, wherever these firearms are standing, we have accelerants in close proximity that can turn lives upside down in an instant. Accelerants like normal human forgetfulness that neglects to lock cabinets or empty chambers. Accelerants in the person of those with nefarious purpose in mind that intentionally misuse with evil intent. We have the hopelessness borne of an ever growing economic divide between rich and poor that is crushing the American dream, along with untreated mental illness and drug addiction that has an ever increasing percentage of our population ready to explode unpredictably at a moment's notice with the awareness burned into their brains, courtesy of social and mass media that firearms can help them ease the pain. Real or imagined that tortures them. Mr. President, we have not, as a society, done the same job keeping our communities safe from the unintended misuse of firearms as we have done in keeping it safe from the unintended misuse of fire. That has got to change. We have children who have never felt safe, never feel out of the reach of gun violence. They're aware of mass shootings at their schools, mass shootings in movie theaters, mass shootings in shopping malls at McDonald's restaurants, not to mention the everyday individual gun related injuries and deaths that are a part of their daily lives. I sat with my 14 year old granddaughter on election night in May as we awaited the returns, and I watched her break down in tears. As the news recounted the shootings that day at STEM school in Highlands Ranch. I sat in the audience last week at Stephen Knight Center for Early Education at a forum focused on keeping our kids safe at school. And was stunned as a seventh grader read the will she had written while I'm locked down at her school a few weeks ago. Her name is Ali, and she stepped up to the microphone, pulled out her cell phone and said, so this is my well, my best friend Blake gets $200 and my best wishes she gets to become a professional soccer player. I'm sorry, but when it gets to the point where a seventh grader is writing her will because she believes dying in a school shooting is a real possibility, there is something very, very wrong. We have figured out a way to preserve our right to use fire without seeing families incinerated on a regular basis. We haven't figured that out around firearms. That very important and very intentional conversation simply needs to take place. It needs to take place now at a city, state and federal level. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And thank you for bringing this proclamation forward. Madam Secretary, roll call. Cashman. Black Eye. Brooks. Espinosa, i. Flynn. I. Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Carnage eat. I knew Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please, because voting in no results. Will have a nice. 11 I's proclamation. 474 has been adopted. Councilman Cashman We do have 5 minutes for proclamation, acceptances, or some you'd like to call it. It's Mr. President, and I'd like to call up Sara Grossman representing Moms Demand Action. Who is wearing orange. Thank you for. That. Absolutely. Thank you so much, Councilman Cashman. I will make this as quick as possible. This past weekend, I celebrated my friend Drew Leinonen, 35th birthday. Unfortunately, he did not. His life was taken almost three years ago at the Pulse nightclub shooting. In the time since, as Americans, we have seen on average, 100 other people per day lose their lives to preventable gun violence. In the time since my home state of Florida has proven time and time again that they are being held under a petri dish by the NRA. While in Colorado, we are still subject to mass shootings and gun violence. I feel fortunate to call home a place that represents me and my values. Denver has always had my back from stepping up to enact laws to protect the most vulnerable constituents and expanding health care reform to passing marriage equality before the rest of the country to fighting for gun it common sense gun reform keeping us all much more safe. Three years ago, shortly after Drew's funeral, I returned from Orlando to Denver. A month went by before I decided it was time to stop sitting in my own grief and rejoin society. I knew I had to get into advocacy of some kind. I had to get back on the horse and remind people why we are still fighting against hate crimes, why we're still fighting against violence against the LGBT community. And since I lost one of my best friends to a senseless act of hate. I wanted to make sure other people didn't have to. I wanted to spare others from the pain that I felt, the pain that I still feel. I had to remind people why common sense gun laws are so important, even if it was just volunteering. I knew I had to do something. My very first action item was to create the website for the DRU Project, a nonprofit organization. Dru's friends and I started to honor him. To date, we have given away over $30,000 in scholarships to LGBTQ youth and have created and distributed curriculum for Gay-Straight Alliances in Florida to continue honoring Drew's legacy. This guide has been downloaded all over the world at this point. Drew started the first gay straight alliance at his high school in Seminole, Florida, when he was 17 and won the Holocaust Museum's Anne Frank Humanitarian Award for it. He was truly ahead of his time. His kindness and desire for inclusion and unity would be the encouragement we all needed to continue with his work. There is not one single person whom I encountered at his funeral who didn't refer to him as a best friend. That's the type of person he was. He had a best friend from high school, one from college, one from last Tuesday. This didn't make him a flake. This made him a person whose warmth was undeniably strong. My second action item was to get involved with on demand action for gun sense. I've spoken at several of their rallies and testified against dangerous gun bills on their Andrew's behalf. I continue my work with them and became a Survivor Fellow with Everytown for Gun Safety. My third action items tenure just ended when I stepped down from running communications for the Matthew Shepard Foundation and fighting daily for those we have to protect from violence. This city and these groups have saved countless lives through this work, not just those who may fall victim to gun or hate violence, but also those of us who weren't quite sure what to do with our grief in the days, weeks, months and even years following the passing of a loved one to the horror that is our American reality. This group in front of me is leading us to ensure we no longer have to accept thoughts or prayers as pension for the loss of our loved ones. Here, we all share the same belief that we can create a future free from gun violence. And I thank you all for continually supporting the survivor community. Thank you for commemorating June 7th as Gun Violence Awareness Day. If you can, I encourage you to attend the West Orange event this year. It's Saturday, June 8th at Park Field Lake Park from 12 until three, and we're holding it in partnership with Councilwoman Gilmore. We would love to have you out to support this proclamation and our efforts. From the bottom of my heart. I thank you for continuing to make us feel more safe this June and every June from now on. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That is our only proclamation this evening. So we're going to move on to our bills for introduction. Madam Secretary, will you please read the bills for introduction?

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP FM16-153 and award a contract to Kubra America West, Inc., of Tempe, AZ, for payment processing for City services, in an annual amount not to exceed $820,330, authorize a 20 percent contingency in the amount of $164,066, for a total annual contract amount not to exceed $984,396, for a period of three years, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods; and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments; and Authorize City Manager to eliminate the utility bill convenience fee for credit/debit cards and electronic checks as soon as implementation to Kubra America West, Inc. is complete. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07112017_17-0544

Motion carries. 27. Report from Financial Management Recommendation to award a contract to COBRA American West for payment processing. For City Services. For a total annual contract amount. Not to exceed 984,396. And authorize the city manager to eliminate the utility bill convenience fee for credit, debit cards and electronic checks citywide. We have a staff report on this. Yes, we are. So. Our finest moment. Jon GROSS is with us tonight. And this is something that he's been working on at some time. I know it's been something that the city council has been trying to achieve for quite some time, and I think we're close to being there. So, John, thank you. Honorable mayor and council members. I don't often get to do anything as exciting as this is on the surface. We're recommending a contract for award to Cooper America West for payment processing. And payment processing is a a kind of a boring operation where they process credit cards and debit cards and check payments for city bills. But this is exciting because we're also making a staff recommendation to eliminate the convenience fee paid by utility customers to use use credit and debit cards and E checks. And the use of credit and debit cards to our customers will then be free for utility customers when they make payments. Right now, these utility customers pay $3.75 if they pay by credit or debit card and $0.95 that they pay by. E check. This will now be no charge and those completely free services will encourage more use of our fast and easy internet and telephone payment services. And we will now be able to offer mobile payment options on your phones at no additional cost. The overall cost of this contract, in addition to all that, is lower than the previous contract. When we look at the combined cost to the both the customer and of the city, however, by the city absorbing the convenience fees, the city utilities, not the general fund, but the city utilities that is refused gas and water will have an increased cost estimated at about $720,000 a year. Those extra costs will be absorbed into the normal cost of doing business. And I want to point out that that's very similar, if not identical, to the way the city already handles the cost of processing cash payments and the check payments that we receive for utilities. Those extra and those credit card costs, those are projections that could be higher if uses are higher. Overall, we believe that Cooper will be an excellent service provider, and we are very pleased to make the recommendation to eliminate utility convenience fees. That's the end of my report. I stand ready for any questions. Thank you very much, Mr. GROSS. And just to clarify, I think there's a couple of council questions as well. This is the elimination of that additional fee that we charge when someone tries to pay their utilities online, which is a constant complaint from the public. Is that correct? That is correct, except I would I would clarify that we don't actually charge we don't receive any money from those fees. It is a third party service provider. Okay. Thank you very much, Councilman Mongo. So I am 100% behind getting rid of the convenience fee. That is important. I also am curious as to. I am under the understanding that several years ago we had the opportunity to have our bank provider such as, say, Union Bank. Do this in house where we would be able to as a city, not have the 5%, where we would take 2%, they would take 2%. And that this $900,000 cost would not be burdened. I'm wondering why we don't bring some of these types of things in-house. We have quite a bankroll at Union Bank, and I'm interested in knowing what have we done in terms of exploring getting rid of the service charges that come from agencies like this? Councilmember We did a we did and a bid processing request for this. And and these were the cheapest services in terms of we do have some Citibank or some bank processing. But in terms of this particular service, we did we did do an open bid request. And we did analyze every proposal that came. And I don't believe there was one from Union Bank. Well, I think that part of it and again, I think that we need a little bit more time on this to discuss it more thoroughly is that we were asking for something very specific. So people who have those types of services responded to what we asked, and I wonder if we should be asking a different question. And so my thought would be to move forward on the elimination of the utility bill, convenience fee for credit, debit cards and electronic checks. What was the timeline on signing this contract? It is our intent to move as quickly as possible to sign this contract as the other one is expiring. We would we would need to explore. We would need to continue the next the old contract for a period of time. We think we can do that. But we would like to move on the new contract quickly so that we can begin the implementation of elimination of the convenience fees without the new contract. We're not in a position to do that. However, if there was more of a cooperative agreement with the banking system, we would be in a better position because there's actually is increasing costs to our city departments where at least according to your staff report. I can't I can't say that I can think of a relationship with the bank in a way that would reduce our costs below what we have. I may be mistaken on that, but I'm not aware of a mechanism that that would reduce our costs. I'd like to listen to either public comment and or my colleagues before I might have a few additional questions. Thank you. Councilman Austin, do you have any comments? Yes, I seconded the motion to support the item, but I do have a couple of quick questions. So the the elimination of the the service fee. Who does that benefit? Who does the elimination of the convenience fee benefit? It benefits directly the utility customers. It does not have any benefit to the city. It is intended to benefit and make life easier on our customers. So this is this is a benefit, direct benefit to our our constituents, our senior citizens, to the ratepayers in the city. It is a direct benefit to the people who pay utility bills, our residents and our citizens. Yes. And I didn't read it in the staff report, but is there a mechanism or will there be a report back to determine whether or not this is performing the way we want, that this contract is performing, the way we want it to perform after one year, after 18 months? I know there's a three year contract. Do we just reevaluate it then? Yes, we would reevaluate it then. If there was a problem with the service provider and with our reference checks, we honestly do not believe there will be. But this is a very important contract with something goes wrong with these services. I can't even begin to tell you how unhappy people are because they get sensitive about their money and they get sensitive about it very quickly. So we are we we believe this will be an excellent provider. If there is a service problem that is that continues, you will hear about it very quickly from us. Okay. Well, you have my full confidence. I support giving a break to our taxpayers and ratepayers to the city of Long Beach or in the city of Long Beach. And so I will be voting in support. Thank you. Thank you. Base me, Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just have a couple questions. So this makes a lot of sense to take steps toward removing that fee. I think it's a hassle. It's annoying. You know, I used to do that. Then I just switched over to online Bill Pay and just sent a sound check directly from my account just to avoid that fee. The question for me is about the process. So we hired this consultant and it says, and correct me if I'm wrong, it says not to exceed $984,000. Now, will that will that consultant actually remove the fee or is there some additional funding required or necessary in order to implement whatever changes the consultant recommends? Thank you for that question. I'll I'll try to clarify. The 984,000 is is not a consultant. It is a it is a service a service to process the payments that come in to the city, either by way of credit card, by way of debit card and to process e checks. And they provide an intermediate service between us and the banks. The banks typically do not get involved in this, so that is the service of processing an individual transaction. In addition, in terms of answering fully answering your question, there is an implementation process so that 984,000 back to the 984 is really a charge per transaction. We estimate based on the number of transactions that the cost will be 984,000. But if we had two transactions, the cost would be $6, something like that. We do have a cost that we estimate for implementation. There are 14 interfaces and and lots of all those interfaces have to be designed and. Programed. In addition, their computer changes and programing changes that need to be made. Those costs, we estimate, at $600,000 as a one time costs. Almost all of the costs, both the 984,000 and the 600,000 will be paid by utilities, not the general fund. So about 600,000. That's for the consultant. That is for about 200,000. Of that is for the consultant. The rest is for programing and other needs associated with implementing that. The final expense in order to achieve what we want to achieve. Will there be additional expenses beyond that? It is an estimate. It's the best estimate we can do. We do not change these services very often. We have spent a lot of time on those services. We have done some discussions with consultants. We think that 200,000 for the consultant is is on target. The rest in terms of programing, we have to get into it to see what's going on. But it is our best estimate, I will assure you. And we have utilities watching us. If we spend less, that's what we will do. If it turns out, we will need to spend more and we hope we don't. We would let the utilities know and they would be paying those costs. But our best guess is that 600,000 will do it. Thank you. And I feel a little bit more comfortable understanding that 200,000 of that is for consultant. The rub that I have here is that we pay a consultant to eliminate a fee before we've we opened up a RFP to go look for that service before we just checked around, who's already managing our money to say, hey , what would it take to expand your role to take on this service and we eliminate this fee? It seems like that would be a step that we should take. But I like the way this conversation is going, and thanks for a thank for your responses. Vice Mayor If I can clarify on that, because I think you raised some very good points. Yes. The consultant we're using or we would be using has not been selected. And yes and no consultant was used to date. So the whatever consultant we hire will not have had a role in what we've done so far. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. So is when we did the original RFP, did we consider purchasing our own merchant line so that we would run our own credit cards and be the processor in-house and save that money? No, we did. We did not. I'm not aware of of governments doing that. I actually can't comment too much on that. I can't think of a single government that has done that. I'm not saying they haven't. I don't know of any. And I would be concerned if we could as to why we would get into that. I can't tell you it's good or bad, but it would certainly be a major, major change in the way we operate and the expertize we would require in-house. So. I know that this has come up before. There are groups that have talked about this in the past and that it could be a significant savings to taxpayers. That's why we would explore it and that it would be through an addendum on potentially our banking contract or other contracts. So I'm going to I made the motion tonight. I'm going to be supportive of it. But I think that we also need to be creative about the future of how money is collected, the future of how people interact with money and the ways in which things are paid. Because as we move more and more online, these fees are being incurred at larger quantities of the tax bill. And the reason the convenience fee was initially added. It was not a Long Beach choice. It was the determination that we could not pay. That we could not collect different amounts from different types of people. If you pay online, you have to pay the exact same amount to the government as the people who build in a check. And that's where the convenience fee originated from. And there were several regional committees supported, both through GAG and other agencies talking about this challenge through the years. And so I know that people have come up with solutions. And I'd like for us, as we move forward, to look at those best practices, because at the end of this three years, I think that we're going to be looking at a very different banking system in terms of how how millennials interact with government, how our our taxpayers are interacting with government. So thank you for the information. And I look forward to the potential that at the end of this contract that we have a more creative solution in Councilwoman. One thing as you move forward and we move forward with that. One of the things we would be look at and that that I and I think the the 82 Tidd chief of department had have tried to avoid is getting involved in credit card processing that involves the type of security with credit cards. We have worked very diligently to this point to avoid having to maintain credit card numbers and maintain those things and do that kind of data processing security. So that's been an important I. Think that is a very wise choice. I also think that the the the menu of services available to us in the future is changing. And we need to instead of taking out the old RFP from years past and just regenerating over and over again, what we've always done be creative about the future to make sure that, I mean, $1,000,000 of processing is a lot of money and that's that's streets that sidewalks, that's a lot of trees. And so we need to talk through what are these creative solutions for the future? Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you and thank you to my colleagues for their thoughtful comments and, of course, staff. I think when our in-house financial expert starts off his staff report by talking about how excited. He is. About this item, it makes you think he needs a more exciting life. But also he rarely, you know, express his usually very, you know, objective and analytical on these items. So the fact that he's recommending this item makes me more drawn to it. At the same time, I think Councilwoman Mango has, as she always does, raised some very valid points regarding financial consequences and future considerations for us to have. So and it's really not my area of expertize, so I do defer to a lot of her comments in that regard because this is just not my area of expertize. But I think as she stated it well, you know, I support this item tonight, but of course, as we move forward, hopefully we start early with looking at things that even if other cities are aren't doing them, things that we might be able to do to reduce these costs associated with these in the future and see really to what level we can maybe even start a pilot in another context so that we can see what we can do in terms of our own application in this regard. So thank you very much for the staff report and for the conversation. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson, just a quick question. When does the banking RFP come up again? Do we know? Can I get back to you? Can I send you a note on that? I actually don't know. Okay. Sounds good. Thanks. Customer. Pearce I just wanted to say I really appreciated the comments of my colleagues, but definitely if you start off saying how excited you are, I think anytime we can look at reducing costs for the city and pass those on to residents, those costs add up. Whenever we have small fees like this. It's a small things that that hit us in our pocketbooks sometimes. So I appreciate the effort and the conversation and definitely we'll be supporting this. Thank you. And let me just add, just lastly, I want to thank everyone. I think those are some really good comments. And I particularly like the conversation around the future of banking because that is going to have a big impact on our services. But let me just say that this and believe me when I say this, this council will do a lot of things in our time together. There will be very few things that will be more popular than the one you're voting on tonight. The second it's implemented. And I guarantee you that the amount of correspondence that I get on this one issue is almost at the top of the list of things that come to my office and eliminating this burdensome additional fee for the taxpayer. This is an opportunity that we really have to essentially give something back to our constituents. And they're going to appreciate this so much and are going to be so happy that they don't have to pay that additional fee. That's a complex fee. And obviously there's reasons why we've had it in the past. But I just want to thank staff. You guys have worked been working on this incredibly hard. We've been talking about it for a long time. And we've come up with a solution that is a little burden to the city, but a huge benefit to all of our residents across the community. And so I just want to thank you for for doing that. Any public comment on this? Great. Let's vote.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by repealing Chapter 8.97, relating to Tenant Relocation Assistance; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect at 12:00 a.m. on January 1, 2020, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12172019_19-1238

Council members have been. Bush and Kerry. Okay. Thank you. Item number 27, please. Item 27 is communications from city attorney. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by repealing Chapter 8.97 relating to tenant relocation assist in declaring the urgency thereof and declared that this ordinance shall take effect at 12 a.m. on January 1st, 2020. Read and adopted as Read City. Why? This is the last reading of the ordinance. There's three speakers. Please, all three come forward as Andrew Amanda HANO here. Maria Lopez. And I believe that, says Isaias de la Rosa. Please come forward. If you are. If the three can come forward now, please. Hello, everyone. My name is Andrew, with whom I know I'm here today to just highlight various issues that are currently going on. The building that was here that advocated for that eviction moratorium is still continuing to be harassed. Right. Are still being served. Three day period quits through this repeal of tenant reload. The amount of relocation assistance they will get will go down from 3000 to 1000. One of our partnership members for best, our central Long Beach Affairs District resident of the name of X Dela Rosa. His aunt was just served 60 day notices to vacate during the fact that we have an eviction moratorium. The reason these companies do this is because they know oftentimes the tenants don't have the knowledge to defend themselves. And when they go to court. They are not provided legal representation. So that way they don't even know what they're fighting for. They don't know the language. They don't have someone there defending them. These families are being torn apart. So she has actually grown up with Maria and played soccer with her. Now he's seeing his whole family be torn apart. Whatever politics is behind this repeal, whether it's my emergency or whatever it may be, it needs to stop because these families are being ripped apart. Those children, ages zero through five, are being are growing up with adverse childhood experiences, something that you all individually voted to be of importance . I really want us to see what they're feeling, because when you get to go home and celebrate the holidays and celebrate the new year and plan out your New Year's resolutions, these folks are going to be. Served with another 60. Day notice to make it. They won't be able to write the resolution. Their resolution is to survive. Where will they be displaced to Moreno Valley, Riverside, where there's basically no resources. San Bernardino County, which is one of the most counties with the highest rates of crime. I just can't fathom that this is the type of leadership. That is here. And I kindly urge you, I kindly add this is out of respect and love, because I've seen you all up there on the 14th floor before I've shaken your hands. I've complimented you on that elevator back there. I've seen you advocate alongside Jennifer. I've shown respect to you. Please show respect to the communities that you serve. Because this is continuing to happen. Thank you very much. Andrew next with Maria Lopez, please. Good evening. In the last meeting. Good evening. Maria Lopez. Undocumented, unafraid. Unapologetic. A proud D-1 resident. Since I migrated here at the age of three. And now I'm the director of Community Organizing for Housing Long Beach, and I organize with the Long Beach Tenants Union. And today it's clear that you will repeal Rila, a locally fought and won policy, which is really rare for all of us to stand here and even hear this right, regardless of the fact that those same communities that came to you and told you were being displaced, were being out priced and were being uprooted. Those same communities letting you know of an Internet, an alternative option to keep our local amounts, which ultimately help more low income, disabled, marginalized communities that we so adore, like our trans communities. Right. We know that displacement for communities like that that are very vulnerable can lead to death. Why? Because your connection, your community is all around you. You need access to your doctors. You need access to your village. You need access to neighbors who know about your sensitivity and your cultural needs. So basically, you need your community, right? So if I may remind us of what was first proposed was not just this simple repeal, right, which is very sour to my mouth. However, my work does not stop there and my work continues as families are continuously uprooted, displaced and in danger of becoming homeless, full families with kids living in their cars during the holidays. Right. So not just this repeal, but a senior and people's disability program was proposed. We have not received a report on it. So I would kindly bring that up to your radar and request information on that as soon as possible. January 7th can be a date that we could put on it. If you are so you know, enclose to do that for us today. And also the I appreciate Councilmember Richardson's effort to close the gap for folks who are still being displaced on the loophole of substantial rehab. So I also want to hold you all accountable to that promise. We would like to see some follow up on that second piece, not just this repeal. We want follow up on those programs that you all promised. So accountability here it is. Right? We want these programs. And we also would like to start thinking about enforcement mechanisms. So we as a community have come together to want to sit down with you and your staff and really bring people from L.A. County, from the state to talk about all these programs. You all hear from us inclusionary housing enforcement mechanisms, community owned housing, all those things. So please see an email from us. We will be reaching out, inviting you all to deep a deeper dove in this conversation. Thank you. Thank you very much. And then he says the Rosa. Oh, my boy. I just want to give context that we received this notification like a few minutes before. Is is this is okay. He walked from. Is going forward. Hello? Hello. Well, my name is Isaiah de la Rosa. Okay. Look here, speaker for my family member, they live in for 37 days Avenue. Well, actually, I've seen her two in the morning and she told me that the owner from the building she's living in is trying to evict him out. I forgot the reason why, but that I remember she said that a they tried to sue the owner or taken the court that they had to pay for the. What's it called? The fine, in other words. And well, she'd been living there for quite a penny a year already, and she's just don't know why she's been evicted . And I'm here, like I'm here with my family. For them not to be evicted. Thank you, sir. So let me as you conclude. Thank you very much, concludes public comment. Let me just add two things. The first is, Mr. Molko, can you have I know that obviously there are some that folks guys feel free to grab a seat. Thank you. I've concluded public comment and thank you. Two things. One is that I know that Mr. De La Rosa, there are some legal protections that the Council adopted for folks facing evictions. And just want to make sure, Mr. Modica, that if we can have someone from our team connect with Mr. de la Rosa in the back , can we do that? Okay. So certainly so Mr. De La Rosa, if you can just hold for a minute. So I'm going to come talk to you in a minute to share with you what the what the what those are. And then the second thing I'll say is, I think that the request, as far as when the the fund is coming back is a reasonable one. Do we have a timeline before we vote, Mr. Modak, on when that's going to come back to council? So the timeline of the fund will likely be in the spring. Part of that. Reason is the funding that we are. Using is going to be the state funding, which is we get to submit our application, I believe, in March and know what all the funding restrictions are. So we will be creating the fund, we'll come back to the council and update you and then the funding will be available in the spring. Is it possible to at least get an update maybe towards the end of January? I think that's fair, even if it's an update. So we have that. We understand. I think we'll have a better idea on the funding. Sure. And we. Can give you because we're using. Two different funding sources. We can start with the. CDBG and see where we are with that and give you an outline and a structure of how we believe the fund will work. That's I think that's that's more fair. Thank you. With that and members, please cast your votes. This is the final vote on the ordinance. Councilmember Unger. Well, she carries. Thank you. Next up is we're going to be doing item. Where did it go? Oh, I hear that for the consent calendar. Even though we had a motion in a second, maybe the vote wasn't taken on that. Is that right?

A MOTION requesting that the King County executive transmit a report to the King County council that includes plans for assessing and addressing safety concerns relating to City Hall park and the King County Courthouse, providing shelter and services to any current and potential future occupants of City Hall park and assessing and recommending options for the county to acquire City Hall park.

KingCountyCC_09152021_2021-0318

With that fruit, that is our first briefing as the matter is still in RTC. And that takes us to our last business item on today's agenda. Given the time, I'm going to ask that we have a brief staff report from Ms.. Viner and leave it at that today. And I assure you that we will have this item on our next committee agenda in the city. This is Motion 2021, 318, which would request that the executive transmit a report that includes a plan for providing shelter and services to current and potential future occupants of City Hall Park in the options for the county to require City Hall Park. Councilmember Cole Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering if it might be best to wait to have a briefing on the staff report by Ms.. Spooner at next County Council, the whole meeting, so that we could be more logical in terms of presentation and discussion. That would work well with me. I would apologize to members for not getting to it. But as you know, we had a full agenda and accomplished good work and thank you. Councilmember Caldwell's as the sponsor for being open to that. And we will take up motion 2021 318 at our next meeting. Ms.. Vina, you're on notice that you'll be front and center then. Thank you. That concludes the action items in today's agenda. Madam Clerk, are there any votes that members missed? Mr. Chair, there were no votes missed. Thank you. With that, then we have concluded our today and the committee of the whole is adjourned. And I want to thank everyone for their participation. Thank you so much.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; authorizing the Department to participate in the California Independent System Operator’s Energy Imbalance Market, including authorizing the execution of any necessary agreements with the California Independent System Operator, as well as any additional agreements necessary or convenient for implementation and participation in the California Independent System Operator’s Energy Imbalance Market.

SeattleCityCouncil_10102016_CB 118798

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the report of the Energy and Environment Committee. The Report of the Energy Environment Committee Agenda Item one Constable 118 788 related to the City Light Department authorizing department to participate in the call for an independent systems operators, energy and balance market, including authorizing the execution of the necessary agreements with the California Independent System Operator, as well as any additional agreements necessary or convenient for implementation and participation. As in California, Dependent Systems Operators Energy and Balance Markets Committee recommends the bill passed as amended. Thank you very much. Councilmember Salaam Thank you, brother. This is an ordinance to authorize Seattle to be allowed to explore entering a California energy imbalance market. City Light estimates that it will cost 8 million in infrastructure to join the market and they expect to make 4 to 23 million per year in additional net wholesale revenue once they have entered. This could be a good thing for the city, particularly if it allows you to put more of our clean hydropower on the market to replace the natural gas energy generation that, for example, private companies like Puget Sound Energy Use. However, it is also important for the Council to have sufficient oversight. After all, the last time City Light was part of an energy imbalance market in California. That was when the Enron debacle happened. To be clear, City Light assures us that they have protections in place to avoid something similar in the future. But again, for us as a council, it should be a question of adequate oversight. This got this council bill was amended in committee to allow City Light to explore entering the energy imbalance market while retaining for council the opportunity to take further action before it is finalized. The Energy and Environment Committee recommends passing this Council bill as amended, and I just wanted to note that in the written agenda it leaves out the words as amended. But I just want to make sure the council knows that this is as amended. Thank you. Councilmember Swan, are there any further comments or questions on this legislation? Councilmember Gonzalez I was unable to stay for the ultimate vote in last discussion of this particular council bill, but I have significant concerns about supporting this particular council bill. I think that while the amended version does provide some additional oversight, I think there are a lot of questions in my mind about the amount of money that needs to be spent by Seattle City Light just in order to even engage in that exploratory process and have strong reservations about the fiscal implications of moving forward even with the Council bill as amended. My understanding is that the proposal from Seattle City Light would require the spending of several millions of dollars over the next three years just to begin the process of entering into the energy imbalance market. So I have concerns about this particular. Bill. And we've had I've had conversations with central staff who have told me that waiting a year to pass this bill would not significantly impact Seattle City Lights ability to consider exploring entering into this energy imbalance market in the future . So I'm going to be voting no on this council bill today because although the bill, as amended, does create some oversight, I actually think that they need to go back to the drawing board and do some more work before I would be willing to support even an exploratory phase of entering into the energy imbalance market in California . Thank you. Councilman Gonzales. Councilmember O'Brien. Yeah, I. Councilmember Gonzales. I appreciate those concerns. And actually, I share those. The idea that the city council would ensure that the city would invest $8 million on this is a big chunk of money and raises a lot of concerns. The amendments, as I understand it, would prevent them from doing any investments and would require them to come back to council to get our approval before they can proceed on entering it. The questions we asked the table were about that, the financial payoff, and also about the risks and making sure the oversight was in place. And my understanding with the bill as amended is that they can come back. This this gives them the ability to move forward, to do the research and come back to us. But they cannot proceed in entering the imbalanced market without further approval from the council and making those types of investments. Yes, I know. Just very quickly, I won't repeat what Councilman Brown said. I just wanted to say that if you look at the amendments that were presented as part of the amended bill, they're not minor. They actually changed the bill from allowing City Light to do it, to allowing them to explore and then requiring them to come back to council. Very good. And we can very easily suspend the rules to ask Tony killed off to tell whatever the heck he's telling Councilman Burgess to tell us that we can have a little dialog. But Councilman Gosar, you want to speak? Sure. I mean, I again, I'm not saying that the amendments aren't an improvement from the original version of the bill. There certainly is an improvement to the oversight functions that were absent from the original council bill. You know, my my concern is that I heard from central staff and Tony is here and perhaps ready at their at the ready when we're when we're ready to hear from him. But my my concern is that they're from my recollection of the presentation is that there were significant upfront costs that would be associated with even standing up an exploratory process of this. And this is this is a significant investment. We've never engaged in the imbalance market, an energy imbalance market before. It's a relatively new industry. It's only been around for 2 to 3 years. And so my preference would be that we give ourselves, as a city council, an opportunity to learn more about what this energy imbalance market is and to give Seattle City Light a greater opportunity to tell us exactly what the risks are here. And and from the materials that I have reviewed, from the conversations that I've had with central staff. I personally do not feel that I have enough information to truly appreciate the the risks associated with giving Seattle City light the permission to move forward with even an exploratory phase. I get nervous about saying it's just an exploratory phase because we still have to invest resources to do that exploration. And then there is created sort of an expectation that we're going to continue to move forward. So again, I think the amendments are an improvement, but my preference would be to not move forward with this council bill at this juncture. So I'm going to vote no unless there is interest in in holding it to give the Seattle city light some additional time to get us more information. So if there's no objection, I'm going to suspend the rules, allow Mr. Cool off to address the Council and Mr. cut off. Perhaps you could start off with at least one of my concerns is how time sensitive this is and maybe the intended or the actual effect of the amendments in terms of still having a safeguard against utility in light of the concerns Councilmember Gonzales has raised. Yes, it's it's not time sensitive, other than every with every year that passes City Light and in theory, misses the opportunity to make the additional revenues that it could make by trading in the market in California. And if their analysis is correct, that would be foregone revenue of anywhere from 4 to 20 plus million dollars. The amendments that that I put in were specifically to prevent City Light from making any major investments until they had come back to the Council and provided a better understanding of the costs that would ultimately be be borne to enter into the market and also the revenues that they would expect to receive. We're expecting if the Council did move forward with this, that our city light would come back to the council early next year, probably by the end of the first quarter, with a more detailed description and analysis and information that would make a the final decision easier for the council. Councilman Herbold, thank you. The fiscal bill associated with this camp or this fiscal note, especially with this council bill. Estimates a annual gross benefit of $4 million a year. But Councilmember Gonzales mentioned a cost of the study, and I don't see that the cost noted in the fiscal note. The cost. It's not up the study. If city lights were to actually enter the market, it would need to stand up new software and hardware systems to support it. And that's approximately $8 million. It might be as high as ten, but right now the high end of the estimate is $8 million. That would be an ongoing cost for for additional staffing at City Light of around about two and a half million dollars a year. That was the caution that led me to recommend the the amendment to the bill that we would not spend the $8 million and we would not engage the additional staff until the council had better information. Thank you. Especially considering the fact that this information was not contained in the fiscal notice, I. Believe is our our policy. So when. Possible councilmembers. I'm going I'm sort of heading down the path of holding it for a few weeks, and I don't think the supporters of it have a lot of heartburn over that. But. Councilmember Burgess, go ahead. That's what I was going to raise, that if we could have a motion to hold this for a couple of weeks, I would make that motion. So I'm looking at October 31st is three weeks. That should give us plenty of time to work on that and a lot if we're doing budget. So I'd. Second the. Motion. Okay, I'll make a motion to hold it till October 31st has been seconded by Councilman O'Brien. All those in favor of holding it for three weeks. I, I opposed I have to. We'll hold this until October 31st and hopefully talk it council briefing or other opportunities to discuss it. Before we move. On. Please read the next agenda item into the record.

Recommendation to approve naming the new chambers at the Civic Center the "Bob Foster Civic Chambers”.

LongBeachCC_04232019_19-0207

Now we're going to move to item 26. Communication from Vice Mayor Andrews, Chair of Housing and Neighborhoods Committee recommendation to approve naming the new chamber at the Civic Center to the Bob Foster Civic Chambers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yes. In March, the housing in our neighborhood committee voted to name the new Civic Center chambers after Bob Foster, the 27th mayor of Long Beach. Can anyone think of a better candidate for this honor? Bob, is the reason why we're having our new civic center being constructed next door. He led the city in Long Beach through the darkest days of the Great Recession. There's been a friend of mine, a mentor and my mirror. In short, Bob was a space in my heart and in my esteem. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the leadership and accomplishment of Mayor Bob Foster by naming a new chamber in His Honor. Do have any public comment on this item? Larry. Good to work. As the U.S., I thoroughly support this. It's a he's an he was an absolutely great mayor. It's unfortunate our current mayor. Is so far below him in terms of character and all honesty. But yes, I certainly support. This and I think it will have the full support. Of this entire community. Thank you. Thank you. See no other public comment. Please, members, go ahead and cast your vote. It just went through, I believe, Councilman, both the harbor end committee as well as the committee. Great. Thank you. And I look forward to to the Bob Foster Chambers opening up when the city when Civic Center opens up. I'm sure that Nancy is is watching and a great honor I think for for for a great a great mayor. With that, we're moving up to item. 27.

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 in conjunction with the in conjunction with the coordinated election of November 3, 2020, a proposed amendment to the Charter of the City and County of Denver creating a peace force that will replace the Police force. Replaces the city’s police force in Charter with a peace force. Councilmember CdeBaca approved direct filing this item on 8-13-20. Council President Gilmore approved filing this item by title only on 8-13-20.

DenverCityCouncil_08172020_20-0842

Nine eyes. Council Bill 837 is referred to committee. Moving on. The next item up is Council Bill 842. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Bill 842 on the floor for publishing? Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 840 to be ordered published. It has been moved. Thank you for the second comments by members of Council on Bill 842. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. My window and all over my screen. And I couldn't find it. This is what I want to say about this bill is that this presents us with a classic false dilemma that if we don't eliminate the Denver Police Department, that must mean that we support systemic racism and oppression. And of course, that's an utter fallacy. We don't have just two choices. This proposal disrespects the broader community that has already been organizing on this issue, and it lacks any transparency. It's fundamentally flawed. As I've read the version that was given us over the weekend, both from a constitutional, legal and a practical standpoint in the first six months of 2020. January two through June, there were 367,550 calls for service made to and responded to by Denver police. Leaving most of those calls unanswered in a time of rising crime is simply not an option. We saw eight individuals shot yesterday around federal and alameda. Two deceased. The Denver Police Department is filled with dedicated officers who serve with integrity and the false narrative that the only function of the police department is to harass and oppress our bipoc communities is simply untrue. Denver police have been in the forefront of adopting progressive policies of de-escalation, alternate co responders and now even the non-police response to social services types of calls that some of our speakers in public comment before this meeting referred to the Dasher and the Cahoots. We started that in June, and that was underway well before the spring protests. We've already defunded and frankly, spend less money per capita and have fewer officers per capita than many cities that are behind our curve. Many have held up the example, for instance, of Camden, New Jersey, where I lived 40 years ago as one that we should follow. In 2013, Camden completely dismantled its police department and fired every officer in chief. They reconstituted as the Camden County Police Agency and actually rehired most of the officers after going through a rigorous process. But they instituted numerous reforms, including de-escalation, strong use of force, continuum and community policing. The murder rate and the crime rate in Camden, which was the highest crime city in New Jersey at the time, and by all reports now there's a healthy relationship between the police who now patrolling Camden and the community. And so folks have asked me, why can't we be like Camden? And my answer is, well, because we're already ahead of them. Despite all these reforms and calls for defunding police departments, the fact is that in Camden, the police budget is more than two and a half times that of Denver on a per capita basis, and they have five and a half police officers per 1000 residents, compared with Denver's 2.1 officers per thousand. Many of the emails we've been receiving have said that Denver spends $588 million on policing, but only 7.7 million on social safety net programs. I don't know who wrote that canned email that we were getting many copies of, but I'd be very concerned myself if that imbalance were true. But it is. Our police budget is $254 million and Denver right now this year is investing more than 400 million in social safety net programs, even counting the sheriff's $151 million budget. It is not nearly as mismatched as people are being led to believe. A number of people have also asked us to commit to implementing the eight can't wait reforms for safer and better policing. And my answer is we already have and we already have defunded from police through extensive civilian possession of such things as crash reporting technicians and other duties that are required of the city but do not require a sworn officer. I believe that's why we spend less per capita than cities like Camden that are lauded as great examples. I look forward to working with the entire community on this continuing effort. But I cannot support a last minute, ill conceived and legally questionable proposal that hijacks the broader community's work already underway. This proposal completely lacks transparency and engagement, and the manner, frankly, in which it was brought to us is a clear indication that it wasn't even meant to be taken at face value. But as political theater meant to continue the false dilemma narrative by claiming we're against reform if we don't choose this, too many in the public all across the political spectrum, all persuasions. Frankly, this body already looks like a clown circus car pulling up. And if we hope to salvage any shred of credibility that might still be stirring, we have to say no. There are others who want to be at the table to help shape the future. Thank you. Over. About that. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Herndon. Madam President, I don't have any comments right now. Thank you. Seen no one else in the queue to make comments. Say Sayed Abarca. Thank you. Council President. Just want to respond to that and kind of explain to you a little bit about this and where it came from. Councilman Flynn is right. This body does look like a clown circus. We often do things, very bad things. We often do things very backwards. We're unresponsive to the needs of our citizens. And then they get frustrated and they make citizen led ballot initiatives. Then we campaign against them like we did with 300 because they weren't good policy, because somebody like us didn't write them. And then we let the people tell us they that we want them. They they vote, they support it. Like the green groups. It passes. And then we still change it. We wait until initiatives are on the ballot and then we decide we want to help just because we want to say once we see, it gets enough signatures to get on the ballot like Democracy for the People initiative. And then we still tell people that we want them to participate and expect them to believe it. We've had unprecedented engagement on this proposed bill, and no, the engagement did not conform to our standards. It was not on your terms. And to be frank, nothing has been traditional in 2020. For months we've had protests, riots, marches, thousands of emails, multiple petitions, petitions, hours of testimony. We've had community meetings, all of those broader community meetings. I think that Councilman Flynn is referring to. I was at community vigils, council meetings, council briefings, council letters, and even passed a proclamation declaring racism a public health crisis. We've worn the BLM masks. We've shared public condolences and moments of silence for lives lost. We've told rooms full of hundreds of community members that we hear them and we want to do something. We've told them that they need to participate not just in the protests, but in changing the policies and laws that are at the root of their strife. And then we told them that we wouldn't listen to them. We shut the doors on them on June 1st and June 29th before we recalibrated how we would allow them to engage. We told them that for the public's protection, it would no longer be safe to be in physical space together. We left them hanging and only then offered up more one ended listening sessions where we asked them to continue repeating themselves without engagement from us. Hours of this, days of this, their pleas and our continued silence. Again, tonight, we have nearly 100 people in this room, in these chambers. And I sit up here among a crowd this big by myself for the third time. While some of us chose to continue our business from home, I chose to stay with these people. We were the people we were elected to represent and solidarity with them as the party, as they participated at unprecedented levels in our alleged democratic process. Tonight, there was a point where we had over 300 people on this call. We've agreed as a body to put aside our personal positions to empower the voters to decide on taxes that disproportionately impact the poor, who are largely nonvoters on dog permits, on structural changes for the heads of every agency, and for structural changes to give council powers we need. We've done this all at the request of council sponsors of these bills who may or may not have sufficiently engaged communities that we think are important and necessary. None of the thousands of people who've contacted us about defunding or abolishing the police had to have been included in any of those other stakeholder processes for those processes to be considered valid. I personally did not feel like members of my community were engaged in any of those processes. But does that mean all deprive all of the voters the ultimate engagement of voting yes or no on them for themselves? Of course not. I personally do not support most of them, but I would try to would I try to stop community from having one of the few real opportunities that they get to decide for themselves? Of course not. Democracy is the point. Give giving the people the most decision making authority over changes that impact them is our goal. It's supposed to be. You know. We don't have to believe that something should or will pass to give people the opportunity to decide. In fact, most of you believe that most of the voters want our current police force, that it is as it is. Well, then you should be confident that the voters will not vote on this measure. That sets. Out your bias and your beliefs and let the voters tell us. Let the chips fall where they may. We have an opportunity here to help craft this. It's going to be on a ballot either in November or after, with or without us. That's the rights that our citizens. We have an opportunity to give it the attention it warrants to make it better now. Or do we want to wait and fight it and critique it later when we force the citizens to take another path and perhaps make an even more sweeping structural change to the Constitution? What does this bill do? It does one thing. You're right. It's not we don't have to believe that. We have to abolish the police. Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be people responding to emergency calls. What we're saying is that we recognize that there are only two agencies in this city and this one the most that have the protections in our source document that the police have. What we're saying is that reforms don't work because we have it created the accountability mechanisms to make them work. The the foxes guarding the henhouse at every every juncture. And when we make a reform, you can have all eight of the eight, can't wait till eight and still have a city that is murdering and brutalizing black and brown people. What this bill does is it either races the paragraph, the one paragraph in our charter that gives police their existence. And what that does, just by the sheer strikeout, is it disconnects all of the other links, all of the other walls of protection around this fortress of DPD fall down and allow us to start over and decide how we want to protect the people and not that institution. Please don't weaponize process. After declaring a state of emergency and proclaiming a directly related public health crisis. We've allowed numerous bills to be direct filed over the last five months. Bills we had one weekend to respond to that impacted an entire city during the most dangerous moments of our existence. Our actions and inactions this year have put people out of businesses, out of homes, have killed and hurt people. Allowing the people to vote is is not a sweeping change. Allowing them to vote is letting them tell us if they're ready to make a sweeping change. It may or may not succeed. And the weight of this moment should be carried by all of us, not just us, scrambling to spin every request for information from the police as a meaningful step of action. Let the people carry the weight of this moment, too. We can't make the changes we're being asked to make alone, and we can't make the changes we're being asked to make without the charter changing this way anyway. There's no other city department with such detailed protections, pay guarantees, discipline policies spelled out in a source document to ignore and not acknowledge. That is how, since our founding, we baked in structural violence and racism into our core identity, and that is what is truly reckless and irresponsible. Please give this response to community cries its place on our ballot and let our city decide for themselves. They're intelligent and capable of determining themselves. If this is too big of a change, we can't keep the right to participate meaningfully. We can't dictate what participation looks like, and we can't demand that it is only to happen on our terms. To ignore what the people have asked for is what is truly reckless. To say that there has been no engagement is indeed ignoring the people. I'm specific specifically asking those of you who are putting questions on the ballot this November. Clarke. Ortega. Sawyer. Carnage. Herndon show the people the same courtesy as they as we've shown you. Let this go to the ballot and let the people speak. The new reality is masks. But these masks are not muzzles and we can't keep treating them as such. Thank you, Councilwoman. Up next, we have Councilman Hines. Thank you. Madam President, we are at a pivotal time in our history. We have a reawakening of the civil rights movement. Don't get me wrong. For many, this movement has constantly and consistently moved forward. But in 2020, that awareness has spread to the public consciousness and have received broad support. In 2020, we're seeing changes in roles of police engagement, including here in Denver. We're seeing new laws strengthening accountability for our public safety, including Senate Bill 217 here in Colorado. I'm proud to say that I personally testified in support of to 17 of the state legislator legislature. And I'm proud of our state legislative counterparts who worked hard and worked with one another to create a bill with strong bipartisan support. I ask myself, what would bomb do? As in Mom would move our money from places that don't make sense to places that do. So let's set our system up for success by creating a place outside of public safety where we have addiction, mental health and social work professionals to train to respond to those particular needs. Let's move our money, including the 690 K that in tonight's bill 20 0759 as just a start to this place which supports people instead of incarcerating them. My numerous conversations and in my process include members of public safety, Denver's public safety, and in conversations with that with them, they too want change. They don't want to be put in a situation where they are required to continue to respond to things that aren't their wheelhouse, aren't their training, aren't their profession. And and I think that that is a is is a conversation that we should look at. I'm sad that we didn't get a bill to look at because I've been doing a lot of research about this topic, and I would love to incorporate it into a bill. Who knows? Maybe we could make a bill stronger than it already theoretically is, and maybe we could engage our colleagues to find something that works for the body and for everyone in Denver. This, but I would say I can't make legislative decisions on a work document. I have to make a decision based on an actual bill that changes actual language. And so I also would say that all the people who wrote in to us, they did so on a theory, on on a proposal in theory and not on an actual bill. I'm definitely theoretically in favor of moving our money. Again, paraphrasing Hamilton, it's easy for me to be in favor of the theory. It's harder to take a position on a specific bill, particularly since it doesn't exist. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Madam President, I wanted to ask if Murphy is still connected. Murphy. Are you. Around? We can probably get him back up in the queue. Okay. I want to ask him a question because at I can't remember. If it was a committee meeting or a mayor council meeting where we talked about a structure that is being put together and idea about. Who. Community was because community is very broad in our city. We're diverse in age or diverse in socio economic demographics. So I know, Councilwoman CdeBaca, you have a constituency of people you deal with. I've heard from a lot of residents that live in your district in lower downtown and other areas who called in expressing some concerns. So I just wanted to ask Murphy, what is the status of a committee that is being formed to. Give. Direction and recommendations on proposed changes to the budget for safety? And, you know, I don't think we should just limit it to the police department. I mean, you and I had a conversation today about the public safety cadet program that I think should only be for Denver kids. We pay for years for an education for kids that are not living in Denver. And these are kids that didn't grow up in Denver. And I think that is a program that should be isolated to Denver kids. So, you know, help me understand kind of where we're at in this process as we start talking about where we go in making some structural changes that have been part of these larger this larger discussion. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. And Madam President, members of council. We are working. You just. Remember. Remind us your your role. I sure can. Murphy. Murphy F Robinson the third. I am the Department of Safety executive director. And in terms of the committee that's being formed. It is a community led committee. We all give history. I started out through the conversations, through my engagement with the community members during the protest and everything else. I started out formulating in committee set by my office when I was informed by council members as well as other community stakeholders that they would like it to be a community led effort. And so I. Was not part of that conversation. So that's part of why I'm asking the question, because there were some people involved and a lot of us had no voice in that in that conversation. Sure. Well, I was asked to hold off and allow the community to lead this effort. And so that's what I agreed to. We agreed to find a facilitator for this, that the COB, the Citizen Oversight Board, as well as the a member of the ministry alliance, is sharing that committee and is working on getting that facilitator in place now. And I believe they're working diligently. There has been a number of community meetings. There's been some things that have come out of that. But I'm also working on in my department to make sure that we are able to do some short term wins as well when it comes. So I was promised a list of who is on that committee. I haven't seen that yet. Because I don't think it exists, ma'am. I'm not sure that they have set that committee yet. And again, it's a community led committee. And so the best person to talk to is the S.O.B.. Okay. Happy to reach out. I guess the last thing that I will say is that, yeah, it feels like we're creating a a movement of trying to bully us into how we should be voting on some of these bills. And I think that is totally inappropriate for how we should govern in this city. And I have a lot of respect for Councilwoman CdeBaca. We've worked together on many issues. We're working on a lot of overlapping conversations around national Western and some of the issues in her her district, which is part of my old district that I represented for many years and have long relationships to the people in that district. But for this particular bill tonight to have been filed without any discussion at all in our committee process and having some input and details of what we would put on the ballot that would make decisions for our city for years into the future is is just irresponsible for the way that we are expected to govern. And I get that we're all hearing a lot from different people in our community. And this isn't to discount that input. I think we have all listened. We have heard that input. I think a lot of us are talking about what kind of structural changes that we want to see happen. But to do it as at what feels like a last minute push is just not fair to colleagues who all I mean, we do this with our agencies. We expect them to do their homework and to, you know, give us time to look at the things that they're asking us to look at. Great Hall, big example there. I mean, we could talk about numerous examples, but this this is no different than the same courtesy that we expect our agencies and the mayor's office to give us when they're asking us to look at something, particularly something that is so broad sweeping that makes such a difference in how our community will will operate moving forward. And it warrants thorough discussion with lots of different people at the table to make a final decision about what should be put on the ballot. Thank you so much. Q Councilwoman, Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So I just have I spoke today with the woman who was putting this forward. I think her name is Katie. Is that correct? Councilman CdeBaca. Candy. Councilwoman CdeBaca. I think there's actually a pretty large coalition that has been involved in putting this forward. They collected over 5000 pieces of input from community across every single district in this city. So the heads. Yes, Drew Johnson and Katie Leonard are here to speak if you have questions as well. They tried to also meet with all of you. Yes. So thank you. I met with Katie today, and I discussed my concern about being able to read this bill over the weekend and that it got to Clementine's point. It was not even put in register. It was a word document with whereas and so for me, I asked questions such as what kind of outreach have been done similar to the I ask everybody what kind of outreach has been done and who have they met with? And why could this not have been a citizen initiative? Ballot ballot initiative. And I understand it's during COVID and collecting signatures are super challenging. I understand that because I collected signatures for La Rosa Park and I had to figure out a way how to do it in a safe and meaningful fashion so that people could go and sign the petition because it had to be in-person. Yes. At the same time in Council District one, although maybe some, this has been reached out to council districts. I have received overwhelming phone calls and emails of people who were. Flabbergasted at the way that this was done. And asking me questions about the bill when I did not even have I don't even have any answers. I don't have there's not been any robust communication. And so we're working on something that will the city and county of Denver, the Community Planning and Development Department, is working on the group Living Text Amendment, and it's been going on for like two and a half years and people are still saying that there's not enough community outreach. Councilman Hines has been and your council district, there has been an area plan that's been going on for a long time that people have asked for extra time. Councilwoman Sawyer and Councilman Herndon are in a planning initiative that have been going on for a long time, that people are still asking for more public process, and that's just to plan a neighborhood. Those are planning initiatives that set the framework for things to move forward. And for me, as somebody who is born and raised in northwest Denver and lived. Through. The 93 year of violence, which I'm sure, Candy, you remember as well, it was horrific. It was awful. I lost tons of friends in that in that summer of violence. And it's no laughing matter. And what's going on right now is no laughing matter as well. And so it's so challenging to make sure that we're doing the robust type of outreach that we need to make sure people are engaged, kids are concerned about going back to school. People are concerned about the COVID. People are concerned about unemployment. People are concerned about the police department. There's a whole uprising of civil rights movement that have been has been going on this whole entire summer. And I feel bad that I was not I was not part of the process. I was not I was reached out to last Thursday. I checked my emails and Katie admitted that she had two emails. So maybe there was another time that she reached out to my office. And if she did, I'm sorry, but I can not fully support this moving forward when so many of my constituents who I feel like would have really I'm not the smartest person in the room. I know that. I know that there are tons of people in my community that are super smart and that take this serious and actually really, really want to see reform. And so I need to vet things through them. I don't think it's all about me and what I can direct file and making it a conflict between us and up here. Because, Councilman CdeBaca, you make it feel like it's us versus you, and I'm telling you it's not. I support a lot of your initiatives. I supported a lot of things that are going on, but it's the same violence that is happening in our community. It's black on black, it's brown on brown. And we have women on this council and we have five Latinas who can vote together. And if we all work together, instead of trying to work in silos, we could actually get things done. So in that vein, I cannot move forward and support this. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. I'll be I'll be quick, because I also will be supporting it. I've heard from a number of District. Three residents just since Thursday when they got wind of this as well, who. Are just. Overwhelmingly alarmed at the proposal. And I can't in good conscience or steward of good process vote in favor of it. There's just too many questions that even I have about the language, much less what they have. About implementation and budget requirements which weren't included. In the proposal. There's no mention of equity standards, of. Training, of accountability in the language. And while protests have been calling for which I still even struggle with, trying to figure out when we do it, from which part of the safety budget. And to where it goes. But they've been asking for diverting. Funds from police to public services, not just transferring. It to a new city department. And then potentially. Adding additional funding on top of that for whatever that department may need. It's just it's just too too nebulous. If the city if a citizen initiative wanted to put this forward, they should have. But they're going to get extra. Scrutiny from these 13 members when you need seven. Of them to push it forward. Go for those 8725. I'm sorry, 8265 petition signatures. And that's what makes citizen ballot initiatives one of the easier things that Denver and Colorado provide. Residents to do. So I'll leave it there. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you. Madam President, you just missed my clock chiming at 9:00, so I appreciate that. Is Kirsten. Crawford. In the in the mix here? Hmm. Stacey, could you bring her in? Thank you. I notice that the bill has no attestation from the CAO, from the city attorney's office, that that this has been reviewed and approved as true to form. And that's generally a requirement. So I'm wondering if we can even vote on this other than to vote it down. But usually when a council bill comes to us, it has been reviewed and approved as not approved as the concept, of course, but I assume that it fits all the legal requirements. Is that is that the case? Because I don't see a signature at the bottom of it. So. Kirsten Crawford Legislative Counsel I just want to kind of set one point of the record straight. One of the reasons I, I kind of punted to John Griffin tonight is he's spent an extraordinary amount of time working on some of the bills that have come forward tonight. And we take our job extremely seriously. We are very hardworking. We had a conversation with looking for some guidance from the council president and Councilwoman Zita back on late Friday night about how to proceed. Given that the bill came in very late on Wednesday afternoon and we were trying to ask questions about where it might go. But I just want you all to know that our job is much more than just formatting the bill and signing the sections because our ethical obligations and I think that got really murky tonight about, you know, when we talk about council having their own attorney, our ethical obligation is to city council. And we have to be able to say to city council that we don't have any objections. And I just felt concerned that we didn't have enough time to analyze any of the issues that the bill might have raised. And so we got some guidance from the council, women in Kansas and President Gilmore about how to proceed. So we just ended up taking that signature by craft, but that does not mean that it cannot go to council. We just have an ethical obligation to fulfill those duties. Okay. Thank you. I think the biggest issue with it excuse me is, well, there are several. One is the very late nature of it and the failure of the city attorney's office to have sufficient time to review and approve it as as true to form and no legal objection, which we always do with our council bills. The the biggest problem I see with it, number one, is it looks to me like it violates the state constitution, article 20, which when you read Section three, essentially says that Denver shall have a police department. And then the subset to that sub objection to that is that it also requires that that police department be covered by civil service. And this bill removes police from the Civil Service Commission oversight while leaving the fire fire department in. And then it also leaves the police, whoever remains as a certified post certified police officer. It leaves them nowhere because it doesn't put them in career service. It does. So they have no personnel system, so it's just very poorly written. And then that leads me to the the the final objection, which is it violates the single subject rule. And it and the title fails to mention the key provisions of removing the police from civil service. And it also fails to mention the. The constitutional issue. And it fails to mention but fails to mention a lot, frankly. So this is nowhere near ready. And frankly, I think the sponsor knew that when she filed it, that she was putting us in a position where we have to vote no. So that then we can be portrayed as as somehow standing for racism and oppression, which is obviously not the case. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Oh, I think you're muted, sir. Can you hear me now? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Very much. I can't let. Clown car. Sit. We've got 13 council members, a couple of dozen council staffers that work hard every day of the year in the best interests of their constituents and the people citywide. We weren't a clown car when we put the independent auditor in the charter. We were in a clown car when we expanded the S.O.B., when we created the Affordable Housing Fund, the Eviction Defense Fund, or the Immigration Defense Fund. There is no doubt we've got a tremendous amount of work to create a city where equity is more than a watchword. I think it is entirely appropriate to take a look at how Denver has been policed, is being policed with an eye toward ensuring that we're maximizing every dollar spent toward creating a city that's truly safe for all Denver residents and businesses. Inequities have existed that need to be corrected, and I look forward to the discussion that will be coming forth in the next couple of months. It is simply my experience. In. The five years I've been on council is that we create better policy. When when 13 council members are working together on it. When we take time to be sure that people understand all the nuances, when all voices are heard and when we come up with a solid policy, I can't support the bill that's being put forward today . It is a passionate representation of one side of a very complex issue. I would not be surprised if down the road if elements of it were incorporated in whatever policy comes about. But I just need to leave with I have great respect for all 13 members of the Denver City Council and all the people that work with us. And I think we have it in our ability to create substantive change. And I look forward to being part of that discussion. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman and Councilwoman CdeBaca, since we started out with you, we're going to go to Councilman Canete. Thank you, Madam President. Is my audio working okay? Go ahead. Thanks. So I guess I'll pick up maybe where Councilman Cashman set off, because I think that a fair question is, if not this proposal, then what is what is the next step? And I think that, you know, we have had an enormous councilwoman Zeta backer herself mentioned the enormous number of things folks are dealing with. Homelessness has been a major priority and challenge for council members in all different ways and all different aspects. You know, there have been others as well in terms of virus response and certainly housing and other issues that have been at the crisis level. So the question that I thought about over the last few days is so. I asked folks to support the idea of a community led task force, and I continue to hope that that path will bear fruit. And I believe that they have good intentions and hopefully we'll be able to proceed. I do think we need an update from them and I've requested that update and I know others have as well . But I do think that, you know, now that we are a little further along, I do think that it's important that we have a parallel work plan to complement and go along with a community led task force. And so one of the conversations that I think it's time for us to have is the idea of some expert support where I've been spending a lot of time with my counterparts in other cities. Austin recently had a very thoughtful, specific plan that involved transitions. It involves milestones. Some of the details that I've heard some of the prior speakers tonight raise that are are not they they do not feel are in this proposal. So, you know, reading the math on the wall, you know, it does not look like this is going to be referred to the voters, that I don't believe that that is the end of the discussion. And so I think one thing people are craving is what is the next step? And I think that the next step for this body might be getting some expert support to help guide that in the absence of one sponsor who's able to pretty much spend all their time on this, which frankly is how it's been done in other cities, it's been a sponsor who frankly can drop everything else, and they spend 6 hours a day with a whiteboard and millions of meetings, and they lead and develop a very detailed proposal. And that's been hard because we've got a lot of needs in all of our communities that we're also responding to. So I think that expert help can help to fill this gap. And I don't think that it has to be separate from I think if we have some experts, Viera Institute and dozens of other think tanks have done analysis of police budgets. They could come in and look at hours. You know, in Austin, they looked at pieces that could be unplugged and moved there. And there's questions of which things could or should be defunded and replaced with other things that need to be funded. Some things have a timeline. What does training look like? I think I've mentioned in our committee of the whole that I think we could get much more serious about the categories. Right. There's an independent oversight category. There's a training category. There is a category involving, you know, actual police services. Those are different. And they require some different policy analysis in each of them. And I do think, frankly, that having some professional support of, you know, a very strong research partner that can help us and then create a focal point for us to work as a committee of the whole. Because I hear that in the comments of my my colleagues who spoke before this desire for everybody to be at the table versus one sponsor who is going to figure out all these details in the depth. And so I think that if we were and I talked a little bit to some of you about this, I know I've reached out to council President Gilmore, so if she would like to chime in, that might be helpful. But I think that if we were to commit to having a serious conversation about that and getting that expertize, I think that would help me. For example, with the budget analysis, I've been struggling to get my arms around some of those line items that are not always as evidence. And so there may be other documents, you know, whether it's coffers or whether it's detailed expense reports, there may be more documents we need experts to pore through. And I don't think we have the capacity and our central staff and our our council offices to do that. Other cities have certainly relied on some specialized support to do this. And I don't think there's. And then I my hope would be we can be sharing that information simultaneously with a community task force. And we can continue to have iterative conversations where if ideas come up from one table, they can be shared with the others, as well as with folks who are maybe not at that table, council members who've been working with folks behind this proposal tonight. So so I do think it's time to think about a more robust, specific path for us to build our capacity to get to the specificity that everyone's craving. So, so that's my kind of thought about where we would go from here. And I'm open to thoughts from colleagues about that. But thank you for your consideration, Madam President, of this idea. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Canete. Councilwoman CdeBaca, we have you back up in the mix and then I have comments as well. Just to add just a couple of comments on the the ballot question itself actually accommodates for that yearlong committee process with experts. I think we're talking about two different things here. And there's the charter piece of this and the ordinance piece of this and the department piece of this. And what? We're looking at is a ballot question to enable this conversation in a real way. Right now, we've got a collective bargaining agreement coming to us that has a police salary increase in year two and that is in direct conflict with what we're being asked to do. But what can we do about the collective bargaining agreement that's in charter? And so the point of this is, if you look at it like a game of Jenga, the source document is that brick on the bottom. If you pull it out, all of the rest of it falls down. And that is what we have spent years and years trying to do, not knowing what button to push, not knowing which brick to pull. And this single paragraph is that brick. And while, yes, if it is a huge thing, we're undoing generations of systemic oppression. And so it should be a big thing and we should be taking it on when we have an entire community behind us that's willing to run with it. I think it's. Perhaps a little elitist to think that there's expertize outside of us that hasn't been already contributed. You all didn't even give it a second hearing to find out who's been a part of it. And we created barriers for people to participate in democracy the way that they should have. When you ran a citizen led ballot initiative, who do the hearings? Who hosts the hearings? Who is the first person that they go to? Right here, City Council Executive Director of City Council. They come to us for hearings. When people try that, guess where we were not here. Guess where there's contact information for an executive director of city council? Not here. Guess what happened when they sent emails to every single one of your offices, including the Department of Safety's office? They got brushed off. They didn't get met with. And so we've got some major issues in. And we have to hold ourselves accountable for those things because we've made a lot of missteps this year, and we're not taking any responsibility for that. And we expect the whole city to give us grace and we're not willing to reciprocate. And so for this ballot question here, like I said earlier, the people are going to figure out how to get it on a ballot, on a ballot coming soon, whether or not it's the November ballot. But there's also going to be ballot ballots with your names on them that they're going to remember you. This is the moment where you have challenged your community, your constituents, to step up to the plate, to go above and beyond, to work harder, to bring their expertize to the table for free. And we're slapping them in the face for having done that. Councilman Hines, you're up next. Thank you, Madam President. So I actually went back to my email. I was trying to figure out why we would not have met with Kitty Leonard. And so I do see an email she sent August seven. So ten days ago, she identifies as a District nine resident. And so we reached out to the District nine office. We wanted to make sure that what we were hearing back from District nine, because we don't want to step on toes. We did not hear back from the District nine office, so we did not schedule a meeting. But but that's the reason why we didn't meet with her, is because we wanted to. We didn't want to step on the district nine toes. And her email just says that she's an organizer for Antiracist Club Colorado. She didn't say that she was the lead of the the ballot initiative that actually we didn't know was going to be filed. I would also say I was frustrated because I met with Councilmember CdeBaca at 430 on Thursday afternoon about the other two ballot initiatives. And she didn't mention that she had I had earlier that day filed a third. So that's really it's difficult for me to even understand or know what's going on when I don't I don't have all the information. The last thing that I guess I just I just learned through text message that there is still paper filed. I checked this morning. I didn't see it. So I haven't read whatever bill we're supposed to be working on. And I apologize. I can't vote for or against anything that I haven't read, but apparently it came sometime today. So that's really difficult for me to support anything that moves that that accounts for 45 or 46% of the city's budget. And I haven't read it. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you Councilman Hines. And seen no one else at the in the queue. I will give my comments last and you know. There's been a lot of judgments about our body tonight, and I have to say that. I respect all of you. And we just had a council retreat on July 17th, and we started to work together to outline our values, to work together on behalf of the citizens of Denver. And we aren't a circus. We are not a joke. We are a body of committed community members who are trying to do the best damn job we can do during unprecedented times. And I know unprecedented times is overused, but. The entire script. Script has been flipped on us with COVID, with the economy, with. Black Lives Matter and historic racism and injustice. We are doing the best job that we can possibly do and I take huge offense of anyone saying that we are doing differently. Because you don't know what our jobs entail. You do not know the family members who call us late at night because they need somebody to talk to because they feel unheard, because they need support. We are there 24 seven for folks. There's a lot of community members who are there, 24, seven for our community, our council aids, our staff, city folks. I hear it and I see it day in and day out. So I would ask that we stop being so hard on each other. We stop name calling. We stop questioning each other's intense because it doesn't get us anywhere. It takes the same energy to give somebody the grace and the benefit of the doubt that they're doing the best that they can. Or it takes the same energy to name, call and go down that path and. We might not get anywhere with that. And so I know that there's a lot of folks that are asking, well, you know, why did you even let this get get filed? Gilmore. Well. I'm the council president and I've been reviewing the powers and duties of president. It's in rule 8.2. I can't compel a council member to use committee and or stop them from filing directly to have it on the council agenda. I specifically asked the city attorneys, could I of stop this, should I stop this? And the answer was denying this would not have been good. Preventing a duly elected council member from trying to pass legislation, I believe is outside my role as president. But what I want to be clear about is that, one, there has never been a council member who has been blocked from bringing a proposal or legislation forward to committee. There are scheduling considerations. But blocked? No, never. And at this point, the way in which these have come forward, I helped with process. I helped administratively so that these were on the agenda. We had a courtesy public hearing because that's my job, is to facilitate that customer service to my fellow colleagues, depending on not not depending independent, though, if I'm for the legislation or I am against the legislation. I am neutral in that part. But I have to say. That these did not come to committee. There was no comprehensive, robust community input. My community for many of them. Don't have the means to get downtown to the city and county building. And I represent the same as you over 65,000 residents. They deserve the time and the engagement to understand what these Charter changements will mean to not only them, but their loved ones and our entire city. And we don't need to keep playing that game of somebody else. Has it worse off than you or vice versa? To know that we're all trying to do the best job that we can do. These are major reforms. They deserve to see the light of day through a robust community process, and they will morph and change based on community and agency input, which will include the Department of Safety and the Denver Police Department as well. None of us, none of us are afforded the privilege to change our charter so drastically without talking to our communities and one another. The intention and transparency of our entire city matters. And this is a Denver wide conversation. City Council is committed to being part of this. And we, if need be, will lead these conversations. Like Councilwoman Canete said, she and I have talked to other council members about us using our city council budget to possibly hire a consultant to start leading initial research, data analysis and vetting of policy options. The city councils in Austin and many Annapolis went fast and they went big. And now they're having to backtrack. This is way too important. We need to make sure we do this process right the first time to avoid any setbacks. Because lives do depend on this. I want to explore and work with community and also our police department to find solutions that will help them be more successful in serving our citizens of Denver. We need to support community members to make sure they have the tools to succeed. And when and if a ballot measure is the direction to go, we want to make sure that it is not followed by a failed initiative looming over it. If this goes to the ballot and it is not ready and it fails. The percentage points of it getting passed the second time around. It's a harder haul. And like I said, this is way too important to mess this up by going too fast. I've got Murphy Robinson, our director of safety and chief. Payson connected with Andre Gregor, a former FBI agent and black man who wrote a compelling op ed for CNN about his experience with the FBI. And he has also offered to help Denver Police Department with utilizing technology to make sure that we have the correct officers going out on calls and ways to hold those officers accountable and also providing officers that might be under stress, the help and the support for them to do their jobs better. We need this activity data. We need. To analyze this, and we need to start to bring our city back together. We are all in this together and we need to do the slow, do it intentional and do it right so we can really undo the hundreds of years. Of issues that we're trying to roll back and we can't do it over a weekend as our city council. I look forward to this work together. I look forward to the hard conversations. And I want to thank my colleagues for your time and engagement tonight. This was a conversation that I think many of us might not wanted to have, but we had it because it's important and it's important for the community to hear our commitment on this topic. Madam Secretary, roll call on Bill 842, please. When? Now. Herndon Hines, thank. I'm sorry. Epstein. Thank you. Cashman No. Carnage? No. Ortega? No. Sandoval. No. Sawyer. Now there is no. Black? No. CDEBACA Yes. Clark No. Madam President. No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One abstention. 11 nays. One I. 11 nays. Bill 842 has failed. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. 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. Clerk, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, Madam President, I move that the resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration will be placed upon final consideration, passed in a block for the following items. 829 772 773 1174 458 459 758 764 763 765 775. 255. 727. 751. Seven. 66. 86. And 687. Madam Secretary, I'm just going to double check since we're virtual that I did those all correctly. You sure did. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, Councilman. It has been me out and I get a second. Second. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark II. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. Cashman. I can eat. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I was. I. Council President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results, please. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. We will take a ten minute, ten minute recess excuse me and we will come back at 940. I'd like to remind my colleagues to please mute your mikes and we'll see you back at 940. Thank you. We have four public hearings tonight. Thank you for joining us. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling council their names and cities of residents, city as residents and if they feel comfortable doing so. Their home addresses when called upon.

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver, on behalf of itself and the Denver Workforce Development Board and Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. to provide one-stop operator and comprehensive services specific to employment and training as required under Denver’s Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funding. Approves a contract with Eckerd Connects for $2,500,000 and through 6-30-21 to provide one-stop operator and comprehensive services specific to employment and training as required under Denver’s Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funding and other special state revenue or grant-funded workforce initiatives, citywide (OEDEV-202054623-00). 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. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Herndon called out this item at the 6-15-20 meeting for a one-week postponement to 6-22-20.

DenverCityCouncil_06222020_20-0488

Okay. Thanks for the help. And then, Madam Secretary, first up, you put four, eight, eight on our on our screens and this one is for a vote. So, Councilmember, can you please vote Council Resolution 488 on the floor? Yes, I move that council resolution. 20 dash 48 be adopted. And Q has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. And real quick, before I explain pulling this out for the second time. For those of you who don't understand what's happening when we get bills sent to us, everything is on what they call a consent agenda. It comes from the mayor's office. And that means the consent agenda means an automatic yes vote from the whole block. And so unless we call things out individually, then we don't vote on them separately from the consent block. So it's important to watch what people call out and what they're asking about it. You can call out for questions, questions and a vote or just comments. I called this out for the second time last week. I called it out because it's a $2.5 million contract with a company called Eckerd Connects. This is for our work for Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. And this is a company out in Clearwater, Florida, that we're outsourcing our workforce to workforce development to because we can't find somebody in Denver who can do it. This is a company in Florida who had a $77 million contract with the state of Florida, and they were going to revoke their contracts because of their negligence with with foster youth. And so I called this out again to vote no on it, and I hope my colleagues will also vote no on this one. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. Is Tony Anderson here from Dito or is there anybody from Dito? Okay. Well, so one of the workforce development centers that this contract would staff is the Montebello Area Taylor Building and Eckerd. I don't agree with an out of state vendor. We need to do better on this. But we are also in the middle of a pandemic and a lot of folks that represent Denver International Airport that worked out there, they are out of work. And with this contract, I talked to Tony Anderson on Friday and conveyed to him my dismay that there was a local provider here . Apparently their bid was much higher than Edwards bid. And city council is never asked to to put information in to, you know, ask questions during the RFP process so we don't have a say on what qualifications they're asking for a business. And so this contract is for a one year amount. And I talked to Tony Anderson from our Denver Economic and Development Office and told him that we need to start now looking at that RFP process for next year, because we need to make sure that local nonprofits I can list them out. Struggle of Love Montebello Walks Montebello 2020. There's a whole list of organizations that could do some of this work, but the RFP process doesn't allow them to qualify or to apply because there are certain capacity levels. And so I talked to Tony and told him that now we have a little bit of time to start building up that capacity of local nonprofits so that they're ready to apply for this when this comes available next year. And my dilemma in voting for or against this is that we have people right now in Montebello, in Green Valley Ranch and Stapleton that need help in securing employment. And so those are some of the hard decisions that, you know, this could possibly take three or four more months that we wouldn't have a service provider at the moment below RFP, Taylor and at other workforce development centers. And so trying to weigh what the best choices are and so just wanted to share and that Tony was totally willing to convene the community to talk with the community, identify what the gaps are and that we help them build their capacity. And that actually could be some of those funds that we divest from DPD. We could actually provide technical assistance, training software so local nonprofits can actually apply for and get this 2.5 million right here in the community. And so I just wanted to share that. President Clark, thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Is there. There's no one here to talk. Okay. So one of the thoughts that I have is by voting no on this, you know, we impede the ability of people who are not employed right now to get jobs. I would say Councilmember Herndon did ask for this to be delayed from last week to this week so that we could get answers to questions. And if no one's here, then makes it tough for me to get answers to those questions. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmembers said walking back up. Yes, thank you, Mr. President. And just want to explain to people, because we use a lot of things you don't a lot of jargon. RFP is a request for proposal when the city needs a job done. We put out an RFP and let companies respond to it. In Denver, for this contract in particular, we had a local trusted entity, Emily Griffith, apply, and because their price was higher, we have a habit in Denver of taking the lowest bid. The price that they say that they're charging is the bid. And because their price for being a local trusted agency was a little bit higher. We choosing to race to the bottom and pick the lowest bid to serve our most valuable people in this city right now. And yes, in a pandemic, it's more important now than it was before, because there are many nonprofits who could step in now that couldn't step in before. And three months is nothing to them with the $2.5 million contract. They could do this. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Hines, you back up? Yes, Ms.. President. Mr. Mayor, is are we required by charter or law or anything to take the lowest bid? Is that is that one of our requirements as a city? Sky sought mayor's office. So there are with certain contracts. I would have to look at this. This is federal dollars. Flowing to us from the federal government. So there are certain conditions. Attached. To these funds. The bid we. Received from Emily Griffith was actually eight times higher. So it wasn't a small difference. It was a quite significant difference. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. Look at video. If we could, please. Thank you. Councilman CdeBaca, you welcome. Yes, thank you. And just a reminder, that's how we had private prisons running our halfway houses because their bid was lower, significantly lower. It's hard work to fulfill these bids and to do them right and to do high quality workforce development and track outcomes and do longitudinal studies. And so I think when you are considering what we're investing in it, the price tag shouldn't be the only thing driving our behavior. Thank you, Councilmember. Madam Secretary, roll call on 488. CDEBACA No. Flynn All right. Gilmore I. Herndon High. Hines No. Cashman I can change my. SANDOVAL. Hi. Sawyer. No. Torres, I. Black Eye Council President. All right, Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results. 3999993 is council bill. A resolution for Haiti has been adopted. Council Member Can you please put Council Bill 495 on the floor for introduction?

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing the issuance of Marina Revenue Bonds, Series 2015, in an aggregate amount not to exceed $125,000,000, and the execution of various related documents. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_05052015_15-0377

Motion passes seven zero. Item number 15 Report from Financial Management and Parks, Recreation and Marine recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the issuance of a marine revenue bond in aggregate amount not to exceed $125 million. District three. Mrs. Price. Thank you very much. I want to just take a moment to express express my sincere appreciation for the following city staff members. John GROSS, Director of Financial Management. David Nakamoto, city Treasurer. Lori Coe, debt service manager. George Chapman, Parks Rec and Marine Director and Alfreda Hallinan, Manager of the Marine Bureau. These individuals each put in long hours and a lot of hard work to put together this bond package. These bonds are special, limited obligation bonds secured solely by the Pledge of the Marina Fund revenue. The bonds will never be considered a city debt impacting the general fund, and the bonds will allow the rebuild to be completed without any more tidelands funds, money or the use of the State Department of Boating and Waterways loan of 16.9 million, which we approved earlier this year. The bond money will also repay the $59.2 million in DBA loans that the city has already borrowed and that we owe for earlier phases of the rebuild. The actual amount of the bonds to be issued is approximately $120 million, with 49.2 million to complete the marina, rebuild 61.5 million to repay the state loans, including interest and an $8 million reserve. The extra 5 million in the authorization is a contingency amount. Not sure if I got all of those numbers correct, but I will say in a nutshell that I am so grateful for staff for the amazing work that they did on this. And I'm very happy for the city as a whole to be able to rebuild these marinas. They are in an extremely dilapidated condition. Given a city of this size and the offerings that we provide to the boating community, the marina does not reflect the quality or the image that we want for the city of Long Beach. So to be able to do this through this offering is a huge progress for our city and for the third district as a specifically. So thank you, everybody, for all the great work that you did. I know you put a lot of time into this and thank you for giving me a personal briefing. It was one of the few occasions where John GROSS was able to deliver some really super positive news given our fiscal climate. So I'm very, very grateful to have had that opportunity to meet with with the team. So thank you. Thank you. And thank you, John. That's wonderful. Mr. Hodgson. Yes. I also wanted to just join in and and congratulate congratulate the city, congratulate the the stakeholders in the Marine marina area. I know I remember, you know, about a year ago, this this chamber was filled with individuals who are pleading for us to do something to improve the the Marina, particularly Alamitos Bay. And it just shows that through creative financing, you know, a year ago, there was there was very little hope and we didn't really have a pathway to get it fixed. But it shows a big kudos to John GROSS but also George Champion and your team for coming together and coming up with the creative financing to make this happen. And, you know, this will our marina as well will reflect the and exemplify the excellence of our city. Congratulations, everybody. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Orson, do you have any public comment? Larry. Good to see you guys. Having followed this issue since the project was first started, I support, in essence, what the council person and the staff has suggested. I'm, however, going to suggest that we wait until approximately a week after June the eighth. And by waiting, I think we will be able to get a better bond rate on June 8th in the Superior Court of California. In Los Angeles, there will be a. During a. A hearing before Judge Kennedy. The outcome of which. Could have an impact and the impact being a reduced rate based on the fact that. If the ruling goes, as I think it will go. There will be certain individuals on the 13th and 14th they will be on the fast track to enter their careers was making license plates. That will certainly. Reflect and enable the city to approach the bond issue to. And get a better rate by saying we have a stellar management. And our problems have been solved. That have been so long playing it a plague is so I don't think six, six or seven weeks is going to rock the boat, but the date is set. It will be June 8th, and at that time we get a pretty good indication that there might be a couple of weeks of appeal after that. But I don't think so. I think they've got a pretty good handle on how that's going to go. So hold off for six weeks. We'll get a better rate. Thank you. Thank you. Could you. Is it? I said it. Oh, yeah. Excuse me. Please take a vote. Motion passes seven zero. Item number 16 report from Long Beach Gas and Oil and Financial Management Recommendation to award a contract to independent utility supply for furnishing and delivering Mueller products in an annual amount not to exceed 235,000 citywide.

A bill for an ordinance creating the office of climate action, sustainability, and resiliency. Amends Chapter 2 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to create a new Office of Climate Action, Sustainability, and Resiliency and makes conforming code changes to transfer responsibilities for related programs to the new office. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-2-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-6-19.

DenverCityCouncil_11182019_19-1177

All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. That concludes the questions or comments on this item. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens, which should be 1177, which is the bill creating the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency. And I just wanted to call this bill out to, again, thank all my colleagues, to thank the administration and to thank all of the citizens who pushed really hard for this and have been pushing us to elevate this conversation around climate change and pushing us to step up our response on this issue. This is a huge step in the right direction, but our work is not done here. We have a long way to go until we can say that we're doing everything that we need to do as a city to meet the science based targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions. I look forward to seeing this office stood up and focused on this critical work, and I also look forward to the forthcoming Climate Task Force meetings and the hard work that that task force will undertake. Looking at what we are currently doing, what we what more we need to be doing and how we close that gap. And I look forward to this body continuing to push hard on this issue until we know that we are doing our part and everything that we can as a city to solve this global crisis. So, Councilman Hines, did you also want to make a comment or ask question? Well, no question. But I do want to make a comment. Mr. President, I want to thank you also for for pulling this out. And I want to thank my colleagues and everyone who's worked on this. I think this is a critical program I want to our initiative. I also want to mention I was fortunate to stand with the mayor, the governor, the lieutenant governor, the executive director of CDOT and Lyft. Last week when they unveiled that they are adding 200 electric vehicles to their fleet in the in the city. And I want to say, this is an example of how we should all do our part as individuals and as organizations to to to work to to make this a better planet to a cleaner planet and a more sustainable planet. And and so I think that even, you know, companies like Lyft should be celebrated. And and I think that they the governor and Lyft both last week gave a gentle challenge. I would bring the same thing again and say, we should all do our part, not just individuals, not just government agencies. But I love the gentle challenge that that left in the governor had companies we would love to support you in your quest to become more sustainable as well. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. All right. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered published, and we are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration, except for Resolution 11 zero four concerning the 14th Street General Improvement District Resolution 11 zero five regarding Gateway Village General Improvement District and Resolution 11 zero six concerning the Reno Denver General Improvement District. After the recess, Council will hold separate public hearings on these three councilmembers. Remember, this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last opportunity to call an item out for a separate vote. All right, Councilman, can we please put the resolutions for adoption in the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes. 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. 1186 1205 1207 1208 1209 1210 1163 1204 960 1190 1192 1118 1090 1091 1092, 1093, ten, 94, ten, 95, ten, 96, ten, 97, ten, 98, 1099, 1100 1101 1102 1103 1107 1157 1171 1172 1173 1174 1062 1125 1126, 11, 27, 11, 28, 11, 2911 30 1131, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1136, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1148 1150 1151 1152 1153 1117, 1177. All series of 2019. Thank you, Councilwoman. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Right. Flynn Hi. Gilmore I Herndon High. Haynes High. Cashmere High. Can each i. Ortega I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer I. Torres, I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please. Because voting in notes results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight, Council will convene separately as the Board of Directors of the 14th Street, Gateway Village and Rhino Denver General Improvement District to approve a work plan, adopt a budget, impose capital and maintenance charges, and make appropriations for the 2020

Recommendation to receive and file a report on recommendations on business license taxes and business fees with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic; Approve recommendation to allow deferral of payment of business license taxes and fees until March 31, 2021; and Approve a recommendation to provide for grants to businesses to offset business license taxes and fees for those businesses closed or materially restricted and impacted for an extended period of time due to the City Health Orders, with an estimated and maximum cost of $1.3 million plus administrative costs of $75,000. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11172020_20-1132

It would please item seven in place. Report from Financial Management Recommendation to receive and file a report on recommendations on business license, taxes and business fees with regard to COVID 19 pandemic citywide. So moved by some the. Anybody come in on the side. There's no public comment on this item. Okay. Do we have a first and. Second, please? Yeah. And I'd like to speak to the make or break. Okay. I think so. And I'll be brief. So, first of all, I know that. So I know that a number of council members contributed to this. I know Council Member Suber now contributed this. Council member price contributed to this. And I love what staff has brought back and I may just want to tailor it just a bit. I love structuring this. We talked about ways to support struggling businesses and it led with you started with the conversation on restaurants and what came back is a grant program and I am just question for staff who designed this. Tom This is mostly designed by financial management and by economic development. They did a really good job. I like what I see here and I want to ask if there's some room. I'd like to. So it looks like it's 1.3 million in grants. It seems like that may do we anticipate that that money will. I remember last time we did the 800,000, it went by really, really quickly. I think I think I may want to suggest that we sort of stagger and prioritize since the conversation started with the restaurants. We prioritize restaurants here, particularly full service, full service, independent restaurants across the city. And so I want to hear staff's reaction to that. And if they're good with it, I'd like to make that structure. That is the motion. So can you give us a little more information on how you'd like to structure? Are you saying that they should have a certain percentage of the funds, or do you just want us to monitor that as we do our kind of criteria? If you can talk a little bit about that and Jan GROSS can also weigh in with some ideas. Oh, so so two things. Let me be more clear. Here's the way I want to go with this motion. So, one, I think we should prioritize the fire, the health and the alarm feeds. And then we talked about, you know, some challenges with the business license fee. And that's a small component of this. The ones that people are concerned about mostly are fire health and a lot of these platforms. And I think that will spread the pot, make it go a lot farther. Secondly, I think we should target full service independent restaurant operators. I sense it's a limited amount of funding. That's why I'd like to see targeted assets is a small amount of money. And so if you could respond to that, then I'll I'll make a motion. So, yes, the way the program set up is that it's essentially on an impact basis. So it looks at who if you've been closed for more than 30 days, you are pro-rated at a certain amount and then it goes all the way up to if you've been closed for 90 days. We have certain businesses in there that are exempt. So this doesn't apply to retail. It doesn't apply to fast food restaurants. So restaurants in full service are definitely in there, but so are other types of services that have been impacted by the health orders. It's really up to the council if you want to keep the 1.3 million, but you want to focus it by eliminating the business license fee, part of it, which is the smaller amount and go with the other fees. That's an option. And you can also give us direction on whether I'd like just to know, when you say prioritize restaurants, you mean only restaurants or more, more. The money should go to restaurants, less to others. That's what we're the direction we would need. Yeah, I, I'd like to see restaurants. I'm open. If the council says, hey, let's include everyone. I think we should just at least make sure, like, 75% of this is restaurants. I'm sure the rest of the council members are hearing what I'm hearing, that there certainly a lot of anxiety among the restaurants. I think we should focus on trying to get whatever support we can to them, particularly until we see whether there's going to be relief in terms of Heroes Act or something like that. I'd love to make sure that these dollars have as great of an impact as possible to the votes. But my motion would be we target this, the restaurant, so so I would make the motion the way that we discussed. So this is all service independent restaurants for the fire, the health and the alarm fees. At the 75% or higher than that? I think we do 100%. But if the council wants to negotiate that, I'm fine with that. I think we go 100%. We just target restaurant. Yeah, understood. Fine. There's a second accept councilman reticence to. Who's the second? Who's in the house? Yes. But this is in Chad. Yes. Okay, fine. Does anyone else wish to speak on this side? Could we please go vote? District one. I District two. I. District three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I District eight. Hi. District nine. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 159. I know. Councilman Pearce. Well rescheduled for the eighth. Do we need a motion in a second to withdraw that vote tonight?

Amends a contract with Securus Technologies, Inc. for added services to the Inmate Phone system to allow for caller to leave a voicemail as well as friends and family to fund a call account. No change to contract amount (TECHS-201312032-01).

DenverCityCouncil_06082015_15-0342

Councilman Kennish, will you please put the bill on the floor? Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 298 be taken out of order. And do I also need to make a separate motion for it to be placed upon final consideration and do pass? No, just. To be taken out of order. Yes. Thank you. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Brooks. Hi. Hi. I can eat Lemon Lopez. Hi, Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Rob. Shepherd Sussman. All right. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, can you announce the results? 12 eyes. We have 12 eyes. Council bill to 98 may be taken out of order. Council. Woman Sussman, please offer your motion to amend. Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill 298 be amended in the following particulars. All of these are just two, I should say, ahead of time to postpone the effective date of a new bundle of tax amendments. Ready? Here we go. On page two. Line ten, strike the reference to 14th and replace with eighth on page two. Line ten, strike the word may and replace that with the word June on page two. Line 11 strike the reference to 2015 Dash oh 211 and replace with 2015 Dash oh 211. Dash E on page two, lines 15 and 16 strike the words the Denver Zoning Code adopted by this ordinance and filed City Clerk Filing Number 2015. Dash oh 211 shall take effect on June 19th, 2015, and replaced with a following a except as otherwise provided in Section two B of this ordinance with respect to certain formal site development plan applications, the Denver Zoning Code adopted by this ordinance and filed City Clerk Filing Number 2015 Dash 0211-e shall take effect on July six, 2015. Add the following new subsection B to Section two. B notwithstanding Section two of this ordinance, if requested by an applicant, a formal site development plan application may be processed under the provisions of the current Denver Zoning Code. If a complete formal site development plan application, including any applicable fees, has been filed with CPD on or before 4 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time, July 2nd, 2015. A formal site development plan application processed under the provisions of the current Denver Zoning Code. Pursuant to this Section two B shall be subject to the following requirements. I know. I guess that's a one. One. If the formal site development plan application has not received approval by the Development Review Committee or with respect to site development plan applications for certain construction and exceptions in the campus health care and campus health care to zoned districts. The Denver Planning Board on or before 4 p.m. Mountain Standard Time, January 4th, 2016. The application shall be void. Once an application becomes void, all new site development plans. Applications for the same property shall be processed under the provisions of the Denver Zoning Code, no extensions of time shall be granted to the formal site development plan. Applications shall meet all of the standards and requirements of the current Denver zoning code, and an applicant may not substitute standards and requirements of the current Denver's zoning code set forth in the Denver Zoning Code. Three Any changes, modifications or amendments to a formal site development plan application approved under this section to be shall comply with the Denver Zoning Code, including changes, modifications or amendments to an approved formal site development plan application that are sought on or before. 4 p.m. Mountain Standard Time, January 4th, 2016. Thank you. Would you like to repeat that? Yeah. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman says Thank. You, Madam President. In addition. Sure. This. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the effective date of the amended and restated Denver zoning code. We're bringing forth a bundle of amendments and particularly to provide a grace period for certain projects submitted by by July 2nd, 2015, to be processed under the of the current Denver zoning code through January 4th, 2016. It means that there were some projects that were in process that had not been able to get to get get reviewed as soon as they had hoped. So we're delaying it a little time to give them about six months more time for their projects. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I just want to add that I I'm assuming that we had all received letters from people who have projects in the pipeline that are already going through the process. And there was language in this particular ordinance that just got amended that said everybody would have to go back to starting at the beginning, which made no sense. So some of us reached out and asked the planning director to look at this and make sure obviously part of the process is. You know, when somebody's tuned to rezoning, they have to be working with the neighborhoods, as we'll hear tonight on a particular application. But in in the case where somebody's been working on a project and I did some work with a gentleman on Santa Fe who didn't need to rezone his property, who had been going through the process in an example like that would be because of this change. He would have to start the project all over if he hadn't already received his permit. So I appreciate this amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Any other any other comments? Madam Secretary, roll call, please. SUSSMAN Hi. BROOKS Hi. BROWN All right. But I can eat lemon. Lopez. All right. NEVITT Hi, Ortega. Rob Shepherd, I. Madam President. Hi, Rob. Oh, sorry. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill 298 has been amended. Councilwoman Sussman, please offer your motion to postpone. But I move that final consideration of Council Bill 298 as amended with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, June 29th. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of council. So. Madam Secretary, roll call. SUSMAN All right. Brooks Brown Fights by can, each by layman. Lopez I never. Ortega Rob Shepherd Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes. Final consideration of Council Bill 298, as amended with this public hearing, has been postponed for June 29th. Madam Secretary, will you please tee up the next item? Thank you. Okay. Councilwoman Sussman, you have. So on the screen. Madam Secretary, it says 321, 323, 325. Are we able to do. It's in a block right now, 312 through 325. All right. There's eight bills. Okay. So we will call that out. Councilwoman Sussman, what would you like to do with Council Bill 321? Thank you, Madam President. I have called out council bills. 312, three, 13, three, 19, three, two, one, three, 22, three, 23, three, 24, 325. For the purposes of amendments on four of those bills and those four would be council bills, three, 12, three, 19, three, 22 and 324 and I will be asking for a postponement on all eight bills. Thank you, Councilwoman. Okay. We'd love to hear the explanation. Councilor McKinnis, we need a motion to take council bills. Three, 12, three, 13, three, 19, three, 21, three, 22, three, 23, three, 24 and three, 25. Out of order. Thank you. Madam President, I move that council bills. Three, 12, three, 13, three, 19, three, 21, three, 22, three, 23, three, 24 and 325. Be taken out of order and block. Think. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Desmond Brooks. Hi, Brown. All right, Fats. I can eat. I. Lemon Lopez. All right. Ortega. Rob Shepherd. Hi, Madam President. Hi. Madam Secretary. Let's see. Did I vote? I did. Okay. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the result. 12 eyes. 12 Eyes. Council bills. 312, three, 13, three, 19 three, 21, three, 22, three, 23, three, 24 and 325 may be taken out of order. Councilman Sussman, your motion to amend 312. I move the council bill 312 be amended in the following particulars on page one line 23 strike the clerk file reference 0211 dash and replace with 0211-f on page one line 23 Strike the date May 28, 2015 and replace with June eight, 2015. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilman Sassoon. Thank you, Madam President. The purpose of amending Council Bill 312 is in reference to the updated City Clerk file number in conjunction with the proposed 2015 change changes to amend Chapter 59 Revised Municipal Code and amend and restate the Denver Zoning Code and Council Bill 298, the one we just passed. The only changes to the actual text of the code are to reflect that the amended and restated code takes effect on July six, not June 19th, and that the shallow lot standards shall apply to certain zone lots established prior to July 10th, 2015, not June 25th, 2015. What happened is that the three honey text amendments that we were expecting to come creating their overlay zone district and the National Western Center text a minute amendment creating their zone district are being amended to reflect the revised effective date of the amended and restated zoning code because of our change of date set for Council Bill 298 . In our last action, we need to change the dates on these that were that were dependent upon the dates of 298. So the original filed text amendments for Honey and Ash Western reflected that the effective date of the amended and restated zoning code was June 19th and this has now been changed to July six. So now we have to change these. Thank you. Other members of council. Do you have comments? Okay. Double bond area de none. Madam Secretary, roll call. SUSSMAN Hi, Brooks. Hi, Brown I fats. I can eat I. Lemon I. LOPEZ All right. NEVITT Hi, Ortega. Rob Shepherd Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill 312 has been amended. Councilman Sussman, your motion to amend Council Bill 319. Yes. And thank you for your patience. Madam President, we actually need to amend these each separately. We can't amend them in a bloc. I move that council bill 319 be amended in the following particulars on page one, line 23 strike the clerk file reference 0211b and replaced with 0211g on page one line 23 Strike the date May 28, 2015 and replace with June eight, 2015. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Council on Assessment. The purpose of amending this particular one and one of the reasons why we have to take these out separately is so a little bit of difference. It's in reference to the updated city clerk file number in conjunction with proposed 2015 changes to amend Chapter 59 Revised Municipal Code and amend and restate the Denver Zoning Code and Council Bill 298. The only changes to the actual text of the code are to reflect that the amended and restated code takes effect on July six, not June 19th, and that the primary building form standards two structures containing two unit dwelling uses shall apply to two unit dwelling uses, legally established and maintained after July 10th, 2015, not June 25th, 2015. Thank you, Councilwoman. Madam Secretary. Roll call, please. Sussman. Brooks Brown. Hi, Fats. Carnage, I. Lopez. Hi. Nevitt, I. Ortega, Rob Shepherd, I. Madam President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill 319 has been amended. Councilwoman Sussman, your motion to amend 322. Thank you, Madam President. I move the Council Bill 320 to be amended. In the following particulars, I move to amend Council Bill 1503 to 2 as follows On page one, line 22, strike the clerk file reference 0211 dash si and replace with 0211-8h on page one line 20 to strike the date May 28, 2015 and replace with June eight, 2015. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of the House. Councilman Fox, I'm sorry. You. Go right ahead. Councilman, the purpose of amending Council Bill 322 is to reference an updated city clerk file number in conjunction with proposed 2015 changes to amend Chapter 59, Revise Municipal Code and amend and restate the Denver Zoning Code in Council 298. The only change to the actual text of the code is an update to footers that said the code was effective June 19th. This needs to change because the code will now be effective July six. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call. SUSSMAN Hi. BROOKS Hi. Brown I futz. I can each layman. LEMON I'm sorry. LOPEZ All right. Nevett ORTEGA Rob Shepherd, Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill 322 has been amended. Councilwoman Sussman, your motion to amend Council Bill 324. And and I did ask the attorneys that we could do this all at once, but we couldn't. Thank you. Madam President, I move that council bill 324 be amended in the following particulars on page one, line 24 Strike the clerk file reference 2015 dash 0211-d and replace with 2015 0211-1 on page one line 24 Strike the date May 28, 2015 and replace with June eight, 2015. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilwoman Sussman This is a very similar one. It just needs to change the footers, the dates that are in the footers. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call. SUSSMAN Brooks Brown. Fats, I can eat. Lemon. Lopez Hi. NEVITT Hi. Ortega Rob Shepherd. I'm Madam President, I. Close the voting and announce the results, please. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill 324 has been amended. Councilwoman Sussman, we need a motion to postpone final consideration with their public hearings on Monday, July 6th. Thank you, Madam President. I move the final consideration of Council Bill 312 as amended. Council Bill 313 Council BOTH 319 as amended Council Bill 321 Council Bill 322 is amended council bill 323 Council Bill 324 as amended and Council Bill 325 with their public hearings be postponed to Monday, July six. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Madam Secretary, we'll have a question. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. I'm sorry. I guess you didn't see my name up here. I was just trying to understand when we went through these, we didn't do anything with 313. I didn't hear that we did anything with 313. So why did we do some and not all of them? So can someone help me just understand that. Hi. Laurie Strand with the city attorney's office. These are four different text amendments. So there's three overlay districts that are being established in honey in northwest Denver. And there's also a text amendment establishing the National Western Center campus district. The associated four are the mapping of those districts, so they can't be mapped until the text is adopted. So that's what the other four are. Okay. Thank you. But no. Well. We good? Yeah. Okay. Madam Secretary. Roll call. Susman. All right. Brooks Brown fights. I can reach Lehman. Lopez All right, Nevitt. ORTEGA Rob Shepherd. SHEPARD Madam President, I. ANNOUNCER Results, please. 12 Eyes. K 12 eyes. Final consideration for Council Bill 312 Has it been amended? Council Bill 313 Council Bill 319 is amended. Council Bill 321 Council Bill 322 as amended. Council Bill 323 Council Bill 324 is amendment amended and Council Bill 325 with their public hearings and have been postponed for Monday, July 6th. Okay. Are we good? Yes. All right. All other bills are ordered published. We're now ready for the block vote. Councilman Kennish, will you please put the rest? Will you please put resolution 404 on the floor for adoption? Yes, Madam President. Thank you. I move that resolution 404 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. BROOKS Hi. Brown But I can eat Lemon. Lopez. Hi. Nevitt. I Ortega. I shepherd. I Susman. Hi. Madam President.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary to enter into an agreement with the Long Beach Unified School District of Los Angeles County, to allow the Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine to provide staffing and other services to conduct a summer swim program at the Cabrillo High School pool for a term of one year, with five one-year renewal options at the discretion of the City Manager, or his designee; and Increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department (PR) by $22,402. (District 7)

LongBeachCC_07072015_15-0609

Item 12 is a report from Parks, Recreation and Marine recommendation to enter into an agreement with Long Beach Unified School District to allow the Department of Parks, Recreation and Marine to provide staffing and other services to conduct a summer swim program at the Cabrillo High School and increase appropriations in the General Fund in the Parks and Recreation and Marine Department by $22,402 at District seven. Councilmember Urunga. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to pull this out to notice that it's a wonderful relationship that we're developing now with the Long Beach Unified School District in sharing facilities. I think this program will offer an increase to provide swimming facilities, especially in the in the West Long Beach area, and will increase swimming and water safety skills for all our young people who want one. And that all young people to older people to who want to go learn to swim. And I'm glad to see that this is happening. Councilwoman Mongeau, would you like to address the motion? I also am very pleased of the partnerships between our schools and our community, and I think that this is very welcomed. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Now, these are the types of projects I love to see. Of course, it's on the West Side, but we often hear from our residents that there's not enough activities, especially swimming on the west side. So a big thank you to our parks and RECs department and to the Long Beach Unified School District. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address Council on Item 12? Seeing nonmembers cast your vote. Motion carry nine zero. So any sign out? Thank you. I want to make sure before we get to the next item, do we still have some folks that are outside? Do we know, Madam Kirk? And we're going to transition to item the airport item, which is 17, we just finished consent. But I want to make sure that if there's anyone that's outside and there are some open seats, if they're able to come in. And it's not just so there are a few open seats if there's anyone outside. So before we we move on to the item. Okay. I'm going to now move on. Madam Court, can you read the next item?

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 5.94 prohibiting the sale of certain flavored tobacco products within the City of Long Beach, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11192019_19-1132

Thank you. That concludes that item with item 24. Adam, 24, is communication from City Attorney. Recommendation to declare an ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding chapter as amended by the City Council prohibiting the sale of certain flavored tobacco products within the city of Long Beach. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading City. I do have some public comment. Did you want to do any comments first, Councilwoman? I have no comments. Okay. If these following folks could come forward, I think it's Hymie Rojas or Jimmy Rojas. James Nino. George Johnson. Sanjiv, come on. And Imran Khan. Mohammed, I sorry if I mispronounce some of those names. If you can just come forward in that order, please. I'm in. Rojas. James Nino. George Johnson. Sanjeev Kumar. Imran Khan. Muhammad. He's come forward. Time I went to dinner. James At dinner. James Hi, James. Nino. I just want to thank the council for giving me an opportunity to voice my opinion as a small business owner. And thanks for actually taking in and, you know, revising the ordinance. I know now I'm a firm believer that one person or one voice. Can make a change or a difference. And I just want to thank you guys and I'm in support of this ordinance. Thank you, guys. Thank you. George Johnson. On behalf of who could Chamber of Commerce, a small, grassroots organization, I would like to thank you on your proposed amendments to this ordinance, and we give you our full support. Thank you. Thank you. It. Sanjiv, come on. Thank you for. Giving me an opportunity to be. Here. So I'm a small business owner here. You know, I have a 7-Eleven franchisee, which I owns with my wife, Sue, who happens to be a 21 year Air Force veteran from the U.S. Air Force. We put all of our savings in here, and now it means we just need the. Menthol cigarets are. Regulated by the FDA. So we don't know how after having all this regulation made the difference, we are going to. Make on that. So the other request. Will be, you know. Looking to see, you know, how you guys manage. You can, you know, protect us that, you know. We can still survive in the business. That's my request. Thank you. Thank you. Is the next speaker. Here is Imran. Please come forward. The height of a city council. My name is Imran Khan and I too am a 7-Eleven franchisee. Me along with my dad. My dad has had the business in Long Beach for over 30 years now. We are in Belmont Shaw and, you know, we've been there forever. We've employed a lot of members of the community. We have, you know, always paid taxes. We you know, we we we also have a job. He was saying that we want to request that you guys look at the menthol cigaret ban because the tobacco sales are a big part of our business. And menthol cigarets, too, are, you know, a huge part of that. And I don't want to see my customers, my loyal customers that have been with us for, you know, ten, 15, 20, 30 years. I don't want to see them going to different cities to get their their product, you know, going under SEAL Beach or up to San Pedro. I'd like to see them as customers for our business, you know, taking a seeing a loss in sales. Not only, you know, the tobacco sales would lead to, you know, a decrease in sales and ancillary products. You know, people come in and buy their cigarets or buy sodas to buy chips to buy, you know, food items along with their cigarets. So if the menthol cigarets, if they can't come to our business for it, all their sales would come down. And we you know, I just want to make sure that, you know, that doesn't I don't want to see that happen. You know, and I also want to let you guys know that, you know, 7-Eleven, we do have a pretty good system of checking IDs to make sure that everybody is over 21. We have we actually have to physically scan their I.D. It won't even let us sell them, you know, any jewel product, anything. We have to scan their I.D. to make sure that they are of age before, you know, buying that tobacco product. And, you know, lastly, you know, with the increase in minimum wage, with the increase in rents, I don't think our business can afford, you know, any more loss of sales. So please take that into consideration. Thank you. Thank you. There is a motion and a second on the floor. This is, I believe, the second reading. And so, members, please cast your votes. The first reading, because we made some amendments, some pretty substantial amendments. So I'd ask my colleagues to continue to support this item again in an effort to continue to work with our businesses while the policy and safety concerns continue to settle. We have made this a temporary ban, which is a lot more mitigated than what most other municipalities are looking at. So I would hope that that would carry some weight with our business owners who understand the predicament that we're in. With that, I'd ask my colleagues to support this item. Thank you. Please cast your votes, members. Council member Austin, Bush and Kerry.

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)

LongBeachCC_06162020_20-0523

Motion carries. 12 please. Or from Development Services recommendation declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code 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. I got a motion and it's actually a motion by I think it's Vice Mayor Andrews. And I got a second. Second my customers and day has. But a comment. We have one public comment from Victor Boosie. You have 3 minutes. Again. We're here to be that. I'll be pleased to talk to the item. I used my time. Thank you. Conclusion of public comment. Please cast your votes or call. District one I district to district three. A district court. I. District one. I. District six. District six. Hi. District seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. My version carries.

A proclamation in support of "Start by Believing" Public Awareness Campaign. In support of "Start by Believing" public awareness campaign.

DenverCityCouncil_04132015_15-0201

Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. We are off to our second proclamation and proclamation, two of one sponsored by Councilwoman Shepard. Will you please read Proclamation 201? Thank you, Mr. President. In support of START by Believing Public Awareness Campaign Proclamation number 201 series of 2015. Whereas the city and county of Denver shares a critical concern for victims of sexual violence and a desire to support their needs for justice and healing. And. Whereas, in 2014, the Denver Police Department received a total of 1251 sex crimes reports. And these victims needs were served by the blue bench. And the Denver Health Medical Center conducted 350 forensic exams in support of these reports. And. WHEREAS, a national average of one in four women in Colorado will experience a completed or attempted sexual assault during their lifetime, and one in 17 men in Colorado will experience a completed or attempted sexual assault during their lifetime. And. Whereas, according to studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, sexual assault is the most underreported crime in the United States, with 54% of sexual assaults committed not being reported. And. WHEREAS, research documents that victims are far more likely to disclose their sexual assault to a friend or a family member, and when these loved ones respond with doubt, shame or blame, victims suffer additional negative effects on their physical and psychological well-being. And. WHEREAS, the start by believing Public Awareness Campaign, a program of End Violence Against Women International is designed to improve the responses of friends, family members and community professionals so that they can help victims to access supportive resources and engage the criminal justice system. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council, in concert with the Denver Department of Public Safety and the Denver Sex Assault Interagency Council, supports the launch of the start by Believing Public Awareness Campaign this Friday, April 17th, and declares this day to be the start by believing day throughout the city and county of Denver and Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall at test and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies be transmitted to the Department of Safety and the Denver Sex Assault Interagency Council. Thank you, Councilwoman Shepard. Your motion to adopt. Yes, I move that we adopt proclamation 2a1 series of 2015. It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilwoman Shepard. Thank you so much and I really, really, really appreciate our Public Safety Department for taking on this issue. It's a very, very important issue. The statistics that I have repeated as part of this proclamation are really startling that one in four women will experience a sexual assault and one in 17 men in their lifetime. Yet the majority of those are not reported. And that is largely because people feel scared, feel that they won't be believed, fear that they're going to be blamed, and you know that nothing will come of it or that they may be retaliated against. One thing that is interesting in the information that I've been reading about this is this because rapists attack an average of six times, one failed response can lead to five more victims. And that just underscores why it is so. And that when people have these experiences that they come forward and why it is so important that friends and family members and emergency responders start from a place of belief, they need to be treated with compassion and respect. It's interesting that when someone says my house was broken into or, you know, I was a victim of a hit and run accident, nobody says, Well, what did you do to deserve that? But that's what happens more often than not. Even in today's society when it comes to sexual assault. So what is also interesting about the start by believing campaign, it was started in Chicago in 2011, right around the same time period. And some other communities across our country have also instituted this. And two notable examples are Kansas City, Missouri, and also San Luis Obispo. And in both of those cities, part of it was a billboard campaign to help get the word out, which is very similar to what we'll be doing here in Denver. And in both of those places, once those billboards were out and widely seen by the public, there were significant increases in the in the number of incidents that were reported to the police. So it's clear that when we let people know that it is okay and safe to report that this goes up, and then hopefully that means that we catch the perpetrators and prevent future crimes. So, you know, I think this work is tremendously important. And I also want to say a bit about the Blue Badge. It may be one of the most important nonprofits in this city that you've never heard of. Actually, they used to be known as the Rape Awareness and Assault Prevention Group. They did start there. It changed their name, I think, about two years ago. But this is an organization that is very low profile but has been serving victims of sexual abuse for decades in our city and has brought a lot of healing and help and resources to victims who are trying to get their lives back together and and heal and move on. So I really want to thank everyone for their work on this. And I'm really glad that the city and county of Denver is going in this direction. And I'm very pleased to support this and ask my colleagues to support as well. Thank you. Councilwoman Sheppard, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to my colleague, Councilwoman Shepard, for bringing attention to this important campaign and to our mayor for actually lending his personal support and name to this effort. I began my work in my career in doing anti-violence work with women particularly, but also with male victims. And the. Experience someone has of telling is, you know, very, very scary. And I think many of us think, oh, you know, of course, I would believe someone if they told me someone broke into their house or that, you know, they were accosted in an alley on the way home. But I want to challenge our community, because perpetrators are often people that victims know and sometimes their family members. And that's when it's really hard. Right. So if a child, a daughter, a teenager, a sign says to you that an aunt and uncle, someone you know, someone you respect, maybe a family friend, that's when it's critical. It's critical to begin by believing and help to investigate what's going on, because it is those cases. So many of these perpetrators, unfortunately, are people that victims know or where it's a dating situation. It might even be a boyfriend or a spouse who has perpetrated. And so these are the cases when it really is important to take the time to listen and to help steer folks to supportive services. We hope that folks report to law enforcement because that is the place where we can catch perpetrators. But even if they're not ready for that, having them start by getting the medical help they need and the support they need, and to help them make the decision about reporting, getting, getting that attention that they need. That's what I'm asking our community to be a part of. Even in these really hard cases where it's someone, maybe it's a coach, maybe it's a trusted teacher. But these are the cases where it's critical to believe. And I hope that our community gets on board. And I appreciate that we're having an open conversation about this because it has touched the lives of so many of us. If it's not you, it's a family member. And so the more we can talk about it and make it a safe space, I believe that we will make a difference. So thank you, Councilwoman Shephard. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Safety Department. And thank you to survivors for telling your story because each time you do, you help break the silence around this issue. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each Councilman Lopez. I just wanted to chime in and then Councilman Shepard for bringing this proclamation forward and thank our minutes of from men and women in the Department of Safety for working on this, bringing this campaign to the public. I think it's really important for the different reasons that both my colleagues Canete and Shepard had said. But also, you know, as a man, I think it's important that we must make sure that our brothers are and our fellow man know the rules. And it's up to us to help keep them in check and to put them in check from going too far and from from doing that. I think there's a there's a culture out there that's that's growing that is very, very misogynistic. It's very macho. And it is it is frowned upon if you don't act that way. And if and I think, you know, our young people are subject to this and they're pressured into this, and they that brings us false reality in their heads and it builds that. And I think it's up to us to reverse that. But it's also, you know, I think, you know, yes, this this happens to to men as well. But I think it's very important that that men be taught how to be a gentleman and and respect women and respect members of the opposite sex. And I think it's that is a huge, huge part of it, although I know it happens to, you know, in reverse. But I think it's I think it's up to, you know, strong people in the community to help that send that message and also to to to publicly have the backs of victims of of sexual assault and to be that that rock and to be that support system and and to create that place of safety. So I really appreciate what my colleagues said. I really appreciate you bringing this forward. And thank you very much, Department of Safety, for building this campaign. I think this is going to be very successful. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. And I, too, am offering my thanks to Councilwoman Sheperd and to our police department, Department of Safety. I know this proclamation and the campaign in great part, talks about the cases that we don't hear about and the necessity. But I will never forget 2005 when the police arrested Brant Bretz after assaulting several women and children in my district and anything we can do to prevent in. I also spent a fair amount of time talking with the woman who owned the pet store on Sixth Avenue, who now is a victim. Advocate at the DA's office. So that sort of personal anguish gives me a heightened emotional reaction to this situation. But Councilwoman Shepard, I'm just so glad you brought this forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Rob. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, would like to express my appreciation to Councilwoman Sheppard for bringing this forward and the sexual assault unit in the police department that deals with these kinds of situations day in and day out. I appreciate the referrals to the Victims Assistance Unit to make sure that the victims are in fact receiving the kind of support and counseling that they need. I've served on the board of a nonprofit domestic violence organization, and when you hear some of the stories that people have experienced and sometimes how long they endure it before they finally reach that breaking point to reach out and ask for help. And when you realize the impact that it has to their children, you know, having experienced and seen some of the horrific incidents that they've had to they've been exposed to, is is concerning. So to make sure that the not only the parents, but their children are getting the counseling that they need is is very, very important. And to the providers in our community who also do this day in and day out and work side by side with the police department to ensure that, you know, we have resources for people to go to is just so important. And so to all of you who who deal with this issue day in and day out, thank you for providing that service to our community. It's it's so important and so desperately needed. One request that I have is that maybe at some point our safety committee can have an update on the Rose Interim Domestic Violence facility in terms of where they're at in the process. We never want to disclose the location because I think it's critical to the safety of the people who utilize these services, which is predominantly women most of the time. But from time to time, we've had male victims as well. But I think just knowing where they're at in that process would be it would be wonderful to hear. So. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Any other comments on Proclamation 201. Scene nine. Madam Secretary. Roll call. Shepard. Hi, Sussman. Hi, Fats. I can eat Lemon Lopez. Hi. Nevitt Ortega. Rob. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please. First of all, you announce the results tonight. Tonight is proclamation two. Oh one has been adopted. Councilman Sheperd, is there someone you like to come to the podium to accept the proclamation? Yes. Thank you. I would like to invite manager of safety Stephanie O'Malley to the podium. And please feel free to introduce the team that has come tonight. Thank you, Councilwoman Sheperd, and thank each and every member of city council. I do want, as I accept, the proclamation for Chief White Commander Sonya's members of the sexual assault team, and Scott Snow, who our director of our Victims Assistance Unit, to please stand with me and accept the proclamation as we say. Thank you. As was mentioned, this is a very, very important initiative inside of the city and county of Denver. I can tell you all that often in the Safety Department, things tend to move at a glacial pace. We want them to move swifter and faster and of course, more efficiently. But when the notion of the start by believing campaign came to the forefront, there was no pause with regards to the time at which we wanted to accelerate and get the campaign kicked off because of the importance that we recognize associated with us. Start by believing each and every one of us individually can do that. You as members of City Council can do that. I wish that some of you could have been present when Mr. Matt, I believe his name is actor who was a victim of sexual assault himself, came to our kickoff and described for himself how empowering it was for his mother to believe the fact that he had been sexually assaulted and how that gave him some spirit to move forward to to get the help that he needed to share. But to have his mother believe his experience in the first instance, without hesitation, without pause, spoke volumes as to the criticality of each and every one of us. To start by believing will continue to put efforts into the campaign, will continue to put the message out via all types of communication mechanisms, including those boards that you all have seen, hopefully out in the community with real survivors of sexual assault, their courage speaks volumes. We want to continue to applaud them for that. And just think about it. The moment that you start believing somebody, you potentially have saved a life because when we don't believe things to the negative can happen and to the contrary to the point where people lose their self-esteem, where they don't want to be integrated into our community , into our society in a great way, in a healthy way. But if you do believe them, it again, it's a very, very empowering situation. And we want that spirit to be alive. We want it to be well, and we want it to continue to be supportive of victims of sexual assault. So thank you again for recognizing the work. And we'll continue to work hard to assure that this is an integrated part of our community. Thank you and thank you, Councilwoman Shepherd, for bringing that forward. That concludes our proclamation. Moving to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, please read the resolution. From safety and well-being 170 resolution approving the measure. Supporters of the Denver Immigration Immigrant and Refugee Commission. Moving on the bill for introduction. Madam Secretary, will you please read the bill for introduction. From Business, Civil and Development 48 bill for an ordinance proposed standard, especially retail concessions basically between City and county of Denver Marshal Retail Group, LLC Zoning Concession at Denver International Airport 183 A bill for an ordinance for any proposed airport baggage system. License agreement between City, County and Denver. How do we is de Margo S.A. de C.V. concerning the use of certain baggage system facilities at Denver International Airport 184 bill for an ordinance approving the Post 10th Amendment to agreement on City and County FMB Concessions LLC concerning concession at Denver International Airport 185 Bill for an ordinance approving new post Sixth Amendment to agreement between City and county over CAA concessions of Colorado, Inc. concerning concession at Denver International Airport 186 A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed agreement for snow removal services between city and county of Denver. Aero Snow Removal Corporation at Denver International Airport 187. A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed agreement between city income AECOM Technical Services Inc., a cancer oncologist, data and development services at Denver Ash Airport from Infrastructure and Culture 149 Bill for an audience of Rooney second mandatory agreement between City and County of Denver Wink Associates, Inc. for design services to improve Confluence Park from Safety and well-being. 162 A bill for an ordinance approving and providing the execution post grant agreement between city and county. Denver United States of America because you're Brian White part a fiscal year 15 program in the funding therefor 177 bill for Norton's opinion pro-Second Amendment or Agreement between City Encounter and Denver Health Hospital Authority for Health Care and Developing School Readiness for Denver Great Kids Head Start Program. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Council Members, this is your last opportunity to call out any bills or the resolution. I will start at the top. The one resolution is not called out bills for introduction. We have Council Bill 48 called out by Councilwoman Ortega and bills on final.

A bill for an ordinance repealing certain sections of Chapter 20, Article XI of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding Auditor subpoena power and production of records in connection with performance of internal audits and investigations and enforcement of prevailing and minimum wage. Repeals certain sections of Chapter 20, Article XI of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. Councilmember Gilmore approved direct filing this item on 3-3-22.

DenverCityCouncil_03142022_22-0273

Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca, Councilmember Kinney, we had you up. Are you good? Okay. All right. Thank you, Britta, for answering those questions and Angie Nelson for being here as well. We're going to go ahead and move on, Madam Secretary. Please put the next item up on our screens. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, will you please put Bill 273 on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 20 2-0273 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Comments or questions by members of Council on Council Bill 20 2-273 Council Member State Abarca. This one I would like to call out for a vote. I mentioned last week that I did not support repealing the auditors subpoena power. While this is in litigation, I do believe we should be waiting for the litigation to to go through or until we have an alternative that is better drafted and ready to approve simultaneously or prior to the repeal. So just going on the record as a no for this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Kinney. Thank you. Council president. I voted for this last week without comment. This week I just wanted to clarify. I had gotten some email traffic from constituents asking that we not pass this bill because it would harm those who have wage claims. And I wanted to make really clear to the community that our wage ordinances have significant leverage in them. For the auditor to be able to access records. They include penalties for not producing those records. They include daily fines in some cases and penalties. So there are a number of enforcement mechanisms for our minimum wage, our local minimum wage ordinance that already exists. I is a co-sponsor of the minimum wage bill. We looked at some of the best practices across the country in terms of enforcement, including things like allowing anonymous complaints where the auditor simply gets a tip that there is underpayment and then goes in and asks for the record, even if there's not an individual employee who feels safe enough complaining. So I don't want anyone to think that wage enforcement is going to stop if the subpoena power goes away. This was about where there is a dispute and wanting to find a less costly way of going to the courts for those wage dispute record requests. Typically, that's what a subpoena would be for. There is where someone is withholding the records. I will just state the state of Colorado also has. Access to wage records through state law. So there are just a number of safeguards here. And I did support the original subpoena power and believed it was helpful to have another tool for their small number of cases where it may apply. And there may be some conversation coming about a subpoena power just for those wage claims. But just to be clear, there are numerous legal powers, penalties, daily fines, etc., in place. Wage enforcement can and should will continue even in the absence of the subpoena power, which which really came after thousands of wage complaints had already been processed and had been successfully recovered for workers. So I want to make clear, to the credit of our auditing team, a wage Denver labor team, they recovered many, many wage claims before the subpoena power was put in place. And I expect them and to continue doing that. Hopefully we work ourselves out a business where everyone is up to date and paying the wages they're supposed to. That would be great news. But in the meantime, we have lots of tools. So I will be supporting this again tonight for the reasons stated by my colleagues last week, but wanted to clarify the record. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Kinney. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I am not willing to waste taxpayer money on fruitless and frivolous litigation. It's really unfortunate that we have to do this, that we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But repealing this ordinance that was passed last year because of the lawsuit that was filed is a necessary move to moot the lawsuit and start again. And to Councilwoman Kasich's point, we are drafting and we are bringing to Finance and Governance Committee next week a new bill that would address only the wage enforcement subpoena authority, which is the councilwoman noted, is little used if well hadn't been used yet. But there are plenty of other mechanisms in place as well. This is another tool that we all, I believe, wanted the auditor to have. This was not the controversial part of the ordinance that led to the auditor filing the suit. So next week at Fin Govt committee we will hear the new bill that would restore a subpoena power for wage enforcement, wage theft investigations, minimum wage, prevailing wage and take that under consideration. Then invite the auditor back to try to authentically engage on the more controversial aspect of performance and internal audits and subpoena power there, and how we can safeguard the security of of proprietary and confidential information. And with that, Madam President, I urge us all to. Take the final vote on this, repeal it and then start over and do it right this time. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 273, please. CdeBaca No. Clark. I. Flynn, I. Herndon, I. Cashman I can eat. Ortega, I. Sandoval, I swear, I. Torres, I. Black eye. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One day, 11 eyes. 11 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-273 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. 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 the item for a separate vote. Councilmember Sawyer, 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. All Series 20 202220227. Hold on. I got to scroll down here. 02570263024700780255025102520253022902480179. And that's it. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And it's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clerk. All right. Flynn All right. Herndon. Ah. Cashman. Kenny Ortega, I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 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 20 2-1116 changing the zoning classification for 900 North Monaco Street Parkway in Montclair and a required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-125 Changing the

Recommendation to approve the Revolving Loan Fund Program Administrative Plan (Plan) required by the Economic Development Administration; and Adopt resolution authorizing Economic Development Commission to designate three of its members as the Revolving Loan Fund Committee responsible for administrating the Revolving Loan Fund Program under the Plan. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04072015_15-0298

Item 17 Report from City Manager Recommendation to approve the Revolving Loan Fund Program Administrative Plan required by the Economic Development Administration and adopt resolution authorizing the Economic Development Commission to designate three of its three of its members as the Revolving Loan Fund Committee responsible for administering the program under the plan citywide. Okay. There's a motion any Second Amendment to have. Councilman Price, did you have a question on the staff report on this or. Is there a staff report? Sure. Mike Conaway. Mayor, members of the city council. This item relates to an update of the revolving loan fund program administrative plan, which is required on a periodic basis by the Economic Development Administration and the establishment of a new r l p loan committee within the new Economic Development Commission. So as background, access to capital has always been kind of challenging for small and minority owned businesses, and in 1987, the city established its first loan program to address this issue. And since then, the city has been able to leverage its funding capacity through collaboration and partnerships with local banks, advantaged Certified Development Corporation and the National Development Council. The Revolving Loan Fund has been in place since 2001 with seed money from the Economic Development Administration, Community Development BLOCK Grant funds and enhanced with RDA funds. And since since its inception, the program has facilitated 52 loans totaling $4,256,000, with $1,000,000 currently outstanding and about 1.3 million available for programing. And most recently, the Department of Economic and Property Development assisted in the funding of a small business loan of $95,000 to beachy cream to expand and relocate its organic ice cream sandwich business from Santa monica to Long Beach. So since the demise of the redevelopment agency, this program has somewhat of been suspended for a certain period of time with the establishment or reestablishment of the Economic Development Commission. We're looking forward to referring this program to that commission so we can jump start it again and start engaging with our small business community. Catch them in. Appraisal? Yes. So what types of programs are improvements can businesses receive this loan for? Is there a limitation? Councilmember Price, members of the City Council, these are traditionally focused on three locations that would be for assets, for working capital and for inventory. So machinery, essentially machinery, equipment assets are inventory and working capital as well. We steer clear of construction loans as it triggers prevailing wage. And we limit our loans to $95,000 through the revolving loan fund, through the committee. And then anything over $1,000 comes to the city or $100,000 comes to city council. Is there any room for expanding the uses that would qualify under the loan? And I know you said you're excluding construction, but I know that there used to be years ago loans that allowed them to re face the facade or risk in their particular business, location or storefront. Is it possible that that could be included in this? That's absolutely included. That's correct. Okay. And how do we notify businesses of this opportunity when a new business applies in the city of Long Beach? Do we give them any materials or information about this? We have we do have handout materials. Our marketing efforts have been somewhat hamstrung in the last 18 months to two years. We have engaged the Grow America Fund group to assist in our marketing and assist in the processing of applications. We're hopeful that our partnering with Grow America and other funding agencies will allow us to market this more under the city of Long Beach. So right now it's mostly handout material. But as we start to engage in the economic and Property Development Department, we'll start bringing these these tools to the forefront. Great. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Conway and Mr. West, will you make sure to add this? I mean, this one is one of the great things that we do, obviously, at the city. I know we're going to be having an economic development study session that was being planned here in the next couple few weeks. Let's make sure that there's this is part of that discussion as well as as well as all the other programs that we provide business and then the marketing efforts that we're and how we're letting business know of what we're doing as well. Okay. There's a motion on the floor. I have some speakers. Does the maker of the motion want to say anything for Mr. Andrews or want to go down the speaker's list? Okay. Councilmember Austin. Thank you. I just had a really one one question regarding the roll off committee and how would that be selected and how would they be selected? When we meet with the Economic Development Commission tomorrow, they will be selecting a chair and a vice chair and we will be bringing back to that commission, hopefully at their subsequent meeting or request for them to select the relief committee meetings. Members, I'm sorry. There is some guidelines as to who should be included on that relief committee. And typically it would involve one local business owner, another member with commercial lending experience, hopefully with a local bank. And those two requirements are a requirement of the revolving loan fund administrative plan. And then the third member can be essentially who the commission selects. So it'll be a three member, our committee. Okay. I see that that it's going to be a three member committee. And I think it says that they have business or related experience in areas such as banking, accounting, education, trade, tourism, law, technology, real estate or manufacturing. It's pretty broad. Pretty broad. And I think our Economic Development Commission pretty much reflects that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Margo. I just wanted to thank the members of the community and the lending organizations that I'd met with recently and their enthusiasm for this exciting program. So thank you. Thank you. Public comment, which we would probably comment on this one or yet? I don't think so. In a public comment case saying none, please cast your votes. Motion carries seven zero 18. Item 18 Report from City Manager and Financial Management Recommendation to enter into four agreements for as needed space planning services in an aggregate amount not to exceed 500,000 over a three year period. Citywide.

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.

DenverCityCouncil_05062019_19-0127

Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 12 hours 12 hours counts Bill 247 has passed council minutes. Will you please put council bill 127 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19 Dash 127 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The continued public hearing for Council Bill 1 to 7 is reopened. Since this is a continued hearing, there will not be additional public testimony, nor will there be an opportunity for written information to be provided to supplement the record other than what the Council has requested. We will proceed with questions from members of council at this time. Councilman Brooks. Yep. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to call a representative from the Jazz Coalition and also a representative from the 40th and the cite. Bruce, I want to come up here, probably the representative to kind of talk about where where we are and what has transpired. So Bruce and Nola. Ladies first. What has transpired? Yes. Just. You have a letter. You've you've submitted that to the council. So just on the record. So everyone should have got the letter on our position today. The community, the Coalition three are knows and adjacent community members that participated in our collective process did decide to oppose this reason in favor of maintaining the I a zoning. If we did a less than 30 day process with the developer or the owners representatives to come to a type of agreement, I think we got somewhere in that agreement. The problem is that it wasn't addressing displacement issues in particular, which is our main concern with this project. I would I'm the only person here that's not a Swansea resident, so I'd really like it. If you want to hear more of why neighbors made that choice, that we bring some people up that are responsive neighbors. To answer that question. Another, what was the vote on that? So we had a three hour meeting to talk about this. We talked to a lot of people at their doors. We knocked on doors three different times within this period and talked to neighbors. The people that actually came to the meeting, we had 12 people vote to not support seven to or to sign sorry to sign the agreement, seven to sign the agreement. And we had several people that needed to leave early or abstain from the vote entirely. This during the conversation and leading up to the process, there was always an agreement of everyone that was participating that we would make this decision at this meeting and all of us that maybe did vote yes were in agreement with moving forward with the no. Okay. But that's people who both voted no and yes here. So we can get a perspective from from them, even though they're supporting a group. There are folks who voted yes and no, both here from the Swansea neighborhood. So we can get their perspective as well represented in the room. Well, sure, but we're not. The collective process is what our outcome is. So all of us here are here to defend the outcome that we came up with, for sure. It's just helpful for us since we weren't a part of that iterative process to hear all of that. Bruce, do you want to get a chance to share from your perspective? Would be good to hear where you came into with this agreement. What suggestions that the coalition made that you agreed to and kind of, you know, where there was disagreement. Sure. Thank you, Councilman. Happy to, Bruce O'Donnell. And I'm joined by Bill Moore, who is a partner in the project and can help answer some questions as well. So I've not seen this the document that NOLA is referencing that went out today. So I'm flying a little bit blind on whatever it says. But we agreed about a month ago tonight to enter into mediation and it was run by Steve Charbonneau and we had three meetings and made progress we think in each meeting and in particular in the last meeting and there were many, many aspects of the community that we were in agreement with and committed to in writing on in a signed community benefits agreement that we would fulfill a whole laundry list of community benefits and is information I have sent council in the last week or so underscores. We remain committed to these and will implement them once the property is resolved. The in our view, the one thing that resulted in not reaching agreement had to do with displacement, as you've just heard. And the ask was for a per market rate dwelling unit impact fee be committed to that. I think the idea was that it would be paid out building permit and that this impact fee would go to a coalition related entity of some type. It was never determined in the that impact fee would be used for mitigating displacement, as you heard. 25 people, I think, voted. There were four abstentions. Pardon me, three, I think abstentions, which were the RINO's in we've been had been trying to engage with the renos since July of last year and they still refused to show up a few days ago by abstaining on Thursday. And where I'm going with this is, is that if an impact fee to mitigate displacement is good policy, it should be thoroughly vetted. It should be adopted citywide by ordinance and in not experimented with on an ad hoc case by case basis by governmental entities. And so we we couldn't agree to it for that reason. And it's our belief and understanding that that's why the neighborhood groups chose to not support the community benefits agreement. All right, Mr. President, can I just read for the record what has been agreed upon and then just ask some questions? Actually, I'll let some of my colleagues have some questions. But I just for the record there, this is in the agreement. This is what I think, you know, the gas coalition and the developer tried to come to as a benefit results of neighborhood negotiations, a new commitment to provide 22,000 square foot community coops storefront that would be available for neighborhood businesses. Rent free commitment for donation of land to urban gardeners for a community garden. Commitment to provide total eight live work units for artists agreement to establish program to hire qualified local construction professionals and development commitment to work in good faith. Exclusive with brothers redevelopment and Colorado Land Trust for 90 days after the rezoning approval to execute on an affordable housing agreement seeking opportunities for deeper. Affordability commitment to establish establishing Community Advisory Council, to receive information to provide input from the Metropolitan District that is intended to be formed so the community can be involved. Aware of the designs and public amenities. Traffic Mitigations during construction. Commitment for sharing the completed traffic studies with all neighborhood organizations in a commitment to donate 20 $500 to establish Community Legal Defense Fund. No is just my question. What was the. When the community voted no. You know, there wasn't a a counter kind of proposal of this. This is what's missing from the overall. What do you feel like or can you say what you feel like is missing in this? I think the feeling was to two sides. One is in the agreement that the the the promises that were made that address displacement, like the 90 day negotiation with brothers and Cecile to you know myself as self interest in building a committee land trust. I'm very excited about that. The community really felt like that was a it wasn't a commitment. So we don't know what happens if we don't know what they're putting on the table. What happens if that negotiation doesn't work out? And then the 90 days passes and nothing happens. So we there weren't any milestones for what happens. And we had actually talked about in several of the negotiation meetings, putting in milestones and criteria for if if the if this is a process oriented statement, then there should be milestones and criteria. And that never happened. We really didn't get a chance to actually write the the agreement itself or to kind of give a significant feedback, mostly because of the timeline being happening so quickly. But I think the combination of not having concrete outcomes around displacement and then also just lack of trust and disappointment in the city to back up any of these efforts as well. What do you mean, the city to back up? Part of our ask at the last hearing was that an anti displacement action plan happen for protecting surrounding neighbors. That never happened. We asked for an extended traffic and construction impact study that would complement what the developer was giving to their traffic study that just kind of looks at their area. But looking at overall the construction impacts, we never even got an A response on that. So we just felt let down overall by. The ability to for any of our concerns to be addressed during this process from the city. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield my questions to the. Do you. Think. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Black. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, for being here tonight. And also, thank you for all your work. I have just some clarification questions for you. So the organization you represent is Globeville, Elyria, Swansea, which is a huge geographic area. Correct. Globally or in Swansea. Yeah. It's the zip code 802 and six. Yeah. So it's a huge geographic area and I really appreciate all the great work you've done. And I'm just curious about the people who are involved at the meeting, the people who are here tonight and the people who were here last time, because it's some of the people we've seen here for a lot of other things we've been voting on. And this particular area is just a small section of the overall neighborhood. And when I look at it on the map, it's really a long, skinny neighborhood that has a railroad on one side and then 40th Avenue and Colorado Boulevard. So I'm just really curious how many of the people who attended that meeting and how many people here tonight actually live in that in that neighborhood that is in that section. Between Clayton. Next and 40th. Sorry, say that again, between the. Railroad tracks to the north, 40th on the south. And then the property is on the west and on Colorado. Boulevard. So they do Rosetta's Raimunda. To you raise your hand if you if you live in that section the. And Maria. Yeah. And then at that meeting of those 20 something people. It was about half neighbors. And it was actually the neighbors most adjacent to the property that were the most adamant about voting not to sign it. Okay. So of those 25, half of them live in this section. So once again, thanks. Thank you, Councilman Black, Councilman Espinosa. I know since you're up there when you had those meetings with the developers team. Who who who on your team would you consider to be experts in sort of developer agreements and contracts? Where this is a learning process for us. So yeah. That that's that's not surprising. Right. In, in, in, in a community that, you know, with a lot of very low income households, you don't necessarily see a lot of attorneys and professionals. So but you're basically acknowledging that you are a little bit shorthanded when it came to that negotiate done the negotiating of the actual terms. Would you is that a fair assessment? Yes. Mm hmm. Thank you. Yeah. I've got a couple of questions for Bruce. So you just acknowledged that you didn't get the the the neighborhoods letter, which admittedly did come in late, but you did release a packet to counsel. Was the full packet of agreements in the cover letter sent I mean, provided to the leadership of those three organizations. No. I'd send it to the city. Is there a reason why you didn't include the people that you were negotiating with? It was over. Yeah. So I, I read the packet and so I will acknowledge that the packet that came from Bruce O'Donnell over the weekend is one that I did read in its entirety. It's a generally it's a very good agreement. And I understand there's some concern when a statement like non-binding is included, but it only pertains to certain elements, not the actual elements of the agreement, which are very, very much hardcoded and binding in the way they're written. With one caveat, and this is a question for the city attorney had city attorney or counsel counsel, have you had a chance to review the community benefits agreement that was provided by Mr. O'Donnell? Kirsten Crawford Legislative Council. I'm going to let Nate Lucero answer your questions first. And if I can fill in after that, I'm happy to do so. Good afternoon, counsel. Neighbors are assistant city attorney. I briefly skimmed the community benefits agreement, but the city is not a party to those. And typically I understand the people by the city. Oh, sorry. Can you. Can you speak a little bit louder so our interpreter can hear? Yeah, sure. So I have briefly reviewed the agreement, but not in too much detail, because the city is not a party to that agreement and we don't have any enforceable enforceability for such an agreement. So there's two aspects to this. One is the language that was at question in the in the famous trial story rezoning at St Anthony's came down to Will versus Shell or Must versus Shell. And this so is there in legal terms a difference between the words will and shell in there? Meaning typically when we review contract language or regulatory language, Shell is usually a little more prescriptive. So there is there is a difference. Know Will gives you a little bit more wiggle room. Okay. I won't ask you to review this, but the use will exclusively not shell, which would obviously give me pause if I were negotiating this . I don't know that a community that didn't have experts in reviewing these sort of documents would have would have even been able to pass that. The other aspect, the reason why I'm even asking you these questions is if you heard my line of questioning last week, I took very considerable exception to whether this met the existing adopted plans, including the new plan and blueprint. Denver And this was postponed precisely to have this sort of communication around a document such as this, which would be important to address my health, safety and welfare concerns going forward. The fact that it's not executed is a bit of a problem for me with with respect with respect to addressing those concerns. Is that not a valid reason for me to ask questions on these and something like this? Are you asking whether or not the newly adopted comprehensive plan blueprint Denver are applicable, this rezoning or what? What is your question, if I may? If I have concerns about health, safety and welfare, which is one of the five criteria for rezoning? And I think that a negotiated outcome between a community that is impacted by a rezoning is important and pertinent to my decision. Is that an acceptable thing for me to do and consider? Well, I think for the purposes of the rezoning criteria, health, safety and welfare focuses on whether or not this particular rezoning at this location would would meet the health, safety and welfare criteria for purposes of what what could be placed there. If you were to approve the rezoning. So it's it's solely. Based on the proposed rezoning and how that fits or doesn't fit into the rezoning criteria. So that's. If we hadn't had a plan that had five vision elements that talked about equity and displacement, I would probably agree that health, safety and welfare criteria is sort of always met. But we did put forward and adopt a very bold statement that includes a lot of more amorphous criteria, that is more about the lives of people in the community that are impacted both there and going forward. So I don't quite I'm still trying to figure out how we how we weigh these these these things from this dais . So your comments are appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. You gave a figure the last time up that I forget. How many homes are there in the Swansea neighborhood now? About 1800. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. Nola got a question for you, too. So last time we talked and I asked you, would your group like it to remain as an industrial area? Because our choices to make it to have it remain industrial or to allow the zoning to mix, to use. We don't have a in between choice. And do you think your group would prefer it be in a completely industrial. And I also want to say I remember that the owners said that they've turned down offers and are ready to build an industrial site. That that was the decision that on Thursday night we went through and did decide that at this time the IAEA uses would be the best for the neighborhood, for stability of the neighborhood. And why did you think so? Can I get somebody else? I'll. You must get sick of this stuff. Just. Why? Why? They would prefer industrial use completely. They put profit in industry, and they. So we decided the industrial was better at this moment because usually when you have an industry next to a school and a houses that are residential, it's very unlikely that it will raise the value of the homes next to as much as a residential mixed use would do. That was one of the criteria as an industrial. We've been industrial before. This area has been industrial before with we've never had or in a long time of having had that much investment coming into. A community has been. Targeted. This much so. In making the decision, what's more equitable? Do we want an industry that could potentially provide jobs for the community or for other people rather than 700 units? That it's a really big percentage of the current households in that area. It was a really tough decision and we would have loved to have resident residences there that could provide homes to people who are on the verge of homelessness. But right now, in that moment, we do not feel like the developer gave us the dignity that we wanted to be at the table and be able to actually have a voice in what would happen to the building. This is the only opportunity we have where we can actually make an impact, whether it's the space industrial or it goes into mixed use. And so you did not want the value of any homes to go up. Is that what I heard you say? Right. The the market shadowing and even the tack, the heart, the the price, the cost of taxes, even when you're already paying your home down, could impair that community much more, including the incoming neighbors. So whoever moves into that property will likely shape the neighborhood, and it will set a precedent for the other developers that are already buying that area around Bruce Randall High School and also NCAA Development I. Thank you. Could you introduce yourself for the record? So my name is Alma and I work I live in Swansea, but I don't live immediately to the property, but I work a Bruce Randolph after school program. So I walk by 40th and Clayton every if you know what percent. Of it's just right across the street. And I'm sorry, first and last name. Alma Randall. Thank you very much. So you don't live in the neighborhood? I live in Swansea, NYC, but I live across the highway. So I walk to 40th and Clinton Cross Highway and I live closer to anything else. Kevin Sussman. Thank you very much. All right, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. My first question is for NOLA, if you wouldn't mind. Coming up, NOLA. When I started this meeting, I said, I don't mind you still with me? I like to say, you know, love combining. All of the people that live there. Good afternoon or good evening. It's not convenient for us. But there's also the numbers on the Russell vehicle. I have a fixed income. Yeah. You on the you'll be what your bill your said what place will comptroller hold up. What cannot get between them for long. We the professional. Well that's some personal data. What from what I see the people that live there, they don't have a lot of income there. They're workers and that's when we're losing. But those are those will. Then they look a separate la casa del principal Mercado Costco. Mr. MUSSELMAN Mutual thoughts. So when the market price goes up on the homes there, the cost that we pay for taxes, it's going to cost all of us a lot of money. You know, the people that are Mr. Division doesn't own the Rams. And we won't be able to pay for our homes. So where we we'll be able to go live. Is going to be inside city. Marketplace is not needed. I used up on Glenn's Army Radio. Okay. Because when they put all those things there in those homes, in the parks and all that, and all these people are going to come in, where are they going to have us live in some some, you know, in a tent or something like that. Meanwhile, we are arresting people. That is a lot of pressure. Yeah. I mean, give me get. The evaluations of the homes that they're giving us right now are very high. I had an evaluation come in yesterday and it was very hot. Family home from Rialto, your young man without a companion on the mortgage. But the immigrant vessel is is a goalkeeper enlisted and helpful to know what promises must. And I got a letter from the mortgage company, and they said it was very high. So they called them and I asked them what was going on and they said that would be the payment in 3 to 4 months. Yes. We were like, what promises? But I mean, it's impossible. Everything, I mean, at all of us, you know, they you know, I think that the. Less and it's going to be impossible for me to pay that in 3 to 4 months and all the neighbors that are there will be affected by it. I'm Joe, but I think going to lose your rhythm. There's already a lot of traffic now and a lot of noise. Working nights will be an incident like your. There's no way to get on I-70 on New York. But I thought it was best illustrated is that the losers are losers that are no place in that illustrated Bamiyan. Now you have all. These bizarre. All these detours that are going through the neighborhood. You have all these all these huge trucks and trailers that are coming in with heavy loads. It those up into your lap. Now what was your name on this spell? It also said, we want you to give up. So when they put the construction there or when they do the construction there in that area, there's going to be a whole lot of time and that's going to be. Going on a long time now with the traffic. It's already very contaminated. There's already a lot of traffic there. Could you introduce yourself for the record, please? It wasn't tested before, but I. Know somebody today. Wrote it to. Me. Thank you very much. Councilman Ortega, do you have some questions? Yes, I do. Go ahead. No, I'm going to call you up first. Can you tell me during the mediation process, what was the role of the Office of Nest? Were they at the meetings? What was being done? Because that office was created to address displacement and gentrification issues. And so were they there? What what role did they play in the process? And I'm sorry that I don't see anybody from that office here tonight. The so Dr. Aguilar, the director of the Nest team, was at the first larger negotiating meeting that we had. And then one of her staff, Elvis, was at the second meeting. They came to observe, didn't say much. So they didn't bring any tools to the table that addressed the issue. Okay. Let me move on. Just asking first, Bill, if you don't mind coming to the microphone. It's my understanding this is your project, right? It is. Are you currently the owner of the property or do you have an option contract contingent on the rezoning passing? I'm the architect. I have an interest in it. Tom and Brooke Gardner are the primary owners, but I'm their partner. Okay. So. So they own the land? Yes, they do. Okay. So I wanted to ask about the agreement. Has that been filed as a covenant with the land into the portions of it that would be applicable? From what I from what. I understand, there are two agreements with the city of Denver that that have been I don't know if they've been recorded, but they've been executed by both parties. The the agreement with the neighborhood, the neighbor benefits agreement, has not been signed or executed. It's been signed by us, but not by any representatives of the neighborhood. So it hasn't been recorded, in other words. Okay. And the one that's been recorded is on the affordability with the housing office, correct? Yes. And the open space agreement, I believe, has been executed by both parties. And I don't know if that's been recorded yet or not. And that is a commitment to provide two acres at minimum of publicly accessible open space. On the. Property. On the property. So that's the open space commitment within the 14 acres. Yes. And was it discussed whether or not part of that 14 a part of that two acres could also serve as storm drainage or it has to be independent of storm drainage? You know, I don't know if storm drainage was specific to that document. We we could not include any type of easements within that. So I know that was something that we used to sort of nail that agreement down. The storm drainage, I really can't remember if that was called out specifically. Okay. I want to ask Kyle Dalton to come forward for a minute. Thank you. So, Kyle, this site, even though it's over ten acres and that was one of the criteria, there were several criteria that would normally require a general development plan. One was not done on this site, but the city will be looking at traffic placement within its proximity to the railroad tracks to address some of the buffering issues, some of that to address part of the health, safety and welfare of the community. So given that there was no general development plan, where in the process does the community get to weigh in on any of those issues? Or is this it this meaning the agreement, this meaning input to council tonight? So can you just help address that? Sure. Yeah. Unless there are any other processes that require a public hearing as they go through the site development process, there will be further requirement for or opportunity for neighborhood input. Okay. So then let me ask either Bruce or Bill if you would come back and just. Help me understand what you see as the process, assuming this passes. What do you see as the process in terms of addressing traffic issues? And then we'll ask you about the railroad. And given that there is a school across the street with a lot of kids that move back and forth, how how do you see that part of the process moving forward? Well, the traffic, we actually have a traffic study, but it's being updated because the plans of have changed. That's available. We'll just make available that available to the public. CPD has a copy of the current one. Was was that reviewed with the neighborhood as part of the community process? Is it we obligate ourselves to provide that, but we haven't reviewed it with them. It actually said there was no impact to our with our current plan. So talk to me about railroad proximity and any kind of. So first of all, was that brought to your attention when you all initially filed this application that you should be checking the box that you're within a close proximity to railroad? I believe so. I mean, it was on the surveys. I mean, it's it's kind of hard to ignore when you're there. And at that time, we still had the the horns. So it was it was very hard to ignore. Then it as you know, the light rail curves around the site. So it's very prevalent on really on two sides. And so it's a very obvious and impactful component. Our site really turns inward and. Then to the other street. So Clayton in 40th. So along the light rail line, there's no there's no access. There's no pedestrian access in beyond that there's a heavy rail. So there's really not not as are currently nor is there going to be really any kind of implied connection across those lines. I mean, we'll have a secure boundary along that that light rail all the way to the street or to the sidewalk. So the. Cargo rail is immediately north of the RTD rail. It is at at the. Along the Clayton Edge. So it runs straight whereas the light rail. Curves around and kind of wraps the site. Okay. And in the the real issue is the fact that our rail corridors carry hazardous materials and just wanting to make sure that this is something that you all have thought about and have looked at how you address any protection that would need to be provided by the sheer fact that through this process, we're going to be encouraging people to live on that site. And if something were to happen, we'd want to make sure that we are doing our part as a city to address those health safety potential impacts. Right. It is. I mean, in in even if we were to do a commercial development, we would be aware of that creating barriers and also the safety during construction. If soil's disturbed, we will have to be monitoring that even though we're not really faced with any negative environmental impacts. But it's something to monitor the whole time during construction when the site's a little more open and then afterwards. Okay, I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to start by asking. I see that Melissa Todd is here and I don't know, were you the one involved in negotiating the housing agreement? Are you speaking to that tonight? If so, I have a question for you. Well, this study has and policy officer with Denver Economic Development Opportunity, Laura brzezinski, and I kind of filled in whenever we could. Got it. So one of the sticking points that's been identified is the depth of the affordability for this project. And I'm wondering if you can speak to whether or not you all discussed the overall low income nature of this neighborhood and the potential of that justifying a lower median income in the housing agreement. And how you looked at that or how you talked about that in this negotiation. So we're always striving to fulfill the goals outlined in our five year housing plan, which does call for deeper affordability. A lot of times we see negotiations starting at 80% of the area median income. So getting the city 60% of the area median income is really important. Again, we like to see even deeper than that when possible, but that does require a city subsidy, often tax credits as well. And so in our negotiations and conversations, that was not necessarily the path that would have been pursued in terms of what those actual salaries are. Because we talk about am I very generally for a single household, that would be 37,800. And I should say these are the 2018 numbers because the 2019 numbers just came out. So single household, 37,800. Household of four 53,940. Okay. Thank you. Next question is for I guess I'll offer if Bruce wants to say anything about the question of getting to lower median incomes and whether why, why there wasn't more willingness to commit to that. And, you know, we've we've negotiated some agreements that say, you know, pending tax credits or pending these things. So there's carve outs that can create protection for the inability to predict what can be gotten. But can you speak to anything about where you were at on the deeper affordability? Sure. Thank you. So back also to some of the discussions that have that I've been listening through for the last few minutes. The agreement, the contractual obligation we have with the city to provide the 70 affordable units is in part our displacement mitigation effort. That's part of why we do this. And in in we've stepped up big because it's five times the number of units we estimate that than would be required under the linkage fee ordinance, which would be about 12 or 15 units. We started out at 80% and in working with Dito are at 60 contractually and there's a number of reasons why that's kind of the limitation in one is is that the project has to pencil financially to be executed and with only three story zoning, it's a very low density model. For example, River Mile is has about the same affordability commitment in terms of number of units, but they can go, I think 40 or 50 or 60 storeys to two and we're limited to three. So Bill, I don't know if you have more to add to that, but that's hard to do. Yeah. Oh, and then on the deeper where we've had discussions with Jeff Martinez brother's redevelopment and is the packet you received says states we are going to give that a high priority and work for 90 days to see if there might be a way to get deeper affordability. But the economics of the project, absent involvement of somebody like that, 60% is where we can get. Okay. Thank you. There was mention I had asked at our last portion of this public hearing about any city subsidy, and I was told flatly there were no plans for any subsidy can be a debatable term. I hear now there has been some discussion about a metropolitan district, which I would call a special, special permission. Not everybody gets to tax folks at a higher rate. So is is do you want to supplement your answer from last time about intentions related to a metropolitan district which was not disclosed during the last hearing? So a metropolitan district is being contemplated. We have not applied to the city yet. The first step in that is letter of intent, and that's not occurred. One of the reasons why is that in my experience, you have to have zoning in place for which you want to have metro district support to finance, own, construct and maintain improvements. There are a number of reasons why a metro district may be appropriate here. One is, is that we don't believe that any of the proposed public infrastructure that will be considered the horizontal infrastructure will meet the Public Works Department's criteria to accept. And so that some entity needs to exist in perpetuity to maintain those horizontal improvements in, for example, the two acres of parks that are committed to and the open space contract with the city in streets and stormwater detention and all of those types of things. And so there's a desire to explore being able to maintain those through Metro District. And potentially you could use a metropolitan district to cover the some of the costs of, for example, the open space, for example, would be eligible infrastructure under a typical metropolitan district. Would be eligible to maintain. Yes. Is that. I'm not sure. I just thinking about when you describe the economics of the project, if there are certain pieces you've committed to that might be covered by a metropolitan district, then they don't have to be covered by the cost of the development. So I'm just thinking about the overall economics. I guess you don't have to add more if you don't. Okay. Okay. Okay. The only thing I would add to it would be you said is that with this site, we're really trying to balance a re-use of the existing buildings. So part of it would be two stories. Part of it would be three stories. It's it's really not very dense. And so that's going to have a negative pressure on the negative on the economics. Okay. Thank you. I have a couple of questions for the community. And what I'd like to do is ask the questions and then you can decide who answers them if that works. So the well, I have three questions, so that might be too many. But the first question is I want to see if you all had a conversation, because the truth is we don't often do very lower EMI housing at two stories. And so did you all have a conversation about how realistic your goals were compared to what they are proposing building and the trade off that if you wanted to get to those very low aims, you might need to have five storeys, which would mean even more development. So I want to understand if you all had that discussion about what is possible at this level versus what would happen if you really wanted that, then you might need to be advocating for higher height. And I don't know if there's plan support for that. So it's important that I understand if you've had that discussion. I'm trying to talk slow for the interpreter forward when? I mean, I'm Rosemary Abimbola. My name is Maria de Luna E. Gentlemen, the conversation is esoteric, lively and accessible. Maria, this is. But I want families. But I can always be sexy. Listen, I truly, when it comes to attainable housing, we had some we ask some questions about affordable housing. For Casey Ave level, the level and that's a civil Pedro bilateral service. So we've we've talked about accessible housing, but for artists. Not para la comunidad. Not for the community. And don't say this is the reality. It's a phony las cosas gay Canales isn't know what that and what are can know. So that's one of the. Things that can be a sonification. Made us vote no to the rezoning. But Carol meant they in and look I used to stand over the sandal. No, I grew up at Apoyar la Comunidad Canal because that was maybe. Because with what they're proposing, there isn't really anything to support the community when what we're going through. Now, Tampoco Como said, I say, What are you radical as we be? And as I said, Silvana said, Para la comunidad and they have allowed en masse they wanted one. Because they've talked more about Wonder Bond and they've talked about the accessible housing for the community. This is a look at your opinion. Those I see myself. That's my opinion. No, if anyone else wants to say something. So, Maria, I'll ask a follow up question. They are offering, I believe it was five or ten live work units for artists, but the remainder are not restricted to artists. Did you understand that they weren't all for artists themselves? But if this does. Not add. On. They never clarified that. Okay, so there might have been some misunderstanding. So I'm going to ask Bruce to come up and clarify this piece for me. Okay. And then I'll move on to my next question. You look obviously approximate, but Mr. President. This is in addition to this question, if I can add onto it, Bruce, can you also for those 70 units, are you are you guys committing to work with the community to do special focus advertisements to teachers, to individuals who've been displaced in the community? So let me start out responding to Councilwoman Kennish. The the 70 units that 60% are under Army with which we have the contract with the city to provide are a requirement with no no design or limitations on who they serve or or who their audience that are just going to be capital affordable housing at 60% AMI or less. They are not restricted to artists. That's correct. They're they're kind of normal everyday. What what you think of in affordable housing. In addition to that the there's a desire and that's become a commitment to also provide up to eight live work units that would be for artists. Okay. Outside of that hole, all of that. Did you want to answer, Councilman Brooks, this question about the advertising? Yes. So the is I mentioned when when I first came up this evening. And in this all kind of came in in jelled through the city appointed mediator that ran all this. We're still committed to offer units and be proactive about marketing units in the community. In the community is is one of the ongoing commitments, even though there is not a community benefits agreement. Okay. My next question for the community and is about the fact that the area plan. So we have to make our decision based on the criteria. So it's not a vote about whether the community likes or does not like the project. It is a vote about what the criteria is. And there is an area plan that has support from community that says we want to change zoning away from industrial. And tonight, one of the things that has been shared is that you rather keep it as industrial. And I want to ask whether or not you understand the fact that we already have a plan adopted that the city is supposed to comply with that says we want to change it from industrial. When the nose goes. Tangles and saroyan's. All right. We like development. Campbell's. We like change. His song. Bienvenidos a la Comunidad. They're welcome in the community. Burial meant they're in their store. No, Soto. No, they must not. Apparel accompany that. But here we don't see anything truly for the community, Fulkerson said. Then, Tony, that is. There are 70 units. Also sent percent. At 60%. It's a center proportion todavia. As I told Barela community. That 60% is still high for the community. And that's not on this as it's amazing point that 90%. We need 50 30%. But Gabriel meant there is alto locus as the by landlord in frame Takumi the pasando knows this topic Pando and my Seattle. Rent is very expensive. Food is everything expensive. Everything that is going on is affecting us a lot in process. No, no, no mirror, almost no candles. Whether you like our to get in Mozilla industrial for me other than nosotros is alongside the Las Casas Gomes Val McCallum We. Don't see anything that's helping us right now. We want industrial because what we fear right now is that the prices of the houses will go up. Barrios A lot. Residents are very severe. Takako. Mustafa A lot of the resident residents that received a letter like Rosa was saying. Ella Casani yeah. Costar S.O.S. star Valerie Salazar. S.O.S. to her house was valued at 180. How little Valerie sat on andale siento so changed that. Now it's valued at 280. Entonces vamos esperar cuanto a.z. that says para la proximo. Okay. Now we're waiting to see what the taxes will be next time. Grace. Yes, Pedro, I. I need to ask if someone has to wants to comment on the plan. I have to make my decision based on the plan and the plan. So I want to ask about the plan. My name is Robin Reichert. I'm a Swanson neighbor, part of the Gas Coalition. To your point, we to the last two questions. We talked extensively about this. We understand the developers and the really hard position. At no point did we want to blame the developer, but at the end of the day, both for your question about deeper affordability, there wasn't language in there that really secured that. And as far as the looking at the industrial use, it wasn't our intention to support the industrial use as the Coalition. We're not taking that specific position. However, the vote of the neighbors, overwhelmingly, the folks that were living closest to the the site didn't see that there was anything tangible in the agreement to to mitigate that affordability. And I think the real hook here is the city, as it's been acknowledged through the gentrification study, the housing, the inclusive housing for all all of these studies have shown that the the the direct development, the direct link between this development and displacement of low income neighbors. So we're saying if we know it and we've known it for years, what are we doing about it? And it's just so disheartening to go through this month and that there's just nothing on the table that actually protects the people that the city says they're going to protect. And so it's really hard for us to get behind a decision that had no teeth or an agreement that had no no hook. So just to your point, it was extremely debated. There was 70 people from the neighborhood that took part of this process. We knocked on doors extensively, had extensive community reporting, and invited all neighbors within 500 feet to to give input on that process. Okay. Thank you. I'll concede for others to answer their questions then. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Councilman Espinosa, you're back. Oh, Councilman Brooks. Yeah, I was there. Oh, I'm. Sorry. Yeah, thanks. Hey, just a couple quick questions in. I'll just put this out here. You know, listening to to the community and listening to both sides, one of the things that I thought was a real coup and win was getting brothers redevelopment to get this property in and redeveloped the affordable. So, Bruce, let me just ask let me ask you this. How real is this conversation? I mean, because it seems to be, you know, especially with those 70 units, it seems to be some mistrust of what is actually going to be done on deeper affordability and even kind of the conversations with brothers redevelopment. So. Have you all been in contact with brothers redevelopment worries? I mean, they're not here, so obviously they can't speak. But where are we on that conversation? So, yes, we've been in touch with them. We were introduced to them through NOLA and the coalition. And while there's no, you know, formal inked deal, we're committed to work with them to execute on the 70 unit site to see if deeper affordability can be achieved. Do you have a developer you're also working with on an affordable housing deal for the 70 units? Are they exclusively they're excluded? So where are what's in the the community benefits agreement? And we're still committed to, even though what's unsigned is that we will be exclusive with them for 90 days. Okay. That that's just what I wanted to highlight to make sure that that was exclusively their their deal. There is someone is moreso. Can. Can I ask you a question? You were here for the last. You were here last month, correct? Yes. Okay. And where? Where do you live, sir? I live on 4110 Fillmore Street. Okay. So a block away? Yes. And, you know, we've been hearing from different residents. What's your perspective take on this? Well. And were you a part of the 70 people we just heard? The 70 people are part of this process. Well, I'm I can say I'm part of that, this group. At the beginning, I was part when I found I find out that there was a collision. So I had to enter a meeting. But then when they see my position that I now embrace their position. Like I received fliers anymore in my home they know came to me to talk. And that's fine. But what I think about the project, we need the change. Because right now it's a lot of crime. It's now police intervention on our neighborhood. Last week was five break ins on two blocks, plus soul destroying. So we need the city of Denver. Get more involved on what is happening. And we need developers like this. So want to invest millions of dollars to have our neighborhood a better place to live. Are you committed to being a part of the process here? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. The Council on Brooks Ghost. Which is. China's own government, just got in for. The first time. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. We will get to you eventually, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. I wanted to Nate, I had a question for you from the city attorney's office. Some of the, you know, answers that folks have been giving are very compelling, knowing that some sort of new development coming to the neighborhood that this rezoning may bring. I just want to make sure that folks are clear on what the criteria are that we legally have to make our decisions based upon. And, you know, we have those those criteria. I have it up really quick. But, you know, there's five criteria. One of those criteria are not inclusive of us making a decision based upon potential changing property. Values to. The surrounding businesses or single family residences. Correct? That's correct. The criteria does not. Include that. Type of consideration. Okay. All right. I just wanted that to be on the record because it's very, very compelling. But legally, we can't utilize that information in our decision tonight. That's correct. All right. Thank you. Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilman Lopez. Thank you. If you can come up to the front developer. You yourself as well. The community benefits, you know, in talking about some of the things that you've agreed to because that agreement is not signed. That's something you said you're still willing to honor. Is it also have you signed who's signed? Who are this? Who has signed on to it, at least from your guys's end? So it's developer or the developer property owner as well. The property owner and developer are one and the same. It's Tom Gordon and he's signed it and pardon me and his wife have both signed it and in so it it remains. There is no counterparty to to the agreement. And so our take on this is that we feel as if we've. Well, first of all, there there are the five criteria on which a rezoning should be. Jump in in we meet all those five, we have a staff report and planning board approval and on and on. In addition to that, we've gone above and beyond by entering into the affordable housing agreement with the city and the open space agreement. And we've taken the high road the whole way on this thing. And so we invite you to in the city and neighbors to join us there. And we're morally committed to do these things. So. What I'm trying to get at is is there any kind of development agreement where this is recorded as well, too? I mean, it's one thing to sign the document, but is it recorded in any kind of horizontal or any kind of any kind of development agreement that's associated with it? Well, no. No, there is not. So the the intent of the last month through the city sponsored and requested mediation was to try to get to that point. And as you've heard from both sides tonight, and I'll reiterate, I think we got very, very close. But if you don't if you can do that voluntarily, can't you, by making a condition of the development agreement, even if there are no signatures on it? That's exactly what we are doing. We're voluntarily sticking to sticking to those commitments. On the development agreement. And any content on the community benefits agreement that got drafted. I understand the community benefits agreement, but in the in any kind of development agreement associated with the property, any kind of building, any any kind of deed, any kind of recorded document, is it is it is it live within those kind of those. No, sorry does not. The only the affordable housing agreement and the open space agreement with the city. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Cashman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Nate. You know, my. So, Nate, obviously, one of the criteria is plan support, right? Correct. So we have a variety of plans now that decry gentrification and hold equity up as a value. So the plans applicable to this rezoning are comprehensive plan 2000, Blueprint, Denver 2002 and the small area plan, which I can't remember the name of it at the moment. How about housing and inclusive Denver? Is that is a city adopted plan. And so it could be considered by council. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa. Well. All right, William, so a couple questions for you. So, again, I think the three the three agreements that have been put forward by you and your team and executed on two of the three are really compelling package. And so I believe it is your intent to live up to these commitments. Would you be willing to change the wills to shell on the neighborhood agreement if it. You know, I'd have to consult with the partnership on that. I'm not qualified to know the distinction. Even though I was here earlier and I heard that. So but it's it's our intent, the entire partnership to meet the agreement that's been signed. So I don't. Know if you are willing to make those changes. Would you also then be willing to give the community another ten days, regardless of the outcome tonight? I mean, if if the rezoning should be approved tonight, the community another ten days to execute that agreement so that we have a third party on that agreement. Second. That's kind of unsportsmanlike. That's just me personally thinking. I mean, that's kind of that wasn't the spirit of what we did. But, you know, we're doing it. We're committing to doing it. So if they sign it tonight or tomorrow. Or next week or the week after that, it's it's really not I mean, we're committing to it. And the reason being is that your commitment on a on a one party agreement is not worth the paper that it's written on. Right. I mean, and I do think that there's real merit to the agreements that you've laid down and and put your name to. And I do think that maybe the community was tiny at a tiny bit of a disadvantage in understanding the real impact that is being proposed here, because you're talking about a community that is really reeling and you see them essentially the argument, the argument that, you know, bringing new homes with higher values will change the the value of land in that area. And that is a legitimate argument. It is what I supported the Zia project in my neighborhood going forward, but I have warned my my neighbors that that will set a new market. It will establish a new market once that goes in and it will make certain properties viable that weren't viable before for redevelopment. That is a real impact. And as that starts to happen, that is the Jefferson Park story. So these I don't I think if you short of these protections, I think we open ourselves up to even more the potential for more dramatic impacts. So, ah, you know, I get what you mean by it's what was the term you used. I use the term. Unsportsmanlike but I was kind of in jest. Yeah, sort of a little bit. So I think you guys are committed. I think that's why you put the extra time in. You were okay with the extra time trying to reach that agreement. I think you put forward three, three substantial agreements. And if if, if, if all they need to do to secure that agreement is just one signature from one of those parties, not even all three. That would give me more peace of mind for that community that you're going to follow through on what you said. Are you sure you won't give them another ten days if this rezoning goes through? But. Okay, Oscar, thank you. I'm sure we did have a media just center on that topic. I have concerns that leaving it as a commercial in it's not only industrial zone zoned is just not doesn't allow residential. I am concerned it's still going to have the negative impact that they're concerned about. So we share those. Concerns as well. But now it's a different calculus world to the city rate, which is nonresidential land, has a taxable property tax rate at five times a residential property tax. And when we lose nonresidential land for high value residential, we dilute the residential market and we put greater pressures on the remaining nonresidential landholders for sure things. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega, did your questions get answered or different question? And this is for Kiawah, if you don't mind coming forward one more time. So this is on the GDP. So who at CPD makes the judgment call whether a large site is required to have a general development plan or not? Because looking at the criteria and hearing Mr. O'Donnell talk about the two acres of parks, the streets, the stormwater, the criteria is pretty. Clear that. You look at necessary infrastructure that includes roads, parks, open space, utilities, support, development. So those are being looked at for potentially a metro district. But we the city did not necessarily factor those in for the GDP to be created as part of this project. And I'm struggling with that because the criteria seems to meet that for this particular project. Yet somebody made a judgment call that this particular 14 acre site did not require a GDP. So is there a point person that makes that decision? Is it the. What's the word? I'm looking for the neighborhood planner of the district that makes that decision. Is that something that there's flexibility on or is it just a judgment call of whoever is looking at the application? Yeah. So for the benefit of everyone else, my name is Kyle Dalton. I'm with the Department of Communicating Involvement. So the decision is, as particularly the Denver zoning code is that of the manager of CBD, which can be delegated to any member of her staff. So we make those decisions collectively as a team in consultation with her, and we reviewed it against all of the factors, all of the criteria. And as my colleague Sarah Salter explained four weeks ago, we found that that it did not meet the required criteria to require a general development plan. Even though the actual criteria spells out some of the very things that this project is going to need. So the only factor that we found that this one would necessarily require and that couldn't be solved through other regulatory mechanisms, which is what the code language says, was that it's greater than ten acres. But as we went through the rest and as she went through the rest of them last time, it's it's now within 100 feet of the river or the Cherry Creek corridors. There won't be collector arterial streets. There won't be regional stormwater than demands of the site will be local, local streets, local stormwater, local open space wasn't required or called for. Recommended is the word. I think that's in the plan. But the creek fire does say that the criteria doesn't necessarily say it's got to be that it's restricted to regional versus local. It does. Yeah. I can read the language if you'd like. Okay. I'm looking at it right now. And that particular part that about regional. There's not. Jump out at me. So. Sure. So I'm reading from section 1.4.12.2.8.3, which are which is one of the criteria to consider in determining for the department to determine whether a GDP will be required. And that's the part that's about infrastructure. That's your question. Right. So it's a establishing, extending, expanding or otherwise changing the arterial or collector street grid. So again, there's already two arterials next to the site. We didn't think it was going to anymore, but. There will be internal streets needed. Correct. That it could either public or private. Yeah. Okay. Or and then. Or establishing extending, expanding or otherwise changing an existing regional stormwater system or establishing, extending, expanding or otherwise changing publicly accessible park and open space. Okay. All right. So just one last question. This is for either Bruce or Bill. So the park that the two acres that are being proposed for this site. That's that's been in agreement with the city. Correct. It's not necessarily part of the agreement with the neighborhood. It may be part of the agreement with the neighborhood. It's listed, but it's it's it's city agreement. Okay. Is there an expectation that at some point after the typically it's the one year time frame after it's been constructed that it would be turned over to the city as as city land? Or will it continue to remain open space as part of the development? You know. I can't answer that. I don't know if if they'll want it or if it'll be part of the metro district or some other component. It's a pretty stringent agreement where it's required to be maintained as publicly accessible open space. So it has this. A person is answer to this one. So. Okay, Mona Bruce. The the agreement requires that the the two acres of open space be in a easement provided to the city so that the city of Denver would be the grantee in an easement to assure that this remains open space in perpetuity. So then it becomes a city park at that point. Is that correct? That is not determined. It could be under private ownership, but it that it would be in an open space easement. That's the that been the beneficiary of the grantees, the city of Denver. Okay. But the assumption is that if there's a metro district, the part of the mills get collected to address maintenance of that park is part of the overall infrastructure. If if there was a district. Yes. That yes, that's a possibility. It's a possibility, but it's a possibility. It gets turned over to the city and the city assumes the maintenance responsibility. Is that accurate? No. The city just has an easement to make sure that it remains open space. Okay. Because I know a number of our other metro districts, the parkway ends up being turned over to the city, even though it's built, and part of the cost of the maintenance is built into the original mills. But yet the city ends up taking the responsibility of ongoing maintenance of those parklands. So that's why you're familiar. With that in other areas. But that would not be the case here. Okay. Thanks for that clarification. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Gordon. Thank you, President Clark. Bruce, I have another question for you on the attachment that you had sent to us. I'm looking at page 16. Where is the grab it? Okay. Please. It's the section that says Agreement to provide open space. And I have a quick question because my math isn't adding up correctly. I don't think so. On page 16, under the recitals, SI, it says the owner intends to provide approximately 20% of the buildable area of the property for use as open space. But then the next section where it says agreement. It says Open Space Owner agrees to provide a minimum of two acres of the property as publicly accessible open space. If this is a 14 acre site, 20% would be 2.8 acres. And so how do you, under the agreement, under open space, have a minimum of two acres instead of the 20%? That would be 2.8 acres. So today, the gross acreage of the site is about 14 acres. And so that includes buildings are part of that, for example, today and as development begins to occur there, it'll start to transition to what's called net acreage. So net of street rights of way, for example. And so the the two acres or 20% is calculated on the the estimate of what the future net open space will be is as opposed to today's gross acreage of 14 acres. Okay. Thank you, Kyle. I have a question for you on the same topic. What Bruce just described around those calculations is that the standard. Way that open space. Requirements are calculated for developments of this size. Sure. So when development is required to provide open space, either under a GDP or under the proposed rules for a large development review that the Planning Board has forwarded for the City Council's consideration here in the next few weeks. It does because there's a little bit of history here. So the open space requirement comes from former Chapter 59, which applied to the zone lots. So the way it's been applied since then, including in the new Denver zoning code, is net of streets, public or private, but net of streets because it was originally just applied to the private property. So we would subtract ordinarily the the land for streets, whether they're publicly dedicated or private, but all publicly accessible streets. But at this point, there isn't a like the specifics of a plan, which I think is why they've included it as a recital. It is approximately 20% because there isn't a calculation to perform yet. But that was the intention behind the recital. Okay. And who are you all working with as far as the parks planner for this area. Said Mark. Mark Taylor was. The person who participated. All right. Thank you. Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Brooks. Yep. Just one last thing. And, you know, Nola or Bruce can do this, but we didn't hear the mediator's comments. And so I know he wrote a letter, and I'm not even sure that the entire council got those. And I just wanted to make sure we read it into record. So we have all of the everybody's comments in before. Anybody have it? So, Councilman, I have the mediator's letter here. Is is that what you're. What what would you like done with it? Yeah. So none of the city of city council have the letter? Nope. No. So that's an issue. I have 14 copies. Okay. Can you please get it to the secretary? So can the lease have the letter? It's actually in here. There is. Go ahead. Go ahead. Speak to it. The it says that it was the Arnaud's that abstained. And that's not true. The at the actual meeting, the Elyria Swansea Neighborhood Association was there. And actually Sandra from the Unite North Metro Denver, R.A. is here tonight. So I just want to make sure that that is isn't. That point was an accurate. Thank you. Thanks for doing that. Can you. Pass along? My apologies. I had 14 copies of a different document that I have. One of the mediators report to city council that I'm happy to give you. Okay. I a. I just want to confirm with our attorney that having that copy gets it on the record or do we need to read it into the record? Yeah, you can just distribute it and if you'd like to read it into the record that we get it, I don't know. How long it is, but. Do you want to you do want us to read it. Yet? How long is the document? I haven't seen. It. I don't. Know. It just walked out of the room. It's one page. Yeah. It would make sense to read it into the record. Okay. I think, Mr. President, just for the edification, everybody in there with notwithstanding what I know, they just talked about taking out that piece about the neighborhoods that it it's good for everybody to hear what he wrote. So did the one copy we have of it, though, just walk out of the room with getting copied. If you can play some music in the interim. Can we grab the first copy off the printer so we can read it? Thank you, Madam Secretary. I may have. And does it matter who reads it in? Can I just read it in to the record or. Yes, that would begin. Okay. Thank you. All right, here is the letter. Uh, Councilman Brooks and Courtney Levinson. Thank you for referring the rezoning request for 2535 East 40th Avenue to mediation. As you can imagine, I believe mediation and helping people find a way to talk with each other has the potential to resolve a lot of issues and concerns in a collaborative manner. I met with the applicant, Tom Gordon's representative Bill Moore, and Bruce O'Donnell, along with about 20 neighbors on two occasions, April 16th and April 23rd at each meeting. We had a full involvement and discussion by everyone around issues and concerns of the neighbors and the ideas and commitments Mr. Thomas was prepared to make if the rezoning was approved. As expected, there were some gaps between what the neighbors yes. Were asking for and what Mr. Thomas felt he could do specifically about an increased number of affordable units, neighborhood based affirmative marketing plan, representation and inclusion in an advisory capacity. Financial support for displacement pressures in the form of legal defense fund and property tax relief. Preference and affordable accommodations for commercial space for local businesses. Preference for local businesses in the development and construction community. Open Space Traffic Issues and health concerns. I asked for a small working group to enable us to discuss and make decisions in a timely manner. We were scheduled to meet again on Thursday, April 25th. This was a meeting with Mr. Gordon's representatives and five gees neighbor representatives. At the very last minute, Mr. Gordon canceled the meeting. I was able to talk with Mr. Gordon later that day and work towards rescheduling the meeting. Our working group met on Monday, April 29th. That was a very productive meeting with open, honest and collaborative discussion. I believe we were able to resolve all of the points that GM slash R.A. slash neighbors were asking. With that, with what Mr. Thomas was willing or able to agree upon, with the exception of a displacement impact fee, the challenge came in getting it on paper. Many emails and drafts. Later, Mr. Thomas's team finalized and submitted an agreement that addressed the issues and concerns that were identified in our April 29th meeting. With the exception of one point the displacement impact fee, I'm attaching a copy of that agreement for your reference. Thursday evening, May 2nd, the neighborhood spent significant time discussing the agreement, concerns about increasing displacement impacts and ultimately voted 12 to 7 to oppose the rezoning and not sign the agreement. The three are no representatives abstained. I was not present but was informed. The real concern from the neighborhood was about the impact of potential displacement upon vulnerable persons. Unfortunately, we do not have a signed agreement. However, there was a significant hard work and commitment by the neighborhood and Mr. Thomas's team. We were very close to and accomplished a lot. I would propose to you that we have an agreement that both sides agreed upon, with the exception of the one point displacement impact remediation. Thank you, Steve Charbonneau. All right. No other questions. The continued public hearing for council, the 1 to 7 is closed. Removed two comments by members of council. Councilman Brooks. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank everybody for being here and all their hard work on this pretty frustrating process. And and I think all parties from, you know, as my lawyer is listening to me over here, it's really frustrating being a council person, being the judge and not being able to actually go in and see where the deficiencies are. I saw where the deficiencies in the argument were on the community side. I saw where the deficiencies in the arguments were on the developer side. And it was frustrating because it felt like the two kept missing each other. At one point the developer left the table. A lot of mistrust, obviously, for the community. And the community made a vote and didn't send in with the vote what we want except for the we want it to stay the same zoning but what specific issue. And so that was that was just it was just problematic and tough all the way around. I think when you look at the Swansea, a neighborhood and by the way, I live three blocks away from this. So I understand residential and industrial zoning. I live across the street from the Coca-Cola plant. I understand those zoning and I understand those issues and the impact they have on a community. And so I get it. And I also get the fear of displacement that's going on all around our community and the fear displacement that's going on in my kids classrooms that's happening all around the community. And so everything that Swansea and Elyria and the Gas Coalition is saying is all justified. It's all right. The question is, what is the right tool to begin to deal with these issues? Is the tool putting in new policies in this one single development? Is that the right tool or is a tool saying, you know what? Maybe in displacement, in gentrified neighborhoods, there should be a higher bar for impact fees and things like that. That's a larger policy conversation that we have been working. And it takes a long time. Right. And so I get the frustration from the community. Here's here's where I land. We do have this criteria that we have to look at. And I'm telling you right now, what has not been shared or talked about with anyone. Is this location is an enterprise is in an opportunity zone. An opportunity zone. Takes a ton of individuals who can invest in property. And so what you see today is an AT&T site that's going away. If if you don't get a rezoning until I am x three and things like that, you get an incredible redevelopment plan, much more density and much more expensive development and commercial development. And let's be very clear, it does not have to be industrial. It can be commercial development. That would put a lot of pressure on the community. AT&T did nothing. Opened up no doors for Swansea. Nothing. And I think we need to realize that and acknowledge that. So. In reviewing the criteria. I am x three is exactly what the plan says. I am x three and reviewing the criteria is much better for a community than what you have now and what you could get if this developer goes to the market and sells it to the highest bidder on the market. I know there's not a lot of knowledge in in issues on opportunity zones, but people are starting to invest globally to find opportunity zones all throughout America. Because of this new legislation that just passed. It is a it is a serious issue. We have a developer who has agreed to provide and I haven't seen this before. 2000 square feet of. Of retail or community space. We need to take advantage of it and use it for our entrepreneurial space. The 70 units we need to take advantage of it and recruit, recruit housing for teachers at Bruce Randolph. We need to take advantage of it and use the GST Coalition to do the redevelopment and things like that. And so I'll be supporting this redevelopment and I'll be supporting this rezoning and I hope the community stays engaged with this or else we will see another development that closes the community out. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. And so my colleague, my colleague was right in that the plan has a lot of nebulous language that talks about industrial areas being residential and all that stuff. But the recommendation number one that I pointed to last time and I'll point to again is item B5 recommendation number one of this plan improve transition between industrial residential uses to improve compatibility between residential and more intensive industrial areas. Development in these areas should be consistent with the industrial mixed use land designation and it's a C, E, three, E, eight and E 22, which are the character area strategies of the plan? And it doesn't emphasize those three recommendations. Do not emphasize that you convert industrial mixed use into some sort of massive residential development. It does. There are again, I will acknowledge that there are other parts of the plan, but they are not specifically in the recommendations. So I think there's adequate language in here that you could say that this zoning does not conform to the adopted plan, you know, and so that gets me into where I was going and was hoping out of this outcome, which is how then do we resolve how do we make sure that those nebulous parts of the plan and in the conflicting language of the recommendations are married in the way you do that is through compromise and through negotiation. And I'm sort of frustrated, as you can tell, sort of on both sides, because I think we have actually pretty impressive set of agreements. And and but then what you heard me talk in my own questioning, where I'm frustrated is the fact that we as a city, we as city council representatives didn't engage you guys in the process so that we weren't in this situation where you actually have a lot of good things, really impressive things, things that go above and beyond. I will acknowledge that the things you put out there are above and beyond where you were. We take a lot of these these entitlement cases and and sit here and not me, not be in full agreement. But I understand why and and almost said it best. Where are you? Still here. Yeah, that was that was perfect articulation of the real problem here, which is we don't have this kernel of gentrification going on in this area, even though we have created a stormwater plan that will make this area bone dry and perfect for redevelopment going forward. We have set the table for massive redevelopment of this area, but we haven't done as established a market yet. And if we're party to that market creation, you know, God help the rest of the neighborhood when investment reinvestment comes in, because this administration has already said, well, you know, we can't control the market. Well, this is where we do it. You know, because I'm going back and looking at census reporter right now, dawg. Looking at the statistics, I mean, the demographics of your neighborhood and I have said it before from this dais that when I moved in Jefferson Park 22 years ago, 1997 was 83% Latino and 53% Spanish speaking. I mean, over 50% Spanish speaking. If I look at the demographics right now. Of that census tract, 81% Hispanic. I have no idea what it is special speaking, but I can tell you that the per capita income is $17,508. If I look at my own census tract, which is all of Jefferson Park, it is now 45% Hispanic. It is 50% white. And the per capita income in that neighborhood is 49, nine, eight, eight. So there is a difference in median income. Our area median income analysis is the citywide median income. That is a very high income in this area. And so now I blame the city. Right, because this is a huge, huge haul on the affordable housing front, no doubt. But it is not addressing displacement in this community. There is no opportunity for all but a few people in this neighborhood to actually move into these 60% Army units. And so when they're named, when their properties start to become pressured and their neighborhoods become the next Jefferson Park, is there an option for them to stay in the community that they've lived in for decades? Are we providing then should we be providing that? I would say yes. I think this council has been consistent in saying, yeah, we need to address gentrification. And there is a way using market forces and using all of this agreement. And what we had was a very, very compliant developer. And what we didn't do is have that conversation robustly with the community so that we came in here going, You know what? It isn't. I mean, what we had here was a great opportunity, right? Because nobody all acknowledged nobody's getting displaced by this project specifically. It's only indirectly. There isn't a single residential unit on that property, I don't think. So this is an opportunity. So do we need 70 units at 60%? Am I over here when other developments are generating tons and tons at 60 and 80 and 120? Or do we actually need something lower to create that opportunity and less of it because there aren't a ton of houses? Let's be honest, the dense the dwelling unit density in this area isn't super compact. And so there was that opportunity. But nobody's doing the calculus. No one's really playing that game and going, Okay, how do we move these pieces so that we actually create opportunity? At the same time, you know that the market forces are going to do it themselves. And so that is why it was so important to me, because now we're I feel emboldened. I feel empowered by comp plan and the new plan blueprint. Denver Because it speaks to these things, the importance of these things and to us to be considering them going forward. And so to do rezonings just the way we always have. I'm sorry. It's a it should be a new day. I think I've heard it from the citizens of Denver and the administration. And my colleagues. Most definitely. But are we? So I'm. I. I. This is an imperfect process. We have a good a a good package. I don't know how I'm going to vote because I am struggling with the plan recommendations and the fact that we have not closed this gap. We came very, very close. But I do agree that it is a good agreement. If this rezoning goes through, I would highly encourage this community. Take this developer at his word. Put one of those names of those community organizations on it. That way you can say, yes, we're party to your agreement. You said you would do these things. We're not just going to trust you. We have a document that you sign and I signed. And at least do those things, you know, because it is better than what Jefferson Park got. Right, which was 100% use by right. Trying to think other than the rezonings that I did in Jefferson Park. There wasn't a single rezoning in Jefferson Park. All of that happened without anybody's say other than the plan reviewers. That is the situation you're putting yourself in. If you don't execute these agreements. Okay. So again, we heard it here, the willingness it is a bit of the term I can't remember again. I get it. But I think there's opportunity. And if we if we put you in too tight of a box, come to Gedo, come to the city and say, look, we we made the obligation to to to tight for you guys, but it's too important to this community. And and and we want to get there because I think I think this administration, any incoming administration, this council will find reason to help. If it starts to address these issues. So, again, I don't know where I'm going to vote, but I did want to get those comments out. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. So we go from an earlier rezoning where we had 30 meetings over three years to this process that was considerably less robust. Now, that's not something that is a criteria that we can vote on. But I think it's relevant because I think if we had a more robust, extended community process, I think we'd have an agreement. In this case, I think we've got a situation where, if I'm remembering from last last times testimony out of about 700 residential units, about 70 will be affordable. And I wonder if the impact of those 630 market rate units doesn't have more of a negative impact on the community than the 70 affordable units? Help it out again. And I point to our housing plan, as well as the newer plans that unfortunately don't come into play on this, where gentrification is held out as something that we clearly need to take action on. I'm concerned because we have a development agreement that's barely a development agreement. As as development of this site unfolds, there's will be no public meetings as site plans come into play. So I wonder if this is truly a plan that's protective of health and safety. And while there are certainly elements in the proposed community benefits agreement that are very worthy of the neighborhood's consideration, the fact that there are those few elements missing from the recipe that makes it unpalatable, unpalatable for the neighbors also gives me concern. So, yeah, I just wanted to put that out there. Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. I think it's important to recap what I think I've heard through this process, because each discussion we have from this dais isn't just a decision about what's in front of us. It's also about what is the work plan going forward. Right. And so I want this community to know how much I appreciate their time and that I'm thinking about both of those things. And I also want to thank the applicant for agreeing, perhaps under duress, but agreeing nonetheless to the one month delay to get us here. So we have some process and infrastructure failures that some of which are most of which I think we can address. So first was that we didn't get notice to renters and to neighbors through the process. That is something I have alerted CPD that I and I will not vote for the large development review ordinance that's coming forward unless we fix that. I've already fixed it in the tiny home ordinance that I'm going to be bringing forward over the summer. Should I have the pleasure of continuing to sit on his dais anyway? And so that is something we can fix to provide notice to properties or structures within 400 feet to. We have a housing negotiation process that sets our Office of Housing at the table with developers with no mechanism to get input from the community on the affordability levels they're negotiating. That is something we can also fix. I'm looking at kind of the ways to do that. One of the ways I think that may help is that I have worked with the folks in CPD to make sure there's a neighborhood informational meeting in the large development review process. So that creates at least an opportunity. And I'm hopeful that we can time that such that no housing agreement can be entered into before that meeting. So we'll see how all that works. But that is something that can be fixed and I think should be fixed. Three We don't really have an anchor organization with expertize and community benefits. The organization I worked for before I got elected doesn't do that work anymore. And you all have been short on the kind of expertize you might have needed to understand maybe where some of the things could have been written differently, or how you could have gotten some some explanations on what you were getting. And so that also, I think, is something we can fix. I've been urging that we as a city invest in capacity. Building and whether it's us or whether it's the foundation community, I'm committed to bringing some of my old friends from the National Network to Town to do some trainings. I think both with us as government as well as with the community, maybe even with the development sector, to talk about how we do this better because there hasn't really been this infrastructure in the last few years. So those are the then we have some substance issues. The community is trying to overcome deficits and citywide policy in one particular site and the applicant identified that. Right. I think we all have different roles in a democracy and your role in bringing that forward is appropriate, right? Even if it's sometimes an awkward fit, it makes us understand where the big rules need to change so we can't control rising rents. I testified for a bill that might have given us the ability to debate that law. It didn't pass. So you're trying to find workarounds, right? From a shortage of state law. We can't assess property differently based on where you live and say, oh, this neighborhood, we want to give them a lower property tax rate than another neighborhood. The state doesn't let us do that. So you're trying to find these ways. I and then the third thing you talked about was this resident preference policy. And that one, we are working on it. We're just behind you. Right? We are working to get the data and the criteria so we can say to developers, here's how you can make sure that the community nearby gets a chance to get these units. It seems like there are some private market opportunities you can do without our city policy, and I hope you look at those. So I believe that these are things that we can continue to work on. So regardless how this vote goes tonight, the community's been heard and many of these things, we can make fixes at least to move us forward. There is a difference in my mind between Nada e insufficient thing. I don't think we have nada here tonight. We don't have nothing. The local business space is something most communities are asking for to have local business space. You've gotten a seed funding for a legal defense fund. 70 units to negotiate over is not nothing sufficient to always know. Maybe it's not enough, but that's different than nothing. And it's important for the community to recognize that there are some pieces in here to build on. So as I look forward, we have this situation where the other structural process thing that we're not going to fix is that the committee, the council can't be engaged in negotiations around zoning. One thing you will notice is most community benefits agreements are related to city subsidies, taxing authority or public land. They're not linked to zoning. So we have to follow these legal criteria and we can't step into your negotiation when zoning are involved. So you'll see very few community benefits agreements nationally with zoning. But I heard today that there's going to be a request for a metropolitan district. What I believe is I have to make a decision based on the criteria. And the criteria tell me that we have a plan that calls for changing from industrial. I don't believe that the health and safety of the community is better protected by more intense industrial use than a re-use of these existing buildings at pretty low density , two and a half storeys. So I don't have the criteria I need, but I believe that if the community were to sign this agreement and continue to negotiate over the potential of deeper affordability and the advertising of the units, I can absolutely be more engaged as a council member if there's a metropolitan district before me. If you want special taxing authority, you're going to need to demonstrate a little bit of make up time on the, you know, some of the time you lost in the beginning. Right. So you'll have more time to do these discussions as you put together a metropolitan district. So I have more authority as a council member to consider more factors in that discussion, in my opinion. So with that said, I believe that today is one step and it's a vote on the criteria for the zoning. This doesn't mean that it's dollar total isn't isn't one, but that's different than I heard a term at the legislature every step. If you feel like this zoning decision is a loss, if it goes against, if it goes if we pass it tonight, it's a loss forward, not a loss backward because we've identified things we can fix . So with that, I will be voting for the rezoning tonight, but I will be watching closely now that I can engage more in a different way. And I hope to see that there is good faith on the depth of affordability and on the advertising of the units in future non zoning conversations. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I just want to say I appreciate all the work on both sides. That has taken place in trying to find some middle ground here. I appreciate the the work that was done to spell out a community benefit agreement of items that I think do take a step in the right direction . I'm very concerned that it is not signed by anybody from the neighborhood, but that more so that it has if this developer chooses to sell this land and it would be much more valuable now once it gets resolved, that agreement between this developer and the neighborhood would go away. And I would hope that the development team before us is sincere in their commitment to develop the site, not to turn around and flip it, because we've seen that happen way too many times before with sites that have come before this body where the land has been flipped after it's been resolved. I am concerned that the neighborhood's role in this process didn't you know, it's not like many of other neighborhoods across the city where they're represented by legal counsel. They have, you know, folks that oftentimes have been hired by consulting firms to come in and represent them. So it's it's like you've got two sides on a level playing field. And and I think this was kind of a lopsided and it's not to say that you weren't sincere in the things that were put on the table to try to address some of the concerns raised by the community. But this is a deficiency in our process when we are talking about how we address gentrification and displacement in this city, in neighborhoods that are being impacted over and over again. And this is an area of the city that is dealing with massive redevelopment activity, whether it's public projects or private projects, and in some cases, public private projects. And just the fact that, you know, people in these neighborhoods are struggling just to move around, to get in and out of their community because of the activity that is happening in the neighborhood, which is exacerbating the the the taxes that they're now seeing occur. These are some neighborhoods, I believe Montebello is is comparable to these neighborhoods where they have seen greater increases in their valuations than what other neighborhoods across the city have seen. I just wish that we had a way. And these are some things that I'm committed to working on as well, where, you know, some of us have talked about the fact that our zoning code sections of it need to be changed. And this isn't going to deal with tonight's situation. But the fact that our zoning process doesn't allow us to look at the full picture makes it challenging in terms of how we're making a complete decision based on just components of a project that we get to see and then pieces get worked out later on down the road by our staff at the Planning Department. And sometimes I think you all are at the same mercy of the process you have to go through with our with our planning department. It's subject to, you know, interpretation and sometimes the timing as well. And I think if we had greater predictability, where we all have a chance to know exactly what's being brought before us and what is brought before us is what's going to be built. It gives that same predictability to neighborhoods and to to our development community. I'm struggling with where I'm going to land on this tonight. I mean, I think there's been good faith in terms of both sides coming together, trying to identify some workable items in this project. But. This is a massive change in what is there today to go from an industrial area to 700 units, not unlike when we redeveloped the Central Valley and changed the zoning and totally changed the whole character of that area. But it was master plan to be that way. And the unfortunate thing here is there was no general development plan for, you know, anybody to really have input into all of that. So I'm just struggling with where I'm going to land. But those are my thoughts and concerns about changes we need to make in our process that ensure that when we're impacting our low income neighborhoods, that we have the right tools put in place to really address these issues on the front end. I mean, we have an office of next nest, but we brought no tools to the table to deal with these issues. And that needs to happen not necessarily always by the developer, but as part of the process in looking at how are we solving these issues so that we're not exacerbating them for the the impacted communities. So you're hearing some of my frustration as well in in just kind of what's what's happening in general to some of these neighborhoods where, you know, because the criteria is there. When we meet the criteria, we have to say, yes, we're going to see the same thing when the metro district gets filed. The metro district doesn't give us the tools to make changes. As long as the criteria is met in the metro district and there's a host of criteria that they can choose and pick from, as long as that's met we're in the same boat, we would have to vote for it if it meets the criteria. So anyway, I'm going to stop at that, but I'm just sharing some of my concerns about where we're at in dealing with this area of town, knowing we've been dealing with these same issues over and over and over again. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Like most of my colleagues, I have some of the same struggles with with this particular application. And I appreciate the input and the questions from all of our colleagues as I've sat here and I've read all the material and it is very difficult and we do make a decision based on the criteria before us. And while it's easy to see how the application meets at least four of the five criteria, it's that third one that I always struggle with when the community comes out in force, and that's furthering the public health, safety and welfare. I have seen the impacts of increasing property values on my in my district in Mali, in Harvey Park, Brentwood. And I've seen how it's affected Councilman Lopez district. And then on up through that famous inverted EL that we keep talking about and but this is such a small piece and an adaptive reuse and the addition of of affordable units that that pulls me in the other direction as well. So I've struggled with how the impact will affect the longtime residents as well. And I'm. Well, we'll see how this goes on the roll call, because I am like Councilwoman Ortega, like Councilman Espinosa. I'm very torn on this. But I really do appreciate the questions and the comments from colleagues. It's been very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I I guess the theme tonight is is torn because I somebody made the comment earlier we come from or. Yeah. Sometimes you have folks in here who are opposed who can pack the place of their own resources and lawyers and consultants. And it keeps us out until past midnight thinking about these same issues. And sometimes it's actually folks who are opposed, right, to to affordable housing and things like that. I worry and I and, you know, I think community process as we see this a couple of times come in these chambers. You know, I really appreciate, uh, the extra month that the sides were able to agree to, to sit down and to try to iron out some mutual benefits. That, that, that speaks volumes to me, however. And I do, I, I get it. 700 units, 70%. And some of the affordable units, some say it's 10%. You know, those are things that we can consider in rezoning, but they do have an effect and they do have an effect on some of the criteria of the rezoning. Um, it speaks to changing conditions. It speaks to health, safety. And I'm sorry. And. Conformance with adopted plans in the vision. My worry is where I struggle with this is precedent. And are we setting the bar too low as what's acceptable? Are we setting the bar too low and are we setting expectations too low when we think about this from a perspective that's not just confined to on on paper in the letter of the law, but what the intent is. And. Councilman Flynn, I really appreciate the inverted l conversation and in point because this is part of that convert it all in that inverted L in the city we are losing people. This is where that struggle exists. So I too am conflicted with it because, well, really not much I can say there, except that I know that we can do better. And it requires a little bit more conversation and a little bit more political will, especially. From the city. Especially from the states and these chambers. And knowing that and knowing what it can be and seeing what it can be. Conflicts. Conflicts. Me with this particular reason. I know I can't base everything off of something that can happen in the future, but. I'm just I know that there's another standard. We seem to be able to push for so with a lot of conflict. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. See no other comments, Madam Secretary. Rocco. BROOKS I'm blessed. All right. ESPINOSA Yes. Flynn All right. Gilmore, I. Herndon. I. Cashman They can each I. Lopez? No. Ortega, no. Sussman Espinosa. No. Mr. President. All right. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. Seven days, three days. Missing, and so on. Their mine did not show up. There's was a knee. Seven days. Four days. It still gets us 11. Don't we have 12 up here and. 12 up there. Though? We're still missing somebody else. A couple of. Folks learned something about. This, didn't push the button. Okay. Officially 8 hours. Four days. Eight days, four days. Townsville 127 has passed. On June 3rd, 2019, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 352 changing the zoning classification for 4891 Lincoln Street in Globeville in a required public hearing on Council Bill 380, changing the zoning classification for multiple properties located in the University Park neighborhood between I-25 and Harvard Gulch

Ordinance Amending City of Boston Code, Ordinances, Chapter VII, Sections 7-2.1 and 7-2.2, Building Energy Reporting and Disclosure (BERDO).

BostonCC_09152021_2021-0775

Nay. The ayes have it. The docket has passed. Now, moving on to matters recently heard for possible action. Madam Clerk, would you please read docket 0775? Certainly. Docket 0775. Councilor O'Malley offered the following ordinance amending the City of Boston Code Ordinance, Chapter seven, Section seven, Dash 2.1 and seven. Dash 2.2. Building Energy Reporting and Disclosure of Virgo. Thank you. Madam Clerk recognizes the Chair of the Committee on Government Operations, Councilor Lydia Edwards. The floor is yours. Thank you very much. I think I'm going to be turning it over shortly to you. But I do want to just quickly give a quick summary of the actions we've taken so far. We had a very successful, robust hearing on this, and we had two working sessions thus far. The first working session went literally line by line to essentially pull, I think, any leftover questions or acknowledge any changes that had happened. I do want to thank Alison Brazil and of course, the chair of Environment and Open Space, Councilor O'Malley, for your incredible leadership and preparation for 21 page ordinance to come through and have. And I think one of the best conversations we've had about how we're going to essentially provide for a future for our children. The Bourdeaux legislation essentially is about building emissions reduction and assuring that as we build, we're building for an actual future we can all live in. And so I wanted to thank again and also Chief Mariama White Hammond, program manager Hannah Payne, and as I mentioned, Commissioner Alison Bridges, who were from the administration. I want to thank all the all of my colleagues who I think at one point either attended the hearing or one of the working sessions to make sure that we were steadfast in our commitment to make sure that the Met Bureau 2.0, as is called, will happen this year. So I at this point, I'm going to ask that the matter stay in committee per the request of the lead sponsor and make sure that we finish the conversations and any leftover ideas concerns and make sure that we have the consensus that we need to pass this as soon as as the lead sponsor is ready. I turn it over to you now. Not formally. Thank you, Madam Chair. Perfectly said. We'll be calling this for a vote in relatively short order, but did want to appreciate your incredible partnership on this. This is something that will be one of the most impactful things we can do as a body, and I'm really excited about it. So thank you for that talk in 0775 shall remain in the Committee on Government Operations. Now, moving on to motions, orders and resolutions. Madam Clerk, could you please read docket 0966? Certainly. Docket 0966 Council of our call for the following order for a hearing to discuss city protocols for providing public records.

Recommendation to declare the City-owned property located at 6101-6141 Atlantic Avenue, Assessor Parcel Number 7125-036-900 (Subject Property) as surplus, authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary, including a Purchase and Sale Agreement, with Amusement Industry, Inc. (Buyer) for the sale of the Subject Property in the amount of $655,578, and accept Categorical Exemption CE 16-273. (District 9)

LongBeachCC_12062016_16-1069

Great names. Congratulations. We're going to have just had a request to quickly hear item 19 and then we're going to go to 14. A report from Economic and Property Development Recommendation to declare the city owned property located at 60136141 Atlantic Avenue as surplus and authorize the city manager to execute all documents necessary with amusement industry for the sale of the subject property in the amount of $655,000. District nine. Vice Mayor Richardson. Proud to support this. Encourage my colleague support. This is the first development project to move forward in District nine North Long Beach. Thanks. Councilman Mongo. I think this is a great idea. Thanks for any public comment on this item. Please come forward. Mayor Garcia. City Council Members Jim McCabe. Many redevelopment properties have been sold in the city of Long Beach for less than the highest bidder, and I think that's sometimes justified. However, when that's done, I've looked at quite a number of them on the agendas. The City Council is never told what the highest bidder is in this. This case really has the potential, and I'm not saying it exists, but potential for a kind of corruption that the citizens should not tolerate. The property was appraised for a value of $1.2 million. The management proposes to sell for about half of that to the developer that has left the property next to it. Go derelict. How can the best use and the best sale of this property be to a property owner who has let this happen to his property? And when we're getting less than half the appraised value. I challenge any council member here. To ask, and almost certainly this won't happen. But I challenge them anyway. I challenge someone to ask what the highest bidder, what the highest bid rather was, how much was bid for this property? The City Council is in no position to make an informed decision on any of these sales. If it doesn't know what the highest bidder was, no well-run organization would operate that way. I. Earnestly ask you to consider this advice. As I've always said, my view of a council member is job is to ask questions. This is not a council, I think, renowned for that, but it does happen. Someone ask how much the high bid was. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other public comment? Seeing no other public comment. Go back to the council. Vice Mayor Richardson. Sure. I just want staff to just walk us through a little bit of this project as brief as you can. Sure. I'll turn it over to Catherine. McDermott, who is our interim director of economic development and Property Services. Thank you, mayor and council members. I'll just go through this really quickly. This is just a. Map of the. Property, both the city owned property, which is vacant and the privately owned property. The property to be sold was categorized as future development in the long range property management plan, included in the guiding principles of that plan or disposition strategies, which include providing priority opportunities for acquisition and development to adjoining landowners, tenants and other businesses and business owners within the Redevelopment Project area. Accordingly, we solicited an offer from the adjoining owner Amusement Industry Inc, more commonly known as Westland Development, which would include development of the city's property as well as redevelopment of his owned property. The purchase price is $655,578. It is less than the fair market value of the property. However, as contemplated by the long range property management plan, it's an opportunity for us to take an under-performing retail center owned by an adjacent property owner and make it more compelling. The development plan includes 10,610 square feet of new office space, retail and restaurant space, as well as new community open space. So we are asking the council's approval of this purchase and sale. Thank you. So I'll just say what? What's probably most special about this project is that the city only owns one half of the block and the adjoining property owner has come forth and is willing to make deep, dramatic improvements, creating a full city block of development. No, no other project do we have that type of leveraging in our redevelopment properties to to now we will have a full city block of development, signalized intersections, amenities that we simply do not have in North Long Beach. And I'm really excited about this project end to end. And what I would say is I don't there was us, you know, there was community engagement and community meeting here where the residents came to the table, talked about their highest and best use and needs for this project. And I am I am just, you know, having, you know, been a part of the city family for almost seven years. I've never seen anyone take this type of development approach in North Lobby. So I stand behind this wholeheartedly and I encourage you to ask some better questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes.

A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Denver Great Hall, LLC concerning design, construction, finance, operation, and maintaining certain areas of Jeppesen Terminal at Denver International Airport. Approves a thirty-four year contract with Denver Great Hall, LLC in the amount of $1.8 billion to design, construct, finance, operate, and maintain certain areas within levels 5 and 6 of the Jeppesen Terminal, and the corridor from the terminal towards Concourse A, which includes the airline ticket lobbies, passenger screening checkpoint, concessions space, baggage claim area, and all associated public circulation space for a guaranteed price and schedule at Denver International Airport (201735867). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-28-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 7-26-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Flynn called out this resolution at the Monday, August 7, 2017, Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of

DenverCityCouncil_08072017_17-0822

I think, Mr. President, this is the this is the 34 year concession agreement with. 822 822 I'm sorry, that's my mistake. 822. Thank you. Okay. This is the 34 year concession agreement with the Great Hall Partners. And as people have become familiar with it, out in the public and here on council, it's about 15,000 pages. And, Mr. President, I'm only on page 10,233, so I'm not yet done. So I would like to request, under our Rule 3.7 that we postpone this for one additional week. And as you know, we already have a courtesy public hearing scheduled on this for next week. And with with a contract of this magnitude and length, I think it's only proper that we that we take the full amount of time that we have available to us. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Per Council Rule 3.7 Council Consideration for a Resolution 822 regarding this 34 year contract. Denver Great Hall will be postponed to Monday. That's next Monday, August 14th, after the conclusion of a one hour courtesy public hearing. And we want to make that known to the public that we will be debating this next week, one hour for the public. All right. Madam Secretary, Madam Secretary, put the next item on our screen. Councilman Cashman, go ahead and offer your comment.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for an updated City of Long Beach Job Order Contracting Program and return to City Council for review in 45 days.

LongBeachCC_04052016_16-0314

Great now that we have just gone through through consent. So we are on to the regular agenda. We're going to let's go ahead, take item 16/1, please. Madam Clerk. Item 16. Communication from Mayor Garcia. Recommendation to request the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for an updated city of Long Beach job order contracting program and return to the City Council for review in 45 days. Great. Thank you. You have a request in front of you. I've been working our offices and working closely with our city auditor is a city auditor's office on our Jose contracting program. This is a program that is used by the city, as we all know, for a variety of smaller construction projects like roof repairs, doorway replacements, other parking improvements. A lot of these programs that are that are in place have ordinances tied to these programs. So we wanted to make sure that there was also an ordinance and a legal framework for for this program, so that we're always improving it and making sure that we're always providing the the best possible program that's transparent and that is also uses best practices. So that's what we have in front of us. And with that, if I can get a motion in a second, there's is there any public comment on this item? See no public comment. Members, please go ahead and ancaster votes. Can I speak? Yes. First, I just wanted to like to commend the mayor for bringing this item forward. This is a good legislation and it simplifies JLC process while creating more transparency. This is a wonderful legislation. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. And Councilman Gonzalez. I too. I just wanted to thank our mayor, as well as our city auditor, for coming up with a very mindful approach. And so I appreciate this and thank you very much. Great. Thank you. Members, please go ahead and cast your vote. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. And I want to I just want to make sure also, we took a moment, our city auditor, who was very instrumental in this also today, and her team won an award that we probably all heard about that we read about in the newspaper. So let's congratulate Laura and give her a round of applause and her team as well. I believe it was a it was an award just in there from a pretty prestigious, pretty prestigious award that looks at audits. And it was one that was focused here, here for us, for our city to make obviously, obviously continuously improve our operations here. So thank you, Laura, for for that work. Next item is go to the regular agenda, which I believe is number ten.

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

LongBeachCC_06142016_16-0508

Gearing to. Report from Public Works recommendation to receive supporting documentation include 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 art as recommended by City Traffic Engineer District for. Thank you. Is there a staff report? Yes. The staff report will be given by Eric Wickstrom, our city traffic engineer. Good evening, Mayor. Councilmembers. I'm here before you tonight requesting your. Approval of the expansion. Of preferential parking district are located in Council District four. This parking district would expand preferential parking on the Snowden Avenue between Merida Street and Los Santos Drive. This is a neighborhood close by to Cal State Long Beach. So has parking impacts from students parking in this residential neighborhood. Public Works staff conducted a parking survey. To determine that the amount of. Parking outside of the neighborhood that cars that were parked there. We found that the on street parking was 78% occupied and that amount had over 50%. Of the occupant occupied. Vehicles were not from the the neighborhoods surrounding Stoughton Avenue. The preferential parking district. Would be in effect for. From 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, not in effect on Saturday, Sundays or holidays. And there would be two hour time limits for vehicles not part of the preferential parking district. This concludes my report. Thank you, Mr. Woods. Councilman Superman. Thank you. I didn't know what the date was when this project got started. I just looked it up. It was January 24th, 2010. So it's been nearly six and a half years since we did half the block. And so this is part B, so I'm looking forward to my colleagues supporting this. Councilwoman Mongo. Just know how long it takes to get these done. So great, great work. Councilmember Super duh. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address the Council on Hearing Item two? CNN members cast your vote. Oh, sorry. Motion carries. Thank you. Are we on to consent? Yes. Okay. Consent, please. There's been a motion and a second.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to amend Contract No. 35537 with the Long Beach Unified School District, for food preparation for the 2020 Summer Food Service Program, to increase the contract amount by $765,225, for a revised amount not to exceed $1,069,525; execute sponsor/site agreements with the City of Signal Hill and nonprofit organizations; and, execute any documents, including amendments, necessary to accept funds, implement, and administer the 2020 Summer Food Service Program, from June 15, 2020 through August 21, 2020; and Increase appropriations in the General Grants Fund Group in the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department by $755,904, offset by grant revenue. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08042020_20-0707

Thank you. Next up, we have concern item number 17. Can you please read the item. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine recommendation to amend contract with the Long Beach Unified School District for food preparation for the 2020 Summer Food Service Program Citywide. Thank you. So was there emotion? I was talking about what I'm going to do bring this item as well. Did you call this? No, I did not. Councilmember But I be happy to make the motion. The second. Greg Richardson. Thank you. The motion by Councilmember Vargas, seconded by Councilmember Ranga. Which. Can we get a blue staff report? So, Councilmember, this is our summer food program. The reason this was pulled is Vice Mayor Andrews has a conflict because of his employer is Long Beach Unified School District. Great. They're both in second. Is there any public comment on the photo? There was no public comment on this item. All right. Let's go to a different one. All right. District two. I. District three. I am district four. I am district five. I. District seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. I know. Ocean carries. I'm fine, thank you. Ask him to take over for me. Okay. I'd like to apologize for the last system. The system is literally. So please text it to queue up. And I have it here. So I apologize. Apple could not see it with a quick please. You know, queue up here with me. I have to be on the phone. So okay with that, would you? Okay. Now we're going to go to enter into our first budget during the 2021 fiscal year growth. Could you please call.

A bill for an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1291, Series of 2021 concerning the “Transportation and Mobility” Special Revenue Fund. Amends Ordinance 21-0291 creating the Transportation and Mobility Special Revenue Fund to expand allowable revenue received into the fund and memorialize certain intended revenue sources for the fund. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-14-22.

DenverCityCouncil_06272022_22-0709

12 ays Council Resolution 20 2-706 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens? And wanted to let members in the chambers here know that we've opened up our overflow meeting room. It's directly as you walk out these doors, I believe we're using for 32. It's to the right. And so if you feel more comfortable with a bit more space, we have our overflow open. And I would also ask any members of the public who are standing against the back wall. We would ask that you find a location to sit for our fire code. Thank you, councilmember kenny. We have Bill 709. Please go ahead with your comments. Thank you. Council President. Sometimes history is really exciting, like when the avalanche win the Stanley Cup and it's on the front page of every paper and there's a picture of it. But sometimes history unfolds over very long periods of time. I did a whole review of history, how the city went from zero local dollars for affordable housing in 2011 to at least $30 million a year today and three quarters of $1,000,000,000 by 2030. That was over 11 years. You had to really be paying attention to understand history. And sometimes history is like even less in the under the radar or more under the radar and harder to track. And so this very exciting, historic bill is creating Denver's first ever special revenue fund for transportation and mobility. It's actually not creating it. It already existed as of a few months back, but it's actually cementing in it the city's commitment to put dollars in every year. So just check with me here. There has never been a dedicated source of funding for transportation mobility in the city's history. We thought that was something the federal government funded. Oops, not really. Maybe a little bit the state government. So we increasingly as a city, whether it's affordable housing, whether it's transportation, whether it's climate, we have had to step up and fill these gaps. And over the course of several years, a group of community advocates from Gender Streets, Partnership, Bicycle, Colorado, Colorado Public Interest Research Group and other really dedicated advocates kept coming to council members like Councilman Clark and Councilwoman Black and I saying we need dedicated revenue for safety of mobility and for climate transit, gets people out of cars. It is a climate saver. Bikes and PEDs have no impact on the climate at all. So every mobility change we make is good for our climate, but we are not funding it. And so so we created this fund with two sources incremental increase in the cost of parking on our streets. Right. Those parked cars have an impact on our climate, and now they're mitigating some of that impact by investing in this fund. And secondly, some of the fees that are fines that are paid for people who park in bike lanes and things like that. So those two sources under this language that we're putting in this bill today are committing our city to putting those incremental dollars into this fund each year to be doing the right thing for climate and doing the right thing for safety in our community and options for people. And so it's $16 million. It's a start. It is something we need to continue to invest in and grow just like we grew the housing fund over those 11 years. I hope 11 years from now we're talking about three quarters of $1,000,000,000 here, too. That'll be up to the next generation of council members. But in case you missed it, it's the Stanley Cup of Transportation and Mobility for where we are today. So I'm really excited. Nobody's called it out. It's a pretty tortured analogy, but thanks for entertaining me tonight. I'm excited and it's going to be in our consent agenda, but y'all should know about it. So thank you. Thank you very much. Councilmember can teach your passion is almost equivalent to the avalanche winning the Stanley Cup. But just as important, if not more so, I will I will venture. So thank you for that. And 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. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Cashman, would you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor

A bill for an ordinance creating and establishing the Santa Fe Business Improvement District, appointing the initial members of the Board of Directors of the District, and approving the Initial Operating Plan and 2015 budget therefor. (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE) Creates and establishes the Santa Fe Business Improvement District, appoints the initial members of the Board of Directors of the District, and approves the initial Operating Plan and preliminary 2015 budget. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-5-14.

DenverCityCouncil_08112014_14-0613

Six, 13 and 614. Are there any other bills call out. Do you get those through, Madam Secretary? Yes. All right. We will tee up the first one, which is Council Bill 613. Councilwoman Sheppard, what would you like to do with this question? I don't know if anyone can answer this, but so I, I and forgive me if I don't understand the differences between a a local maintenance district and a business improvement district. But I thought that the Business Improvement District was more about promoting the business side of things and maybe some programmatic activities around that. And that local maintenance districts actually took care of maintenance of any Lake Street facilities, for example, that a district might create. So is this to say that the Business Improvement District will now assume those responsibilities or that things are no longer going to be maintained? I'm just not clear what that means. You know. Let's help them out. Good evening. My name's Andrew Johnson with the Department of Finance and Special Districts. Those are great questions that in essence, it's the concept really is, is that the local maintenance districts were put into place several years ago and they are to do just the maintenance of the street improvements. However, the community has come together in another way to want to make something better of the area. And so the businesses are getting together to create a business improvement district that is a little bit larger than both that. But there's two local maintenance districts there currently Santa Fe, A and B, and those responsibilities or those maintenance districts will be assumed by the Petitioning Business Improvement District to be created. So the bid will take over the maintenance. That is that. I guess I just didn't quite understand that they could also do that because it's typically there's a a business improvement district and there's often maintenance districts underneath that. There can be. And in this case, we are letting the. The business improvement district does one to assume the responsibility for the maintenance district. Thanks for that clarification. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Captain. Was that the same question for both of you? Okay, wonderful. Any other builds called out by members of council? Well, then, seeing that we're moving on to the block bills, all of the bills for introduction are ordered published.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach municipal Code by amending Chapter 2.78 relating to the sale of unclaimed property, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05052020_20-0391

Thank you. You please do. I am 25. I'm sorry. AM 30. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending Long Beach Municipal Code governing the sale of unclaimed property. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide. I have asked first and second place. A motion by Councilwoman Van de Haas, second by Councilmember Pearce. Members. Please do a roll call vote. Madam Third. District one. I. District two i. District three. District three. District four. I are. District five. By. District six. I. District seven. District eight. II. District nine. My motion carries.

A resolution amending the Denver City Council Rules of procedure in regard to the postponement or re-referral to committee of resolutions submitted to Council for approval of any matter arising under Section 3.2.6 of the Charter. (FINANCE & SERVICES) Authorizes individual council members to postpone for one week (or re-refer to committe) resolutions approving contracts or leases, if Council allows contract and lease approvals by one-reading resolution rather than ordinance. This resolution is being filed by Councilwoman Kniech.

DenverCityCouncil_07062015_15-0461

Yes, sir. I move that council resolution for 61 series of 2015 be placed on the floor for adoption. It has been moved in second hand. Comments. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. For the benefit of my colleagues who don't serve on the committees and for the public, I'm going to give a little background. This is a proposed rule change to our rules of procedure for the Denver City Council. And it's going to sound like inside baseball of the staff meeting that you never want to attend on a monday morning in your own office about procedure and how things work. But trust me, underneath it all are important principles of separation of powers and oversight and transparency. So there are important principles here. We currently adopt contracts that are above $500,000 by ordinance in the city and county of Denver. An ordinance takes two readings. It happens on a monday night and then it goes for a second reading on the next Monday night meeting. That process takes the time that it takes two weeks, but it also involves a requirement to publish that ordinance afterwards. There is a proposal on our agenda later, and that is Council Bill 371 that I have also called out from our clerk and recorder, Debra Johnson, that was heavily influenced by our city attorney's office, which proposes us changing that, that when we see a contract worth more than a half million dollars, the city council would adopt it in a one reading resolution rather than an ordinance. Their goal is to save money by not having to publish the resolution in a newspaper and print newspaper, believe it or not. And also to save the time delay that both the two readings and the publishing takes so that business of the city can move faster, that we can be efficient with your taxpayer dollars. So that proposal came and it has now been heard in committee four times, technology and services, chaired by Councilwoman Ortega Finance Committee. And then we also discussed it at our City Council Operations meeting, which is our staff meeting. So what that conversation entailed was a real interest from members of the committee that I heard speaking out, that they were interested in the efficiencies of trying to save some time and money, but that contracts are one of those animals that tend to come to us a little bit last minute in terms of the final language that we often hear concerns from the public or even from sometimes employees who are acting a little bit as whistleblowers at the very last minute. And what happens right now in a two reading system is if I get those questions at 3:00 on a monday, I can ask some questions at the city council meeting, but then I can also spend the next week investigating before the final reading. I can ask for more data and who's held the contract in the past? Performance rates, things like that. So I can really make sure that I'm comfortable by the time I vote for it. On the second reading, if we get those kind of last minute concerns and we only have one shot, it's much more difficult for us as a council to investigate. Right? There's not a lot of time. And I wish we lived in a world where people always knew about things early in the process and could give us weeks of notice that they saw some contract was moving through the system. And there's a question we should ask, but we know human nature doesn't work that way. Oftentimes it takes something being on that council agenda for the public to really know that it's important. So in the course of this discussion, a compromise. This is my attempt at making a compromise. I am not comfortable getting rid of that two reading system without some counterbalance way to make sure that we can spend the extra time we need to doing due diligence just in case we have to. So this rule change, which is what we'll be voting on first, actually allows a member of council to request a delay of a contract until the next regular meeting one time. So basically it makes it the same time period we have now, which is for, you know, the resolution would be up one night, you would request a delay and then it would be heard at the next regularly scheduled council meeting, which is typically one week away except when we have a holiday. So that proposal, I'm calling it out now because I need to know as an individual whether this rule change passes to know how I'm going to vote on that other change. So if this rule change passes, I will feel comfortable changing the way we adopt contracts. If this rule change does not pass, I will not be comfortable with having a change to how we approve contracts. So I'm bringing it out now so we can vote on it. We can kind of debate. I'm the two are very connected, so we may end up talking a little bit about the impetus at this time, but the vote will happen later. The actual change in procedure. So with that, I will encourage my colleagues to please vote yes on this rule change. And if if there are any questions with with the president's permission, I am happy to answer them. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Connie Katzman. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say a couple of words in favor of this. I think the the principal move that we're making here is taking something that we approve hundreds and hundreds of contracts every year. And most of them are completely uncontroversial. And yet we submit each and every one of them to the double scrutiny of a two hearing process. So we can make absolutely sure that we're in agreement with something over which there is no controversy. So it makes sense that we would be speeding that process up, saving time and money and getting our contracts executed more quickly so that the people's money is on the street and doing what they asked for it to be doing. But occasionally there is something very occasionally that needs a little extra scrutiny. And I think this proposition here is allowing us to speed everything up across the board. But if something needs more scrutiny, it's easy for a council person to say, this is one that I think we need to look at a little bit more and so be supporting this. Thank you, councilman. It in your other comments for 61. I would just made the comment. I absolutely understand the reason for the clerk and recorder bringing forward the changes that she wants to do. And I absolutely understand why council members want to ensure that there's a mechanism in place for them to be able to call it a question or even possibly delay the problem, delay the process. The one concern that I have is this is a little bit different than anything that we've done before, is that in our parliamentary procedures, it's a majority rules council. This resolution before us allows one individual, if there's something on the body right here at the chambers to be voted on, one individual can delay the process and grant it is only for one week if there's a holiday or something quirky. It could be too. But from a philosophical standpoint, I think that that's not something that I am comfortable moving forward with. So I would prefer that there would be another way that we can move forward to meet this goal of making sure that council members have the opportunity to be heard without having this, in my, my opinion , dynamic shift in our procedure. So that's the only reason I will be voting no. I think there could be a different way to do it. But if council moves forward, we certainly do. Councilman Lopez, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President, and I appreciate the comments my colleagues have had before me. I, too, am all about wanting to see efficiency. Those of us who govern during the recession, that's all it was. It was. Where do we cut? How can we do it faster and less expensive? And there are some things that, you know, we have to stomach and swallow, especially during the recession. Some things that we did not like doing. Not hiring of firefighters. Not hiring police. Not being able to keep library hours up. We're no longer in that. That doesn't mean we got to go back and not be lean anymore. But there's just some areas that I think that it may seem tenuous. It may seem. Not efficient. But it's we're also in government and these are the people's dollars that that we have and that we are stewards of and all of these contracts. And this is a very huge power that we have when we represent our districts and we make sure that these contracts are fair, that they're just and, you know, very few and far between. We have problematic contracts. When you see contracts that come through our desks, hundreds, thousands come through, and only a handful of them probably give us any kind of headache. Right. And I worry about those ones that do give us headaches. I think about being on this dais when I think it was in 2000, seven or eight, not 28, when I was first elected. And this body had decided to increase the threshold at which we would see contracts from the airport come to our desks. And believe me, even after that, we had problematic contracts, especially at the airport. I think I think both you and I are faces here in the paper. And there was a lot of mudslinging going back and forth over these contracts. But did I think it was the right thing to call in the contract? Absolutely. Did we allow folks to come to the table? Absolutely. But it's because of that. And I want to make sure that we are not in our quest for efficiency, that we are not hurting our transparency, and we are not hurting our opportunity to make sure things are looked at with a fine through it, with a fine tooth comb. And I think that's that's why I'm not very comfortable about it when the committee meetings was kind of undecided. I do appreciate my my colleague, Councilwoman Kenney, to my friend who has tried to find this middle ground as this contract, as this resolution is right now. I can't support that. I don't think it's good government not trying to err on the side of bureaucracy or slowly ness here. Just want an extra week. That extra week could mean jobs, it could mean opportunities, it could mean community benefits. It could mean that we stopped a disaster from happening and making more headlines. Right. So in a negative way. So I'm not in favor of it. I'm not very even with the opportunity to have someone. Call it out. I just it puts it puts that person in a hard spot. Right. And I think it's it's extra helpful to have it come through to. We have bills come through twice. So thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. Like Councilman Lopez, I was initially reticent, I mean, going back almost six years when I served on a process committee on speeding up contracts to go this route. Although I have to say, I'm not one of the people who has called out contracts throughout my time on council. And a lot of times when they have been called out, I may not have voted the same way or had the same concerns as my colleagues. But I do believe that with this rule change, which is what we're voting on right now, that we have built in a safeguard. If a contract is delayed for a week so that one of us, even if it's just one, can get information. I believe while majority rules, minority interests always need information. And when we don't have that information, we should have it. So I think we've got a safeguard in there. If this is delayed, it's going to take no longer than the to reading bill. So, Councilman Herndon, I feel like even when we call a bill off of consent, that gives us more time and that can be done by one council member. So I think in pursuit of information that a minority position is important, even if it doesn't align directly with it with the position I may have. Secondly, in terms of council's power, which I as I said, like Councilman Lopez, I was really worried about because council fought hard to review contracts in the eighties. But again. We have this ability to say, wait a minute, I didn't get enough information. And even when you see them come through on consent, I said to the clerk and recorder, this may mean we pull more contracts off of consent and send them to committee before they ever get to council. So if there's a problem and you've seen a trend, perhaps at the airport of something that. That you're concerned about. You can say, hey, this one, we better get some more information on even before it gets to the one reading resolution. You still don't get enough. You can delay it again. So I think we have the safeguards built in. I did give this a lot of thought. But I think it's all there and I'm comfortable with it. Thank you, Councilman Rob, Gotham City, Tribeca. Thank you, Mr. President. Just one quick point of information. I did not make this clear. This rule change is written in such a way that it only goes into effect if the later bill passes. So for my colleague, Councilman Lopez, I respect that. Even with the rule change, you can't get there on the later bill. But I would still ask for your vote on this rule change so that it's there if it does pass. But you can be assured that this rule change does not take effect if the later bill fails to pass. It just it only applies if contracts are ever approved by resolution. It has no effect whatsoever if the later bill fails. So it is it is a possible scenario to vote for the rule change and vote against the procedural ordinance change. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Neville, you back up. Thank you, Mr. President. And just I want to make sure I have all this straight in my own head. So. Council Bill 371 on introduction on page nine is the bill that would allow City Council to approve contracts with a one reading resolution just by virtue of our procedure handling resolutions before bills on introduction or final consideration . Councilwoman Conscious Resolution Changing our rules would be amending Council Bill 371 on our ability to approve contracts with a one reading resolution. Correct. Thank you, Mr. President. I wouldn't call it a mending, but impacts. Correct. It does not change the language of that bill. It just it's written in such a way that it goes into effect only if that later bill passes. Got it. Sorry. No, thank you. Thank you. Councilman. Ever, Councilman Lopez? You betcha. I guess part of my question was answered and during that exchange. But Councilwoman Khanna, I definitely understand the scenario for me. Like I said, just to reiterate, it's about. It's about good government. Yes. You want to be efficient, but we also want to have a magnifying glass and everything that we do. And also, because things aren't equal, contracts are very coveted things in this city. And when you're in, you're in. And not very many people are in, and especially not women and especially not minorities. And there's a lot of folks who are if you let's just say that, you know, it requires some extra eyes on it to ensure fairness. And, sure, that these things are better, ensure that the process is right and sure that it was fair. And that's that's where I'm coming with this contracts. One of the main powers of city council is making sure that we are counting all those coins and that coin curse of this coin coin purse of the cities. So I don't want to relinquish any of that as a legislative branch. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. All right. In the comments for 61 c none. Madam secretary, roll call. Can each lemon lopez no Montero. Pass. Nevett i Ortega I rob i Brooks Brown. I. Montero I. Well, actually this was the rule for 61. Yeah, we're voting on for 61. The rule first. Can each rule first. Yes, I messed up. I'm sorry. That's supposed to be a yes. Okay. Well, correct. Okay. Go ahead. What? We can withdraw your vote. I got it. This is the first time I had to do it. That's pretty nifty. Okay. Mr. President. No. Madam Secretary, close. Please call to announce the results. Thanks. Nine eyes one day. Nine eyes one day for 61 has been adopted. All right, Madam Secretary, you ante up the next one, which should be Bill's introduction. 400. Councilwoman Greenwich. What would you like for us to do with this? Thank you. I really called out 404 oh one is a package and I do not believe I need to put them on the floor for a vote. Just a comment. All right. Go right ahead. Mr. President, these bills are extensions of our. I'm sorry. I'm flipping to them. Of our photo radar contracts. So 400 is for our photo red light program, and 401 is for our speed enforcement program. There is no shortage of interest in photo enforcement in the state of Colorado and among our constituents. And I've I've shared these comments previously from the dais. This is an extension of an existing contract. This contract was due to be rebid. And we put that bidding on hold because the legislature was having a debate about whether this would be a possibility for local governments or not. So I do not like some of the terms in our current contract. I do not like the signage that we use to let people know that photo enforcement is occurring. The signs. If our goal is to deter speeding or to deter people from running red lights than our signage, letting folks know that they are under surveillance and in an enforcement zone should be much more prominent than it is. We should have people we have speech trailers that tell you how fast you are going. And then we have red light cameras that are speed cameras that catch you for going too fast. But we do not use them together. So what you don't do is drive by and see, oh, I was going 42 in the 35. You don't see it while it's happening, which leads people to not trust the level that they were that they were cited for. So I believe we need to have simultaneous education while we're doing enforcement. You should see that you were going 42 at the moment that you are cited for going 42. So those are some of the changes. I think it's critical that we as a city explore. The other concern that I have is how the revenue is used. We have heard concerns about whether this is a revenue generator. I don't believe it is. I believe it's a safety program. But the way that we can demonstrate that to the public is to designate the funds for pedestrian safety. And we have a great need for all kinds of intersection safety improvements in this city. It would be no, it would be not difficult in my mind at all to designate these dollars for those particular uses so the public can see how we are using any money raised through citations specifically for safety. So those are the changes that I believe must be made. And I am voting for this extension tonight for the very last time. I will never vote to extend this existing contract with these existing terms again, and I will never vote for another contract or another red light contract that doesn't include changes that involve education and deterrents and linking funds for safety. Those are three things that I think are really important. There may be others that we need to consider in light of the, you know, state legislatures interest in this topic. But for me, those are kind of the deal breakers. So I will be voting for these tonight. But I wanted to raise the awareness of my colleagues that I think we need to play an active role in the policy discussion regarding how the new contracts are bid and the way that we as a city approach this topic. We need to be responsive to the feedback we've heard, which is if our goal is deterrence, we need to design the contract with education and deterrence in mind. Right now, they're very difficult to see, and it's more of a surprise that they can't really deter behavior if you don't see it. So those are my suggestions for the next contract and I look forward to being hopefully engaged in the RFP process. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. So that was her comment and I see no others for 400 or four one. So if councils are right, we will go to 371 court how about councilmembers Ortega and Kenny now? Councilman Ortega I believe you have it for a purpose of amendment. Councilwoman Kenny, did you have something as well? I'll pass. All right. So you need it out for. Absolutely. Councilman Nevitt, will you please put 371 on the floor? Yes, sir. Mr. President, I move that council bill 371 series of 2015 be placed on be ordered published.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2163 West 29th Avenue in Highland. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from PUD 76 to G-MU-3 (planned development to general multi-unit), located at 2163 West 29th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-11-20.

DenverCityCouncil_05182020_20-0131

I. Madam Secretary, please call the voting results. 1339 as Constable 130 has passed. All right, Council Member Cashman, would you please put 131 on the floor? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 20 20131 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. Council Member It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 131 is now open. May we have the staff report? Welcome back. I'm back. I thank you. Member of the Council, Jason Morrison, Community Planning and Development. Second rezoning for you tonight as at 2163 West 29th Avenue. The request is from an old code ped two, gmu three GMI three is general urban multi-unit up to three stories maximum height. We are in Council District one Northwest Denver, then the Highland neighborhood. The subject property was on West 29th Avenue between North Vallejo Street and Umatilla Street. It's just over 6000 square feet and is currently a surface parking lot serving an existing office across from West 29th Avenue. The proposed rezoning to GMI three is consistent with the Zone District purpose and is an extension of the surrounding context and existing GMU three zone district. The current zoning is a former Chapter 59 PUD. It's adjacent to GMU, three to the north, east and west and Cmax five to the south. Pudi, 76, is a former Chapter 59 custom zoned district that allows for a surface parking lot as a primary use, and all other uses within the are three zone district with the maximum height limitation of 40 feet. The subject property is within the park at 51st and Zeno Street View plane. Therefore, the subject site has a maximum height of 86 to 90 feet maximum. However, the proposed zone district of GMU three has a lower height, maximum of 40 feet, so it's not in violation of this requirement. The site is occupied by a single surface parking lot. Surrounding uses include single unit, residential, multi-unit, residential office, commercial and mixed use. The closer you get to Federal Boulevard, which is west of the site and 15th and Boulder Street, which is just east of the site, this is a bird's eye view of the subject property looking northwest. And these four images are some of the single and multi-unit residential as well as the office nearby. The Map Amendment application was unanimously recommended for approval by Denver Planning Board and moved forward by committee back in February. Since the staff report was published, we have received no public comment. There are five review criteria when analyzing the appropriateness of the request. We'll start with consistency with adopted plans. In addition to comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, there is one neighborhood plan and that's the Highlands Neighborhood Plan of 1986. But first, we'll look at comprehensive plan 2040. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with several strategies from Plan 2040 listed here and also detailed in your staff report. Specifically, the request is consistent with strategies under the equity vision element because it will enable development of housing units close to transit and mixed use developments. It's also consistent with strategies under the environmentally resilient vision element for several reasons. The site is an infill is at an infill location where infrastructure is already in place and it will focus growth by transit stations and along high and medium capacity transit corridors. In Blueprint, the requested rezoning, as shown on the context map is urban context. However, the requested GM three zone district falls within general urban context. However, staff finds that the proposed Gimme three zone district is consistent with the neighborhood context, description and appropriate for this location because it is a multi-unit district allowing a variety of building forms , compatible height and building form and design standards. The building forms standards and uses work together to promote safe, active, pedestrian scaled residential areas. And these standards accommodate the pattern of urban house, duplex, garden court and apartment building forms. The future place of this area is low, medium residential, which is primarily residential, with limited neighborhoods serving commercial. West 29th Avenue is a residential arterial streets and North Vallejo and Umatilla Streets are on designated local streets, and the street classifications and desired building heights in this area are consistent with the zone, district purpose and intent. Therefore, it is appropriate for this location. This request is also consistent with Blueprint Denver's growth strategy, which maps this area as all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 20% of new housing growth and 10% of new employment growth by 2040. Finally, when thinking Big Picture Blueprint Blueprint Denver recommends rezoning properties from former Chapter 59, as well as custom zoning to the Denver zoning code, which is proposed with this application. We're looking at the Highland Neighborhood Plan. General recommendations from the plan include include creating more housing options and encouraging a mixture of residential types. The subject property is located in some areas six, which is intended to promote infill housing, which is compatible with existing low and moderate density. GMI three is consistent with the general recommendations and sub area recommendations of the Highlands Neighborhood Plan. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building, form, use and design regulations. Will also further the public health, safety and general. Or welfare by implementing adopted plans, as well as providing additional housing units that are compatible with in the surrounding neighborhood and the adoption of the Denver Zoning Code in 2010 and the retention of a former Chapter 59 zone district on the subject. Property, including custom zoning, is an appropriate justifying circumstance for the proposed rezoning. The requested at GMT three is consistent with the neighborhood context description zoned district purpose and intent and staff recommends approval based on the finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you. Tonight, counsel has not received any written comments for this portion of our public hearing. I Constable 131 But we do have two individuals signed up to speak in person. First up is Kevin Anderson. If you wouldn't mind, just come up to the microphone, introduce yourself, say exactly that, and then you can grab a seat. Kevin Anderson And I'm here to answer any questions. I represent the property owner. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Pierce. Good evening, members of Council. My name is Jesse Paris and I'm representing for Denver Homicide Lao Black Star, symbol for self defense, plastic bags and for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High Knowles. And I'll be running to be your next mayor in 2023. Once again, you guys are making this really lovely for me. I don't really have anything to say except I want to know what the and my level was going to be for these units at this proposed site. So if the occupant could please answer that question, I would greatly appreciate it, because this neighborhood where this rezoning is taking place is being rapidly gentrified or has already been rapidly gentrified. And I would just like to know what I am in love with. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers on this item of questions from members of Council. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. Hi, Jason. I have a few questions for you. So on the packet it talks about you. They use overlay three. Can you talk about that? Because that wasn't in the plan. That wasn't in your staff report. And I don't know if everybody knows what that means. Sure. I apologize if I didn't go over that. So the youth overlay three year oh three is it's a youth overlay district designated as historic structure use overlay. And the intent is to encourage preservation, protection and adaptive reuse and enhancement of historic structures. So existing historic structures. Okay. And then I have a question for Kevin Anderson. Kevin. How are you? Good. So I just. I wanted to make sure that everyone here understands. You wrote a really good narrative in your packet. And it talks about the PD. So can you just talk about how we are hiring at the R.A.? We talked about how the PD technically it's not an up zoning control. Do you remember that in the letter that you wrote? It's not what. It's not up to zoning and you have it in bold underlined. And so I think that was a really important distinction when we had this discussion back before you submitted the application. Yes. Many times when people look at rezoning of property there, their their intention is to up zone. And this property is currently a PD 76, which allows surface parking and future development under R to R two is very is very similar to the gme3. And so we're we're not we're not zoning, we're just rezoning to meet the current zoning code. There currently are no is no designed for this property. I mean I'm I'm sure that one day it will be developed it's currently leased out to the the the office building across the street and other property owners in the area. So the owner of the site who also owns the office building across the street would just like it to be a current zoning designation. Perfect. Thank you. And answer. Yes, it did it just when we were at the community. It changed my framework. When you talked about floor to ratio area ratio and it's are three, you said R two, but it's actually r3i think from the staff report. Yes. And so I think a lot of times rezonings are triggered of zoning. And so I think that's a very important distinction that you put in your letter. So I just wanted to call that out. Thank you. Can I say. One more thing? Yes, sir. Yeah. And actually, between the R three and the GM, you three, the GM three has actually, I think, more restrictions that are better understood by by the planning department in the city because it's a current currently use code. Thank you. Thank you, Kevin. All right. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Ortega. Mr. Anderson, if you could come back, please. I'm over here. So I wanted to just ask. I was looking at the staff report and it made reference to radon. Have you so are you the property owner or are you there? I'm an architect. That works with. That property owner. So did they do a phase one on the property? No. Okay. I was just curious if they were. I mean, we know that there are sites all around the city that have radon. And I guess that must be standard language about just how to address that as as part of the, um, the development. Yeah. In its current purpose that that wouldn't be required. But I would agree that any future development would definitely have to satisfy any of those requirements. Okay. So it's a parking lot now. Do they plan to do something different with it? The current owners do not have a plan to do anything with it because it's currently leased. I think, you know, everybody knows that a parking lot will eventually become something. So. But there are no current plans for that. Okay. Thank you. And Jason, did you want to add anything? My first question. I can add a little bit to that radon comment. So I believe you're referring to, oh, every time we have a rezoning, we farm the application out to various city agencies. And I believe this particular comment came from the health department, I believe. And so to your point. Exactly, it's just a list of notes to encourage the applicant that these are a number of steps you have to take moving forward. So it's very generic language and we find it in a lot of our rezoning cases. Thank you. This is the kind of stuff I want to see when we have railroad applications or applications next to railroads. But we'll do it that other time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a question for CPD as well. So the this you mentioned comp plan 2040, Blueprint 2019, and then the neighborhood plan is the highlands from 1986. I think I'm I'm assuming that the Highlands is a little bit different now than it was in 1986 at one point. Do we do we and this is kind of more theoretical, but at one point, do we say the neighborhood plan is no longer relevant or do we. Mm hmm. Yeah, so good question. So as council is aware, recently we passed a large development review. So if there's a rezoning or a property that's fairly large and significant, that's one thing that's part of that review. And so if we realize that there's not a neighborhood plan, first of all, or not a relevant neighborhood plan, meaning something that's, you know, older than I am, then traditionally we that's something that we use in our analysis. But within this particular location, we do have guidance from the comp plan 2040. We also have new guidance from Blueprint Denver. And then also I guess the hope is that as we continue our neighborhood planning initiative, this area will also undergo a new neighborhood plan eventually. So it is coming. Timing, you know, not so sure. Okay. Thank you. And thank you for this report. Thank you, Mr. Perfect. Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Jason, what is the typical benchmark that CPD uses when evaluating these as far as proximity to high frequency transit? The reason I ask is you're citing Federal Boulevard, which you said is about a mile away. And I don't know that people walk a mile to catch a bus as if I thought we usually used half a mile. So I'm wondering, do we have a consistent benchmark? Yeah. I mean, I think if you you ask all of us, you might get a different answer. But I think, you know, generally we do kind of look for that half mile. I know that there is a bus line, I believe, along West 29th Avenue. You also have very close proximity to Union Station. I know it is a little bit more of a walk. So we do kind of generally look at the area as a whole. But, you know, traditionally I think we kind of look at that quarter mile, a quarter mile, half mile threshold. Right. Okay. And I did look at the RTD system map and there are two bus routes, the 28 and the 44 that run through this area or within about a block. But they only run at once an hour, which is not really high frequency. So you chose to highlight the proximity to Federal Boulevard. Just curious why that why that was chosen? Yeah, I think that, you know, generally speaking, I actually I don't exactly know the exact distance I must I think I include in the staff report, but I know it was between a half mile and mile of Federal Boulevard. So that is fairly close. There is you know, there are sidewalks that are in fairly decent condition in this area. We're also near a school that's close to Federal Boulevard as well. And so I think that's just kind of. Generally speaking, looking at the area as a whole, that's what we decided to include, Federal Boulevard as part of that analysis. Okay. Thanks, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. Seeing no other questions from members of council, the public hearing for Council Bill 131 is now closed. Comments by members of Council of Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. Highland is one of the more sophisticated planning and community development groups in my council district. It's where I learned zoning. It's where how I learned about overlays. It's how I learned about density. It's from starting back when I started with Councilwoman Judy Monteiro in 2012. So I think it might be an oversight that it's not in the packet, a letter of support. They're usually really good about writing letters of support or opposition. But I was at the meeting when this when Kevin Anderson presented to the neighborhood group and we had a long discussion about Florida area ratio. And basically Kevin summed it up is that they're actually giving away entitlement. They could actually get a taller building in the neighborhood with they did floor to area ratio. Then if they down if they zone to this and it's a form. So with that I always go with what my neighborhood group advises and they supported this. And so I ask for your support as well. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. Seeing no other comments, I will again say thank you very much for the comprehensive presentation and staff report. I think this meets the criteria as you've demonstrated and I will be supporting it this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call. See I. Black. I see tobacco. Eye for an eye. Gilmore, I. Herndon. All right. All right. Cashman. All right. Kenny Ortega. I. Sawyer. Torres. I. Council. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Because of ordinance results.

Recommendation to Provide Direction to the City Attorney to Consent, Modify or Reject Law Firm Goldfarb Lipman’s Request to Waive Conflicts of Interest In Connection with Goldfarb’s Legal Representation of the City of Alameda and the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda. (City Attorney)

AlamedaCC_04222020_2020-7849

Whitman's request to waive conflicts of interest in connection with his legal representation of the City of Alameda and the housing authority of the City of Alameda. And is that you, Mr. Roush, or it. Is, Madam Chair. Great. Take it away. Thank you. Marin Counsel Michael Roush on behalf of the City Attorney's Office in Alameda. This is an item where our office is requesting a direction from the city council as to whether or not to waive a conflict of interest between the. GOLDMAN I'm sorry. GOLDFARB The law firm and the city and the city of Alameda. It just comes up rarely. But it happened here because that firm happens to represent the housing authority on a number of different issues, including some discussions we are going to have with the housing authority about an amendment to the Housing Services Agreement, but they also represent the Housing Authority and some other matters as well from time to time. And in addition, the firm also represents or has contracted with the city to provide legal advice and assistance with respect to a number of housing projects that the city is involved in. So because under the professional rules of responsibility, there is the actual conflict between what the firm might provide to the housing authority on the housing authority matters and the advice that they would be providing to the city. On what I call the transactional matters, we're requesting the Council to consider whether to grant a waiver of conflict as a practical matter. Different attorneys are involved on the housing authority side versus the city side, and the firm has certainly has agreed to and will set up an ethical wall so that there isn't any conflict. There's no inter relationship or interface between the attorneys providing assistance on the city side and the attorneys providing assistance on the housing authority side. So the matters before you and we'll be glad to answer any questions regarding this matter. Thank you, Mr. Roush. And do we have any public comment on this item? There are no public comments on this. Okay. So, Counselor, any clarifying questions? No clarifying question. Any discussion, Mr. Modi? Oh, thank you, sir. I had one. So is there a similar waiver signed by the Housing Authority? The goal from the answer is yes. There would be a conflict both ways. I mean, a conflict way or both ways. And and this is Debbie Porter. And I just like Debbie say that this ties in sort of high housing authority board of commissioners last Wednesday approved the their way their approval of the. Conflict. Waiver. So the board of commissioners has already taken action on this item. Thank you. Okay. That's good to know. Mr. Eddie, back to you. All right, Doctor. Thank you. That's it. Okay. And if I might note, I believe we've lost John. Oh, we've lost John. That's. You're right. Texted me or anything, so I'm not sure what happened. Okay. Let me text him really quickly. Oh, he's coming back. He's back. He's coming back. He's on his way back. There he is. Okay. Okay. Welcome back, Mr. Knox. Can you hear us? I can. I lost the audio, so I will and we will continue. All right. So did you hear Mr. Roche's discussion? No. That you've read this staff report? I have, yes. Do you have any questions and clarifying questions? Any comments? I do not. So Mr. Potter is joining us and she let us know that last week the Housing Authority Board voted to waive the contract from their side and. Okay. So any other questions, comments, or do I have a motion? Someone raise your hand and we can proceed. Did you decide? Yes. I'd like to move. Staff recommendation. All right. We have a motion to have a second. That's guys getting heavy. Is anyone going to second this? I will second it for discussion. And like I'd like to I quite honestly, after reading the staff report, was hoping to hear from my more legally minded council member colleagues about pros and cons of this a little bit. You wanted to hear from me, legal advice from your colleagues rather than the city attorney? I just wanted to hear from other council members. Yeah. To hear from other. As I can hear you and of L.A.. Yeah. Okay. Um, I. I've discussed this with the city attorney's office, and I am satisfied with the procedures put in place. So, Councilor Verity, did you want to add anything further? Pneumonia. Huh? Either of you. Councilmember Vela. So I get the article while I understand that there can be different attorneys involved. I'm just wary. There's a number of different law firms that are available that we work with and that are available to help on various issues. And because of the types of issues that we're going to be in talks with the housing authority on, I think, you know, I'm not comfortable with this waiver at this time. Well, this isn't to say that I think that anyone involved would be asking acting unethically, but I am concerned about providing a waiver. And if there is an issue in the talks that we're having coming up, just the fact that the same firm is involved. I think there's a number of other firms that we have on retainer and that we can work with. And I would hope that we can. Work with one of those. Instead. Thank you. Do Mr. Roush or Mr. even want to address? Do you think Mr. San want to? I don't know if we still have Mr. Sand with us, but Mr. Ash, do you want to. Just address that? So, Madam Chair, it's even said. I just want to tell you that I'm still on. I'm just not on audio. You're not on video. And I hope I get clarification. I'm sorry I'm not on video. Is that council member that was just just. Mr.. Sorry date time. I'm sorry. I, I completely sympathize. And then maybe your voice. Yeah, right. We're going to hire Devin as our outside counsel for that. But I just want to make sure I heard Councilmember Avella correctly, which is that Councilmember Valley's preference is that the city engage different counsel. It was asked was that the gist of the comment? Yeah. That's basically I'm not comfortable with the waiver just because I would hope that with with all of the parties involved, just the appearance of it. I think with the discussions that we're going to be undertaking, I would hope that we could engage different attorneys rather than attorneys from the same firm. I do want to let the counsel know that if the counsel does decline the waiver, what is more likely to happen is that the housing authority would engage different counsel, and that's probably practically what likely would happen. But we don't. Know about you. And why is that? Mr.. Mr.. SPENCER Whoa. Whoa, whoa. Because at this moment, Goldfarb is providing very, very limited services to the city. On the other hand, their services are ongoing with the city. They have advised Alameda Point for many years, and so their knowledge is fairly valuable. On the other hand, we don't have immediate need for Goldfarb to do any specific work right away. On the other hand, I think the housing authority needs. Housing Authority needs. GOLDFARB to sort of be engaged right away. So I think decline of the conflict we have at this moment will probably result in Goldfarb being hired and not being hired by the Housing Authority. I'm, of course, just speculating. I don't know what exactly they would do, but that's my understanding. I'm going to limit myself, and I apologize. For that so that I don't apologize for that. That's great. Okay. So that was that was helpful to know. And just really, I think you had had your hand up, correct? Oh, thank you, Madam Mayor. It was nice to get to see little, little children at our meetings or at least hear them. So I. Appreciate that. Yeah, I'm kind of a I'm not ready to support this now. That doesn't mean I couldn't in the future, but I know that the city manager is working on a response to a referral that's probably taking a lower priority now. And, you know, I'm just not I'm not quite comfortable with it. So I'm going to abstain on this one and vote no. But I'm not ready to vote yes. Yes. Um, let me and Mr. Levitt, please. And Debbie Debbie Potter might want to comment on this, but one of the reasons it's coming to you at this point is because those meetings that Councilmember Odie is referring to of what we're trying to move forward with and do I don't know if you call mediation, but trying to work through a series of meetings with ourselves , the Housing Authority and Feeds and the Renters Coalition with with all of those parties. One of the reasons that this is coming to you is because the housing authority, at least in one meeting, what to say, maybe not in that particular set of meetings, but another meeting had one of their attorneys there. And so that's part of what I think brought this to the urgency. And so that's what they held up, not necessarily just the mediation process, but some other things that we're working with the housing authority on that maybe Debbie Debbie could expand on this because I'm not sure what would occur under a normal circumstance. I. I could see the hesitancy and in doing a waving, I'm doing this action. But in this because this is their main attorney, it does create a little bit more of a dilemma for us. Okay. Sounds like it. I'll let you go ahead. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Eric. Thank you. Yeah. Just to clarify a few items. Goldfarb is the general counsel for the Housing Authority. So Goldfarb, the attorney who serves as general counsel, is different, obviously, than the Goldfarb attorney who works with the city. So the housing authority has an ongoing day to day relationship with Goldfarb as their general counsel. We are currently taking off negotiations on the rent increase, not the rent increase, the rent program and the contract with the Housing Authority, which will be coming to council in June for the new three year contract of what staff will be bringing to council for its consideration. We are also bringing an amendment to the Staffing Services Agreement that we have with the Housing Authority, where we anticipate recommending to the City Council that we bring the CDBG and home programs back into the city to be administered by city staff. And those two agreements are really what brought this conflict waiver request forward to the council, because the housing authority would like to engage its firm on this work. We would be using our in-house attorney, Michael Ralph. He's working with me on both of those housing services agreements. And however, our work with Karen Peterman of Goldfarb is. Integral. To the work we do at that site. As Michael Walsh noted, all the transactional work we have done at site A has been done with the support of Karen Tiedemann as outside counsel. So clearly we had staff strongly value our relationship with Goldfarb, and we do also recognize that Goldfarb served a different attorney, served as general counsel for the housing authority. And from that perspective, we would like to maintain those relationships and feel that some firewalls and some of the other things that have been proposed may be adequate to ensure those. Relationships go. The way they need to be done for the ethics that the attorneys have to abide by. So that's more of a context of how we work with Goldfarb and how the housing authority works with Goldfarb, and how we will be working with the Housing Authority over the next several months on some some agreements. Between the city and the Housing. Authority. Thank you, Mr. Potter. So I'm going to ask if either of my colleagues, Councilmember Avella or Councilmember Ody, give you a minute, Mr. Northway, who expressed that they weren't ready to support this at this time. If there were a time when you might be ready to consider a waiver, if I was understanding your remarks correctly, what would it take to do so? Because what I'm hearing is this might delay the process, but maybe it's worth the delay that that councilmember I think you're probably giving it some thought any any any suggestions. And you can also take a pass. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but. You've got to get an analytical mind. Yeah. I guess my concern is just because of the types of conversations that we're going to be engaged in, I just don't want there to be any. Yeah. And I understand we would be having. Our our. In-House attorney, Michael Roush, representing us. I just I'm wary of kind of giving having a waiver at all, putting a question or, you know, any sort of cloud of uncertainty around the talks or whether or not something could be worked out. I just want everything to be done in a in, you know, in a way that that seems. Above. Board. And I understand the relationship with with both the housing authority and with the city. And it probably is because at one point the housing authority and the city were also one entity, you know. And so I could just. And we lost Mr.. Not quite again but but I'm so there I mean are there any criteria if you were to lay down. I don't I Goldfarb is a fairly large firm, I believe. And and are these attorneys both working out of the same office or physical form? Has to go far, has more than one office, I'm reasonably sure. Do we know that they're both here out of the Oakland. Yeah. They would both be out of they're both out of the same office in Oakland. Okay. Okay. So I mean, if you at some point or maybe I misunderstood you, but were there criteria that there should be no communication? I mean, professionally speaking, that would mean that would be the case if you were two attorneys working on opposite sides of a case. Um, I, you know, I'd never practice in a big firm. My husband does. And, and, you know, conflicts come up, and sometimes they get waived and sometimes they don't. But. Okay, and I know both. Mr. Knox. Vice Mayor, have we lost you? Well, when. When we get the Vice-Chair back, I will call on him. Then this. Jody, I think you had your hand up as well, did you? Yeah, sure. But I can wait till our colleague returns. Well, since you had your hand up and you're here. All right, let's try to answer your question. I think when what I think could be potentially delicate negotiations over some of these take backs and all of these issues that the city manager is working on, I think when those get resolved and I thought I heard there was some other, you know, I don't know, links, big issues with the, you know, service agreement and, you know, different policy decisions the council was made that the housing authority disagreed with. So I just like to make sure all those get ironed out before. Before I'd be willing to entertain this. So, I mean, it's not a no forever, but it's not a yes right now. Okay. But it seems that that's a no to having the housing authority use this attorney while they're trying to iron out these issues. Is that correct? That's my concern. All right. So what what would that time what would that look like? I mean, I guess Miss Potter or Mr. Levitt, you'd need to go back to the housing authority and see how long they think it will take them to engage new attorneys, for those attorneys to be brought up to speed on this. And so we could just push whatever the item is out as far as long as it takes. I would be one. Oh, Mr.. Levitt. Mr. LEVITT Yes. I would probably want to defer initially to Michael Roche or even to see what their thoughts are, because this is the first time I've probably experienced where we had an occasion where I work or had an attorney that was the same firm that was the main representative for another entity we were negotiating with. Okay. And I think either Devin or even Shan would like to speak. For Madam Chair. So my understanding is that if the counsel does not grant the waiver or is not inclined to grant the waiver at the moment, the housing authority, I believe, would engage special counsel for this particular set of negotiations without having to disengage their general counsel generally on all matters. So they probably would engage special counsel from a different law firm just for these sets of negotiations, much like the city attorney's office might, for a matter that require special expertize. Yeah. No, I assume. Believe. Hold that. Well, do they you think they have another firm on tap that they'll just turn to and that that firm will be brought up to speed readily on the on these issues? Or maybe we don't ask. That's a hard that's a that's a hard question to answer. I, I can't imagine that this would be that complicated to be brought up to speed on because these are these are fairly routine contract negotiations. You know, I think if it were me, I think I'd probably be able to be brought up to speed reasonably quickly. But it's obviously would take a little more, you know, a little bit of time to be brought up. That you're exceptional. Look at the multitasking you're doing right now. All right. Well. Go ahead. I I do think Devin wants to speak to us, though, so don't don't stifle that. Tell us. Did did you, Mr. Ten, did you finish your remarks? Mr. Ash has his hand up. I did okay. Yes. Thanks, Major. Yeah. The only issue and maybe that we can speak to it better than I can is the timing issue with respect to the two agreements that we have with the housing authority and whether there is anything particularly time sensitive about the the staffing agreement on the matter. I know that is scheduled to come back from the council in June, but I'm not sure as much about the other agreement, which I think has the more difficult issues to resolve. So maybe Debbie can speak to the timing on both of those because she's a little more on top of that than I am. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Potter. Yes. Thank you. So both of us, we're anticipating bringing both the new contract for the rent program in June, as well as the amended Staffing Services Agreement. And I do agree with the city attorney that they should be relatively straightforward documents and agreements. And I would hope that if the waiver is not granted, the housing authority would be able to retain special counsel quickly and we could continue on. That would be the hope. And Mr.. You mentioned that the Housing Authority Board met last week. When are they going to meet again, if you know. They need monthly. So they need but the second one, I believe it's the second Wednesday of the month. So they would meet and then in May next month they would have a meeting. Okay. And that should give enough time to prepare the staff report and all those things. To get it to June. Yeah. Oh, the contacts and whatnot. Yes, I would I would anticipate that we would work with them and they they have been flexible in the past. If a special meeting is warranted or needed, they have been able to accommodate that in the past. Okay. All right. Okay. So I'm a little concerned that we've lost a vice mayor. Is anybody in communication? And I haven't heard back from him. I'm sorry. I he said he would turn his video off if he was having bandwidth issues, but then I asked if his audio is still working. And maybe. Oh. Do you know what? He's texted me that he had to go to address an urgent work issue. And it will come back if he can. So that. Yeah. Sorry. Something just blew up at work. Not literally. That was a figure of speech to. Come back and go to Sarah. Oh, we could do that. He may not be back before the end of the meeting, but is it? Well, let's see. We don't have the full council. We do have a majority. I don't think you know Mr. not quite indicated. Seem to be hesitating. I don't want to speak for him but I didn't think he was supportive and well one of the city attorneys wanted to suggest what we should what we should do. And this one. This is this is Mr. Roush. What I would suggest is that why don't we just continue this item for the moment, see if we have Mr. Henry on the line and we can take up the Hunter issue or that agenda item, and then let's see where we are with respect to the conflict issue, if that would please the Council. Sure. And given the fact that I don't think you were going to get a waiver out of this counsel at all. I mean, what would be the harm of just. We're trying the issue or do we need a determination? Well, I guess I wasn't quite sure where the vice mayor was on it, and I'm not sure I heard from Councilmember de Saag either. So I'm not sure where the where the most might be. Maybe I misheard. I think he indicated his his agreement. But that's okay. We can do that. Let's just let's continue this either until we finish the items that we skipped. Item six S And then if the Vice Mayor is able to rejoin us when we finish that item and the rest of the agenda, we'll hear it. If not, we'll have to continue it. Okay. All right. So right now, we're we're going to adjourn this meeting. Not this meeting agenda item or just ask to be set aside. We're taking the next round. Okay, next item. Meeting's for you. So we're going back to the previous item, which was six F introduction of ordinance, amending the municipal code by amending Section 2019 Commission on Disabilities to change the number of members to seven and change the name to the Commission on Persons with Disabilities.

A proclamation recognizing the importance of DACA and Dreamers to Denver, Colorado, and the United States.

DenverCityCouncil_09112017_17-1011

All right. Thank you. Thank you for coming through. All right. We have one less proclamation. Typically, we only do have a limit of three. But we thought this is important and timely. So, Councilwoman Black, please read the proclamation. Thank you, Mr. President. This one is very short and to the point. Proclamation number 17 dash 1011. Recognizing the importance of DOCA and Dreamers to Denver, Colorado and the United States. WHEREAS Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DOCA has allowed more than 17,000 young Coloradans who have lived in the United States since their childhood to live, go to school and work legally in the country. And. Whereas, nearly 800,000 young people across the nation are better able to contribute to their families and communities because of the protections instituted through DOCA. And. Whereas, ending DOCA will cost Colorado more than 856.9 million in annual GDP losses and will remove an estimated 685,000 workers from the United States workforce, resulting in a loss of 460.3 billion from the national GDP over the next decade. And. Whereas, our Senators, Michael Bennet and Cory Gardner have agreed to be co-sponsors of the bipartisan DREAM Act that would provide certainty for law abiding Dreamers. And. WHEREAS, 78% of American voters support giving Dreamers a legitimate pathway to citizenship and permanent, permanent residence in the country. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council calls on Congress to use the next six months to craft a bill that reflects the desires of the majority of American people by providing a permanent, positive solution to the status of Dreamers. Individuals who are brought to this country as children have grown up in America and are contributing members to our society. Section two that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation. Your motion to adopt. I move the proclamation. 1011 be adopted. It has been moved in. Second comments. Councilwoman Black This proclamation is probably the easiest one I've ever done and probably got the most enthusiastic support from this council. There's no doubt in my mind or anyone up here that these young people, these dreamers who go to school, work, pay taxes to serve in our military and contribute to our country, should absolutely get legal status . I'm happy to emphatically proclaim that to our national leaders, including our senators, Congress and executive. Now is the time for our national government to do the right thing and pass substantive legislation providing a realistic path to citizenship for our Dreamers. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Kathryn. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Black, for bringing this forward. I was honored earlier last winter to help Councilwoman Gilmore craft a resolution in support of our immigrant refugee community, which was supported unanimously by this council. And now, once again, the need has come forth for this council to state its disagreement with the policies coming from Washington in this area of of guidance and state our support for those in our city that generally are unable to speak loudly enough for themselves. I agree wholeheartedly that we need legislation, this executive policy, Dacca needs to be firmly entrenched in legislation and we need to craft a path to citizenship for those in our country who are not so documented. But I really don't think that there was a need to threaten the security of thousands and thousands of our young people in order to encourage Congress to act in a more permanent direction. So thank you again for bringing this forward. And I'd like to just take a quick second. And I have a group of students here from South High School. Esmeralda, Beltran, Chavez and several of her student allies. If you all would stand up and be recognized. Thank you for coming, troops. And as we will be having an opportunity to speak to you in just a minute, and I will guarantee you it takes this out of a as he story takes this out of a matter of policy to a simple matter of human rights. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman, and welcome. South High. This is your this is your house. You're always welcome here. Don't be bothered by the man in the back, John Zogby, on. He's just encouraging you on. All right, Councilman Espinosa, firstly, I just wanted to add my name to the proclamation and then just quite simply say another message to to to my state representative, who I spoke about last week, Cory Gardner and Michael Bennett. This is low hanging fruit. If you guys cannot come together and get this thing right in six months, you have no business being in office. I'm sorry. So I just want to implore Congress to do the right thing and and address this measure. Because if you're putting yourselves over the thousands of lives that are being affected by this, then you're not representing the people of this country. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to thank you, Councilman Black, for for presenting this proclamation here in front of us. I know this is a unanimous vote, and it's because it's a no brainer. And it doesn't just happen on the federal level, happens on the state level. It did and it will happen on the local level. We have every single one of us, whether we're elected or not, has the the duty to stand for another person, to stand up for the rights of another person, and especially our young people who are criminalized. I stand unequivocally with our dreamers in this city and throughout our country. You know, I think it's a an immoral and unconscionable decision that was made by President Trump, by folks who could not pass the DREAM Act. But 20 years ago, the folks who could not continue to pass it, as are Dreamers, are now adults. And just a little bit of data on on those. According to that, there was a poll that was done well, not just a poll, but there was a source with DHS, the Department of Homeland Security's numbers, the University of California survey, political survey, and also that was reported in USA Today that the average age of and here's a little bit of characteristics of who these dreamers are, right? 787,580, to be exact. And in Denver, we have our share. In this day. We have our share. Average age is about 25 years old. Right. 97 are employed or in school. 97%. 91% have a job. 45% of those dreamers are in high school or college. Less than point less than 0.5% were in violation of their agreement of their of their status and or were deported. So a lot of folks that are out there that try to scare you and say that they say otherwise, it's just absolutely not true. And 78% of Americans believe that doc recipients should stay in this country, should have that path forward, and not to be a second class citizen. Let me just make this clear. It's one thing to be to have status. It's another when you have status without a pathway to citizenship. And so as we ask for that and as we as we tell our representatives how we act, when we act, each and every single one of us, we cannot just say, okay, we want a bill that allows folks to stay. We want a bill that allows folks to be citizens to have a pathway to citizenship without having to go to the military and dodge bullets in order to do it. Right. We have to have that path to citizenship. So as we look at at this DREAM Act, as we look at this new legislation, should it come, it's not for a second class status. It is for citizenship. Right. So with that, I just I just wanted to thank you, Councilwoman, for bringing this proclamation forward and L.A.. Thank you. Thank you for being here. And thank you for having the backs of our students student center in our country, no matter what language they speak and no matter where they're from. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. For the least. The last 25 years. It has been the failure of Congress to address immigration. That has led us to the point where we are. People who were brought here as children who know no other country. Need to have a path. To citizenship, to stay here, to live the only life they've known to be the contributing members of U.S. society, that many of them already are, but without status. President Trump. If he's proven anything, he's proven to be predictably unpredictable. And by ending by announcing the end of this program, but giving it six months. And asking Congress to finally tackle their responsibility that they've avoided for a quarter century, I think has been he's sort of been very cagey about it. I think that he is forcing Congress's hand. And I think what we've seen since the announcement is, Mr. President, we've seen a bipartisan effort, Senator Gardner and Senator Bennet here in Colorado. In fact, we've seen a bipartisan effort and a commitment to ironing this out in favor of. The Docker program individuals. So I think that we I think we might see things we aren't right now expecting. Six months from now by forcing Congress's hand. And I think it's about time that that someone did that. And I think the president took it on as his own responsibility to do that. So with that, I won't be supporting this proclamation tonight and looking forward to sitting here six months from now and seeing a favorable resolution. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief. When President Trump started talking about his approach to immigration, his focus was on criminals. So why now is he targeting our children? President Trump, leave our children alone. Thank you. All. Hey, man. Thank you. Aw, come on. Guzman-Lopez. Yeah, I. Forgot to say one thing. You know. All kidding. With our. With our sports aside. There's someone here I want to take my hats off to. And you could take your hat off if you want to at this one. And that's President Franco, right? CSU, you know, CSU came out ahead of everybody and said, you leave our kids alone. They said, they will. They will step up to the plate. Metrowest stood up to the plate. I see you standing up to the plate. You said it is incumbent upon our institutions to stand up to the plate, to stand up for these children. And I just wanted to thank you, sir, for your leadership on that issue and for CSU coming out so strong on doing that. So hats off. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead. Did he just tell Councilman Clark he could take his hat off? No, not everybody else. I'm so sorry. Madam Secretary. Please. Real call quickly. Black Eye. Clark. Hi, Espinosa. I flynn. All right. Herndon, I. All right. Cashman. Hi. Lopez. Ortega. Sussman. Hi, Mr. President. I police close voting, announce the results. One is missing. No. Oh, yeah, we are missing. Mr. President, as me. But my screen says. I'm marked as absent. Okay, you got it. We got you. Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Ten Eyes. Proclamation 1011 has been adopted. Councilwoman Black, Councilman Castro, and anyone you guys want to bring up. Yeah, we would like to ask two young dreamers up to the podium. The first is Esmeralda, Tierra Chavez, who Councilman Cashman already introduced. Please come up and come to the podium. She's a student in House South High School. And I'd also like to invite Hazel Munoz. Come on up. Hazel's is a family friend. I have known him for more than a decade. I have seen him grown, grow from a young teen to a very accomplished man. I have seen him balance risks and rewards as he has worked very, very hard. He's excelled at school against a lot of odds and in sports. Today he has an MBA from CSU Pueblo and works as a financial analyst. He's also a very kind and generous person and a good friend, and he contributes to our society in many positive ways. So I would like both of you to say a few words, please. As a. Ladies first. Ladies first. I would warmly like to thank Mr. Cashman for inviting me here today on behalf of myself high school. And if it is okay with Mr. President, I would like to say a speech I wrote myself, and I am sorry if it takes a bit, but I want to make sure that I get my message across as the members of the city council. Go ahead. Okay. I'm sorry. This is the first time I've done something like this, so I'm kind of nervous. But I shouldn't be, because I should be proud of. Who I am today? I guess so. Hello, everyone. My name is Gerard Chavez, but you can call me A-Z. I am here today on behalf of South High School to speak of a worldwide issue that has culminated our nation. The date September 5th, 2017 will forever be remembered as the day the President of the United States said no to our dreamers, no to our dreams, no to our aspirations, and no to our hope. As a recipient. I am here today to make my voice be heard. I know most of you sitting in the crowd are here to listen to a story. A story of how I crossed the border, how I overcame my struggles. But you want to know something? My story is no different compared to any other story. You will hear from any of the 800,000 Dreamers we have present here today. All of us came with a purpose to reach the American dream. But let me ask you something. What is the American dream? For all of us, it is different. For some, it might be economic prosperity. For others, it might be the ability to gain the materialistic objects we have always wanted. Like a new car, a new house and whatnot. Globally. We have all been engraved in our minds that the American dream is opportunity for prosperity and success. But what good does this definition serve us if we sit on the wings of the people who cross borders, who cross seas across mountains, to come to a country where they are offered these opportunities? So does this mean that the American dream will only pertain to those born in the United States? Well, let me tell you something. We are a country of immigrants. We are all immigrants. We all immigrated to different countries, different continents. Why? To search for a better life, a better education. And most of all, to search for our dreams. Crossing the border for me was not only crossing the border between Mexico and the United States, it was also crossing the mental border inside of me as undocumented immigrants. All of us knew the consequences of coming to a country where one single piece of paper was the difference between you and me. Reassured ourselves that we would hide in the shadows, that we would hide under the words of the people that judge us day and night. It took me a long time to find my voice. But by the help of a friend of mine, Ethan McNamee, whom we rest in peace, I find the voice inside of me. I found my courage. And more or less, I found my pride. I am proud to be an immigrant, and I am proud to be the person I am today. I built my own wings. I built my own path. And by the hope and support of my family. I built my own dream. Martin Luther King Jr once said, I have a dream that one day my four little children will one day live in a nation will they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I cannot change the color of my skin. I cannot change the way my story was written. But, uh, sorry, but, uh. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. Oh, I lost my path. But I belong to two cultures and I belong to two countries. And look, he made it clear that our culture does not define us, but that our actions and our words are the ones that speak louder than any bullet we let loose. As a captain of both the varsity soccer and cross-country teams. One of the things that we constantly talk about is resiliency. And it means showing toughness, toughness in life's most difficult moments. All my life, I've been a constant battle with the obstacles that life has thrown at me. I have struggled with my insecurities, with my decisions, and with my own self-doubt. It is easy to give up and quit when it gets too tough and when it seems like nothing will get better. But I chose to do the unexpected. I chose to rise up and fight the social inequalities. I chose to fight against the racial segregation we see constantly in the news, the radio and the television. I choose when to find my own battles and my victories are the ones that define me. I have accomplished so much and no one will take my achievements away from me. I have been named defensive MVP for my varsity soccer team two years now. I have been named the team MVP for two consecutive years for my varsity cross country team. I have been in the Student Athlete of the Week five times in my high school. I have been in the Mile High School Player of the Year. I have created my own leadership projects to help out our community and so much more. All those things. All those things don't come easy. They come with sacrifice. And now, coming into my senior year, I will be one of the two members of my family, including my cousin Yasmin, who lives in Mexico to graduate from high school and go to college. I will be on the run for a full ride scholarship to play soccer at Njcaa D1 College. And I am one. And I know that one day I will be a physical therapist and no one and nothing will stop me from accomplishing my dreams. When I heard about the news on the television and I heard that Dhaka was at risk of being repealed, I was sad. I was overwhelmed. And more or less I was scared. I felt like once again, my future was in jeopardy. And no words can describe that feeling of desperation, anger and frustration of once again being one step behind. I cried, and I felt like that was my only way of letting out the anger. And after talking to one of my teachers, Mr. Marini, who has been a vital part of my success, I came home and I thought to myself, What will crying do? What will every year bring me? Every tear served as a reassurance that hopefully something good will come out of this. But I was tired. Tired of depending on people to make decisions for me. Tired of people that. Tired of people determining my future. And it was at that moment when I told myself. No more will I sit in the shadows. Hiding from society. Hiding because of fear. And no more will I hide the hide behind the words of the people that constantly bring us down. I am here to fight and I'm here to stay because no one because no more will let my voice be unheard. And no more will I let this one. And no more will I stand the stereotypes that feel like bullets hitting my chest. I will stand up, use my voice, which is the most powerful weapon any person can have. And I will fight for the people that, just like me, have dreams. On Friday at my school held the Dakar rally and I had the pleasure of telling my story to my peers. At that very moment, I felt appreciated. I felt loved. And I felt pride. Pride because I had the courage to tell others a part of me that I didn't feel worthy of saying. And as I looked around and saw people's faces, one thing I noticed was a different people present people with different backgrounds, with different stories for different cultures. And here we were, all standing together, transpiring, love, support and hope. The US is enriched with many different cultures and as a nation we should appreciate when no other country has. And that is opportunity of learning is speaking to people all over the world, all in one place. We are a living kaleidoscope. My sister, who was born in the United States, came home that day and was confused, confused, confused because she didn't know what to call herself anymore. She asked my dad, But am I an immigrant? Think about it for a second and ask yourself, am I an immigrant? From my perspective, we are all immigrants because from the moment you choose, you choose to cross the street, to cross the city, to cross a country, to cross the border. In order to chase your dreams, you become an immigrant. Thank you very much for giving me the time to speak and for giving me the opportunity to stand up. And I would formally like to in my speech by saying to Attorney General Jeff Sessions that we are not illegal aliens. We are human beings. We are the future of this country. And we are dreamers. Now. Wow. That was that was really powerful. Thank you so much. That's a hard act to follow, he says. I did tell, he says, to keep his comments to 3 minutes. So. Feel free to talk as long as you want. But I don't want. It's a hard. Act to follow. That was an amazing speech. So go for it. He says. You're. Absolutely right. And she said a lot of things. A lot of sentiments that we all echo and that we all share. You know, I know that there's thousands of us, like she said, that are going through the same plight. So I'd like to start off by just thanking everybody for dedicating some of your time and attention to this matter. I know there's a lot of things going on in the world that require attention, and so it means a lot to us. As you all know, DOCA has been rescinded by Donald Trump, our president, which has essentially put an expiration date on the livelihood of all of the recipients on the program. The burden has been passed to Congress to pass legislation that will determine our future in this great country. And since Congress is an extension of the will of the people, really, our fate lies in your hands. It's. I hope you guys understand the importance and the. The fact that this decision these next few months will have on our lives. Get to know the Dreamers. Get to know who they are, you know, because this is going to be a big decision that, you know, is going to impact almost every detail of our life. Doctor recipients have been termed dreamers because we are chasing the American dream. We grew up knowing this country as a land of opportunity. When we had hard work and good values, we were told. That. If you had hard work and good values, you would prevail, you'd become successful. And where you can earn a place in society through commitment and dedication. We love this land because it gives us hope. We understand that for many of us, this is the only place that we ever wanted to call home. And the only place that we know is such. I understand that we find ourselves in our current situation because immigration laws and policies were not followed oftentimes by our parents. Many of us were not aware or could not fully grasp that concept, and it occurred in my situation. For example, I was only five years old. I do not blame my parents, however, because a parent's love for a child will drive them to great lengths in order to give the children a better chance of life. Understand the current immigration laws are complex and lengthy. Many do not meet requirements to even apply. And for those a can processing times often extend decades. I understand that many of these parents are coming from extremely dire situations places where you can work hard your whole life and still not have food on the table. Some days, places where opportunities are limited and the main out of a cycle of poverty as gangs. Or the cartel. I believe many immigrants have been misrepresented under the current political climate. As with any other society, it is true that there are immigrants, war criminals, rapists, gang members, those who pose a threat to society and those who must be dealt with. But by lumping all immigrants under that umbrella, you are misrepresenting the majority of immigrants who come and bust a sweat every day, day in, day out, under the most miserable conditions, often working multiple jobs for low pay. Those who never ask for handouts but yet dutifully pay their taxes. Those who are willing to sacrifice the best years of their youth to give their children opportunities in life that they never had. Those who contribute to the domestic economy and prevent further offshoring. I don't blame my parents. I thank them for their strive and sacrifice because the only time I ever saw them do was get up every day and come home exhausted, sometimes well into the night. As I talk to Dreamers, I find that we all have one thing in common the faith that if you work hard in this great country, you will find success. The faith is what got us through the many obstacles we have faced and are currently facing. As many of us grow up and become educated, we start developing ambitions and goals. Gradually, we come to the realization of our situation. You become painfully aware that the same opportunities are due now, are not landed to you as the rest of your peers. And you are presented with scenarios in which all of your hard work may not be rewarded, acknowledged, or even discouraged. Applying to higher education, as difficult as it is, becomes even more difficult. There's no financial aid from the government. Access to scholarships is extremely limited. You can't even apply for a job. And that's the realities that many are facing now and will face in the next six months as they get ready for graduation. A lot of juniors that are still in that same situation. And what that does is eventually you start feeling more and more of an outcast. There's a small feeling of betrayal that you overcome only by placing your faith and the values you have come to know growing up in the United States of America. The faith that as uncertain as your future plight may seem, you will find success if you keep working hard and upholding your morals. It is a difficult situation and a burden that we must live with every day. But we find hope in our community, the people we see every day who cheer us on, those who are willing to extend help and love regardless of your background. Today I stand here blessed because I have been given the opportunity to chase my dreams and goals. Thanks to the support I have received, I graduated with an MBA and I am currently chasing my dreams and I'm proudly working and paying taxes thanks to Dakar. When Dakar was issued, many of us step forward and place our trust in the American people. We understood that Daka did not grant us any legal status or federal benefits, but we were presented with the opportunity to contribute to our communities and step out of the shadows. And we grasped it. We paid the fees, and we gave up information about every detail of her life to be inspected by government officials who would decide if we get a driver's license, apply to school, apply for a job, and live under the laws of society as best as we could. Dacca was never a permanent solution. As the name implies, the ultimate decision was simply deferred. And we knew that everything we had worked for could be stripped from us at any moment. This is more apparent now than ever before. We have been living in a dream and the hopes that it would become a reality eventually. I understand that many of us. For many of us, there are no pathways to becoming documented under current immigration laws. It's not for lack of wanting or trying. We are not asking for handouts. We're simply asking for an opportunity to study, to work, to pay our taxes, to be productive members of society, to serve and protect, to be coaches, doctors, nurses, lawyers, construction workers, ultimately to give back and earn a place among the community and the country we have grown to love. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Well, I hope our Congress is watching this. I hope Jeff Sessions is watching this. And also, our president just got caught out by some incredible, incredible citizens, Denver citizens. Thank you guys so much for being here.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2070 South Franklin Street in University. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2070 S. Franklin Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-3-22.

DenverCityCouncil_06202022_22-0471

Good evening. Tonight we have six public hearings 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 hosts promote 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 will flash and say, reconnecting to meeting. Please don't leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera if you have one. And your microphone. You will see your time counting down at the bottom of your screen. Once you have finished speaking, you will change back to participant mode and see your screen flash one more time. All speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so. Their Home Address. If you have signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you are available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. We will alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in-person participants and then alternating to virtual participants. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council Member Black. Will you please put Council Bill 20 to dash 471 on the floor for final passage? Yes. Yes, Madam President. I moved to cut Council Bill 20 20471 on the floor for final consideration. All right. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 22, Dash 471 is open. Maybe. Please have the staff report. Good afternoon. Members of City Council. My name is from Senior City Planning City, Senior City Planner with Planning Services. And today I'm here to present an overview of the MAP Amendment for 2017. South Franklin Street. The subject property is located in Council District six. In the university neighborhood. The property owner is proposing to rezone his property to a district with a smaller minimum standard size at 9370 square feet. The subject property is more than twice the 4500 square foot minimum lot size of the required of the requested USB one. Therefore it is rezone a future zone. That amendment would create two separate standards, with each being permitted to have a single unit dwelling and an accessory dwelling unit. The property is currently currently in the urban single unit season district, which is which in this location would only allow for the urban housebuilding for minimum standard size of 5500 square feet. And as you can see on the map, the property is surrounded by properties also. So and you as you see with some others, three and some all could be two on Evans Avenue. The current land use of the site is single unit residential and it is mostly surrounded by other single unit uses and commercial retail uses along Evanson. You can also see in the land use map that the University of Denver campus is only two blocks east and Asbury Elementary School is two blocks west. This slide shows that the subject property is located in a residential area and it gives you an idea of the character of the neighborhood. Now, if you take a look at the image on the bottom left of the slide, you can see that the existing one storey house is located all the way to the north of the property. This will allow for the construction of a union, a union new unit, without having to demolish the existing structure. Now, speaking of the process or informational notices have been sent out. According to the Denver Zoning Code Requirements Planning Board recommended approval anonymously on April 20th, and the city county public hearing was scheduled for July 13th, but then had to be rescheduled for tonight. To date, staff has received seven Komen letters, six in support and one in opposition to the rezoning. The letter in support of the rezoning outlines. The letters of support of the rezoning, outline their support to your rezonings in general and to this particular location. Given the size of the lot and its proximity to Evans Avenue, stop, receive one letter from the University Neighbors Neighborhood Association that is opposing all requests for variance that could potentially increase the number of residence vehicles and fits to be suspended until CPD can clarify the impacts and specific requirements are addressed. Given that this is a rezoning and not a request for a variance, stuff replied to the R.A. and explained They are different processes and different boards. The letter or responses are attached to a staff report. Now let's look at the Denver zoning code. We have seen five review criteria. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans applicable to rezoning. We have a comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. As they do in the staff report. The rezoning is consistent with several goals of the comprehensive plan 2040. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Moving on to Denver blueprint Denver the subject properties mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context in blueprint Denver. And the future places map designated as low residential place names displays the display states have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Franklin Street is designated as Residential Collector Street, which are mostly characterized by residential uses. In Denver also provides guidance on when it's appropriate to respond to a school district with a smaller minimum standard size. It's appropriate when a pattern of smaller loads with similar uses is present in the surrounding blocks. Well, most of the single unit residential loads contained in the same block as a subject property have a lot size consistent with existing us. You see district and I 5500 square feet or greater the block to the north northwest and northeast of the subject block show a clear pattern of lots that are smaller than the 5500 square feet more consistent with the US. You be one. Well, not as prominent. The block to the east of the block. To the west of the subject site site also shows a pattern of lots that are smaller than 5500 square feet. Therefore, there is a pattern of single unit residential, smaller lot sizes in the surrounding blocks, and the applicant's proposal of a district with a smaller in both size is consistent with the future. Places map and Blueprint. Denver. The growth area in Denver is all areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing policy number four focuses on diversifying housing choice through expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Staff also finds that the requested zoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of this regulations, and it will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through its implementation of at the top the plans. As discussed above. According to Blueprint Denver, it is appropriate to respond to a district with a smaller load size than the current district. If a pattern of similar nodes with similar uses exists in the surrounding blocks. It also specifically recommends the city diversify housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. This plan was adopted after the date of approval of the existing zone districts. Therefore, these are appropriate, justified circumstances for the proposed rezoning. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential districts and the US would be one. So this stuff does work. I'm in approval based on finding all the review criteria has been met. All right. Thank you, Franz, for the staff report. We have two individuals signed up to speak on this this evening. Our first speaker is Mitchell Benson in person and chambers here. Yeah. Thank you, Fran. And good evening, City Council. Thank you for serving our great city and for taking the. Time tonight to review this matter. My name is Mitch Benson. I'm here on behalf of myself and my longtime friend and business partner, Joe Miller. Joe and I were born and raised in Denver and grew up together in Platt Park, just blocks away from the property being discussed. We both attended DPS, including the neighborhood schools of Asbury and South High School. After college, early career opportunities and graduate school took us all over the country. But we. Both knew. Deep down that we wanted to make our way back to the Mile High. City to build our. Businesses and raise our families. In fact, I. Personally owned a home at 1836 South Franklin Street since. 2010. I'm very familiar with the character of the university neighborhood, having lived off and. On just two blocks from 2017 South Franklin Street for the last. 12 years, as discussed 2017 South Franklin Street has a very large lot is right off a very lively Evans Avenue sits three blocks from the University of Denver and is in a group of blocks, as well as a broader neighborhood where there is. A pattern of homes being zoned for us to be. When looking at the zoning map. There's a established pattern in the surrounding blocks of smaller lots with similar uses. We believe that this free zone request is consistent, which with such uses and general character of the surrounding blocks and is sensitive to the existing character while offering residents a mix of uses. We're also confident the proposed map change is consistent with the objectives of the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040, including, but not limited to increasing development of housing units close to transit and mixed use developments. This free zone will allow additional housing close to the University of Denver light rail station and multiple RTD bus lines on Evans, AV and Downing Street. Also increase in the development of senior friendly and family friendly housing, including units and multiple with multiple bedrooms and multi-family developments. This rezone will allow for one rundown, two bedroom house to be replaced by two family friendly houses with accessory dwelling units that aid use are desired so that our grandparents. Always have the option to live close. To health and are in their grand grandchildren. This would also promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. This free zone will allow for a second single family house with accessory dwelling units in this location without placing additional burden on the city's infrastructure. In fact, the law already has two Denver water meters, so it is likely split at some time in its history. This was also. This will also increase housing in a walkable neighborhood within close proximity to city transit. And then finally, this will focus growth by transit stations and along high and medium capacity transit corridors. This free zone will allow for additional housing within 2.6 miles. That's the time we have a lot of OC. And so I might ask you to come back up and answer it. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Our next speaker is Jesse Perez joining us via Zoom. City Council. The mayor behind. Okay. I'll take that as a yes. My name is just Allyson Paris, and I'm represented for Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Positive Vaccine Command for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residence Council, front line Black knows, and I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. And I reside in District eight and Christopher Herndon's district. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. As you all know, I have supported 80 youth since their inception into the Denver code, which allowed for them to be built in the first place since 29, when I ran for city council at large and almost 15,000 with no money or media representation or exposure. And in 22, I still continue to support accessory dwelling units. I would love to see them in every single district and neighborhood in the city, along with tiny whole villages, a safe outdoor camp. So I'm in favor of this rezoning. Good job, Kathleen. You got this for. All right. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0471 Council Member Flynn. Thank you. Madam President. Mr. Benson, could you. I think you said there were two water meters serving the property that I hear there correctly. The reason I ask is there is a structure in the back on the alley that is not a garage, but it looks like it already is and perhaps made to you. Are there there are two water meters there. Yeah, there's two separate water meters. The only ones in use. There's, there's a shed on the back side of the property. But. But nothing else. So what does the second tap? What did that serve at one time, do you know? I don't know the history there. I just would assume that at some point it was split. It's a very large lot. And as Fran mentioned, the south side is is more or less just the empty lot that's connected. There was never a second house on the site. Yeah. Not to my knowledge. I don't know. And you. You grew up up the street or you lived up the street? Yeah, I grew up in Platt Park, just across in. Okay. But what is that second structure? There's a small house, and then there's a small shed. Much storage shed. Basically a storage shed. Yeah. And so if this is approved, you would you could apply for a lot split and develop two single units into it. Correct. So increasing it greatly increasing the value of that property. Correct. Okay. Thank you. A friend. How often do we rezone properties into a different letter of the code? So we're going from, as you see, to as you be. And so what we're doing on that block is we're saying this lot because it's a little larger, we're going to zone it B instead of C like everything else around it . In order that we can then put two houses on smaller lots. That's a little bit out of character for that block. How often have we done that? Well, we have that language in European that allows that when there is a pattern. So we. Are. We only allow it because of that language in Blueprint Denver that talks about the pattern. So we only recommend approval or we support the cases where we see a pattern. So we see that even when there might be some see actually we see that there is enough of these lots that have more of like the pattern of the be. We also are not supportive when it involves demolishing a house. So we've had cases where the houses smack in the middle and we try not to encourage demolishing. So but in this case, it's clearly all the way up the north. So you'd be pretty easy to develop south. So we think it's a because there is the pattern and because the house is not in the middle, we think that it is possible. Okay. Thank you. Just one last thing. Not necessarily a question, but a comment. In the staff report, it says that the the route, the RTT routes 21 and to 12 run on 12 hour and 15 minute had ways. They do not they run 30 minute headways. And that might have been 15 in the past. But with the service challenges RTD has had, I believe they cut back, but they're currently on a half half hour headways. So I know that. Maybe staff could just check the current RTD schedules on things like those half hour headways are not frequent transit. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Hoyer. Thanks, Madam President. Is it still. The case that. You cannot build an 82 on a lot unless you live on the lot. Unless you. I'm sorry. Live on the lot. Yes, that is right. That's correct. Okay. I'm just. I guess that would be something that would be discussed in the site planning process of this, but never. Be able to permit the edu the owner needs to be. The owner needs. To reside on the lot. Yeah. Okay. So based on the information we've been provided tonight, the plan that's in place is not possible. And I mean, for what I understand and I'll leave this to the applicant, but it's him and his friend that they're going to once they split the lot, each one is going to live in one of the lots. So then you would have the owners living on site. So then they would be able to build the area after. Yeah. So it would be two separate permits. Yeah. Okay. I guess I. Understand what you're saying. So just one last question. I guess to clarify then, is there a. Is there specific language in Blueprint? I understand. That there's specific language around. The. Situation we have here. Is there specific language improved in Blueprint that addresses spot rezonings? So I don't think there's specific language and maybe I could ask Andrew if he can confirm, but I don't think there is specific language about what we signing. But this wouldn't be a really spot rezoning because we're following like the guidance group in Denver. So it's well, like the fact that it's one rezoning doesn't mean that it's not on. Okay. But so it is about rezoning. It's just that blueprint. Denver hasn't an exception for this specific kind of spot rezoning in it. If everything around it is us uses you as you see and worries on in one parcel to USB one, that's a spot rezoning. There's a few inside. Good evening. Oh, we've. Changed the microphone. Here. Andrew Webb, Community Planning and Development. I'm one of the team leads for our rezoning team. Typically, I would I would think of us of a spot rezoning where we're making a significant change that is in conflict with a plan, guidance for a specific site rezoning an individual property consistent with planning guidance would not qualify as a spot rezoning and blueprint does recommend as as Fran noted, changing or acknowledging that existing zoning on a site may not be a match in terms of lot size. So Councilmember Flynn talked about the letter at the end of the of the zoning description. Those refer to specifically the minimum lot size for development. And in this case, it's fairly clear that the much larger lot with development only on one side. And so according to blueprints, language about establishing different or changing minimum lot sizes, it would be consistent with that plan guidance and so therefore would not be what we would consider a spot zoning. Okay. But the criteria that we have to look at for the uniformity of context is would create a situation where this is not a uniform context. But is that correct? Well, the context the neighborhood context would not change. And that's I think that's what that's in reference to. The only thing that would change here would be the minimum lot size and that we applicants propose rezonings to change minimum lot size fairly frequently when their property doesn't actually match up with the zoning that exists. And so Blueprint has that language about, you know, if there is an existing pattern of of of lot sizes in that smaller that would be would would align with that smaller minimum lot size district then it is appropriate to rezone to those smaller lot sizes. And so in this area we look at the pattern of loss and in a particular neighborhood and if we see a variety like we do in this particular location and a pattern of smaller lots, we would support a rezoning based on that language and blueprint. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Councilmember Clark. Then he. Becomes president. I feel like we've gotten different answers about this. So I just want to clarify and maybe this is something that we could get some follow up on. It was my understanding from previous conversations about aid use. Anyone can build the developers in Central Park. I've got developers in Platt Park who have built a house with an idea that the rule is in order to have two different leases or two separate groups living there. You have to live in one. But it has happen all the time in. That I've seen in. Entire areas of Central Park that were developed by some a developer who was never going to live there with an idea that the rules around ideas were around who can reside there, not about who could build in 80 because they could build in 82 and then rent that entire thing to someone totally different. I just can't rent to you in the front. I have to live in. One of them. No. So, I mean, anyone can build it. But once you primitive, like the person that lives in the area, you can you can move out and rent the whole house. Like, let's say I own a house in Central Park and I move out and I want to rent my house and I rent it to just one family . Like what you're saying? So they. And for them to leave and use it. You can you can do that. That's not allowed. People do it. It's very difficult to enforce it, but it's not legally allowed. They can read the entire thing. As long as I'm renting to one family that occupies the Adu and the house, they just can't rent the house to one person and rent the area to a second person. You can rent like in theory, you're supposed to disable the edu, so you're supposed to take the gas lines and you're supposed to remove the. I think it's like a closet. It's something. That it's crazy. But you're supposed to look like and we've had cases here where the applicant had to do that and then come and resign because they didn't know. So we brought before you like cases where like I remember clearly one case, one person that she did that and she got in trouble because one of the neighbors kind of got her in trouble. So she had to disable the new common reason for to your district. And then she was able to. The ability to get to you if it makes sense. I think we're talking about multiple things here. So I'll get back to you and maybe I will have some questions maybe for your ADD. That doesn't have to happen right now. But back to what you had said, and I think we both said anyone can build in 80. So a site development plan can come in to say I'm going to build two homes with two to use. It is about who then occupies lives and possibly owns there that the rules around but anyone you do not have to currently reside on the property to build in to you. Know I mean if you have a developer and the owner is already. A. I'm usou a one or b one. It already allows for you to use like if it's already sewn for you to use. A developer could come and build their house with an idea you and then the person that buys that house would have to be only one like. Or if the the person that rents the house, you'd have to be only one. But be sure you would have to be only the owner, right? Because if he was a renter, like if you were renting it out, if the developer was renting it, couldn't rent it. If it had the you. It makes sense because that. The 80 you. Bishop is right. Oh, sorry. It's just. That they went up like. That. It is correct that somebody could build an accessory dwelling unit and have two dwellings, a primary dwelling unit and an accessory dwelling unit on a property, and then sell that property. And then for two households to rent on that property, one living in the primary house and one living in the accessory dwelling unit would not be possible. The owner of the property would either have to live in the primary dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit. But a developer or or a home builder can build a house in an ADU, but it does release back to who is actually living there. So anyone can build it. Anyone can build it. No restriction. And if I own that property, I can rent the entire property out. I just cannot rent to two different people. I is the owner don't have to live there. I can rent it to one person or one family unit and they can occupy the entire thing. But I would I would like to get back to you on that one, because that's one of the issues that we're looking at, the ideas in Denver about renting the whole house. That's that's been a big issue that we're like in the eighties in Denver. And I think Councilwoman Blake is in that committee. Like, we were like, that's one of the issues that we're having is like people don't want to build an 80 U because again, I've had multiple applicants that are having that issue that they don't want to build it because they're not sure if they're going to move out. They like this attaches me to a house because they can rent it if it has the issue. Yeah, my again, my understanding was now I have two units and a mortgage big enough for two years and I can't rent it like two units. I can only write one. But but I think I'll get back to you. I think we've gotten to the crux of what I was trying that what I heard or understood from this site plan wouldn't be allowed. It would, right? Because anybody can build it. It's about who occupies it. But I would love to follow up on the other question outside of this hearing, especially with everything we have going on tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you, President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Clarke. The public hearing is closed comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 471. Councilmember Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Madam President. You know, for me, we have a lot split. The the main question is, does it become an anomaly in the neighborhood or does it fit into the neighborhood pattern? And the map that is in this slide deck shows that they're the larger lot size that exists currently is only 3% of that area . And the smaller large size that the applicant is requesting is about 27% of that area. So the new large size, it seems to me, would actually fit in better than in the existing large size and should be owner should the applicant end up making a profit on that at some point? We're living in a capitalist world and that's probably not the only case of profit in our city that year. So I do think it meets all the criteria and I will be supporting the application. So I do hope my colleagues will join me. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. Councilmember Flynn. Madam President, I just want to briefly remark that I'm glad that CPD isn't recommending that you go all the way down to A because this large size could support, as you say, the minimum lot size of 3000. You can fit three units and three, eight years on there. I certainly hope that's not the policy to jump down to levels, but just one. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And also in support of this this evening, it does meet all of the criteria and will be voting in favor of it. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 471, please. See tobacco. I. Hines. I. Can each. I. Sandoval. Cashman. Ortega. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black CdeBaca. Clark. All right. An I. Herndon. Not everyone. All right. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. You have a nice. 11 I's Council build 20 2-471 has passed. Councilmember Black, will you please put council bill 20 2-475 on the floor for final passage. I move that council bill 20 20475 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to draft resolution supporting the good faith negotiations between Covanta and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on behalf of the employees of the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility and bring back to the City Council within 14 days.

LongBeachCC_06212016_16-0585

Thank you. Item. 1/2. 39. Communication from Councilwoman Gonzalez. Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Councilmember Odinga and Councilman Austin. Recommendation to request the city attorney to draft resolution supporting the good faith negotiations between Covanta and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on behalf of the employees of the Southeast Resource Recovery Facility. Councilman Gonzalez. Yes, I want to just thank and acknowledge my friends here from the IBEW, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and really thank them for bringing this forward, because I know it's very important. I know the city has done work with our surf facility for many years. And with that, we want to ensure my my intention with this was to ensure that we were showing some support for those employees that have been with the city for so very long. Just recently they joined the IBEW, which is great, and they over 80% of their members of their their employee workforce decided to go with the IBEW. So we're excited to learn about that. But they do quite a bit of work and they're such a large asset to our community. And so to show support from the city side for these workers would be certainly a great step forward. So again, I want to thank IBEW, I want to thank the workers at our surf facility. And this will basically be a an item to ask our city attorney to bring back information and language for resolution. So thank you. Thank you. There's been a motion and a second. Is there any member of the public that wish to address Council on item 39? Good evening, Vice Mayor, fellow council members, city manager, city attorney and the public that's here today. My name is Tommy Falvey. I represent IBEW Electrical Workers, Local Union 11. And we're here in solidarity with my fellow brothers and sisters. That's right behind me. And we're here in solidarity to support Covanta employees. IBEW Local 11 is officially the local union that has been certified by the National Relations Labor Board to represent the Covanta employees. Overwhelmingly, 40 plus employees will be certified to be represented. And I'm here today to ask for your support out of good faith with Covanta Energy, to sit down with IBEW Local 11 and negotiate a collective bargaining agreement between the two. So I'm here to also recognize Rebecca Davidson that's right behind me. She's going to speak and she's one of the Covanta employees. Thank you. Good evening, council members. My name is Rebecca Davidson. I'm a single mother and I worked at Covanta for August will be 28 years. I'm proud to have spent that many years there. A few weeks ago, my coworkers and I overwhelmingly voted. To join IBEW Local 11. We believe this. Secured. A very good future for ourselves and our families. Tonight, we ask you to encourage your employer to negotiate in good faith. We're not asking. For any special. Favors. We're just asking our employer to follow the state laws and federal laws and nothing more. So I ask if you would please approve the resolution. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Turanga. Thank you, Mary. One of the important items that we have and that we've had in the past year or so has been the recognition of union membership and the and the importance that they hold with creating good jobs, good paying jobs, security benefits. And I'm glad to see that this going forward. I'm very happy that I signed up on this to support the efforts of the employees at Covanta, because it provides all of that, and I'm very proud of that. As you know, the city has also established the project labor agreement that creates other union jobs for all the construction jobs that are going to be coming through Long Beach in the immediate future and beyond. So, I mean, it's it's an honor for me to have signed on to this. I congratulate the employees of Covanta for their vote and for the IBEW for your efforts in putting their first and the employees in train and knowing that the representation you provide would keep will keep them not only working, but working in in positions that are going to be providing them with livable wages and good working environment. So I want to thank you for your efforts in getting these employees as well. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to chime in and say thank you to my colleagues for placing this item on the agenda. I want to encourage support for the workers in the bargaining unit in their negotiations. Stay strong. This is a representation of a strong a good economy, workers working in the world. And we don't want this to escalate. So we want to keep workers working. So thank you so much. And you have my support. Great. There's been a motion and a second. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries.

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless to provide rental assistance and support services to the homeless. Approves a contract with the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless in the amount of $2,497,840 and contract term through 3-31-18 for rental assistance of 240 units of housing for chronically homeless individuals living with disabilities using funds through the Continuum of Care Housing First grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-5-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 3-22-17.

DenverCityCouncil_05152017_17-0328

I think I believe, Councilwoman Sussman, he's a constituent in your district and maybe you know him as well. And so they will proceed with now with the work of the committee. Thank you. That's all. All right. Councilman Lopez, did you want to. Yeah. Just got a great last name. Okay, that's. That's beautiful. Okay. Madam Secretary, can you please bring up Council Bill 328? Councilman Lopez? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. So on 320, I just wanted to make this comment. For the past couple of years, the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless Association has wanted to receive funding directly from the funder as a grant moneys instead of through Denver Human Services. So DHS has decided to permit the entire funding amount of the grant to go directly to state CCH instead of DHS keeping 2% of the grant funding for administration and processing. So this amount must now be used by CCH for direct client services. The $35,170 increase in the contract is the 2% difference that CCH will now receive for direct client services. So, you know, I wanted to I mean, because there is that difference in that question had had popped up earlier today. I just wanted to clarify it and go on the record of doing that. DHS will remain the recipient of the grant, but will pass through the entire amount of the grant to CCH. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn, were you up next or can each. I will. Thank you, Mr. President. This raises a couple of questions in my mind, because when this went through committee, I believe it was about consent. Chairman Mr. Chairman. I believe so strongly. So usually when the amount of the contract changes, there has to be a new filing number and we have to do an amendment. But the way I understand this, we didn't actually change the amount in the contract. It was just incorrect in the description we were given. And, Mr. President, it's a problem for me when we when we're looking at things on consent and looking at the descriptions and we don't have the full body of the contract yet to understand that that's not the amount of money that we approved. So I do have a couple of questions on this, but I don't know if anybody is here from Human Services who can. Oh, yeah. We have Ron here. Hello. Way in the back. Good evening. I'm Ron Mitchell with Human Services. Hi, Ron. Why why are we changing the policy and how how long is that 2% been in place? Well, that 2% has been in place for quite some time. I don't have the exact number of years, but traditionally we have taken about 2% out. It's often been a little bit less than that to administer that the grant and that means the processing of it as well as the monitoring of it that we do that the time that it went to Mayor Council, there were negotiations essentially underway to make a determination of what we should do with the Housing First grant should it go entirely to the vendor who has been receiving the vast majority of it, which is Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, or should the city retain it? And the decision ultimately was made that the city would retain that. So the question I have is why then was it a mayor council if we were still negotiating it, why we put the cart before the horse? Well, part of that. Would have been nice if we had known this. Yes, Councilman, part of that is that there have been sometimes delays and being able to reimburse some of our vendors with these federal contracts or the federal grants, rather, the federal grants do allow backdating so that we can catch up. And so they actually because they are really inconsistent about delivering the funds. And so part of that was that the contract administrator wanted to try to move that through. What I had failed to do as one set negotiation had terminated was to update you all with the changes that were were made this afternoon. Yes. The contract administrator noticed that the amount was different than what was in the contract. Okay, I'm glad you caught it right before our meeting. But who is going to pay the processing fees and administration now? Are they not do we not have costs on this contract or are we going to have to cover that elsewhere? Otherwise we do have to cover it. Essentially, we are going to have expenses associated with the contract, obviously with processing it and monitoring it. But the decision was made that to pass those funds through so that there was more service dollars available in the contract to the vendor. So are we changing this for all such contracts now? Not at this point. Why this one? This one came to the attention of, I believe, council some of the council members that were approached by Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. And they had they had been advocating for at least a couple of years to receive the grant directly. And my understanding is that it was basically a negotiation that that did allow the city to retain the grant so that we can ensure that those funds are directed how we want them directed in line with our goals around Denver's Road Home and the Office of Hope. Mm hmm. And did we also change the scope of services? Did we add to the scope? Only in as much as the 2% was now passed through directly to them with again, not having them use those funds for administration of of the grant of the funds. But but to go to direct services. So that was the in negotiation. So is this a one time decision. For this for this grant? This is expected to be ongoing. For this grant. Right. But for other providers, will we be doing the same thing? Not that I'm aware of at this point. I have a feeling Councilwoman Canisius buzzed in after me. And I have a feeling if she had gone first, I could have taken less time. So let me let me pass. Mr. President, I. Think that is wise counsel and can each. Know no expectations. Right. Well, thank you, Mr. President. And, you know, thank you to the department. I did want to chime in, because this is a contract that I did ask some questions about. And I think that like many contracts, it's not I mean, I don't want to throw the administration under the bus, but they often file audience requests while they're still finishing the text of the contract. It happens all the time. So that's actually not unique to this contract. We can debate another day whether that's a good or bad practice, but the goal is to keep things moving often so that either services continue occurring without interruption in work so that small businesses, nonprofits aren't expected to operate without being paid. So those are the the trade offs that we have. And, you know, I, for one, understand that there's a public interest in keeping things moving and not waiting until all of the ink is dry and every provision to file. But but I hear the concerns about this coming down to the wire. So the two things I guess I want to add is I think this this grant is a little different. You mentioned that they get the vast majority of the funds, but there are no other subcontractors and there haven't been any subcontractors for many years. Right now, this is an example of where in the past it's my understanding that this grant had to go to local government. It couldn't go to nonprofits. Is that is that accurate? So but the federal government changed that rule. So here's the question. What if. You know, we we talk a lot about efficiency in our city, you know, so sometimes we have to accept money from the government and pass it on to providers, because that's the rule in this case. There is a very clear set of criteria for this grant. There is one applicant who does who does that work, who manages these tenant vouchers. It has been the same contractor for many years, and they could, in theory, get this directly. They could, yes. So the question becomes, how do we justify to the public that it's running through us and that we're taking money off the top that isn't going to rental vouchers? So that's that's one compelling public interest question, right. In terms of the substance of the change. The second thing I would say in terms of why I think it you know, I support the administration's decision to proceed rather than killing the bill and starting over is because it's my understanding we've had some concerns with timeliness of our own processing of payments. It hasn't just been federal payments. That's correct. Okay. And so when that happens, we have a nonprofit who's left trying to cover the costs. And in perhaps cases, we might be in violation of some federal standards. Yes, we when these grants come in again, they often, especially in the last 5 to 7 years, have become and very inconsistently ever since the Great Recession. And what we're able to do is, is we have some funds that the city council has approved of that allows us to cover those costs for vendors and to pay their invoices prior to actually receiving the federal funds this year, the grant came in more timely than before, but that that has been an issue for many of our nonprofits. And so with City Council's permission, we've been able to keep those services flowing, as you had mentioned, without interruption, by having a special fund that covers those costs until the federal funding comes in. Yeah, and I don't want to call the vendor out because again, I think this is one of those sensitive topics, but I think that the vendor would state that they are still not receiving timely payments in many cases. So there is there is a genuine dispute here between parties and I think so. So I guess to just narrow it down, this is more my comment than my question, which is that two things. One, where there is no argument as to the fact that this is the sole provider of these services, it's not appropriate for us to carve money off the top just for it to flow through us. The money should go to the folks who need it, which in this case are homeless individuals who need rental vouchers. And so to the extent that we may incur some administrative costs in passing that money through, I think that that's a fair trade for the fact that we've had some timeliness of payment issues, which I'm sure has cost the vendor on the other side. So if you consider that any good contract involves, you know, something on each side, we may be eating a few administrative costs for passing through, but they've been eating costs for our delays. So in the in this case, I will just close by saying this. I'm going to support this contract this year. At this time, I think it's a you know, it's a tough confluence of factors. But I think it's important that we look at, again, what the compelling policy cases for not just allowing this grant to flow directly . It is a very defined scope of services. We couldn't use these funds to build housing. We couldn't use these funds to do other things. So there's a very limited scope the federal government provides. And so the case that we have to pass through them, I think bears more discussion. And I hope that I hope that the city and the department and the and the partners. I can talk more about that so that next year you can kind of make a good case to us. If it's this narrow scope and we don't really have any say over how it's done, what's the justification for for all of this? Because it does cause delays in terms of clients getting their their services. So with that, I'll be supporting it today. Thanks. Councilman Flint. You wanna. Thank you? Yes, my friend. Just a quick follow up, then. Councilwoman, are there other raises the question this this contract went through on consent eight weeks ago. And so there's been a lot of time elapsed. And to have a change like this on the floor or actually about an hour before is disconcerting. So I'm wondering if it might be time to sit down, maybe in council and Chair Lopez's committee in Safety and housing. And homelessness prevention to discuss the process and try to keep it more linear. Instead of reaching back and making changes and and telling us about them here, it might work out a little better. So. So, Councilman Flynn, are you proposing that we pass this bill and we for it and we go back and we have a conversation about future bills? Yes, I do. I have no I have no desire to hold it up. Yeah. Today, I'm just trying to understand when. When I'm. In last. Minute pitches come at. Us. Yeah, I'm in favor of that. I think the public it's important. The public should know this is for 240 units. Right. Rental assistance for homeless individuals. So we want to get this money on the street as soon as possible. So I'm glad I'm in favor of that. Councilwoman. I just want to say I support the bill, but I also support the conversation about the fact that we really do need to have a broader conversation, not just on human services, but on contracts in general, because all too often we don't get complete information. And, you know, when we look at the the documents that are filed there, the contracts aren't there. We don't see the level of detail that we get only when we ask questions. And so I think it's important for us and in I'll remind you that our procedures were changed that basically removed one week out of our process to be able to review documents. So we moved contracts now to two resolutions where we get to see them just one time. And so the fact that we're not getting complete information at the last minute, we're having to make scrambled phone calls to agency staff. I think it's a bigger conversation that we need to have. I would suggest maybe we do it in an operations meeting to figure out what, you know, where do we want to go with that? Yeah, it sounds like two different issues. This this contract in particular in the future, which Councilman Lopez, I'm sure you're okay to bring in your committee and then operations. We can have a conversation around in general the information that we're receiving in all these contracts. All right. Okay. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I just want to sort of chime in. Wherever that ends up the subsequent conversation, I don't I think that whether the money can go or he can or cannot, I mean, it can go directly, but there's always an avenue for government oversight or something. I mean, again, we're not talking specifically to that fund. I don't think in general we should be afraid of taking on some level of responsibility, considering how many funds go to this particular provider and all of our providers. I mean, Human Services has a role to play in the administration because we have seen previously in this council what happens when when we just defer that responsibility to the providers. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Ron. Okay. We're going to move on to Resolution 500.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3505-3507 West 3rd Avenue and 332 Lowell Boulevard in Barnum. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 3505-3507 West 3rd Avenue and 332 Lowell Boulevard from E-SU-Dx to CMP-EI2 (adding to the existing campus and unifying the zone district) in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-4-17.

DenverCityCouncil_05152017_17-0366

It's impractical to have a campus without adequate parking, without adequate facilities for folks who are working there and coming and coming back. Instead, they're forced to kind of park across the street or park on city streets. And, you know, it can get very frustrating when it comes to when it when we start looking at street sweeping. Right. And things like that. I mean, these are folks who are servicing our community on a daily basis. And I think, you know, their their their work, the application, the intent of the application is clear and it is absolutely needed. And can I just be frank? I'll still be Paul, but I'll be frank for a second. It's actually good to see this zone district work for the poor. The purpose that is intended for right. This campus zone district is exactly that way back in, you know, 29, 2010 when we were looking at this zone district as a potential potential zone district and what that would mean. And right away, when I looked at it, I thought, Oh, Savio home. Without anyone knowing. So being that, I just. I'll be Paul again. I wholeheartedly support the rezoning and asked my colleagues for another yes vote. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, for the comedy hour as well as good Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I just wanted to say, since you brought the visuals in, you sat through everything to get to this point. I just wanted to thank you for having brought the materials to committee and answered a thorough round of questioning there and the candor and on both what you are doing and what you were planning on doing in the future just was truly appreciated by me and I think others there. And so I just want to thank you for how you handled the process. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa and I closed this hearing as Council Bill 368. This is Council Bill 366. And I would just like to say, I know several young people who've been through the Savio house and thank you for the transformation that you've done in those young people's lives. See no other comments, Madam Secretary Rocha. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Clark. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Hi. Herndon. Cashman. Can each. Mr. President. I please close voting, announce the results? 11 eyes. 11 eyes, CONSTABLE 366 of pass. Congratulations. All right. Our last public hearing of the evening. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill three, six, eight on the floor? I move that council bill 368 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.

AN ORDINANCE relating to employment in Seattle; amending Sections 100.025 and Section 5 of Ordinance 126274 to establish a new date for ending hazard pay requirements and automatically repealing the ordinance.

SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_CB 120119

The Report of the Finance and Housing Committee Agenda Item seven Council Bill 120119 An Ordinance relating to Employment in Seattle amending sections 100.02025 and Section five of Ordinance 126274 to establish a new date for ending hazard pay requirements and automatically repealing the ordinance. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much, because we're our state. You are the chair of this committee. Someone to hand it over to you to provide the committee report. You very much council president colleagues, as you'll note on agenda item number seven, there is a substitute version noted on our agenda. I would like to move Council Bill 1 to 0 119 by substituting version two, which is link on today's agenda for version 1a6. Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt proposed substitute version two of Countable 120119. Would you like to address the substitute? Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, as you'll remember at the beginning of this year, in 2021, one of our first acts as a council was to move and pass the legislation I sponsored to pass emergency legislation to provide hazard pay for grocery workers, requiring grocery stores to pay employees an additional $4 an hour to compensate them for the risks to their health and safety and the health and safety of their families, especially before any vaccines were available at the beginning of the pandemic. Many industries were able to go remote to reduced hours to reduce exposure and more. But essential workers, especially in grocery stores who helped to feed the families and to keep families safe, had no choice but to report to work. Many of these grocery workers called in to testify about the health and safety risks that they were facing, including facing unmasked customers, extra cleaning and frequency needed to clean surfaces throughout grocery stores . These stories included examples of customers coughing or arguing about masks and more. We didn't just hear about this during public comment. We also had a panel to provide data and study after study to look at opportunities to protect grocery store workers. One study one study from Boston found that 20% of grocery store workers tested positive for COVID 19, despite 91% of those employees wearing a face mask. The positive rate of infection among grocery store workers was five times as likely for those who interacted with customers on the floor of grocery stores than those who did not. And while hazard pay cannot fix all of those situations, it certainly was one measure that this council wanted to make sure to advance to provide a small boost to workers who are taking these extra risks. We pride ourselves in Seattle being labor leaders on labor standards. And it wasn't just us who recognized these risks at the time of the bill's passage. Cities up and down the West Coast had passed or were beginning to announce legislative efforts to require hazard pay for grocery store workers. This included in California, Berkeley, Long Beach, Los Angeles, San Francisco, West Hollywood, Oakland, once a video, and Los Angeles County when Seattle City Council passed that we were also an impetus for cities in this region and our county to pass hazard pay as well. This legislation was always temporary before vaccinations could be widely available and before other safety measures could be secured and discussed with employers. This legislation was not intended to be permanent wage replacement, which of course I support and have been advocating for and will continue to work with members of CWA 21 and other workers who are on the front line to secure higher wages for our workforce, especially in low wage industries. In our passage of the hazard pay. We noted our intent was to consider modifying or eliminating the hazard pay requirements after four months of implementation and review, current health and safety and economic risks for frontline workers for the COVID emergency to help us with these considerations. On June 15, we had a panel discussion of representatives from grocery workers, the grocery industry representatives, as well as public health. Interim Director Worsham was present with us in that meeting. We celebrated the progress that we made since COVID 19 pandemic started. We had celebrated and acknowledged the work that had gone into making sure that vaccines were more available since the passage of hazard pay. And we also acknowledged some of the real racial disparities in vaccine rates and the need for ongoing measures, including improved protocols, PPE, access, clear mask guidelines and more. During the panel, as well as after, we got a good response from grocery store workers that they would continue to work with us on addressing those solutions. And that includes grocery store employers and employees who were interested in longer term solutions to addressing these disparities. During the panel, we also heard about partnerships with King County Public Health to host grocery store worker vaccination clinics. And I had the honor of volunteering at one of those clinics early on in the pandemic, when vaccines first became available and grocery store workers had access to those vaccinations based on emerging public health data. We held that. We held that the final passage of the amendment to repeal the grocery store worker and hazard pay requirement from July until now. Or they. Indefinitely is the language that we use for when a bill will not be brought up within a 60 day period. Although I am bringing this amendment forward today, I want to be clear about a few things. Number one, we will consider hazard pay again for grocery store workers and other workers if needed, on any new public health data that continues to make itself available. Number two, this hazard pay legislation is not a substitute for long term pay and benefits for workers. Those are conversations we will continue to engage in and encourage between the employer and worker and worker representatives. Number three, this legislation would not have been possible without the direct advocacy of S.W. 21 and grocery store workers calling me and asking for us to do this over the holiday break, which we quickly worked with those workers and all of you on council to pass the hazard pay requirements and work to implement it as soon as possible. This also wouldn't have been possible without the willingness of grocery store employers to advise us on administrative functions and without the collaboration of public health. Seattle, King County and the Mayor's Office. Finally, thanks to the deep engagement that we did with the UAW 21 and the grocers. I am proud that hazard pay has sparked a conversation between them around longer term wins and policy improvements. These will yield a longer lasting and higher level of investment in worker safety and respect beyond this temporary ordinance. This will continue to have beneficial impacts for those grocery store workers. Through the conversations that employers and worker representatives are engaged in. I will also note that of all the California jurisdictions that I noted when they passed their hazard pay legislation earlier this year, those California cities only kept their hazard pay in effect for 120 days. So already in the city of Seattle, we have hazard pay that has lasted twice as long as these California jurisdictions. A full year has been into a full year will be in effect given that the implementation date of this legislation in front of us will not be in effect until January. I am proud that Seattle workers have gone gotten this hazard pay for so much longer than these other cities and jurisdictions. And I'd like to thank all of you for your swift action and your support to pass this at the beginning of the year. And I'd like to continue to lift up the work that is going to have lasting impacts from the conversations that you have S.W. 21 and the grocers are having sparked by the need for additional safety, training and investments and workers that all of us can be proud of at this point. After talking with Public Health Seattle King County. We know that the best way to continue to prevent COVID, especially preventing crime, is to vaccinate, vaccinate, vaccinate and keep those masks on. I'm proud that Seattle workers have been able to keep this hazard pay for the full year. This was temporary in nature. And I am I am thankful that there is going to be a lasting benefit from these conversations beyond just the hazard pay that will result in improved protections and safety going forward. I want to thank such a fruit from my office who's been working on this legislation for the last year. Cory Annable from central staff was always at the ready to help provide additional information and legislative updates and her constant updates with public health as we work to make sure that there was a data informed discussion as we consider any update project to the legislation in front of us. Thank you, colleagues. And with that, I would encourage your support today as we look at longer term benefits that the employers and the workers will continue to work on to protect employees and the public. Councilmember Mosqueda are there any additional comments on the proposed substitutes? Councilmember Peterson, Please. Thank you. Council President I just wanted to thank Councilman Mesquita and CW for their commitment to workers and public health and for following through on this, not letting it. It was never meant to be permanent. But but we really I know a lot of people appreciate that there was a commitment to continue to look at indicators, continue to look at trends, and then decide when was an appropriate time and to appreciate this being brought forward and voted on today. Thanks you. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson. Any additional comments on a proposed substitute? The hearing, none will the Court please for the role on the adoption of the proposed substitute version two of Council Bill 120119. Again, we are voting on the substitute version of the bill before we vote on the bill as amended. Lewis. MORALES Yes. No. Sarah, I am. Peterson I. Strauss Yes. Herbold Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez I aid in favor and oppose. The so much the motion carries a substitute is adopted and the amended bill is now before the council. Are there any further comments on Agenda Item seven? Council Bill 120119 as amended to be hearing no additional comments. Will the FERC please call the role and the passage of amended Council Bill 120119. Agenda Item seven. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mosquera. I. Petersen. I. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Whereas I. Council President Gonzalez. I aid in favor and unopposed. The bill passes as amended and the church will sign it. Will the please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the Court please read the short title of item eight into the record?

Recommendation to direct staff to work with the City Attorney to amend Title 5 of the Long Municipal Code to allow un-hosted short-term rentals. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11172020_20-1127

Great. Thank you very much. Next item we have that was asked to be moved up. Sorry, we're going to do item 66. Report from developed and services recommendation directed staff to work with the City Attorney to amend Title five of the Long Beach Municipal Code to allow Unhosted short term rentals citywide. Okay. I'm going to turn over to staff. We will have the development services director, Oscar Orsi introduce the staff to present this item. Thank your members and members of the City Council as requested by the City Council. We are bringing this matter back to you for your consideration as well as additional information that you had requested concerning our short term rental hosted versus Unhosted, as well as a few other items. With that, Lisa Farr will give you a brief presentation. Good evening, Mayor and Council. But you're looking at a timeline just to provide context on where we're at in the short term rental process. The ordinance was adopted in June. We had 120 days to establish registration. Registration did start on 120th day, October 24th per the ordinance operators have 180 days to register after the registration enforcement begins . Currently, we are enforcing the quality of life provisions included in the ordinance. At the council meeting, certain items were requested that we bring back. I'm going to go through the individual slides and call those out. The first item is cleaning and sanitizing protocols. We were asked to speak with the platforms. They submitted their protocols. Both the platforms that submitted Airbnb and VR bio direct their hosts to follow local guidelines and provide guidance consistent with the city's health order. Both the city's health order and the state health order only allow unoccupied units to be rented. While the operator is not physically present or has an exterior entrance and exit that does not require the use of a shared facility or is otherwise unoccupied. This since the city health order cannot be less restrictive than the state. Only unoccupied staffers for the state's definition can be operated within the city or. In terms of the economic impact of COVID 19 on tourism, there has been a. A direct impact. I think the most telling of those is the fact that revenue per available room, which is a combination of occupancy and room rate, has declined 52% from $142 to $68. Totti collection reflects this decline. Approximately 30% decline has occurred from 1419 to f y 20. You'll notice that for starters, there actually shows an increase. However, this is deceptive in the fact that for Fy19 we only collected for six months of the year, April to September. Well, at fy20 we were able to collect for the whole year. We were also asked to look at rental housing vacancy rates. The vacancy rate was approximately 4 to 5% from the beginning of the first quarter of 2019 to the first quarter of 2020. That rate has now increased to about 6%. This appears to be sort of a combination of two things. Presumably COVID, as well as the fact that there were 236 new rental units added to the market right as the pandemic hit. In terms of registration. It has been slow and the three weeks that we have been accepting them, there have been 33 applications received and 26 have been approved. We're working on the 27 gaining additional information from the applicants. Just real briefly, current ordinance highlights it established an annual city registration and fee includes enforcement provisions and a pardon me and mechanisms to remove bad actors. There's a 24 hour contact to respond to a nuisance complaints within an hour. Requires a limited event permit to exceed occupancy limits. The occupancy limits are two guests per bedroom, plus two with a maximum of ten guests. In addition, stars are prohibited and deed restricted, affordable housing units and dormitories and 80 use. In addition, landlord consent is required if a unit is subject to a rental agreement. Staff is recommending that Unhosted stars be allowed to operate, specifically that operators be allowed to operate to non primary residences and their primary residence. This is consistent to a version of the ordinance that was brought to you in May of this year. Other provisions that were in this version of the ordinance that we're still recommending is to limit the number of non primary staffers to a thousand, as well as to provide for a petition process for people within a residence, specifically within census block groups to opt out. In terms of allowing unhosted staffers within their census group. There have been questions about why we don't have the opt out process now, and that's because this was specific to unhosted stars and we're only allowing hosted. The process would be a mail in process and would be conducted by by staff. Our next steps are to receive direction from the City Council regarding unhosted stars as well as to if we are asked to look at Unhosted, we would return to City Council with a revised ordinance and then we would submit a revised application to the Coastal Commission. That concludes my presentation and we're available for questions. Thank you. Think you have a motion by Councilmember Pearce on a second by Councilman Price. Let's do the public comment first. Our first speaker is Audrey Luna. Thank you, Mayor Garcia and city council members and I am speaking on behalf of my neighborhood and district to Rose Park in particular with regards to and hosted Airbnbs. I actually live in a four unit apartment complex and there are two units that are currently unhosted. And the reason why I am asking that you do not lift the ban is because there have been several large gatherings, parties, noise after the event after the 10 p.m. curfew. It's unfortunately at this point, I'm feeling a little unsafe in the complex that I live in because the gates are left open to the guests that arrive are not using the private entrance. They're coming through the back door gate and interrupting the other tenants that actually pay rent. So. There's I know that the cleaning folks are not following the COVID sanitation protocol and the amount of garbage that has increased has caused a rodent infestation. So it's just there's quite a few negatives about unhosted. I really, really hope that this ban is not lifted because I feel as though. Thank you. Our next speaker is Alex Bland. Hello. My name is Alex Bland with Airbnb. The staff recommendation in front of you is the product of years of negotiations with this council and hours upon hours of public input and debate. The city held multiple community based public input hearings beginning in 2018 where there was overwhelming support for the legalization of first year and UNHOSTED stays in particular. The City Council has discussed this issue at multiple hearings throughout 2019 and 2020 and taken hours and hours of public testimony on the matter. This item is not new. There are no amendments, and support for this compromise approach is broad. These regulations protect housing by limiting the number of vacation rentals that can operate within the city, while ensuring that the local Long Beach residents and small business community still continue to benefit from the tourism economy and also look to address the coronavirus. Now, in response to the pandemic, Airbnb issued a mandatory enhanced cleaning protocol based on the latest guidance from the W.H.O., NCDC. Enhanced cleaning protocol was developed in consultation with Dr. Bruce Murthy, the former U.S. Surgeon General under President Obama and recently named co-chair to President Biden's coronavirus task force. It goes into extensive detail regarding how to disinfect between guests, including the types of cleaning products to use and requires us to attest to complying as well as to pass acquittals to ensure they reviewed the materials. We've shared and reviewed this protocol with your staff and they've advised us that they're comfortable with the steps we're taking. And recently, the CDC has also recommended that stars are a safer option for travel over hotels because it limits contact in public spaces. Thank you so much for your time. I think your next speaker is Andy Passage. And the passage. Our next speaker is Audrey Luna. I already spoke. You can move on to the next. Sorry. I think our next speaker is Charlie Quijano. Charlie Cano. Mr. Califano. Our next speaker is Ed Campbell. Hi, my. My name's Campbell. This is Andy Page. I want to be on. Please begin any. Okay. The City Council will just vote yes to city wide on host this year. Unlike most of the speakers, the presence of unhosted cards violate your city council agenda for number one medical health of the community. You know, we can't believe that a landlord would be as good as as a well versed a well versed worker in a hotel downtown. And number two, the mental health of the community families, some raising young children should not have to tolerate unhosted stars becoming one of the following a party, as you know. And the problem there is that those places sometimes evolve into into having violence, even on vacation business locations. Again, downtown hotels, hotels are a best place for this activity. Agents making deals on cell phones in front of other people's houses. It should not have to be tolerated. And Unhosted. You are supposed to give rise to unprecedented businesses such as the filming of photography. And this this has happened to us. So I'm sorry to to have to add that a three the economy and poverty hospital, hospitality workers of all sorts are dependent on hotels and local restaurants to for a living they enter and feed the economy by. Thank you. Our next speaker is Charlie Cano. Charlie Cano. Our next speaker is Heather Roseman. At their Roseman. Good evening, council members. My name is Heather Roseman, executive director for the Long Beach Hospitality Alliance. I'd like to start by saying that homes are for families and hotels are for guests. And as such, we urge you to ban the vacation rentals in Long Beach, as other cities have already set precedent for successful policy regarding short term rentals. This new ordinance will only undermine the hotels, the hotel industry's ability to recover from the coronavirus pandemic. I ask that you consider the many mom and pop hotels with excellent and affordable rooms that will surely be impacted by this ordinance. Taking homes away from Long Beach residents for short term rental use will surely decrease the available housing stock, displace hotel workers from their homes, will taking much needed business away from hotels. I'm calling on you to protect your hotel community and our workers, as are one of your greatest assets in economic recovery and one of your biggest partners in protecting Long Beach jobs in the wake of COVID 19. Hotel occupancy levels are at historic lows and will not likely recover for many years. Please remember, as you consider this ordinance, Long Beach families need homes and hotels need guests. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is John Choi. Hi. John Choi, Public Policy Airbnb. I just wanted to add a few comments regarding the pandemic impact, the tremendous impact it's had on travel. But what we've seen since the early onset of the pandemic is a rebound, with a focus on local and regional travel within a few hundred miles. For many who are just looking for a change of scene or a safe, clean place to work for a few days, a vacation rental in Long Beach has been a lifeline. And I want to echo the comments my previous colleague Alex made about CDC recommendation, preferring short term rentals over hotels, specifically for the reason of being able to avoid public spaces. So even during a pandemic, when visitors stay in Long Beach, Long Beach vacation rental, they are supporting a local property owner as well as local small businesses who don't typically benefit from tourism as well as the city's general fund. Erin B signed a voluntary collections agreement to collect and remit the city's total in April 2019. As a staff report indicated in fiscal year 2019, we remitted 1.4 million and in fiscal year 2020, a year heavily impacted by COVID, we still remitted $2.2 million and approximately 50% of this revenue will be lost if the city does not legalize Unhosted rentals before the April 2021 enforcement date. In conclusion, the regulations for Unhosted stays have been thoroughly discussed by the City Council and as a reasonable compromise that protects housing while allowing an important part of the tourism economy, the tourism industry to contribute to the local economy. Short term rentals have not been shown to have any negative impact on hotel industry jobs. And this proposal ensure that local residents. Thank you. Our next speaker is Charlie Cano. Help. Hello? Hello? Yes, we. Can you hear me again? Okay. Thank you. This is Charlie Cano with Unite Here Local 11. I'm calling to strongly oppose this motion, as was alluded to by the previous caller who lives in a in a 40 minute building where two are being used for unhosted rentals. This is this is going to to help take more housing off the market at a time when we need it, at a time. When we're. Facing an eviction crisis. I think it's really important. And that's, by the way, that's happening right now when it's illegal. Imagine that the the amount of abuse that could happen when there is this loophole created that will make all short term financial regulation more difficult to enforce. Just to put this in perspective, the limit of a thousand homes is about three times what a Long Beach produces in terms of housing each year. So I think it's important for city council to ask, who are they going to side with? The majority. Of people in the city that rent. That are that are facing terrible economic circumstances because of the pandemic. And we're facing huge we're facing rent increases even before this. Homeowners who just want to use their homes as homes or to provide an opportunity for somebody else to rent from them long term. Or, you know, a. Big company like Airbnb. And I think it's and folks lucky enough to have, you know, property that they can be somewhere else for a significant portion of the year. So I would just suggest please keep keep the current regulations. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ed Campbell. Hi. Hi. Speaking. Thank you. Did Campbell. And when the pandemic began this last spring, we noticed some changes in our neighborhood. The property directly across street began having some remodeling. When the work was complete, we learned that they plan to operate to one hosted yard. Once renters started showing up at these hosted actors, there were parties, loud music, drug use and even possible human trafficking. Going on parking has been a big problem in the neighborhood. It's already stretched thin for parking spots. The UNHOSTED SDR has changed the character of the neighborhood by having a, quote, mini hotel in a quiet residential neighborhood . It has removed at least two long term rental housing stock from the city and has become a nuisance. It threatens the public health, safety and welfare of neighboring property through careless actions, especially during the pandemic. Now I feel that the Unhosted SDR should not be allowed because they encourage runners to have parties and be loud when there is anyone there, stop them. These unhosted only take away quality, long term rental possibilities for the residents of Long Beach. They are also very unfair to the long term tenants at the building to have to put up with the constant traffic of new renters coming in and out. Some of the tenants have even been offered money to move out to the owners for renovate their units as well. The long term tenants are forced to use the same laundry room as the SDR during this pandemic. The SDR is also create an unusually large amount of trash filling the camp to the point that the long term renters do not have room for their trash. And it overflows into the street. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jonah Breslow. Jono Brazil. Hi, my name is Jonah Breslau and I am a research analyst at Lane, the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy. I urge you to reject this proposal. We're in the midst of an enormous housing crisis to lose a thousand homes. The commercial de facto hotel use is a profound misuse of energy when we should be fighting to preserve every unit of housing and build more. And the timing is inappropriate in another sense as well. The city has barely begun to issue permits for home shares, and it is far too soon to expand the cities program when we have scarcely had a chance to assess the effectiveness of the existing ordinance. You've also heard from tenants expressing their personal experience with currently existing illegal coal home rentals. It would be a terrible and cruel irony if the city launched a pilot program to potentially allow 500 tiny homes at the same time that it removes twice that number from the housing market. I urge you to vote down this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is one cruise. One cruise. Good evening. My name is Frank Rules. I am a member of United 11. I am hotel worker for 17 years. I live in District six in Long Beach. I work for Queen Mary Lambert Convention Center and for the Maya. I have worked on both. Sure the short term growth of. Please do not let 1000 home truly interrupt my house when we are in the middle of housing crisis in the middle of a pandemic. Please consider this petition. Please vote no on ordinance 60. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kelly Hartwick. Kelly Hartwick. Hi. This is Kelly. And we own a triplex. Bayshore in Belmont Shores. We bought it as a existing vacation rental over 16 years ago. We're in in favor of the homestead as our guests. Yes. Utilize Kayak Corner and the restaurants and the shop on. Down in Belmont Shores. We live 5 minutes away. Our neighbors have our cell phone numbers in case there's an issue. I confirm with all guests that there will be no parties, no pets, no smoking or vaping on property. We court we follow all the COVID cleaning protocols that have been set forth. I post quiet hours between ten and eight. I've bought signs for the exterior patio as well to have those posted. We've hosted the US Women's Olympic team for sailing to practice in Long Beach. We've hosted the men's Russian team. We employ a full time housekeeper that lives in Belmont Shores. We own also a property on the East Coast that is ACR. And every year that city has a protocol that inspects every SDR. Thank you. Our next speaker is Maria Misa. Hello. Good evening. Please begin. Hello? Okay. Thank you. Hi. My name is Marianne Lisa. I work in Long Beach and I'm a member of the United Locally Living. In the hospitality industry. I'm very angry to hear that the city council is considering to open up Body Farm in the middle of this funding drive on the part of our sector festival have been crucial. We haven't seen a city. I'm also affected my job and my coworkers. This will take all your wholesale away. I urge you to box in this item for Federal Housing. Prime Minister. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Melissa, so-called trigger. Hello. Hello. Thank you for having me. I'm calling because I. Live next to an on hosted SDR, and I'm also here to ask you to not allow. Them to. Continue and has protesters put the burden of safety and regulation on residents? We have to walk over and explain that it's not okay to park on the sidewalk. We have to show that one of our neighbors uses a wheelchair and that he needs access to the sidewalk. One guest asked me why a gentleman couldn't go into the street to go around his vehicle. I guess as invested in our community, he is on vacation and no one is here to keep him accountable. No one has explained parking or anything else to these guests. No one is suggesting that they're clearly signing up for a party. And the reason that they just behave this way, because the Astros understood what the owner had told me to discuss. They would be more cautious about who they like, and one would guess. But even that, I wish that the person that own the property next to me was considerate of the woman who spoke. I think people before me. But the fact of the matter is, that woman is an exception. The person that owns the property must meet the inevitable. That is what will happen if you allow this to pass. Please do not pass this. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is next. So do. Hi. My name is Max DeSoto. I live in Long Beach District nine. I also work at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, where we have been closed since March. Lifting the ban will make it a lot harder for my coworkers and I to return back to work. I am so angry and appalled to find out that our very own city council has decided to hurt working families. But we are trying to survive this pandemic. I am asking you to stop short term rentals now. Short term rentals hurt, short term rentals will hurt and take away hotel jobs and will also take away affordable housing . It is time for our city council to put residents and workers first. I find it alarming how comfortable these Airbnb hosts are saying that they have on hold said hours even right now when it's not allowed. They are really not following the law. I am. I really urge you to vote no on 66 and stop unhosted short term rentals now. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sylvia Salcedo. Hello. Yes. We can hear you. Please begin. Okay. Good evening, Mayor and council members. I would like to speak to the negative impact that Unhosted cards have had on my once peaceful neighborhood in the Second District. I respectfully implore the city to not allow Unhosted escorts to operate in the city illegal and host to the cars that have operated across the street from my home since June 2020 have violated every one of the protections. The ordinance was set up to provide our neighborhoods. We've had to deal with constant party celebrations day and night, loud noise into the early morning hours, no masks, no social distancing, and guests routinely smoking marijuana in the front yard throughout the day, which permeates our home. Parking is another issue, with guests constantly parking on the sidewalk, blocking our driveway and guests with multiple vehicles on our street exacerbates the lack of parking in our neighborhood. We were not provided with any contact information of a local person should problems arise. Our complaints to super hosts who don't reside in Long Beach took the platform completely ignored, and now we're having to call the hotline almost daily. During this pandemic, we all have to witness new guests arriving after the unit was clean only 20 to 30 minutes beforehand. It's rare that a 24 hour wait period is followed. This recommendation will incentivize transforming rentals into LCR, then will have a huge negative impact on housing. The burden of responsibility has been put on the neighbors. It has been our responsibility to monitor the city hours on a daily basis and report violations. The owner host has no vested interest in maintaining the character of our neighborhood because they do not. Thank you. Your next speaker is Valerie Luna. Hi. I am against the ordinance and I am begging and respectfully requesting the Council to continue upholding Unhosted as a staff. I'm not going to say anything other than every one else has already said. But there is one thing I'd like to add that there is a division in management. I'm currently a resident in a four plex and two of the units are being utilized as unhosted short term rentals. And whenever we have. Issues with the. Property management company. We're told to contact the owners and the owners never respond. So not only is there that division that we are not getting what we should be getting as far as property management, but there's nothing for anyone to do about the issues that we have with the short term rental. Everybody is saying the same thing, especially for those that are living in these types of communities. It's very disturbing. They're constantly they're the short term rental. People are constantly asking us for coats, knocking on our doors at all hours of the night at. 2 a.m. in the morning. There's constantly drug use being used within the complex. And it's very disturbing. Not to mention the hygiene issues that everyone has already discussed before about. Not wearing masks. And I think your next speaker is Victor Sanchez. In Samarra. Council members Victor Sanchez of the Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs and Healthy Community. We respectfully ask that you not support this item. We simply do not have the information needed to make an informed decision on the dias this evening. Title five of the new missile code, which outlines the rules and regulations on short term rentals in the city, only began taking registration of short term rentals on October 24. 33 applications and 26 approvals just mentioned in the report. Is this enough data to justify an expansion to give one host up to three units to put on short term rentals? I believe it's unreasonable to justify the removal of a 1000 housing units simply because we want to put this issue to rest after four years of debating it. We are clinging on to an analysis that was done pre-COVID. We are in the middle of a pandemic which has changed everything. And as much as we want to ignore the impact COVID had on this item, we cannot ignore the impact it's had on working families and think that we've done enough for workers, especially those in the hospitality sector, a sector which has been decimated and will further be threatened because of this expansion. I ask that the Council take stock of the moment and air on the side of public health and on the side of working families. Protect our housing. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for the sun. Mayor. We've concluded public comment on this item. Mayor Garcia. Can you hear me? Yes. We can hear you. Okay. Gosh. Okay. Sorry about that. I'm trying to. All right. I'm sorry, I. Madam Court, did you? I was. I was trying to call you there. Sorry about that. Did you get my message? Yes. We've concluded public comment for item 66. I got kicked off here, so. Thank you very much. So I want to go back to Councilmember Pearce. Great. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you to all the speakers. Thank you to staff for the brief presentation and everybody that's been engaged in this process. Billy This is our fourth or fifth time actually taking a vote on short term rentals. And each time we make substantive changes to try to make it the best fit for our community. I know that many of our constituents have called in tonight and said that they currently have issues with illegal Airbnbs right now, and that's actually why we brought this item to the Council over four years ago. We brought it because there was a black market essentially happening where these Airbnbs were operating and they weren't legal in the city. And when we talked to staff they came back and said we don't have the resources. So what happens is city prosecutor, city attorney, they send a letter out a cease and desist. Then, you know, they wait to hear back. They might send one more letter, but that's it. The city hasn't had any ability to hold accountable the bad operators in our town. That is why this item was brought forward, so that we could make sure that we allowed for people that wanted to host in their own home to do that legally and that the city could collect revenue on it because they are operating like a hotel and that non hosted could also operate in a way where we're able to collect revenue but hold those accountable for those big parties that tend to happen. So I'd like to ask staff a couple of questions because this is our fourth or fifth time to actually take a vote on this. I had hoped to try to move kind of quickly tonight. I know that there is a lot of division and you hear it in the public comments, homeowners versus renters and hotels versus Airbnb . The fact is, is that there's not one model that fits everything. And this policy has tried to take into account protecting our housing stock. That's why it comes back with the housing vacancy number in there, and that's why we've tried to limit that number as well. So I'd like to ask staff right now for non hosted. Can you walk through the process for what happens and then can you walk through what would happen if we voted tonight to do this? How do we hold accountable the bad actors? So Councilmember Pearce, are you talking about the process for the host ID that's currently in place? No, I'm talking about the UNHOSTED right now on hosts that are not currently legal. What happens whenever a community member files a complaint on that? Yes. Thank you. I'm going to ask Scott Baldwin, who's working directly on the enforcement to respond to this question. Hi. This for hosted or unhosted only. What we're doing right now is. Due to the ordinance. We have a 180 day period after enforcement began to allow everyone to be in compliance. So currently, you know, we're only three weeks removed from the effective date, so we're still in the 180 day period, giving operators time. Essentially to either comply or to. Remove their listings and in or change their operations. Councilmember. Let me add to that, that response. So currently we have no mechanism for enforcement because unhosted or not regulated what the as you indicated our ability to regulate unhosted short term rentals will allow us more significantly significantly to work with Airbnb and other hosting platforms to be able to limit and prevent the marketing of that unit , to take reservations, to move that project forward as well as additional enforcement. That's what we currently don't have and this process will allow us to enforce those things. And there are fines that are included in this ordinance, correct? That is correct. That we don't currently have. That is correct. So I walk through that because every time I have a conversation with one of my constituents that's upset about a party house, as I remind them that regulating it is the way that we get the tools in the toolbox to actually hold them accountable to the standards that we deserve to have in our community. And so I agree. I don't like you know, I'm hosted party houses next door, but for too long we've done this in a Wild West way. And so that is why we brought this item forward. I believe that, you know, we are in uncertain times, but aligning ourselves with the state. I believe it was mentioned in the in the PowerPoint, being able to say that the state says that we should have unhosted as the safest way instead of hosted. We did six months ago asked staff to work with the hosting platforms on cleaning requirements. I heard it in public comment. But staff, can you speak to that? Have you worked with the hosting platforms to ensure that the cleaning guidelines is up to CDC recommendations? Councilmember We have worked with the hosting platforms as well as Dr. Davis and the Health Department, and we have provisions currently in our order to regulate the the short term rentals with language that is similar to the state order. Great. Thank you. And then I wanted to there's another comment that was made in public comment that said, we are taking a thousand units off of the market right now. Can you clarify how many staffers have been active before COVID? Because I know we had those numbers in the report. That's Councilmember Pearce. Right now, within the last year, there's been approximately 670 and hosted stars that are active and approximately 170 and hosted stars. So that was a hosted I'm sorry, pardon me. That was 170 hosted and 700 and hosted. Okay. So I it's pretty clear for the. Record that the. Comment that we are taking units off the market is not happening. These units are have already been in use. This is part of this new economy that's emerged that we're all trying to grapple with and find a rocky balance policy. Councilmember Pearce. Yeah. I'm sorry. Your 5 minutes is expired. Oh, I forgot about 5 minutes. Okay. Well, I will close out with saying that I believe that we should vote tonight to move forward. We've been doing this for four years, and I'd like to end with saying that this vote is not a vote against a hotel worker or a hotel. This is a vote to try to make sure that we have a balanced city that is really taking into account all the different models and ways that people want to stay at places and have their business and do it in a way that we can hold people accountable. So with that, I urge my colleagues to pass this agenda tonight. Thank you. That's the motion. The second is about Councilman Price. Councilman Price. Thank you. You're Mr. Mayor. So I want to ask a lot of those comments. Biggest one for me. I know that the second and third district have the highest number of staffers and the number one unpermitted staffers. And the number one complaint that we get from residents is that there's really no enforcement mechanism right now for resident complaints because they think a house in the neighborhood is being used as a short term rental. They actually have to work with the city attorney's office and provide the evidence that the city attorney would need to issue some sort of a letter to the property owner. And it really puts neighbors in a bad position because they're trying to collect evidence on property owners within an adjacent home. And it's just it's not where we want our residents to be. So I know that these operations are happening, and I believe we need to have an enforcement mechanism so that we can hold people accountable for the requirements to operate these stars. Right now, we have nothing to hold people accountable, and it's almost impossible to prove that they're operating it as an SDR without the neighbors testifying against. The property owners. So as much as I understand a lot of the comments today, I think finding an enforcement arm to be able to regulate this activity that's already happening is very important. I would like I am interested in limiting the SDR from the recommendation that we received. So Councilmember Pearce, my question would be, would you accept a friendly to change the proposed ordinance that allows for a total of three to change it to a total of two, one being the primary and one being the unhosted. Yes, I would. Okay. Thank you. And then the other question that I had for city staff was there remain concerns from constituents regarding the large scale event aspect of the ordinance. Can you please talk to that? Because what we don't want is to have residential neighborhoods that are having up to six large scale events in a residential neighborhood. And how can we limit or prohibit that? Councilmember Price. Well, what we do have in the ordinance is what we call a limited event permit. That is to allow, on a infrequent basis, people to have more than the maximum occupancy limit at that place. It's very similar to an occasional event permit that the special permit, special events office regulates. The host or operator would have to prepare the same information that goes into the occasional event permit. How many people are going to be there? Is there going to be music? These types of things and going through this process will be able to in the future deny people that are bad actors and don't conform to those permits . We're allowing six per year. Correct. Thank you for reminding me that we're recommending that maximum of six be allowed per year at each individual short term rental. I would like to make a friendly to limit that or reduce that to four. If Council member Pearce is open to that and I also want to make sure that there is a process in place where neighbors will be able to weigh in like we do with the occasional that permit. I guess I don't see a problem with that. Is there a process in place where neighbors can oppose such a permit? Yes, they can. They could. They. Well, let me circle back with you. There is no public process to a review process for any time. They're issuing an occasional event permit. We can consider what we can do to inform the community about these permits. Like staff to please look into that. But I don't want to hold up the process this evening. And then finally, can you just speak to the opt out process in terms of who initiate who needs to initiate that for neighborhoods that are interested in that process? Certainly. So it is a resident that will contact the city and say that they would like their census block group to opt out of the unhosted short term rentals. What will then happen is that the city will initiate a mail mail in balloting process for all the residential property owners within that census block group. Great. Thank you very much. I have nothing further. Thank you. Councilman Day has. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Councilmember Pearson Price for this item. I know that you guys have been working on this item far, far beyond when I came on to the council. So I know how invested you are on short term rentals. I wanted to see if maybe I could, you know, make a friendly I know that coming from a district to where I house a lot of of workers that work in our hotels and and have seen a lot of them lose their jobs during this pandemic. Really, really touches my heart and breaks my heart for what they're going through. So I know that short term rentals could devastate them even more, but I understand that there has to be some kind of balance. And I'd like to offer a friendly to see if maybe we could limit the amount of unhosted rentals to be permitted from 1000 to 700. Is that something that you would accept? Councilmember Pearce. I know that we've had this discussion before with this council, so I'd like to see where the discussion is. I know that right now we're at 640 and know that there's been some other discussion around coming back. So let's see where the council colleagues are. Okay. And I'll come back up then. Thank you. Okay. Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I appreciate the discussion today. I'm interested in. A couple of things. One, I'll just say that I know that the. Original there are lots of cities that have unlimited number of. Ideas. I know the staff came forward with an initial number and a chart for us, and I just wanted to remind everyone that a thousand. Was the number. We compromised too. And so during this time we were only allowing hosted to register. So 640 of those spots is already. Are already taken. So there's really only 260 available for the and hosted. I was interested in asking a point of clarification for Councilman Price. You had mentioned you wanted to go. From one primary and two. I couldn't hear. That was one primary and two. What, three total where one had to be their primary and now the friendly was to make it so that it was to. One their primary. And one additional. Are you open to making it. Or I guess it would be to Janine. Councilman Pearce, are you open to having it be just. To general and they can decide if it's their primary or not? I'd like to stick with Councilmember Price's motion, because we've done so much work over the last four years on saying that if somebody was going to have an additional one, that they needed to live in one, that, too. That is too big of a shift to make tonight. Okay. So they could still just have one that is not their primary. That was Councilmember Price's motion. Yes. Okay. Thank you. No additional comments. Okay. Councilman Ranga, then councilman is in Dallas. Mr. Mayor, can we correct something? I think that was just quickly in the stated. Elisa, can you answer a question on that, please? Yeah, sure. What I wanted to say is that the limit on Unhosted is currently a thousand. Right now operating in the city. Within the past year has been at 700 unhosted and currently we have 170 hosted. Those 170 hosted do not apply to the limit. And of those, 173 have actually registered with us. Thank you. That's a very important point of clarification. Thank you, Mr. Modica. I've got some Ringo and councilmen and they ask. Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple of questions, but I just wanted to make sure that I'm. Listening correctly. So we're talking about the debt limits. We talked about limit of 1000. That is up to 1000 and where I currently had 700. Is that correct? I'm sorry, Councilmember. Could you repeat that? I had trouble hearing you. The number of stories we have on hosted the discussion right now is to have a total number of 1000. That's a top level. And from what I heard, or even if I'm wrong, is that there are currently 700 unhosted stores currently in use at the present time. So there are 300 more that we can allow at this point. There would be 300 additional that we are not currently operating between. The 700 that we know of operated within the last year and the 1000 limit that we have discussed in the past. That is being proposed. Okay. So consequently, there are the discussions that we're having here. Then it's not necessarily that we want to lower the number of on host approach to keep it at a maximum of a thousand. It's another way of putting it. Would that be correct? Yes. The other aspect of this, and I'm trying to get a clarification on and I haven't seen anything, is that the number of days that a host is? So in terms of the unhosted str, there is no limit on the number of days that they can operate during the year where. They enter the aforesaid. I got I got a call right in the middle when you just started. I'm sorry. Can you start over with that? Sure. So presently or what had been discussed for the unhosted that there would be no limit on the number of days that they could operate during the year when there was a discussion of a potential limit. That was when we were discussing a primary, a STR, which is where the individual lived, that they could operate that home as an on hosted for up to 90 days during a year. That was that limit. So we're not that is not part of this discussion at all in terms of what number of days a person can stay the unless year. Posted around. Yeah. That would be for further consideration. Well, the reason I'm bringing this up is because obviously sometimes it starts functionally rental units when there are no limits placed on the number of days that a guest can stay at a short term rental. And that's my concern at this point, especially glad to see that there was a adjustment being proposed and a friendly and being accepted from going from a to a non primary and one primary to one primary and one not in terms of residence. So that that's that's good. But I'm still having concerns that even that one unhosted would function as a. Mentioned before being a bad actor where an individual will have a star there, and that would be basically an apartment rental. Not unless you are still concerned about that. The other aspect of it is that we're talking about removal, removal of affordable housing, especially when I'm talking about along the coasts. As you may know, I'm a member of the California Coastal Commission, and one of the biggest concerns that we always have up and down the coast is affordable housing along the coast. Has there been an average done in terms of what the cost of these streets are in Long Beach in regards to Austin or other hosted units ? Where do they sit with the with the rental market here in Long Beach? Councilmember. We do not have any current information regarding what the what the rates are. I'm happy to come back to you after we have some time to research that item. And I'm saying that now because that will be a concern once this issue comes before the Commission. And affordability for housing along the coast is very important to the commission, and it would be something that would be seriously considered as to whether or not the city would be able to modify its LCP in that regard. And this allows. Council member this is Christopher Koonce. That is absolutely a concern for lower cost housing to the degree that it is occupied as a rental today. But in our discussions with the Coastal Commission staff, they're also very concerned with lower cost visitor accommodations, which is a specific reference in the Coastal Act statute. And we do know from Coastal Commission data that Airbnb or BRP, these type of units are typically more affordable, particularly to families, than full service hotel rooms. And it's for that reason that a coastal commission, at least at the staff level, has advised us that they see these types of units as a tool to meet their lower cost visitor accommodation goal. And they have expressed some concern just that the staff, the staff level about the council's previous action to allow only that hosted because they were concerned that it may not provide sufficient lower cost visitor accommodations within the coastal zone. Councilmember Urunga. Your time has expired. Okay. Well, that would be my major concern at the present time, but I'll continue the discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Consumers in house. Mr. Mayor. And after hearing some more on this from staff, I was wondering, council member Pearce said maybe we could consider lowering the Unhosted max to maybe 800. Is that something that you would accept as a friendly. Mayor. Do we have other people queued up to speak? No. This is from the after this. We're going to a vote. Okay. Well, I will accept your motion. You're a friendly. A agree. And also, might you be able to accept that we that we have city staff come back to us in 6 to 9 months to reevaluate, you know, and see where we are with, especially since we're in a health crisis right now. I think that in the original ordinance there's a staff supposed to come back annually with the vacancy rate. Is that correct stuff? Yes, that is correct. Okay. So since we're lowering the number, giving us, you know, I think 12 months to come back is a reasonable amount of time. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Remember? Okay. Thank you. That can actually count for a. Just check it. Thank you, Eric Garcia. I just have a point of clarification and I think possibly a lot of residents are confused. I mean, basically, it's counterintuitive to think that we have to allow Unhosted in order to regulate them. But specifically, I'd like to ask Councilman Price to clarify what the 6 to 4 party's friendly means and and whether there is an annual unhosted limit for a house. So I can I can talk about the the for the from six to force a staff was recommending six large scale events be permitted per ACR per year. And I ask that to be reduced to four with a request that staff look into a notification process for neighbors in the area. So that was my my friendly which Councilmember Pearce accepted. I don't know that I could speak with any expertize on the other item. That might be a better for staff question. Well, yeah. And I think if I could ask staff, how how would the word get out to the public or how would there be notification on the policies? Well, we need to come back to you with to provide you additional information. But the ideas that we provide on our website, an opportunity to notice the community about pending applications for events. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. That concludes our council comment. Go ahead. Yes. Did you just did you are you did you cued up again? Okay, customer. Pierce. Sorry, I just wanted to clarify. In the past, when we've talked about the vacancy rate, we've talked about the number of units being able to go up when the vacancy rate is above 8%. So I just wanted to confirm that that is still in the ordinance. And I know that it was in the report that the vacancy rate was variable. I just wanted to confirm. Oh. Yes. It was in the in the ordinance. That's right. So with that, you know, support the motion that's on the floor. Thank you. Okay. Roll call. Vote, please. District one, district two I. District three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. AM District seven. II. District eight. Hi. District nine. All right. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Let me go to go back to some of the items that have been asked to move up. Next one item, I think 73 and 75 have to be taken together or one after another. Is that right, Mr. City Attorney? I think you could take it.

Recommendation to request City Council to receive and file the Letter of Completion for the Hotel Workplace Requirements and Restrictions petition and approve one of three alternative actions, as required by the California Elections Code Section 9215 and the Long Beach City Charter Section 2000: 1) Adopt the Initiative Ordinance, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented, or within 10 days after it is presented; or 2) Submit the ordinance, without alteration, to the voters pursuant to Section 1405, and adopt resolutions a) and b). a) Adopt resolution calling for the placement of an initiative measure to amend the Long Beach Municipal Code to add Hotel Workplace Requirements and Restrictions, directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, and providing for the filing of primary and rebuttal arguments and setting rules for the filing of written arguments regarding said measure to be submitted at the November 6, 2018 Special Municipal Electio

LongBeachCC_08072018_18-0668

So the first item that will be up is item 28. Madam Clerk report from City Clerk recommendation to receive and filed a letter of completion for the Hotel Workplace Requirements and Restrictions petition and approved one of the three alternative actions. One Adopt the initiative ordinance without alteration or to submit the ordinance without alteration to the voters and adopt a resolution calling for the placement of an initiative measure . Directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure and providing for the filing of primary and rebuttal arguments. And setting rules for the filing of written arguments regarding said measure and resolution. Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to authorize and order the consolidation of a citywide special municipal election for the placement of Voter Petition Initiative measure with the statewide general election to be held on November six, 2018. Or three. Order Report pursuant to California Election Code. Thank you. Madam Court, do you have any any additional information? Yes. So on January 25th, the proposed measure was submitted to the Office of the City Clerk relating to improved workplace requirements and restrictions for hotel employees. The filing deadline to submit the petition with a minimum of 27,462 qualifying signatures, was on Tuesday, August 7th, 2018, 180 days after the proponents were provided a ballot title. In summary, the petition was filed on May 22nd 103 days of circulation with the Office of the City Clerk, at which time a raw count was conducted. Proponents submitted a total of 46,084 signatures. The city clerk opted to conduct a random draw of 3% of the signatures, as allowed by the California election code. The random draw concluded on June 27th, and the results fell within 95 210% validity rate. That meant the petition required a full check of signatures until at least 27,462 signatures were found valid due to the large quantity of signatures. The Office of the City Clerk requested the services of the Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder County Clerk on June 28. The L.A. RCC was asked to check signatures until they reached the required number of valid signatures on July 27th. The L.A. RCC concluded the signature verification process and notified us that the petition was found successful. The offices of the City Clerk notified proponents as proponents of the results and placed the item on tonight's Agenda for Council's consideration. If you have any further questions about the petition process. Okay, thank you very much. Obviously the petition item is in front of us with three available options per the city clerk. And so I know that we're going to be going and doing public comment on this item first at the request of a couple council members. And so we will open up with public comment. So if you're going to comment, please come forward. And we will be we will be after the first 15 speakers will go down to 2 minutes as has been our practice recently. Any objection of the council. I think. Okay. I wanted to. Please, please be. Get. Good evening, Mayor. Council members and staff. My name is John Howard. I am the owner operator of Chick-Fil-A at the Long Beach Town Center and have the pleasure to serve as the chairman of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Board of directors and members, which includes our Long Beach Hospitality Alliance. Hospitality Alliance. Long Beach hotels are long time members of the chamber and are committed partners of the city of Long Beach. They work hard at being a good neighbor, promoting the city, providing local resident jobs and paying their fair share of taxes. The Hotel Workforce Initiative would punish an industry in our city that has always placed the safety and well-being of their employees and guests as a top priority. As you will hear from other speakers tonight, many Long Beach hotels have voluntarily imposed safety regulations like training programs and panic buttons for their staff. These regulations have been in place for some time. A near duplicate of last year's previously rejected ordinance. This this initiative would impose unnecessary and arbitrary regulations on an industry that has already voluntarily instated safety regulations and measures of their own. But our concern with this ordinance isn't simply that it is redundant and unnecessary. The economic impact of this initiative could be immense and widespread, with its effects being felt by the business community as a whole and the city of Long Beach and its residents. The hotel industry is already heavily regulated by both the state and federal government as the hotel industry is forced to incur an estimated 40% increase in costs to comply with further regulations. Room rates will rise and we will see tourism dollars leaving the Long Beach community in search of more competitive markets. This will result in the loss of sales for our businesses who depend on tourism dollars and the loss of tax revenue for the city's general fund. Consequently, we will see cuts in funding and jobs loss throughout the community. The bottom line is that the whole community views itself as an integral part of Long Beach. They pay millions of dollars in taxes that help to fund vital resident services, provide jobs, and promote the city as a destination to visit. This initiative will cause major damage to an industry that many in our city rely on. Damage done to the hotel industry is damage done to the city of Long Beach itself? On behalf of the Chamber, our Long Beach Hospitality Alliance and businesses in our community, I ask that you call for an economic impact report that will review the costs associated with this initiative, as it could be financially devastating to the industry and ultimately the city of Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I'd like to invite everybody who is here tonight in favor of approving this to please stand up all the people who are here for supporting the. Housekeepers of Long Beach to please stand with me. Thank you very much. My name is Zoe Nicholson. I live in Rose Park. I've been advocating for women and girls for over 50 years. I'm a proud member of the Lumbee Coalition for Good Jobs and Healthy Communities, and I am bursting with pride that I am one of the three proponents of this ordinance. First, I want to publicly thank you, Mayor Garcia, in particular, for insisting on female majority in the city commissions. Well done. I am so proud of you. I have three rather disparate things to say. One is, I'm sure you remember a meeting a year ago when the city council voted 5 to 4 against protecting the housekeepers, when some hotel management bragged about training workers in martial arts. It is ludicrous to suggest that training already burdened workers on delivering a roundhouse kick to a hotel guest that delivers a catcall, a touch, a grab, an assault, a rape, and as we heard, possibly tying them up with a vacuum cleaner court. I hope you are familiar with the inspiring work of the art of Ramiro Gomez. I saw his art at the Museum of Latin American Art. His paintings. Show the. Invisible. Worker in luxurious. Settings like gardens. Homes and hotels. The landscaper, the maid, the poor person. The cook disappear. Into the decadence of their work environment. And as you look along Ocean Boulevard, admiring the towering hotels, let us bring these workers out of invisibility and celebrate them. They are our neighbors, our friends, members of our Long Beach family. We cannot continue to have this city vote for world class events while offering hotels with fresh linen, fresh towels, and no recourse for sexual assault. I wonder if you ever heard of. An Easter egg. It's a bit of code that's put inside of an app. It's a prize for people who work through the app. This night is that Easter egg? Well, an army of angels collected 46,000 signatures in 55 days to guarantee safety, justice for hotel housekeepers. There is an Easter egg hidden in this action because tonight you have the possibility to move over to the side of what is right. Tonight, you have the opportunity to right this wrong. I encourage you to do so. Tonight, my prayer is that the precious workers of. Long. Beach understand that their city council respects them. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next week, please. Hi. I'm her Linda Chico, and I'm the field. Deputy for L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn. I have a letter to read on her behalf. Dear Mayor Garcia, I'm writing in support of the ordinance to protect women. Workers in the hospitality industry. Have been victims of sexual assault and harassment for years, often at the hands of hotel guests for whom there are little, if any, repercussions for their behavior. This is unacceptable. Assault is not a job hazard that must be endured in silence. Everyone is entitled to a workplace where they feel safe. Passage of this ordinance would require hotels in Long Beach to provide panic buttons to their workers, enabling them to call for help if they are in danger. It is also important to note that over 46,000 signatures were collected to qualify this measure for the November ballot. Given this strong level of support in the community for these workplace protections, I believe the City Council is well-positioned to pass the ordinance now. And I urge you to do so. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Obviously if we do have any translation, that'll be double the time. But per the clerk here so. Can. See when I start this meaning the law in a certain mid-decade law you'll be looking at tambien. Estamos aqui. Good afternoon. My name is Lorena. I am a housekeeper and I live here in Long Beach. It's almost like economic companeros, but happily, let's keep our honest opinion. All of. Us controllable. So I'm. I'm here tonight with my colleagues to ask you to please stand with us to support women. Let's get on record article by your little sister upset Randall. And I just want to remind you that our whole country is watching what happens here in Long Beach with this story. Only you can make history tonight. Magic Mother, and they say important. Is the Long Beach free tomorrow and with repetition. But abroad they hear a lot more heroes. And more than 46,000. Voters here in Long Beach sign our petition to support women in moving to the West as base. But a competition, mistrust, experiences. We have come here time and time again to share experiences with you. Come on us intimacy. And support us and how we feel unsafe. Como whispering sun echo acusado al-alam Aquarius. No, no. In honor of another. And how gifts have harassed the women and there has been no. Resolution. This is questionable. Yet we are not rancorous. And now we're asking you please listen to us and stand with women. Gotabaya kept going to the middle Newcastle skin of upset. And every day that we go to work we have the fear that we don't know what's going to happen to us. That day at. Work. What if our percent is the initiative we get as yes. Please pass this initiative tonight. Thank you. Which is great. Thank you. Speaker Tanya Reyes had an address on file. I'm here to stand with hospitality workers, and I ask that you vote today to adopt the initiative ordinance without alteration. You have several options that you may be considering. One of the others is option two to place it on the ballot for the vote of the people. Some of you might think that this is what you need to do because it's what the voters signed up for. While they signed to support Claudia's law, they signed up to support hotel workers and to stand with women against abuse, as many of us did over nine months ago, when most of the council thought otherwise. The council is charged with making policy, establishing order, ordinances, resolutions, budgets, administrative actions that will make Long Beach a better place for its residents and workers. Don't make the voters do your job for you because we already know the outcome. 46,000 voters already told you what they want. They want this ordinance passed without revision, in my view, along with 46 others. Voters who signed the petition is is that putting that on the ballot is not necessary. You have the power to make it happen today, which will not only save money, but also time. I hope you get the message that over 40,000 voters sent you. Do not abdicate your responsibility as policymakers. Act on the will of the voters because we already know what the outcome will be. If it goes in November, it will pass. The other option is to request that we put, oh my goodness, this is the least desirable because it's not just a defer and delay tactic. It is a whatever. It's whatever the report tells you. Your only actions after the receipt of the report are the ones that you have in front of you today. Nothing's going to change. And you will again be thwarting the will of the people because this option guarantees that it will not be on the November ballot, costing the city even more money via a special election. So that leads me to where I started, is to adopt the baby initiative ordinance without alteration. Today, I understand that some of you may not want to adopt it today, but inaction last year brought us to this place where you have limited choices. As council people, you have employees, all of whom are represented by a collective bargaining unit. Well, maybe, except for the refuse workers. But that's another issue. If a union is good enough for you and your city employees, then why not for all workers in the city? Even those of you who work for the county have great benefits and you owe that to collective bargaining for someone representing you at the table. Once again, I'm here to stand with hospitality workers, and I ask that you vote today to adopt the initiative ordinance without alteration. You may have nine different reasons to not adopt the initiative today, the ordinance today. But your city clerk has over 40,000, actually 46,000 reasons why you should. Thanks. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor, and good evening, Council Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today regarding this very important issue. My name is Ann Burdette and I am a member of Long Beach Sacred Resistance and St Luke's Episcopal Church. We are a coalition of faith groups across Long Beach who work together to put our various faiths in action. All of our faith traditions demand that we love our neighbors and seek compassion and justice like many others who are here today. I am standing with the women and men working in Long Beach hotels and asking that you adopt the Hotel Workplace Initiative Ordinance without alteration. Tonight, my faith has taught me that all work has dignity and deserves respect. My faith community demonstrates that each of us has the right to live, work and living and provide for our families . And we have the right to do so in a work environment that is safe and free from harassment and abuse. I support the workers who keep the Long Beach tourism industry alive and thriving. There are few to no protections that exist for them while they work increasingly heavy workloads and are at high risk of sexual assault. We have heard their stories. I believe them. When incidents of assaults do occur, hotel workers often stay silent out of fear because they want to keep their jobs, they want to keep their families fed. And the hotel culture often says that the paying customer is always right. An industry and city that tolerate any conditions of fear, abuse, assault and harassment of its residents cannot thrive. We in Long Beach Sacred Resistance, feel we have a moral obligation to act in support of our hotel workers. We cannot remain silent when the health, prosperity and safety of our neighbors and friends are at risk. Please adopt the ordinance to protect hotel workers tonight. Please do that right thing and grant these workers the respect and protection they deserve for the hard labor they do to make Long Beach an attractive and desirable destination. Especially tonight, when the whole nation celebrates National Night out. Please make sure all your constituents feel safe. Passing this ordinance is your and our opportunity to show what is special and admirable and just about Long Beach. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. City Council members and mayor. My name's. Going. Down. Guess who figured out I was short? My name is Neda Tushnet. And tonight I'm representing the Long Beach Area Peace Network. Robopine stands with Hart, stands here today with our hospitality workers. The city needs to protect our hospitality workers from. Sexual and physical harassment and assault at work. In order for there to be peace, we must take a. Prospering economy and have a safe community. Today, we are asking for just that through the ordinance to protect women. Long Beach City Council has an opportunity to help hotel workers obtain much needed protections in the. Workplace for a peaceful society to function. Workers must have dignity, a fair workload and the ability to go to work without being abused. 46,000 Long Beach. Residents agree our workers need protection. Please adopt the initiative tonight. This is the moment. Time's up. Do the right thing and stand by. The working women in our city. Protect our. Workers, our. Residents and our tourist economy. I know you will find in your heart to do the right thing. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Mary Garcia and members of the City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a public comment this evening. My name is Justin Lawson and I'm a second District resident and board member of the Long Beach Young Democrats. I'm here today to read a letter in support of the passage of the ordinance to Protect Women on behalf of the four Long Beach Democratic clubs. The letter reads On behalf of the Democratic Women's Study Club of Long Beach, the Long Beach Democratic Club. The Young, Long Beach, Young Democrats and the Long Beach. Yes, we can club. We urge you to support the passage of the ordinance. Protect Women are four very active Democratic clubs have endorsed this ordinance. Our memberships, our membership has heard the stories of workers, especially women, hotel workers impacted by sexual and physical violence at work. And we support enacting these protections in the city of Long Beach. We are now asking our City Council to enact into law the protection. This for you effort has called for Long Beach residents have spoken. The effort the effort to qualify this measure for the November ballot garnered over 46,000 signatures, a resounding number that communicates broad support for these much needed protections in the workplace. Passing this measure outright will save the city from an unnecessary, potentially divisive fight. It is also the Democratic thing to do. This ordinance is in line with our democratic values, and we call on our leaders here protect particularly our Democratic leaders, to vote with the hundreds of members of our local Democratic clubs and pass the ordinance to protect women tonight. At the very least, you must listen to the voters and allow them to vote on this ordinance in November. Anything short of that would be undemocratic. I on behalf of her, Linda Chico, president of the Democratic Women's Study Club. Annette Martin President The Long Beach Democratic Club. Chris Robson President of the Yes We Can Club, and Chris Chavez, president of the Long Beach Young Democrats urged the city council to support this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Mr. Mayor, members of the city council. My name is Victor Sanchez. I'm the director of the Long Beach Coalition for Good Jobs in a Healthy Community. You know, our coalition has been involved in this issue since day one, about four years ago. And I think if you ask a lot of the folks that were there at the beginning, I don't think any of you would have thought that they'd be here almost four years later. Still litigating this issue before you. Last September was pretty gut wrenching. The measure was voted down 5 to 4. And, you know, I can tell you there are a lot of tears in the eyes of the hotel workers themselves and the community members that fought so hard to get it to that point. Unfortunately, Long Beach missed an opportunity last September because two weeks later you had the rise of the MeToo and Time's Up movement, which really skyrocketed this issue onto the national stage and put the impetus for action around sexual harassment and assault. Front and center is in the lives of a lot of residents. It re-inspired our workers and our community members to actually go back out onto the street and to collect signatures to make sure that this issue was heard. Here in Long Beach, we went out there, volunteers seven days a week to collect over 46,000 signatures, as was mentioned by the city clerk, more than the 41,000 people that turned out to vote this last local election. I just want to underscore that point. 46,000 people signed this petition. 41,000 people turned out to vote this last election. We did work. We sweat it out. And we talked to lots of voters who agree with us overwhelmingly that this is not only the right thing to do, it's the commonsense thing to do. When you ask voters, well, what do you mean, they don't have these protections? No, they actually don't. And you hear a lot from the industry here today that I'll tell you. Well, these are burdensome regulations and we don't need this is going to have a negative impact on the industry. The hotel and tourism industry here in Long Beach is thriving and there are many actions by this city council to support that industry's continued growth because it is important for economic development. But what we have to do is raise the bar in the industry. We have to look out for the blue collar immigrant majority, immigrant women of color workforce, right? That is in the hotel, tourism industry and sector. And they, too, are residents. They too contribute to this economy. And so it's important that we take all that into account when we're thinking about raising the bar for our government. We should also be mindful raising the bar in this very important industry. We should not be debating whether or not it's okay for somebody, somebody to be working to death, just like Claudio Sanchez almost was working to death when she fell into a coma after being forced to work in overtime shift. These are basic questions we should not be asking ourselves. You have before you a golden opportunity to enact the will of the people. I hope that you all consider that. And vote to enact Claudia's law here tonight. Okay. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon. Good evening, Mayor. Council members. My name is Mike Murchison. I represent the hotels and hospitality industry with you tonight. I want to clarify something for you. It's been said by the previous speakers there was 46,000 signatures collected. That's true. Of the 46,000. 12,000 were invalid. So you can verify that with the clerk. So I just want to make sure that everybody statistically knows what numbers they're talking about. Secondly, I've been coming to council meetings for over 20 years, having worked for supervisor ding, ding, and then Don Carnaby then on my own. And every time I come on a Tuesday night at the very end of an agenda item, it says, What's the fiscal analysis of every single agenda item? And on this one, there is no fiscal analysis. The hospitality industry told you back in September of 2017 that their best guess at that point in time, 3.5 million annually to the hotels. It didn't even take into account what the impact is going to be here, said City General Fund. It didn't take into account the bed tax potential impact. It didn't take into account. You're going to have to either form a new department, add personnel on Tuesday by taking this into account. So here's my recommendation to you tonight. My recommendation to you tonight is do an economic impact study. If you don't want to do that and you don't want to make it for a you don't want to push that forward and you want to push forward to put it on the November ballot. Not going to argue with you about that tonight. What I will say is you still got to do an economic impact study and you should come back in 30 days and you should tell all the voters of Long Beach, including everybody in here tonight, this is what the economic impact is to our city. And then on top of that, if you're concerned about assault and I've heard it, Councilwoman Pearce has made me very well aware of the unreported assaults. Then next Tuesday, August 14th, pass an ordinance, immediately an emergency ordinance to have every hotel, not the one, the petitions that says only 100 room hotels. We know why that's there. Every hotel gets a panic button past that next Tuesday night. Don't wait till November. And so then you get an economic impact report back and you have what you're concerned about, which is the assault with panic buttons. Then you can give a really prudent evaluation of whether you need to carry this forward in November. If that's your case, whether you want to make it law that night, you can vote in it lor you. You're the leaders. You don't have to wait till November. Push it forward. Then you vote for it or push it off till March 2020. Police have the information in front of you to evaluate the economic impact and to protect the hotel worker. Do the panic button next Tuesday night. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Michael Sole, author. I am president of the Board of Trustees at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Long Beach, which has served the Long Beach community for over 100 years. And I was doing the math looking at the SEAL found incorporated in 1897. The church was the. City was only six years old when my church was formed. So we've been here for the long haul. I'm here tonight in support, in solidarity with my siblings who work in Long Beach Hotels. And I ask the members. Of the city council to be in solidarity and support, too. I have talked with and heard the stories from hotel workers. One of them came to my door gathering petition signatures. Not only must they complete heavy workloads, but women are also at unacceptable risk of sexual assault. As the MeToo movement has made painfully clear. Society too often devalues and disrespects the bodily integrity of women. And in the hotels of Long Beach, there is an unjustified lack of protection in place for them. Whether you are a person of faith or no faith, I would hope you would agree with the principles my faith has taught me to have respect for the inherent worth and dignity of all people, to believe in justice, equity and compassion in human relations. That means our hotel workers absolutely deserve protections to earn a living with dignity and without fear of sexual harassment or assault. It's time they receive the respect they deserve for their contributions to our community and that we protect them from physical and sexual abuse. Many of the people in the chamber behind me knocked on doors in every neighborhood of this city to bring this matter to the citizens of Long Beach and then to bring it to you. They received resounding support. I'll concede. 36,000. Only 36,000. Only 36. 36,000 people signed signatures to put this before you well over the threshold required to put this before you. Now is the time to respond to the will of my faith community, your constituents, and do the right thing. Please pass this ordinance to protect hotel workers. Thank you. Thank you. Next, the. Mayor and council members. Thank you. My name is Coriander. I'm one of the owners of a hotel up by the airport, the Hampton Inn and Homewood Suites. We have enjoyed our experience in Long Beach. We built the Courtyard Hotel up there as well. We care deeply about our employees. We have 17 employees in our current hotel, 30 that live in Long Beach. We spend a lot of time helping them, training them, creating a culture that is rewarding for them. They work their tails off. We respect them. This the the safety portion of this initiative we are in support of with everybody here. Frankly, at our hotel, we do two person teams in addition to the panic buttons. Where is that? I think we can do better. Not only for the housekeepers, but for all the employees. All the employees. So we continue to work on training. We we communicate constantly with police, the safety commission. We should continue that. We should work together. You guys up here in previous councils have accomplished a ton that that budget presentation was phenomenal. I mean, very exciting. I've been here almost seven years now. There's huge progress going on, but that requires investment. The portion of this initiative that is not right is the restrictions. That doesn't inspire growth. That doesn't it's not really fair that it's only on one set. Not everybody should be all hotels if it's good to do. It should be all hotels. So this is a this is a very complex issue. This is a long term issue. It's not short term. The economic study will tell us a lot. It's not a delay tactic. It's the prudent thing to do. Just like your budget analysis, you're running a $3 billion business here. That is complicated. You can't force things to do it. The people will get their vote. They have spoken. There's no issue with any of that. But we we can do better than what we're doing on the safety portion, in the economic portion. You need to be very careful because if I think there could be negative impact to the employees. From a wage perspective, if there's only two things that happen hotels are doing, they're going to have to raise rates, which makes us less competitive in the general Southern California market, where they're going to have to cut expenses. That doesn't help anybody. You've got investment going on here. You're doing great in the city. So let's take time. Let's focus together everybody in this room focus together to come up with the right solution. Do not rush this. 2020 is okay. It's okay. We can come up with a better solution. What? All right. Good evening, Vice Mayor. And city council members. My name is Gary Hetrick. I reside in the fourth district. And I just want to start by saying I and to a large. Degree, I agree with the previous speaker. We need to start someplace we can do better and we need to start with this particular war. And so I urge you to adopt this tonight. This can set the standard where we can build from. Beyond that point, I also want to to to to take a minute to think about this notion that somehow it's a zero sum game. Either we we cut expenses, we cut wages, we reduce. Wages or benefits, or we raise the. Rates, the hotels, the rooms. And we know that's that's there are many other options. We've seen that with living wage ordinance. We've seen that with many of these regulations throughout the years that business owners do and make very different kinds of decisions. It's not an either or situation. So I also want to put that to rest. I also want to. Raise the issue that. We can kick this can down the road over and over and over and over again. We can ask for more studies. We can ask more studies. It's time for us to to sort of it's time for us to make a decision tonight. We could have Long Beach could have been on the forefront. We could have set the the agenda for the country two months before the MeToo movement. We failed. We didn't do that. We can now we have a chance to make that right. And I urge all of you to do the right thing tonight, protect working women and in our city, pass this ordinance to protect women. And I urge you to do it outright tonight. And let's not waiting longer in people's lives. People's health is at stake. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Hetrick. Nick Speaker. Good evening. My name is Reverend John Forest. Douglas and I serve as the Associate Minister at First Congregational Church. In Long Beach. Just a few blocks away from here tonight. I represent. I also represent thousands. Of faith leaders. And congregations in Long Beach and the greater L.A. area. Through Clergy and laity United for Economic Justice. And I'm standing here with my. Siblings who work in Long Beach hotels. And bear witness to their stories. As a pastor in Long Beach, I have heard so many of these stories of workers. And I know that you council members and and Mayor, that you have heard these stories as well. And so I invite you also to bear witness to the stories by doing justice. It is not acceptable. That. They are being. Silenced when incidents. Of assault happen. It's not. Acceptable that wealthy hotels and developers. Retaliate against workers when they share their stories of harassment. It's not acceptable that workers voices are often silenced. And so you have the opportunity. To magnify those voices, to also. Stand and bear witness. We can't remain silent and turn a. Blind eye to the struggle of our hotel. Workers any longer. We have a moral. Obligation to act. And pass this ordinance to protect hotel workers. From sexual and. Physical abuse. So council members, tonight, I invite you I ask you to use the power that you have to make history in our. City and ensure. That safe working. Conditions for the workers in Long Beach hotels. Thank you. Thank you. And just like we did for the for the hearing earlier past council meetings, I believe this is our 15th speaker. So after a 15 speaker will automatically go down to 2 minutes. Okay. Honorable Mayor, members of the city council and city staff. My name is Amy Ericson. I'm a lifelong concerned citizen in District two and also the chair of the Human Relations Commission here in our city. I am here as a member of the Commission to read you a letter that the Commission has come together in just the last nine days to bring it in front of you. Tonight, the Human Relations Commission supports the recommendation listed on agenda item number 28 for this Council meeting. The purpose and function of the Human Relations Commission is to promote full acceptance of all citizens in the community, in all aspects of community life, to recommend to city council measures, including legislation which will serve to improve positive human relations and the elimination of discriminatory practices, and to enhance and improve mutual understanding and respect for all citizens of the community. It is in this context that the Human Relations Commission placed the topic of addressing abuse experienced by hotel workers on our agenda back in August of 2017. This is also why we're here today to ask the Council to adopt the initiative ordinance tonight with no further action needed. Over the last few years, our Commission has learned that there's an extremely distinct set of circumstances related to hotel work that concern. The safety of hotel workers like hotel workers also report inhumane working conditions related to workload shift links and an inability to refuse overtime without fear of retaliation. Worker testimony suggests the current policy in many local hotels is inadequate in addressing issues related to safety. Following careful consideration of our charter and purview as well as community testimony, we have determined that increased legal protections for hotel workers is crucial to ensuring a safe working environment within Long Beach hotels working within the framework of equity. Our Commission believes that all people tied to the hotel industry should benefit from its economic impact. At a bare minimum, employees in the hotel hotel industry are deserving of basic human dignity. It is in this light that we urge the Council to support the recommendation listed on agenda item number 28. To summarize, in brief, the recommendation calls to approve one of the three alternative actions. We believe that should be the first. As over 40,000 votes were verified for this position. This is almost the amount of this is more than the amount of people in support of this item as voted in our last election here in the city of Long Beach. Please adopt the initiative ordinance without alteration at this regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented to Knight, the Human Relations Commission submits this recommendation again with the hope and vision of Long Beach, where our city continues to embrace values of justice, equity, respect and dignity for all residents. I may take off my commission hat for a second and just say as a consensus. And Amy Erikson, we've heard a lot about economic impact tonight and the economic impact of doing something right is the important thing here. The economic impact of making sure that we are on the right side of these issues is very important to me as a citizen of this amazing town. And so it's important that we think about places that did things wrong. Like the Carolinas with the bathroom options to really think about how we can do this right and pay a little bit more. Thank you. Thanks so much, Sexton. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the city council. My name is Kenya Bannister. I'm the general manager of the Courtyard Marriott Hotel by the airport. I've stood before you guys on two previous occasions to review the hotel safety reports and the work that the Long Beach hotels are doing daily to ensure the safety of our employees and our guest. You've heard other people say it. We are not here to dispute the safety of our hotel employees. I. Born and raised in Long Beach. I've been in hospitality 20 plus years and I can tell you I go to work every single day and that is my goal, is to keep every single employee in my hotel safe , not just my housekeepers, but every employee. As you know, the Alliance hotels already provide the panic buttons. And we and we also do our monthly safety meetings and trainings to prepare people, all associates, for any situation that will arise. The proposed Hotel Workforce Initiative disregards the safety measures that are already in place. And they proven forget all that. But this audience has the same flaws as the one that was previously rejected by the Council last September. The financial impact of this initiative on the city of Long Beach is unknown to many. The hotels already have heavily regulated. Initiatives in place by the state and the federal government. And we can tell you that arbitrary regulations such as those proposed by this initiative would be extremely costly and burdensome. The additional cost for the hotels. As we previously said, to implement these regulations would cause room rates to rise across Long Beach, which would have a ripple effect on the entire hospitality industry and local businesses and ultimately the city's tax revenue. The proposed initiative, unfortunately, has little to do with the safety that we keep hearing about. And it's unnecessary. And the cost. The cost would do us more harm than good. Our safety measures, including our current panic buttons, are in place and they are working. There is no evidence that further safety measures are required or needed. If this was only about safety, as we all say, we would all be supportive. But the question is if this is good for the entire hotel, why are some opted out? Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Cesar Armendariz, and I live in the second district. I believe that Claudius Law is at the heart of the conversations that we are having as a nation. Conversations about sexual harassment and economic exploitation. When the President of the United States brags about groping women, you know that we are in trouble. We cannot ignore the fact that a majority of women in the United States have been sexually harassed. This is even more problematic in the hospitality industry, where studies have shown that up to nine out of ten women have experienced sexual harassment in the form of unwanted sexual comments unwelcome, touching, groping, cornering and physical intimidation. The hotel workers in Seattle and New York have made it clear that panic buttons have helped them feel safer, and in some instances they have saved lives. Claudius Law can do that for the women of Long Beach. Claudius Law goes beyond sexual exploitation and addresses the economic exploitation of women that we are seeing all around the United States. These women work long hours vacuuming, lifting £100 mattresses, carrying heavy linens, pushing and pulling carts, getting on their knees to scrub toilets and bathroom floors. They repeat this process 20 times a day. This results in injuries. The American Journal of Industrial Medicine found that 47% of hotel workers have serious body injuries and 84% have to take pain medicine. These women cannot simply find other jobs. For many of them, this is the end of the line. They already work in one of the lowest paying industries. Those of you who vote against this ordinance or delay the vote will have to spend an exponential amount of political capital trying to justify your vote. I promise you, the grassroots community will come together and we will knock on tens of thousands of doors. You might fail to protect our most vulnerable workers, but we won't. Time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Stephanie Moore, some sullo democratic socialists of Long Beach. I live in the second district. The hold up in the hotel industry is heavily subsidized by public finances and is a permanent fixture of the city. If the corporations who are appearing here today feel that the health and safety of their employees is not financially feasible, then leave and allow the public to operate these buildings for the benefit of the city and the workers who are responsible for generating all the revenue. Will these companies siphon millions of dollars every single year from visitors? Their respective CEO's and board members. Are among some of the wealthiest people on the planet. They can afford the finest lobbyists in Long Beach in addition to their already well compensated government affairs department. But they can't afford to pay for basic statutory worker protections. Come on. Worried about the fiscal impact of this ordinance? Fine. But be aware that this is a compensable externality that this industry is laying on their workers in the city of Juan Beach. If you don't enact this measure tonight, then cover the cost and raise the hotel occupancy tax on these cheapskates. These folks are worried about profitability. Well, then why aren't they supporting rent stabilization and housing and rent control that places appropriate regulations on their main competitor, Airbnb? Pass Claudia's law today. Explain to your children why you prioritize campaign donations from the hospitality industry over preventing sexual assault in Long Beach. Thank you. The next speaker, please. Next speaker. Good evening. My name's Alvin Engle. I'm from the West Side, Long Beach, District seven. And also I am a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. I'm a senior in Lakewood High School. And today I stand here in solidarity for the help of the hospitality of the workers. During my time in the Philippines, I've seen the issues of what we call the free market. What I want is a free market to protect the workers and protect from sexual harassment in this city. I know very well that this city has the assets and the logistics to make this law a reality, to press forward above all , and to protect workers from all forms of harassment and assault. If you believe that our workers to live and let live, then be so. Pass this ordinance. I don't care or give that you wait until 2020 for this proposal. If you're indeed speak, your words mean nothing to me. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Harriet Ellis and I'm here representing Clue Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. And also the Social Action Committee of Temple Israel of Long Beach. Thank you, Mayor Garcia, and council members, for allowing me to speak on behalf of the hotel workers who labor in our prosperous hotel industry. Long Beach is considered the gateway to the Pacific Rim and we have booked well over 200 conventions here this year, and there's more to come. And we are considered a main player in California economy. Each day as I drive into Long Beach, I pass a sign that reads Long Beach, The Friendly City. After last year's meeting in this very room, I started to wonder just how friendly we really are. Friendly, perhaps, to our tourists who may never return. But how about the people who work here? And the first line of greetings to our guests from around the world. Our hotels should be first in line to present the best that we have to offer. But when our workers have to suffer harassment, abuse, sexual assaults, with no one to turn to, no means to call for help, knowing that when they come to work each day, they will labor in an unsafe environment. How can we expect them to put on a smiling face of welcome to the guests of the hotel where they work? I ask you, members of the Council, how would you feel if you had to go to work in such an intolerable situation? Or maybe your wives? Or your daughters? If we're a progressive city, a friendly city is the Chamber of Commerce and our Convention and Entertainment Bureau advertise. Then you should do your duty and stand behind your promotions and pass this ordinance today. Support the workers who, by their actions, help to bring more tourists to our beautiful city. They come to America to work and they're trying hard to do their job well. You've heard tonight from our city manager about what our future holds. Thank you so much. Safety is the part of the picture. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Get down. My name is Linda Fox. I'm a former and retired director of Women's Studies. But I'm here tonight because I am the president of the Long Beach affiliate of the National Council of Jewish Women, a faith based organization founded in 1893. Dedicated to improving the quality of life through social justice activity for women, children and families. The Jewish imperative is to ensure dignity for all. And that is what powers my organization. I'm here representing 350 members of the Long Beach affiliates, standing with our sisters who work in Long Beach hotels. And I ask you to stand with them today, as well as a partner of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. We have heard their stories. We attest to the hardships that they that they face every day on the job. I'm not going to go through what so many have already said. I've been involved with Claudia's law since it began three or four years ago. It's time. Not one sexual assault. Not one physical collapse is worth. The economic cost. Why has the study not been done in three years? So my Jewish faith teaches me that all of us bear the image of God. So if we make an offense to these hotel workers, we make an offense to God. If we turn a blind eye to the struggle of these workers, we do that to God as well. So it's time they that they are dignified and respected in their workplace. I ask you I ask you to please pass this ordinance tonight. Find your moral compass. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Jane Wilson Barbosa. I live in District four. I also represent Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice. And I'm co-chair of the social justice team for the Los Altos United Methodist Church. You've heard a lot of eloquent arguments tonight. And I take you back to an experience that I had when I was quite young, when I worked in the hospitality industry and I experienced sexual harassment, and I experienced the fear, the reluctance to report and the. The loss of dignity and respect that went along with that. Now we have women working, making our hotels work who are far more vulnerable than I ever was. And they deserve the respect that we can give them tonight by passing this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your story. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi. Good evening. Mayor and City Council and staff. I'm Greg Keebler, a resident of Long Beach and the GM of the Hilton for five years in the Queen Mary. Prior to that, I'm going to cut my comments a little short because I echo so many things of almost everyone that I heard speak tonight. The issue before us is how do we unravel all of that. That is put into an ordinance and do the right thing? I absolutely support Michael Merchant since suggestion to disconnect this. We all believe in me too. And housekeepers, safety and doing the things to keep people safe. This is my 36th year. I've had over 22,000 associates directly in my employ. I care. We don't call our people workers. In the hotel business. We call them team members. And that's a totally different justification. You guys make sure everyone everyone gets a chance to speak, please. They don't work for us. They are team members. We're all in this together. I do daily stand ups with my housekeepers and we talk about housekeepers safety. We issue their panic buttons at the beginning of the day. We pull them back at the end of the day so they don't forget them. The next the real thing to consider is let's separate this, get the safety panic buttons done, and we can all be celebrate that together. And then just as you said tonight, we need to know what the resultant outcome of this is. Every action has an opposite, an equal reaction. We cannot determine right now what that reaction is going to be, both financially, economically and sociologically to our employees. The way this ordinance is written and I have read it and I know that 46,000 people did not read the entire ordinance. They saw a sign that said Vote for housekeepers safety and they signed it. I would, too. The actual ordinance says 4000 square feet per room per day dropped 500 square feet for more than seven checkouts, dropped 500 more square feet. If they do a roll away, if they work overtime, it has to be with their consent. If they go over 4000 square feet, it's double time. For every hour they work that day. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. Okay, next speaker, please. Hello, Mayor and City Council. My name is Clayton Hurd, a field representative for Congressman Alan Lowenthal, and I'd like to read the following letter on his behalf. Dear Mayor Garcia and members of the Long Beach City Council, I write to express my support for the passage of the ordinance to protect women. The time has come to enact into law the protections this four year effort has called for. As I'm sure you have, I also have heard the stories of these workers for years. And although the national dialog is only recently focused on the struggle of working women against workplace sexual harassment and abuse, hotel workers in Long Beach have been on the front lines, ensuring we do more than just experts express empathy and understanding the working conditions of the employees of the hospitality industry must be improved. This is an issue that we that is clearly, widely and deeply supported by our constituents and calls us to act accordingly. We should not wait. The City of Long Beach should. Be a leader. In ensuring safe and humane workplaces in our growing tourism sector. I urge you to stand with the working women and men of our Long Beach Hotel workforce and to enact into law the ordinance to protect women. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Translating. And then all the translations will have double time. Mary Garcia. City Council members. Good afternoon. When I. Started this. I mean numerous Julio Martinez. You throw a whole renaissance Long Beach Hotel. Good afternoon, Mayor. City Council members. My name is Julio Martinez and I work in the Renaissance Language Hotel. I keep it up. The hill is passing. Esther. Leroy. I'm here to ask you to pass this law up tonight. Jamaicans everywhere. Mm. Companeros. I'm tired of seeing my coworkers so scared. Which us versus José is quite shallow. Clint Eastwood. Tonight, Academies, Companeros de tobacco brought the enemy of LA. I have heard many stories of. Guests trying to grope my female coworkers. But they're very scared to speak out. Your medical. When I was MC companero in control. So sweater and a piece of Albano generally seven. I remember one time my coworker told me she found. Her sweater on the floor of the. Public men's restroom. In the hotel full of semen. A companero for a rapporteur and a supervisor at Paraiso. So it's really a common safe word. When I was Roma. My coworker then went to report to her supervisor. And they laughed at her as if it were a joke. Rumors and theories that. Say We're doing a triangle. We just want to be safe at work. Courtesy work. He made Siento Camille Pueblo pretzel not on bottom. He said, Well, dear Sir Aparecida, he made a comment that. I want to know. That if I feel unsafe. At work, I just push a button and security will be right there. You know caramel star Camille passing Mr. Leroy Brussels. And we don't want to feel like we have to. Work with fear anymore. Please pass this love right now. That's just another. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Emmanuel, a resident of Long Beach and the secretary general of Gabriel South Bay. We are a grassroots, grassroots Filipino women's organization that seek to raise the voices and stories of women, children and migrant families in our community. One of our campaigns that we support is to end violence against women. It has been apparent for years that women all over the world, including Filipinos, experience economic violence that causes poverty, which forces our women to migrate abroad, subjecting them to physical violence and potential sexual harassment and violence as well. And these are experiences in places like hotels where they are workers there. I feel frustrated that the well-being of the people is not a more is not more of a priority, that profit is greater than the people who make the city what it is. What is profit when the people living and working in your city are being harassed, overworked and underpaid? Do not continue to build the city on the pain of the workers. Gabrielle in South Bay stands in solidarity with the hotel workers and not only their fight for better working conditions, but their safety. It is only right that we stand together to make what is LA reality. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. City Council and Maria Garcia. My name is Katherine Conchita and I'm a resident of the ninth district. I am also the vice chairperson of Gabriela South Bay chapter of Gabriela USA, which is which is a grassroots space alliance of more than 200 organizations, institutions and programs of women from the Philippines struggling for the liberation of oppressed Filipino women. And we stand in solidarity with all oppressed women, including our local hotel workers, demanding their right to a safe workplace. The majority of women who work in our hotels are immigrants who came to this country, to our city, seeking a chance at a better life, a chance to provide for their families. Much like my mother did back in 1971, one of her first jobs in California was as a housekeeper for a nursing home, where she worked in constant fear of sexual harassment by her employer, who frequently made aggressive advances toward her. My mother's cousin, who also worked at the nursing home, would stand guard at the door of each room where my mother scrubbed floors on her hands and knees. My mother later went on to work for the Long Beach Unified School District for almost 20 years. But she never forgot the fear. She lived in working as a housekeeper. So I stand here tonight for my mother, for immigrants, and for all of the brave hotel workers who are here to say, Time's up. Prove that you stand with women and pass the ordinance now to protect our hotel workers. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Mike Bowers. I'm a district member or constituent of the first. I came tonight for the housing item, but I worked for Marriott for five years, actually, six years at five different properties, three in D.C. and two out here. And I was a manager, so non union member I sat across from Unite here, toeing the company line at union grievances, at federal mediations and all sorts of things. And I really want to talk about how hotels can afford this, right? I ordered things. I handle the piano like I scheduled. I looked at productivity. Hotels can't afford this, so it's outrageous that they say that they can't. Additionally, I worked at hotels that had multi double digit million dollar profit margins right at the end of the year. So that's ridiculous. I'm paying for overtime for cleaning 4000 square feet. I'd like to see anybody else strip rooms for double digit years of tenure. It's ridiculous that they're not willing to pay this. The alarm devices. I worked at five hotels. One of my hotels had them, one of them out of five. These are people's moms, sisters, daughters, loved ones. So if you're opposed to this, think about that. That's who you're who you're really preventing. Additionally, why not be the council member to lobby support for this? Why not be the one to step out and talk to your other council members about this, be the one? And additionally, the hotel tax. When you look at the bottom of a folio that's off the backs of housekeepers, that's a lot of money that the city's getting from that. Okay. And on top of that, I looked at the rate for the for the Long Beach Renaissance tonight, and it's sold out. So hotels are making a lot of money in the city. And additionally, housekeepers are going to clean those rooms. And those rooms can be resold tomorrow for 249 tonight. So this is this is a moral and ethical question, which you guys are posed with. And countless times you guys have failed already. So please act on this. Thank you very much. Next week, a piece. Hi, everybody. My name's Adam. I live right on the street on Broadway at Fort Kent. I'm here today with a clue. Clergy and Laity, United for Economic Justice. And I, I'm here standing today with the women who work in our hotels here in Long Beach. And before I actually start my remarks, I just want to say that I was a little bit disappointed during this. This has been a lengthy discussion. It's been overly lengthy. And one thing that's been disappointing is, is to see many, not all, but many of the men councilmen on this earth, on this proscenium today staring at their phones instead of paying attention to the amazing stories and passion. And it's just yeah, pretty ridiculous. So but I just want to say, you know, I was very impressed. It's my first time at the city hall down here and I was very impressed with the budget proposal today. I just want to remind everybody how much of the revenue underwriting this budget would be coming directly from a sweat, blood and sacrifice of the women working in hotels here in Long Beach. They are and they are an immense source of the wealth in our city. And today they are the voice of our conscience. This country is finally having the sober, long overdue conversation about the rights of women to have a safe workplace. It's a crazy it's a crazy thing that we have to even say that that women deserve a safe workplace. But we're saying it anyways, because there are people today who are standing against it, who have been delaying this, who have been putting it down, who have been crying, that the sky is falling, the sky is not falling, our city will be better for it. The women in our city will be better for it. The employees will be better for the hotels, we'll be better for it. We ask you to do the right thing tonight and to respect the dignity and strength of these women and all women in Long Beach by passing the women's ordinance to protect all hotel workers, we cannot remain silent anymore. We have a moral imperative to act. Thank you. Thank you, captain of a supernova. I'm sorry, sir. I just saw a note. That's wrong. Next speaker. Good evening. Wayne Murchison, Second District. And surprisingly enough, I agree with Mike Murchison. All hotels should have panic buttons. That's also the minimum of safety that they're offering. It's also a tax write off. It's a one off tax write off. Doesn't cost the cost them four years. Smart hotels would get them walkie talkies. Then they're in communication with their staff. Makes their staff more efficient. That's also a write off. The the panic buttons kind of a give the dog a bone measure. They'll go away for the rest of it. Remember, measure in chamber of commerce and the hotel industry moaned business would be hurt, would affect tourism. That wasn't so. Hotels are full, huh? I feel the hotels retaliated. Measuring by laying off staff and heaped more. Work on workers. But they can't physically do more work. So that means perhaps the rooms aren't getting as clean as they would be if they were given a chance to properly clean them. You want to stay in those rooms? Okay, that's it. Thanks. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Jacob Ingram, member resident of the second District and member of Democratic Socialists of America Long Beach Chapter. The people in support of this ordinance have explained the economic component better than I ever could shout out Stephan. But it is a simple matter of a woman was worked into a coma. Based on the current working conditions that Long Beach hotels currently can subject their workers to, and then to address the signature gathering clips that some of the people opposing this ordinance tonight, 46,000 signatures, however you slice it, valid or invalid, probably gets you elected mayor in the city of Long Beach. And that and then just to voice support again pass it tonight as is to entertain either of the other options is straight up cowardly. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker, please. Good afternoon. My name is Viviana Lagunas. I am a social worker here in Long Beach. I work with the severe mentally ill. A lot of the clients that I work with are struggling with different mental health issues such as PTSD, depression and anxiety due to past experiences of sexual trauma, rape, violence, harassment. And on a personal note, my mom, she's been in the hospitality industry for her entire life, and she, too, was a survivor of sexual assault on the job. She to experience feelings of shame, isolation, shock, confusion and guilt. So you passing Claudia's law outright tonight will not only help prevent mental health issues, but it would help to start that healing process for those working women who are living with trauma and distress. You would be making a statement of I believe you and time's up. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, members of the council. I apologize. I wasn't really planning on speaking tonight, but I heard some things today where I felt I just had to come up and speak my truth. And I want to really highlight the story of someone who's close to me, a family member whose story gets to the heart of everything that we're talking about here tonight. She worked in the hotel industry for years. She was overly worked. She lifted heavy mattress after heavy mattress after heavy mattress for hours on end and for years on end. And she now has a permanent disability that prevents it from really struggling to find work for a part time basis. So those who argue about economic benefits, what's the cost to her? Okay. Secondly, she was sexually assaulted on that job. Now imagine that's your mother or your sister or your cousin or a woman who's close to you or you yourself, because it can happen to men as well, where a man decided thought he was cute. Decided to disrobe and approach it from behind while she was cleaning the room. Now imagine someone you care about is standing there. Fearless, fearful, has at the mercy of this person with no one to call and is at his back in whatever he wants to do. That's what we're talking about tonight. And if people want to get up here and they want to say that protecting a woman like her is going to cause economic catastrophe for this industry, well, that's a whopper that Burger King would be jealous of. But for you all and people who think like that and want to make stand publicly and say that that I can't stand for her. Well, guess what? Time's up for you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, everyone. My name's Christine Pettit, and I still live in the sixth district. I mainly wanted to share some perspective from 2012 when I was a coauthor and community supporter of the ballot measure that increase the minimum wage for hospitality workers in Long Beach as larger hotels which receive taxpayer subsidies. There was a lot of talk from the chamber and the industry then that the increase would drive away hospitality dollars and hurt our tourism economy. The gentleman, a few speakers earlier took the words out of my mouth. It was the sky is falling. The sky is falling over and over. But the hand-wringing was unfounded then, as it is now. Our hospitality industry is stronger than ever, and its future looks very promising. This does not need an economic study, and it is absolutely without a question, a delay tactic. So if you are in any way entertaining that, just be honest about that. There are interests that don't want to see it before the voters. Now, not really in 2020 either, or really ever. When people signed this petition, it was with the understanding that they'd have a chance to see change this year, and a lot of them are disappointed that they haven't seen change earlier. Why not tonight? You had the opportunity to do the right thing last year, and this is something I know voters support. 64% of voters supported the minimum wage increase then, and I know this item will enjoy a similar support. I volunteered one of those hot Saturdays to collect signatures in Cal Heights and people readily signed and expressed support. This was a no brainer to them, as I would hope it would be for you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Good evening, everybody. My name is Jonathan Solorzano and I am a resident of the ninth District and the senior community organizer with the Limited American Rights Coalition, a member of the Sanctuary Long Beach Coalition. And I am here today to express my support for passing Claudia's law outright without changes. As a community organizer, I've heard firsthand the testimony of immigrant women who share their fears of harassment from strangers. I'm sure you've also heard your share of horrendous stories from these workers, many of whom are constituents of your districts. We've been hearing news lately of migrant women from all over the world reporting sexual assault and abuse by CBP and ICE officers while they they're unjustly detained in these detention centers. And the last thing we would come to expect would be for these workers to experience harassment and abuse in the one place they would least expected their workplace. Yet you're in action back in September. Has a lot for this behavior to continue in our very city. As a body who has voted in favor of pro-immigrant policies such as SB 54 and the Language Values Act. I urge you tonight to carry that momentum and send a clear message to the immigrant working class community in this city that this body supports them and their safety by voting in favor of this ordinance. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Derek Smith. I'm the political director for Unite Here Local 11. And in the midst of all this emotionally charged testimony, I'm going to throw some numbers at you. We gathered 46,000 signatures, 26,000 more gathered at the stores, and 20,000 were gathered door to door. These are face to face conversations. People at their doors. We had. 175 community volunteers and 150 people who came off their hotel shifts to volunteer, even accounting for Mr. Morrison's 12,000 voters who ultimately did not qualify because they weren't registered to vote. I implore you to consider that these are still residents of your city. 46,000 signatures doesn't come by accident. It wasn't a fluke. It wasn't because we tricked people. It was because this is an immensely popular idea. I provided all of you with a polling memo that attests to this very fact. 79% of people think it's time to pass this law. This crosses district lines. It crosses ethnic lines. It crosses gender lines across party lines. This is a popular idea. By continuing to stand with hotels that want to obstruct and delay this idea. You run a very grave risk of being very out of step with your city. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. I'm sorry. Before and also before I keep going, I just to make sure there's other speakers that are not in this on the list. I want to I'm going to close the speakers close pretty soon. So please get in line if you have not yet spoke. Okay. I'm going to close the speakers list next speaker. Good evening, council members. Thank you very much for providing me the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Edgar Ortiz and I am with the Long Beach Coalition for Clean Jobs and Healthy Communities. A lot has been said this evening about how this ordinance would be a detriment to the hospitality industry. However, I would like to point out two conflicting things that have been noted by some of the speakers in the audience today. On one hand, they say that the lack of an economic impact report creates a lot of ambiguity. Yet, on the other hand, they seem so certain that the passage of this ordinance would create ruinous economic impacts for the industry. Well, I think that for a city that has been called one of the largest ports and busiest ports in the world, in addition to the eastern capital of the Pacific Rim, I am very inclined to believe that the incorporation of these very reasonable and commonsensical safety mechanisms can be very easily absorbed by the city and this industry. But that's not the primary thing we're talking about today. What we're talking about today is the very real and lasting damages that take place in the hospitality industry that impact people who we consider our grandmothers , our aunts, our sisters, our daughters and our mothers. I myself have worked have walked the city several weekends over the past couple of months, speaking with citizens of the city. And they very much believe in the and the importance of having such an ordinance in order to safeguard our most vulnerable and marginalized communities. And so I call on the members who are here today to not be left behind by history. And if you truly believe in social justice and supporting our workers, then it's going to require a renewed and rigorous commitment to their safety, which you have the opportunity to do here tonight by passing the ordinance without alteration. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And I will be closing the speakers list. So I just want to make sure the speakers list is closed. Okay. All right. Last call. All right, good speaker. Good evening. My name's Netty Soto. I am a Long Beach hotel worker. And Teresita here is my colleague. She cannot tell you what happened to her, but I'm going to tell you what I know. In February 2016, Teresita, another woman worker of the Renaissance Long Beach Hotel, obtained a temporary restraining order against a supervisor who they reported sexually harassed them and threatened to retaliate against them or anyone that would report his conduct. Teresita and other women worker then filed a lawsuit against the Renaissance in Long Beach, Marriott International, and the supervisor. The suit alleged claims for assault, battery, sexual battery, sexual harassment and other gender discrimination, among other causes of action. According to court records, the party settled the lawsuit last year, but the terms of the settlement agreement agreement are not public. And since it seems like their setai has not been able to talk about it, I have to assume that there is a silence clause in the settlement agreement. Neither Teresita or the other workers are still at the Renaissance. But the Renaissance in Long Beach continues to employ the man who reported who they reported that harassed them. It is so difficult for women to talk about sexual assault already, especially when we see stories like what happened to Teresita at the Long Beach Renaissance. He is still there. And Teresita. I'm her voice. I feel that the hotels protect their guest over the workers, just like the Renaissance continues to employ the manner that a sitter reported harassed her. That's why I ask you to pass this initiative now. Protect the whole work, the hotel workers. Now, you had an opportunity to do so last year and you failed. It is time to break the silence. You can make history today. Don't wait until another Time magazine report comes out. We and the Silent Breakers art directors voice. And we are the workers voice of Long Beach. We say no more. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. My name is Guatemala. Housekeeping in Long Beach. Silence Breaker 2017 time person. Of the Year. It was an honor for me to be included with a. Brave woman who. Came forward publicly against abuse. For years, I have been fighting for the rights of the woman working in India, in the hotel industry. I was tired of being harassed, ignored in abuse. I decided to speak up. Very few people understand what housekeepers go through. I am so proud that Long Beach residents care about housekeepers. Although 40,000 residents signed our petition to pass our protection for housekeepers, housekeepers clean out to 20 bathrooms. In bathrooms, pushing cars to the wing over £100, lifting average rate of 20 mattresses, wiping in Irish or 30 murals. Have they in a lot more of their own hands in neath on top of these? We don't know who will find behind each single door. In the 23 years that I have been working more than a few times, girls have asked me for sexual favors and expose their private parts to me. I will never forget how for my money I used to once remember, ladies, what happened to that woman who was raped in one of our towns? Like it is our fault. Every day, she thought, Come to Long Beach. They stay a few days and then they leave. It is scary not to know what to expect. Some hotels don't have security personnel during all shifts. We need to be safe. Council members. Every year that goes by. Woman in hotel, I suppose they. The nation is waiting. Pass this initiative in. Way no more. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Peter. And Sandra gather. The well or not lesser known, rather common personal. Animal border. Comparable. Silencio The. Lacazette one and the Drama. My name is Sandra Fisher that I also had the honor of being named Time's Person of the year for breaking the silence against sexual assault. A lot of physical. Reporter in san alcazares at 1220. Paul allen on my spot that gay can get to. I know firsthand how difficult it. Is to report sexual harassment. When the perpetrator has more power than. You. And because of women supervisor Ken Macaluso and mytravel. And they ended up that they ran that restaurant that. In my case. My perpetrator was my supervisor when I worked at the Tarana Resort. It's it's tough up. There on our hands. You sell a felt gas deficit. I was working through an agency and I know how difficult it was. Gonzalez their numbers let's be okay percent this start iniciativa then important. The parallels but approach. The Herald as lost rather. The hotel, the lobby. Long Beach City Council members. I ask you to pass this important law to protect workers. In the city of Long Beach. Tonight I'm gonna the Galleria passer. I grab on to more let's be look but get. In. Each day that passes. There are workers. Like myself that go to work in fear. Personal initiative of a laborer, wrote the Herald. Trabajadores de. La Salle status within a three story. Please pass this initiative tonight to protect hotel workers. You can make history. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next week. My name is Tiffany Hooten. I'm a resident of the second district. I wasn't going to say anything, and I'm not a great public speaker, so bear with me. But I couldn't keep my mouth shut knowing that there are men in this auditorium who are snickering at the idea of people needing translators to speak their truths and about the sufferings that these women go through in the hotel industry. It should not be ridiculous that this billion dollar industry could afford to fairly compensate and give these women the safety that they deserve. Please know that. There are tactics relying on, you know, economic scare tactics is just an obscurity for their racism and misogyny. Do not let this to go unchallenged. Pass this ordinance tonight or stand on the wrong side of history. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Karen, retired. I'm a resident of the First District and I'm representing the Gray Panthers. Tonight, we're in solidary solidarity with the hotel workers and encouraging you to pass this tonight. The last time before I came before you, I talked about how angry. The community was. And the history of our country is built on the backs. Our wealth is built on the backs of immigrant populations. What kind of city are we going to be going forward? We're making all these changes. Most of them are just terrific budget, a positive. Who's going to make who's going to end up paying for those costs? We urge you to pass this tonight and no delays so that the protections can be implemented as soon as possible. For 50% or more of our population and send the message that our community is not going to tolerate the abuse and the harassment of women . I speak as somebody that had to file a restraining order against someone who lives in my building on a different floor in my building, told me that they would move me. I don't want to move. They don't have another building in Long Beach. I don't want to leave this community. Let's stand up for women. Let's get some guts. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Richard Hoyt. I'm a resident of the First District, and I've lived in the seventh district prior to that for 12 years. And. I'm here as a resident tonight. I do work for a hotel in Long Beach, and I also stand with our housekeepers and fully support a safe work environment for all of them. But I feel compelled tonight to share my disappointment in our council, in our mayor, in our spiritual community, and in our leadership that I've heard. Because we're not talking. About all housekeepers. We're talking about housekeepers from large hotels, not small hotels, not motels, not housekeepers that work for agencies that go into people's homes alone and unsupervised or nursing homes. Like one lady mentioned her mother. She's not protected by this law. This is our best work. This is about safety and protecting women. No, this is about safety and protecting certain women. Well, what if it was just white. Women or just black women or just. Latina women? What about all women? Who's who's. Here? For those housekeepers that work in a 30 room motel, they get raped. Nobody. It's disappointing. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, everybody. My name is Norberto Lopez, an organizer in this beautiful city. And I support the passage of the Hotel Worker Ordinance Protection Ordinance. What can I say after? This is where I actually got my start here in the city. And organizing with the hotel workers. And being involved with this campaign since the beginning and. Seeing it grow to where it is right now. And the fact that the first time around and we're here again, just keeps motivated me to continue fighting for the rights of the people in the city. I love the city. I drive here every day, 30 minutes and 30 minutes out because this is where I want to be. I can't afford to live here yet, but this is where I want to be so I can start making change even though I don't live here. But I consider myself a member of this community. The loss of money to provide a safe working environment should not be a reason on why you vote no, but yes to protect the lives of Long Beach workers. Now the money will come and the hotels will continue to invest here as they want to make their money and a growing tourist city. Adobe today and vote yes. We must not waste more time. We must protect our friends, family members and neighbors in the workforce. Now, the reason why the hotel worker, the hotel industry is going to continue to grow because the Olympics are coming. Let's not forget about that as well. No auto industry is going to make their money regardless if they provide protections or not. But the time for you to act is now. Time's up. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Lorena Lopez. Year after year, I've spoken to hotel housekeepers. For years this women have come to you asking for your leadership to make protections to stop the abuse of hotel housekeepers. I would like this council to put yourself in this woman's shoes. They are asked to clean, unattainable workloads at a very fast pace. And on top of that, they have to deal with. Men. Exposing themselves, groping them, asking for sexual favors as if it was part of their job. We this women have had the courage to speak up against abuse. The nation. Has applauded. Women from Long Beach for breaking. The silence. We're asking you. To put yourself in their shoes. And stand with this women. The nation. Is looking. At this vote. The entire nation wants you to take leadership. Make history tonight. Pass this law. Tonight. Pass it outright. Women need your. Leadership. Women have asked for your leadership. Do the right thing. Thank you. And. And our last speaker is. When it's not just mean media gambling as well. The winner's former partner monitoring document is the prize. Good evening. My name is Miriam as well. The winners and I am part of the undocumented community in this country. And does it the underprivileged yoga. My guarantees Osaka. We took the other condition as in Romanesque as a given in a couple liberal. Before bearing the fruit. That Daka granted me, I witnessed the inhumane conditions that take place in the work. Is the logical complaint ignoring the only thing I condemn plainly prolonged under siege told. The media must know the nature of this and they are not so rude as it is illogical. But in the 21st century you all continue wasting time contemplating. And prolonging if we all deserve to be. Safe in the workplace. Espresso Kit Vehicle. Gazette. The Internet got us on it can open up aboard. The lovely the Claudia I don't know who's. The. It really was more health then I was put to death. That is why I am asking you to touch your heart. And to vote in favor of Claudia's law. Do what is just and believe. Women once and for all. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So I have I have a series. I have everyone queued up. I want to thank everyone for speaking. I want to make sure that we manage this so I can get everyone to speak. Everyone. There's already a motion on the docket. And so I want to just go through and give everyone a chance to speak and we'll go from there. Okay. So it's time for the council discussion. Let me start off by starting off with Councilmember Pearce. Okay. We are here for the council discussion. I first want to thank everybody again for their courage, their commitment to continue to step forward and share your stories, to continue to break the silence. We know that it is not easy. And typically I have a bunch of talking points that I prep beforehand, but I'm going to wing it tonight. I've got a couple of bullet points and I just want to have a a quick discussion with my colleagues and with all of you. The opportunity we have before us tonight is could be a healing moment. It could be a transformational moment for this council and for the city, because for the last two years, we have been having an intense debate and conversation behind the dais here and in our offices and in the 14th on the 14th floor about what to do with this policy. And I think it's really important. As somebody mentioned, we have been talking about this for five years, six years, four years, depending on where you were as part of the process. And so this conversation tonight is actually supposed to be focused just on what we do with next steps. But I think that we have to have a full conversation so this process can be as healing as possible. Sorry to put everybody through it, but this item has not only been traumatic for the workers that decided to come out of their hotels and share their stories, that decided to sue their employers, that decided to travel the country. Breaking the silence. I know that I want to talk about the women that have been recognized nationally. I know that this does not just mean, Juana, that you're struggling here, but that it takes a toll on your family to be the face of so much abuse and to live through that every day. So I just want to say that from the bottom of my heart. Thank you. This item is traumatic for the second district, too. I think every time we talk about Claudia's law, my name is out there because we unfortunately went through a recall that lasted a year, that was funded to the tune of over $200,000, where we had to talk about abuse on the doorstep. We had to talk about abuse that nobody asked for that I didn't ask for and that housekeepers didn't ask for. And we had to talk about how businesses and our corporate bottom line often is what divides us in trying to figure out the best way to move forward when our hearts we know that nobody deserves to be in an abusive situation, that nobody deserves to be retraumatized. And so when I thought about this item coming up tonight and having the conversation around 2020, November this year, or having the ability to do something great and actually vote on it tonight, I thought about, what, five months of a campaign looks like to talk about sexual assault. That's going to be hard. It's been hard and it's going to continue to be hard for this council to grapple with. To see it in the news. To have these tough conversations. To understand how our actions got us to this point. All of us, we all let politics play in this item. And it means that we're going to be here at a minimum for five more months, because I don't know that the will is here. And I'm eager to hear from my council members because I feel like what the will is here. For all of my council members. For Al, for Suzie, for me, this has been traumatic. We've all suffered. And to be able to take a courageous step tonight and say, you know what? I'm not playing politics with the Unite here. I'm not playing politics with the hotels. Enough is enough. The city has to move forward. The city has to be able to heal and tackle some of the other big issues. And we all have to work together. We've got big items ahead of us. We've got housing, we've got budgets, we've got land use. And I want to work with everybody on this dias. I don't want this item to be the item that made four years hell. And so that that's my conversation today that I've been grappling with. And it is emotional. And there are some triggers when we hear these stories being retold and there are triggers when we have debates with our colleagues or with people in the audience or anywhere that says, you know what, this issue is not about housekeepers. I had a conversation like that recently. This is not about sexual assault in the hotels. Never, ever, ever, even when there are politics involved, say that it is not about somebody coming up here and sharing their tears about their reality. That to me is so heartbreaking and I don't want us to have that debate for five more months, even if you believe that in your heart. I don't think that's the debate that's going to help Long Beach move forward. That is not the debate that is going to put us on the map for a city that has dignity and respect for everybody. We cannot have that debate. It is not it has not gotten us anywhere good yet. The debate that we can have is do we take five months right now and put it on the ballot, cost the city half a million dollars. Do we have a study? Let me tell you what we have for our economic study right now. What we did as a city was we went forward and we asked for a top policy recommendation that was done by, you know, a consultant. They came back with a hotel incentive program study that told us that our hotel industry is thriving. And yes, the conversation that was hot around, okay, if we do this, then the hotel is going to suffer the year after measure and pass. We had 7% increase in profits in the hotels. What what kind of hotel development do I have going on right now? I have a hotel proposed at the Queen Mary. I have American Life, a 36 story, beautiful hotel at Pine and Ocean. I've got two other hotels on Pine that are being considered. We've got a hotel at the airport. The conversation. That is not a murder conversation. Is our industry going to suffer or not? It's going to continue to thrive because you know what? We've got a mayor that's got great vision. We've got a council that's got great vision. Our city is night and day from where it was ten years ago, and people want to come here. And we saw an uptick whenever we got national recognition for measure in and it's going to happen again. If we do the right thing, we're going to see another uptick in tourism in our city because we took that that courageous step. So that conversation, do we have a study or not? I've mentioned it to some of my colleagues. I know it's a delay tactic. Can we get more information about our industry? We have a lot already at our fingertips. We do. We have a lot not about the cost that it takes to put in a panic button. But if the Marriott can spend $60,000 on a political campaign, but they can't spend the money to put into their hotel to make sure their employees are treated right. And this battle is not about this council. It is not about me. It's not about my colleagues up here. It should be about you in the rooms that are cleaning those rooms. It shouldn't be around how much money it costs to save to save somebody's safety, to get them at least enough tools in the toolbox to feel safe. So I want to be really clear tonight that we have a thriving tourism industry. I've got the whole study in front of us. You can go back and look at it time and time again says that we've got room and the demand for another almost 1500 hotel rooms in our city. That says a lot to me and our city. Our hotels are stepping up and doing the right thing. And the questions are the safety issue. I'm not sure what happened in between the time that we had the opportunity to behind this dais to make a decision. But it's I believe that the sexual assault provisions are in there for rooms, 50 rooms or more. I wish it was with everybody. We can have that conversation down the road about what we do. But we already had our opportunity, a council said, to make the best ordinance. So tonight, as our colleagues grapple with this conversation, I implore us to have the conversation around what is it going to take for us to do this tonight? So my motion, my request is that we we do vote tonight not only for the for the residents to hear from the trauma, for the workers to hear from the trauma. But for us, this council deserves to move forward. We deserve to be able to lead and govern for the next two years as a whole body and not allow this conversation to get to get done because it is pulled hide. The voters will vote to enact this, whether it's in November because we made everybody wait or because we voted for it now. And now the hotels have five months to actually plan an implementation strategy, which would be really wonderful if we actually looked ahead and plan. So let me make sure I'm done with my talking points before I move on. So the conversation around retraumatizing, I just want us to all be clear that when if we vote to put this on the ballot in November and not vote outright today, the things that we're going to hear for five months are restraining order, rape taken from behind and worked into a coma. Assault, physical assault, sexual assault, battery, gender discrimination. This is going to be our lives for the next five months. These women are going to have to go door to door and retell their stories for five months. If we decide to wait. Please Council. Do it. Do the right thing. Right. Thank you, councilmember Pearce councilman. And concentrate you you've cued up as as the motion maker on. Right. So. So there's the first vote. Yeah. So the motion on the floor right now, as per Councilmember Pearce and seconded by Councilman Gonzalez to to choose one of the three options available, which is to implement the ordinance as is today . So that's that's the motion that's on the table right now for the first and a second. Councilwoman Gonzalez. So this is it's really tough seeing a colleague upset like this. And I know that it's just really tough to to see that. So I want to just thank you, Janine, for being so brave. I know this has been a long time for you for some time. And I just want to say, you know, I'm sorry you're feeling that way. So thanks to all the women and the men that are here today that have spoken once again in front of this council, I think I appreciate each and every one of you unite here, residents, stakeholders, our dear elected colleagues, Supervisor Janice Hahn. Thank you, Congressman Alan Lowenthal, Congresswoman Nanette Barragan and Senator Ricardo Lara, we thank them very much for standing today with our with our hotel housekeepers. Let's give them a big round of applause. So everyone knows I'm sort of a nerd with data and I want to be very cut and dry when we talk about the economics and we've talked about this before, but I want to rehash some some information as to why I think we all believe that we absolutely should put people over profits, especially in this case. And why the hotel industry? Well, the hotel industry and the tourism industry is making significant profits. And we know this every year. It's pretty hard. And especially after last year when this ordinance did not pass the way we wanted it to, it was very hard a few months later to see from our Convention and Visitors Bureau that 2017 was the best tourism year yet on record for the city of Long Beach. In fact, our fiscal year 19 budget is proposing millions more dollars to the CVB. 7.2 million people visited Long Beach for events and meetings, 1.7 million visited the aquarium. And in fact, we gave $10 million as a city council to the aquarium to add value to the tourism industry. And I'm not knocking those things. I think that's fantastic. But what are we doing when it comes to our hotel housekeepers, the ones that are most vulnerable in this situation and actually make our cities shine? Overnight, visitors increased 18% over 2016 and generated over $300 million for the local economy here in Long Beach. And we have, if everybody knows, an over $100 million sports complex with two L.A. teams coming just 20 minutes north of us, are we not going to benefit from that? We are. And when I say we, we as a as a city, but also we as a hotel industry. And in fact, the business markets in the United States have responded overwhelmingly. In fact, large companies like TripAdvisor, if many of you do not know, they responded to the MeToo movement and they include now an online badge when there has been a reported sexual assault of any kind, any kind for the hotels that have had those issues . Uber is investing $5 million in community partners for sexual assault prevention, and Microsoft changing antiquated workplace policies to ensure that protections are available. I know because I work there, I can include that one. And when we talk about a fiscal impact study, we absolutely have to talk about the cities that have enacted an ordinance similar to this . We're not new. This is not, you know, a novel idea. So the cities like Seattle, Northern California cities, they've enacted ordinances, some of them in 2016. And their tourism statistics have never been better 3.3 to 4% year over year increase in visitors. Transient occupancy taxes have grown nearly 13 to 14%. Average daily hotel rates have grown by 11%. I know this is a lot of data, but it's absolutely in line with what we're doing here. We're not going to slow down here as a city. The hotel as a hotel industry is not slowing down. The tourism industry is not slowing down. And if it's okay, as many business partners have said today for 2020, why is it not okay now? Why is it not okay now? We can wipe the slate clean and we can move forward to pass an initiative for almost 80% of residents that have said yes to this. And I hope that my council colleagues can look to voting to passing this outright, because whether this happens today or if we delay this to November, it's going to pass. So I thank all of you again for all of your hard work. I know that this has been very tough, but you can absolutely count me in in terms of always supporting our hotel housekeepers. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Next up is Councilmember Supernormal. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. And thank you to all the speakers here tonight. I would like to make a substitute motion. I move that we adopt Alternative three and order a report pursuant to California Elections Code Sections 9212. Okay. There's a motion and a second on that, that that motion is to just adopt the report. Correct. Mr. Soprano and and and counsel and on that motion, did you want to speak to that motion? No. Okay. Councilman Mangold, you want to speak to that motion? Okay. No skies. No. Everyone has an opportunity to speak now. It's the council deliberating. Thank you. Next up is counsel in Boston. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank all of the speakers. It was very, very heart wrenching. And and as usual, I mean, this is certainly not a usual issue. I'd like to first, they say that no no worker should should have to work in fear. I firmly believe that is something that I've committed my career to. Nobody should have to work in sexual abuse or in a hostile work environment. And workers in this city deserve to share in the prosperity of our city's economic growth, particularly in a thriving industry like the hospitality industry. That's without question. That is why back in 2012, when Measure N was before the voters, I was a supporter of that. I think it was a cosigner of that back in 2006 when boycotts were going on because hotel workers were trying to organize workers. I signed on and there are hotels that I haven't been into since 2006. I've stood with workers and I continue to stand with workers every single day. I stand with our hotel workers. I stand with our women. I'm a proud son of a mother who taught me who was a strong woman. I was sister. I have a strong wife. I have women. Three women on my staff. I have women who I work with every single day that I respect and will. I will kill over if anybody ever hurt them. I'd also like to just tonight recognize some extraordinary efforts in this city to address, address and improve working conditions for women in the hospitality industry, for workers in the hospitality industry. Anyone looking at this issue objectively would have to recognize the thousands of conversations that thousands of conversations have been had about worker safety, about sexual abuse, about pack panic button buttons, and safer working conditions for hotel workers. This issue has been a top and hot topic in our city for at least the past year. And as Councilmember Pearce mentioned it, we've all been affected by one way or another. Safety for hotel workers has been identified and is a priority in this city. No matter how you cut it. Last year, the city council considered an ordinance and it's been been discussed and a few of us expressed concerns with the policy. I'm going to maintain that they were legitimate concerns. They weren't concerns expressed because, you know, we were taking sides, one side or another that we didn't stand with women. There was a lot of very hurtful rhetoric expressed, particularly over the last year that was was completely inaccurate. It was political. It was good political banter. It was good talking points, but not accurate. As policymakers, we're supposed to ask tough questions because we want in every we have a responsibility to get the issues right. Many of you said it tonight. Get it right. Do it now. Fix it no matter what the issue is. If it's housing, if it's homelessness, if it's whatever the big issue, ticket issue of the day is, you want this council to figure out how to get it right. You don't want you don't want us to do what we're told necessarily. And that's not what we're here for. We're here to work and to work together. None of us were raised in the same household. None of us necessarily went to school together. We're all different people from different backgrounds. We come here to to enact policy that's in the best interests of our city. Right. So this issue obviously was was very contentious. And in September of last year, and I think it was a true low point for the city. And and I will just say that parties all the way around could have handled themselves better. A majority of us passed a resolution strongly encouraging hotels to address the safety concerns that were raised here. And since that time, I've actually been in contact. I've tried to maintain. Contact with the hotels to make sure that they were following the the ordinance and updating this council and where they were at. I know that as a result of that council meeting, this debate over this issue over the last year, panic buttons have been implemented in several hotels. Maybe not enough. Maybe not to the satisfaction of everyone. But I know good faith efforts have been made. And so I want to recognize that. I think I think some some good, good points have been made here this evening. I think we do need to take a broader look at all of our hospitality industry and particularly some of the smaller motels and hotels. And look at those those conditions as well. But the issue before us today is how we proceed now that close to 50 conversations have been documented about this important issue. And again, I want to respect the work that went into doing that, because I know that's not easy. And and to go to the voters and have those conversations and to get buy in says a lot. And I think this council has always respected that no matter what what the issue has been. And I think we should continue to do that. I would love to see closure on this issue very soon, and that's why I won't support a delay. However, I do support honoring the will of the people and advancing this issue to the November ballot. And so, with that said, I want to make a substitute substitute ballot a motion to put this issue on a November six ballot, since we, as a council several hours ago, already set an election with ballot initiatives to go forward to the voters. And so that's my motion. I would love to have the council support on that figure. Councilman Austin. And we do have a second and two before I before I continue, I want to just clarify kind of where we're at. We still have a lot of speakers, so we're going to keep going through that. We have three there's three motions, the main motion, a substitute motion and a substitute substitute. Essentially, all three of the options or the only three options really that are that are available in front of the in front of the city council. And just to clarify, obviously, the main motion, which was was done by Councilwoman Pearce would implement the policy today or immediately. The second the second motion which was made by Councilmember Supernova, would implement a study. And I want to make sure that we as we move forward, we know what this all means. The study itself, Mr. Parking, would have to happen in how many days? Within a year under the election code. The study is required to come back to the Council within 30 days. And and also and any study would that would delay the election in November and it would automatically go on the March 2020 ballot. Is that correct? Not automatically. It would pass the deadline for us to meet the county's deadline to make the November six, 2018 election. When the study comes back within 30 days, the Council would have two remaining options left adopted that evening has written without alteration or can put it on a ballot. It could be 2020. It could be a special election. So that's the that's the the second option. And then the third option, which is the third motion which was made by Councilmember Austin, is to move forward with the election this November. I just want to also clarify, and I've heard a couple of different I've heard a couple of different dates the the November election. Just want to clarify, just because they know that Councilman Pure sprouted up that we're talking about the same thing. It's not we're only about five I think we're talking about 12 weeks or the three months. Right. Is that the same thing we're talking about? So if we so if my motion my motion was that if we vote on it today, that it would automatically go into effect January one. And so that was and so before council speaks, that has been my understanding this entire week that we've been talking about this, that if we voted today to pass it as an ordinance , because the ordinance was written to implement in January one, which is what the voters said they wanted, that basically what would happen is it would save us from an election. So that's, I think, a bit misunderstanding. What do we have? What? We have a motion. No, no, no. Section three of the ordinance proposed ordinance says that it'll go in effect ten days after the November 6th election. Well, let me let me have that. Why don't we have the attorney clarify? So, Mr. Park and can you clarify the questions that we know what we're talking about as we. Thank you. Option one if the Council votes to adopt the initiative ordinance without alteration at the regular meeting this evening or within ten days of it presented, it would go into effect. Basically, immediately it becomes the ordinance of the city. So we would then go to the initiative itself and I believe it. I don't have that language on the page. I'll find it, but it would go into effect immediately. In essence, you've adopted the ordinance tonight. Okay. So just to clarify, on my on my original motion, I am a fair human. I never would vote for an ordinance and expect the hotels to put that into effect in December, I mean, in ten days. I always expected us to be saving us from an election which would save the taxpayers half a million dollars. So I want to hear the rest of the conversations behind the dais, and then I know we'll go through the voting process. But just to be. Very clear publicly. Thank you. Let me let me go. Let me continue on the list. Councilwoman. I think so. There's no other questions on kind of the motions of trying to make sure we clarify those. Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. So earlier so just a couple of questions for me. Earlier tonight, we voted to put charter amendments on the November ballot. So we're having an election anyway, is that right? That is correct. So adopting the ordinance isn't going to save the taxpayers money in regards to this particular item, because we're going to be having an election that. The it's the incremental cost to put the addition this item as an additional item. And I think the clerk had that number at 40,000 or $45,000 per item. So this if they voted tonight to put it on the ballot, I believe that would be the additional cost since council has already have five items on the ballot. So we're not talking about a half a million dollars. That's not the. I just want to clarify that because I want to make sure that we are listening to all of our colleagues. I appreciate everyone who came out tonight and everyone who spoke. And I agree with all of my colleagues tonight on many of the things that have been said. I think this has many of the issues we take up are very controversial and many of them have a tendency to get emotional and inflammatory. And that happens. And I understand that. And it's unfortunate that this one did. And I think in hindsight, there could have been opportunities had there been opportunities for compromise last time to have fashion, something that could have avoided a lot of the effort that was put into it. But I applaud the groups that put the effort into the work that they did to get the signatures. And I respect that process. I do know and I have a question for the city attorney here. When the marijuana initiative came to us, when we approved it, we approved it simultaneously to requesting an economic impact study. So we approved it to go on the ballot. But at the same time, we also requested an economic study. Could we do that in this case? That is correct. On the. And if you chose to do something like that, that motion isn't on the floor right now. But if there was an amendment to a motion, you could do that. The difference is the study that you would be asking for is not the study that's contemplated in what is before you tonight under under the elections code. That is very specific. And we would have to get more details if that item before that item is voted on, if it if it is, in fact, voted on as to what specific items you want, if you vote tonight to place it on the November ballot, and then you ask or direct the city manager to do a study, that study is a different study and doesn't have a 30 day time limit because you've already taken the action required by the election code this evening of placing it on the ballot. I understand my question to the city attorney. I mean, to the city manager would be if we were to to direct the city manager's office to commission or prepare a report, could something be brought back to us in 30 days so that we can have some data? And let me tell you why that is, because when the economic impact study for the marijuana item came back, we had revenue and cost projections for the city in terms of the administration of the program, should the ballot initiative pass. And we based our budget and our budget discussions on those revenue projections which have thus far turned out to be $4 million lower than we were expecting. But nevertheless, we had some at least some baseline of information and data to work from. So I'm wondering how quickly could we get that back? We have some consultants on board that we could shift that to immediately. I can't promise you exactly what we would have in 30 days, but we certainly would have an update. With all the information that we could gather within that time period. I don't know if it meet all of your needs, but we certainly would have something. And for me and I want to hear from my colleagues, but and I'm I think I'm going to make a friendly here, but I'm kind of talking out loud to my colleagues. For me, the key inquiry would be what impact could this potentially have to the city in terms of administration of the ordinance? Because I understand the cities that have imposed this have had to evaluate their own structure to make sure they have someone there for compliance purposes and things like that. So what would that look like for us? And that would be the really the focus for me. And also in terms of the revenue that's brought into the city, what anticipated differences could it could we expect to see, if any? So so with that, what I would like to do is ask Councilman Austin if he'd be willing to accept a friendly that we have, in addition to the item being placed on the November ballot , an economic study that would be returned in 30 days to provide us with basic analysis of the economic impacts for the administration and revenue projections for such an ordinance. So is it specific to the Economic City study? Would it be specific to this, the city's impact or impact on the the hospitality industry? Well, you know, I want to hear from my colleagues on that. I think at the at the base, I would I would like to see if you're open to the friendly, my thoughts would be right now, the primary concern is how, if at all, would it impact the city's budget and the city's revenue projections, whether that's in relation to our tourism industry, our top tax, our, you know, all of that because we rely on those projections to to set our budgets. Well, I'll tell you, I'm most interested in impacts to obviously our responsibilities to city. I mean, I sit on Budget Oversight Committee and we're in the process of obviously planning our budget right now. And so I think that would be good information to have. And so I'll accept the friendly. I would just just say that I think, you know, it's going to be difficult to give direction this evening for scope of a study. And I would say that we probably do we could possibly have a week to try to work this this through as well. So but I accept the friendly because in the spirit of moving this design. Great. So in terms of just a few final comments, you know, one of the things I found is no matter how hard you try, if folks have made their minds up about you, they've made their minds up about you. And some people are willing to listen openly and others are not. And some people are willing to change their minds based on what they hear, and some aren't. And you can only control your own behavior. You can't control others. And that's I don't mean to lecture. It's just me kind of talking out loud, kind of like my colleague, Councilman Pierce did, because this this is a very human process. And we are humans experiencing things just like everyone here is. Treat the workers like, hey, guys, everyone gets a chance to speak, so please, please. Now, it's not the council's opportunity to deliberate. Thank you, Councilman Price. Wow. So. Hey, guys. You know what, guys? That's not that's not appropriate. We're now the council's deliberating, so please, everyone was given respect when they spoke. Please just allow every council member to speak. Thank you. Counsel. Counsel Councilwoman Pryce. I think I'm done. Councilmember Durango. Thank you, Mayor. All I have to say, while my time I get to speak or three motions and substitute an amendment so it can get a little confusing here. But, you know, when I look at the what happened last year, where I'm at now, you know, what has changed? Nothing. Nothing has changed my situation. I have you know, I have a vested interest in this issue, obviously. If you recall, I have a son and a daughter in law who work in the hotel industry. And I care about very much about their safety and about their working environment. So when we were talking about, you know, panic buttons and and worker safety, it's not only about panic buttons, it's also about working conditions and working environments. It they are they're there together. I mean, you can't separate one from the other. And, you know, my position has not changed. I mean, I would rather that we go ahead and adopt the ordinance tonight, because it would be I mean, it's inevitable. We've seen the numbers. We know the hard work that many of you in the audience put into this. And you're here tonight. You're here close to 10:00. People have been here, you know, most of the day, being here, preparing for this and now listening to us grapple basically with this issue when it comes to this, the the the the options of what we have. The second one is is dead in the water, as far as I'm concerned. A study would not resolve anything. We know what the end result is going to be. I mean, it's already been proven. I mean, that Councilmember Gonzalez already gave us what's let's throw she has and the stats and I've heard it for the last four years that I've been a council member here. Every year the CFPB comes and they do their reports and every year the city has grown. Every year there's a profit. And every time that we've talked about the effects of of a minimum wage measure in panic buttons, we we hear the same arguments. People are going to leave. People are not going to come to Long Beach. Hotels are going to lose their business. It's going to affect their bottom line. It's going to affect their philanthropy and in supporting the nonprofit organizations that they support in the community. We hear that every time. And it's it's it's and I said it before, it's a chicken little story. The sky is going to fall. And you know what? The sky has not fallen. In fact, we're you know, we're reaching the skies. We're we're up there. I mean, the economy in Long Beach has continually improved the last the last four years. I can see that, you know, with all due respect to the councilmember who lives with me, you know, there wasn't this kind of growth in her area. I mean, it was we were dealing with some very serious budget deficits. She came in the city council and there was almost an immediate $80 million deficit that she inherited in 2002 when the utility users tax went down. And we cut that in half. And it was an immediate funk. But I have to thank the voters because in their wisdom, they voted for measure in. And I'm sorry that, you know, this puts us in a place to where we need to be. They voted for a measure, A, that has significantly helped the city balanced budgets. And not only that, but provided us an opportunity to grow our budget, to return services to public safety, to return to South Division, to return ambulance services, paramedic services and fire stations, to get more police officers to take over the blue line. We are doing quite well. In fact, we have Councilmember Pearce has already said, you know, we've got hotels that are that are in the planning stages that are going to be going up. You know, over 20 stories of 4000 rooms are going to be added to the city of Long Beach. So we are in a growth mode, and I don't see that stopping, quite frankly, and I don't see how this word is. What would stop that from happening in terms of the growth that the city is going to have? In fact, quite the opposite of when you have happy workers. You have people with smiles on their faces. When you have employees who are walking. I mean, and who are in a good spot, who really enjoy their jobs, really enjoy their employers and really support their employers. You get business. You get people who return to the bit to to this city because they want to be here because they feel safe. They feel wanted and they feel like they're going to be treated like like royalty when they come here. And that's what we're striving for. We're striving. It's not so much that, you know, we're going to be putting a restraining restraint, a restraint on our hotel industry. We're doing that at all. What we're doing is trying to make them stronger, to make them much more effective in how they serve their their tenants. And the people who come in and want to stay in line, which are tourism is up. Our conventions are going through the roof. We've got more conventions coming here than we ever had before. And where do they stay? They stay in our hotels. They eat at our restaurants and they use our modes of transportation. Our airport has grown significantly. Why? Because people are flat. Because people are flying into Long Beach. Now we're talking about an economic impact study. You know, I'm not so sure what the devil's in the details, obviously, in an impact study. Who study? Is it? Is it the steady city study and the impact that what it's going to accrue to us as a as a city talking about, you know, compliance and more staff, or are we talking about the hotel industry and the and the impacts that this ordinance would have on them? And who is going to be benefiting from it? And should we have a concurrent study with a ballot measure? You know, and we come back in 30 days. What spin is is that study going to have spin for the city or spin for the hotel industry? Can it be used against us or can they work for us? I don't know. I frankly, I that's where I'm perplexed, where a study would provide us with certainly more information. And there's no question about that. But I'm not sure to which benefit and and how it's going to be used in a campaign come November, because I know that those numbers and those figures would come into play if if the study comes out before November, before the November election. So I'm holding firm with with my position, I will not be supporting the substitute motions. I'm going to go back to my original the original motion. I'm going to stay there. But I'll see how how my colleagues vote, because I think that the most important thing we need to do is to get over what happened last year . Correct the wrong. And let's keep moving forward and let's get this city where it needs to be. Thank. Thank you. Next up is Member Richardson. Thank you. I got to say, you know, this this issue. I supported it when it came to council a year ago. It's been a I've seen a wedge divide on this council and in the community on this issue. And tonight, we need to vote to move forward. It's time to put this in the voters. I've looked at the analysis to be as clear as we can. We've collected this many signatures. We've seen the polling. It's going to happen either tonight or it's going to happen in November. This thing is moving forward, I think, tonight. What we don't need is people dug in. The trench needs to close tonight. We don't need anybody else dug in. This needs to move forward. So I see there's three options. There's always been three options tonight. One is to adopt it tonight. I can support that. I don't know that the support is there from five council members to do that delay. I do not support that. That is kicking the can down the road. If we get a chance to vote on the order necessity turn attorneys. What? Which which motion gets voted on. First we go in reverse order. So the substitute substitute motion made by Council member Austin and seconded by Council Member Price to place the item on the ballot for November 6th with the friendly of the economic study to return in 30 days. If that fails, then you go to the substitute motion to request a study for 30 days. Then you go back to the original motion. Okay, so the first motion is November that will be voted on first, correct? That is correct. Okay. The second motion is to do the study, which would. Then be voted on if the substitute substitute. Fails. So if that fails, kill the study which would forego the November election, would be the second thing to be voted on. That's correct. The study couldn't be done in time to make the November. Miss the November election, and the third would be to do it outright tonight. That's correct. Okay. So let's so if we just walk through scenarios, if the first vote doesn't receive five votes, which is to put it on the ballot for November, then it goes to the second, which is to forgo November and do a study, which I don't know that that has the votes either. And then I don't know if that has the votes. And then you have to enact it tonight, which I don't know if that has the votes from. So city attorney, what happens if all three motions fail tonight? That would be unfortunate. Absolutely. That's what I'm trying to get to get analysis. No, under the election code, section 90 215, it mandates that the legislative body take an action this evening. So if all three of these motions fail, it would be up to the chair, in this case, the mayor, to reopen council deliberation. And we have the start of discussion until you come up with one of these options. So so that said, we need to move forward tonight. Yes. I can support two of these motions. I can support doing it tonight. I can support doing it in November. One way or the other, it's getting adopted in this city. I can't support the second option. So in the order that it comes up, if November comes up, I implore the city council to not not get entrenched, adopt that tonight. If that gets the votes, it's done and we can start the process of coming together. So. So so that's what that's I'm being very clear about this strategy, so no one can say I wasn't in support of doing it tonight. I'm supportive doing tonight, but I'm also support in support of creating a pathway forward. So that's that's what I'm recommending to the council and that that's what I'm going to do. But thank you. They could some of Richardson Councilman Mungo. Wonderful. So I want to thank everyone who came out tonight. I want to thank those of us who have had dialogs over the last few days. I know that in listening to a lot of the things tonight, there's an importance of. The will of the voters, which many of you know, often when I support or don't support an agenda item, when there's a will to put it on the ballot, I usually am supportive of putting it on the ballot because that's what my district feels is good. Direct democracy in our direct democracy has some challenges. As many people at the dais talked about, we can't make any changes to what they're voting on tonight at the dais. And so even if we had some modifications that would improve it, we really just don't have those options. And so we just need to recognize that that's part of direct democracy. So when Councilmember Supernanny were talking about a study, I think that we've always had the intent that what happened in the marijuana ordinance was how they came back concurrently. So I think that where we are today with Al and Susie's friendly allies, motion was this is friendly. I think that really puts us in a place where the whole council can come together because the study was important to some individuals and there was some discussion in the community related to impact. Many of you remember back for a measure and that there was no impact of there was no talk about a study and the potential positive or negative impacts. I think that people forget that impact studies should show both sides. And so in preparing for that, I wrote a few notes before council tonight and then during the agenda during the dais tonight, a lot of people came to the dais and I tried to write down notes about the things you said to make sure that those things are included. Because what's important to me is my neighbor that works at a hotel and what impacts their life and their wage and their opportunities and their benefits and their pension and all of the retirement options and all of that. But I know that in sit downs I've had one of them was at Starbucks. I asked for like a side by side comparison of what exists at what places. I know that all the hotels in my district have panic buttons, but I don't. I haven't toured every hotel in the whole city to see that that's true. And so there are a lot of back and forth of it. And there's nine of us. And again, we're all trying to do our best to come together. So let me. Build on the friendly, if possible. Mr. Councilmember Austin. This would be what I think. For the staff to do their best effort at the following. And 30 days. Please build on the economic data we already have from the Beacon Study and the base study and report back on how the ordinance impacts rates, occupancy, our competitiveness for conventions and leisure guests, and what that nexus is on those guests. Impact to our total and sales tax budgeting. And important to us is the number of hotel employees, the number of guests spending in our city and the impact. Of their pay, their benefits and the nexus of their buying power and disposable income of hotel workers that live in Long Beach and outside the city. So let me give you an example of why that's important. So many of you don't know that when we were elected to the city council, we weren't able to see a lot of the sales tax and total revenue numbers. And so you had a legislative body of the city who had to make major financial decisions, and there were some details that we couldn't see. And one of the things that's really important is that as we've driven down the unemployment number, the ability for those neighbors who used to be unemployed to have jobs and now spend in our city is is powerful and we budget based on that. And so I think that goes a little bit to what we were talking about earlier from my colleagues that were primarily on the Budget Oversight Committee with me. And so I hope that. Mr. Modica or Mr. West or Charlie, would something along that line be something that would make a best effort at that in the next 30 to 45 days? But it would not delay in any way the November ballot. You're correct. That's the point I wanted to make, that there is no because the motion elects item number two, which is to place it on the November ballot. There is no constraint of 30 days. This this is a different type of study than is what is contemplated by the your three options. So you can add or detract any of those items that would be accepted as a friendly or not. And you are not constrained by the 30 days because your decision as a elected body tonight is to place it on the November 6th ballot. And so my thought would be, if information is available on a flow basis, that it's provided to the Budget Oversight Committee, and if it's not on a flow basis, if it comes back at 30 days or what you have it 30 days with a here's what we'll get in the next 10 to 15. Something that gives us some feedback on where we are, because what we don't want is you to rush something and not have answers. We want real data, but I recognize that there are considerable resources in 30 days and. I hope that that captured everything I heard from so many people who took the time to be here tonight. And I appreciate that. Thank you. Councilwoman Mongo and I just to wrap up all the conversations about about this study, I know we've done these studies in the past when we do ballot initiatives. We've done them concurrently like we did with marijuana. And I'm assuming that it would be a city staff driven process and that it would. Like all studies, it's driven by staff. And it looks and it looks at impacts. And you guys can make those decisions as far as the impacts as it relates to the city Councilmember Pearce. So, Mr. Mayor, if I may, if we can, just for the record, kind of clarify how we would approach it is staff specificity, I think is important coming from the council so that we're not trying to guess what you want included and not included. So having some direction like what was laid out would be helpful. We would bring we would need to bring on a consultant to do this. So this is very high level economic analysis. We have used bay economics in the past. They started a study for us on hotels, and that's part of the and it's part of our policy to try to do two pot sharing agreements. We have some of this. We would bring them on. We would have them to work on this scope of work, and then we would check in with you. If this is below the city manager's threshold for spending, we would move ahead and identify funding. If it gets too large, then we would be back at council and you would be making a decision on whether to move forward. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Mayor, i'm sorry, councilmember pearce, before you begin, it was the friendly accepted by the councilmember from the eighth district. Can you repeat the friendly? Yes, actually, I can come to build on economic data that the city already has and report back on how the ordinance impacts rates, occupancy, our competitiveness for conventions and leisure guests. And what is the nexus on those guests? Impact on the number of hotel employees, the number of guests spending in our city, and the impact on our sales tax projections. And finally, the impact on employees, their pay, their benefits, and the nexus of their buying power, disposable income of hotel workers. I appreciate that because I think that one thing that was never talked about in Measure N was that the rates of the employees would all go up and people are making 14 something an hour now. And I think that those employee components are really important to the context of the study, and they're buying power in our city . Councilmember Austin Councilmember Mongo, I think I mean, you raised some very good points. I think that that study and that information should be one that is employed by the private sector in the hotels. I think I think the what if I understand the the friendly that that is already on the table and I ask for clarification. It was mostly regarding impacts from the city, right. Because there is a regulatory component in this ordinance. Right. That gives the city regulatory authority that may require us to to to staff up to to to implement that. And so I'm mostly concerned, I think and correct me if I'm wrong. Councilmember Price, I think we're mostly concerned about that. Yes, that was that was the intent of my friendly initially is to focus on what the impact to the city would be so that we can plan ahead and budget accordingly. So just to clarify, what we budget for right now is total and sales tax. And so what I was trying to get out through that was the nexus of how our hotel workers impact that. So for instance, the ordinance restricting the number of square feet may result in more people being employed, which more may result in more people having spending power in the city. I was just trying to Nexis that all together based on the things people inside. Okay let me I wanted I have a the long speaker's list still so I just want to keep moving forward. So Councilman Austin, I think I just want to make sure that we there is a that your motion is the impact as it relates to the city administratively. I think what Council Mango is proposing was beyond was beyond that. And so are you at this point. Are you accepting that? I don't think I can accept it at this time. I think I still think we have some some time as a council. And what I said earlier is that I don't want to get into that trying to to get into all of the details this evening. I think, you know, it's late. We've been here for several hours, several hours sitting here. I like to be fresh in terms of understanding that question. And I don't know that we have to do that and put that with this this this, this motion. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Pearce. And thank you very much for for that clarification. I support Councilmember Austin. I think that the question I do have is how does this impact city staff? I know I recall whenever we were having the conversations around wage staff that we talked about having a dedicated person, a labor person, is that do we have that person? What's that staff look like? Is this somebody that could help us with that? Those kinds of questions about once the voters vote to pass this policy, which they will do when they do that, how are we as a staff, as a city, going to be impacted? And I do think that there are a lot of studies that we already have out there that have already been done and us paying for. And another study is deserving of a conversation where we expected to have that. And I don't know that that detail of a study was something that we came into the room considering tonight. So that is my my talking points now that I'm going to hear from everybody else. Thank you, Vice Mayor Andres. Yeah, yes. Thank you, Mayor. I want to be brief because we have heard a lot of dialog and I think tonight is once again, we brought up some very sensitive matters and we need to reach points that allow us to move forward. I believe that our workers need to be protected and that is how much of that cost in money to provide the safety and that measure, you know, which is why I am disappointed that it even had to resolve and to bring it to the city city council. I think we could have done that even before now. I do not like to impose on businesses, but people have spoken. Signatures have been gathered and there's a need to be addressed and workers need to be protected. I would like to see this issue placed in front of all of the voters in November and not exclude anybody's voice or opinions. But I also want us to determine a prior to November's election that this item, of course, you know, as a city, we need to think about both sides and we both sides need to think about each other. And I want to thank you for that. Thank you. I'd like to I'm going to go to Councilwoman Pryce and the courtroom, because I know I want to I want to make some comments as well. So let me let me just get back to the speaker's list. Councilwoman Price. Okay, so just so I'm clear, the friendly for the economic said. On the impacts to the city was accepted. Yes. Okay. And it does the city management team feel that they have enough direction on that to move forward? So as we understand it, we would still be using a consultant to be able to look at this because you would be doing the administration of the tax that could be done in-house because we would know how much would have to be collected. But the revenue generation impact, when we start to look at what the hotel costs would be, how much that generates to what we would use that, that is a smaller scope than the other one. If there's anything else the council would like to add, otherwise, we would focus on those two areas that impact on our budget through the total. And any staffing costs associated with compliance on behalf of the city. Because I think it's contemplated that city would be the compliance officer on the workload restriction piece. So are we going to have to hire someone to go out and measure square footage and that kind of thing? And is that going to be a full time person? And I think maybe just even if it's not fully detailed, maybe finding out what Emeryville and Seattle are doing might help us in identifying what we think our our needs will be. And because that will be important, I think, for us as we forecast the future budget. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Gonzalez. So, city attorney, can you clarify again for me just so we can get this straight? And I want to make sure we have all of our information in front of us if if for any way, it doesn't seem like it, but if for any reason we were to vote outright to pass this ordinance, can you provide the timeline again and clarification on that? Because I'm getting a little fuzzy on that. So. Councilmember Gonzalez. Yes. So we're going to vote in reverse order with Councilmember Ralston's substitute substitute motion. We were voted on for if the sub sub was out. Okay. So if we get all the way, if we get to the main motion, your question is a good one on the what is the effective date? If council were to adopt it this evening and section three of the draft and Citizens Initiative states and I quote the proposed ordinance that is the subject of this initiative once approved by the voters at the November 6th election, where such other election as authorized by law shall be deemed adopted upon the date the vote is declared by the City Council and shall go into effect ten days after that date. So my interpretation of that and it was we weren't reading the election code, you were adopting it this evening. If your motion were to pass and ten days after that date, it would in theory go into effect. I think in reality here it's going to take longer than that for it to be implemented because we would have to work to get geared up and regulations. We'd have to give notice to all of the hotels. There's going to be a time period where we can't issue or demand their enforcement immediately just because in reality we won't be ready. Okay. So ten days from now would be August 17th. Right. I mean, plus seven plus 7%. So just walk clear. But you're expecting that to be longer, but just because of the time and energy on your end and our end to be able to get that. That's correct. And then after that. You know, the section and I'm not blaming the author of it, but didn't contemplate a possibility of it being adopted by council on August 7th. So it's not clear the intent of this. But I'm trying just as we sit here tonight, if you adopted, I will do some more research and probably come back to you and have an effective date that we can realistically implement. And could we I mean, is it possible for us to suggest a date if we were to say. I don't think that that's possible, because the way the election code says is you have to adopt it either this evening or within ten days. And tonight is the last opportunity that the council has to make the November six ballot. Everything has to be to the county by Friday. So that no, I don't think you can suggest a date. Nor could the proponents of the initiative, since they've already submitted the signatures. Now it's a citizen's initiative. Okay. But we're expecting maybe late August, September, just throwing it out there if if it if the subset was the outright. Okay. Just getting that clear. So I will just ask because I have this opportunity to sit here and ask and I want to just ask this if the maker of the sub sub motion would be willing to withdraw that motion for us to go back to the original motion, I don't know if that's even possible, but I have to ask because I think it's. One of the if I may, on a point of order, the substitute motion, substitute substitute motion has been made and seconded and amended. It's now a motion of the body. So the maker of the motion doesn't now own it. To withdraw, it has to be with a consensus of the council. So you would need a vote? Well. Yes. No. Let me make some comments. I want to I want to I also want to make some comments as well. And I know that everyone said. They wanted to put it out there because I want to make sure we have all of our bases covered. And if we have the ability to work on this and get somewhere where I think we could be, then I'm going to just at least ask and I know that there's obviously Robert's Rules of Order and all that . So we have to abide by. But I think, you. Know, thank you. And I want to I want to obviously thank all the other council members that spoke. And I do want to make some comments tonight that I think are important to make. And I know that we've had a lot of discussion tonight. A revolving is law and the ordinance and the law that's in front of us. And I just I know on a few occasions there's been some discussion about the actual merits of what's in front of us today. And just as a reminder, I think, to all of us and especially the public, because I have read some of this online and in the news, that there is no option to not send this to the public. You either adopt it or it's going to be voted on by the public. There is no more debating what's actually in the actual policy itself, whether folks may not like what's in the policy, but that's what was what was collected , the signatures, and that's what's been in front of us. We know that our hotels are an incredibly important part of our economy, and we know that our hotel workers are driving that success and that economy. I want to note that when Measure N came before us as a party, I was a I was a council member at the time, and it was a very difficult decision. In fact, Councilman Pearce was on the other side of the dais advocating for measure and as well as a lot of folks here were as well, that was to increase the wages for hotel workers to ensure that we were achieving living wages. I supported that measure. I endorse it, campaigned for it, and I believe that measure had a great and good impact on the city of Long Beach, the measure, and did not cause the gloom and doom that many folks said it would cause. In fact, we know that our hotel industry today is booming and successful, and I think we're all grateful for that. We all want our hotels to succeed. We have great hotels and great places across the city for people to enjoy. And I think that's been noted at this council, I think has consistently invested in our tourism economy, whether it's been as as has been stated through our total agreements or investment agreements, investing in the aquarium in the entertainment district. I think the city continues to to make those investments. We've heard a lot tonight about protecting women. And that's incredibly important. And I think as a as a man myself, I think it's important for men to always believe, respect and listen to the stories of women. And so I honor those stories and those experiences that were that were talked about tonight. But I want to touch on another issue tonight that has not been discussed and I think is important. And that's the issue of representative labor. I have strongly believed for a long time, and I continue to believe that low wage workers are almost always better off when they are represented by unions. Yeah, we as a as a as a body. As a body, I am proud that this body has passed a numerous policies that support and have supported both low wage workers and the hard working men and women of our labor force. Whether it's been through project labor agreements or whether it's been through raising the minimum wage, whether it's been through our own interactions with our own employer unions. And there is no question, I think the evidence and the science is clear that particularly in low wage sector jobs , you want those folks to be able to be represented. And it's it creates a stronger, long term economy. Now, there are some folks that I know don't agree with that. I believe in that. I think that's something that is is a truth when it comes to the economy. And I think it's important to be honest, because I know we we I think for all of us, we haven't had this discussion much in the dais. And I will honor the piece about about sexual assault. But I think that we should also know that this law, I believe, would also encourage more representation for the workforce. And I think that over time, that's something that I think is a good thing. Anytime you can have more workers represented is is positive. I want to also just say tonight that over the last ten years that I've been on the council, this issue has come. This issue of the voters bringing something forward has happened to me three times while I've been serving on this body. One was once was with Measure in which we voted two to put on the ballot. One fourth was Measure O, which we voted to put on the ballot, which failed. And fortunately, there was a small cadre of us that supported Measure O and it did not pass. And, and once with with Measure Amount, which was recently done through the marijuana initiative, which the voters took, which we moved forward and did a concurrent study, all were forwarded to the ballot. I know that we're debating and it looks like continuing to discuss three items in front of us tonight. I just want to be clear that of the issues in front of us, I oppose strongly the idea of doing a study that would. Delay. Our ability to have this, if that's the will of the council in November. And so the second motion that's on the floor, which would push this to 2020, I don't think is fair to the people that signed the ballot and that signed their names to that petition. I'll also say, because this is just for me, a question of democracy. And it just I you know, it bothers me on occasion is if I don't want to ever want to ever judge someone that signs their name to a petition regardless of what lead someone to sign that that petition. That's like casting your vote. You put your name on a petition, and it's not our job to verify the signatures. It's the job. It was the job of the county clerk. And those signatures are verified. So this petition is is moving forward. And so I just wanted I wanted to make sure, as we continue this conversation, to just lay out that I don't support that motion. But I also respect everyone's position as far as as far as where they are and wanting to get to a place where we can have consensus on moving forward. And that's, I think, where we are right now. Councilmember Supernova. I would just like to make one point of clarification for the city attorney. I believe you said this earlier, but it's been mentioned twice by members of the dais and in spite of a derogatory remark, yelled from the audience, Alternative three does not automatically delay the item. You could have a study and then council could adopt it. So I just want to make that point of clarification. Mr. PUCKETT. That's correct. The the impact of the timing that we are faced with with the upcoming November election is what eliminates one of your alternatives. When that study comes back, you could still adopt it when the study came back that night at the dais. That is correct. Thank you for that clarification. Now that that's true, absolutely. Councilman Austin Carver, the question. Okay. Okay. So there's no there's no. Well, we've got the question's been called. So there is a motion and a second to to move this item to the November election with a concurrent study on the impacts that would be regulatory to the city as to the city. So, members, please go ahead and cast your vote. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. Well, thank you very much. And I want to thank everybody for coming out. This will be on the November ballot. And with that. We're going to go ahead and take a five minute recess. We'll take a five minute recess and then we'll continue the rest of the council meeting. Democrats say November three. They got it over a year, four years to four years to make the schedule. Three, three months. I do. But. Oh. And. Oh. Doo doo doo. Doo, doo doo. Okay. Let me go ahead and continue the council meeting. I want to just make a make an announcement that we are calling for argument writers for. Well, actually, I need to do it all again. So let me do the role first. Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilmember Pierce, Councilwoman Price, Councilmember Superman. Here. Councilwoman Mongo. Mayor. Vice Mayor Andrews. Council Member. Your UNGA Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Mayor Garcia. Thank you. We are going back. So let me just make first an announcement that we are going to call for argument writers for this for the measure that was just adopted on the on the ballot. And so if you have questions, please contact the city clerk's office. And I believe those will be available beginning tonight. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. So let's go back to the agenda. We do have, I believe, some general public comment. Is Janet Watt here? Marina Rosales and Robert Lucero. Is it Janet with. It says Janet. Janet West. Sure. Janet West is west. Okay. Is Maria is Alice or Robert Lucero here? Okay. So let me move on to the next item on the agenda. The results of the debate. Oh. So the results of the ballot tabulation show that total votes cast were 46 total votes cast, yes. 76.72% total votes cast. No. 23.28% of the votes cast. Yes. Equals 76.72% of the total votes cast. There is not a majority protest. Graduations, graduations to the summer. What that means is then we could be. We need emotion and a second to adopt the resolution establishing. I think there's emotion. I don't know what Counselor Richardson. What? He was emotional. Sure. But I think that we need to be here for the emotion. Right? Good for him. I think now can move it. Well, let's see if he's in the back. Emotion. I know. He wanted to make the motion. The various. Okay. So Councilmember Richardson and Councilman Austin, there's a motion for second. Let me see if Councilman I think Councilman Richardson wanted to make some comments. I hope this plan continues to buy me a path. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I got to say, you know, when we started this conversation about the Uptown Business District six, six years ago, folks said, hey, North Palm Beach would be ten years until you're ready for a business district. And by that clock, we wouldn't have even if we listened to that, we wouldn't even be where we are today, which is renewing for ten full years. So I think that says a lot about how North Long Beach has how far we've come. But this is at no point time to rest on our laurels. Now's the time, frankly, for us to get back to basics, focus on, you know, clean, safe. Make these property owners, the few that did vote against this, make them understand the value and the benefit that we're providing through this Uptown Business Improvement District. So thank you to everybody who did work hard on this. I think if you any way you slice it out. Do we have. So, Eric, even if we take the city votes out, what was the win percentage? So without the city vote. The it would still passed with 57.5% in favor and 42.5% against. Even if we take out the school district vote. It would still pass that 52%. And that's that says a lot because, you know, there was a lot of questions last time. The city owned a lot of property. But, you know, now that property has been disposed, that successor agency property, but we've maintained that support from those large property owners. I think that's a lot to be said about how far we've come. So thank you. And I'm very, very proud to support this. Councilman Austin, this is one for the books. So. Councilman Austin, thank you. And I also would just like to echo those comments. I would like to thank the obviously, the Uptown People staff, Tasha and the board, the neighbors, the business owners who were involved in and this this process. I'd like to thank my staff who actually did some some door to door made phone calls. I personally met with a few property owners to encourage them their support for this this process. This is a this is a win for for North Long Beach, our Atlantic corridor, Artesia corridor, the way we Rex and I often, you know, banter over who coined the phrase the uptown renaissance. But the Uptown Renaissance, I think, was first said by me, but it is still alive and well. And we are we're going to be thriving. Looking forward to some great developments and prosperity with the uptown be. Congratulations. Get out of here. I'm not giving him a click. Steve Neil Coyne uptown. Thank you. There's a motion and a second as there any public comment on this item. CNN, please cast your vote. Okay. Great. Next up is. Well, let me wait till the votes get cast. The motion carries six. Thank you. Next item is going to be.

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. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves the 2015 Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment Bundle #1 comprised of multiple clarifying changes to the text of the Denver Zoning Code (DZC). 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 5-13-15.

DenverCityCouncil_06292015_15-0298

Thank you, Madam President. And good evening. Hours of counsel. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development. I'm the project manager for this Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment, the 2015 Text Amendment Bundle Number one. I also want to acknowledge that unlike the map amendments, this text amendment endeavors are multi staff projects and I've had a vast team helping me out throughout this whole project. A few of them are in the room tonight. I'd like to acknowledge a barge Tina Axelrod and Jill Jennings Gorelick and a number of others who weren't able to be here tonight. This text amendment is being promulgated by the Department of Community Planning and Development as part of our ongoing effort to keep the zoning code modern, clear up to date and user friendly. So the Department is proposing this amendment. It's the last bundle package we did was 15 months ago, in April of 2014. We periodically review how the code is working and prioritize potential updates in response to feedback that we get largely from customers in the development services experience, reviewing applications and working with folks at the counter and performing inspections in the field. We also receive community and neighborhood feedback throughout the year and we also seek to keep the code up to date as industries change around us. So a lot of the updates that are in this package come in direct response to that feedback that we receive from customers and Denver residents. It's also an extensive public involvement and process that's involved with all of our text amendments. We kicked it off publicly in February of this year with the Inter Neighborhood Cooperation Zoning and Planning Committee briefing. This is an opportunity for the zoning and planning representatives from many of the registered neighborhood organizations around the city to come together as part of and see and talk with staff and dialog about what would go in the amendment before words are even put to paper. So we went out there on February 28th, talked about the issues that we'd heard as potential items and received feedback there, and took that feedback to then develop a summary of the text amendments that we posted in March, which we then delivered to at a briefing of the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee of City Council, as well as the Planning Board and Information Item. Then we took all of the feedback that we received in those briefings to produce a red line draft at the end of March, which was published on March 30th , and also sent out to all registered neighborhood organizations and city council members. Because a lot of folks like to dialog with staff and help and get some better understanding of how a particular amendment would affect them or their project or their home, or is an issue of concern to them. We we offer public office hours when we do text amendments. So we held three sessions in the Wellington Webb building at different times of the day, on different days of the week, to be able to attract folks who have different schedules. And so we did those in the first half of April of 2015 and then and then we create with that feedback, we, we redrafted and put together a draft for the planning board. We provided notice again to all RINO's and City Council members of a planning board. Public hearing produced a new draft for the planning board and held a public hearing at the Planning Board on April 29th. Following that and the feedback we received from Planning Board, we provided notice of a scheduled Neighborhoods and Planning Committee meeting and released a new draft for that committee online on May 7th and then went to the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee meeting again on May the 13th. That was followed by a City Council first reading and publication, an email notice of a city council scheduled public hearing that was originally scheduled for two weeks ago. And then three weeks ago, on June the eighth, City Council amended the bill on the floor, ordered it republished, which we did. It was republished. A notice was again provided to registered neighborhood organizations and city council members of tonight's public hearing, the final public hearing for this June the 29th. And I'll talk about the amendment in a little bit. We also did a number of other outreach components that aren't part of the code, but, you know, help broadcast the word about the text amendment through committees, email newsletters that we invite folks to sign up on, on our website, our Twitter account. And we also held a one on one meetings additionally on request with various parties who are interested in our work. In your packets. There were nine written comments provided at the time of the staff report and another one was received over the weekend and uploaded by City Council staff today providing written comment. And generally a few of the folks are here tonight who provided written comments. I won't speak for them. Their comments ranged from encouraging some of the content that's in the code to encouraging improved street level active use requirements that you'll see in many of our own districts now correcting the many storage parking requirement corrections to how we treat certain kinds of homeless shelters in the code. One comment thanking the city for collaborating on the new marijuana extraction rules. There was a comment regarding the clarifications we're doing on step back encroachments. And then there was comments related to the effective date for pipeline projects, and that's what resulted in the amendment a few weeks ago. So let me speak briefly to the amendment. The amended bill or amended the bill that had been originally filed in order to address projects that are already in the review pipeline. And so what that amendment did, the council passed on June the eighth was to allow any formal site development plan application that we receive this week before the new code goes into effect. By the end of this this work week, that anyone who's in the door with us with a formal site plan application can can make the choice of whether to remain under the current zoning code or if it's to their benefit. And they want to they can have review under the new code that will if they if the code is adopted tonight. And and so that will allow those folks who choose to remain under the current code another six months to go through the review process, get any approvals they might need, and seek that approval by January 4th of 2016, and thus avoid the need for a potential rereview of a component of their plan if they've already been in the door with us. So that's in the bill tonight. The Denver Zoning Code Text Amendment Bundle addresses a wide variety of topics the kind of eight groups overall that are addressed in the summary that was included in your packet. They include general provisions. The talk about how we identify zone districts, zone lots and number of uses, zone lot. They address the neighborhood context design standards. So these are our building form standards found throughout the code. They also have to do with general design standards. So site development standards that apply throughout the different neighborhood contexts such as landscaping, parking. We are proposing a few changes relative to parking, both bicycle and vehicle parking. There are some changes in how uses are addressed in the code, which includes use limitations. There are some clarifications to zoning procedures and I'll hit the highlights here in a second. We have changes to the rules of measurement and definitions for how how terms are defined and how things are measured in the code. And then we have some clarifications and corrections that we make throughout the entire code. And I'll just hit some of the highlights that address, specifically the comments that you received and and that kind of are getting the most attention that the most substantive parts of this code. The first is that we're codifying CPD's practice of providing earlier notification to registered neighborhood organizations when a rezoning or a zone map amendment is submitted. So for about a year now, we've been doing that by policy of the executive director, and that will now be in code that when we receive a complete application upon receipt of that application, we will provide notice to the registered neighborhood organizations and city council members. So that's now going to be part of our code. We're updating our bicycle parking standards to add new bicycle parking standards for a few uses that don't have them. Today, most users in the city already have a minimum bicycle parking requirement for new development and additions, and this will increase the number of uses that are subject to those standards. We'll also rightsize a couple of the bicycle parking standards that we got wrong that we've learned from five years of experience with the Denver zoning code. We're also rightsizing the mini store to vehicle parking requirement, which was accidentally, inadvertently increased throughout most of the city when we converted. One way of measuring parking in the former Chapter 59 old zoning code to the new Denver zoning code. So we think we've got that right. Finally, we're proposing changes to street level activation to significantly increase the requirement for street level active uses in our most urban mixed use and main street districts. And this includes new incentives for activation of parking structures, which will add new incentives for folks who want to do the right thing on the street level or on all street facing facades to allow them to provide additional onsite parking if they so choose. We have new rules included in this that are companion to a licensing bill that you passed earlier tonight in zoning for how we deal with marijuana extractions, as we've learned from our experience regulating that. So those are now in this text amendment bundle. And then we have a variety of organization, graphics and corrections that we've made throughout the code. I'm happy to dialog further, more specifically on any topic that you may be interested interested in talking more about, because we've had so many briefings. I haven't teed up all of them here tonight in respect to the future hearings you'll have tonight. But I have a lot more content behind this presentation, if there are any in particular you'd like to dialog further about. So there are three review criteria in the Denver zoning code for a text amendment. The first is that it needs to be consistent with the city's adopted plans and policies. The second is that it needs to further the public health, safety and general welfare. And the third is that it will result in regulations that are uniform. And we reviewed this, the text amendment against all three review criteria and find that it meets it. It directly implements the comprehensive plan 2000 policies relative to ensuring that we have a Denver zoning ordinance that is flexible, that it comments accommodates current and future land use needs, that identifies community issues and targets those concerns with appropriate controls and incentives. So this is directly in line with the city's adopted plans regarding keeping our zoning ordinance up to date. It furthers the public health and safety and general welfare of our residents or land owners or business owners. By providing clarity and predictability in our zoning rules, by removing barriers to planned and desired development, and by overall continuing to implement our adopted plans. And then it will result in regulations that are uniform within each zone district. And because it's making improvements to how we administer the code, it will help improve the city's ability to administer uniformly the code with projects. So again, we find that it meets all three review criteria. As I mentioned, the planning board held a public hearing on April 29th. They took testimony there that unanimously recommended approval of this with three conditions to make some revisions in those earlier drafts, which we had recommended. And all those revisions were made and are included in the draft that is before you tonight. And so with that, we recommend that tonight City Council approve this text amendment. Thank you, Mr. Dalton. We have three speakers this evening. Signed up to testify on behalf of Council Bill 298. Please come to the front bench right behind the podium when I call your name. The first speaker is Heather Noyes. Great. Second speaker. Hey, Hank. Happy, sappy. And the third speaker is Dave Decker. Good evening. Can I should I start? Mm hmm. Hi. My name is Heather Noyes. Greg. I live at 4492 Xavier Street. I'm a 24 year old resident. Of Berkeley Park. I'm a small business owner on Tennyson Street. My business is studio CPG. We're certified WBEZ by the city and county of Denver. I have two children at Skinner Denver Public Schools. I'm active with our R.A. I serve on the City School Goals Committee. I serve on DPS Goals Committee. And I tell you this because I care passionately about my neighborhood and our city, and I urge you to vote in favor of the text amendment. Tonight, I want to thank Kyle Dalton and a barge who have spent a significant amount of time in our neighborhood looking at development impacts and listening to our neighbors. I want to thank Evelyn Baker, who's walked our streets over there and also spoken with a group of neighbors, and especially Councilwoman Sheppard, who has spent significant time also walking and talking and listening and a heartfelt thanks to you for your efforts. I have two issues or items I'd like to bring to your attention with respect to these proposed changes in the zoning code. I do believe it's a huge step forward. However, I believe that activation of impact zone districts at street level, the 40% activation in the bundle, number one, doesn't go far enough. It's a baby step. This city is investing millions and millions of dollars in streetscape improvements, starting with Tennyson Street, two and a half million dollars. Brighton Boulevard $47 million, East Colfax, West Colfax, many, many other projects too numerous to mention. And I believe that the city should leverage this taxpayer's investment and not allow the automobile to be the dominant use at street level in the max zone. District's 40% activation requirement is great, but that means 60% is left and can be used as parking. And I just think this is really unfortunate and a huge, huge missed opportunity. If we're going to make a change, let's do it right and let's really, you know, put a stamp on this and leverage taxpayers investment. My second my second issue and I have a tape measure, but I'm not going to roll it out. The depth of activated space is limited to 15 feet. I do not believe that's a functional space. Many people have said there's an economic issue associated with how deep you make an activated space. Councilwoman Sheppard and can each have been in my office 15 feet in my office? Gets you two desks, no restroom, no storage, no lobby, nothing in with my retail co-op cohorts and compatriots on Heather Street. Heather, your time. It's just not deep enough. Thank you. That's all I had to say. Thank you very much. Thanks for coming. Our next speaker is Hank Saifi. If I didn't pronounce it right. Hank, say. As extreme as I'm at 250 Jersey Street in Denver. And I'm here to support the text amendments that are happening, especially concerning the self-storage parking that we've developed here. And I can answer any questions, but I just support what they've done. Thank you. Thank you. Our final speaker is Dave Decker. Good evening. My name is Dave Decker. I am at 4258 Tennyson Street in Denver. I'm here on behalf of. Berkeley, Regis, United Neighbors. It's the R.A. up on that represents Tennyson Street. We've been working on this issue. For well over a year. We had a public meeting last February. We had well over 100 people and. About 800 written comments, many of which discussed new development, residential and commercial. And what what the kind of the take away from it is. There are some really great things about Tennyson. Street, but it could be said about many commercial streets in Denver. They're walkable, they're friendly, they're active. And what we've found with some of the new construction that it's happening is they're turning their backs to the street. They're using it as parking. They're putting the windows on the sides and the front doors and the sides of the buildings, but that doesn't activate the street. So what we have this great attribute of our commercial streets and Denver and that they're friendly and they're walkable. But in the new construction, people are concerned that we were losing that. So what we did is we we and Heather mentioned this earlier. We we had a meeting with Councilwoman Shepherd and she. Engaged the help of the planning office. Planner level and Baker. And also we've gotten help from Karl Dalton and a barge. They've done a wonderful, wonderful job educating the R.A. about what can be done. They let us know about this process and we're in full support of it. We our board took a vote. It passed 8 to 1 to support this tax amendment, mainly to adding the design standards, to revising the parking requirements, and to require those active, active street users. Again, like Heather said, we strongly support the passage of. This amendment and I do appreciate the time. I apologize for my appearance. But getting around on crutches in about I'm a little bit more concerned about comfort right now. But and if you have any questions, be free to answer them. Well, thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council? Councilman Ortega. Thank you. Madam President, I would like to ask Colonel Dalton to come back to the microphone, please. Got a couple of questions for you. In my perusing of the document. I didn't see anything that deals with the. The whether there was discussion about. Continuing to do the general development plans, the way they're being done now in in a wounded clarification on whether or not there's a size of a project that requires a general development plan. So can you can you speak to that? Sure. Yeah. So this text the moment does not propose any changes to the current general development plan rules. As I mentioned, you know, the process started many months ago. And at that time, we are still engaged in a task force with many community members and developers and staff. And so we didn't want to preempt the outcome of that process with amendments in this text amendment bundle. So there is nothing in this text amendment bundle to change the world or develop general development plans. I think we'll need to revisit that now that most of the task force work is completed in the future bundle. But again, because this started so long ago and that was going on, we didn't want to preempt that work. Okay. And then for the parking, I saw that you were adding or the department has added language that makes it more convenient and easier to have bike parking. And I heard the speaker loud and clear, Heather, when you were talking about the concern about too much parking. But I guess I'm looking at some of the larger developments where some of these commercial corridors are not on a transportation line. Were there any changes to parking criteria or that was pretty much left intact as well. For bicycle parking, specifically. For vehicle. Not bicycle parking for for cars, for large developments that go into these commercial corridors. Yeah. So there are no changes proposed to the minimum vehicle parking ratio, you know, onsite vehicle parking ratios. And as part of this bundle, other than the reduction in the vehicle parking requirement for many storage facilities, which, you know, are sometimes located on those commercial corridors and sometimes not. But that's the only change to vehicle parking ratios in the code. We're also clarifying how you can take the existing reductions that are in the code. In. Alternatives, so you know about making sure folks don't double count reductions or clarifying that. But but there aren't substantive changes to vehicle parking. Madam Chair, I have two more questions. May I continue? The next one is about zero escaping under the landscaping. I didn't see that we're encouraging more zero escaping as we were experiencing an unusual year this year because of the kind of rain we had. But, you know, in the past few years, we have had some serious watering restrictions. And so I want to know how that particular issue was dealt with or was it not at all? Sure. Yeah. It's a great question. That was not part of the scope of this text amendment. So we did not begin a community conversation about adding zero escaping requirements in the code. Okay. And then my last question is about whether or not there was anything that came up about allowable locations for food trucks. I know there was supposed to be a task force started to deal with this issue, and that hasn't happened. But I don't know if that was something that came up during this process. So no. Again, thanks for the question. There are no changes proposed in this text amendment relative to food trucks in particular, I think. You know, when we saw the the resurgence of them a few years ago, we got together with some of the other departments and created a food truck guide to help folks navigate the city's current regulations better. And and that really helped folks know where they needed to go and when what the rules are. So there are no changes proposed as part of this text amount to the current rules. Well, I'm sorry, I do have one last one. And this is on the national western campus when I had a briefing from the staff person around the language changes or the zoning creating the new campus zoning for the National Western Center. One of the things that was talked about was allowing a helipad and I didn't see and hear if that was still in the language. Can you help me determine if that is still an allowable use or is it a conditional use or is it not being allowed after all? Sure. I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question, that the council will take up the matter of National Western Center zoning next week. That's a separate text amendment, so there are separate red lines for it. And I'm not the project manager on that case. I'm not familiar with that issue. Okay. I was just curious because I saw part of that language included in here. This is probably just some of the base language right in it because it's got all the red lines as part of what we received in the packet. Oh okay. For the the bundle. Yeah. No that should not be being adopted as part of tonight's. That's part of next week's agenda. Okay. So let me ask the city attorney then, have you seen this? So we've got a whole section in here called Campus National Western Center as part of the bundle. And so I'm just trying to understand, if we're not if we're dealing with the actual adoption of that zoning next week, should it be part of this language here tonight? No, I'm kind of going to look to Kyle because, again, Lori Strand, city attorney's office, the red line for the bundle should not include red lines establishing the new National Western Center. That's separate. That'll be a separate text amendment. So perhaps the red line that was provided to you was incorrect or. I'm happy to provide you what I received. I printed this out. But what you're proving tonight is and that does not include the language for the north ethnic national western. So that's when you get political. Okay. Councilman Ortega, can we move on or what is it that you make up? I was just trying to get clarification. Would you like me to. We're, in fact, including. Or are we just adopting that? National Western Center is a category we're creating. I mean, there's some there there. So again, we will speak to what was provided. But tonight before you is not that. So if that text is shown on the red line and should not be. That's going to be considered next week as a separate text amendment. But Kyle can explain perhaps what was provided. Sure. Yeah. I don't have a copy of what you provide these things, but the copy of the red line draft that I have does not include that. And regardless, what the council is adopting tonight is what was filed with the ordinance. And what was filed with the ordinance is a clean version. In that clean version, I can assert does not have anything related to National Western Center in it. So if there is a either an error in something staff produced that shows the red line, which is a courtesy to show what's happening but is not what is filed . My mistake, but is not in the copy of the red line that I have in front of me. And, and on the front page of what you provided actually says this is the national western centered public review draft, not the bundle. So this is actually for the National Western think, which is next week at the rural one. So it's a different packet that you should have for cattle and it's much thicker than this. You'll know because that's about 700 pages. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Shepherd. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So, Kyle, if you could stay up here. So I was hoping. I just want to jump in really quickly. We heard from some audience members that they're not able to hear council comments. So I should have said that before the public hearing. So you wouldn't. Mind speaking closer to the microphone. Thank you. So, Mr. Dalton, just to help put that tonight's conversation in a little bit better context, I was hoping you could expound a little bit on what the street level activation changes actually were, because I think it's imperative in terms of two of the speaker's comments this evening. Sure. Thanks. So so here's here's the street level active use. What we're proposing in the text amendment, I'll remind the Council that in the current code we have building form requirements that relate to mixed use and main street districts. So where are we already have requirements relative to transparency, how many windows are required and the size and and the location of those. How much of the building is located near the street? In our mixed use of Main Street districts, that surface parking isn't allowed between the building and street in many of those locations. So what this is specifically speaking to is the use that's happening inside that building for certain widths and depths. So what we have currently in the code today without this amendment is we address use only in Main Street and we don't address it at all in mixed use. So in our Main Street districts today, we have what I've got on the screen now that the ground story within the required build to portion must have at least one primary use other than parking of vehicles. That's the language in the code today. It was in the original Main Street when it was adopted in the mid 2000s. There's no dimensions on it. There's nothing other than no parking. So, you know, what we found is folks can provide a postage stamp sized lobby and meet that requirement and then move on and still have parking in the rest of Main Street and then again in mixed use or nothing today. So that's the current state of affairs. What's proposed in the bundle is to change that for some of our districts. So we'll be adding new use requirements that apply to the portion of the building frontage, meaning the bill too. So that's kind of the width question. And so we'll do that in the main street in our C-Max Urban Center mixed use zone districts that so 100% of the part of the building that's meeting the build to requirement in those districts needs to have what we're calling a street level active use. I'll explain that in a second. In the, um ex in the TMX zone districts, we're proposing a 40% frontage requirement and then in all the others we're still not changing the world. So in the urban edge, in the suburban, in the commercial corridor zone districts, no change. And then as Heather alluded to, you know, they just mentioned the frontage percentages, which is essentially the width. There would be a minimum, a depth of 15 feet. So, you know, that's the minimum that would be required in order to meet the new code requirement. And within that 15 feet and the percentage you couldn't do parking, mini storage, wholesale storage or trade or accessory auto related uses. So you know what the department's proposed. I would agree with the speakers that it's moving the ball forward significantly. And these districts that today have none or almost no requirement, while at the same time recognizing that through the bundle, we're taking a citywide approach. We're not taking a street by street, block by block approach to know, you know, where in some places and. Some districts, you know, there may be a more appropriate, more stringent requirement that's appropriate. And and so, you know, my colleague, a barge is already working with the Berkeley neighborhood, in particular to work on an overlay district, perhaps for their neighborhood that would increase the requirements there based on their unique needs. But on a citywide basis, when we studied where all of those euro zone districts are, where all the TMX, where all the C-Max or all the main street are, we felt that this was the right move to move the ball forward with without unduly burdening accidentally projects throughout the whole city. Okay. I thank you. And then I have one more question for Miss Gregg. Yeah. You can come. Up here with. So, Miss Gregg, I know you were a little bit rushed in your comments, and so I'm not sure you got to say everything that you wanted to say, but I wanted to make sure that you are in support of the changes tonight, because I know you said a couple of them didn't go far enough. So I'm not sure if I heard you say that you owe complete support. Yes, that's what I just think. You clarify. I think you. Thank you. Any other comments by members of council or questions on the public hearing for council? Bill 298 is closed. Comments by Members of Council Councilman Sesame. Okay. Councilman Shepherd. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So I just wanted to say that I am in support of this text amendment bundle tonight, and I want to I want to talk a lot about the process, because that's as important of the story of what we're actually doing here tonight. And I know that Ms.. Greg alluded to this, but the Berkeley Regis neighborhood organization has had a profound impact on what these text amendments are included in the bundle, specifically as relates to the street level activation piece of this bundle. This is how the iterative process of the code is supposed to work. So in May of last year, the neighborhood organization held an open session for neighbors from the whole community to come in. And it didn't have to have, you know, knowledge in the code. You just had to be able to articulate what it was that you liked and what's working in the new code and what isn't. And there was a lot of this is an area that has, under the new code revision and with the rebound in the market, has experienced tremendous growth and change just in the last 2 to 3 years. And quite frankly, a lot of the residents are really reeling from those impacts in a number of ways. But I will really hand it to the neighborhood for being able to be very articulate about, you know, what is working and what isn't working and why and why they'd like to see. And so what came out of that was a very nicely spelled out list of of thoughts and possible recommendations that the neighborhood neighborhood would like to have seen in the code. And so working through my office, we were able to have a meeting with officials from Community Planning and Development and literally do a walkthrough with the neighborhood , which I think took like two or 3 hours, like not just the commercial street, but the neighborhood. And there were several recommendations that came forward. Community planning and development on its own accord acted to already implement some of those suggestions, which happened administratively actually last year. This particular one in relation to street activation actually, you know, was determined as a need to be changed in the code and that is why it's coming forward in this bundle of text amendments. But and I know the process took longer, much longer than the neighborhood had wanted. I mean, I think that meeting, if I'm not mistaken, with community planning and development, was in probably about August of last year. And here it is July, and we're finally passing the code. And I know it's frustrating for folks that things don't change as quickly as as folks would like, but this is how the process works. And I want people to understand that. I mean, I know there's a lot of frustration out there because when the code revision was passed in 2010, nobody could really envision what it would look like as it played out. And certainly the way the market has rebounded so quickly and so much has redeveloped in a very short period of time and especially the pressure has been very great on certain neighborhoods. And I know a lot of people are, you know, upset and angry and wringing hands. But there are practical solutions, you know, and it starts at that neighborhood level about collecting that data and that input, you know, and then reaching out to council members or community planning and other staff to try to start figuring out how to make those changes in a way that is meaningful and works. And this is very much a testament to that. And, you know, I want folks to understand that, you know, the entire city team is open to this and this is how the process works. So, you know, please consider this. You know, this is really, in my opinion, at least this piece of it is really, you know, kind of a hats off to the process working well. And I just want other individuals and neighbors and neighborhood organizations to take, you know, to receive assurance that this is how we can affect change and that the code is a living document, breathing document, and that it can change and and we can make it work better. We really can. And so I just you know, this is this neighborhood organization. I mean, it's all volunteers, as all of them are. But and this particular neighborhood organization has a tremendous amount of expertize among the board in terms of design and development planning. And so was able to have a really informed discussion with city staff about how to make this happen. And so I just really want to encourage folks, you know, to, you know, to get beyond hand-wringing and to get to that constructive level because we can make this work better. So I'm definitely in support. And once again, want to thank Berkeley Regents for taking the initiative and helping to make this happen. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 298. Shepherd Susman, Brooks Brown. II. But I can eat lemon. I Lopez. I never. I. Ortega. I rub i. Madam President, i. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. Zero nays. Council Bill 298 has passed. Council Bill 345 and 346 approve the zoning map amendments. The Council is required by law to conduct public hearings on zoning map amendments. The council's actions are subject to court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to council are marked as exhibits and become a part of the record. Speakers should begin their comments by telling the council their names, cities of residence, and if they feel comfortable doing so. Their home addresses. Councilman Lopez, will you please? Please. Council Bill 345 on the floor. Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill 345 series of 2015 be placed upon final consideration to pass. Okay. I need a second from a member of council. It's been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 345 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, Teresa Lucero with community planning and development. I am trying to get a PowerPoint open here, so give me a second.

Approves the creation of a Special Revenue Fund serving as a revolving loan fund for the specific purpose of creating new affordable housing for the workforce rental population in Denver. (FINANCE & SERVICES) The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-12-14.

DenverCityCouncil_09082014_14-0620

Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Any other questions or comments? All right. That was not called out. So we will go to the SEC. Go to the next one, which is bills for final consideration, which I believe, Madam Secretary. The first one was 620, caught out by Councilwoman Fox. What would you like for us to do with this, Councilwoman? Please put it on the floor for a vote. Certainly will. Councilman Brooks, would you please have 620 place on the floor for final consideration? Certainly, Mr. President, I put Council Bill 620 on the floor for final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. This is the creation of an affordable housing funding mechanism. If you believe Denver should be funding affordable workforce housing, the fund is structured well. So my problem, my problems are not with the structure of the fund. My problem is that it has already been stated that the intention is to ask for general general fund money to go into it. Now, last year, general fund money was appropriated with the idea that a fund would be created. And at that time, I had thought I had a compromise with the administration that it would be a one time funding mechanism. And in fact, they are the ones that described it as one time. And now here we go again. So that that's a problem for me. If this is going to be a mechanism that just continually siphons general fund money off by using general fund people who earn less, like many of the people in my area will be seeing their city taxes siphoned off for housing for people who actually earn more than they do. Remember workforce housing. We're not talking about homeless. We're not talking about the poor, such as the Denver Housing Authority serves. We are talking about workforce housing. And I am not willing to short city services that people think they're paying for in order to siphon the money to an affordable housing fund for workforce housing, which the city has shown it can put on some of the highest real estate in this city. So I will be voting no. Thank you. Councilwoman Foster. Any other comments from members of council? Seeing Madam Secretary role go. But no. Carnage. Layman Lopez Montero I nevett i. Ortega I Rob Shepherd. Susman. Brooks Brown. Hi. Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and out the results. 12 eyes, one knee, 12 eyes. One is comfortable. 620 has been placed upon final consideration and does pass. Madam Secretary, I think the last one was Council Bill 629 called out by Councilwoman Ortega. That will not come to a question. Go right ahead. I don't know if we have someone here from our city's asset office sky. Can you help answer a question? So I don't know what the zoning is on this property. I know exactly where the parcel is and I'm just trying to figure out what it is that the buyer plans to do with the property. Do we have any idea? Lisa Lumley from Real Estate is not here this evening, but I'll have her get back to you. I think she has had conversations with the purchaser about what their intention is, but I do not recall that off the top of my head. Okay. Mr. President, I will vote for its passage. Well, it's it some final. It is. Mr. President, if I may. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Councilman. So I chaired a committee that this came through on consent, and I was actually going to ask Councilwoman Sheppard, this is in her district, and she did a little due diligence on it before we put it on consent. And I don't want to put you on the spot, Councilwoman Sheppard, but you may be able to answer the question. And if not, we can certainly. Thank you, Councilman. Can each councilman I tell you what I recall in the discussion was I was concerned about the historic property that is part of this parcel. And so I was asking what was going to happen to the historic property there. And I was not told what the larger redevelopment was, but I was told that the developer would continue to keep the historic property that it's there and incorporate it into the overall development. But I did not learn what the larger redevelopment was. So we don't know if it's a mixed use or if it's just housing or if it's going to be commercial. I don't know that at this time. Okay. I would appreciate hearing from our real estate office to learn more about what is proposed on the site. We'll get you that information here. All right. That was all of them, I believe. And I'll just quickly look up and down. I believe we got them all. So we are now ready for the block votes. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilman Brooks, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption? Why, certainly, Mr. President, I put the following bills on the floor for resolution to be adopted in a block. Others 2014 653 667 696 679, 683, 742 and 743.

AN ORDINANCE relating to planning and permitting; amending Ordinance 1888, Article III, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 6.01.150, Ordinance 10870, Section 334, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.08.070, Ordinance 10870, Section 335, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.08.080, Ordinance 10870, Section 336, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.08.090, Ordinance 10870, Section 407, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.18.030, Ordinance 10870, Section 536, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.30.080, Ordinance 15606, Section 20, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.30.085, Ordinance 10870, Section 537, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.30.090, Ordinance 10870, Section 547, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.32.100, Ordinance 10870, Section 548, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.32.110, Ordinance 10870, Section 549, as amended, and K.C.C. 21A.32.120, Ordinance 17485, Section 43, and K.C.C. 21A.38.260 and Ordinance 13623, Section 37, as amended, and K.C.C. 23.32.010, adding new sections to K.C.C. chapter 21A.06, adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 21A.55, adding a new chapter to K.C.C. Title 6, repealing Ordinance 15974, Section 5, and K.C.C. 21A.06.1427 and pre

KingCountyCC_09162019_2018-0241

The August 19th minister before us see no discussion. All those in favor. Please say I oppose. Nay, the ayes have it. Minutes were approved. That takes us to the last item on today's agenda. An update to the counties development regulations regarding wineries, breweries and distilleries will take public comment on this item. We have 25 people signed up to testify. I will ask you to limit your testimony to one minute each, and when I call your name, I'll try to call about three people at a time. You're welcome to approach either podium. The same rules apply that applied earlier to not campaign for or against any one or any ballot measure and to avoid obscene speech. With that, I will apologize in advance for any mispronunciations. And we'll begin with Susan, Bernie Sanders, Ryan Ervin and Dominique Jorgensen. Shall I go ahead and start? Yes, go ahead. I'm Susan Bounty Sanders. My remarks today should be taken as those of me individually, not in my role as one big city council members. I want to thank you for the fixes so far in Councilmember Bell due to strike. That's presented today, but I urge you to go farther in your fixes. The goal, as I see it, is to preserve irreplaceable agricultural land and to honor the Growth Management Act and to make that that urban growth boundary as bright a line as possible, rather than eroding the urban growth boundary. Wherever you see someone or interact with a landowner that you like, rather than making. Your. Decisions based on the public policy questions and the specific fixes that I would ask for are first, eliminate overlay. A second, sharpen up the definition of winery so that it is not prone to abuse. And third, I remove the provisions that grandfather people who are currently in violation. These problems still leave the door open for land speculation and environmental degradation, and that's why I'm asking for their removal. Thank you very much. You have your own Ron Irving of Fashion Winery, and I'm here to support the amendment to the ordinance. And I'll make it short. I wanted to tell you some of my background and I maybe have enough time, but there are a couple of great exceptions and I worked on both of them. The Pike Place Market is historic district from the city of Seattle, Seattle, and work with the Pike Development Authority and also in 1976, the Save the Farm Lands. And both of those have been really critical too, to us. Vachon is very unique and right now we're struggling with people coming over because it is so unique. And and I think that I hope that you can see that and making an exception will work and it'll keep me in business. Thank you. Thank you. And following don't Dominique will be then it's but it's going below. Melissa Earle and Cliff Otis. This striker is still terrible. We should all be ashamed of King County, of how bad, how corrupt, how inept and discriminatory our whole system is, especially permitting businesses like ours have been claimed as being harmful to the environment. You know, King County's lack of good infrastructure has left billions of gallons of raw sewage dumping into Puget Sound over the last three years alone, yet were the ones that are claimed to be damaging the environment. We don't have good infrastructure, period. Yet you're pushing for rural businesses to go into urban where you can't even support who is already there. I am so ashamed of our county and flabbergasted that it can be so blatantly hypocritical. I honestly believe if Dr. Martin Luther King were here today, he would be ashamed to have his name associated with this county. We all have a dream. We won't be able to live equally, be successful, and be able to enjoy family, friends and life itself. Well, this is not a dream. This is a nightmare. And King County has nobody to blame but themselves for the issues we have today. Issues like this are exactly what people hate. King County. We're the worst county in supporting agriculture, local business and residents. We have no accountability. We have no recourse. We are wrong and we have no recourse. When permitting doesn't follow their own code as WDM or even state law, the current Stryker breaks multiple state laws now, sir, to be completely thrown out the window. You want accountability from the people. How do you start with the government? Have accountability first, this ordinance initiated from a study that represented only 0.0 1% of the entire unincorporated areas, yet then will blanket the other completely unrepresented 99.99%. Do you realize how ridiculous this doesn't results from such a minuscule area to affect everyone else. This would be like conducting a random medical drug study where after one person the results are in. So let's not take it to the rest of the population. Thank you. And I recognize that people perhaps came with expecting a longer amount of time to testify. If you have written testimony, by all means you can provide it to our clerk and copies will be made and distributed to all of us. Good afternoon. Afternoon. My name is Dan Scrambler and I'm an owner of Horse and Brewery. Just wanted to let everyone know. Four agricultural farms throughout Kent Valley in 1882 1891, hops were planted throughout the entire valley. So we are completely agricultural businesses. But, you know, I have a real big problem with this grandfathering clause where it says, like, you have to be in compliance as of the date of the ordinance passes. Just that verbiage is against state law. And can you explain how difficult this is? We've spent over $20,000 to file a 1400 dollars permit and that it's just crazy how hard it is to get any sort of permit. When departments can't talk to each other functionally. So I just I it's really hard to make this ordinance better because it just started wrong and it really, I think it just to waste any more time, money and effort, it should just be thrown out. And if something needs to happen, it needs to start with the fresh start. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, counsel. My name is Melissa Earl and I'm. One of the owners of Lumber House Brewery in Hobart. I'd like to state for the record that our various parties have not been notified of these swift scheduled ordinance hearings from the beginning all the way to now. We've never been notified and we've put our information down. We've been told we were going to be communicated with. And we've never been told about these. And they always end up being really quickly dropped. And most people can't take off work to come here and do public testimony with a few days notice. The most recent version is not clear on grandfathering or vesting businesses. Please make sure to review vesting state law. We do not believe that this is in compliance with state law, nor. Is. Licensing the sale of alcohol, which again is only regulated by state and federal law. This ordinance proposes that we can make but not sell our products, which I don't think that's a very successful business model for us unincorporated breweries, which in turn has forced us to move our businesses. Actually, I had to separate mine, leaving my brewery in Hobart and taking part of it to Black in the city. Yeah, I came with a two minute long speech, I guess from a show of hands. Can anybody else in this room say majority? We don't support this ordinance. It was like that last time when we came here and did public testimony and most people here said they didn't support it. And I think that today we're pretty much in the same boat. Following Mr. Harris will be Paula Waters. Brianne Ebsen in any Magrath Hello. My name's Cliff Otis. I'm the owner of MATTHEWS Winery in Woodinville. So greetings. Several of the changes that have been identified in this Stryker will have a very negative impact on our ability to run our business and sustain our winter operations at the current location. Both the new 15% tasting room limit and the parking changes have really caught us off, you know, off guard and surprise. So we're we're suggesting that you guys just take a little bit more time, because structurally this doesn't make any sense. 15% of the tasting room space is not enough to run our business. And the parking, if you index that with the top, if you're having a tip for 150 people or 250 people we would have the most of at WB the two eight parking spots to be the three of 17. How are you supposed to do an event of 125 people or 250 people on eight parking spots and 17? If we don't change the parking stuff inside this to a minimum, you're going to have a mess because you're going to have people parking on arterials and side streets all over the county. And I don't think you want that. So really think through the structural pieces of this ordinance because there's some big deficiencies in it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Paula Waters. I'm speaking today to you also as an. Individual, not as a city council member, and wouldn't vote in 2013. I ran for city. Council specifically to protect the valley. From the threat of annexation of parcels that was. Being considered by the city, parcels in the action being considered by the city council. At that time, we were able to forestall that threat. But regrettably, the threats now of land speculation and environmental and environmental degradation will not be solved, I believe. By this legislation, but perhaps even enshrined. So I get. It. We've been looking at this for a long time. It's very hard to manage competing interests. But I just want you to know that if this legislation gets passed as it is, I will be deeply disappointed. Thank you. Good afternoon, council members. My name is Amy McGrath and I'm the executive director of the Washington Brewers Guild, which represents the state's small and independent craft breweries. There are currently 400 breweries in our state and 111 of those breweries are located here in King County. We continue to have concerns regarding the proposed ordinance requirement that breweries obtain an adult beverage business license to be issued by the county, and the state would require or the stated reason for requiring this additional licenses so that the county can better track these businesses operating within unincorporated King County and then provide regulation for compliance. And the state already is required to notify the county if these businesses come up for a new brewery license or a renewal. And we're also required to do monthly reporting to the state on production and taxes paid. And so it's very easy to track active licenses further where we're concerned that the requirements attached to this license go into the territory of regulating the manufacture of beer in the state, which we believe is regulated by the state and the TTB at the federal level. We're very highly regulated and are concerned about the overall reaching precedent that this could have for other local jurisdictions that would implement their own licenses and their own enforcement structure for this very important business for our state. Thank you so much for your time and work on this. Thank you. Following Brian will be Barb, Larimer, Greg, Lill and Larry Savage. Hello. I am a resident of District seven. Of unincorporated King County. I'm pretty much here just to. Do my public testimony of loving my community and loving the brewery that is walking distance for my own residents and enjoying the the kind of sanctuary of having my neighbors being able to to relax after work and kind. Of get to meet your neighbors and. Stuff like that, as well as the agricultural. Affects of it as well, like the selling of eggs. Say you want to bake a cake, you can go to your neighbor and get some eggs. And I just think it's positive. I kind of industry in our. Small neighborhoods and like bring the community together and stuff like that. Yeah, I know. Is the whole thing. Thank you. You the. Ah, Barb. Hi, I'm Barb Larimer, a longtime resident of King County, which I love and I'm attending today on behalf of Forager on Settlers. We are a Walla Walla based winery and operate three tasting rooms across the state. We've operated successfully in the Woodinville area for over six years, and our business is very dependent upon the ability to sell our product and access residents of King County. We are very pleased to see the renewed attention to this very important matter, and we thank you very much for your efforts. We respectfully request more time to review and clarify the questions concerning the latest proposed or amendment and how it impacts all of us at the wineries and tasting rooms in King County in particular, we'd like to have the opportunity to discuss some of our questions around parking requirements, event definitions and hours of operation. In general, some of us, many of us feel that the latest Stryker amendment has come together rather quickly without a lot of time for us to review and consistently provide input from all sides. And we'd like to ensure that there's sufficient time to review those prior to sending this amendment to the full council. Thanks very much. Thank you. Hello. My name is Greg Lill and I'm the owner of a family. Owns a nearly ten acre parcel of property on the Windmill Redman Road that we call our family farm and we call Chateau Lill. We have been there since the early eighties, so we are a long time resident of the area. I also helped start the Little Cellars back in 1992, which I'm still part owner of, but we have moved that business to the old red hot facility to repurpose that because we needed more space and more room and we really didn't want to take away from the great pastoral kind of setting we have at our chateau in Woodinville because of the size of our property and the grounds we've been able to offer it for our customers. Our wine customers have special events, their birthday parties, celebrations, just lovely lunches in the gazebo. It's a it's a wonderful place to be. You know, so far I've been excited to see how the county council is working together and for really trying to solve these issues that we've had. You know, but to have this all of a sudden change as of late took us all, I think, a little bit by surprise. We'd like to see this worked on a little bit longer and come to some new resolutions that will change what we see in the strike agreement. Now, we hope that this will bring about a collaboration so we can still be our farm. We have alpaca, we have sheep, we have goats on our property. And if we were to be limited and could not do our events and continue on with our winery as we use it now, it probably would lead us to have to sell the property to a real estate developer, which is, by the way, less than we all want to see. So thank you. Thank you. Is there a Larry sandwich? I'm having trouble with the handwriting will admit. Following Larry will be Delia Darby, Patrick O'Connor and Darlene Dare not seen Larry. Larry have to deliver. The lower. There is privilege. Yes, that's exactly what's written here. I see it now. My name's Larry's privilege and the property owner of the cave winery tasting room. And over the A and another property overlay. I would you know, this has been going on for us for close to three years now since this came up. And I'm just asking for a little extra time since his stroke limit came to be. We need more time to understand what it is and seems like it's very, very enforcement oriented and we don't know what the rules are. There's question zero, how certain things can be enforced. As example, the outer space is limited to 500 square feet and we have half an acre there. If someone wanders off with a glass of wine outside to 500 feet away in violation, I don't understand exactly how that's being forced to just like a little more time so we can look at it, understand it, let you guys know how it's going to impact us so you guys can make a good decision on which way to vote. That's it. Thank you. Thanks. Hi, I'm Delaware Derby, and I'm representing the Castillo family, and I wish to acknowledge council member Val Dutchy for her recent work. But what happened to the work that was done from the Local Services Committee that was fully vetted and passed on March 11th? Out of that committee, I'm concerned that the new version language of requiring creche and for many could actually harm the APD and forcing development of industrial uses on rural land. It could negatively impact down gradient areas, and the 15% square footage and associated parking limitations are close to home occupation businesses, which are also proposed to be eliminated through the ordinance and would surely eliminate the existing small businesses. Is this the goal? I thought the goal was supporting burgeoning wine businesses and protecting the APD, and I'm a proponent for both. I think there's common ground in our shared love for agricultural land. Let's meet in the middle. Let's meet in that place by supporting the the March 11th version that was fully vetted and passed out of the local services committee. As Martin Luther King stated, we can make a way out of no way. So let's not reinvent the wheel. We need to get on with the business of restoring harmony to the Sammamish Valley and to King County. Thank you. Thank you. Hope ADAMS Patrick O'Connor I'm the farm manager at MATTHEWS Winery. In the past few years, a farms in the valley, both in the APD and in the buffer area. And I'm certainly an advocate for for more food production in the Valley and the current version of the Striker. I, I don't believe will necessarily have the intended effect of supporting agriculture in the valley if it especially some of the portions that they're acquiring the the products sold necessarily be have a percentage, you know, you know, from from the area. Because honestly, like a lot of the farmers there who grow fruit and flowers and and other products do with do do do bring in produce some other areas. And it's really important to have year round sales. So. And and really tasting rooms are not the most high impact land use. So I do think there there are ways to to have ethical water use and and not be polluting the farmland and and and for the majority of of the apt in in in Woodinville there there's drainage systems where so so so most of the runoff that come from Hollywood Hills and throughout go through the bio drainage. So it is a water quality issue for the salmon. But in terms of polluting the actual farmland, that's not it's not entirely accurate. So it's been presented as such. So, um, thank you. Thank you for following. Carla will be Laura Cherry, Sarah Wolsey and Cheryl Lovatt. Hi, council members. I'm Carla Da, the guest manager for MATTHEWS Winery. And its new version is the game changer. Several of these new proposals will strangle existing businesses and rural King County, including hours. Jobs will be lost, sales tax revenue will be lost. The whole farm to table culture that we have worked so diligently to create will be lost. You are potentially destroying a place the people flock to, a place to gather with friends and family, to talk about life and to celebrate life. Please carefully think this through before implementing ordinances that would be so detrimental to these existing businesses that may result in our closing our doors to employees and visitors alike. I strongly request that you not approved the revised strike or amendment as a minimum. Please take more time to assess its impact on these businesses and the community at large. Please work with existing businesses to find a balanced solution that both preserves the rural character of the area. The store fulfills our farm to table destiny and promotes Washington wines. Thank you. Cheryl had to go. Okay, now, my name is Laura Terry, and I'm the owner of Dragon's Head Cider on Passion Island. And today I'm here to voice support for the amendment that Councilmember McDermott has proposed to the ordinance. We're part of a community of farmers and beverage producers on Passion Island. There are five wineries with tasting rooms and several others that are small producers that don't have tasting rooms. When the county began looking at ways to remedy the issues in Sammamish Valley, most of us on vacation didn't believe that any ordinance changes or recommendations to the county council would have an impact on our businesses. After all, there were no stakeholders from Fashion Island ever involved in any of the conversations with the county as they developed recommendations for the ordinance. There was no analysis done on any aspect of the businesses or community on Fashion Island. So imagine our surprise when we learned that these ordinance changes would be applied to our businesses as well. None of our businesses have ever had any of the kind of complaints, environmental or traffic issues that we hear about in this mama's valley. And when it comes to the local alcohol beverage industry, fashion island is nothing like Sammamish Valley. Wineries on Bastion Island are integral to the community on the island. They contribute to the economy, a very fragile economy, in very special ways. Our tasting room visitors and wine club members, they visit our wineries and then they go into town and they eat in the restaurants and they shop in the stores. King County needs to find better ways to support small business development on Passion Island because of our very fragile economy and not shut down existing businesses or create more decline in the economic activity of our constrained community. Thank you. Thank you. Following server will be Bryce Yeadon, Chase Kilborn, followed by Janet Bryant. Hello. I'm Sarah Tankersley at I. Managed Police Winery on Vachon Island. There aren't more of us here today because we're getting our. Fruit in and we're. Making our beverages. But we're this is very important to us. Our company. Small. Very small. Five. Remember Wine Club? We've been around for 18 years as a cottage industry. If this ordinance passes without McDermott's proposed. Amendment, then we will have to shut down. There is no way that we can comply. There just isn't. We've been in operation for a long time. We're solid business, but there's just no way that we can do that. And when we shut down, that ripples out and. Affects. The economy of our island. It's a small ecosystem, very small. There are a limited number of businesses, and when one fails, the others fail. So I hope. That you will support Councilman McDermott's proposed amendment to Ordinance 20 1802. For one. Thank you. Chair, members of the committee Brazier Aden here today on behalf of feature wise. We'll start off by saying thank you. For the updated drafts by council member about. The issue. We think it's gone a long way in resolving most of our concerns that we've had it. It is a lot better than what we said during the last iteration and the. Last council hearing. I want to say thanks regarding the removal of demonstration area. Be including the. One acre limit on. Agricultural land. Those things are extremely important to my organization. I did want to point out a couple of things that we would like to see changed or tweaked a little bit. The first. Is allowing distilleries, these facilities, twos and threes in the rural. Area. We think a change could occur in which the majority of product could be found out of King County or the surrounding counties. And that would solve one of our issues that we have. The other one has to deal with Group B water systems. We know that three's was great. That threes. Must connect to a group A We think that that's important. We also think that that too should connect to a group as well. And I'm happy to take and help respond to any further questions after the hearing and would like to work with anybody else who. Needs further clarification of our comments. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Chase Killebrew and I work at Blue Lane, an engineering and land use planning consulting firm based in Kirkland. So we're Blue Line. I've been working with Matthew's Winery regarding proposed ordinance number 2018 0241 and helping them determine the potential effects of the proposed ordinance on their operations. Today, we would like to specifically address the draft striking amendments submitted by Council Member about Dewji ahead of today's meeting. The moment seems to contain a few conflicting standards for the newly defined Winery Brewery Distillery. Use this so we are seeking clarification for the WB, D2 and WB D3 users than the A&R reasons. Onsite tasting retail sales would only be allowed to occupy 15% employed area of the WB facility if a WB D2 is built to its maximum, a building size of 3500 square feet and only 525 square feet of the building would be allowed to be occupied by tasting rental sales. This would essentially make it with the new proposed parking standards the only minimum of five parking stalls required and the maximum allowed would be eight parking stalls. This number seems especially low and consider in conjunction with the proposed event standards with a temporary use permit, WPT to facilities would be allowed to host an event with a maximum of 125 guests. And, you know, it's just like they would have to either provide the parking on site or through a managed parking plan. And so that just doesn't seem to be feasible at this time. And then also the with only allowed 15% of the floor area to be dedicated to tasting retail sales. It's just like how would they be able to accommodate up to 125 guests? We just believes that with the maximum building size, maximum permitted service and setbacks, some of these might, such as a proposed parking standard and the tasting and retail sales space for minimum are just redundant. So we just we appreciate your guys effort and we hope that some of these things can be clarified before it's passed. Thank you. Janet will be followed by Mike Michael Tomasky, Barbara Lao and Serena Glover. Hi. I'm Janet Bryan with the State Winery. Once again, I'd like to thank the council for sharing an incredible amount of information and input on this issue. The issues are complex, and each of us in this room has a different have different interests and desires. Our cave B tasting room is an overlay we learned of the new Stryker last week and are still working to understand all the details as it applies to tasting rooms. I'm here asking that you give us a little more time to fully review and comment on the newest proposal. After learning of the Stryker last week, I attended the town meeting in Warrenville last Wednesday evening. A lot of information about unincorporated King County was provided, and during the question and answer period I became concerned about the permitting piece as it might apply to our tasting room. I would ask that the new tasting room regulations, when they become final, that they so that the information associated with those with that is made available to us clearly, so that we know our expectations and limitations. We want to comply and avoid violation. The concern is that without clearly understood definitions, mistakes happen and our business wants to continue in its current location. We want to get along with our neighbors, comply with the rules, and sell our products. We need to know the details and definitions of what's expected of us so we can be successful. Anyway, I'll just cut it short to say that we continue to be a family friendly business. We're quiet. We have. We've always operated within the recommended business hours that are now within the proposal. And this winery proposal has been a challenging one for all of us. And we thank you all for your hard work and continuing to listen to all the stakeholders. Thank you. Hello, I'm Michael Tankersley. And over a quarter century ago, when I moved into the rural area of King County, no knowing nothing about most of these issues. But at that time, wineries, breweries, distilleries were not legal in the rural area at all. And so 20 years ago and we worked and supported the ordinances that began to allow these here, we did think this was a great idea and the vision was boutique wineries. Obviously, there's a bunch of limitations on how big these could be for reasons you and I tend to go into here. We had a vision of that and we supported it. Perhaps we opened a Pandora's box in the first time because you know that this seems to be a bit of a mess. However, I think there's some things we agree on. 20 year old ordinance needs some upgrading for sure. And also we really need to get past this issue. There's so many things we all need to work on. This is a deeply flawed ordinance still, and I think it's sad that you guys were saddled with this. The way it was written from executive in the first place was and such a surprise. Goodell and his staff have been really good on most of these issues. You guys were handed a real bad piece of ordinance and it's really gotten only more complex. The fact that it's so hard for you to understand is kind of evidence right up front that this is deeply flawed. It should be simplified, clarified, and the loopholes should be removed from it. That let us stick with the original vision of Yes, we can have boutique wineries in the rural area without compromising our neighborhoods, our farmlands and and keeping the urban sprawl from spreading across rural King County. So I hope we can stretch out this suddenly very accelerated schedule on this a little bit. But hopefully we can also get past it because there's lots of other things we need to work on in the rural areas as well as your urban areas. Thank you. Thank you. Ha. Hi, my name is Barbara Lyall and I'm a surface water hydrologist and a representative from Climate Reality. And this latest version of the ordinance still does not protect our farms or rural areas from environmental degradation in land speculation on Friday, people around the world will be striking because of the climate emergency. You'll be asked on September 25th a vote for a climate emergency in King County and the farmers in Sammamish Valley are really feeling it. The corn, the squash crop failed this year because of blossom timing versus bees versus versus whether this corn was grown on Harvey's land, which I gave Claudia before last year. It's still delicious. But he grows his corn right below a grassy slope where 200 cars park on every event. That grass slope has car grease, oil, all that stuff going on onto his property, into the soil, into the sammamish valley, sammamish river where our orcas depend on it. You need to strengthen our environmental protections and stop the degradation that the wine industry is providing here. And they don't need their support. Your children and grandchildren need the support they will need to eat. We need to keep this land for them, for the future because. And soon Serena will be followed by Jo Chan. Hi. Serena Glover, executive director, Friends of Some Average Valley. There have been some positive changes in this new striker, but there's still two very serious flaws. The key issue here is not about real wineries brews the stories. That make product. Those are all in eastern Washington or in the urban areas. This is about where these. Businesses put. Their retail outlets. The ordinance is seriously. Flawed in two ways. The first is they put these retail outlets in demonstration project overlay. It rewards five of our eight Sammamish Valley violators and opens another eight new. Parcels to. Urban use development. The second problem with the ordinance. As we still have. Opaque definitions of would be these that are riddled with loopholes and it will allow these sham bids to really operate as retail outlets in the rural area. These urban uses cause two huge problems for the farmland in the watershed. The first is toxic runoff. You've heard a lot about this already. The second is land price speculation. You've also heard a ton about that. And it's getting worse, not better. And so any ordinance that skirts. The. GMA rewards the violators is only going to. Increase speculation. Increase environmental. Degradation. And create more public. Health and safety issues. And because of that. We will fully challenge any ordinance that violates GMA and allows these urban use businesses in the rural area of the Sammamish Valley. It's only two miles long and one mile wide, and it cannot. Take. This kind of development if you want to preserve the farmland and the watershed. Thank you. Thank you, cousin members. My name is Joseph Chan, I. I live right in the valley of Sammamish. For a long, long time. I'm here to bargain for the essential right for life. And I'm begging for a. Essential economic department. You know, any kind. I'm not just limited to the winery, but this winery, Jack. Too long. And it has a negative impact to my property and to property price increase, my property tax increase. And even the impact my exemption I heard was because of this ordinance. Please have an essential like the complain the introduction. The key point is that equity in other words have an equal opportunity of economy development, every essential development. So to me the concept is wider. You know, the niche of the valley is the tolerating anything related to have people enjoy life. I would encourage but anyway these these development the new striking whatever is winding here and there and getting worse. Thank you. Bet. Thank you. That includes the people who had signed up in advance. Is there anyone else present who would like to offer testimony? Anyone else who'd like to offer testimony, then we'll close the public hearing. And the issue before us is ordinance 2018 241. The Council has been working on this ordinance for more than a year. It was taken up first by the Local Services Regional Roads and Bridges Committee. When that committee finished its work, the legislation was sent to the full council where it was determined that more work was needed and that all nine of us should be involved in that work. And therefore it is before the committee of the whole at this time. Today we'll have a hearing, a hearing, a briefing from Aaron Osnes of Arts Council central staff on the legislation and amendments. And it's my hope we'd be ready to take action today. Ms.. Osnes. Sorry. Good afternoon. Aaron Austin's council staff. The materials for this item in your packet began on page 35, but we're not going to use it, so don't bother looking at it. You also have a larger supplemental packet that looks like this. This has the Stryker and other amendment materials. You also got public comments that were received today as a packet and a smaller amendment package that includes some amendments from Councilmember Lambert of the New Matrix. So again, the big packet, the center does have a bit of background in it, but I'm not going to go through it today unless you really want me to, except to say that my daughter is three years old and I was pregnant with her when the executive started this. One. Just to graduate from high school. I don't know. What does she think of this legislation? She would like me to drink less. And mommy to be home more. Yeah. So I'm going to go through what starts on the back page of the big supplemental packet. Your your copies have a purple column. So that's what you're looking for. This matrix is organized. It includes two columns. One is the legislation that came out of the Local Services Committee or version two. I'll refer to it either way. And then the purple column is what is in striking amendment S1 and I. The bigger subset of items are first and then there are several pages we probably won't get to. There just have more clarifying changes or tactical changes that we can answer questions about. So starting at the top of page two of your supplemental packet as recommended by the Local Services Committee, the ordinance would prohibit weeds, which is winery brewery distillery facilities and remote tasting rooms as home occupations and home industries. The version two of the legislation allowed for some grandfathering that gave these businesses one year to come into compliance with the zoning requirements for home occupations and home industries. In the striker S-1 there, the changes to that proposal include removing the 12 month period to come into compliance and replaces it with a 12 month period to demonstrate their previous compliance with the with the code as it exists today, but will no longer exist after it's adopted. If it is adopted. It also tighten some language to avoid unintended consequences and loopholes. And that removes the 12 month compliance period for home industries because those always require a conditioning instrument which are they don't have an ambassador application, they won't be able to arrest. Masters. What's the difference between a 12 month grandfathering period and 12 months to demonstrate the previous compliance? So under the S1 proposal, a business that is compliant today will have non-conforming status. They have a year to prove that they were conforming on that day versus what's in version two is they get a year to come into compliance with what is in the code today. That makes sense. Okay. Next item, the business license version two carries forward the exact proposal to require an adult beverage business license for all production facilities and remote tasting rooms as well as non-conforming home occupations. The. S1 adds language requiring existing businesses attempting to demonstrate that past compliance by submitting some documentation with their first business license. It allows a single six month county business license to be issued to such existing businesses that are demonstrating their compliance. It would be extended for an additional six month without charge if they have demonstrated they were making substantial progress to prove their compliance and then subsequent county business licenses would not be issued unless that they have demonstrated their legal nonconforming status. They have again made substantial steps to prove compliance or they comply with the zoning regulations that are in the proposal. And it also adds a provision so that the permitting division can deny a business license if they do not, if the business does not comply with the zoning code and modifies the appeal period for the license to provide consistency with other types of zoning appeals. Moving onto page three of the packet, page three. Questions, Mr. Chair, as we go on. Yes. On point questions. Yes. Council Member Debates. Thank you, Mr.. I'm sorry, I don't know this, but does the county require, like many cities, a general business license today? No. All right. We require some business licenses, mostly for tracking purposes, but also have some dependent. Is it just industry specific? Thank you. Okay. The next item on packet page three. There is one demonstration project now proposed by this ordinance. It is a remote tasting room demonstration. Demonstration project. A I'm not going to go through every single specific item on the left side, but I will talk about the changes. The striker would clarify the purpose statement and the business license requirements. It would eliminate the fashion rural town, CB zoning and the fall city rural town CB zoning from the demonstration projects and instead would make permanent zoning modifications to allow remote tasting rooms in the S.B. zones of Vachon Rural Town and Falsity Rural Town. It also clarifies the limitation on events, which is two per year maximum of 50 guests. No two permit required for is for all proprietors of a single site within that demonstration project. It also makes some substance substantive changes to the evaluation language. That was done in consultation and coordination with the executive staff to make it a little bit more manageable. Going on the next page. Page four of the. Mr. Terror. Packet went to. The mosque. I think you I don't know if this is appropriate for central staff is going over a factual assessment or or summary. But could could you help me understand with respect to the changes there on the rural town centers? What what's the rationale for. For taking them out? Yeah. So. The. Remote tasting rooms are being added to the permitted use tables for the first time. That wasn't a use in the code before. So since. It is a new use and the piece of explanation or adios for the falsity investment in real town list specific uses out. It was its added to those users to be consistent with the underlying zoning for the rest of the county for those for the KB Zone. Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bell. Maybe since the question went to the reason for the including this, I could just say a word. The idea was that in the previous versions, I think all of them Vachon Town Center and Falsity Town Center were included as part of what's called overlay a as a demonstration area. And because these are real town centers with businesses in them, like including bars and things like that, it seemed like it wasn't really a major change to the area to allow tasting rooms in those areas. So we just went ahead and made it a permitted use instead of having it be part of a demonstration project. I hope that was. Very helpful thing. Okay. Going to a packet page for the version to the legislation included a second demonstration project, which was special events demonstration and Project B, the S-1 removes that from the ordinance. Moving on to page six. There is an additional efficacy evaluation that is in version two. The Stryker makes modifications to that efficacy evaluation, remove some of the requirements that had been in there before and then add some requirements for evaluation of the regulations on existing businesses and recommended code changes on a number of the development regulations and then ties the public comment period and transmittal of that final report with the one required for the demonstration project. Okay. Turning on page seven is the development condition modifications that are proposed by the striker. If I go too fast, just slow me down. These are also spelled out more clearly in the tables below, but I'm not going to go through each table individually. So the substantive changes to the permitted use tables and the development conditions associated with them in the striker include eliminating facility ones in the agricultural zone as an interim use, so the smallest facilities would not be allowed in the zone. It eliminates the allowance for 8000 square feet of underground storage for facility threes, both in a and free zone. So the maximum size for those facilities would be 8000 square feet total. For all facilities in the A and R zones. It limits impervious surface to a maximum of 25% or whatever the underlying zoning allows, whichever is less. It requires facility threes and the agricultural in our zones to connect to a group, a water system, eliminating the option to connect to a group B water system. For facility ones in the rural area zone. It prohibits onsite testing and retail sales. For facility twos and threes in their a an hour zone. It limits onsite tasting and retail sales to 15% of the aggregated floor area for facility twos and threes in the zone, it limits conversion of agricultural land to less than one acre for nonagricultural accessory uses for all facilities in a no zones, it requires one. The version two requires at least two phases of production to occur on site. This goes further and says that one of those phases has to be either crushing, fermenting or distilling. For our facilities, it removes the option to reduce the setback from rural area and residential zones with a C up to 25 feet. So the setback would be 75 feet in such instances, four facility ones in the RC zone. It allows once one onsite parking stall for the use. It eliminates a provision that had been added into version two that would allow for some grandfathering of existing parking spaces and then for facilities, twos and threes in a and ARI zones that modifies the maximum parking to 150% of the minimum required. I have another. Thing. Mr. Chair, another kind of reason question if that's okay. And with respect to the WB, D1 is also the smallest of the three, right. In terms of their production. Could could someone help me understand the philosophical reason or the land use rationale? Maybe to put it in central staff terms for discouraging, if I'm reading this correctly, the small facilities on the ag lands. What's what's. The. I'll speak to what happened. And then I read that he can take over the exact. As opposed to the big ones, which would seem to be. Permitted. The executives transmittal did not include the facility ones in the ASM. The version two added an interim facility. One use in the ASN. They would have had to go away or convert to a facility to within five years. And I'll speak to Councilman Bolden to speak to why the Hershiser takes it out. But so this goes back to what the executive proposed. Just another word on the executive proposal here. One of the big challenges with current code and with enforcement of current code is the home occupations. And it's just really hard to do fact finding around what is truly a home occupation versus what is not. And so our understanding from the Department was that a big part of the WB ones was a sort of a replacement for home occupations to be better defined and better able to be managed. And I see a little nodding. So that makes me feel better because I'm speaking to their rationale, the idea for and those were never proposed to be allowed in the ag zones. That would have been an expansion of uses from what we currently have. The idea for having the WB ones in the ag zones was as an incentive, if you will, for farmers. Those of you who who represent farmers or know about farming know that the challenge of making a living as a farmer is such these days that many of them are branching out into side businesses or to other activities in order to support their farms. And so the idea was that if you could try out the sales of something before you had to commit your fields to growing the necessary crops, you could discover whether it was financially viable and then commit your fields to growing. And it was a way of giving farmers a step up into a new business, if you will. When we proposed this as part of the combined striker last time at Local Services, after that went public, I have to say there was not a single person who expressed any support for this idea. Farmers didn't like it, businesses didn't see any need for it, it just didn't do anything. And some people thought that it was a foot in the door to really expanding commercial uses in the ag zones. And that's why I proposed taking it out, because it didn't solve anything for anybody that I heard from. If there's somebody listening now who thinks it solves something, please let me know. But I haven't heard from anybody like that, and it did cause concerns from people who cared about the ag zone. So I just took it out. Think that the thing else that Christine wanted me to mention is that the current code requires that 60% of the products be grown in Puget Sound counties for the A zone, it's proposed to be changed to 60% grown on site. So the facility ones would have a maintained that Puget Sound counties it was a as because member mentioned it it was kind of like a starting point for those smaller facilities. Can I also say the other thing we heard the thing we I heard from farmers, they actually and I asked I said, why doesn't this do anything for you? And what we heard was it takes a lot longer than five years to establish a crop big enough and in a sustainable enough way to be able to really rely on it as your business crop. And so to just say, here's five years, see if you can grow enough wheat to have a brewery. Right. Wasn't. It wasn't helpful. It was an attempt to be helpful. It didn't hit the mark. And so we backed away. That's all I was going to present on so I can take questions or speak to the line amendments if you like. Questions on the striker is striker from committee or the striker before us. The striker would be proposed today by Councilmember Balducci. What would members find helpful to continue discussion of the line amendments to take up the ordinance line amendments? Let's brief on the amendments. So now we're going to go to the smaller packet. There's some odd numbering here just because of how amendments became public today. So bear with me. 0.18 would remove the 15% square footage limitation for onsite tasting and retail sales of products for facility twos and threes in the eight and ARI zones. A moment 0.2 B for all facilities for properties that do not about an agricultural zone. It would add the option to reduce the 75 foot setback from residential and rural areas on properties to 25 feet, with a signatory as permit and with screening. Amendment one. A Before we question about the amendment, Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. I'm not sure that everybody both here and the listening audience understands what a conditional use permit is, how much time it takes, and what the cost is. So if you could give a little conditional use permit one on one, that would be helpful. We'd have Johnny pull it up. It is a type two land use permit, so it requires public notice, environmental review and it a written decision by the permitting division. It is appealable to the hearings, amateur and then to superior court. And as an Internet. What is Mr. Adobe? Well, I. Think. You did great. You did? That's what I'm saying. Needs Internet. Who needs to look something up? You just did that. I think it costs somewhere between six and $8,000, depending on what they use it and how. Long it usually take. I don't know. Yeah, it really depends. I have an answer sitting in that back corner I saw, but I don't library very well. 62 months. Six, 6 to 12 months. Sometimes it feels like 62, so it was 6 to 12 months and could be 6 to $8000. So this is not something that is willy nilly. And I think it's important for people to understand that this is this is a process, not a crackerjack. I got it in the cracker jack box and I got it. Okay. Amendment one A would make some changes specific to Basho Mori Island only in the gray zone and only for facility two. It would for historic properties set the minimum lot area at two acres would allow up to 7000 square feet of aggregated floor area for historic properties would exempt existing businesses from the minimum lot size requirements from the arterial access requirements. And from the 75 foot setback, four from rural and residential zones also would remove the 15% square footage limitation on tasting and retail sales for that's for existing businesses and for historic properties only on Russian Maria Island. One, B, E and G are alternatives to one a. If the first two pass or don't pass a moment. Two would modify the minimum parking ratio for the tasting and retail areas of production facilities to one space per 150 square feet of tasting and retail area. And there is a tidal limit. So we would have a structure before us. We, as it was referred from for council, we have another striking amendment before us and then just one page of amendments. Yeah. You have a version to then a striking amendment. That's an 18 out. Colleagues. Council Member Belle du Jour. Questions in order about the line amendments right now or should we wait until we walk through the process? Yes, we took questions on the structure. I think it'd be appropriate to take questions on the line amendments now as well. If I may. Yeah. On Amendment one, a just generally sort of I have a technical question and a background question. The background question is how many businesses are we talking about? And based on Moray Island and a lot of email. But how many businesses? Less than ten. Analyst Okay. And if I'm reading this correctly, it exempts historic. Properties and existing businesses as to most of the requirements. But what about the 15% square footage limitation? Yeah, there's a typo in the matrix. It's the 15% limitation on chasing your cells again is only for existing businesses and historic properties. And the technical question is, with existing businesses leaving historic properties aside for a moment, that would be existing as of. January 1st. January 1st of 2019 this year. And it would what happened if those businesses wanted to expand. They would be considered legally non-conforming. And then the requirements for legal. Non-Conforming, there's a certain amount of squish, but not a whole lot of squish, as I recall here. Not the legal term. Okay. Thank you. I like. Council member Col Wells. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a clarification question. I was the for both the striking amendment and the line amendments was the striking amendment and have been these amendments today. The line amendments been provided to people online. I guess at the time. The striking amendment was online. Last week. They left Monday so we could go. But these are. New, not correct. Thank you. Well, Councilman McDermott has been sharing his amendment. And I know for the broader community. They were not published. No more questions on the linemen line amendments. Councilmember Dombroski. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just take that opportunity to say I have a lot of questions, but I don't frankly have the ability to ask them in an intelligent and an integrated way with the other stuff, because they're so new on this coming forward here today. And this is I know we spent a lot of time, a whole baby's lifetime working on this. But and I think we are making substantial progress. And I want to commend those who have taken the lead on it for their hard work. But I would just want to note, you asked about process, and I heard you say that you'd hope we can move forward today. I'm not prepared to move forward today. I won't be able to support any of this today. I might be able to get there after I've had a time to think about it and to look at it because a lot of it's new. I think we do our best work by sharing the information and I credit customer about that for publishing a schedule and sharing her advice. Striking an amendment. Last week, it was helpful to be able to look at the chart and I'm still digging in. But our public also, as we heard in public comment today, deserves, I think, the opportunity to have these materials provide input. We have delivered us here, I don't know, 40 pages of 62 page pages, a public comment from September 13th through the 16th. I've not been able to read it. I know that we have time after a hearing, but one thing that would help me would be just to spend a little time with, I think, where we stand today on this on these items. And I know you, Mr. Chair, have made time on your schedule, so all of my members can weigh in on this committee. And I know it's very limited. Just a thought. We do have a five week month here. And that fifth week, as we know, is available for special meetings or one. If members wanted more time and there was availability Monday, the 30th could be another opportunity and folks had time to do additional reflection. But that's kind of where I'm at. I'm going do the best I can today day. But I will tell you, I would like to be more familiar with the materials than I am and the public input on them than I'm able to be today. But thank you. Further dialog input from members. This legislation was introduced at least a year and a half ago, I believe well over a year ago, has gone through the committee process and made its way to full council and has now been referred back to the committee of the whole so we can all do work on it. We've had a striker out since last Monday for all of us to have a chance to review if there is interest in moving today, we could take up amendments and vote. If there's an interest in having more time to make sure we've got a good handle on the legislation before us and there would be value in that , then I would make time at our next count, our next committee, the whole meeting to take this up. After that, it might get challenging, but it'd be my expectation that we would all, to borrow perhaps an overused phrase, lean in and be in a position to come ready to take up this work in an earnest sense at our next regular council meeting. Is with an interest in moving it today on my part to have the committee calendar open up again. Councilmember Lambert. I agree with Councilmember Dombrowski. There is a lot of changes to what we had been talking about for over a year. It came out of committee. There was a task force nearly four years ago now, even before your baby. So. I have worked on legislation that has been national with fewer hours and weeks and months going into it. And so I think that what it comes down to and is do we want to have a place that businesses can thrive, that the ambiance of the rural area can be preserved? People who live in the rural area and go out to the rural area want to see the farmlands. They want to see the beauty of the area. Rural people like to meet together. When you drive by this area, there are happy faces there. Places are full. People are having a great time. We have put together something here today where as it was testified to, there could be 7 to 18 parking slots. So with some of the changes that certain kinds of fermenting and such would need to be done on site, that would mean that there have to be extra employees , which would also cut into the profits of the business, which are also cut into the idea that there would be parking available. So if two couples decided, I'd like to go out and have a drink with you tonight, let's all meet at X place. They would get there and if there were seven parking spots that would be four cars. Hopefully there'd be somebody there to wait on them. So that could be two or three. So now there would be no other parking spaces for anybody else to come. I would guess that at least when I owned a business, if I didn't have any parking spaces for my customers to come to, I wouldn't be in business very long. So when we talk about rural character, we need to be looking at not killing all of the places where people want to go to congregate. This is a place where people are happy to be there. This place would not have thrived for this many years if it weren't some place that people like to come to that 15%. I don't even know where that number came from, but it has huge impacts and people say, well, they can park on the arterials or the arterials, that there are two main roads, there are no places to park. They said, Well, you can take a bus. That would be really nice that there were busses saying that you were going to prohibit on site sales. They can do it in the industrial area. I went door to door to I don't even know how many industrial areas and asked them how many slots they would have per month for sales from another tasting room. And almost to a person. They said, Oh my gosh, I get so many phone calls about this, I can't even keep up with the demand. So that's not a viable option. And over and over in demonstration, a two events per year with a maximum of 50 people, you're allowed that in your own backyard, in your own house. And it's not even even a real route. It's not even a business. You know, when you look at one of the amendments on one of the amendments, it says to preserve historic properties that I agree with, completely historic properties should be able to continue on with those kinds of things. But then it says to be exempted from the amendment requirements. We worked really hard on adding minimum requirements so that it couldn't proliferate and the value in the valley. We talked about arterial access as opposed to some flexibility with rural access. We talked about the idea, the setbacks and having some flexibility under a C u.p. And last but not least, I'd like to show you the chart Fiji poll that showed up on the wall. I have it here bigger for people in the audience. No. Everything in green on this chart. I get my stats, all that up for me. Everything in green on this chart has been preserved already by. By either our farm preservation or our agriculture production. Just we have some kind of claim on everything in green that shows you that we care about this. This part right here is where they want to build a 22 acre parcel, which originally was going to be called the Wine Village. Thank you. So with all of that green area, it's clear that we are trying to get the balance between between protecting our farmlands and also keeping rural, rural lifestyle in many places in the country . Wine tasting is considered an ag use. So we tried to get the balance over a year of collaboration with I don't even know how many hours of your time and other legal staff. For people who don't know, we have a very extensive legal team in King County, and I think they probably all have ulcers from dealing with all this over and over. So I think I think there's two things we as a council need to decide. Do we want to put all these businesses out? And if that's what the council wants to do, then let's just say that if that is not what we want to do, then we need to say, okay, how are we going to make them viable and how are we going to then have a a rich rural lifestyle where there is balance? This is not balance. This is putting them out of business just about. And I'm sad that after all these years of working and trying to come up with a compromise, that today we're sitting here with something that will put these businesses pretty much out of business. And then my next question after that, myself, at 3:00 in the morning, when I woke up and wrote the speech, was what will happen? Yes, I will go to three in the morning. Yeah, I did go to sleep all night long. What will happen to these businesses? These are small little houses where people have turned them into very delightful places for people to congregate. And for the record, people have said that I am trying to get this compromised because I spend so much time out there. For the record, I drink very little alcohol in my entire life. So the idea that that's the motivation is blatantly inaccurate. But moving on from that. So we need to decide what we want to have. And if if we take and say, okay, no tasting rooms, no wineries here, no anything, then what's going to happen to these businesses? We're going to have a section leading up to a 22 acre industrial, commercial, industrial, commercial place that is going to be vacant. And is that what we really want? Or could we find a way of making an ambiance that is compatible with what is going to be there? And what I would say is already there. When you talk about, say, Michel and Columbia Winery and the the tourist district of wouldn't those so I agree we should put this on at a future meeting and we need to get everybody in a room to decide, are we going to continue to have real lifestyle out here or are we going to completely get it? And I think that's where we are today. So I hope that we will make a decision to come together with a more reasonable plan. Giving you discussion of the details, I thought we were ready to take action and make decisions. Councilmember Bell Duty. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question Point of order. Did I hear you say that there is room on the September 16th call for this or there may be room on this? Councilmember Bell Dutchie, I'm really glad you are sorry. Today is. No, no, no, no. You know what? I'm don't interrupt the chair. I guarantee you, there is action in the committee, the hall on September 16th. Okay. Let me rephrase. Is there room on the agenda at the next council meeting to work on this, or is it something that is not not yet determined? We can make sure I can make room on the October 7th next regularly scheduled meeting of the committee of the whole. To take this up so that it would. Be with the it would be tough to do so anytime after that. Right. Given the committee's workload for the rest of the year. Okay. In that case, just stating my own opinion with regard to the timing. If members feel that they need some more time to have more committee discussion and we can do it within the next couple of weeks, that makes sense to me. There is or there should be a 30 day comment period after we pass it out of committee again, which we've done before, but we should do again. So that means that we're not seeing this for final action at the earliest until late October, early November. I just wanted to point that out. So people are aware because there's been some conversation about this being rushed through, that's that's not going to be the case between now and the end. I would say if you don't take action until October 7th, you're not seeing this in full council until December because of Thanksgiving. So it gets pushed quite a ways back. I would be willing to move this item forward without recommendation today in order to get that notice out there and to get it moving. But it means taking up substantive amendments at full council. So I want to pause and see how people feel about that before making any kind of motion. Councilmember Gossett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. A little earlier, I was going to say that I concurred with Councilman DEMBOSKY and Councilmember Lambert that we wait. But Cathy made a case for taking certain kind of positions and that extended that a little bit more. But it just added to the questions that I had. I really think that I'm in the camp that we need to wait a couple of weeks. I was struck by the fact that it was both representatives of the industry, the winery industry, as well as people here who are here to protect what they deem to be the real character of the affected area. And they really were kind of surprised about the latest set of amendments to what we have been working on a year. And to me, it's reasonable that they would get an opportunity to vet what is being proposed and a bit more from both the side of the industry as well as of protecting the real character of the affected areas. And then lastly, Mr. Chair, I was surprised that all of this impacts Bash on either in looking at the amendment that you presented, I, like some of the folks that spoke, did not know that what we were talking about would have such a profound impact on bass and island. And maybe I should have and I'd like to have time to look at that. So I'm hopeful that we'll be able to put it off for two weeks and not even make a vote on it without recommendation today. Thank you, sir. Councilmember of unranked power. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, I want to thank you for taking a leadership role on your amendment. It was something that I know you've been working on over the last seven days, in particular, trying to find a even balance between the concerns have been raised countywide and but recognizing the uniqueness of Ashe on island. I really do want to thank you for doing that. People don't truly appreciate how unique fashion is and how you can. By applying a county view, sometimes you do bad work, hurt a very fragile economy and a fragile part of our county, which has not benefited from the growth and development of other portions of King County, but is very much a part of King County and wants to be a part of King County. But sometimes when you try to apply Bellevue. Tactics to bash on Allen they backfire. And I'm upset that both Councilmember Dunn and now do cheers from Bellevue. But the reality is Virginia is a very unique area. And I want to thank you as somebody who actually is still a taxpayer from based on our. That said, Mr. Chair, I think just as wine ages. Well, so should this legislation age a little. Well. And I want to thank Councilmember Baldacci, who has taken a hard lot of work on this issue, trying to find some balance. And it's a very difficult one given not only here own philosophy, but also on his her district. So I'm hoping we can age this process a little bit, give it a chance for it to settle in and have a chance to digest it properly. Council Member one Mike Bauer I am all for a well-aged wine. I'm concerned about vinegar. And I also point out to you that contrary to what Councilmember Lambert said, that she is not someone who has drank a lot of wine. I cannot make that same claim. Thank you. Okay. And that I'm going to intervene and point out that we have that the waiting period, the the comment period that would be announced would be a 45 day wait comment period. I would suggest that would happen from time of of committee action prior to so a 45 day period between committee action and full council action. And the comment was made that if we took it up and I would be clear at the next regularly scheduled council meeting, not in two weeks, but three weeks would. There would need to be committee committee work. I would suggest there needs to be more than committee work, but work among members to have conversations about the legislation . So we are ready to take action at a committee meeting at the next regularly scheduled committee of the whole meeting on this legislation. And with that, I would suggest it would be best handled by taking it up, leaving it in committee, and taking it up at our next regularly scheduled council meeting. Councilmember Bell Dutchie Mr. Chair, may I ask the indulgence of my colleagues for just a couple of minutes to explain what I did and why, since we're not doing this here today and since we've had a lot of discussion. So I'm just going to thank you. I'm just going to go ahead and do that, please. So with apologies again for the repetition. The current code was written in 2003 prior to the proliferation of the winery brewery distillery industry that you've seen in the last 15 years in our cities and in unincorporated King County. The code did not adequately predict this future, and therefore it's ambiguous. It doesn't match the reality we're seeing today, and it's been hard to enforce. The ambiguity has made it hard for people who want to follow the rules in established businesses to figure out how to comply with the code. And we've heard a lot of that. It's also meant that there's been a lack of enforcement in places where there probably ought to have been enforcement. We've heard today, and I've personally met with people who've spent thousands of dollars trying to comply with the code and they can't quite get there. So my pitch to my colleagues between now and the next meeting is we should pass something. I'm not one to be overly attached to every detail of something that I have personally proposed, but we should pass something because leaving things the way they are now is is kind of an untenable situation, I think, for everybody. So in recognition of this fact, the county committed to updating the code some years ago, prior to Councilmember Caldwell's and I coming on, the council and the executive entered into settlement agreements with businesses that had not been able to be permitted or that were violating code. 20 businesses, I understand, signed letter agreements. This is all in the Sammamish Valley. They agreed that they would not expand their businesses or change operations while we went through the code update process. There are dozens more that are not subject to agreements but have been in limbo for years and will continue in limbo as long as this is pending, as pending, as is the community not knowing what the rules are going to be. So as we all know, the executive convened a winery's study. It was focused on the Sammamish Valley. That's correct. That we heard from some of the Vachon and other folks. It was not really focused on county wide, although there was some study of countywide trends and impacts within the the adult beverage industry. That was not the focus. However, this code proposal has been focused on all of King County since at least April of 2018 when we received it. So it's not a new thing that this is a county wide code. It's just that as we get towards the end here, the changes that are made to apply countywide and are are new. I will recall to everybody that Councilmember Lambert and I worked hard on amendments to the executive's proposal after we received it, and we tried very hard to get to a place of real compromise. That meant that she compromised on things that were important to her, and I compromised on things that were important to me. We put together a proposal that was an attempt at a good balance between proposing agriculture, preserving excuse me, agricultural land and the rural character, and providing clear rules under which businesses could know how to operate and successfully operate. In some ways, that proposal was more restrictive for businesses and more protective of the environment than the executive's proposal. In a few ways, it was more flexible. We went to the full council with this proposal. We, after hearing it at the Local Services Committee and we heard in between there and at the meeting from many, many people and there was a lot of folks on both sides who thought they didn't like it. We didn't hear a lot of support and there was not support on this council to pass that proposal. So it was referred back to committee and not back to the smaller committee, back to this large committee of all of us, because that was the level of importance and focus that the council body, in our collective judgment, felt it needed. So when people ask what happened to that prior proposal, that's what happened. There wasn't support on this council to pass it, and so we had to do something. So in response to the extensive comment and Councilmember Lambert and I also had a big public meeting, we went out at night into the An Amish Valley. We listen to over 100 people. I've made visits. I know she has and others to to folks all over on all sides of this issue to try to grasp and understand the issues as best we can. So in response to all of that, I had been thinking about this for a very, very long time, and I prepared this new set of amendments. That's how we work here. When you've got a piece of legislation in committee, we, each of us have the ability and the right to propose amendments. And I've done that. What I tried to do was to further protect agricultural lands and, yes, tighten up the definitions and the rules for the businesses. That's correct. That's what I attempted to do in order to make it clear what was allowed and not allowed and to make sure that there isn't an opportunity, which we heard a lot of fear about expansion of these businesses in the unincorporated areas. So you heard a lot about I'm not going to talk about what the striker contains. We've already had that all briefed. But one of the main features of this was that it was meant to limit the amount of ongoing activity and expansion in the unincorporated areas. That was the goal to make sure that this wasn't something that could expand and continue to provide. To to put in place more impervious surface, more activity, more parking, more more things that impact not just the rural areas, but also the agricultural valley below in the sammamish valley. So just. I'm almost there. But let me just say, I want to be very clear what this code does and doesn't do this whole code, not just this proposal, not just my amendment, not just this code, change the code addresses, uses the state grants, licenses that allow people to produce alcohol. We are regulating only unincorporated King County. So when people say this will wipe out the industry, untrue, the industry is flourishing, flourishing in the incorporated areas just across the street in a ceramic valley and in other places the business. But this will this code. Regulates where businesses can be located and to some extent how they operate. So there are still life safety rules, building codes, critical areas, regulations, shoreline management, Endangered Species Act requirements, storm water, water requirements, surface water standards. Public Health Code. All of these continue to apply to every single one of these businesses, regardless of whether we pass this or not. So the impact of those businesses is being managed through a number of different codes, not just this use code. I just say that because I want to make sure that people are aware that King County is committed to the health and safety of our residents and the preservation of agricultural lands and rural character in more ways than just the use code. I also want to say that I'm committed and I hope we all are committed, that when we update this code, no matter what it says, no matter how it impacts businesses and residents, we should make targeted investments to help businesses come into compliance if they can. And we should make investments to make sure that there's code enforcement for those who won't or can't come into compliance, because not enforcing the code has been part of the problem that grew in the Sammamish Valley, as we heard. I want to say, I've heard from the people on Virgin Island and and I've heard from Councilmember von Reich Brower, who I did not realize was such a version, a proponent of, you know, maybe you could work together a little bit there. And I'm happy to learn more about what's going on on Bastion Island. And the number of businesses is quite small. It doesn't have the same growth and expansion and therefore impact that we've seen in other places. So I look forward to talking to Councilmember McDermott about his perspective. But but I think we need to move forward and we need to adopt something in 16 months that we've had this in front of us. We've heard from hundreds of residents, dozens of businesses, organizations, and we're reaching the end. I think we should take some time to understand what we're doing, but if we're going to act at all, we should act soon. The current situation isn't sustainable and it isn't working for people. So I look forward to us finding a way through within the next few weeks, and I thank you for your time to let me say some words, Mr. Chair. COUNCILMEMBER Louder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, we worked really hard on this, both in our committee and then individually. And at the beginning, many of you said, Let's have two people go out and find it. They could come up with a compromise bill that was good public policy and there were many compromises being made. And, you know, as it came over originally, it was supposed to close at 5 p.m. tasting rooms close by PM. I don't even get out of my last committee meeting until after 5 p.m. many days and then an hour, hour and a half to get to get home again, change my clothes. They would be closed every night of the week. So should I want to join Councilmember Von Right Barua? He drinks a glass of wine. It would already be closed. Wine or beer? Maybe two to as many as you want. I'll be your designated driver. I'm good at that. You know. Happy to do that if you want. I'm happy to just. About get into that, though. And we we many people on this council said it's complicated. Let's two of you go up who have a vested interest because it touches your district and come up with good public policy. And public policy needs to be clear defined rules and it needs to balance the things that we hold dear. And what we hold dear is protecting the agricultural land. And we also hold dear the idea that there needs to be a rural lifestyle and a rural lifestyle includes places where people can go and congregate and be together. And yes, if they would like, they can have a glass of whatever they choose to drink. And code enforcement, we talked about repeatedly in the budget where we are adding new employees to make sure that when the rules were passed that they could be enforced. You know, I really respect the requests of Bash on Island because in fact, that's what we all would want exactly what the request is. But I would say that all the county should be given that same opportunity within limits. And we set those limits. We said there had to be a minimum acreage requirement so that they would not proliferate. We were very clear on what ours needed to close and. We made sure that it was at least in line and even stricter than the noise ordinance when we heard things about the parking problems. We started out with saying, hey, look, let's just not get into that because it's a complicated formula. Let's leave it at one car for every 50 square feet of commercial area. And then it went to 150 feet for one parking slot. And now this new one says 300 square feet. We do need to pass something, but it needs to be something that is balanced. What we have before us today is really to say wipe it all out and it doesn't need to exist. And I would guess that on any weekend there will be so many thousands of people or hundreds of people driving to, say, Michele's Saint Columbia, to Jill's new place to theaters anziani all within the same block as and including in 22 acres at the end of the street that is going to be there. This could be a very vibrant place that we could be symbiotic to and complement. As opposed to saying that we want this to be an empty, deserted place. Well, going into wouldn't there. So I hope that as we go forward in the next couple of weeks, we will balance that, in fact. Wine tasting is a rural use and a rural thing that people like to do, including urban people who come to visit. So it needs to have balance. And I'm willing to work with whoever it like to to make some changes on the underlying bill, not the one that's before us today, because I believe that completely wipes out the industry. But let's work for something that makes sense to everybody. The two speak. If we're speaking to legislation and putting issues out before us. I'd like to also speak to the fact on an amendment that I have drafted and as Councilmember Balducci and Ms.. Osnes have alluded to, this comes from the entire ordinance before us, comes from a study that was done in the Sammamish Valley because of issues that had been identified in that community, and the ordinance attempts to address some of those issues. At the same time, those issues don't exist on baseline. It is a small number of existing such businesses and those are the issues that are being addressed in this mama's valley. Don't exist on the island. The. Amendment that I bring would allow would apply only to existing wineries, distilleries and breweries on Bastion Island. Would not. Would not change land. Ongoing land use code for the island would. It would apply to existing businesses. Any new businesses seeking to open undersigned would have to apply with whatever code we adopted and existing businesses, should they do a significant expansion would also need to comply with the new code as we adopt not a free for all or an exemption for VAT on. And so I want to I'm sure that as I've advocated with my colleagues over the last week intensely with the amendment and in conversation over the last several months as we've talked about the ordinance itself with that seen no one else would comment council member von Reich Bauer. Thank you. I just urge my colleagues and anybody in the audience if they have a chance to read the Bible first. Timothy 523.

A bill for an ordinance approving the I-25 and Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan and the I-25 and Broadway Project, the creation of the I-25 and Broadway Urban Redevelopment Area and the I-25 and Broadway Tax Increment Area, and in connection therewith repealing the Cherokee Urban Redevelopment Plan. Approves the I-25 and Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan and authorizes the creation of an Urban Redevelopment Area to support the Broadway Station Partners project in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-12-17.

DenverCityCouncil_10022017_17-1004

The members of council as a whole please refrain from profane or obscene speech and please refrain from individual attacks. Councilman Ortega. Ready. Will you please put Council Bill 1004 on the floor? Will do. Mr. President, I move that council bill 1004 be placed on final consideration. Do pass. It has been moved in. Second it the public hearing for council bill 1004 is open. May we have the staff report? You are not Brett Dodson. I am Nora Dodson. You are Tracy. I am Tracy Huggins. I'm the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. And I'm sure you wish I was limited to 3 minutes in my ass, but I have a little bit more that I need to cover, so please bear with me. Thank you. So the Denver Urban Renewal Authority order is requesting City Council approval of Council Bill 1004 to do a number of things under this ordinance to approve the I 25 and Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan in which we will be establishing the 25 and Broadway Urban Redevelopment Area, the 25 and Broadway sales and property tax increment area approve the I-25 and Broadway project and repeal the existing Cherokee Gate's Urban Redevelopment Area and tax increment area. So I'm going to take these in. Somewhat reverse order. So in 2003, City Council approved the Cherokee Gates Urban Redevelopment Plan, establishing the Cherokee Gates Urban Redevelopment Area. At that time, tax increment financing was not approved as the development program had not been identified. In 2006, Council approved an amendment to the Cherokee Gates plan to authorize tax increment financing to support the construction of certain public improvements required to advance the redevelopment of the site. For a variety of reasons, including the economic downturn in 2008. The Cherokee Denver plan did not move forward. Well, that plan did not advance. A portion of the area. South of Mississippi Avenue was redeveloped by Trammell Crow Residential. That development has generated approximately $3.19 million of incremental property taxes. None of that tax increment has been spent by Durham and upon repeal of the Cherokee Gates plan will be returned to the original taxing entities in the following approximate amounts. DPS Denver Public Schools will receive $1.97 million, the city and county of Denver approximately 1.2 million, and urban drainage and flood control district just over $24,000. So with the originally the existing plan repealed, we are now looking to establish the I-25 and Broadway urban redevelopment area. The proposed area is approximately 85 acres and is generally bounded by Broadway to the east south Santa Fe Drive to the west, Interstate 25 to the north and west Mississippi Avenue to the south. The site is located in Council District seven. While the vast majority of the area is empty. There is one notable exception, which is the I-25 and Broadway transit station operated by the Regional Transportation District, or RTD. The station serves as a major transfer station and is one of the busiest in the RTD system. The primary historic user of the property in the area was the Gates Rubber Factory, which at its height employed over 5500 workers and had a building footprint that occupied what is now vacant land immediately south of the transit station. The factory was demolished in 2014 after lying dormant for over two decades. The area is a brownfield site and has ongoing monitoring of its contamination levels. As this is a new urban redevelopment plan, a new urban redevelopment area, the finding of blight must again be made during commission matrix design group to conduct a study to determine if the area is blighted. That study, dated July 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. First is predominance of defective or inadequate street layout. In its current state, the study area suffers from poor access due to few connections to the outside street network, the lack of an internal street network and the light and heavy rail lines that cut right through its middle to the west. Slide South Santa Fe Drive along with the South Platte River, which together cut off access to the West except along Mississippi Avenue. At the extreme southern end of the study area. This situation cannot be improved without major infrastructure projects, including additional bridges across the river, as well as additional intersections on South Santa Fe Drive. Bisecting the area along a North-South access is a major rail corridor serving both freight and passenger rail. Again, this access barrier cannot be mitigated without major investments in public infrastructure, including additional bridges, in order to develop the area in a fashion consistent with the character of the surrounding area, as well as the framework established by the city of Denver in its zoning code. An internal street network will need to be developed to complete the street grid to the greatest degree feasible because of the lack of access across major barriers surrounding the area, as well as a lack of internal access through the area itself. A finding of inadequate street layout has been made. Deterioration of sight or other improvements. The majority of the study area is vacant land, and despite the fact that it has relatively few site improvements, clear issues with lack of maintenance exist, especially in the northern portion of the area in the vicinity of the parking lots associated with the RTD station. Overgrown vegetation was common and one parcel in particular had excessive amounts of litter and debris. Additionally, much of the parking for the station is unpaved and potholes were observed in various locations. Because of these conditions, deterioration of sight or other improvements has been found in the study area. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities. The area lacks the public infrastructure needed to fully integrate with the surrounding urban fabric, including the lack of a street grid that is consistent with non-industrial properties in the surrounding area and poor connections to the transit station itself. While there are some internal public rights of way in the study areas Northeast, they are unimproved dirt roads that will have to be brought up to city standards and sidewalks are needed in this area along South Santa Fe Drive. The greatest infrastructure need in the area relates to the lack of access and connectivity, both east and west, across the railroad tracks and the South Platte River, as well as North and South Access across I-25. There are issues with pedestrian pathways in the immediate vicinity of the RTD station. There is a lack of sidewalks connecting some of the unpaved parking areas to the station, and some of the lots are difficult to navigate due to fences, park cars and other obstacles. The lack of improved roads in the public rights of way in the northeastern portion of the study area, and the need for vastly improved pedestrian access across major barriers all contribute to a finding of unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities in the area. In viral environmental contamination of buildings or property. The area has been the site of heavy industrial manufacturing for the better part of a century producing tires, rubber belts and hoses and other automobile parts. Although this activity is no longer present, environmental contamination persists, including elevated levels of lead petroleum products and volatile organic compounds, affecting both soil and groundwater in the vicinity. A portion of the gate study area is identified as being a brownfield site by the Colorado Brownfields Program, as well as being part of the State Voluntary Cleanup Program or VICAP. The Colorado Brownfields Program recognizes the environmental contamination on site as being a hindrance to redevelopment and provides a streamlined review process. Tax credits, revolving loans, grants, and other tools to help clean the property and ready it for redevelopment until the cleanup process is completed. And property within the area receives a no further action letter indicating federal and state approval of the cleanup. Financing any redevelopment efforts is severely restricted due to the possibility of the state or the United States EPA ordering more potentially costly environmental cleanup since multiple properties within the Gate Study Area are listed in the State ViCAP registry as of 2015. The study area is considered to exhibit the environmental contamination of buildings or property factor. 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. Since the Gates factory closed its doors in 1991, the land in the area has been greatly underutilized. Redevelopment plans were drawn up more than a decade ago, but ultimately never materialized. Since then, the warehouses that formerly occupied the eastern portion of the area have been raised. And three years ago, the site of the main factory building has been raised as well. The time duration of the areas underutilization in bankers and vacancy is especially notable given its central location in a growing metropolitan area and its proximity to multiple major highways, as well as a major station in the region's mass transit system. Due to the majority of the area being vacant. There is a finding of high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings and other improvements. 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 and welfare of the area. In bringing forward this urban redevelopment plan, we have sought to align the goals and objectives of the plan with the existing city plans for the area, including the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver, the Broadway and I-25 Station Area Plan, the Infrastructure Master Plan, and the Urban Design Standard and Guidelines . In reviewing the plan, City Planning Department staff found that the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms to Plan 2000 by furthering several citywide objectives, policies and actions in the plan, including to promote quality infill development, encourage mixed use, transit, aurion development, support, mixed use income housing development, and use public private partnerships to facilitate development. Blueprint Denver Denver's Integrated Land Use and transportation plan adopted by the City Council in 2002, identifies the area as being located within an area of change, with the goal of having it absorb new residential and commercial growth in the future. The I-25 and Broadway station area plan creates a connected, resilient, vibrant and transformative multimodal hub that rents the station area into the fabric of the city. The I-25 and Broadway project will also be managed through the Infrastructure Master Plan, or AMP, which provides the master plan infrastructure concept for streets, sewer lines, waterlines, stormwater systems and bike and pedestrian circulation and connections. The IRP ensures the infrastructure requirements and upgrades are identified, so the proposed development is adequately served. Additionally, the IMP provides the mechanism for the city to approve the then current infrastructure costs and ensure implementation of the IMP over the projected 10 to 15 year development timeline. In addition, urban design standard and guidelines have been approved and recorded against the property to provide a comprehensive road map for developers, urban designers and architects to guide the process of designing and constructing streets, pedestrian connections, buildings and outdoor spaces consistent with the transit oriented, mixed use, vision and direction of the project. The Urban Design Standard and Guidelines further refines design elements regulated by the zoning code and defined by the IMP. The proposed urban redevelopment plan seeks to eliminate blight through the creation of the I-25 and Broadway urban redevelopment area. 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 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 high and moderate density development where appropriate. Improve and provide employment centers near transit, and encourage a diverse, sustainable neighborhood economy incorporating mixed use and commercial opportunities. In order to undertake these efforts, we are seeking to establish a tax increment area. The initial property and sales tax increment area would cover all portions of the urban redevelopment area, except for the property owned by RTD. The yellow portion of the site is that property that is owned by RTD. While there was a desire for the project to also include a redevelopment plan for the stationery itself, the parties were not able to come to consensus on the plan at this time. That does not mean that if and when development for the RTD site is developed and tax increment would be necessary, that we wouldn't be able to use that that tool for this site as well. Instead, in the event TIV is needed to support redevelopment of the RTD portion, we would consider coming back to City Council to ask for an amendment to the plan to approve a separate, separate tax increment area for the RTD property. As property tax increment is being contemplated under the Urban Redevelopment Plan, state law requires that daera enter into agreements with the other taxing entities. Dura has entered into agreements with the three other property taxing entities. The first is Broadway station metropolitan districts number one, two and three. Dora has agreed to pay all incremental property taxes received from the additional mill levy of the metropolitan districts to the districts for their use in the construction and financing of certain infrastructure improvements in the area. Denver Public Schools, Dora has presented the development plan to DPS in order for them to determine what, if any, impact the plan would have on their ability to deliver services to the area. The analysis conducted by DPS concluded a need for additional elementary school facilities and expecting to make enhancements to the McKinley Thatcher Elementary School. Per the terms of the agreement, Dora will cause $3 million of tax increment to be made available to DPS no later than December 31st , 2019. In order for the necessary improvements to be made. And then with urban drainage and flood control district, we again presented the development plan to urban drainage and flood control in order for them to determine what, if any, impact impact the plan would have on their ability to deliver services to the area. While urban drainage did not identify significant impacts from the proposed project. They requested that their staff time needed to review plans related to any regional drainage facilities be reimbursed and that the metropolitan district maintained the facilities until the tax increment area has terminated. We are also asking council to approve the I 25 and Broadway project. As noted previously, the planning area's redevelopment potential suffers as a result of the lack of infrastructure, in particular transportation infrastructure, to not only support the needs of residents and businesses within the development, but also to improve connectivity to and through the site from the surrounding neighborhoods and regional facilities for all modes of transportation. The IMP identified key transportation infrastructure improvements, including two new pedestrian and bike bridges across the central main line, one at approximately the I-25 and Broadway station and what in one at approximately West Tennessee Avenue. Acceleration and deceleration lanes along northbound Santa Fe from Mississippi to the New West Kentucky intersection. A left turn lane on South Platte River Drive north of Mississippi to the New West Kentucky intersection and a multi-modal bridge across the South Platte, South Platte River, connecting the development on the east side of the river to the expanded Vanderbilt Park on the west side of the of the river. The IFP also included a proposed development plan that included a variety of uses to create a diverse and vibrant, transit oriented development, with a focus on creating a unique, attractive and reconnected development and was divided into four Subdistricts a Marketplace and mixed use district in the southwest section of the site, the I-25 I'm sorry, the south east section of the site, the I-25 and Broadway station district to the north, an office in Parkland District in the northwest portion of the site and the Santa Fe Residential District in the southwest section. The I-25 and Broadway project, which has been refined to reflect current development assumptions, is further broken down into a development phasing schedule. If construction, if constructed consistent with the current assumptions at full buildout, the site would include approximately 2600 residential units approximately 900,000 square feet of office and co-working space. Approximately 109,000 square feet of retail and approximately 18,000 square feet of civic space. As noted on the far right of this slide, the tax increment supported development costs of approximately $63 million correspond with the regional infrastructure called for in the IMP to support the development vision. In addition to the estimated $63 million of infrastructure hard costs, there is an estimated $6 million of related soft costs and $11 million of continuing environmental remediation for a total of approximately $81 million. This will be the amount that there is 1% for Project Art and 1% for our Construction Employment Opportunities program would be applied against. An additional $6.1 million of tax increment is to be used to address city land conveyance costs and the $3 million that I previously noted to address the impact to DPS for a total projected tax increment investment of $90 million. These are based on 20 $16. And so they are not reflective of of any type of inflation at this point. And I also want to be clear that this is not a hard cap for these dollar amounts. Instead, as the infrastructure is better defined and to the extent the tax increment is available, we will pay for those costs as they are actually then bid out at that time. In addition to the tax increment, additional local infrastructure of approximately $48 million will be financed through the existing metropolitan districts. So again, to summarize the use of the tax increment, the anticipated TTIP eligible project costs are broken down as follows approximately $81 million to remedy the blight conditions, including demolition of remaining building foundations, regional connections, environmental remediation and site work, and $9 million to mitigate the impacts to DPS and to the city. So there are a number of other legislative findings that are required by the urban renewal statute. The first is that council find that the urban redevelopment area described in the Urban Redevelopment Plan is found in 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 presented to City Council. 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 I-25 and Broadway plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those individuals or families in accordance with the Act. We do not believe that to be the case in this urban redevelopment area. If business concerns are displaced by the adoption or implementation of the I-25 and Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those business concerns in accordance with the ACT. The project area, as I said before, contains no residences there. Therefore no individuals or families will be displaced. Additionally, due to the vacancy of the project site, no business concerns will be displaced by the Urban Redevelopment Project. Written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the resolution setting this public hearing. City Council requested Dura to undertake this task. Written notice was mailed first mail to all known property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the I 25 and Broadway Urban Redevelopment Area on August 29th, 2017, 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 urban redevelopment plan. 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. This is the first consideration by City Council of an Urban Redevelopment Plan for this redefine site, and as such, the requirement to wait at least 24 months since any prior public hearing is inapplicable. Conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan. On September six, 2017, the Denver Planning Board unanimously found that the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms with the Denver Comprehensive Plan and its applicable supplements. And a letter to this effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing. The I-25 and Broadway redevelopment plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of Denver as a whole for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban redevelopment area by private enterprise. The project area is owned by Broadway station partners, who intends through coordination with the Broadway Station Metropolitan District, to undertake the horizontal development of this site necessary to attract additional private sector development of the area. 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. And the Urban Renewal Authority has notified the boards of each other taxing entity whose incremental property taxes would be allocated under this plan and agreements have been negotiated governing the sharing of incremental property tax revenues. 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 Broadway and I 25 urban redevelopment area for the period during which the incremental property taxes are paid to the authority. And the plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and borough to address any additional infrastructure requirements should they arise. And finally, no acquisition by eminent domain is authorized by the plan. We are very excited to be here again. This will be the third time we've appeared before council on this very challenge site. I think it really speaks to the need for public investment in order to advance redevelopment on this site. We believe that the terms that we have reached with our partner agencies, as well as with the Metropolitan District and Broadway station partners, are consistent with the plans that have been put forward through a lot of interaction with the community positions, the property very well for redevelopment and we ask for your favorable consideration of this ordinance. And with that, I will be happy to answer questions when the time is right. All right. Thank you, Tracy. Well done, as always. Okay. We have three speakers this evening. If you would just come up to the front here. I will invite you on. We have Charlie Bush, Lisa Engel and Chairman Sekou. All right, Charlie Bush. Hi. My name is Charlie Bush. I reside at 715 South Sherman Street, which is spitting distance to this development. I've been there for 20 years. I've been working on this project for 16 of those 20 years. I represent two voices tonight. The first is for West Washington Park Neighborhood Association. West Short Neighborhood Association voted 12 zero zero. We were all in agreement to support all three of these bills. It's our third time here with the tiff and the it. It just makes sense. We commend the Broadway station partners and Dora for the smooth planning process. And I'm now going to transition to my own comments. Even though they're my comments, they are widely held by the board and by West Fischbach neighborhood residents. The Gates site has a lot of challenges, and the full Gates site goes from Broadway to Santa Fe, Mississippi, to Alameda. One of the biggest challenges it's had and the least addressed challenge is the East-West connectivity. There's already traffic issues on Alameda and on Mississippi during rush hour at this site, the Broadway station Partners anticipates 43,000 vehicle trips per day in and out of their site. I tried to find the numbers for the part to the north, the Alameda Partners. I have a number in my brain, but I. I don't like to rely on my brain. It's my least reliable method. So if we just double, you know, the Broadway station partners, it's about 83 vehicle to 83,000 vehicle trips per day into this area. 83,000 just to compare is the same amount of traffic as three lanes of I-25 in a 24 hour period. Think of the amount of traffic of I-25 and three lanes in 24 hours. That is the anticipated daily traffic in this site. There are four lanes on Alameda. Alameda is crumbling. There are four lanes on Mississippi and they are already slam full at rush hour. This this development is going to be a solid bucket traffic. When we started, it was going to be the model for Denver. We're going to show the world how it's done. We do not anticipate that that will happen at full buildout. It'll be great for me as an 88 year old lady because I can take my little shopping cart and weave between the stopped cars to get over to the site. But it won't be good for the area. I would encourage the city of Denver to take a step back for other developments and evaluate all issues and. Not just. Follow the developer's lead to keep passing things because they want to get to construction. We need Denver to take a lead. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Ms.. Lisa Ingle. Hello. For the record, Lisa Ingle, 2024 17th Street. I'm here today as a representative of Broadway Station Partners. Broadway Station Partners is the owner of the former gate site at I-25 and Broadway. And I am absolutely thrilled to be here with you today. Thank you. We purchased the property back in September of 2014 and have been working towards its redevelopment ever since. In addition to ongoing remediation activities, we from 2015 to 2016, we participated in the I-25 and Broadway station area plan is one of the many stakeholders. We rezone the property to bring it into conformance to the current zoning code. And that, I think as you recall, came through council June of 16. Since then we have been working feverishly with the Denver Urban Renewal Authority on this particular finance package throughout this multi-year process. We worked with the community. We convened a Broadway station area advisory committee that we referred to as the B stack to ensure that the community was aware of our development plans, the remediation progress and our intent. Our request for a tax increment package. I believe in front of you, you have a packet containing support letters from the Mar Park Neighborhood Association, the Overland Park Neighborhood Association, the Ruby Hill Gottesman Neighborhood Association. Platte Park. People's Association. It's my time up. And and also the West Wash Park Neighborhood Association. So we are I'm hopeful that you will support these bills this evening and happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Miss Engel. All right, Chairman Sekou. Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou, organizer, founder of the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense, representing poor, working, poor, homeless senior citizens. We are unconditionally in support of this ordinance. And this is in my experience of being down here for almost ten years, this is probably the largest. Two. Project that has ever been attempted by the city. And I'm fully confident that the city council folks here are more than adequate to the task of marshaling this project and so that it can be something of significance for the entire city, especially for poor, working, poor and homeless people who are in desperate need of economic support and jobs and contracts to make this thing happen. Now, I was talking earlier with councilman news about how important his work is in terms of identifying those folks who represent my constituency, who can perform with excellence on this project and being actual subcontractors to this and to share in some of the economic benefits that happen to the city that many times are passed over with the. Folks that I represent who most of them are people of color. Specifically black people. Now. This one is going to be. And require what we call a knockout punch, because now we can begin to level the playing field for real once and for all about how the city and county of Denver conducts its business. And there has to be a serious push. But City Council to oversee this project, to make sure that the playing field stays equal and that we lift that which has been suppressed in terms of receiving some of the benefits of being a part of the city count in Denver. So this is going to require that. The citizens. City Council, mayor's office and all interested party engage in a unified effort which we call TKO knockout punch and TKO. Those let letters stand for teamwork. To. Knowledge, data and fact k all organizational unit. We have got to be organized to make this thing happen and pay specific attention to the details. Because this one's huge. And of course, there's going to be mistakes made. There's going to be errors. Anything that happens, you know, except for a football, you know, that's just bad playcalling. We can do this. We can do this. And we've got to get behind way in the works that he's doing because he's going to need a lot of help to monitor this thing, sit on top of this thing, and then make sure that this thing worked because his name and reputation is on the line. He's heading this thing up to bring it up. And we've got to help. God help him. Seriously. All right. So anything that you ask for us to do, Wayne, for you, including maybe giving, you know. Mystikal. Let's stay on Broadway. Let's. Let's stay on Broadway. We do what we see on Broadway. Yeah. You know, it's a big street. So I'm. I'm I'm not trying to minimize role model. I'm going get it. And I'm going to do everybody a favor tonight, too, because it's getting late and close this thing out because some time has been yielded. But I just wanted to make sure that I got that point across to folks. I honestly believe that folks listened to what I had to say and I'm looking very, very much forward. And this project being successful and hey, boy, you got is on its own. All right. Congratulations on being our General Patton on this thing pushes through. All right. And keep on working. And don't forget don't lose your sense of humor because it's going to be rough. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Sekou. All right. This concludes our speakers this evening. Questions by members of Council. Oh, here we go. Okay. Councilman Espinosa started off. And a couple of questions for Tracy. If I understand the slide, right. The total sort of economic benefit of this would be in the $60 million plus range. Is that correct? Yes. Is it possible to pull the lights back up? Because I can go to that one of the groups if we want, maybe. That is the. How about that slide? So the infrastructure hard cost is about $63 million. So the slide slide 16 has a breakdown of the redevelopment plan. I mean, well, that's the height and the breakdown of the sort of development phasing in parcels. Yes. Is that part of what you consider when you're analyzing the mean this this plan area? The development phasing itself or the related infrastructure could. Potentially. Go together. Yes. So, I mean, that's the infrastructure for this buildout, essentially, right? That is correct. Which is consistent with what was put forward in the infrastructure master plan. Okay. So then I have a one question on the on the project team on this slide as well. And I have my calculator, but what is the total number of square footage? The total square footage of the of the potential build out here. Lisa, do you want to address that? Why don't you repeat that? Councilman Asari I could add up that bottom line, but do you have that total square footage? 6.5 million square feet. 6.5. Okay. So I'm missing some zeros here. Yeah, all product types. Okay. Do you have. So all this new development would be subject to the new linkage fee. Correct. Yes. No, it's not. But. It is not subject to the linkage fee as it was put into the the review process prior to the application of the new impact fee. Okay. So is there a separate affordable housing planned for the site? And can you explain that? There is a separate affordable housing plan. I am not the right person to describe that. And instead, I'd like to ask Jeff Romaine from the city's Office of Economic Development to address that. Jeff Romer in the Office of Economic Development Council. President Burks Members of Council. Councilman Espinosa Yes, there is a separate, affordable housing plan that's been approved and adopted back in December of 2016. It calls for 330 units based upon the 2600 proposed units that are right now in the plan. And they'll they'll be responsible for delivering all those units without subsidy or they'll still be there. They are responsible for delivering those units under the guidance of the agreement. There is some characteristics of that agreement that talks about how we've incentivized those units to come forward. When we worked out the agreement with Broadway station partners. The focus that that was trying to achieve was both long term affordability. So we achieved a 40 year affordability period. We are trying to encourage obviously tiered residential development. So that was called out. Additionally, we were trying to increase the size of the units. So therefore, there is some incentive within the program in order to encourage two and three bedroom units as opposed to just studios in ones. And then finally, part of the plan is really trying to encourage a mix of affordability and so calls for vouchers to possibly put in place. So that would be some additional subsidy. Okay. And is there a requirement that that all happen within this dura boundary or can it happen off site like a lot of others? It is intended that it all occur within the boundary that it's talked about within the and I'm sorry about the color because I don't remember Tracy, but the one color was encouraged. So right there to your left. Oh, just in the RTD side. The no, not the not the but the the Broadway station portion portion. And I think the RTD side was kind of an orange color. And the other was, I believe, a purplish color. And so then we could do well. Perfect. You probably already gave it to me. But if you could, there might be some value in me seeing that housing plan for for future reference. So if you could please just make sure I get a copy of that. Thanks. Absolutely. Councilman, we have shared it with several of your colleagues already, and we're happy to share it with you also. Thank you. No further questions. Councilman Espinosa, it's a prelude to 38th and Blake. But yes, you should see it is really it to your credit, is innovative. Councilwoman Ortega Tracy, would you mind coming forward, please? The land that is to the west of Santa Fe going southbound. That's within the boundaries. Help me understand why that's included. I know that city is city park or is that land that is actually owned by gates. Okay. And that's not swapping the park land for Vanderburgh Park that's on the site already? That is correct. Okay. And then Park that's on the site will be in part used as storm drainage. Course, correct? Yes. Okay. You think? If I may. Councilman Ortega, if you can see on the screen here. So this triangular parcel right here is actually a city owned park. And that's, again, on the east side of Santa Fe. This parcel down here is owned by BSP, by the developers. So that is why this property is being included in the urban renewal area. It's going to provide the opportunity to cross the river as well as redevelop the park land. That is all that is owned by BSP. And to your other question, yes, this is the city park that a portion of it will be used for drainage . And that's three acres. Is there any green space being added to it or is that the entirety of its size of the park? There is additional space that is being added to the park as a result. And I apologize. I don't have the slide that speaks to to that agreement, which is really part of the land conveyance agreement. But there will be additional land. I'm going to if I can find my pointer here in approximately, approximately this area that will be added to the existing park space that will be developed. If you drove by there right now, you wouldn't know that it is park space. But as part of the development plan, it will be developed as a park and then there will be an additional amount of land that is included to in part offset some of the use of the park land for the drainage facilities. And the drainage will dump into the South Platte River. Correct. Yes, that is correct. I'm hearing behind me. Great. Okay, that's on my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. I take it let me just ask real quick, the drainage piece. Is that a part of this is GDP. IMPEY Okay. Is that a part of the Impey? Does that require. Okay, great. Well, we'll just I just I just have a quick question. What what's the. I'm curious on the drainage portion of it. What is the capacity? Brad Dodson, Department of Finance. The capacity for the portion that's in the park is limited to I believe it's under an acre. I believe it's point eight, 6.83 acres. And that's what we have as defined in our code. In the infrastructure master plan. Thank you. Appreciate it. Oh, I'm sorry for for listening public. I said GDP, which is Jennifer General Jennifer general development plan. But AMP is. Infrastructure master plan. Okay. Just for the public that's listening to all these crazy acronyms. Councilman Flynn, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. Tracy on slide 18. Could you clarify for me the expected amount of TIFF assistance is approximately 90 million in parentheses in 20 $16. Does that mean that in year of expenditure dollars it will be more? And if so, how much? Don't know how much more. It's all going to depend on inflation, other economic conditions that are in place at the time that the development is being undertaken in the infrastructure master plan, there is an allowance for inflation and I want to guess and say 3%. I think that that is right. But that is really in part why we have in large part way the infrastructure master plan is in place to already have identified according to the development plan that is anticipated what the expected infrastructure is, what the cost should be. And that was vetted very carefully by the city's public works department to then put some type of an inflation factor in place so that when the actual infrastructure is more clearly understood, there is a baseline from a cost standpoint to be laid up against what we believe the expected tax increment, maybe to make sure that there's a fit between the cost and what the amount of increment might be available to pay that. Mm hmm. What? And if, you know, what are the years of expenditure? Do we know how out that can be? It could be as far as, you know, 8 to 10 years. It really just depends on under then current market conditions. Lisa, is that something you can speak to? Exactly what Tracy was saying in market conditions will sort of tell us what that full buildout is. We're planning anywhere from 10 to 12 years at this of 12 years. Yeah. Okay. And one last question, Tracy. The RTD parcel. What is the it's not included right now in the TIFF. It's included in the redevelopment area, but not in the tiff for now. And why was there not the ability to reach any kind of an agreement to incorporate that at this time? Thank you for asking that question, because I in no way wanted anybody to feel that we did not have a cooperative partner because RTD worked very, very actively with the city, with BSP in trying to accommodate a development program in order to currently in order for us to bring it all together. And we there were just so many different influences that just really put us in a position where we were not able to reach those terms at this time. Remember that this is one of their busiest stations and it would really need to be a turnkey operation to make sure that their service was not disrupted at all. And so it was really just a matter of timing and a number of other issues that just really prevented us from coming to an agreement at this time. Thank you. Very complicated. And. And as you know, I've been concerned about maintaining the accessibility for patrons to use that by car. I have some constituents who drive there rather than take the bus over from from southwest Denver. And it's much more very convenient for them as it is. But in the event that RTD does at some point come into the TIFF district, how complicated will that addition be for us? You will have to come back to us to add it. We've just. Got to restructure the whole tiff. Through. Really all of the steps except for the the finding of blight. If we were to amend the plan, it would be as a material modification, a substantial modification to the plan. So we would have to understand what the development program is. Go back to Planning Board asked them to find that the amendment to the plan continues to be in conformance and go through the whole city council review process again. Okay. So we get a second bite at this apple. Yes. Thank you. That's all I'm proposing. All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure who will be best to answer this, but I watched the Gates site for decades in my previous job as a journalist, and I met former councilman and current TOD Director Chris Levitt when he was, I think, director of the Front Range Economic Strategy Center and was fighting for local hires and living wage in the jobs that would be created on site. Is there anything in the agreements to date that addresses those issues? Thing is, as I look at Lisa, we're going to tag team this and maybe Brad as well. I can speak to that from Dora's perspective. In the companion ordinance that pertaining to the cooperation agreement between Durham and the city, there is the requirement by the city that Durham cause our programs to be applied against the project as they normally would. And one of those I mentioned Project R previously, one of those is our first source hiring program, which requires that any new jobs that are created as a result of the project are first made available to low income Denver residents. And that is true not only for the construction jobs, but any permanent jobs that would ultimately result on the site. So that is something that we, through the metropolitan district, will be looking to make sure that that is put in place, that it was an existing program even back when the Cherokee plan was in place. So that is going to continue. There were some other requirements that were in place under the Cherokee plan that that Durham is not responsible for. And I'll have Lisa or Brad speak to the status of those. Thank you. The the versus hiring will be enforceable through the metropolitan district and all the infrastructure will be installed under the metropolitan district. So we will be subject to that provision as well. Any any guidance on wage? And living wage. Yeah. You know, is what I understand is it's really not as applicable to the horizontal. That really comes into play with the vertical construction. So at this point in time, that is not part of our agreement. Okay. May I also add, though, that both under duress policy, but more specifically under the Metropolitan District Service Plan, there is a requirement that all of the infrastructure be undertaken paying prevailing wage. So prevailing wage will be paid on all of the infrastructure that that the tax increment is supporting, as well as what the metropolitan district is supporting . Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilman Cashman. All right. This concludes the question portion of this public hearing. Public hearing for Council Bill 1004 is now closed. Comments by members of council councilman, president pro-tem, Jillian Clark, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm really excited that we are finally here tonight. I've said this before and I say it again. This site has everything. It has a rail station and not just a rail station, but the second busiest transit center in all of Denver as Denver Union Station and then Broadway station. It has Broadway, which is Denver's iconic Main Street. You have a connection, an on and off ramp directly to I-25. You have the South Platte River, Santa Fe, and a dedicated city park that since the 1950s, the citizens of Denver have never been able to access or use Denver. 40 new people moving here on average a day. This is creating intense development pressure on our older neighborhoods, pushing housing prices through the roof and creating gridlock on our streets. This is the site where we can fit new people without tearing down historic homes or providing integrated, affordable housing unit. And there's no better place to show that transportation demand management tools can work to achieve the kind of mode shift that we have to be able to get to as a city than here. We also get two new bike ped bridges over the rail lines, a new vehicular bridge with an attached bike PED Bridge over the South Platte River, a dog park, a pedestrian focused market street, and so much more. This has been a really long process that started way before I was on council, but I'm so excited to be able to sit up here tonight and vote yes, yes to smart urban infill, yes to building a true transit oriented community. Yes to infrastructural infrastructure that will serve so more, so much more than just the people who will work, live, and play on this land, but will connect neighborhoods that have been separated by huge barriers for decades and provide real bike and pedestrian options that connect people on the West Side. Finally, to transit on the east side of those barriers and to Denver's Main Street on Broadway and the people on the Eastside connected to the South Platte River with $30 million of new parks and improved trails, and the Levitt Pavilion offering 30 free concerts a year. So with that, I would urge all my colleagues to please vote yes on this, and then let's go grab some shovels. And at long last, get this project started. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. It almost sound like you're pitching somebody. They're like Amazon or something like that, but I don't know what I'm talking about. Okay. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate a lot of the questions that my colleagues asked just to get some of what back in the day we called community benefits that are emerging from this project. On the record, I was with the former colleague that Councilman Cashman mentioned was very involved in this project from helping a coalition kind of achieve a vision for the site, and then to negotiate that vision with the former developers and frankly, with the city, you know, because the city wasn't as excited about affordable housing then as it is now. Hard to believe, but they kind of thought the market should take care of those things. We've come a long way and in some ways the discussions we had about this site really created a whole bunch of things that are now much more institutionalized in the city. So the fact that prevailing wage applies and shrunk infrastructure and other projects never was a policy. Prior to this. We weren't doing a great job with first source local hiring at the time that this project was being discussed. And so there have been fits and starts with how well we do on that local hiring program. But but there are and now it's it's much more of a frequent expectation that affordable housing plans be adopted. And just to clarify just one tiny point, the fact this this project would not have been exempt from the linkage fee without an affordable housing plan because it didn't have actual development plans approved. So the fact that it had a vision in the pipeline would not have exempted it from the linkage fee. What exempts it from the linkage fee is the fact that there's an adopted housing plan. And I think that that is it's you know, we always have this dance about whether or not we should take big projects or big sites in the city and just apply our standard policies, which sounds like a good idea when you want uniformity and predictability. But then you have sites that feel like they want to create customized solutions because they have unique opportunities or they have unique challenges. We can never quite decide which is better customized or standard. And so we have a policy that allows for both. And I think that that's. A good thing. I appreciate especially the fact that the former housing plan for the site included some lower income units than the overall plan here is including in some ways. But it also it had necessarily a shorter potentially a shorter period of affordability. So we've exchanged some of the deeper affordability for a longer period of affordability. The other thing that we're getting is the fact that one of the community's visions for this site was that units that were affordable would be spread throughout the project. At the time we negotiated the last deal that wasn't possible. We were relying on tax credits and they tend to have to happen all in a building. And so in some ways, it's fascinating that we're actually more achieving that vision today with this revision, which it's a new proposal, but it's a revision to a former former plan in some ways, from the community's perspective, that we actually are achieving more integrated and more mixed income throughout the site rather than just certain buildings. And lastly, I want to express my appreciation to the department and to Broadway station partners for the fact that some of these units will be for those who have Section eight vouchers. We know that we have folks in the city who have vouchers, who can't find apartments. So so there's a number of things in this plan that although they look different and they feel different than that long ago process, they achieve some of the same outcomes or better outcomes. And so I appreciate the fact that that affordable housing plan was so carefully thought out and negotiated. And I appreciate the fact that we also did better this time on some of the connectivity and mobility. Right. And so there's a lot in this plan to like. We know it's a tough market out there. So that is going to be the challenge that you face after this vote tonight. And I'm hopeful that we can be resilient this time around. And I know that that won't be easy. But but that's my hope, is that we see this vision built. So thank you to everyone who is involved in for all the work you did, keeping my office and in particular involved in aware. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Kenny. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to first thank Councilman Clark for picking up the ball on this project and helping to get it to this point of moving forward. And I especially want to thank the the dozens and dozens of neighbors from throughout South Denver, like Charlie Bush and and many, many others who have sat through meeting after meeting after meeting of advisory groups starting back in the days of Cherokee. And I also wanted to mention the gentleman that I met along the way named Steve Maskey, who was became a point person for Cherokee development and almost got this project to the point of taking off. There were grand plans. I mean, Robert Redford's Sundance Cinema was interested. We had a big time developer out of Chicago ready to break ground, and then the 2009 rolled around and everything went down. So, yes, Steve Moore took me for a spectacular. Tour. Of of the Gates campus when it was completely empty but had not begun being demolished yet. And I'm telling you what we're talking tunnels and enormous, enormous old industrial buildings that we just don't build anymore. And so hopefully Steve's aware that we're at this point and I didn't want this to go by without calling calling his name . He passed away at 47 years old back in 2012. And so, Steve. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to congratulate John and Barbie Session Partners. Thank you for your work on on this particular site. I. Cannot begin to imagine what it's going to look like. I'm very glad that they were able to incorporate at least some of the affordable housing, local hire stuff. I mean, the connectivity. You did do a great process, kept us on a loop from day one, and I do appreciate that. It says a lot when you have the community with you and when you have a lot of folks saying, let's finally do something here, you. The other thing I have is kind of I mean, growing up just a stone's throw away. I got to me, it was great target practice. But I mean, with with baseballs and rocks and stuff, it was actually pretty cool. All the different colored windows you to be able to. I got that one. No, I got it. And we just it was this great pastime. Those are the old days. But can I just have one selfish request? I lost my gates rubber ball. That thing was awesome. The super balls that they had. If you find one, return it, please, while you're digging. If you have those things, you can throw right down the street and they just keep going. But those hours of. Okay. So thank you. So we got that. I know you, though. I know you've been waiting to get that one out. Councilman Espinosa, we're out of a good. I'm glad my colleague digressed and I can keep going. No, no. One of the things I was get I was scribbling here was a bunch of numbers. And the numbers are, you know, me sort of figuring out how much taxes my block generates and it pays in property taxes. And I came up with just under $60,000 a year for the 59. Let's be simple structures. I mean, homes on my block and I did the math on paving. And if we paved both lanes and on the block, that would be $31,000. So every year, my my block contributes. That's without sweet street sweeping fines and towing fees that are related to this the games. And so we're pumping money into this economy that's I mean into the revenues into the city. That's how this thing works. I understand that we're not always going to get what we put into it. And actually, I did that math wrong, that 58,000 is what we get from the city. I mean, that's that's what's left over, actually. We collect $146,000 a year from that block. Most of that's going to schools, which we didn't have very many kids on my block, actually none for about nine years. So we were that was net going to the schools. I mean, that's our part. My point being that earlier today council members discussed our budget request and this property in this station area has the benefit of having an applicant willing to go to a leadership in an organization willing to go through this entire process for the GDP and the IMP. And these are things that our all of our station areas would love to have. And in some cases, like 41st and Fox, my station area on sunny side, we don't have that sort of massive master developer. Councilwoman Black asked for money for her sophomore station. We have a lot of stations that actually need this level of analysis, planning and put in, in and in thoughtfulness that may actually end up in a a request. But the city has to put resources in. So for decades, blocks like mine have existed by these other station areas, contributing and paying their dues and paying their fair share and getting minimal resources in exchange. These are areas without sidewalks, the areas with crumbling streets, because that paving cycle's 15 years. So that $31,000 that gets kicked back in paving every 15 years. And so I just want to use this the sort of feel good nature of what we're finally hopefully going to get this round with this this level of deferred investment. You know, it's it's taxing yourselves to to sort of pump this back into the infrastructure to enable all this redevelopment to to then contribute to this economy the way we are. There are communities that are actually station areas that don't have that massive take down to one single developer, but they have the same infrastructure needs, the same planning needs, the same zoning requirements, the same design guidelines, the same affordable requirements that need to be addressed. And so we can do that as a city, that we can do that as a council. But we need a push for 41st and FOX GDP AMP and need a push for South More Station because we have the resources to do that in our budgets today. So I just wanted to remind my colleagues that it's it's decisions like this. It's great when we have people coming forward that are doing this, but we have station areas that we put in infrastructure already. And if we don't, we get what RTD sort of initiates and that's not great. So thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you for sort of circumventing RTD and then pushing RTD to probably a better place in the end. So I'm looking forward to supporting this things. Okay. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President, for that introduction. Yeah, no problem. Any time. I just want to briefly make note of the historical significance of this site being once the center of industry in Denver. The convergence, I think, of three railroads, the Rio Grande, the. The Santa Fe, the Colorado and Southern that went down the alignment that they came I-25 in the first place. And of course, Gates Rubber. And when I ran for this office, I met so many folks who were retired from Gates Rubber, living in West Denver and Southwest Denver still drawn pensions from what was once a great industrial operation that gave a lot of good living and good good incomes, working class incomes to working families in Denver . And I'm looking forward to seeing that site once again become an iconic location for Denver's working families. So thank you very much. I'll be proud to support this. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. For those of you watching, Councilman Flynn always gives us the historical context of all of our bills and projects going on. I just want to say thank you to Broadway partners. Lisa you did a fabulous job. Kim you did a great job. CRL the city. Excellent work. I know this was very complex. Jeff, I want to thank you because Paul's not here. He no longer works with the city. But I love it when we incentivize affordable housing to get the returns and the rewards that we want. Larger, right. More bedrooms, longer affordability. Those are all good things. And Tracy and the team, I don't know where you're at, Tracy, but great job. And you know, this really takes a collaborative team effort to get this done. Brad, I know you worked on this a ton. So, you know, someone once told me about the city of Denver. Nothing happens in this city without key collaboration. So thanks for everybody working hard to get this done. With that, Madam Secretary. Brokaw. Clerk by Espinosa. Flynn I. Gilmore. Cashman. All I. Can each. Lopez I knew. Ortega I. Black I. Mr. President. I. Police. Those voting in US results is. Sorry. It's not quite recording everybody. Thank you. Sorry, you. That's right. Oh. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. 1004 passes. Congratulations, everyone. Okay. Councilman Ortega, will you please put Councilman 1005 to be placed on final consideration duplex?

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Department of Transportation, the High Performance Transportation Enterprise and the Bridge Enterprise regarding Montclair and Park Hill basin drainage improvement and I-70 transportation enhancements. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves an intergovernmental agreement with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the High Performance Transportation Enterprise and the Bridge Enterprise regarding Montclair and Park Hill basin drainage improvements and I-70 transportation enhancements; the estimated total costs of $134 million for the drainage project will be shared by the City and CDOT, 60% and 40% respectively; the City's contribution to the transportation project will be $37 million (201522456). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review date is on 7-20 -15. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-3-15.

DenverCityCouncil_07062015_15-0381

Nice. 325 has passed. All right, we've got one more. And just remind counsel. After the public hearing and vote on 381, we will also need to vote on 430 the companion bill. So don't take off after the 381 vote. But first things first, Councilman Leavitt, will you please put 381 as amended on the floor? Yes, sir. Mr. President, I move that council bill 381, as amended, be placed series of 2015, be placed on final consideration and do pass. Has been moved. We need a second. Got it. Thank you. The public hearing on 381 is now open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. Thank you. Council President Herndon and thank you. Members of council. I'm Diane Barrett. The mayor's chief projects officer. As you will recall. We made a lengthy illustrated presentation at the Infrastructure and Culture Committee on the 3rd of June. And I. Know that you all heard a lively and comprehensive. Discussion about these projects with good questions and answers at the first reading on the 22nd. So my remarks tonight will be very brief. There are four. Points that we want to emphasize. Number one, the city agrees in this idea to pay Scott a total of $37. Million. For elements of their transportation project. This is a. Payment for the. Construction of project elements that see that would not. Be including. If it were not for the city's. Work. Those elements are first, the bookends on either side of the cover. That are. Essential for good urban design. B certain amenities on. The cover itself. And see the slip. Ramps which will distribute and disseminate traffic that's coming from the highway into the neighborhoods in a more. Orderly and. Limited. Fashion. These are elements. That greatly benefit our neighborhoods, but they would not otherwise be part of Scott's project. So we will be. Paying for those. The city only begins the payment of the $37 million in 2022 after those elements have been constructed and are in use. Point number two. CDOT agrees in the IGA to pay 40% of the city's to basin drainage project with a large portion of their share of those costs to be paid early in the construction process. The two Basin Drainage Project will provide protection from the 100 year storm to a wide swath of the city that includes the I-70 East Transportation Project . Absent seeds, cooperation and financial participation, the city's two basin drainage project would have provided only five years storm protection for the area and would likely have been delayed by many years for lack of available funds. Point number three, the IGA does not represent the end of the discussion about the impacts of the I-70 East Transportation Project on the local neighborhoods and their residents. Unfortunately, some people have tried to characterize the adoption of this IGA as the last bite of the apple for the citizens of Denver. And that is not true. The community in this area. Will be, as they have. Been for the last ten. Years or so, a critical stakeholder in looking. At everything that's going on with this project. In particular, the community has been tremendously involved and will continue to be in the design and the implementation of the cover over the highway. The NEPA process required for this project under the National Environmental Policy Act is being headed up by the Federal Highway Administration and CDOT, and it's been going on for 11 years and the communities have been involved, as have you all, on this council in that process. After some false starts, it did produce a draft environmental impact statement and a supplement to that draft. The city had significant. Input into those documents. As several of you council. Members will remember. Because you were entirely involved in making comments and corrections. And you will be. Again when the final environmental impact statement is issued in January of next year, the city will once again mount a concerted effort joining people, joining our efforts. So that we can communicate. Properly with Seedat and provide input to them about. The. Area, air quality and other impacts that are addressed in that study. And helping to achieve mitigation that's required under NEPA in ways that are commensurate with the federal requirements for environmental justice in the Globeville, Swansea and Elyria area. Point number four. Finally, to answer the question that's been posed about the timing of this idea, the two main reasons that now. Is the time to take. This action are, one, the early action portions of the drainage. Improvements need to be completed. Well in advance of the beginning of the transportation project so that nobody is in the way when CDOT gets going. Secondly, see, Dot's procurement process has already begun. Bidders have submitted. Statements of qualifications and they are ready to go if see how it can give. Assurance to bidders of the city's. Cooperation on this project. We expect the bidders to respond with significantly. Lower costs for the project. And I want you to note stands the terms of the iwga require that any savings in this bid. Process will be. Shared by sea with the city. Proportionate to our contribution to their project. Thank you again for your attention. Please note that Leslie Thomas, the city engineer and deputy director of Public Works, and Gretchen Haller, the deputy chief financial officer, are both here to answer any questions and provide responses as needed. Tony DeVito from Seedat is also here. Tony is the project manager. And you had his his wisdom at the first reading. Sean Sullivan, the. City's attorney assets, has been our attorney on this project, and he is here tonight, as well as several staff members from both community planning and development and public works. Who will be able. To and happy to answer questions and make comments. And I just want to say. Then I'm really. Pleased that it will be this council that will be voting on this project. You folks have been steadfast in your work for these neighborhoods and you have been so much a part of all that's going on in this project. And I'm glad that it's you that's voting tonight. Thank you. Thank you. We have 11 speakers. I will call the first five. You can make your way up to the front pew and we can make some room for them and be great. Make sure it is true. DUTCHER Shannon Gifford, Jason Winkler and Betty Cram so you five can make your way up to the first pew and Mr. Sherrod, as you can begin your remarks when you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the council. I know it's late, so I will be brief. My name is Mike Gerardus. I'm the director of the unit within the Department of Transportation in the state called the High Performance Transportation Enterprise. We have the authority within the state government to pursue innovative financing for projects of this nature. I visited, I think, over the last several months with with each of you here walking through, answering questions about a procurement process that involves the private sector. That decision has been made by the Transportation Commission, as Diane just mentioned. We are in the middle of that procurement. This idea that's before you tonight is important for several reasons. One, it helps us fund the project, helps fill a gap that existed in funding this, as everybody knows, at the state level or at the city level . There are not a lot of funds floating around. And we've we've been struggling to put together some of that funding, which this is this in to it addresses an important risk element of this project, the drainage the storm drainage aspect of the problem, which we think is quite important. I think Tony can answer questions about that. Third, and most important in my mind is to underscore again what Diane pointed out. We have got a project that fundamentally involves the interest not only of the state, but of the largest city and county within the state. And without a measure of cooperation between those two entities, the people who are out there ready to invest tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars in this project, raise their eyebrows in terms of wondering whether the political risk of the of the project is worth it. It's quite important for that from that standpoint. Lastly, I want to I want to not forget about the elements of this contract agreement that address the commitments to collaboration between see DOT in this seat in the city going forward. I think probably I don't know at this point. I'm maybe not the longest living resident of Denver, but pretty close to it. This is sure as I apologize you 3 minutes is up and. Maybe John is. I don't know. We'll have to compare birthdates. But in any event, I know. You're 3 minutes out. Mr. Shaw. I'm sorry I had to stop here. So thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Drew Dutcher. Hi. I'm Drew Dutch. I live in Illyria. I live about 200 yards from the highway. It's soon to be very close. I want to just first say I blindsided by this. I found out that fortunately somebody called me a week ago saying, you know, that we've made $83 million agreement with the city. No public hearings, no meetings, no nothing for this. I support the drainage project, but I think it's very devious for the city to try to roll this package together to ram through the I-70 project. In this way, we put a lot of work into comments for the draft, the supplemental draft, EIA. Yes. And that the final yes is not coming out till January. We have no idea and no faith that any of our concerns will ever be met. What guarantee is there? They're not even talking to us. This was some backroom behind the scenes deal done with the city. And see, Don, there's there's too many disturbing things about this for me in 3 minutes to go into it. But there's just and I'll mention a few this CDOT is using a ten year old study to justify ten lanes. Now, there's many people who will say that a NEPA process five years is the shelf life of a of a study the unacceptable 300 feet wide highway. We're not sure we need this the funding mechanism and mechanisms of privatizing the highway with toll lanes. So these are very questionable. We can't get air monitoring or any kind of sufficient health study. We've never gotten answers of what will be the construction impacts that the impacts to the neighborhood during construction. None of these issues are being addressed. When when will we talk about them? You know, you're making these agreements in our behalf that we're paying for. And what and what what say do we have in this process? I feel you're giving away everything to see that. Why doesn't the city represent the residents of Denver? You know, one of the things that I really don't understand is I hear city officials say this is a done deal. I don't understand what you've done, what's done about it. I keep hearing this. You know, you've got your your chorus all saying this is a done deal. There's a lot to be done yet before this is done. We need to have a public discussion about this. And there's many people who wanted to come tonight. First of all, I wasn't going to come. It's 10:00. But there's many people who are really boycotting this hearing and won't come tonight just because they don't like the way that this was rolled in with all of the other projects. Judy, I really would have like to end on a high note, but, you know, I'm afraid this is difficult. You know, the really most harmful thing about this is there's a lot of goodwill that we had built up in a lot of the other processes, the neighborhood processes, the National Western Center. And it's being destroyed through this ice, this I-70 process. Thank you. Thank you, Shannon Gifford. Thank you, Mr. President. Council members. I'll be very brief. My name Shannon Gifford and I live at 32/29 Street. I'm the current Transportation Commission member for District One. Which represents Denver County. As many of you know, the planning and environmental. Review process for the. I-70. East. Project is now in its 12th year, and I particularly like to acknowledge Councilwoman Montero's leadership and involvement throughout this very long time and congratulate her on the work that she has done to bring. Members of the. Involved communities together to contribute their knowledge to. Forging solutions. And obviously there remains work to be done. The intergovernmental agreement before you tonight is just one. Example of many projects throughout the state, which, due to the current state of. Transportation funding in which and due to the current state of transportation. Funding, SEAWRIGHT is turning to local partners to deliver projects. And as those of you who studied these drainage issues in this area, and I know we talked about it a lot a couple of weeks ago, well, no, we can. Accomplish more by working together on. This specific aspect of the project. And I believe that this much needed level of preparation just just simply makes no sense. So finally, I know that. Sidewalks mitigation commitments. Are a primary concern for many members of this council. And I know some members are going off the council now. And the the the fact that we. Have sort of a changing council and that. A lot. And when you have such a big project, you have a lot of processes going. On at once. There's been a lot of concern about Sea Dot's real commitment to the mitigation. And I just. Want to assure you that Seattle is committed to working with this and with future councils. As we refine and finalize these commitments. So I hope that you'll support this intergovernmental agreement. And thank you. Thank you. Jason Winkler. Good evening and thanks to all the members of council for having us here and thanks for staying attentive this late in the evening. To that end, I will be really brief. My name is Jason Winkler and I'm a resident of Denver and also really fortunate to be working on exciting projects in the same kind of part of the city that most of the preceding talks were about. And and that's really what I bring here is a limited but I think a pointed perspective on the different things happening in what I'd call Greater North Denver, which is really all these areas I've learned really by, I would say, trial by fire, how incredibly important drainage and all the different infrastructure that needs to be done at a city level is to private development and and to the progress that that can be made and some of the exciting things it can be made to happen in a neighborhood when the private sector and the city work together and looking at this particular drainage project and the way the city has handled it. And when I say the city, I talk about you, members of council and the mayor's office. And when I describe the kinds of creative thinking that bring together the city, for example, and see not at the state level and how the two can come together to act quickly and in part of town, that's changing quickly and make things happen in a nimble way, folks, whether they're they're just friends or whether they're coworkers. Or financial partners from outside the city, they are literally in awe at how impressed they are. By the way everything moves in Denver and everybody in Denver, whether you're on the government. Level, the private. Sector should be really proud and excited about that because you probably if you don't hear that from outside, you don't realize how unique it is. So to that end, I wanted to just give my. My level of support. Largely from the way on Brighton Boulevard, the. City has worked with both private and public sector. And the way the process was so incredibly transparent, so incredibly creative and so incredibly inclusive and collaborative. And so to that end, while there's a ton of work to be done and the details of exactly how these two drainage projects almost come together to be one drainage project, there's a ton of work still to be done, but I have full faith that the groups will be all of those things that I. Just described. And have all the brains, if you will, come together to come to the best solution and work in a timeline that's going to work ahead of I-70 and in conjunction with all the redevelopment that's going on. So I'm. Here in full support and. And thank you. Members of council as well as members of the mayor's office for how everybody comes together to make smart solutions happen. So thanks. Thank you. Next is Betty Crane. And as Betty comes up, I'll go ahead and call the next six speakers. Just so you know, it's David Bennett, John's AP. And no, let me go. Cindy, said Stritch, David Wolinsky and Ann Elizabeth. So you all can certainly make your way up to the first two pews. And Ms.. Graham, you may begin. Thank you so much. I'll start out by saying I live in the area and when you go down there, sometimes, sometimes you find a little bit of cement laying around. It's just what's fallen from the highway. And so this is to who? It's concerning. Little chicken said the sky is falling and Denver County says no I-70 may fall. See, that said no. We will make a new I-70 and we will do what is right for the neighborhood. Really? I thought that issue was settled with a new raised viaduct. It would come north and have eight new lanes. Now you say that you need more than eight lanes. You will not build a new viaduct. So now the plan is to have ten lanes to toll roads. This will gobble up a lot of our historic area because now it has to be a 30 foot deep trench. At least ten lanes slide and about 20 blocks long. Not to mention the two access roads to run along the side of the highway. This will destroy over 60 homes and over 20 businesses. This trench will have no exit along the route. You state you will build a lane or park over the highway in front of the school. But the city will have to do the maintenance and the care of the park. There will be a network of side roads for travel in the local area, which will bring a lot of local traffic trucks into the area in order to get an entrance to I-70 east or west. Two concerns in our area are the filtering of the water away from the 30 foot trench and the salt pollution that will be a problem near the school and the residential areas close to I-70. Why does it seem this area from Brighton Boulevard to Colorado Boulevard is a target for your toll road? I don't hear of any other toll roads planned for about ten years in this little area. This toll road is not fair to the local citizens who are the working class, poor, poor class, nor for the local traffic that would come through to the National Western Center would be traveling through the area to see that in Denver. Please scratch your heads a little longer and come up with a better plan for us. Thank you. Thank you. David Bennett. Good evening. My name is David Bennett. I'm with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, and I'm here representing the district who is a partner with the city and county of Denver on this project. Now, for those of you that don't know the district, we work with local government. So we've been working with Denver on this project for a number of years in the planning phases, the design phases, and then we'll be partnering with them in the implementation phase. We also provide a technical resource of drainage and flood control. We helped guide the vision and most importantly, were a funding partner in this project at about 11 and a half million dollars. This is a very important project from the drainage perspective. We've been working on it for a number of years. I think the solution we're proposing is innovative. It meets a lot of the needs and you're getting a much upgraded system from five year to 100 year. So from our perspective, the drainage perspective, this is a great a great improvement for the area. So basically, we're in support of this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bennett. Next is John Sapin. Well, here we go again. I agree with almost everything this lady said initially. I wish I wish we would have heard this ten years ago or even eight years ago. The former head of Public Works, Bill Fidel, was in the neighborhood and he didn't say a damn thing about this urban drainage. You knew about this such. A long time. Why did you not come to our neighborhood? You have the wherewithal to do that, at least some public notice of some sort. We've got we've got this issue and it's I, I won't use the term devious, but I think it lacks some veracity. It would have been really an addition to the goodwill with C dot if this would have come up at one of the neighborhood. Me. How long up? God. How many meetings we've had in the. Last ten years or so? The main concern that I have about the drainage thing is that. When this project's complete. It's a funnel at Washington Street, and the next project is going to be expansion of I-70 through Globeville. We've had a hate relationship with the Colorado Department of Highways since the fifties, and that's ingrained. And I'll admit there's some bias. But but to deal with this amount of money that your grandkids, our grandkids are going to be paying for this. Yeah. And there's no end in sight. I think it has to be addressed and it has to be dealt with. But I don't think this is the way to do it. There's a public. Process that hadn't. Taken place, and we're talking about a lot of money. And, you know, I hope it's not a done deal because like I say, I don't think it's devious, but the term veracity is up in the area. Thank you. Thank you. Now let me go. Good evening. Thank you, Mr. President. Hello, councilmembers. My name is Nolan Miguel. I live. At 4930. Vallejo Street. I know many of you. I worked for Councilman Monteiro for the last three years and just had my first day today as the new director for Global Air since I live well in Focus Points Family Resource Center. So I'm here today as just me and I really appreciate the deliberation intention that you all have given to this issue. I know that you just found out about this idea several weeks ago as well and have been rummaging through it and trying to process it as well. And I just want to say, we will need your continued support on this I-70 project. This isn't it. We're not done. This isn't a final agreement. There's a lot more that we need to work on together and appreciate your continued support. I generally support this idea going through because the drainage project is so huge and important to the neighborhood as a benefit. We just saw that recently with the floods of 46th Street was filling up with water. Washington Street was. This is a huge, huge need in the neighborhood. I understand that having an agreement with the city is important to see that to be able to move forward with the contractor. I also understand that in order to get these this drainage agreement, there had to be this larger package that had to be negotiated in order to get this and that. That's kind of how ideas work. But I just want to say, in no way that we're that this that we're done, that this is it in working with the city or CEDA and addressing all the concerns and the priorities that the neighborhood has. This is not mitigation. We're still working on mitigation. We still have the RFP. That is critical document. We still have the final year and other critical document. These are all things that we're going to be working with residents on and pushing for long term solutions to the impact that this project is going to have. Councilman Monteiro has worked to establish structures around housing, health, jobs and education to get some of these priorities addressed. You know, we have a lot of things that we'd like to see happen. We'd like to have a percentage of the projects, for instance, go to training in the neighborhood. They did. That in. I-64 in Missouri. We'd love to see business opportunities rerouting truck traffic in the neighborhood, increase services to 500 feet from the highway, jobs, replacement, housing for neighborhood viability, all of these things. But these aren't things that are appropriate for being in this idea at this time. There are some things that would be appropriate to have maybe in the idea, such as narrowing the footprint of the highway or maybe looking at other regional solutions to, oh, it's over to the to the. The. Issues in for I-70 and also 47th in York. That's a big one. Sorry, I could keep going, but overall, I support this. And we're looking to Tony to to. Director, to. To make sure it is to keep working with us in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Cindy says, stretching. And I apologize if I mispronounced that. I'm Cindy Sestak. I live in District ten of Denver. And I am here today as a spokesperson for the Denver League of Women Voters. Would you. And thank you again for scheduling this special hearing. We do. Appreciate it. Please put our letter of June 24th into the record. Where we voiced our concerns. Regarding transparency and. Public process and prudent use of taxpayer. Money for the nurses drainage and I-70 project funding. We agree this project is necessary. However, we have observed meetings. Televised and in-person. Where questions have been. Where questions asked haven't been fully answered in public. The data needed to justify your upcoming decision to approve these large amounts of funding. Hasn't been published. Or noticed noted in meetings that we can find. Outside experts. Should be. Allowed to audit the cost sharing agreements and long term funding obligations of taxpayers funds prior to making your final decision. At a minimum, you are obligating. Nearly 200 million. For. Drainage projects, transportation enhancements and in-kind contributions, which are lost revenue for the city of Denver. But this agreement appears to be open ended with unforeseen consequences for years to come. There's a lot of funding involved. We think this agreement. As stated, is too vague. For this a large amount of taxpayer obligation. Therefore, we urge. You to vote no tonight and allow the incoming council to give the time and attention this project. Deserves to fulfill City Council's duty to the citizens. Of Denver. Thank you very much. Thank you. David Wolinsky. Thank you. My name is David. Let's give me a Globeville resident. I live in 4930 Logan Street, and I've been to a lot of meetings, and I. Never heard anyone support the I-70 project. We always denied it. But you're still moving on with it. And I can understand Drew Tucker's frustration, you know, and. You know, June 16th, 50 years ago, that river flooded and this year it was pushed to capacity. And then we had Cherry Creek with that that that that that that freak rainstorm or whatever we had. Why did you study this? Did you study it after this year? You didn't study that for this rainy season, have you? You know, I, I this is going to be rethought. I mean, they're going to have a new conversation. I mean, we don't know what the future is going to hold. I've never seen this kind of rain that we got this year walking that river constantly. You know, I seen the 65 flood. I was ten years old. It was the scariest thing you can ever imagine, you know, and and watch this river run high the way it is. I drive the trolley down there down on College Park and just walking that river high and low, lying low in the snowpack in the runoff we've had. I think he's a under thinking this. You know and it ain't going to work. It's just not going to work. You're putting that up. You're putting that highway under river level, you know. Are they are you engineers going to be held accountable or responsible if this thing floods and there's death? Or is that is that figured into. I don't think it is. You know, I mean, if you're if you're a bus driver and you get drunk and you and you crash your bus, you're held responsible. We need to start holding these engineers responsible because they're doing some things that I don't know if it's ever been done in this state. I've never seen it, you know. And, you know, if you if you did take if this isn't a done deal and you did move I-70 out, you know, there's a fortune in land sitting there that we could we could heal all our ills, our housing problems, you name it, it and the developers. This is a perfect time. Colorado now just moved in a number one spot for housing. And we're going to stay hot for a lot of years to come, you know, and if you turned I-70 and even into a boulevard and you moved it out financially, we could go ahead and and do it because the property values is going to be there. Well, you know, we looking at we don't have enough land. Well, there's a lot of land under there and it's an ideal location. And I think this has to be rethought. We got to really look at it. And, you know, we just this the way these floodings happened, the way there's water, the way the rains are coming, it's never done that before. John and I were talking. We've never seen it rain like that. Debbie's a longtime resident. You or have you ever seen it rain like this? I've never seen it rain. Mr. Leslie, your 3 minutes is up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Last speaker and Elizabeth. My name is Anne Elizabeth Glanville, and I'm a past member of the Steering, the Globeville Neighborhood Planning Steering Committee and associated member of the Elyria Swansea Steering Committee for the Plan, Neighborhood Planning and a National Western Center Advisory Committee member. It is a reflection of the exhaustion of people and people that are boycotting this that several of us are speaking several times. And I do want to say the tip of the iceberg is here. I normally very much would support the drainage project. We need this. And I think Denver is rising justifiably with some exciting commitment to the drainage project. But I would and I and I want to say that I have had extremely good responsiveness and I'm working diligently with Cedar at all levels to get better communication out. And I'm very excited at the possibility of greater engagement. And with that, I would ask the city council to defer this for 45 days after the new council comes on. Do your job to make your case. Let there be some more public conversation, with all due respect, a sentiment that you've worked hard on. And so I hope the council this council can be the one to pass. It is not a good reason to pass something. Judy Montero is right that the neighborhoods need not to be sidelined. And I'm going to say to you with my heart, in parallel to what you're asking, we're keeping the community engaged and not marginalized. Please ask for this to be passed in 45 days and not before so that we can have more engagement and have more explanation as to the ramifications of this. The elephant in the room is, of course, that people that there is not a consensus in the neighborhood. There are unanswered questions. What are the ramifications? I have disassociated from the time from some of the culture, the leadership of the reroute group that I do not feel does build goodwill within the neighborhood. I also am very concerned that some of the research that's being generated around the possibility needs to be vetted more strongly. And we need to let the the Federal Highway Commission process complete itself. I am very in awe attending Transportation Commission meetings, looking at the HPT and the the the bridge is conversations that the individuals in this room that are doing a spectacular job trying to come up with a good, creative and innovative way to deal with the highway project that has a serious financial shortfall. We are not each other's enemies and we need to engage with each other better. We need more explanations as to why is this the solution and more guarantees that truly this is for the best interests of the neighborhoods. Plural, by the way. Welcome to District nine. Mr. Albert. But you continually say the neighborhood has come together globally. Swans here, three neighborhoods. You'll get it. Plural. Three neighborhoods. There are more. You know, I'm. This is part of the full understanding of this. So I would ask the council. I embrace that partnership with the city on the flooding project. But it is also the case that this is marrying the partially covered, lowered option with particulars that are up in the air. And let's let the process get a little bit further and let's let's give it another 45 days, bridge it to the new council and let's have more public exposure of the issues in the ramifications. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Time for questions. We are. I have a list. Councilman Brooks, you're up. Thank you. I live seven blocks from these neighborhoods, so I do know that there are three neighborhoods. But I wanted to bring up Diane and also Leslie, and I'm going to go. You did a great presentation, nice summary of kind of what we're going through here. But number three is, is the big issue and it's around I've gotten a lot of emails saying is this does this IGA give neighborhoods the last kind of bite at the apple? Will they have other other opportunities to comment and to talk about some frustrations and some issues? And so maybe, Leslie, this would be better for you. I'd love for you to read into the record. I found this the the the FDIC review process plan. And I want you to just it's going to take a little bit of time, but I want you to go through it, talk about the number of days that council and the community have to speak into each one of these issues. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Leslie Thomas. I'm the city engineer and deputy director of Public Works. So we have prepared our team and public works like what we did with the supplemental draft as a whole. Plan for the review of the final year, which is now scheduled. Our best information is that it will be available for public review January 15th of 2016. So what we've prepared is. A tentative. I-70 East Project FISA review process. It includes three. Steps review. Preparation. So what we do in that timeframe, it's about two months starting in October excuse me, August and ending in October. And it has steps that take a look at verifying the technical folks within the city to review the study. Excuse me, who did review the supplemental draft? This it's been a little while, so we want to be. Sure we have the right folks. We'll take a look at the past comments that we got from council and technical folks and that what we've heard in a series. Of public meetings that. Public works and Councilwoman Monteiro, Councilwoman Ortega. Organized with the community, I think about January, December through March this year. We did that specifically so that we could understand that the. Comments that. We did submit to see that were. Resonating with the community. I want. To let you know that two of the big ones that we did talk about were. Drainage and traffic. In the neighborhoods. There are multiple, but I. Won't tell you all about those. Tonight. We also want to confirm that the what the prior mitigations were that we requested requested so we can have that at our fingertips. We'll also be. Reaching out to the. Administration. Cabinet levels and. Managers as well as to city council to bring. Everyone up to speed and remind us of what we. Did about a year ago. Then we will spend about 30 days doing training. That will be training of our staff who technical staff who will be taking a look at this FISA as well as reaching out to council and council staff. There's a there's. A lot of comments and it will be a very large document that we need to review within. 30 days. 30 calendar days of receiving the document. So we want to have everybody poised and ready to go to read their favorite sections in a way to pull those comments together, starting once we receive it. Expected in January will begin a staff review with issue escalation among the technical folks. As well as working with council to help collect the comments and put them together if that's what council desires. I believe in the stages. We had a administration and technical letter. And we also had several. Letters from council and that is totally okay. We're here to help and facilitate that. That'll give us a few days. It's about two weeks to review it, so it's a lot of work to do. In a couple of weeks we'll. Send spend a week to compile it and. Then send comments out to see that during this. Time, the this 30. Days. The neighbors, the citizens. Can all comment as well while we're doing that and those comments can be. Made directly. To see that. So right now, this is our tentative based upon the timeline that we have from Syria, but we'll be preparing in that way. Mr. President, just let me just get that in summary. That was that was good. Thank you. We're going to review and prep for 62 days. We're going to do a training for 31 days. We're going to have review, comments and resolution complete and submit comments for another 30 days, which, you know, is about 123 days. And we as specific council members can work with community leaders, community folks to compile all of these comments to submit into the office. Okay. One more question. All right, Mr. President, I haven't talked tonight. You know, we have gotten a lot of residents in Park Hill, a lot of residents in on the east side of Denver, a lot of residents and guess who have have been emailing me about, you know, the issues with the flooding at a very high level. And technical. How bad is is the Park Hill Basin in the Moncler Basin. There a big. Challenge because they are a drainage way that was built over. In the city back in the 18 and. 1900s. And I think when Paul Heineman discussed this at committee, he was pretty concerned. And thought that if we did. Receive excuse me, 100. Year storm. In this basin, that it could be Katrina like I think is what he use. So it's a concern and we're excited. To have a partnership with that, to be able to take this on. And one more question. If we weren't able to partner or figure out a catalytic project to leverage dollars on. I want to make sure I got this right from Diane. We would only be able to build a five year storm drainage system. Yes, that's correct. Five years is about an inch in an hour and 100 years is about 2.6 inches in an hour. Okay. So what we saw recently in the basin was. About. Two inches in an hour. Which is about a. 25 year storm, which we had. Some significant impacts. So we're happy to be able to give a higher level of protection. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman, can each Brooks think outside? Brooks, I'm staring at Lopez's name I that my apologies. Katherine McGinnis. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to just pick up Leslie, if I can just close and then I have some questions that I think I would like to have urban drainage answer as well. But I just want to clarify. So when we had speakers say you should reevaluate the project in light of recent rain, recent rain, what was the highest level of rain we had recently? In this area. What I saw was about two inches. But Dave, is that correct? Dave Bennetts with there urban drainage, they keep track of it with rain gauges. So you could stand up and just confirm. And I think I'd like to hear it from you since you're the drainage expert. We've had a very wet spring, as everyone's aware of the rainstorm we had last week. We were seeing close to 2.6 inches of rain in some of the areas. Very intense rain in a very short period of time. You mentioned, I believe, that we were seeing high flooding on the South Platte River. We had the fourth highest recording flow ever on the South Platte River that week at 14,300 cubic feet per second. So it was a very significant event with a very short, intense rainstorm. I think, as Paul was alluding to earlier, if you move that to a different basin that doesn't really have the infrastructure to handle it, it could have been quite a devastating event. There was some localized flooding and flooding, but it really centered over Cherry Creek and that's why Cherry Creek flows were so high. Thank you. And so can I clarify then? Because I think the question that got asked is we've all been talking about how great this proposal is. Is it good enough is if we've recently had that level of rain? Is the plan that you have for a similar level of rain adequate. For what we're talking about for the basins right now? Yes. I mean, we've been looking at this for a number of years, and I think we're confident as we move ahead that this is a great plan to address that. Is there any area of the city that has a higher level of protection than the 100 year level or. There's other areas that certainly do have higher levels of protection? I think Leslie alluded to the fact that the city basically built over the drainage way, even in some of the other drainage ways, like Harvard Gulch or Wesley Creek, still existed. They maybe couldn't carry the capacity, but we completely buried this one and it's not there. And so now that's why it's so expensive. We have to go back and recreate 100 year storm. So. Got it. So. So there may be areas that are at less risk, but it's because they were never at this high of a risk. We didn't bring them back from the brink. That was correct. This area back us. Thank you. So my next question is about process. I'm familiar with the work that you all did around the Globeville Basin, where there were public meetings, there was a series of discussions, and then the entire approach made it into an urban drainage plan that was adopted. It feels to the residents like this process did not follow that same approach. Is that accurate? And if so, why? Basically, the city took the lead on the public relations part of this. So all of these discussions have been part of this ongoing plan. So urban drainage did not specifically hold a meeting to talk about this because it's been this part of this larger plan. But we've been talking about this project for five or six years. So. Okay. So maybe the city would like to speak to this question of so I guess feel free to respond generally, but I want to even be more pointed. When did the discussion begin with see that for this particular AG that we're seeing today, where the drainage project became a piece of the discussion. We started a. Multi-Agency technical team in October of 2013, and it had to do with solving issues surrounding the RTD. Eagle line. That cuts through this basin where. There were significant. Drainage concerns as. Well as with see that. As they announced their partially covered lowered section. And so we worked with urban drainage. And each of those other entities. Engineering consultants to figure out what the flows. Were. These are technical pieces of information that everyone needs to be on the same page with. And we came up with this recommendation that you. See coming forward to you. To basically leverage all of the improvements that each of. Those. Public entities were planning to work on in order. To come up. With this one solution that benefits all of us. Now, the challenge that we've. Had is that until. We were able to bring this agreement to you. We did not have. Seat outs, agreements in place to be able to make the commitment to the 100 year. Storm. So we've been working on a five year storm up until that point. As well as RTD. That's the level of effort that they did. So with this idea and this approval in price. We'll be able to move forward with 100 year strategy and service level, which we're really excited to do. I guess we need to kind of. Ask to put. I need to push a little more to understand better, because all the time we as a city has plans we don't have funding for. We go out, we have process, we have discussion. The Globeville Junction drainage plan is not funded. It it may not be funded for a decade or more, but we had public meetings and we had discussions. So I guess I don't understand why we could not or did not have any public meeting because we didn't yet have the funding commitment. To me, planning and design and what kind of flood protection we need is a very different conversation than how we're going to pay for it. And so, I guess help the residents and help me understand why. And how is it that we did not have any public discussion about the solution? Well, I guess. Put it this. One thing to add, we. Have gone to the community as to whether this is a problem. We did have public meetings on our. Outfall, our. High street outfall. From 40th. Down to the river. We haven't gone up in. The basin because, to be honest with. You, we didn't know whether we're going to be able to do. It. We do have urban drainage now under. Contract and there designers under contract us help us to do it. So we're ready to go now. Yeah, I guess that's not very satisfying when we have meetings all the time for projects we don't have funding for. But I will let it go because you've done your best. We met. Well, just to add another thing, we did have our folks from Urban Drainage and our master plan folks at the end. Public meeting several times for months about this particular. Yes. Showing the issues that we had. But was it an actual. OSP, which maybe I'm too technical. Here is what you're talking about in Globeville, where they had a specific public meeting. We have not had one of those yet. But we have carried this issue. Forward and had Shay Thomas. And others from Urban Drainage. Selina Koslowski are engineers at the DCC meetings. To. Talk about the issue. And show the pictures that we're showing in the. Iwga generally as to what the solution. Is. I have some more questions for seerat, but I can seed and go back in the queue if someone else wants to. Mr. President, it's your pleasure, but I have another line of question. I hope we can come back to you, Councilwoman and Councilman Lopez, Europe. Thank you. My question is that we can't make the microphone. Microphone. My question is addressed by Mr. Bernanke. He addressed it eloquently. He already did. You already did that. So our next speaker. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. And I am going to move from the stormwater issue, which I am convinced is necessary. And I'm delighted that in this agreement the state is stepping up with this 6040 share there being 40. But I want to talk about the 83 million that we are putting into the transportation piece. So I think my first question is probably for Diane Barrett. I am thinking that I used to hear Don Hunt talk about the total cost of the I-70 project, and I haven't heard Salem bought talk about it yet. But what I'm remembering is the total cost of the project is about 800 million up. We're if we're talking. About hard costs, I think 800 to. 1.8 billion is about that's what we've been that's what we've been working. Toward. Obviously, the cost of the project. Won't be truly. Known until. The builders have done their. Thing and we've had the. Procurement. So do you think the 83 million in this agreement we keep talking about future bites of the apple for. Mitigation and things that may be in the final year. But do you think the 83 million is our total commitment in terms of the transportation piece of the I-70 project? Have have we taken our final bite at that one? Yes. Okay. So then. Councilwoman, I think it might be a little. Bit confusing to use the 83. Because. We have $37 million that's dollars on the table that we're paying for things that we're getting. Right. The other portion of your 83. Some of it is actual dollars in the sense of relief from permit fees, for instance, and that sort of thing. Others are a bit more. Nebulous in that there's $10 million in this instance for risk, that sort of thing. So it's kind of it's kind of apples and oranges. So probably better to talk about the 37 million and then. The in-kind support perhaps. Yeah, I just think some of the income. Well, let me talk. About it any way you want because. Related to that, to the in-kind. I want to know about the slip ramps and bypass lanes because I call those access roads. Am I calling them the right thing? I would love to have Tony DeVito talk to this because I'm not a traffic controller. But let me get there's a bigger question. Okay. So my thing is mostly the neighbors and some of us are council didn't want the highway right away to be so large, and yet we're contributing to making it wider white. Why are we paying for that piece of it? Because in the last analysis, we ended it. And I do need Tony. In the last analysis, we ended up agreeing with, see that that that this Steele and Vasquez intersection and the Colorado Boulevard intersection. Would be two halves of a hole. And what happens is the bookends. No, that's. Not the bookends. That's something different. I'm sorry. That's mine. I'll explain that, too. But. But the way the intersection works. Traffic would be dumped. Into the neighborhoods like that. Whereas if the slip ramps are built, the traffic will be dispersed and disseminated as it comes off the highway. So it's not coming out in large numbers all at the same time. Tony, do it more. Do it better, please. T-Rex. T-Rex. Talk about T-Rex. Yeah. The interchanges of Vasquez and Colorado are two independent split diamonds. As we move into the final design of what's being proposed, and it's actually a $1.17 billion project is as we're moving forward. It was working with the city of Denver is trying to identify how those interchanges could best work not only from an interstate, but also not end up in a situation where people would bypass the interstate and use more of a local system. This was something that the city and county of Denver traffic engineers made very clear and evident that these slip ramps and bypass lanes were needed to try to better negotiate that weave on the interstate template and not into the neighborhood. And so it was a request from the city and actually a slight detriment to the interstate operation to incorporate this. And in working with our federal partners, we've come to an agreement on that. Okay. Actually, that explanation was helpful to me and hopefully to the neighborhood because I'm not at every neighborhood meeting. I have another question. And Tony, it might be for you as much as for Diane Barrett. The agreement says, see, DOT will consider abandonment of Brighton Boulevard. What's it mean will consider I mean, is it going to be abandoned or not? Abandonment is performed as an action of the commission. That action has not happened. So as part of our agreement, once it's finalized at this level, we will take it to our Transportation Commission. At that point, our commission will always rules on abandonment of state owned properties. Now, this is a section of old historic connector in there that really doesn't serve as a a an interstate or a highway or a state local collector. It really serves as more of a local road, and it's just something that has been on our system for way too long. So I think we discussed this in the meeting and I'm always interested in it because I've had constituents who would love to see devolution of Colfax Boulevard so that we could make it a little more urban and, you know, be a little freer with the access points and whatnot. But this is a very short stretch that you're talking about. Less than a mile, I believe it's less than a mile. Okay. Already those those are my questions on the transportation piece. Thanks. Thank you. Well, there you go, Councilwoman Ortega. You're up. Thank you. Let's see what you make coming back to the microphone, please. So you described a process that the city is going to engage in prior to the EIA being released. So what I'm not clear about is if Denver is going to receive that information prior to the release or if you're just prepping for the release of the final year. We're prepping for the release of the final. EA's will receive. It at the same time as the. Public does in January of 2016. Okay. Are there ongoing negotiations between Denver and CDOT around some of the other issues that were in many of the responses that came from the neighborhood? Some of them came from city council. Some of them came from some of the neighborhood associations. You know, Denver had a lot of comments as well that overlapped with some of those issues that came from those various groups that I just mentioned. So are there still some of those ongoing negotiations happening right now? What we are working with Don on is the preparation. For the RFP for the contractors. See, that is we received five responses, four qualifications. And in those. Technical. Conversations, we are working on things like the air quality, the construction, how. You know. Traffic mitigation for soils or I miss mitigation maybe isn't the right word. Sorry, it's a little late for me. I'm in awe of all of you. But anyway, materials handling, that type of thing that we were always. Keep in mind and review the comments. That were provided to us and that we did during the year to put in place into the contract the right things. To address them. So if they're in the contract and we assume that some of those things are going to be clearly addressed in the final year if it's part of what's being negotiated between Denver and Cedar. Yeah. As a part of the RFP and Tony, you can jump in here. Things that go in there would be what the contractors would. Need to respond to. Do you want to add? Again. Tony DeVito, project director. To answer that question, there was over 900 or 2000 comments through the supplemental draft. Yes. That are being responses. Are we prepared? And those will be released as part of the office. In addition to that part of the office, there is another 30 day comment period that ensues along with we'll have scheduled meetings with the public in August, August 18th, 19th and 20th, where we will go back out and talk about the office. We'll talk about a little bit of the transparency requirements in what's involved in a public private partnership. Like I said, again, 30 day review period and then public meetings also in January with the release of the office. So the public meeting in August will be just to convey to the community what the process will be for when the final year is released. Correct. Correct. Okay. So the since I have you up there, Tony did draft the supplemental draft called for the lead over the highway being mitigation. Correct. So why is it that Denver is being asked to pay for the some of the improvements and the maintenance of that lit? Because I've been told by a C dot person and this was when several of us went and did the tour in Seattle of Delayed so we could see what that looks like and how they were maintained. We were told that anything that is considered mitigation is the responsibility of CDOT to maintain it. And, you know, in all the communication that was with the neighborhoods, the neighborhoods were told they would have input into designing it. And that's been sort of a separate process that ended up happening with Denver Public Schools. I think there will be some benefit to the neighborhood, and I'm grateful that it's not going to be gated or locked most of the time, as was originally talked about. But help me understand why Denver is paying for that when it is considered mitigation, which is normally the responsibility of the transportation agency. It's a fair question. You know, as we as we've worked through this shared negotiation, it is very evident that what we want to provide as the identified mitigation to the school and as a connection to the two communities, wasn't met with full acceptance of this. The city and some of the other members that we were working with identified additional types of uses on top. You seek a balance point, especially when you start looking at maybe some of the different types of loading that can associate with that. And we meant we came up with the agreement that fine, whatever is ultimately designed on top, we will design and pay for that structural underneath. And then as as a good negotiation, you have to look at then the tradeoffs. You know, as far as anybody that would we would probably want to encourage some sort of trust development or something to come in here and really be the the group that maintains this. Especially when we get into some of the landscaping grasses, that's just not see, that's fortes. So if it's a third party, but the cities in this agreement obligating themselves to pay for the ongoing maintenance, then the long term expectation is that Denver's going to pay the cost of some third party to handle the maintenance. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. That's very disturbing that we on the hook for what could be a 50 year project, assuming that lasts longer then than an elevated structure where, you know, the first few years, it's going to be nice, it's going to look nice, but over time it will deteriorate. And, you know, it's subject to annual appropriation from the city to ensure that the funding continues to be there. We're obligating taxpayers to $2.5 million for the next 30 years. These are concerns. So I guess. I guess I'm preaching now, so I'm not going to continue. I know Councilwoman Kennedy had some additional questions, but I guess I'm disturbed that we're we're giving up so much right now and any leverage we have to ensure that the kinds of things that we want to see in the final year, there's no guarantee. And to I mean, for me, this is very similar to when we were asked to approve a proclamation committing to the preferred alternative where we hadn't seen the supplemental draft of what was going to be in there. And again, this was Denver had been having conversations with CDOT about, you know, what was going to happen at Vasquez and Colorado Boulevard and. This is very similar to that, where we don't know what's going to be in the final e-mails. But we're asking we're being asked to make commitments now about. You know, the drainage project is absolutely critical for all of these neighborhoods. And I support the drainage project, but I'm I'm having heartburn with how we're doing this by putting all of these things together and yet not ensuring that the things that need to happen to these neighborhoods which have paid the price for this highway project. And Tony, as you well know, under the NEPA process in Title six, which is part of the Civil Rights Act and part of the, you know, environmental justice, that has to happen with this project. These neighborhoods can look at past harm to these communities. And it's frustrating to know that that stuff is sort of being pushed off to a back burner and being told, trust me, these neighborhoods have heard that too many times. I mean, you know, the on and off ramps don't get maintained ever in these neighborhoods. And we're talking about the lead over the highway that's going to have some beautification improvements. So, you know, we're not only talking about the on and off ramps and what's going to happen with those and what the retaining walls are going to look like and some of those other kinds of things. So I guess I'm just very concerned and disturbed and. We've been involved in this process for the last two and a half years on a weekly basis, sitting in on meetings with with Saeeda and with Denver and trying to work through ensuring full engagement with the neighborhoods and. You heard people here talking tonight. They didn't know about any of these details. And, you know, yes, the drainage has been part of the conversations, but not the details of how all of this was going to be financed and what kind of long term commitments we're asking Denver taxpayers to make on this. So I'm going to stop with that so that other colleagues can ask their questions. Councilman Canete, you're back. Thank you, Mr. President. Two areas of question. Yes, stay there. So my previous questions just to share were based on the testimony that surprised me. I did not know. We'd never had a dedicated meeting about drainage. That's to me, just a missed opportunity that I did not know about until tonight's testimony. What I expected to hear a lot about is the transportation project and how people feel about it generally. And so that that I know you've been meeting about and that I knew that we would have questions about. So so that's where I'm moving and that is the question about the ten lanes. So we haven't actually had this discussion in this chambers before. And because we are now contributing money to a transportation project that as drafted has ten lanes, I think it's important that we have that conversation. So can you speak to. The justification? Well, first of all, actually, let's go back because there was a comment made by one of the speakers that I want to clarify when we had. And Diane Barrett, you may be the one to do this, because this was probably before Tony took over when we were going to do the replacement of the viaduct with a bump north. Was that an eight lane project or attending a project? I believe that was ten lanes as well. Okay. So so it sounds like that that addition of a lane was not new to the partially covered lower. One of our speakers thought that it was. Okay. So then back to Tony, then talk about please the reasoning in particular on the need for the additional lane. So when we look at a project and after all the years of disagreement and being stymied on a decision, the partially lowered culvert alternative is one that finally kind of made up for the sins of the past, actually got the community on board, that there was a way to reconnect the community. Now, I'll remind this council that this alternative is a couple hundred million dollars more expensive to provide this type of mitigation versus replacing it with another elevated structure. So when we start talking about costs for those mitigations, that's that's a conversation outside of this room that I have a lot of times explaining why we're spending that much more for this mitigation once we're into this trenching and building a lowered section, unlike a replacing a bridge with a bridge where if in future growth we have to add capacity. It's not as hard to do with adding extensions on piers and adding additional girder lines. So we took an extra hard look at the traffic growth numbers provided by Dr. COG and had to make what is the most prudent and best use of sustainable decisions for the taxpayers of Colorado. And that is the ten lane template. It is clearly identified in any of the alternatives. But once we get into this trenching situation, we cannot start smaller. There is no application of saying no. We'll take a smaller template and then a bigger bite later. This is what the growth projects. This is what we see from the Dr. COG model and we cannot build something that's not sustainable. Going back and correcting this is not a viable solution. So if I can ask about the Dr. COG model, because I was, you know, being one of Denver's reps to Dr. COG, I was part of a meeting where they went through the history. And so I just want to confirm that you are aware that the model that they are currently using is not the model that those that that that model was a prior model. That, that if we were to run the model today, it would be run with totally different technology than was used for that model. So you're aware of that and still feel like. That's the model you're going to rely on. From the team of experts that we have on the project. That is the correct projection to be using as we move forward. Correct. So has there been any conversations about proceeding with the project? Should I mean, should the. I don't even know if that's possible for the final environmental impact statement to say yes, partially covered, lower option, but not ten lanes. But I mean, what is. Is that is that a conversation that we can pursue in terms of limiting the footprint of this project? So the answer for the Federal Highway Administration, who was the ultimate signature of the document? You clear the window that is needed once you after a record a decision. If there's ever any discussions on any modification that comes afterwards and you have to demonstrate viable cost benefit and valid reasons why you would build something less than what was ultimately cleared in the record of decision. But that is the process that's used that we've used on other projects. Okay, we won't see the road till next year. So I guess my next area of questioning is really a question about the mitigation. And so some of the members of the public were not here. When I kind of read you the riot act last time on first reading, this is one of those two reading agreements. So they were here previously and stood up there. Can you commit now that you would amend this IGA to put in writing in contract with Denver other areas of mitigation that are agreed to in the future? Should we kind of rephrase my last comment? I mean, this is an agreement. It's we can make tweaks and modifications if need be. But the binding contract that lasts for a long, long time is the record. A decision? The record a decision will identify and indoctrinate those mitigations that are committed to. And so whoever is up here from seed out in the years ahead, phase two, whenever anything is completed, that is what binds the Department of Transportation and FAA CWA with the commitments made those that's that's what we've done on numerous other records of decisions that's the binding contract. This is an agreement. Can I ask a question for the city attorney who has standing to enforce the IGA as compared to who has standing to enforce a record of decision and in particular going to get really legal everyone's sorry our third party beneficiaries do they have standing in either of those in terms of or I'm asking the city where do we get to enforce or have standing to enforce? But then secondly, where would third party beneficiaries homes that were due mitigation improvements, communities that were do investments, things like that. With Sean Sullivan, the city attorney's office. With regard to the Iwga, the city and the state are the parties to the agreement, so they would be the parties who'd be able to enforce it. Specifically, we didn't allow for third party beneficiaries. With regard to the record of decision, that's not a contract per se. Well, Mr. DeVito, it's an enforceable document that requires the state and the federal government to. Adhere to the. Mitigation that's required in that document. It's not a contract, per se, but it would be something that would be enforceable by other parties if if they weren't following it. And without going into a lot of detail, that's the best I'm going to give you tonight. All right. Well, that's an area we need to continue, because I guess what I heard you say is I didn't actually hear you give an answer to whether you would amend the saiga in. My concern is that if there is a greater level of protection for the people of Denver to have you commit to the mitigation, even if it duplicates what's in the record of decision, if there may be a compelling legal reason why it's important for you to commit to those things in this type of agreement versus just having it in a record of decision. I don't want to rely on an act of Congress to try to compel performance if I have an easier way to enforce. So. So what I'm getting at is I think I mean, the question people have had about is this it's not the last bite at the apple. I want to know what the next bite of the apple looks like. And I want it to look like this. I want the next bite at the apple to be that, yes, we can enter into a contract between Denver and see that to clarify any remaining mitigations that get agreed to. That's the answer I'm looking for. I don't know what I'm going to get it, but that's what I'm looking for. Counsel. I would probably suggest that we would just write a new figure if there was things that developed as we went through here. I mean, what we're trying to do is identify the the key part of this is the drainage. And to give a level of comfort to the bidders that CDOT and city and county of Denver are in partnership. You know, that's that's what's needed right now to move forward and not move prescriptive. In my 24 years as a civil servant, often to often see that and this is really what the the crest of this agreement is. And so if we had to come up with something else, the partnerships that have struck, we'd strike another idea. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Monteiro. Thank you, Mr. President. So Diane and Leslie, if you can help explain to everyone here what the structure is for negotiating with the whole issue of I-70, because it can get a little bit confusing and there can appear that there's a lot of layers of bureaucracy, which is diminishes trust. I know that both of you worked very, very hard and as did see that to come to this point and it's frustrating not to be able to communicate what the city has gained and how much support has moved in terms of trying to get to this intergovernmental agreement. So what I would like for you to talk to me about is the internal structure of the city, and I want you to talk about that so that people can sort of be clear about how those decisions are made. And then if you have ideas about. How we how the city communicates, where you work, how you're doing on each of these mitigation things that are 1900 to 1000 different things, because we worked really hard to thread it all the way through from the neighborhood and issues that they had, the nonprofits, the churches worked with city council , worked with the city of Denver, all these different layers to get on one page in terms of the the mitigation that you have in front of you. I know that's a lot, too, when we start all over. No, please don't. Thank you, Councilwoman, I. I was hoping to have an opportunity to say, because people. Some people are stressing that the city's paying all this money. We are getting a lot. We are getting a lot, sweetheart. Agree to build the cover. Absolutely. And they will. And they have. Never faltered from that, not once. But they didn't agree to. Make it what we want it to be. Brad. I may ask Brad to come up if you guys have a if you feel like a few minutes to talk about urban design and to talk about the kinds. Of things like the. Bookends that are so. Important to the city, that's, you know, it can't it can't. Be important to see that it's not what they do, but it is what we do. We build cities here. Brad, would you mind? Brad, you can talk just a. Little bit about the. Bookends and the things we're asking for on the cover. Good evening. Pat Buchanan. Executive director, community Planning and Development. And our team has been involved in some of the work helping the process with the design of the led the community process. And Steve Nally, who's been the rock star in front of you most of the evening, is here also and can give you more detail to that if you'd like. But in terms of the lid, a couple of things we learned and really pushed hard for was from from visiting the lid in Dallas that is very similar in sort of how it can tie together to two parts of the city that were were affected by a historic highway alignment. And what we noticed at that location was that the lids at either end ended with a street that crossed. And we know that one of the most important things that the lid does besides create activity on the lid is connect north and south, reconnect these historic neighborhoods. And those connections happen as much or more at the streets. And what happens at the edges of those streets, not just the lid. And so what I'm saying is that if we end the lid with a street and don't complete that street on both sides of the street, east and west side of the street, we don't we weaken the actual strength of the connection, north and south. And so rather than having the lid end with the road, the bookends extend the lid so that we finish a complete street on each side of those streets, both East and West End, and to that to the tune of about 50 feet, I believe, on to the West . And how much? 60 feet to the west and to the east ends of the lid. So those are the additional cars that we felt were really important to leverage the North-South connectivity. And I also would add that in terms of the slip ramps that are being talked about and the width and I agree that the width and every foot matters in this project, no doubt about it. But please also know that it isn't just the width of the cut itself. It is. It is the roads to the to both the north and south. And so those alignments, the the slip ramps actually allow the width, the whole the width of the overall assembly of the highway from north to south to be less. And that's because it allows a tighter diamond and steel vasquez interchange and allows us to create more developable area at the northwest, northeast, southwest and southeast quadrants of that intersection. That's true from a purely planning perspective, why we felt that the slip ramps was such an important piece. So again, not just where the where the retaining walls are, but actually if you look at the whole assembly of the East-West Highway. Thank you, Brad. And then I would like to say that. I would also like to say. That. The the. Importance of the way we work with Scott and the. Way we have developed the relationship. With Scott is great. Leslie Thomas and Gretchen Haller from the Department of Finance and I were primarily charged with this work of working with Scott. But in addition, all of our teams were behind us and with us. Kerry Kennedy was there every step of the way, looking at all the numbers working and all the numbers. This has not been individual folks. It's been teams at the city working for the best interests of the city. Scott has agreed not just to work with us, but they've embedded Leslie and their technical. Review team for the bidders. They've embedded me in the finance team looking at bidders and making those selections. This is almost unheard of for folks across the country, and this is cooperation that will benefit all of us tremendously as we go forward. So going forward, as Leslie told you about the new process or the process for the office, we will be looking . When once the FDIC. Comes out, one of the main things we'll be looking at is what they did and didn't do of the things we all asked for. And we'll have conversations and we'll have discussions and we'll have negotiations around that. And I'm looking forward to that. And I'm looking forward to involving the new council in that. So does that help. Councilwoman? Is it just me? Yes, it does. And the unfortunate thing, Karma, is that you guys are working so, so difficult. You're working so hard and lots of difficult situations and the neighborhood can't see it. And I just don't know how through this process there is some trust that's built and the realization that, you know, you're doing your best to do right by the neighborhood. So that's something that will be dealt with. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega, you're up. I just wanted to ask Brad a question about the slip ramps. If you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone. So manager of Public Works, Jose Cornejo, I guess that's executive director now. Manager had said that they looked at how to try to reduce the footprint and there was about eight feet of savings. But when we look at adding in the slip ramps, you add in the ramp and the shoulder. So what does that come out to? I thought it was about 24 feet per ramp. But you're talking about everything inside the retaining walls? No, I'm talking just about the slip ramps. Right. Which are inside the retaining walls. Correct. Right. And I'm talking about the impact, the opportunity that adding the slip ramps inside the retaining wall presents in terms of reducing the additional paved footprint north and south of the retaining walls at the Steel Vazquez interchange. What I'm trying to find out is how much more feat does it add to the footprint by putting in the slip ramps? Isn't that about 48 feet? Because it's about 24 feet per per lane. When you add in the shoulders. I can't. You know. So we save eight feet by trying to reduce the footprint. But we're we're actually adding almost 50 feet by putting those slip ramps in. This is what I got from an engineer. Okay, so. I'm an artist, you know that. Just making up these numbers. I don't have that answer. The reason we have been so supportive of the slip ramp option is that it produces many acres of developable area in the at the steel Vasquez interchange that we believe is really critically important connective tissue at that interchange and potentially could be as a location for a second load down down the road . Okay. Thank you. I was just trying to get clarity on. An. Actual footprint of the corridor through these neighborhoods. So the 300 foot wide swath. Would you just clarify that? That goes from Brighton to. Is that Quebec? Is that what's. What's the Eastern most? That's not cool. I don't know where the. Distance that that width of the corridor will carry. I know there were some additional things that were requested by Denver at I believe. Hallie Was that one of the interchanges? DIANE And then there was another one, I believe, at Quebec. So that in the future we have the ability to add additional lanes at Quebec and Peoria. Peoria. Those are the two places where the bridges will be wide enough to accept a bigger Peoria and a bigger. Quebec when that time is right. Money is. Available, okay? But that's not part of the $1.8 billion for now. The the the widening of Quebec and the widening. Of Peoria are not included. No, just the widening of the highway. Okay. Thank you. I'm done with my question. Thank you. Bob. Thank you, Mr. President. Since some folks in the public have pointed out that I'm not going to be in office very long after I make this decision tonight, I just have to ask this question. And it's based on the fact that I heard from a constituent today, in fact, that part of the reason they're saying defer this decision to a future council is that we are spending quite a bit of money. We are. Looking at sizable budget budget commitments in in a number of these decisions we we heard about the North this talk show did night nation on western this year we put a lot of money into Brighton Boulevard. We've got the river itself project. We're talking about I-70 right now. If $10 million in infrastructure into the DIA development, we had a big presentation on Bettcher and the Performing Arts Center. So my question is for finance or for the administration? What's left for input from future council members? What can we do about the rest of the city? Will there be anything left? And how is this administration going to approach that question? Because they're going to ask it. I'm the only one that stood up. Okay. Well, there's a lot left, and there's a lot of innovation that's going to have to happen among your colleagues. Those of you who are still. Here. And work with administration and the agencies to make these things happen. But I'm I'm I've done Brad in tonight, so I won't ask him again. But Brad is in charge of Brad and others are in charge of. Three. Massive planning projects right now, downtown, 16th Street Mall, The Better and the Arts Complex and the Convention Center. I sort of included those in my list. We've already been briefed on those. I know those are coming. What else is left? Sun Valley isn't huge priority. The mayor will be working with you on several projects having to do with Sun Valley related to Sun Valley. In the next few months we'll be working. And you did include the river projects. Those things. We have the the. New. Owners at the what we call. Gates Broadway site. And that's enormous. And that's a big, big project that the new council will be working on. My question is, will there be funding for all the CIP requests that come across generally throughout the city? I know there are a lot of things on the plate, but how are you going to make those decisions when we're obligating so many money, so much money, including those things you just mentioned? A lot of things will not be. From capital budget of the city. A lot of things will have to be public private partnerships. And Gretchen can talk to you more about that and Gretchen will talk to you about several other things as well. Good evening. Members of council. I'm Gretchen Haller. I'm the city's deputy chief financial officer. I'm happy to have a chance at the microphone because the rest of the team had been up here the whole night. So thank you for your. Question for this specific iwga. We are very happy about the financing that's proposed behind it, namely because it's very difficult for the city to pay for $37 million worth of. Transportation enhancements. In a single year. That is not the size of our annual CIP. So the fact that Seedat was willing to partner with us on a financing that is comparable to what the city would have been able to do in our own financing and take the upfront carrying costs of that financing through to the completion of the asset . When it is. Available in 2022 really gives us the ability to ramp up and accommodate that $2.68 million payment beginning in 2022, so that it will. Not have. A significant impact on our annual CIP. So we have the time to plan for that. We do not have the. Carrying costs for the finance. We do not have capitalized interest in accommodating that cost. So that is something that we were pleased to be able to work with SEEDAT on for the wastewater costs. I would just add that we have a number of different funds in the city. The city is is funded for capital improvements. That is a separate fund from our wastewater enterprise fund. So the cost of the drainage will be paid for through the Wastewater Enterprise Fund. As I did note on first reading of this project of this idea, the Budget Management Office is already planning on coming forward City Council. As a part of our 2016 budget preparation, we have a need to request a rate increase for the wastewater fund. We had our last rate increase in 2011 and in the meantime we've had increasing capital costs. So we need that rate increase for the long term sustainability of the fund. In addition, we in addition, we have a need for. An enhanced water quality program. And what works well in this case. Is that the Montclair Basin, which is included in the combined drainage project, is being. Proposed not as a typical. Pipe under the ground. It's being proposed as a wonderful and big water quality project that really supports the work we need for the Platte River. So in addition to the other projects or recognizing the other projects that Diane mentioned, we will continue to look for ways to creatively finance them. You'll notice that with the National Western Center we're looking to lodgers. Tax Carry had talked about that, but that is asking the voters to approve the extension of lodgers tax that's paid for by visitors for a visitor facility. That's the kind of access we look to in all of our financing. We'll continue to look for creative approaches like that and all the while be very cognizant of the city's triple-A rating and maintaining that as well. Okay. Thank you. I that was an excellent answer in explaining why this is a good financing plan for this project. I will just say now that we don't have to bring in during comments that we're still not talking about spreading improvements equitably. We're committing the CIP for any number of years on the 2.68, spreading these equitably around the city, those areas that really need improvement, those areas that really contribute to the well and a good part of the capital of this city. And I'm not hearing that answer tonight, Sky. Sure. Sky, start from the mayor's office. That's an excellent point, Councilman Robb. You've made it a couple of times and just want to put on record here. I think you and I have discussed. It, that equity around the city is a really important value and it's something we're looking towards in all of these. Projects. We actually have a subcommittee of the. Group talking about some of the projects. You talked about the downtown projects that will focus on making sure that we are looking. Equitably across the city for other issues. And one thing that Gretchen didn't mention mentioned, but I know. She would be happy to add to if I get anything wrong, is. We've been very, very careful to also preserve our geo capacity, our general obligation bond capacity. And that's something. We're going to have to undertake in the next few years to determine what those. Projects are. And that will have to be an equitable conversation across the city of where needs are and where we prioritize them, not just in this area, but everywhere. Thank you. Because I do want our successors to be successful in bringing forward their priorities. Yeah. Thank you, Sky. That's an excellent point. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb, Councilwoman Monte. Thank you. I have a question for Brian. Are you still here, Pinkerton? My question is about 47th in York, which is a huge safety issue, as you are aware. Can you tell me if that the idea where we are with with 47th in New York and if the city through negotiations, try to see if that would pay for those improvements. Yes. Brian Pinkerton with Public Works. For a long time, the community has voiced the priority of the 47th in York, and we in public works in the city have agreed that that is a critical crossing that needs to be addressed. We worked extensively with the seed art team to look at if there might be some way to incorporate some aspect of the I-70 project to include an improved crossing at 47th and York. Ultimately, what was a decided or agreed upon between the entities was that this was a city responsibility to deal with this crossing and that there might be certain aspects of the project depending on. As the ultimate design proceeded on I-70, there may be certain aspects that would help make an improvement at the crossing easier to accomplish, but that it really fell on the city shoulders to deal with this because it wasn't an interregional type of mobility challenge. It was really a challenge for the communities in the area. And so the city has allocated, I believe, $200,000 in this calendar year to begin a study to look at what the options are to make an improvement in that area. There's more funding following in 2016, and we are going to be commencing that study very shortly. May I ask one more question? And then the issue related to truck traffic and the rerouting of trucks during construction? Me, I don't know if that wants to answer that, but also if the trucks are going to be rerouted during construction, shouldn't they just always be rerouted out of the neighborhood as well? Tony, do you want to answer? Tony DeVito. See that assembly project director. So with regard to truck during trucks, during construction, we will do construction specifications, especially to avoid staging areas in the neighborhood to be sure that the traffic methods that are proposed by the developer keep sacred that community. Be sure that the the phasing of the construction doesn't induce traffic in there. Those will be part of the specifications. So during construction will definitely be working with that. When the project is ultimately done. It goes back to being an interstate with a relocated 46th Avenue. And so then again, interstate. So we're going to be back to having the truck traffic. So was that one thing that the neighborhood can continue to give input on? Or is that part a done deal? You know, it really comes down to our federal highway administration making that ultimate call. And once you're building an interstate to its ultimate template and it's safe, it is important to maintain that truck connectivity. There is if you look at the stretch of the corridor, it's not only a community, it's it's 1100 businesses that rely on that commerce and that that movement of commerce and goods. So I just want to know what my response to that is, that it's very, very important to the neighborhood that trucks be rerouted out of their neighborhoods. And every effort to see that in the city of Denver can make it so that they don't need to deal with that. I would really appreciate that on every level that you can do that and the neighborhood continues to talk about that. But we continue to sort of stay in the same place. And I know that it's it's a huge impact to them. So I just want to reiterate that. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro, Councilwoman Ortega. I just want to piggyback on this and highlight that although the truck traffic is only 10% of the traffic that drives on this corridor. It's 50% of the pollution that is sort of left in the neighborhood as those vehicles drive through. So addressing the health impact to the neighborhood is a critical part. And when you look at the end of the day, how wide this is going to be and how much more traffic is going to travel on this corridor. And in granted, the, you know, the preferred alternative that takes the traffic below grade is less impactful. Not all areas of the neighborhood are going to be where the wind is at. So it's why trying to move that truck traffic early and why it was important for the highway system to be looked at as a whole in this quadrant as opposed to just the I-70 corridor. It didn't really factor in traffic that should be routed on to 270 or 225 that are not doing local deliveries. And I think that's the most critical part. If people are not doing local deliveries and they don't need to be on I-70, they should be encouraged to be routed down one of those two corridors. Thank you and. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Any other questions? Seen none. Public hearing is now closed. Time for comments. Councilwoman Montero. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. As always, everything in global hilarious once a year is never easy. And and there. And no one is ever, ever, ever satisfied. I just want to reassure folks that think that this is not a highway to go out, that I have done my very best to push and push and push and push. And for a neighborhood that felt that they never had any attention by anyone before to shift from. We have more attention than we've ever had before and now we don't have time to even form. A neighborhood group is just amazing to me for, for example, to work on our housing and I'll get to my comments, but to work on a housing committee and then have someone from the neighborhood say, gosh, you know, that wasn't the right thing to do. There should have been a public hearing. You should have done this and that. I want to assure everybody that we are doing the best that we can. And I by no means feel like I'm going out on a low note. I've done my best, best, best work to the best capacity that I have to push for Globeville, various ones here. There's a lot of bureaucracy. There's a lot of layers. There's a lot of work. There's a lot of heavy lifting. But I want to tell the people in the neighborhood from Globeville earlier use once a year that if I believed that anyone was being dishonest, devious, whatever, all the ugly words that were said tonight, I would be the first one to say that, and I do not believe that. We've been working on it for so, so long. And with the support of Mayor Hancock all the way going back to even doing trying to figure out how do we get a tsunami of resources into this neighborhood, how do we turn all of these decisions that we did not make? How do we turn them around and try to get as many resources into Globeville, Elyria, Swansea? How do we try to make right the wrongs that we did not do? But we're here today and we're trying to move forward. And I want to tell everybody here and you can follow me out to my car and you can argue with me all day long. But I tell you, I have never felt that the people from the city and county of Denver have been operating from any devious perspective, anything other than trying to honor what we've been trying to tell the neighbor with what the neighborhood has been trying to tell us. There are so many things coming in the direction of Globeville, hilarious ones here, and they're confusing and they're overwhelming. And it's more than any neighborhood that I know in the city could possibly deal with. But you can deal with it. And you have been and now your voices are heard and now you're empowered. And what I ask is for and what I ask is for the city and county of Denver and see that in whatever way they can. I don't know how to work this miracle. I have no idea how to work this miracle. But the idea of building trust is so important. It may never be built. It was destroyed a long time ago. Do you stop trying? Do you spin out and say, wait till the next council, let them do it? Right. Who's to say that it'll be any better? What if it sets everybody back? What happened? Where. Where did. Where all of a sudden? Because there was an election held on May 5th, that all of a sudden we've lost our intelligence and we can't make decisions anymore. I am not going to kick the can down the road. I know with all my heart, all of the work that's been done by everyone in this room, nobody has stopped. No one has gone this way and said, I can't do it. Oh, my God, the sky is falling. Everybody is pressing forward. And so tonight, I'm going to press forward to and I'm telling whoever is telling me, wait till the next council, because, you know, there are new hope. I can't do that. I was elected to take care of business. And tonight I am supporting this. And all I ask again is the miracle that somehow all of the entities, city and county of Denver C dot and everybody else comes into this neighborhood, that there is an effort by leadership, neighborhood leadership, political leadership, that somehow we begin to build those bridges of trust. Because I will tell you, in this neighborhood, if you don't keep your word, you might as well not even go around writing anymore. You have to keep your word the same way. The neighborhood needs to keep their word to the city. And I've been in situations where people tell me I support that. I support that. And all of a sudden I'm in a public meeting and all of a sudden somebody has amnesia. I don't remember ever supporting that. We I have followed the lead of the neighborhood. I truly believe that I have. And I want to say that I am going out on a high note. And I know that I've brought everything. I have brought my best and brightest game to this situation. So I'm supporting this, and I hope that my colleagues will do the same. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank the speakers who stayed late tonight. And I will be supporting the project. And I want to talk about why and why. I also believe that it's important that the vote happen tonight. One of the things that I think the community is asking in the testimony is about whether or not we can both be partners and cooperators as well as advocates. And I think that that's an important question. So we've described and we've lauded the city staff for cooperating with that. And I think the part that Councilwoman Monteiro mentioned that folks cannot see is the places at which you are acting as an advocate, which means pushing, shoving, challenging and demanding things on behalf of the voices that are here. So that's the challenge, right? Your public face that you have presented is one where you are cooperating and there has been no visibility to the places we are pushing, shoving, challenging and advocating. And so but I think that in part that's the role we're playing up here tonight. And that is the role that I think that I hope folks can see that you have in this council. Advocates, you know, and I think you have them in the staff, too. It's just that they do it in the negotiating room and we're doing it from the dais. We have the privilege of doing it publicly in a way that they don't. But it is possible to both be your advocates and challenge and push for further improvements and find areas of common ground. I think those can both exist. And so, you know, that's my commitment to you. So the two pieces that I believe we have done our due diligence anyway, and I really do take exception to the idea that we have not vetted this agreement. I personally have probably spent, I don't know, ten or 12 hours now between the committee meeting and reading and asking questions in between. Others, I'm sure have spent similar amounts of time these agreements, just to be very clear. We've been we've been asking questions for over, what, about 90 minutes now since the public hearing testimony ended. This agreement is vetted. So the advocating for the future is about two things. One, missed opportunity. We did not have a public meeting where we said to people, we are going to talk about drainage, please come and learn about drainage. We should have done that. We didn't do it. We need to do it going forward. This is a major improvement and it's going to have an impact on as many properties potentially as the I-70 project itself. It is a worthy project. It's a good project. People might have felt that more if they understood it and knew more about it. Missed opportunity. Now we have. Ketchup work to do. So I am an advocate. I will advocate and push that that planning process occurs in an intentional, visible way going forward on the drainage project. Secondly, mitigation, I think you heard many of us asking, demanding, pushing on mitigation. That is an area where I also expect our staff to be advocating for that as well. I expect you to go in a room and ask for things that are not offered and to push for things that the you know, I forget what's the thing before the record of decision, the thing that comes before that if it's not in there, we're going to ask for it anyway and you need to be asking for it. You, as our representatives need to be asking for it. So those expectations are high, but in a similar way. I also have to be honest, right? I have to be honest about the limitations that we all operate under. So, for example, what would materially be different 45 days from now with a record of decision be done? No. Would we, for example, have a significantly different sense of what the mitigation factors to come out in the record of decision are? No. So when will we know those things? We won't know them till the record decision comes out. So. So there's no material difference. There will be no new information today versus 45 days from now. It's simply a request or a lack of trust that we're doing enough vetting. I submit to you that you have advocates, and I submit to you that there's vetting occurring. So a 45 day makes no material difference. If we were to delay it until the record decision came out, though, there would be a material difference, which is we would be six months behind on the drainage project. Okay. And that matters. So that is why proceeding now matters. One of the things that I'm concerned about is folk, folk saying that the agreement is vague. Here's an example. So let's move off drainage. Right. Drainage needs to occur even if I-70 doesn't happen. So I'm glad we've leveraged that money to make it better. And I did review last time, for those who may not have viewed the agreement, has a clear provision that if the record of decision does not decide on this project, that we can go ahead and renegotiate and terminate the agreement we would have to have, but we would have started the drainage project at least so we could continue the drainage project. We may have to scale it down, we may have to change it, but we will have started it. Drainage will be happening, but there are separate pieces, agreement, and I appreciate those who've separated it, which is money into the project. Here's a point of the agreement that is not vague. We do not pay a penny for the transportation project actually until it's completed, not even just before it's approved. But we don't actually start paying till it's completed. So there is not a risk. We are not taking any risk, right. By making this agreement now versus making it after the record decision occurs. The thing that we allow, the one material thing that matters and the reason why I am going to vote for this tonight is it allows us to start the drainage project that is needed. Now. We leverage that money and we leverage urban drainage money immediately. And I wish I wish that that project had been better explained. I wish it had been noticed as its own topic and that we can do some catch up. But that's I can't not proceed with flood protection we know we need because we didn't talk about it well enough. There are places where we missed legal notice and I have voted against things where we had a legal notice obligation and we missed it. And I've said, you know what? We didn't follow the law. We can't do it. That's not the case here. We just didn't get our best, you know? And so but the benefits outweigh the costs. So that's where I'm at. And I know that we have a lot of work left to do, but I submit to you that a delay in the short term would make no material difference, and a delay in the long term would make a significant negative material difference. It's critical that we proceed with improvements. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman and each Councilman Levitt. Thank you, Mr. President. I did have something to say, but I don't think any syllable I could utter could add any more detailed reasoning than Councilwoman Kennish has already articulated or any more powerful meaning than Councilwoman Monteiro. Has already articulated. So I am done for the night. Thank you, Councilman. Never. Councilman, can you top that? Great. You make me look like the jerk. Speaking of drainage, I just want to go home and go. Oh, I am. And in addition to being a councilman, I have the privilege to be the chair of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. And I've done that for about a year and a half. Right, Dave? And all they do is talk about flood prevention, flood prevention, flood prevention and flood prevention. And before a couple of years ago, it was just a nice lunch to hang out with other folks from other counties around because we never had floods. We had droughts until a few years ago. And what we were told is that if the events that happened in Boulder and the events that happened in Aurora, which was worse than Boulder happened here, you would have a Katrina style. Disaster. And then how much do you think we'd be paying? How much? How expensive do you think that would be? 300 million. How horrible would it be to have to bury people in our city? Huh? I visited the Ninth Ward in New Orleans. Those levees were broken because they didn't get invested in. We didn't invest in them. And they're broken there in disrepair. And it's horrible. It's a failure of government. And their basic principle is to protect life and property, the most basic principle of governance. Now, I go a little bit beyond because I'm a liberal, but I'll just say this I am convinced that if we don't do anything about it, we're going to be visiting that scenario sometime in the near future. I haven't seen rain like this either, sir. I have it. And most of that flooding from the planet comes from upstream. Imagine if it hits in Denver. Denver proper, we're in trouble and there is no home in this city that is out of a floodplain that is not going to be impacted by a flood. I guarantee you, even in the highest hill. Right. Here's the thing. We did miss an opportunity. We did miss an opportunity to talk to the public about drainage and flood control and why this why this is important. And for the record, I don't know about you all, but whether it comes from the state, the feds or the city, taxes are taxes and they suck, right? You see them come out of your check. You see them come out of your property taxes. I hate getting taxed. I'm not flipping. Philosophy, sir, I do believe that necessary. These are one of those projects that are necessary, right? Absolutely. And, you know, we had done it a little. Could we have done it a little better? Absolutely. But it pays off in the end. It's an investment and it's investment that community. Now, there's two things wrong. Yes. The flooding, the potential flood. And to that highway. I was part of the yellow shirt brigade four years ago. In oh three, we were going door to door, 8000, 8000 households. And I knocked on plenty of those doors and all those council districts in every neighborhood, from Globeville to Bella, the Green Valley Ranch. And we talked about I-70. That's why I was for the reroute. The second alternative, I mean and guess what? It's not going to happen, right? And I'm not going to go picking out old wounds. Got to move on. It's not going to happen. So the best other alternative, what I heard on the doors was to bury it. I said, Can you make it at least look like Sixth Avenue? I hate that. Well, I love it. I love Sixth Avenue. I love Sixth Avenue. But I hated Sixth Avenue. Now, do we should we talk about a cover over sixth? That would be awesome if we could successfully do it here. Absolutely. But at the end of the day. This is a catalytic project. This is a project. That we should be focused on and how to leverage those dollars and that investment back into the neighborhoods, jobs, business opportunities. I don't know about that any part of the city, but in my part of the city, there's a lot of construction workers and we've hit we visited the site and three, we buried three, four, three. Three of the workers we talked to were straight up from the neighborhood, recent hires. We got a push for that kind of stuff. That's what turns it around. Now I'm supporting this. Not that my colleagues don't have valid points and they have a valid get us complaints. I think there are like I said, I think we could have done better on the public education side. But that's what we learned from right at the end of the day. That doesn't Trump not doing anything at this site. So I'm supportive. No, I'm all for it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega. I'll try to be brief. First of all, I want to thank all of the state and city staff people who have participated in the many, many meetings that we've had with members of city council to ensure that we're, you know, engaged in the process with you. I want to thank the residents for their input and for coming out tonight. And the drainage project is absolutely critical. You know, when it rained last week, I went and drove around to see where we had flooding. And it flooded down on Washington Street and it flooded on 46th Avenue, as it has when we get bad rains year after year. I saw some of the neighborhoods in Councilman Brooks district where where the water was very, very high. This is a critical project for these neighborhoods. I'm struggling with the fact that we have we have mixed all of this together and we still don't have the final year, which has been delayed and delayed and delayed . And I think it's in part because of the dialog that's going on back and forth between Denver and Scott, not trying to work through some of these issues, but to not know that we in fact will have mitigation clearly identified and that those things will be in that final year and that they will follow into the record of decision is is hard for me to to just trust that they're going to be there. And it's not that I don't trust the people. I think we've got great people who are engaged in this process from CEDA and from the city. But I'm looking at history of what's occurred in these neighborhoods and and how there have been promises made. I remember when the widening through Globeville took place in the neighbors were promised that there was going to be beautiful artwork along the wall underneath I-70. And I think one panel got done. And as I continued to ask about that, what I heard was we ran out of money. And I don't want to see that happen with these neighborhoods. These people have paid the price with their lives because of the kind of exposure they've had to the particulate matter. It's why doing the air monitoring before, during and after construction is important to know what kind of health impact will you know folks will be exposed to. I want to know that the doors and windows for people that live within 500 feet of the highway are going to be taken care of. And that it's not just, you know, a portable. Air conditioning system that people are going to get in their homes. The impact to the lungs of small children from all the air quality studies that we have seen that have been published. All you have to do is Google that and you'll see that anybody who lives within 500 feet, the particulate matter, especially the ultrafine, is most deadly to small children. And it's why pushing for these things is critical to ensure that we're not compromising the health of people in most neighborhoods. So I I'm not there yet. I appreciate all the work that's been done in getting us to this point, in trying to move this drainage project forward, which, again, I think is vital to these neighborhoods. But to to just say, you know, we'll keep working on these things. In my mind, there's no reason why those mitigation issues couldn't have been part of this agreement. And what that says to me is where we haven't gotten there and in anything that's not in the final is in the record of decision is not going to be funded. And so to to know that those things aren't part of this agreement are are disturbing and concerning. So I unfortunately, am not going to be able to vote for this tonight. As much as I want to support the drainage project, I wish it could have been separated out because I wholeheartedly support the need for addressing that. But I think you've got the votes here tonight for it to pass. I just. I'm just not there. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. And first, you know, I want to thank everybody for being here and especially folks from Greece who stayed the entire time to stay here. You know, folks who get here at 530, I don't know how you still have your cars. I don't know if you put money in the meters or whatever. But District eight office will help you out District nine in the future. Hey, this is what I lament. I lament the outreach. I lament that we didn't do a better job on the outreach from the city side. I guess I'm a little shocked, only because when the candidates were running for office in April, March and April, one of the questions that we were asked was If a drainage project was leveraged with the I-70 project, would you support it? And it was at a public meeting and whatnot. And I had I was under the assumption that this was a known conversation. Now, the specificity of the project, the details of the project were not talked about, obviously, and that's that's what we have to to work on. The other thing that I lament in this project is I think there has been a lot of good work on the part of public works to put together this regional drainage system that has not been talked about and what it's going to do for this area and the number of neighborhoods that will be impacted. There are people sitting up watching this tonight that cannot make it here because they were stuck in those storms over the last couple of months. And they wanted a specific answer from the city, including my wife. And and and they were literally concerned and in working with the city for the last four years. We cannot do projects of this size unless they're leveraged. I mean, that's the complication of this idea and this deal. And I know that there's a lot of mistrust. And we you know, I think Councilman Monteiro put it really well that there's a lot of mistrust, but we have to believe that we've got to come together in the future. And so, you know, as a person taking over this area in just the next couple of weeks, you know, that's the that's the thing that we're going to be working on is building the trust and making sure individuals know that we are working our tails off for the best output for the community. And the community needs to know they need to work their tails off to get the best from the city. You know, and I'll just leave it at that. So thank you guys so much for being out here. Thank you. For the folks who have worked so hard on this project. And I am I am believing in the future that this is going to be something that we all can be proud of. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, any other comments? 381 as amended. And Madam Secretary, my fingers. Are frozen that. The screen just froze up. They might have to do this old school, but we'll still do it nonetheless. And we have to also vote on the companion bill once you're done with that. So let's start with 381 as amended. Madam Secretary, roll call. I'm sorry. And she just. It's frozen. Sure. Even the screens have called it. The night. Fell asleep. Brooks. I. Can each layman write? Lopez. I. Montero I. Nevett I. Ortega No. Rob. All right. Mr. President. I. Eight eyes. One knee, the eyes. One knee. 381, as amended, has passed. Councilman Leavitt, will you please put a companion bill for 30 on the floor? Yes, sir. Mr. President. And I just want to point out that we have had five public hearings, but managed to pass ten bills. So I think that's a testament to the kind of work this council puts in. So I move that council bill 430 series of 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass. I need a verbal second. Second. Thank you. I'll have to look up and down to see if there are any comments. Scene on Madam Secretary. Roll call. Brooks. I. Can each I Liman. Hi Lopez. Hi Montero. Hi Nevitt. Hi Ortega. Hi Rob. Hi. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please, first of all, announce the results. Nine eyes, nine eyes. Cancer before 30 has passed. Seen no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. Was it? Denver eight on TV and online to stay connected to your community, your city, your source. You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source.

A bill for an ordinance authorizing a rescission, a cash transfer, and a supplemental appropriation from the General Contingency Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund. Approves a supplemental appropriation of $1,450,000 from General Fund Contingency to transfer to the Other Agency Capital Project Fund to provide sufficient budget capacity to fund a settlement in support of the National Western Center Office in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-27-19.

DenverCityCouncil_09162019_19-0874

I'm secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 3939 is comfortable. 863 has been ordered published as amended. Final reading will be on September 23rd. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilman Sawyer, will you please for Council Bill 874 on the floor. I move that council bill 19 0874 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Just one block. Thank you, Mr. President. The administration is requesting that this bill be voted down because the National Western Center program has sufficient resources to meet the obligations of the monumental rail settlement agreement that City Council will consider next week. While this may require the National Western Center team to adjust scope somewhere else in the program, relocation of the rail lines is critical to achieving the goals of the master plan and fulfilling the desire of two voters. The National Western Center team will continue to provide regular financial updates to council and should, on overage on the rail project compromise the ability to achieve the National Western Center vision. The team will bring forward a request during the annual budget process. Thank you, Councilman Black. Councilman Cannick. I just want to say thank you to the administration for taking this route and for allowing us to get further in the project before determining whether additional funds are needed. So thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilwoman, can you seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. Oh, and council members, just a reminder that the request is to vote this down. A no vote. Madam Secretary. Raquel. Black Knight. CdeBaca No. Flynn No. Gilmore Herndon, No. HINES No. Cashman No. Kenny. Ortega No. Sandoval No. Sawyer. No. Torres. No. Mr. President. No. Madam Secretary, please. Because voting against results. 13 nays. 13 is comfortable. 874 has failed. That does conclude the items to be called out this evening. Our bills for introduction are ordered, published and were now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Councilmembers.

AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance repealing and reenacting Article XIII of Chapter 10, Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning green buildings and for conforming amendments to Chapters 2 and 10, Denver Revised Municipal Code. Amends Article XIII Chapter 10 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) concerning green buildings and Chapters 2 and 10 with conforming amendments. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-11-18. Amended 10-22-18 to correct cross-references to other portions of the bill.

DenverCityCouncil_10292018_18-1134

12 hours. Council Bill one one, two, three has passed. Councilman Espinosa, were you put to council bill 113, four on the floor? I move that council. Bill 113 for series 18 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved, if I can get a second. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 1134 is open. May we have the staff report? Yes. Katrina Madigan with the Department of Public Health and Environment. Let me open the presentation. Okay. I'll give just a very brief overview of the ordinance you're considering today to get things started. So as you all know, an ordinance of the Green Roof Initiative passed on the ballot last November. We formed the Green Roof Review Task Force to develop recommended modifications, clarifications and improvements to the initiative through a collaborative, consensus based process that will honor the vote. A little reminder of who was on the task force. We had two council members, four city staff. Green roof proponents, as well as the real estate sector who had led the opposition to the original ordinance and a number of additional experts the task force met. And nine times from January 19th through June 7th when they reached a consensus recommendation for all of you. And the original ordinance had a number of great benefits for our city. And the ordinance you're considering today and we think improves upon those benefits and really honors them and does even better. So to touch on each of them briefly, that helps reduce the urban heat island. We have the third worst urban heat island in the country. And the new requirement has not only a partial coverage of a roof with a green roof, but full coverage of all the roofs with cool roofs to help address urban heat island. The original ordinance would add green space and help with water and stormwater management in our city, and the current requirement has similar options that honor those benefits. The coverage requirements are actually about 14% higher than the ordinance you're considering today. So we'll add a little bit more green space for the voters. And the greenhouse gas emission reductions will be similar to what their original ordinance would have achieved through solar panels. So just to briefly review the compliance options that buildings will have. All buildings over 25,000 square feet for new buildings will have to install a cool roof. And they will also have to pick one other compliance option. And the options they have are to do a green roof or to install that same amount of green space elsewhere on the site, on the terrace or on the ground. They can also pay for off site green. Ultimately, they can do green in combination with solar panels or energy efficiency. So a smaller amount of green in combination with some energy options. And that's similar to the original initiative where you could do a green roof combined with solar panels. Next they can do just solar or they can do energy efficiency. And again, it's similar to the original initiative where you could cover the whole roof and solar panels. And that's also the option here to cover 70% of the total roof area. Lastly, they can get sort of certified from a third party like LEED or Enterprise Green Communities. For existing buildings. When they replace their roof, they'll have to install a cool roof and pick one compliance option in addition to that, so they can add a small green roof or a small amount of green space to the site. They can pay for off site green. They can install solar panels, get certification, or they can enroll in a flexible energy program where they have five years to achieve similar greenhouse gas emission reductions as that solar option. And there's a number of energy efficiency options, as well as solar options in that energy program. So with that. I'll stop. All right. Thank you very much. We do have 19 speakers signed up to speak tonight, so I'm going to call the first five up to this front row. So if you'd please come up to the front row so that we can get through everybody and everybody has 3 minutes and you're free to take up the 3 minutes . But if, you know, four or five people in front of you have all said the same thing that you're saying, it's also totally fine if you say, I agree with those people and let us know that you're here and what your feelings are. So the first five of you could come up with front row Bruce Ray, Jesse Paris, Luke Spencer, Jack's Roger Melvin and Ellen Thorpe. If you want to come up to the front row and Bruce Ray, you are up first. But good evening, President Clark. Members of the council. Thank you for letting me be here tonight. My name is Bruce Ray, and I'm with Johns Manville. I'm director of Governmental and Regulatory Affairs for them. Johns Manville is a Berkshire Hathaway company with our world headquarters right here in Denver and the Johns Manville Building at 17th in California , where we have 400 employees. We also have our world R&D headquarters in southwest Littleton, where we have an additional 300 employees. We have three business divisions at Johns, Manville Manufacturing Products, insulation, engineered products and roofing. Of course, I'm talking about the roofing products here tonight. In fact, we are our commercial roofing systems division is one of the largest manufacturers of of commercial roofing systems in North America. JOHNS Manville makes a wide variety of different commercial roof membranes for a wide variety of applications. We can supply membranes, insulation and materials for green roofs, cool roofs, traditional black roofs, and just about everything in between. And when it comes to cool roofs, we've been in that business for many, many years, and we're actually one of the companies that work with the California Energy Commission in their establishment of the original cool roof requirements in their Title 24 energy code. So we sort of don't really have a dog in this fight. And from the outset, we've really offered our technical expertize, which we think is is pretty important, pretty vast to this process. And I think based on that overall expertize, we're just not in favor of mandatory cool roofs for two primary reasons. One is that it makes it makes for a more complicated and expensive design and construction. And then second, it may actually increase carbon emissions, since in our climate zone, there's a little bit of a heating penalty that these cooler of buildings have to pay in the winter. It just it takes more energy to cool or to heat them in in the winter. We like to say at Johns Manville, because we have such a wide variety of roofing products that there's there's a right roof for every building. And that right roof is really dependent on the location of the building configuration, size, use and all these other factors. And that's why we have a wide many, many very expert roofing design systems designers that help building owners and developers understand what is the right roof for their particular location. So we would urge you to not adopt this ordinance and instead let roofing system designers use their expertize in getting the right roof for any particular building. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris. Jesse Paris Blackstar. It's a moment for self defense. Denver Homeless Sellout and Community Action. Commitment for change. No hidden agendas. We are in favor of this ordinance change. I was in attendance for the subcommittee meeting on this. This whole chamber was full of overflow. So this is a big issue at hand that we need to deal with this climate change. So yeah, we're definitely in support of this. And also I'm delighted to hear that low and subsidized income areas will also have access to these roofs. Thank you. Thank you. Next up. Luke Spencer. Jack's. Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen of the Council. Thank you. My name. Is Louis Spencer, Jack's director of operations. For London Commercial Leasing Company. I am here speaking on my actually. The company they run and other companies. I support the Green Rush Task Force. With the new order of cool roofs. As far as adding. Greenery, new structural designs, it has become cost effective for. Building owners, new construction belts. So with just that being said, this allows us to get back to work and endeavor. Who a lot of us, you know, are in Denver. Right now because of this ordinance. We, you know, as everybody else, we all have family. We have friends that we need to support. So that's all I. Have to say. Thank you. Thank you very much, Roger Melvin. Good afternoon. My name's Roger Melvin. I work for Seek a corporation. Seek a corporation sells roofs in 82 countries around the world. We've been in business for 60 years. The only thing we've ever made are white, thermoplastic, cool roofs. We have not made black roofs. We hail from New England in the United States and Switzerland and Europe is where our home bases. The point there is that both of those locales are in cool climates. The argument against. White roofs in this market is leaving the designers to make the decision that they don't want to be dictated to. Well, the same argument was made in the electrical constituency when we made codes for electricity, when we have building codes for insulation. Codes are put in place to protect the. Constituents that those people live under. So the people of Denver have voted for a green roof initiative. It's very complex, but you have the data and the scientific research out there to support the Denver Green Roof Initiative. The folks against it, the folks that are in this room pitching that, we need to leave it up to designers, to the manufacturers to make the point it solely has to do with dollar signs and nothing other than that. They're not looking after the best interests of the city. They're not looking. At clear data, scientific data. Denver is number three in the nation for urban heat island effect. And, you know, the voters of Denver have spoken that they want to change that. You've got the tools. Each one of the council members have been sent. A case study from Target Corp., which I remind you, is a private, privately run for profit organization that is put in place to do the best for their shareholders. They've done the research. The research paper that you have is based on multiple roofs, I think 25 roofs that are all ten years and older. And they have all successful track records. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Alan Thorpe. And then I'm going to call the next five up if we can make room on the frontbench. That will be Kathy Bachner, Mike Morris, Brandon Routh, Heimer, Andy, Chris and Caleb Ewing. If you want to make your way up to the front bench. Go ahead. Good afternoon. Good evening. I'm Ellen Thorpe with the EPDM Roofing Association. The EPDM Roofing Association is a trade association representing three primary manufacturers of roofing products in North America. Johns, Manville You recently heard from Bruce Ray, also Carlisle and Firestone. All of these companies make a wide variety of roofing products, including cool roofs. As you've heard from us by now, we are supportive of almost all of the proposed modified ordinance, with the exception that we are against the cool roof mandate portion. In fact, we developed a compromise where users could select two options instead of one and an additional path for a high performance green building option. We are very appreciative of working with the City Council, grateful that you have read our e-mails, returned our phone calls and taken our meetings. We appreciate that you have asked thoughtful and critical questions. You've heard from over eight roofing manufacturers in previous communication and from over 100 roofing contracting companies as represented by the Colorado Roofing Association. The Colorado Roofing Association has communicated with you on several occasions and has been consistent about their opposition to the coal roof mandate. We are also appreciative of the work of the Green Roofs Review Taskforce and the monumental task that was set before them. But nonetheless, we are disappointed that we are here. We are troubled that no roofing contractors or roof consultants were on the task force. We are frustrated that when roofing experts were allowed to address the task force, they cautioned against a one size fits all approach. But that council went unheeded. We are concerned that although five members of the Chorus Working Group recommended against a coal roof mandate, they were told that removing the mandate was not an option. And we are disillusioned that although we submitted comments, attended meetings through the public review process and submitted 16 peer reviewed studies questioning the efficacy of a coal roof in Denver, we were told again that removing the coal roof mandate was not an option. And we were told that even though our compromise position allows flexibility and choice while preserving all of the benefits of the original ordinance. And so here we are. We encourage the Council to continue to ask critical questions that will measure the impact of the cool roof mandate on Denver's urban heat island. The roofing industry, the roofing industry, manufacturers, contractors and consultants is available, and we are committed to working with you to preserve the will of the voters while creating a high performance green building network with attributes that will actually improve Denver's urban heat island. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Cathy Fastener. Thank you, President Clark. Council members my name is Kathy Bachner. I am the executive director of Knapp, Colorado, the Commercial Real Estate Development Association. I'm the past chair of the Colorado Real Estate Alliance, which represents over 16 real estate related organizations across Colorado. And lastly, I'm the chair of Citizens for Responsible Denver, and we oppose the passage of the Green Report initiative. The primary members of Knapp, Colorado are owners, developers and investors in commercial real estate. There are over 20,000 across North America, many of which are active in Colorado and in Denver specifically. We design and build office, industrial, retail, mixed use and multifamily spaces. I am here on behalf of those members and as a member of the Stakeholder Task Force to encourage you to pass Ordinance 18 1134 as submitted. The Stakeholder Task Force focused on two primary things as they did their work. Honor the will of the voter. This was a challenge because what the voters wanted and what initiative 300 would have given them were very different and eager compliance. It was our desire to create a program that owners, developers and investors would eagerly want to comply with. This ordinance is a delicate balance of ideas and solutions that we are convinced will not only result in eager compliance, but will ultimately result in even more environmental benefits than the original ordinance would have. For example, the City Planning Department itself estimated that 90% of existing buildings would have been exempt under the original ordinance. This revised ordinance will no longer exempt them. Instead, it gives them a variety of options that assures their participation in the program. One of the most pivotal changes is the requirement that all roofs new and existing include a chorus system with only a very defined few having exemptions for things such as special architectural features. The task force did significant research into this process with multiple roofing experts and have drafted extensive flexibility around these systems. This one change will have a dramatic improved effect on the original ordinance. Remember, 90% of existing buildings would have been exempted and now they will have a way to participate. It is important for you to also recognize that Brandon, who will speak in a moment as the chief proponent of the ordinance and me as the co-chair of the opposition, are in complete agreement with this revised ordinance. And in this day and age, coming to complete agreement on a consensus is a unique thing, and I think you need to keep that in mind. So by giving owners, developers and investors a range of options, Denver can deliver its green promises while remaining a great place to work, live and invest. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Mike Morris. Thank you, President Clark. Denver City Council. I live in lucky number seven. So excited to be here. I also voted for the Green Roof Initiative 300 last November 7th. In my concern with the new draft ordinance resolved around the language in one of the green buildings draft. I was surprised with the new draft ordinance language on page nine stating that any residential building five storeys or fewer or less than 62 feet in height with over 25,000 square feet of gross area floor are exempt, meaning all multifamily buildings that go under five storeys but over 25,000 square feet do not have to comply with green roofs, solar or any other, I guess, proposed renewables. The white roofs are cool. Roofs are still mandated in that section. So what I'm looking at is in multi-family permits in Denver. The year ending in May 18th, Denver saw 10,343 multifamily home building permits. It was a record that year, 14.4% year over year. So we're essentially saying multifamily can be exempt from this process unless you go over five stories. Majority of the buildings around me are all five stories. This is a building then is in 275 units built in 2016. It already has a white and cool roof, so they already meet this compliance in 2016. So this would be exempt. This building, Broadway station, 419 units built in 2009 with a white roof. They're already compliant. This would be exempt for the green roofs and solar. That's IMT Alameda Station. This is also exhibit 300 8038 units built in 2014. Exempt. And the last one in Observatory Park, 550 units built in 2017. White Roof. This sold for over $92 million. We're trying to exempt buildings that are $92 million in. GROSS This is what our my concern is. So I respect the committee's work and recommendations, but the proposed draft just needs to change that, that verbiage from 25,000 square feet or more to less, as the voters approved back in 20 back in 2017. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Brandon Reath Heimer. Hello. My name is Brandon Wreath. I'm here. I'm the proponent of the Denver Greenough Initiative. For months, individuals from all spectrums across Denver worked tirelessly to come to a compromise that would honor the benefits of the original ordinance while making it more feasible for building owners and developers. Not only did we accomplish that, but we have comprised something that is even a greater climate impact, not just to reduce our carbon footprint, to also protect Denver from the effects of climate change that we will definitely see in the years to come. As proponent of the Green Roof initiative, I believe the very foundation of our compromise lies with the requirement of cool roofs. Without this foundational piece, we never would have reached consensus. This important requirement ensures lowering our urban heat island highland, which would lead to lower fewer heat related issues and will lead to lower energy consumption leading to less carbon emissions. The task force worked very hard and very thoughtfully while drafting this new policy, and I'm here today to ask that you approve this without any amendments. Thank you. Thank you very much, Andy. Keith. Hello. Council members Mandy Keith, president of Green Roofs of Colorado, where an amenity space, green roof design installation maintenance company. We've been operating in Denver since 2007. I was also a technical advisor for the Denver Green Roof Initiative and a proponent of it, and I'm also a member of the city's Task Force on the Green Roof Initiative . I'm really going to speak to this task force. I want to agree with what Cathy said earlier, too. She said how this new initiative actually increases the reach of the initiative and will have more environmental and sustainability principles for the city of Denver. And I also agree with Brandon Reath Hamer and all the work that he's done. And this taskforce started as a highly opposed group and with very many variable constituents that they were representing. And during the course of these nine meetings that we had with the task force and over almost 40 hours of time, we examined current research and the viability of multiple options that would satisfy the voters intent of the original Green Roof initiative. Amazingly, we reached a consensus and not just a consensus. Unanimous candidate census of the group with this new green building policy, one that protects the will of the voters well, providing them the flexibility and the design and construction industry needs to operate here. This this new policy will help Denver continue on a path of resiliency and sustainability. Thank you very. Much. Thank you. Next up is Caleb Ewing and I'll call the next five if you could come up and we can make room for them in the front. Emma Dutton John deal into the. Grant Nelson and Sean GROSS. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counsel. My name is Caleb Ewing. I am from Castle Rock, so I am not a resident of Denver, but I do work primarily in the Denver area. I work for a company called Seeker Carnival. We are based out of Switzerland with our U.S. operations being based out of Massachusetts. So I have to say, go Red Sox or as a celebration went last night, at least it wasn't the Dodgers. I would also like to point out that some of the other manufacturers that we are in party with with the Vinyl Roofing Institute would be Douglass, who is based out of Michigan, and they've been there since 1978. And then another company called FiveThirtyEight, who is based out of Ohio and has been there for over 25 years. I point out where these manufacturers are from because they are all in cold weather climate zones. Most of their initial installations were within a tight radius around their manufacturing plant. They have not experienced the widespread failures that maybe you may have heard of in some of the colder climates with coal roofs. If they had, they would not be in business anymore. So I would ask for your consideration to just to that one that one fact, as you hear horror stories of that might be contrary to that. All of the many factors that make up the EPDM Roofing Association do also offer cool roof options, as you have heard, and they also sell them in this climate zone in the city. So if they did not work, they would not be sold here. I'd only ask for you to consider that just as you are coming up with a mandate, you guys are all having to become experts in building code and building science, which is an unfair task to ask of anybody considering all the other things you have to consider. But I would ask that you understand that the Green Roof Initiative was passed by the voters in order to have an impact on the urban heat island effect. If we can do that simply by changing the color and reflectivity of our roof surface, then it is a very easy compromise for everybody to comply with. Leaving it up to building owners, choice and designers is a good idea. And in fact, I'm in support of that. To most degree, however, there are some things that cannot be left to designers and building owners. When I go to remodel my kitchen, I am not allowed to use lead pipes. So thank you building code for protecting my children. I would like to say that. While choice is good, we have to do what's best for our city. And I really appreciate your time. Thank you. Next up, Emma Dunn. Good evening, President Clark. Council members. I live in the inspiration. Point neighborhood of District one and I work in the roofing industry. I support the initiative as it has been revised by the task force, both as a resident. And as a member of the roofing industry. I want to congratulate the task force for the amazing work that they have done to come to a compromise. In my opinion, the original problem with the initiative was that it wasn't well researched by industry members and the task force has now taken time to do that and they have come up with an excellent compromise that many people are happy with. Most specifically, the urban heat island effect will be addressed by the initiative and I believe it really gets at voter intent for the initial passing of the initiative. And we need to think about that, not whether we can make money, whether we designers can have lots of choice. We need to think about voter intention and the long term effects on our city. The research is clear. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab has indisputable research that cool roofs prevent urban heat island effect, and you can twist and manipulate data to show many different things. But a national lab is a trustworthy source, and in this age of infinite sources, they can tell us whatever we want to hear. Right. A rule you get on the Internet and you look for whatever opinion you want to find, you can find it. So we need to be careful about our sources. And the research is clear. And I know the task force has done really hard work to analyze that and present you with a compromise, which is a bit of a miracle in today's political landscape. So I urge you to approve the initiative as it has been revised by the task force tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Could you just state your name for the record? Am I done? Thank you very much. All right. Next up, John Dill. Thank you. My name is John Diehl. I am in Parker, Colorado, and I also represent a manufacturer. Caleb mentioned that I am the Dallas Roofing Representative. Our corporate offices in Michigan and we have been manufacturing roofing systems for over 40 years now. And we have installed billions of square feet of roofing in the United States and Canada. We offer both cool roofing membranes and dark non cool rated systems. Though we offer a variety of membranes we see the benefit of and recommend cool roofing systems to our customers. This is true in both warm climates such as Texas and Arizona and cool climates like Colorado, Michigan and even Canada. I am also a member of the Colorado Roofing Association and despite previous comments made by the Sierra and EPDM Roofing Association that, quote, the roofing community is unified in its opposition to the cool roof mandate and quote , They do not represent me and many other members of the Denver roofing community. We actually support the Corps of Mandate. Despite their opposition, all membrane roofing manufacturers make cool rated membranes and they can easily meet the cool, cool roofing mandate. And all of the roofing contractors that I work with install both systems, just like the insulation requirement, for example, they can and will install whatever the city code requires. As citizens of Denver voted, and I think most of us agree, we have to make changes to lower the greenhouse gases and reduce the urban heat island effect. The most energy efficient and cost effective way to make an impact is to require cool roofing systems. The proposal you have before you this evening is a great compromise. Through months of meetings, information gathering and negotiations, please honor the task force recommendation and mandate the. Use of cool roofs. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Next up, the interior. My name is Ian Thomas Tafoya. I live in the I'm a Lincoln Park and I happen to be the deputy campaign manager for the Denver Green Roof Initiative. I'm here today in support of the proposed changes to the code that was approved by the Denver voters. This bill provides options and requires buildings to do their. Part in meeting the initiative's goals. And I couldn't be more pleased that we're reducing energy consumption, improving air quality, reducing heat island effect and providing green space. I will note that the cool roofs. Are a critical component and must. Remain in the compromise. I'm pleased that the city industry proponents and opponents came together on the work here tonight. But let's be clear it wasn't an easy feat. Our all volunteer coalition was first turned away by the city, and then we took our case to the voters. We faced big money and the well-connected, and still we prevailed. Even still, our opponents asked the council to illegally halt the implementation of this law. Denver is ready to lead on climate change. We're entitled to clean air and clean water, and we cannot let industry dollars stand in our way. I hope this serves as an example that we cannot that we can choose to be bold, that the sky. Will not fall, and that with. Government and citizens leading the way, we can control. And have the hard fights to ensure a stable world for future generations. I implore you, Council, don't wait for. Citizens to push you further into climate change actions. We cannot falter. Time is short, but Denver can truly be a world class city by standing with those around the world and innovating to slow climate change. And let me be clear. If you don't, the citizens and voters will. Thank you. Next up, Grant Nelson. Good evening, Councilman. Council President Clark and members of council. My name is Grant Nelson and I live at 731 Norwich Court in Castle Pines. I'm a commercial real estate developer for the last 26 years have dealt about 3 million square feet of retail. I was the former state president of ICAC, the International Council of Shopping Centers, and I'm here and was on the task force on behalf of the shopping center industry. The original initiative has passed would have been very, very damaging to the shopping center industry, to retail and to Denver as a whole. I will commend Brandon and Andy and those who worked on the other side of this. They came to the table, they learned and they made a compromise. And the compromise was based. On the core of part of the. Initiative. I think we were all better served to have a diverse coalition or a diverse task force, and I think we all learned from each other. I would also say that it is hard in this day and age to have opposing parties come together and agree on something and not only agree, but we've agreed unanimously. So I would ask for you to support the initiative as designed. And I also want to commend Katrina and the staff in Denver. They did a great job of bringing us together and allowing us all a voice. Thank you. And I'm available for questions if anybody has any. Thank you. Thank you. And next up, Sean GROSS and then I'll call the last four, Paul Reed, Jamaica Berman, Phil Chavez and Jennifer Boosler. Coming up to the front. My name is Shawn GROSS and the co-owner of Maverick Roof Coating. And just want to let you guys know that we do support this bill, in particular the core roof portion for energy efficiency. And so happy you guys have everyone's come to a compromise here. So I look forward to seeing it get best. Thanks. Thank you very much. Next up, Paul Reid. Thank you guys for allowing us to be here tonight. My name is Paul Reid. I'm a general manager of Northwest Roofing here in Denver. You know, bottom line is this. There's a lot of roofing companies, a lot of real estate companies, other companies that are looking to grow. And I've personally seen I've been on jobs or we've came out to do a due diligence on some real estate, and. They refused to buy there in Denver because of. Of how this bill was passed. It's about an affordable for them. You know, these roofs were damaged. They needed new roofs. And it was just plain and simple, not affordable. But I do believe this new task force has put together a compromise that we will all be able to live with and be able to do and we'll be able to get back to work. That's been another issue. We we do have over 250 employees as well that we haven't been able to do work in Denver because of this this bill. So thank you guys for your consideration. And we highly suggest that we get this passed tonight. Let's get back to work. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jamaica Burman. Thank you, Councilman Clark. She added, My name is Jamaica Burman. I am with the building manufacturer, GFT, the world's largest roofing manufacturer. I was also a Denver Task Force member and I represent the roofing community. I've been in the roofing industry for 12 years, both on the contractor side and the manufacturers side. And I just want to bring up to date to where we're at today. Three roofing permits have been poured in Denver. We're clearly in a building halt. I support the task force recommendations and and anxiously look forward to telling the roofing community they can get back to the work in the city of Denver. Stantec, the consultant on the task force, found that 87% to 95% of existing buildings can't handle the weight of a green roof. With that being said, the task force came up with this being the best decision. I believe that the cool roof mandate is the best possible option that respects the voters intents to assertively combat Denver's urban heat island effect. Over the last ten months, Jeff and the Sierra Colorado Roofing Association have been updating the roofing community on the proposed changes. I've been hosting a series of events that focused on training the roofing community on cool roofs, green roofs and solar, so that we are ready for this when it is passed. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Felicia Chavez. Thank you, council members. My name is Phil Chavez and I'm the general manager of Top. That commercial roofing. We are in support of the. Task force proposed changes to the green roof mandate. Our firm looks forward to getting back to work as soon as possible in Denver. And I appreciate everybody's hard work to get to this point. Thank you. Thank you. And last up, Jennifer Bruce looked. Thank you. Council members, I appreciate it. I'm Dr. Jennifer Bustillo, and I'm a professor at Colorado State University in the Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture. But of course, I'm not representing the university. However, I am representing the science behind Green Roofing, as I've spent most of my 15 year career studying and peer review publishing the effective use of green roofs right here in Denver, Colorado. First, I want to address the question that Councilmember Herndon mentioned at the October 12th hearing about cool roofs locally and their benefit on the urban heat island. I was on the research team at the EPA and CSU research facility at 16th and Wynkoop. Ten years ago, when we did a three year study on the urban heat island effect and what we found was that green roofs reduce the temperature above the rooftops by up to four degrees or that seven degrees Fahrenheit. So it's four degrees Celsius or seven degrees Fahrenheit annually. That's on an annual basis. And you may recall that the in Denver, the urban heat island effect is about means it's about ten degrees hotter in the city versus in rural areas. So green and therefore cool roofs can make and have made a big difference right here in Denver. I was honored to be on the Green Roof Task Force alongside Councilmembers Susman and Clark. I encourage you to consider approving this proposal as it represents an enormous amount of effort and compromise by many stakeholders. I know I had to do a lot of compromising because I wanted 100% green roofs all over the city. And so your support will ensure a greener future for all citizens of Denver. Thank you. Thank you. And sorry about getting your last name out there. And I we did have one more that didn't end up in the system somehow. So. Dan Cupid. Good evening, President Kirk and Denver City Council members. I just returned from inspecting the completion of a very difficult roof in Snowmass Village. This report was replaced in just eight years due to severe condensation. In fact, the roof kind of skated so badly that they had to shovel off rotten sheathing in small pieces to get them off the roof. I've seen this type of thing happen way too often, and this is one of the reasons I got involved with the Green Roof Initiative review process early on, working with the city and county of Denver. We were able to agree on language and of portion of the proposed green building ordinance that we help to prevent this type of condensation. My name is Dan Cupid, and I make my living as a roofing expert, designing roof systems and testifying and representing cases. I'm a longtime active member of the Colorado Roofing Association on the Education and Coding Standards Committees, and I'm a board member of the local RCI chapter. I've been involved with this Green Work review process since early January by providing roofing related information and recommending professionals to serve on the Green Review Task Force and also the Green Rope Technical Advisory Group. I have reached out to many of my colleagues during this process, including designers, contractors and manufacturers, in order to obtain an obscure and share their input. Jamaica Merriman Wood Jeff was selected to represent the roofing industry on the Green Rope Review Task Force. She has worked with our Carbon Standards Committee, our group subgroup and myself during the last ten months. Jamaica has been transparent, impartial during this process. I have been part of the Cobra subcommittee meetings, along with Richard Boone, Kate Grabowski, James Kirby, Jamaica Bourbon, which whiskey of TAF and manufacturer representatives from Johns Manville. Over the last five months we worked with Katrina Madigan from Environmental Services. So in Resa Lucero was the sustainability and Scott Prisco and Daniel Krauss in the building department to shape the core portion of the Denver's green building proposal. We also proposed code language to ensure a core of systems are properly installed to protect against the type of condensation I mentioned earlier with cool roofing as a requirement and an proposed green building ordinance. We wanted to make sure it was as inclusive as possible. And in keeping with Colorado's extreme climate. Working with the city and county of Denver employees and various manufacturers, I feel we accomplished our goal as best as could be expected. Through this work, we were able to include concrete towers and balance to the roof systems that act as a different type of coal roof system that saves on energy costs, along with most metal roof systems that are common in industrial areas and would have otherwise been excluded. As industry representatives, we do not promote or choose one type of roofing over another. There are a wide variety of roofing and waterproofing products available in Colorado that perform well in our climate. While we don't support a crew of mandate. I myself understand the need for an equivalency as an alternative to the current requirements in the Green Roof initiative. There is no doubt a change is necessary so that roofing projects to. Such a large extent is a way. Thank you. Thank you. All right. That does conclude our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council or Councilman Espinosa? Yeah, I don't know if this is for Scott, if he's still here or maybe Adam, but there was a mention of a sort of concern about the specific language on page nine. And I just want to confirm that that that that is only for the the additional requirements that the core roof requirement. The you know, I should I'll reference it. Let me pull it up here. That specifically 1310 dash 301a1 is the core proof requirement and it would apply to buildings as described greater than 25,000 square feet. Multifamily, residential, five stories less than 62 feet and a half feet. It's only the additional requirements about greenspace cover and what not. That is is exempt. That's correct. The residential buildings, five stories or fewer, do have to comply with the core roof requirement. If they're over 25,000 square feet, they just don't comply with all the other options. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn. Thank, Mr. President. I have a couple of questions that I don't know. We're covered in committee and a couple. There were occasion tonight as Brandon. Where's Brandon? Hi. Could you come up for a minute and Katrina while you're walking up? Brandon, I'm trying to understand what was the purpose in the initiative of exempting residential buildings of four storeys or no greater than 50 feet, whichever was less? What was the purpose of that? More just cost and burden. I'm sorry. Cost and burden. Oh, okay. Thank you. And Katrina. Then I notice that it's changing here from a exempting five storey five storeys, excuse me? Four storeys and 50 feet or less. Orgill is going to take this or 62.5 feet. And what's the purpose of that change? So, yes, good evening. Jill Jennings goal at Community Planning and Development. Sorry, we're tag teaming on questions here. So you actually tag her? Okay. Just to start. So the original initiative did look at a four storey limit. There was concern with limiting and with adding some compliance options based on what construction types that go up to five storeys. And so there was a concern about artificially limited limiting buildings to a certain height based on requirements in this initiative. So that's how the compromise came to that. They would still have to do a cool roof, but would not have to do other components. I was just answered for Councilman Espinosa. And then, okay, so they still have to do the core of and the change was made primarily because of the construction type. When you're still at four storeys, it's basically with still wood frame, right? Correct. Excellent. That's thank you. That's very good. And maybe I don't know, is is there a city attorney here who worked on this? Or maybe I should ask our our own. Hello, over there. I noticed there was a word, a different word used in the initiative versus the bill before us. I'm just wondering if there's a if that's an actionable change or if it means the same thing. Is there a difference between an exemption, the class of of structures that are under an exemption in the initiative, whereas in the bill before us it says exception. Adam Hernandez Assistant City Attorney The intent. Was not to have any sort of difference. Okay, so they mean the same thing. I was just just trying to make sure that we're not making a change without really coming to to discuss it. And then finally, Katrina or Jill, maybe one of you could tag each other and answer this. How do exemptions work with large but historic structures that might have pitched roofs? And do they I mean, will they automatically qualify for an exemption? And if so, do they do they nevertheless have to pay a fee? I'm thinking particularly of the Loreto Heights campus, which is which is going to be facing some redevelopment. And they have a historical building down there with a black shingle pitched roof. That would be very difficult. Would they have to provide offsite or onsite Greensburg? Do they have to comply? So there is no automatic exemption for historic buildings. However, what we have built into the ordinance, especially as it pertains to the cool roof requirement, because we know that many historic or unique buildings in our city, that roof is a very important element of the overall character of the building. So if one has what the ordinance is defined as a character defining roof, you can request alternate materials instead of meeting the cool roof requirement based on a staff review of finding that yes, indeed, that roof is important to the overall character, and then any portion that's visible of that roof would not have to comply with the cool roof requirement. But the other compliance options still apply and we believe that there are enough options for any building to be able to meet the needs of the building owner and still work for the program. So that night, that 1890, Frank and Brooke building all of the roof, of course, is visible. So they could be exempt. They could get an exemption from the corps roof, but they would have to choose from among the menu of other options. Yes, that is correct. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you very much. Thank you to all of the speakers. I wanted to ask Jill Scott Briscoe is here. I don't know if he's gone, but the question about how we protect folks from, you know, the potential installation issues or condensation, things like that. I read the Stantec report. What in our building code helps to minimize the risk? So it sounded like proper insulation is the answer. You're not going to save on your heating bill. According to the Stantec report, you are not going to save on your heating bill by having a black roof instead of a white roof, because the difference is so marginal that it's really about insulation and how other things that you build. So I just wanted to ask whether or how our building code is there. So Scott Briscoe did have to leave, but I've got Daniel Kraus from our architectural structural review team. But essentially we have requirements and the rules and regulations which, if this moves forward, will be going out for public comment that require submittal of a roof study. Daniel, do you want to take it over from here? There are two types of Daniel Kraus, senior architect for committee planning and development for Denver. There are two types of roof projects that would be subject on an existing building to the cool roof requirement, and one would be a roof replacement where the existing roof comes off the building and a roof is put onto the building and the coat already requires installation of are 20 above or 30, but a minimum of 20 regardless of the roof type, where in some instances it does not. We would require a study by a an architect, an engineer who would show us where the dew point occurs and how to mitigate any condensation issue. And that Dan Cooper was mentioning was developed with experts on a roof recover, which is where the condensation issues are much more common because there are no existing building codes to require any insulation necessarily on a roof for cover. So you're putting an additional cover on an existing roof and that is allowed in some circumstances, although often not. But where it is allowed, there can be a condensation issue when you put the cool roof and for that there is an actual exemption where it is demonstrated that that would potentially create a condensation concern. There would be no requirement for a cool roof. On a roof recover. Thank you. That's Thomas. Thank you, counsel. Can you do Councilman Ortega? Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to ask Jennifer. I can't pronounce your last name, though, so far for Bustillo Abu-Salha. Okay. I had a question about the science, and I understand there are other cities that have done the white roof and wanted to just ask if any of the work you've done has looked at the benefit and the effects from cities that have had this in place for a number of years, and how that sort of folded into the the work and the decision made to move forward with a white roof for Denver's program. Sure. So the only data I have is specifically related to green roofs as one of the cool roof options. So not white roofs specifically. And that's Toronto. And what they found is an annual drop of four degrees Celsius already in. And they've only initiated their ordinance, I believe it was 2011. So already they're seeing that that difference that we found already in Denver on a small scale. Is there anyone else in the audience that could talk about Chicago and the effect that or the benefit that Chicago has seen? I understand they've had a program that's been in place for many more years than what Toronto has had. Though I don't have recent data. I know they have around 8 million square feet of green roofs installed. I don't know about Kourou specifically, and I don't know their current data on temperature. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilman Ortega, see no other questions. I have one that I think, Katrina, you might be the best one to answer, but if you want to tag out, then feel free to make my Harris question. I don't know if you still here, but about the change in floors and then Councilman Espinosa, I think, touched on it . The only change between what voters passed and this is the compromise on that one floor. There is an additionally a different change when it comes to square feet. Can you just confirm that that the change is just the floor, not a new exemption for buildings based on how big they are? That's different from what voters passed. That's right. And the voter passed initiative, it was all residential buildings for storeys and fewer were exempt. And now it's five storeys or fewer because as Jill said, the wood construction goes to five stories. So this just to be consistent across construction type. And I might just add, because I didn't said when I was up here last time, the question was that, of course, the core roof requirement was then added to all of those buildings, which were exempted entirely from that arrangement. It's one of the ways the task force really wanted to provide additional benefit. Thank you. Daniel Kraus, CBD architect. It just wants to make a clarification that the original ordinance had an exemption for a four story or 50 foot tall residential building and a 50 foot tall residential building. And again, it could be the whichever. If you had a 50 foot residential building, even if it were five storeys, it would be exempt and a five storey building would often be that height. That's why one of the considerations in simplifying and just saying a five storey building would be exempt because the 50 foot height was already within the exemption of the original ordinance . Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, did you have another question? Come on. Yeah, mostly. Just probably you might want to answer this one. So in the code changes, we actually can build a six story wood frame structure now. So the key is really the height. I mean, so, so I mean, because we can build a podium before it used to be the common thing was three stories of stick on a concrete podium. But now we can build five storeys a stick on a concrete podium. So is there can you explain to me how how this works? Because now you can have a six storey building stick framed, you know. So it's really the interplay, I would think, between the height and the number of stories. And can you clarify the question? Because a six storey building regardless would not be exempt, including residential building, even if it were five storeys above a podium that would be considered a six storey building and not be exempt. So then explain to me why it's significant. If we're referencing Stick Frame, you could build a 2320 5000 square foot, 50 foot high stick frame building, and you could also build a six storey stick frame building. So what is it? What is the connection between wood framing and the exemption? The more affordable housing types try to use exclusively the wood frame and not depend on the concrete podium that you're referring to. And those are the types of projects that would be hardest hit and the cost of the green roof would be passed along to the occupants who are trying to get into the affordable housing. So the real challenge, though, for for from that perspective and I'm sorry this didn't come up in committee, is that what we're talking about is a very marginal expense increase on a on just the roof component. Not every single floor, not every single facade, not every single finish. It's just the roof component in a lot of our affordable housing. And actually, if it's less than 62 feet, typically has a shingle roof, which I think would conform to the character defining rules. So did we just unexpectedly make a carve out for four and five story substantial market rate projects which could readily accomplish, I mean, accommodate a 1 to 4% increase in just the roof component itself. When you say roof component, you're referring to the cool roof because the five storey or a four storey or a three storey, any height, if it is 25,000 square feet, including residential, would be subject to cool roof requirements. Awesome. So we're back down to the same question I asked before, which is anything over 25,000 square feet period is required. With the exception of a single townhome, a single family home or duplex. Yep. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn, you become famous president. I actually needed a clarification based on the answer to your question, but it just came out on on this question. So thank you. All right. Seeing no other questions and the public hearing for counsel go one on three, four is closed. Are there comments by members of council or Councilwoman Sussman? Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you all for speaking tonight. Very well. I was very heartened by all the conversations we had on the committee and how much we all learned about roofing, which I never expected to know so much about. And and thanks for all the hard work of the committee members that came and gave your time up to discuss the how we could make this particular ordinance work. One of the things that we talked about at first reading and before, I just want to reiterate, we've heard some folks from the roofing industry express a concern that the mandate for cool roofs might not be as all as wise as we. And they speak to things. We have heard a little bit about this tonight about perhaps condensation worries. I also heard that from the Roofing Association that perhaps a cool roof, a white roof, isn't as resistant to hail damage as some other kinds of roofs . And so to that end, I have asked the Department of Health and Environment if we wouldn't put in the rules that there be a very careful study and report about the effectiveness of what we are proposing to institute for our roofs in Denver. I think it's just makes sense that if we are going to make some requirements on the building and the roofs, that we understand that, that whether or not they are performing the way we would like them to perform for the goals of the ordinance. And they have said, of course, that they would make a report to council at least annually and put this in the rules about the effectiveness. Is it me? Is it helping with urban heat island? Is it helping with climate change? I know that that is a difficult study to make, but I'm sure you will put your best efforts forward and and very happy that we're going to do that. I also want to encourage you to start that study now, because you'll need to have basin formation of the roofs that are not cool roofs now and how they're performing versus the the new roofs that are coming in to do some sort of comparisons so that we're very you know, that we're we're very cognizant of whether these rules that we're setting in place are as as effective as we want them to be. So thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you so much, Mr. President. And to Councilwoman Sussman, I first just want to thank you for the incredible amount of time that you guys dedicated to this. And I think that, you know, we were approached and many of us didn't have the capacity. Even if we kind of had some interest, we didn't have the capacity to take this on. And so the voters put us in a position where we had no choice but to find the capacity. And so I respect and appreciate the proponents and the voters, and I really respect and appreciate you guys. So thank you. In particular, Mr. President, I know that you spent a lot of time trying to help to balance the the the the the interest here. The one comment I wanted to make is that I know that there was some concern raised about the residential buildings. So where we are today is that I feel like the exemption is pretty similar to the exemption that the voters passed. And so I'm comfortable with it. But I also don't want folks to feel like this is the only place where we've addressed or we can't address the environmental sustainability of residential buildings. So I want to give two examples. One is that for most affordable, dedicated, affordable units where the prices are restricted and the folks have to income qualify, most of those projects in Denver use something called the Enterprise Green Community Certification already. And so they are working and they it helps them with keeping their operations costs down. So they do it because it's the right thing to do and because it's economical. And so that's happening for those folks. I think for the market rate, new construction, it's important that we continue to look to our building codes for places where we can be putting those standards in, in the in the, the building code. And I it's my understanding that there's a pretty significant green building code update coming in in the next year or two so that we'll have an opportunity to think about where we have gaps in what this ordinance covers and how we get to those gaps in the residential multi-family environments. I think that's really important. And then the last thing is, I think it's important for us to like not just monitor the cool roof in the and the heat island effect, but I want to see, for example, how many buildings do the retro commissioning and how many buildings do the energy efficiency stuff. Because if folks aren't choosing those options and we may need to continue to look at ways to because what we know from our our education recently as a council is that we can't meet our climate goals without keeping that energy efficiency improving. So Heat Island is one thing, but we've got to keep looking. So I think it'll be very interesting to track kind of the paths folks are choosing. And I just don't want us to feel like, Oh, this is the only ordinance we're ever going to pass and now we've solved climate in the building environment. That's just we're going to have to keep working at it. We know a lot more about how to do it in a stakeholder. Says this time. So I feel confident that we have the tools in place to do that and that this really important step is when we can learn from and then where there are gaps and we need other work, we've got to continue to problem solve to do those things. So thank you very much to the to the community for your patience and your willingness to participate in the conversation. Thank you. And I will be proud to support this ordinance as drafted. Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. Councilman Flint. Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, will be supporting this tonight, although for perhaps different reasons. The the initiative passed citywide by about eight percentage points. In my district, it failed by 18 percentage points. And in order to adequately represent the folks in the more suburban context, I feel there's a need to at least outline that sometimes one size fits all solutions or approaches aren't really the best and can have. Unintended consequences as initially written this the requirements of the of the initiative that was on the ballot could have been devastating to these small commercial strip centers that serve my working class neighborhoods and and along my corridors, like Federal and Sheridan, because of the enormous costs versus the inability to recover those costs from small tenant base on a one storey commercial building that exceeds 25,000 square feet. There were enormous costs on that. And so this revision, thankfully, removes a lot of that cost burden that that actually, I think Brandon spoke too about when they exempted the smaller residential buildings as well. And so I really want to thank the Task Force Council President Clark and Councilwoman Susman for their really, really hard work on this to fail to approve this by our supermajority, which is required tonight to fail to approve this doesn't and would not bring about a better resolution for for more options for those looking for greater options at simply one. It would feel to me to fail to approve this would be like punting on first down and given the game the other day maybe that would have been better for the Broncos. But. But not for us. Not for us. Right. We tend to look at Denver sometimes, not all of us and not all the time, but we tend to look at Denver as looking like it does outside this window. We're just a couple of blocks away without recognizing that when you walk around the borders of the city in county of Denver, we have a huge diversity of neighborhood types. And when I sat through the task force presentations and saw heat island effect, we want to mitigate the heat island effect. And I look at the average nighttime temperature map versus the daytime and the changes. I see that in my suburban district, single family, some apartments, Wadsworth Sheridan Federal we don't have we don't have the same issues that we have in the core of downtown, which is where the heat island is concentrated. And how is it fair to say we have to solve the heat island effect down? We're not even we're not even experiencing it. And so. I believe that this compromise that's been worked out, given the various competing, you know, Kathee and Brandon at the same table, probably glaring at each other at the first meeting and coming away side by side is a great testament to the power of compromise and working together. Maybe this isn't the last compromise. And I thank Councilwoman Sussman for calling for annual review or, you know, one year and let's see how it work. But what I do know is that because this was put into code by the voters in 2017, we were told that there were six about 630 roof replacement permits issued in this city, 631 on the buildings that would be required to put a green roof one in 2018. So far, we have had three. And those three did not put on a green roof. They went to the planning board and they got an exception. That tells us that this this initiative was a significant problem for commercial building owners. I hope that this compromise will free that up because the very worst thing for my neighborhoods and for the commercial, the older commercial buildings, fifties and sixties era. The very worst thing would be for them to not be able to afford to replace their roofs, to lose tenants, and to board up their properties. So I am very happy to vote yes on this agreement and I'm looking forward to a review on whether it really does generate roof replacement and building upkeep and keep our building stock thriving and vibrant and serving our neighborhoods. So I will be voting yes on this. Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank you and Councilwoman Sussman for your work in bringing everybody together and really working toward something that, you know, we can all support and be very proud of. I also want to thank Jack Paterson from my office, who sat through all of the meetings and kept me fully informed on the work that was occurring. I want to thank the folks who came and met with me on all sides of the issue to raise various questions and concerns. I am going to support this tonight as well as it's been brought forward. The only other thing I want to say is I think the work that's been occurring with our energy advisory board that administers our $2 million franchise fee from Xcel Energy, has done a lot of work with various nonprofits and a lot of that happens with single family homes as well. But as we hopefully get to a place in this city where we've we've approached a lot of that work and where we have nonprofits and others that might need to replace a roof. Hopefully we can see that fund maybe be utilized into the future so that even the work of our nonprofits continue to not only benefit from the work that's been occurring to, you know, make buildings more energy efficient, but really contribute towards this overall effort as well when it comes to, you know, having to replace a roof and be able to try to as much as possible be in compliance with with the rest of the work that everybody else is working towards. So I'm happy to support this and great work, everyone, for just rolling up your sleeves and coming together and finding something that everybody could could say, Yeah, we agree to. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Part of me wishes that cool roofs were crazy expensive and that we applied this to duplexes so that we could. So there would be a new movement towards character defining roofs again. That that's me. Sort of self-serving. As a young architect, you get pigeonholed to doing essentially toilet room details and roof details, and you end up spending a few years just doing the things. I see that. And so it's fine that we've already grappled as a council with toilet rooms a couple of years ago, and here we are with roofs. So it's been a real pleasure for me to watch my colleagues, council and clerk, our President Clarke and Council and Susman sort of develop their own skills with regard to roof and roof assemblies and things like that, that that are so critical to the world, to our built environment, and to to see them all the way through these different committees still still getting more and more. And it's just I don't know, it's pretty cool. And but it speaks to sort of how much, how much, how much this role actually takes us out of our comfort zone, gets us to a place of understanding so that we can actually legislate better rules. And so kudos to you, too, and your leadership role in this task force. And kudos to all the task force members because it's pretty cool when you develop these things and get to that point where where everyone sort of feels good about what's going to go forward. And so it's a it's a it's a real pleasure for me to be able to sit here and in support of this and, and why I say that is, yeah. District one Northwest Denver sort of put this over the line, you know. And Brandon, you know, I've always acknowledged this that Brandon and I, we had our differences. I mean, right? We didn't have our differences. I always supported the notion I had problems with the technical aspects of it and where how onerous it seemed to be. But you didn't see me going out there and telling my constituents, vote no. And the reason being is this exact situation, which is it is the right step in the right direction. And I wanted it to win so that we could come here and fix it and find something more workable going forward because it moves Denver in the right direction. So I am wholeheartedly here to sort of. I mean, happy to support this because it's not only what my constituents have been crying for, you know, they're not crying for it, but spoke out loud in the last election that this is something they wanted and it is a way that we can implement it and for the better of this city long term. So thank you to staff as well for your efforts in shaping this and helping make that case again and again and again to the groups that I mean, the people that you were leading. So thank you all. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Brooks. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. You know, one thing that has not come up during this conversation is historic buildings and representing one of the oldest areas in the city. I had a lot of concern of historic buildings and how this would fit into how they will be penalized or exempted and things like that. And I just want to thank the team for working with our community, especially the LoDo district. They had a lot of concern about that and I just appreciate they're probably the only neighborhood that was pushing so hard and in my district around this and so I really appreciate you guys working on that. And I think it's a lot of times we I definitely want to say thanks to our our city council folks, but the amount of time, Katrina, you put in jail, you put in Adam Hernandez into the study over this stuff is unbelievable. So thank you for your hard work on that. And obviously, Dr. Sussman and President Clark, thank you guys for working so hard on this. Sometimes, you know, folks forget about they just see you at the meetings, but they don't know about the prep that it takes to get to the meetings. And so appreciate you guys and then the community that's out here today. Number one, thanks for sitting in those hard chairs, going through security, paying your parking and being here and caring enough about our city. No matter what side of the aisle you land on that you care enough about our city to get this done. I feel like being the worst. What is it that the top three worst urban islands, but yet putting this innovative, collaborative solution together? We're going to be I'm going to get phone calls from my colleagues in Seattle and Portland. And I love that, by the way, saying that you got that we did a great job. And so but really, you guys did an incredible job. I want Washington, D.C., to watch what's happening here. This is this is communities coming together over a very tough issue. And I remember when this passed, I mean, folks were going crazy on both sides. I was like, calm down, everybody. And you guys really proved that a city can come together, come together, and we really want the same thing at the end of the day. So really appreciate everybody who worked hard. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I'll go the thanks to the staff and my council colleagues. Brandon Rice, Ruth Heimer, thank you for kicking the door open as we've had a couple of examples recently along with the Democracy for the People initiative of initiatives coming before us that we take a close look at and see problems with and working with the proponents to come up with something better. And so I think the system's working real well. And Brandon, thank you for moving us into farther into the 21st century towards making Denver truly a leader in sustainability. And I've said it before, I am so tired of hearing Boulder, Portland, Seattle talked about when it's matters of environmental importance and your work is going to go a long way in putting us at the top of that discussion. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Guzman. Councilman Lopez, I just want to to join in on the on the on the congratulations and the thanks for the hard work. But the one thing I'm going to I'm going to saying in that here on the floor that I said in committee is it doesn't end here. I think, you know, we will see true climate change. We will see change happen in our environment when folks who are everyday people living all over Denver who are not just installing these things as their jobs, but own the companies and have the skills to be able to do it and own their own businesses to do it . This is there's you know, there is something to be said about the training, something to be said about building that economy and making sure that that we grow those businesses and we. Make sure that those folks are able to have the training, to be able to install them and then even take them one day down to the residential scale. And that isn't necessarily just putting your regular roofing tiles on, but being able to tap into this and maintain this kind of technology. And that only happens when it's affordable. So we have to be able to grow that part of the industry. And, you know, I'd like to see not just folks that look like me installing these roofs, but also owning the businesses that install these roofs. So I think that's you know, there is an economy to be to be to grow here. There's a trade to continue to do training. So I think this is a good step and I'm going to vote yes. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman? Yeah, I think it was surprising. I think my colleagues have stated everything very well for our support tonight. And I just want to thank all of the industry representatives and the professionals and the scientific community for helping provide the information that we're looking forward to do to support this initiative and understand the value and the benefits we're going to receive from it. It's very easy for us to explain to our colleagues when we have scientific data, industry experience and information to support such an initiative and a change for our city. So thank you for all your participation and input and advice and data and the support of our task force. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. New seeing no other comments. I will just end by saying one more round of thank you to Katrina and all the city staff who are here and not here who put in made the number of hours of the task force put in, which was significant, seem small in comparison. Thank you so much for all of that to Councilwoman Sussman for serving on the task force with me and and being a great sounding board as we went through the process. To Cathy and to Brandon, who, you know, for some of those first meetings, I was like, oh, boy. I mean, they're even sitting on opposite sides of the room. It was not just glaring. It was, you know, and there were, you know, people paranoid about who's meeting in secret rooms and what are they deciding and to really sticking with it and then sticking with each other as we got close to the end. And there are turbulent waters over this, that and the other thing and really saying, you know, here might be an opportunity where one side might pick up a little bit or a little bit of that and saying, you know what, no, we went through this process together and we compromise. And I didn't get everything I wanted, but neither did they. And that that's a tenuous balance. But to be able to come here tonight and just, you know, thank you to both of you. Thank you to Brandon. I quote, Councilman Cashman said, As a guy who came into this job with very few credentials that that look like this, but a natural resource degree and training as an environmental educator this is a really exciting night for me to to have this in front of us. And thank you for for doing that for our city. And then to all the task force members who are here, all the ones who spoke, I'm Count and other ones who didn't speak, who could have kept us here for an extra, you know, 30 minutes or so, but are here and have been supportive. It's a lot of time that you are not getting paid for to be in a room wrestling around with people over something. And so I appreciate all of your dedication and and hard work. You know, it's to have this ordinance in front of us that now gets more environmental benefits, will keep keeping people working who have not been able to work in the city for a little while and having eager compliance instead of rapid opposition is really. Amazing. And, you know, Councilman Brooks almost took the words straight out of my mouth, but I had written in my notes that the entire nation should look to this room to see how government can and should work and and take note that it's messy and it's hard work. And it took a lot of time and a lot of hours, but it is totally worth it to be able to sit here tonight with this in front of us. So thank you all for setting a great example for not just as leaders in our city, but for our country. So with that, Madam Secretary, let's vote. And as a reminder, we do need nine votes, not seven, to pass this tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call. I. Brooks Michelle Espinosa, I. Flynn I. Gilmore, I. Cashman I can teach. Lopez I. Knew. Ortega, I. Sussman All right. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce results. 12 hours. 12 I's Council Bill 1134 has passed. On Monday, November 5th. That's right. You can clap for that one. On Monday, November 5th, 2018, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council 1160, designating 6302638 16th Avenue, the A6 apartments as a structure for preservation.

A bill for an ordinance amending the maximum fines that may be assessed by the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment. Amends Article XII of Chapter 2 and Article I of Chapter 24 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to increase the maximum fines that may be assessed by the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment to $5,000 and to allow for administrative citations to be sent via first class mail. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-14-21.

DenverCityCouncil_08022021_21-0770

No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. Council Pro Tem Torres has called out bills 770 for questions under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screen? And Councilmember Torres, you can go ahead with your questions on Council Bill 770, please. Thank you, Madam President. Director McDonald, just a few clarifying questions as this comes through for final reading. I know in our in our second briefing, there were a number of things that came up that I just wanted to make sure we're we're clarified from my community questions that we might have been getting in any others. But the the jump from a $999 fine to $5,000, I wanted to give a little bit of time for explanation on what kind of is what created the the cause or the justification for that jump, because that was something that I think was important information to know. Sure. Well, thank you, Councilman. And before I answer the question, I would just like to say, I hope you're all doing well. We are still not out of the pandemic. So I hope I hope you're all hanging in there. So let me start out by saying that this initiative is not because of the pandemic. We were going to move this effort forward before the pandemic, before we ever had our first case, because what we've been seeing more and more is that our administrative fine authority hadn't been changed in decades. It's been at 999, and because of that, because it's over, the course of time has become outdated. We were seeing more and more where regulated industries were disobeying orders. Now, I want to I want to stress this, that I think that in Denver, I think we do very, very well. All regulated industries, I think, do a very, very well with complying with Denver's public health orders. But from time to time, in all industries, we have those that might disobey public health orders because the $999 cap was not enough incentive for them to comply. And we would see this sometimes during the course of our interactions with them during regulated or inspections, where we might hear that they're not going to do that because the cost of paying the fine is less than the cost of being closed. And that's that we hear that in a number of different regulated industries. So there's that. And then we would also see that sometimes when a responsible party in a regulated industry would comply while we're there, they might. Changed their mind and then not continue to comply after we leave. So, for example, if we were to issue an order for a particular venue, a restaurant, a swimming pool, a barrier facility or what have you. If we were to issue an order to them to close or discontinue using a piece of equipment, or they might comply while we're there thinking that maybe we're not going to come back in the evening or we're not going to come back in the weekend, and they would go ahead and move open back up or move forward using a piece of equipment that they shouldn't have used. And these are serious public health violations. We're not talking about a $5,000 fine for repeat violations. We're talking about some serious public health violations that are imminent public health risks. And I'll give some examples. Just set the context for why we're doing this. But again, I want to stress that the industries that will reference are not those that stand out to me in terms of where we see this the most. But if we were to issue an order for a body artist to continue using an autoclave, that's not working properly. If we left that facility and came back and they were using that, that could result in the transmission of hepatitis or HIV between people that are receiving tattoos. If we were to issue an order for a responsible party to close the swimming pool because there was no chlorine in it, and then we came back and they let kids and everybody get back in the pool. That could result in an outbreak of something called cryptosporidium, which is a pretty, pretty serious parasite from recreational waters when there's no sanitizer in the water, no chemicals. If we were to issue a restaurant in order to close because it was too dirty to operate and that that's rare, but it happens. I think overall the restaurant industry does a very good job. But we do occasionally find that where someone will go ahead and open back up or we condemn some food product during the course of an inspection and they agree to comply to throw it away. But then later on might try to use that that could result in a wide range of foodborne illnesses. So. So we've seen this in a wide range of regulated industries, more and more because that 1999 has been in place for decades, decades. And yet throughout the state, all local public health departments and their specialties, if they find someone who has not complied with a public health order, it is of up to a $5,000 fine. That in Denver it's 999. Not only is it $5,000 outside of the city of Denver, they will charge that person with a criminal violation and take them to court. You know, our goal indeed is to gain compliance with public health orders, not to assess fines and generate revenue. We we we will continue to use this with great discretion. And can you just reassure me of the process by which fines might incrementally increase or what that schedule looks like? Yeah. Thank you. So I don't I don't envision huge changes. Right now we have existing fines, schedules that will go up incrementally. It's just that, again, when we reach the cap, we need a little bit more of a tool that we can use for those that are resistant to compliance. So we did a lot of research throughout the country, and I wish I could say that throughout the country it's $5,000, but that's not the reality. It's quite varied depending upon the jurisdiction, depending upon the type of the public health violation. But we did that research and if we were to take the average of many, many municipalities, the average fine cap for all of them, the average is about 50 $500. But probably more important than what we're seeing is the average across the country is what is it? And the tri county health department, what is it in Jefferson County or up in Larimer County? In El Paso County, it's $5,000 for violating a public health order. So I think that that we've fallen behind with the public health tools that we can use. And that's just been that that's just become more apparent during the pandemic. Thank you so much, Director. I don't have any more questions about. All right. Thank you, Counselor Dan Torres. And thank you, Bob, for answering those questions. Okay. Thank you all. All right. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote by otherwise. This is your last chance to call on an item for a separate vote.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or his designee, to submit an application to the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, for grant funding for the Development of Feasibility Studies under the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program (WaterSMART); and Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $300,000. (Districts 1,2)

LongBeachCC_04212015_15-0345

Motion carries seven zero. Item number 26 Report from Public Works. Recommendation to Adopt Resolution to submit an application to the United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation for grant funding for water smart and increase appropriations in the CPP Fund by 300,000. Districts one and two. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Actually, can I request a staff report. First, please? Vice mayor, council members. This really is a very, very, very exciting opportunity. We're going to be one of the leaders in this effort if we're able to achieve this grant. And I'm going to turn it over to our. Malloy and to talk about how special it is in stormwater management. ORA Vice Mayor and honorable council members. The item before you is for your approval so we can apply for an application for a grant from the United States Department of Interior's Bureau of Reclamation. The purpose of this grant is for us to be able to conduct a feasibility study for construction of a treatment plant which will treat low flow stormwater and and this this type of system. There's only one facility in California which the city of Santa monica has constructed. The project that we have in view will eliminate all the needs for our trials and requirements from our Water Quality Board. And it would be a unique facility to produce reclaimed water so it could be utilized for our parks. We can't even think about expanding that to selling to our partners like the surf and also industrial uses. So this is extremely exciting for us. This is an incredible project for the city and I would say this is cutting edge technology that we're looking for in innovation and also in sustainability. That concludes my report. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. I just wanted to say thank you because this is very cutting edge. And I think learning about it from you was just it blew my mind because to would be, I think, the first in the nation to be able to do this. And it's in Long Beach on the west side of the city and in an area that I'm particularly very excited about as it changes the Drake Chavez expansion, Shumaker Bridge I mean, those are all priorities for our office, I think, for the city. So I want to thank you for your leadership in this, and I look forward to potentially getting the grant and seeing where we go from there. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gonzales. I'd also like to add some comments and thank the M.A. and second hour of the motion. So in light of our prior discussion on water conservation tonight, I'm definitely inspired by the potential of Long Beach must to address our regional water quality requirements while simultaneously providing a reusable water source for our parks on the west side of Long Beach, improving the recreational water quality of our local beaches, and helping to restore or sustain future wetlands projects. So I think this is just another one of the examples, at least certainly of our city making lemonade out of lemons. Considering the fact that we're uniquely located at the mouth of two urban rivers, we often hear us talk about these this this fact of these two rivers converging together. And the summer runoff is something that we're challenged with on not just in storm events, but really during the summer, during dry weather times. We do get runoff there and it's highly concentrated, polluted water. So kudos to our staff for your work on this. We're looking forward to it and we think we'd be a great demonstration city. Thank you. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address the Council on this item? Seeing nonmembers cast your vote. Motion passes seven zero. Item number 27. Report from Public Works. Recommendation to amend agreement with Waste Management to provide residential recycling collection operations at an estimated cost of 350,000 per month on an interim basis, pending completion of a procurement process citywide.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP PR19-122 and award a contract to Parkwood Landscape Maintenance, Inc., of Van Nuys, CA, to provide landscaping services for Queensway Bay, in an annual amount of $657,889, with a 15 percent contingency in the amount of $98,683, for a total annual contract amount not to exceed $756,572, for a period of three years, with two one-year extension options, and a subsequent three-year term with two one-year extension options, at the discretion of the City Manager; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents to amend interim Munis Contract No. 32000595 with Greentech Landscape, Inc., of Whittier, CA, to continue providing grounds and landscape maintenance services for Queensway Bay, to increase the contract amount by $160,947, for a revised total amount not to exceed $260,947, for the current term of the contract to July 30, 2020. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_05122020_20-0414

A report from Parks, Recreation and Marine. Recommendation to award a contract to Park Wood Landscape Maintenance to provide landscaping services for Queensway Bay for a total annual contract amount. Not to exceed 756,572 for a period of three years and amend interim units contract with green tech landscape to increase the contract amount by 160,947. District to. There's emotion motion. Can I get a second? And the second. Just go ahead and do a roll call vote. Actually Customs and Excise. Did you have any comments? No comment. Pearce No comment. Thinks so. Richardson Oh, okay. We'll cover. District one. I district to. I. District three. I district for. I. District five. Hi. District six. I. District seven. I District eight. District nine. All right. Motion carries. Right. Thank you. Motion carries an item. Item 15 Report from Public Works. Recommendation to Award a contract to Harry H. Joe Construction for the North Health Facility Tenant Improvement Project for a total contract amount not to exceed 2,563,666. District nine.

WITHDRAWN Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 21.66; and by repealing Chapter 5.89, all relating to Medical Marijuana; declaring the urgency thereof and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02022016_15-1270

Thank you. And hearing item one. Communication from City Attorney. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and declare ordinance. Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to medical marijuana. Read the first time and lead over for the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading, declaring the urgency thereof and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately citywide. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I have a motion by Councilwoman Price and a second by Councilwoman Gonzales. Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just have a quick question before we move forward tonight. So the way that this is structured, Mr. Mays, I just want to confirm with you the copy process for the delivery operations. They would have a process they'd have to go through. Once council takes up the issue of whether to allow storefronts, they would have to apply for a copy for the storefront. They don't automatically convert. Is that correct? Councilwoman Price Members of the City Council is partially correct. We have a process that relates to coops. If council did authorize the storefront dispensaries, they would be able to apply for a modification to their existing CFP that would permit that activity and the same types of conditions that would typically be imposed for a see a new cup would likely be imposed at that time. So it's it's part of the CPA process, but it definitely will have a public hearing appealable to the city council. Okay. Other protections. Because what I'm thinking about is that when they if for the for the companies that apply for the delivery only model our analysis would it be limited to the operation of a brick and mortar site for delivery? No onsite sales? Or would we be looking at the future, the possible impacts to the community, etc., for on site sales when we're making a decision as to the delivery operation? If I understood your quip, if I understood your question, the Council would have the opportunity if you wanted to go further with a brick and mortar retail outlet to look at everything you would be able to. You could, in theory, require a separate CFP. We would recommend modifying the original one, but usually that's left in the hands of staff to fashion conditions that would be appropriate to a retail outlet. And the ordinance that we did draft for your consideration already has built into it many of the types of things and requirements perform operational standards that you would expect for a bricks and mortar facility if it went in that direction. Okay. So just a I'm just to clarify, though, let's say we're okay with a delivery operation at a particular site, but that site wouldn't necessarily lend itself well to an on site on site sales, whether it's, you know, crime stats in the area, lighting, neighborhood, proximity to a particular problematic site, whatever the case may be, the analysis that we would take for a regular CFP application, it may be that that location is perfect for a delivery only facility, but not for an on site sales. That's correct. The matter would first go to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would have to make a finding that the use at that location, the modification was appropriate. If findings couldn't be made, it would be conceivably denied at the Planning Commission level. The applicant would still be able to appeal that determination to the city council. Or they could find another location. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are we still are we at the start of the hearing here or did we have a staff reporter? No. Okay. So. Okay. So. Okay. Got it. Got it. So. Well, actually, just to make sure. I want to make sure we do. Know. I know this is a hearing. Did we do? There's no oath required in the hearing. Did Mr. Mason, do you want to say anything additional as far as before I go to the second of the motion? Well, I if if the counsel would like me to give a staff report, I certainly could. I will say an abbreviated form of the staff report is we did incorporate into the draft ordinance before you. All of the items that counsel did request on December eight. If you would like me to go through those in detail, I'd be more than happy to do that. But if not, that's fine too. Okay. Sounds like we're just moving forward because you have started the start of the process, so I know you all have that the material. The second part of the motion was Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. Just a quick question. I think I believe I already had this answered, but the 6% business license tax, we can the maximum would be 10%. Is that correct? Right now we've set it at 6%. When the initiative was placed on the ballot and put before the voters, they voted for a range, starting initially at 6%. But we built into that ordinance that was voted for the ability of city council to raise that anywhere between six and 10%. But that's not part of what's on the agenda tonight. But at a future date. Yes, you could do that. Okay. And then I just want to confirm in here in your report, the sink, the sanctioned ratio versus versus unsanctioned. Are we still looking at 1 to 6? Is that. Correct? I remember seeing that in the last report. And I just want to make sure when we're looking at these costs, that if that's what we're facing, this. Off of. The Eriksson. Assistant Finance Director will answer for staff. So, Councilwoman Gonzalez, when we had the varying number of dispensaries, we realized that it's probably more a facet of the demand in the city of Long Beach is more than a ratio of 1 to 6. So if there's only four dispensaries, the ratio might go up. So for this round of analysis, we actually assumed roughly 50 dispensaries total in the city of Long Beach. That would be unsanctioned. Okay. Okay. Great. And I think that's it at this time. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to just keep going down this list. Did you guys go to the public? Did you go to the public? Okay. So I'm going to just keep going, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There's a couple questions and then another thought on this. Mm hmm. So I know that we went through months and months of, you know, task force meetings and a lot of resources spent on this and and an iteration of the ordinance. Now, my my first question is, what is the timeline from adoption of this ordinance to full implementation of open retail facilities? Seven. The full implementation. Councilmember Richardson. So we worked with the Department of Development Services and other departments to look at when we could actually reasonably do the process. And. We would start with the application process in March of 2016 that would be completed, the copy applications would be done in April and the CP process in November of 16. Planned process check would probably be completed of January of 17. And so January 17 would be the estimated date first delivery dispensary would actually open. Six months later we would have the report back to Council on Fiscal Impact and Safety Issues. That would be July of 2017. So if a city council chose to open onsite store fronts, we would end up having a copy modification process that that mine, which the earliest that could probably possibly be completed would probably be October 2017. And so that would be when we would have the first retail dispensary. Then six months after that April 2018, we City Council would look at considering three additional dispensaries. And because at that point, these would be new locations with a full copy process, the earliest those three additional dispensaries would possibly open is looking like to be March of 2019. Okay. So this ordinance, the timeline from today to full implementation puts us at March of 2019. Which we should be in our new civic center, I think, around that time. I think the original intent was to put forth sound public policy and actually take a step in that direction. And that's just not what this is not what's happening today. I think this is really insincere, is a waste of time and resources. My next question is my next question is, will this still have a fiscal impact on the city if we move forward with this? I mean, I know that was a major concern leveled by a number of council members. But I think this proposal, as I understand it, still costs resources that won't be fully recouped. Is that true? Councilmember Richardson. So, yes, we did look at both the the upfront cost, the one time cost and the ramp up cost related to implementing and administering this ordinance as well as the revenues that would be received once the the dispensaries are opening or opened. And the timeline that I had mentioned before and when we looked at that, there was a shortfall between revenues and expense in 16, 17 and 18, which we are recommending. If that was the case, we would be using one time resources to get through that period totaling about 2.4 million. And then once we get to seven dispensaries, we would be at a break even point where ongoing revenues would cover ongoing expenses. In order to do that, we did have to ask departments to to reduce some of their their administration costs. And this is all just rough estimates based on a set of assumptions. So the actual results could vary. So. So that said, here's here's what I'm thinking. This is not smart in terms of fiscal policy. It doesn't achieve any particular public policy goal. I know that. I mean, we've been through this. So there is not consensus on the council to do a more robust policy. So I don't think we should move forward. So I. And I know that. And I'll just want to say this. A lot of work's been done by a lot of council members. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. I know this most recent motion is Council Member Suzy Price. And I would say that and I want to thank everybody for their hard work, but I think enough is enough. So I think we should. There are we know that there are a number of ballot initiatives happening across the state, potential rumors of local ballot initiatives. If we're not going to give it a good run at it, I think we should stop here. So I'm going to offer a substitute motion to receive a 5/2. Okay. There's a substitute motion to receive and file. Just to clarify, Mr. Mays, a receiving file would not move the ordinance forward in a nutshell, correct? That's correct. And the current ban that's in place would remain in place. Okay. Can I ask you a question? I know we have a couple of speakers, but there were some state mandates as far as dates. I just I just want to make sure that we understand what those are and we can get through the other speakers first. But I, I don't know that those have an impact to this discussion or not. A couple of weeks ago, they probably would, but today I don't think that they do. When the original Medical Marijuana Regulatory Act was passed back in October of 2015, there was a provision in one of those three laws that said that if city councils did not adopt a regulatory ordinance dealing specifically with cultivation by March 1st, 2016 , the state law in that regard would automatically be imposed. Since that time, the person who authored that portion of the bill realized that or at least put out a statement that that March 1st deadline was put in there in error. And recently he put forth an urgency measure that now as of today was passed by both of the state and. The Assembly and the Senate to do away with that March 1st criteria, because it had the unintended effect of cities adopting bans because they couldn't get up and running by March 1st. As we speak, I don't believe it has yet been signed by the governor, but the governor has given every indication he will sign that. So the March 1st date should go away. So I feel fairly confident that if the receiving file is passed, the ban would stay in place and the state law regulation in regard to cultivation would not be imposed on the city. That's my best estimate of what would happen. Okay. Councilmember, your anger. Okay. Point of clarification. In terms of if we receive a file, this report here and there you see a ban would be in place. Should there be an initiative on a ballot? In a ballot initiative pass? What is the status of the ban? Councilmember Urania if a obviously would depend on what the ballot initiative was, but if it was a ballot initiative that put forth a regulatory ordinance and it was passed by the people, and assuming the city did not put on like L.A. did a competing ballot initiative, the ban would dissolve. By virtue of that public vote. Okay. Thank you. Well, I have to agree with Councilman Richardson in the sense that there's been a lot of work that's been put into this. When I brought this forward with Councilmember Lowenthal, we were talking about creating the task force, and we created the task force wanted to review this. The task force took much longer than I would have wanted to, but it would it did its job. And I want to thank the members of the task force in coming forward and bringing in the report. I also want to thank all the the patients that came forward, who gave their personal stories in regards to what this would mean for them. And and I want to thank, of course, the city attorney. I mean, I think that the they saw one item going forward and got redirected to create another type of ordinance that was completely different from the one that was originally thought of. I wanted my intent at that time were to step out in front of this, to get to place the city of Long Beach in a position that would be at the forefront of legalizing medical marijuana, to put us at the forefront in in the state, to create an ordinance that would be a role of being a role model for everybody to follow. But that did not happen. So what we have here, I think, is very much watered down. I think it's one that is not enforceable. Obviously, when you are transporting a product from one location to another, there are so many different things that can happen within a one mile stretch. There's also no guarantees about the product that you're going to be ordering and or receiving. So there's there's a lot of there's a lot of questions on this. And there's also questions about in terms of timelines. We're looking at full implementation in two years, which by that time we already have probably have something else in place. And we're also looking at getting a a break even point in terms of revenue in two years. So for the first year and a half, you know, the city will be making quite an expenditure on this, an expenditure that we can't and should not be making. And the original ordinance that we had out there would have put us right in place with that right away. In the meantime, it's it's not something that that I can support. So I'll be supporting the substitute motion to receive on file. Vice President, Joe. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank Councilmember Richardson for putting forward a reasonable solution to what I believe is not a workable policy. I'd like to thank the city staff, actually, because I don't know how many opportunities I'll have to do this, but especially Charlie Parkin and his team, Mike Mays and your staff for the countless hours that you've put into this issue since I originally brought the item forward back in 2009, and then we brought it forward with current council members. So it's been almost seven years we've been trying to figure this out and opinions vary, but we may have had it right at one point. We may not have, but over seven years, constituencies and communities evolve. I do know that we've worn out many colleagues past and present, but I do thank them all for taking this journey with us. Some of them are not here at the dais today and some of you are. So this issue of medical marijuana will continue to shape and evolve and regress and evolve again and again. And that's the beauty of public policy. There is a back and forth and an ebb and flow, but our job is to actually know the pulse of our community. And what saddens me is that we had so many opportunities to do the job, to do a good job. We called on many people to participate in a task force, and then we really just let everyone down with a policy that's not a great one and not one that's workable for the city, not one that's definitely manageable . And what saddens me about that is, after all that time, we have pushed our community to take to the ballot and sometimes that's necessary. But I think having seven years to get it right and having a very thoughtful council behind the dias today would have allowed us the opportunity to come forward with meaningful public policy, having learned from all of the discussion and input over the last seven years. And so I think and I would like to urge my colleagues to consider supporting this. I think receiving and filing is the best thing to do, to take no action, to not have a new ordinance in place, revert back to what we had and really let the ballot process take place, which, for better or for worse, will be the will of the people we had an opportunity to do right, and we did not. And so many of you know that I'm very motivated by public policy and robust conversations, and I do enjoy the stamina that it takes to get things to the finish line. But I'm also very honest about what the outcome is. And I can honestly say, and I don't hide my frustration, but I can honestly say that what we are considering tonight is not the best we could have done. So I would rather have nothing than have a bad something. So, colleagues, I hope you support Councilmember Richardson. Substitute to receive and file. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Pryce. I, I actually. This is music to my ears. I've been asking for us to continue the band forever, like every other city that this has come to has done since AB 266. So the question I have Mr. Mays I have a couple questions. The first is this. There's been some talk of ballot initiatives. Can you explain to us very clearly what are the ballot? And then what does the ballot initiative process look like? One, if the city has a delivery only ordinance in place and then there is an initiative that allows for storefront dispensaries that would supersede the ordinance. Correct? It probably would supersede the ban. Yes, if it was a regulatory ordinance. So in a nutshell, what could happen is the council could put an initiative ordinance on for the public to vote on, just like the council put the medical marijuana tax. If the council did not desire to do that initially, members of the public could start an initiative petition, gather enough signatures to satisfy the city clerk. And there's a percentage of signatures that must be gathered in order to qualify for the ballot. That could go on the ballot. Council. Then, as I mentioned, this happened in L.A. The city of L.A. decided to put a their council, decided to put a competing measure on that could may or may not happen in this case, assuming it qualified for the ballot. I am guessing it's pretty close to too late to qualify for June. Most likely, if it local initiative, it would qualify for November and council could decide at that time whether they wanted to put a competing measure on. And then obviously whichever of the two measures, if there were two got the most votes would pass and then the city would be required to implement that new ordinance. And so whatever the new ordinance is, what what the city has, whether it's a ban or a delivery only model, the new ordinance that would be adopted by way of petition would then supersede it. If the new ordinance or the new initiative was inconsistent with the ban, the new ordinance would take its place and I assume it would be inconsistent with a ban. Right. Okay. And. In regards to the timing of initiatives, can you talk a little bit more about that? I hate to put the clerk on the spot, but the clerk might be in a better position to talk about that. Someone who did that to her last week. Okay. I'll tell you what. We could either we could bring back an off agenda item, if you would like, that could give you the timing about initiatives in general. We could describe what it would take to potentially get it on the June ballot or more likely what it would take to get on the November statewide ballot. That would be great. So if we could do that. Be happy to do that. I just want to make a final. Comment about fiscal impact. I'm really interested and pleasantly surprised that any other council member is mentioning fiscal impact in regards to medical marijuana because this is the first. Other than Councilwoman Mango, she has mentioned it, but this is the first time I've heard some of my colleagues talk about fiscal impact . So let's talk about fiscal impact for a minute there. Since Councilman Richardson refers to my efforts in this process to compromise as a waste of money and resources. So my understanding from the first fiscal impact report that staff wrote was that it was projected that the sales tax revenue from this industry with nine dispensaries would bring into the city $3 million. And the initial costs that were provided by multiple departments were $5 million to enforce the operations, including licensing, police and code enforcement. Then staff was asked to reevaluate the numbers and come back with a different enforcement model so that we could break even in this operation. And staff was able to do that. And what that meant was that rather than having a police based enforcement, we were going to have more of an administrative enforcement, which means for all of the unlicensed facilities that the police department using millions of dollars and hundreds of search warrants to try to shut down that process would go away. And instead, our code enforcement officers would be sending letters and asking people to politely and nicely shut down their operations. And that was going to be our new enforcement model for $3 million in order to break out into a break even situation. So let's not talk about fiscal impact as as a way to highlight the position, because I think it's pretty clear what the fiscal impact of this marijuana statute would be for the city of Long Beach. And by all accounts, any adoption of medical marijuana as an industry in the city of Long Beach is going to have a negative fiscal impact at a time when we need more police officers patrolling our streets and helping us deal with a rise in crime. And that is the reality. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal, them going to go to public comment? That's okay, Mr. Mayor. I don't have to have the last word. Thank you. Okay, let me go ahead and do public comment. So if you have any comments, please come forward. Very good. I go back to what the governor said a year ago this past January. California already has enough potheads. Period. It's from the governor. And he pointed out that's that we are also at or near the bottom of the barrel. In every almost every paradigm of import in the country. Period. Frankly speaking, I don't know. I don't have a friend. I don't know anybody. That smokes marijuana. This marijuana medical marijuana is bogus. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can pick one up. As they say, it is as easy as getting a promise from a politician in election time period. Kids from the high school can tell you how to get it. Period. So you just hold the line? Absolutely no. If somebody wants to move out of the city and maybe develop a policy, if somebody wants it bad enough will pay for their moving out of the city, period. But the council in the third district was absolutely correct. We have enough problems. All right. The country itself, this this state itself is our nature directory. Within the next 30 years, to be this city of Long Beach, notwithstanding that which we get accomplished, which we'll see will be something like you'll find in Guatemala or Honduras, period. A fourth rate city. Below that. And if you don't think that you're clearly out of touch with what's going on, you may be fine. That I can tell you now. Your kids. Kids will be living in something a fourth world country as it is now. So what you need to do is hold the fort. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you. I'm Lynn Figure and founder and CEO of Highway Distribution Group, a legally licensed distributor of medical cannabis and cannabis infused products. I'm here tonight to offer my support for the ordinance, which you have before you and urge you to pass it. I have been a California businessman for over 25 years. I have a background in real estate development in California and in Pennsylvania. I'm also a highly respected music publisher, and I recently sold my company in December of last year. I'm also a producer of concerts nationwide featuring the top touring artists of the last 40 years. For the sake of clarification, distribution as defined by the state of California means the procurement, sale and transport of medical cannabis and medical cannabis products between business entities licensed by the state as distributors. We have been given the responsibility to coordinate all legal cannabis activities in the state of California under our license. We engage in the business of purchasing medical cannabis from a licensed cultivator or medical cannabis products from licensed manufacture for the sale to a licensed dispensary. This is the first positive step in creating a legally accountable business for the sale of medical cannabis in the state of California. My primary objective is to distribute products for patients that is high quality, effectively effective, properly tested, labeled, and most of all has been produced in a facility that complies with the state and local health regulations . I am here tonight to respectfully encourage that you pass the ordinance before you and help us in establishing a reputable and trusted business. In addition, I would also like to respect the request that distributors of medical cannabis be incorporated into your ordinance. Our goal is to work cooperatively with the city. Officials, law enforcement and health officials and the community at large to understand and address the concerns that exist. We want to establish our operations in the city of Long Beach to create new jobs and taxable revenue that will benefit the local community and economy. We also want to earn the trust of the city and the community at large by giving back through programs focused on eradicating homelessness in the city of Long Beach. In closing, I urge you to pass the ordinance and to include a provision that includes the distribution of medical cannabis edibles and other derivative products in the city of Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hello. I'm Mitch Klaus. I'm CEO and founder of Something Chocolate, a music inspired gourmet box chocolate that's cannabis infused. And I'm also here to encourage supportive of today's audience. I'm an entrepreneur started many businesses over the years in a variety of industries including tech magazine publishing, digital music distribution and gourmet food. And I worked with some of the biggest companies in the world in doing so. And I've created hundreds of jobs in the local, local communities in which we've in which we've operated. And I'm quite proud, quite proudly, even taking one of my companies public on Nasdaq in a Nasdaq IPO and became the largest digital independent digital music distributor in the world, controlling 25% of the content you see on iTunes. I began my company as a regular chocolate company. We have distribution at L.A.X. Airport. You'll even see it at Ralph's supermarkets and in places like the W Hotel, Hard Rock Hotel, Renaissance Hotel and others. I started the cannabis company for reasons that were pretty obvious that the industry needed responsibility and reliability. And my primary objective in producing a product for patients is that of high quality that are effective, taste great or properly labeled tested and most of all have been produced in a facility that complies with state and local health regulations by licensed food managers and food handlers. Safety to our customers and quality of our products is our primary concern. So with recent passage of Mersa, the American Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act recently set forth recent rules and regulations for at the state level. But at the local level, it continues to frustrate us. While the passage of Mersa was a good start to doing things, quote unquote, by the book, the reality is the book is still not completely written, and there's plenty of blank pages in it. And that's why I'm here tonight. You have an opportunity here to start filling in those blank pages, to do the responsible thing, to help guide the industry and do something hard for a change. Doing something new is very, very difficult. This is a teachable moment for you and for us. So we can work cooperatively with the city, with city leaders, with law enforcement, with the community at large to make sure we understand your concerns and can alleviate those concerns in a way that's responsible and benefits the community, that creates jobs and that provides products to the community that is that are safe and tested. I believe this kind of reciprocal cooperation will result in the creation of a template that will become the model for which all city governments in the state and, frankly, in the nation that their will and that they will envy and replicate. So I really urge you to pass this ordinance before you include a provision that allows for manufacturing of edibles and other derivative products in the city of Long Beach. Thank you for listening. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Bill Napier. Honorable City Council. I've decided, and I think Long Beach will back me up. We'll take two punch ups. And I also want to thank you very much for approving the Breakwater study. Surfing USA. And we'll take to pot shops. And, uh, so we don't have to go out of city further than were able to go by bus or most certainly can't bike it or walk it. And, uh. Two pork chops, please. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Mayor Council members. It is with great sadness that I had to pin this. But I must tell you of my bitter disappointment with this council and the charade that's been playing out now for seven years. My engagement in legalizing medical marijuana and the other civic affairs in Long Beach at this later stage in my life have has left me with this notion that there really is no adherence to constituents needs and wants by this council. A recent 74% approval by ballot and over 30 to 43000 signatures must mean nothing to this Council except neat soundbites and more lip service to patients for 1/2. Think patients needs, not stoners needs. This is medicine, period. Me I'm just a Woodstock generation kid and an all around believer in the idealism of a possibility of a better tomorrow. I kept my hopes alive throughout six decades. To see my country, who I love and I cherish, become more enlightened as I age. But it is now clear that it's not going to be seen in my lifetime. The cause of marijuana legalization that I took up officially 36 years ago is still being discussed in many circles with that decidedly racist intellectual dishonesty of the 1930s . In some California cities, they are rushing to ban the evil that marijuana may bring to their city. Sadly, we're calling it the ban a palooza. This rush to prohibition does nothing to take marijuana away from the cartels, gangs, teens, and the ever growing black market. Again, with the ban, the city loses all control and the tax money that would be generated. Every business report I read says Long Beach needs more money. Now, I might not mind so much, but I've told you this before. Our surgeon general, our would be surgeon general. Sanjay Gupta has connected the dots. Weed number three, CNN special available on demand. He stated For the world to hear that PTSD symptoms can potentially be mitigated by medical grade marijuana. For heaven's sake. Even the VA has recently acknowledged that this medicine should be allowed for vets in states that permit marijuana medical marijuana. However, we have seen the VA bureaucracy and I can imagine it'll take 3 to 4 more years before that gets implemented. But how many vets will commit suicide while Long Beach waits? Why insist that a vet in need must act in a criminal manner in order to receive the herbal medicine that works for him or her? Mind you, this is at the same time as the VA is now documenting the effectiveness of PTSD, PTSD mitigation. Additionally, it is now documented that marijuana can help vets and others to break the stranglehold of alcohol, cigarets and prescription drugs. Think about the devastating pain pills that lead to heroin. L.A. Times. So still, reports evolve as I speak to you that an average of 22 vets per day kill themselves. My adult sons went before Ray Gavlak and Tonya Urunga initially in August of 2009 to beg for med pot rules, begging for VA rules. And this is where we're at today. Just two more seconds, sir. These patients are your friends and your neighbors. Every occupation, every walk of life is in the medical marijuana community. Please stop conflating legitimate medical marijuana patients and perhaps your own beliefs. Thank you, sir. Only stoner teens will be the winners. Again, I say these editorials. Thank you, sir. We're going to wrap it up. Okay. These editorials came out over and over saying we next time we got to get it right. Thank you, sir. Times did we get it right? Thank you very much, sir. We'll see. Next speaker, please. Good evening. It's an honor to be here. My name is Kyle Turley. I'm a founding member of a group called the Gridiron Cannabis Coalition. I played ten years in the National Football League. One of my partners is Jeff Chase, was one of the original dispensary owners here in Long Beach just last year. A little over a year ago, I moved back to California from Nashville, Tennessee, to take part, particularly as I am from here. So that's another reason. But to take part particular in the medical marijuana program, playing football in the National Football League brought me a number of ailments, brought our community a number of ailments. My brothers have suffered greatly because of their commitment to this dream. If we want to continue to have our children fight for these dreams, to be soldiers, to be football players, and to accomplish these great goals, we need to think about what it is we are giving them to help them along their way. Unfortunately, because of some of these career choices, this leads to long addictions, to prescription medications. Myself personally, 20 year addiction, to prescription medications that went from pain killers to psych meds to anti-inflammatories, and then into psych medications for the last seven years. And dealing with this brain injury that we now are starting to understand, if it was not for cannabis, I would not be standing here today. I would likely be standing next to my friend Junior Sayer, who is not with us, because he was not allowed to understand what cannabis could do for his brain. We heard a lot of things tonight about why this needs to happen in Long Beach, why that needs to happen to Long Beach with climate control. Alzheimer's was a discussion. There is no current medication in western medicine that addresses Alzheimer's disease like cannabis. Cannabis has been shown to reduce and stop the progression of Alzheimer's disease in multiple studies. The fact that in California and I've come back from Tennessee that we're having this conversation, it's quite archaic to me, to be honest. But at the end of the day, I hear a lot of things leading to kicking the can down the road. This no longer needs to exist. There is an initiative on the ballot to move forward, to have something in place and something is better than nothing. I urge the Council to push forward on this ballot, to allow these dispensaries, the new initiative to move forward so that something can be established, much like has been talked wildly about our health care model and that it needs to be improved. But nobody wants to throw it out because it's helping people. Cannabis will save football and it will save many communities, Long Beach included. I appreciate your time. Thank you for your understanding. And your ear. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I'm Jack Smith. I live at 240 Chestnut Avenue in the first district. I was on the Cannabis Task Port Task Force representing the second district, which is where I lived at the time last summer. Now living in the first district. I don't have a marijuana business. I don't intend to have a marijuana business. I thankfully don't need the medicine that cannabis provides. I don't intend to use it recreationally. My goal and intent in all the attention I've been paying to this effort has been to make sure that our neighborhoods were safe and that these businesses were not a nuisance in the neighborhood. That's why I've worked so hard to help create some regulations that I believe accomplish that while accommodating the needs of medical marijuana in Long Beach. One of the things that I think could be modified now. I usually don't talk if I know I'm going to lose. And I've already counted five votes for the ban. I don't call that a lose. That's always an option since day one to continue the ban. So anyway, the point is I usually don't talk that there's no point in talking, but today I'm going to offer a potential change to the proposed ordinance for you to consider. That might streamline it just a little bit. I was glad Councilmember Price asked the question about the process of changing between a delivery and into a storefront. I believe if you treated the SIU process and the vetting process, that is quite complicated and lengthy and expensive in creating storefront sites. Who could only do delivery. That are then reevaluated in the six month time period. And the only change that has to happen is that delivery is permitted. It wouldn't have to be a modification of the cup. It would just be at that point now. Now, I mean, now that you can have a storefront, you can open your doors. It would be the exact same rules and regulations as if it was a retail operation. But they can't open their doors. They can only. Deliver. And when they. Have behaved appropriately, come back. And very simply and quickly be able to open their doors for business, then the idea of eventually being able to have as many marijuana businesses as you specify. Right now you're saying seven. At that point, you might have evaluated something enough to know that a different number is appropriate. So I think that you have an ordinance in front of you now that can be slightly modified to clarify that process, process to make it a little more streamlined. Also, the businesses would not have to be a delivery business and in a totally different process for a retail business. The same business could continue in this city, having demonstrated that they're a good business for our city. I hate to see you punt. It is Super Bowl week, though, so punt, if you will. And I would encourage you to. Pass the ordinance that you. Have with some minor modifications. Thanks. Thank you, Jack. Next speaker for final speaker. When he was somebody left to phone or something up here present for the. Excuse me. I hope you've all read The Beachcomber. I hope you've all been reading The Beachcomber. I know Ms.. Price thinks Mr. Downing is very dangerous and has said so. I believe she's very dangerous as a prohibitionist. I believe we should recall our city attorney. For giving erroneous advice to this council and previous councils. By Mr. Shannon as well. He's followed the same line as with Mr. Shannon and the reason we've had 20 years. Of. No action, really. It's because of the prohibitionists inordinate influence over this council. And our local criminal justice membership. We need to do something about this, but it isn't what you're doing. You need to excuse yourselves from the discussion and. Follow state law only. I believe state law says that the dispensary, the the delivery service must be connected to a dispensary. So to have just delivery services doesn't work. It won't work. Fiscal responsibility. This Council and previous councils and our law enforcement. Agency, the Long Beach Police Department, have spent billions. Billions. To avoid dealing. With this issue. To keep a ban in place. That's the prohibitionist agenda. The prohibitionist agenda is corruption. Clearly it's corruption. Read The Beachcomber if you want to know what's going on in City Hall. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next beaker, please. My name is Nicholas Khemka. I live in the second district. Long Beach has recently developed a program for delivery of medical marijuana, and I applaud the city for that. For many years. There's been a lot of hand-waving by some people behind me, by some people in front of me about safe access. I believe delivery does provide safe access, safe access for patients, safe access for other people who are not users. But in reality, for a lot of people, it's not about safe access, it's about profit. Clearly, some of the people behind me profit from this. And if anybody in front of me profits from it, it conforms to the definition of the elements of malfeasance as defined by appellate courts. My second and last point is that the size of the Long Beach Police Department has decreased from about a thousand officers to 700, and that's 300 officers less to deal with documented cases of murders. Attempted murders, arson, illegal drug use and sales. Assaults, batteries and large numbers of property crimes. And note that this also lowers our property values and it interferes with other people's constitutional rights to live peacefully and safely. Allowing storefront storefront dispensaries to be reestablished. Might also meet some of the definitions of malfeasance. And this, in turn, opens up the city to lawsuits. And that's taxpayer money. I beg the city to adopt a delivery only model. For marijuana, medical marijuana. And that safe access for patients and it's safe for everybody else. Thank you. Thank you. Final speaker, please. Hi, my name's Stephanie Dawson. So I'm a resident district to my. Address is on file. I'm going to be very brief. The Rand Corporation recently came out with a very expansive study that surveyed both medical and recreational patients. I think going forward for both for regulation purposes and for whatever audience comes out of this this process, again, I would be in strict opposition to the current audits that that's being proposed for a myriad of reasons. One of which being, if you look at the particular at this survey that the RAND Corporation recently concluded, the particular section on concentrates and edible production within the city of Long Beach is not going to be serving the interest of patients. One of the things that they came out that one of the interesting things that came out of this because of the survey was a result showing that medical patients, one, spend more money on their own on their weekly amount of marijuana than admitted recreational users, and they are more likely to book to use vaporizers and edibles as a means of consumption, something in the range of 70% for both vaporizing and edibles versus 90% for smoking flower, which is mostly associated with recreational use. This means that without a clear manufacturing license or the ability availability of commercial kitchens under an ordinance, a license activity that under. So, by the way, we're going to be creating a negative environment that will more likely suit recreational users than actual legitimate qualified medical patients. That is the present ordinance as constructed. I urge you, please, to disregard it entirely and to start anew that you have a good day. Thank you. With that, I'm going to go back to the council. There is a motion and a second by Councilmember Richardson to receive and file, which would essentially not move forward with the ordinance. And a second by Vice Mayor Lowenthal, please, Councilwoman Price. Terms. If the city council adopted an ordinance that had buffer zones in place for brick and mortar operations and a subsequent ballot initiative was passed hypothetically with no buffer zones or less buffer zones. What would happen then? In that hypothetical, the buffer zones would disappear the in if if the ordinance that we had on the books was inconsistent with the one that was voted on, then the the voted on measure would take precedence. So regardless of what is in place prior to a ballot initiative. Early speak the. Because it would be inconsistent with the ordinance. Presumably that would be the reason for the ballot initiative, correct? Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Okay. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you. And I appreciate Councilman Councilwoman Price's questions. I don't want there to be a supposition that the ballot measure would have taken place if this council had actually developed a good policy. A lot of the partners that are motivated behind the ballot measure were also working with this council very honestly and very sincerely to develop a policy, come up with the buffer zones, all of which had agreement and general agreement. So none of that. Was in place and therefore folks are going to the ballot measures. So I don't want us to be left with this impression that this ballot measure was going to happen anyway. So it's okay. Whatever policy we had, if we had a good policy, I assure you, no one would have gone to the ballot. Thank you. Councilwoman Gonzalez. A quick question about the ballot information, Mr. Mays, you said you would be drafting some sort of information for us. When would that be likely to come back? Do we have to formally ask you at this time? But I hopefully would be able to prepare that by next week and send it to you on and off. And the item and it would basically just describe what the ballot initiative, the local ballot initiative process was. Okay. So that would. Be by next. Week or so. Thank you. A county councilman Richardson. Just want to be clear, the motion here that I or doesn't and my comments haven't said that I plan on or I haven't heard from the City Council that it plans on placing an item on the agenda. What I said was what I said was I you know, I have heard of initiatives happening both in the state and locally around this issue. To clarify my position. I don't think if if an idea was a good idea, it's okay to bear a fiscal impact if it is, you know, additional hours in the library, if it is expanding summer hours for be safe. Those things all have a fiscal impact. And I'm okay with that because those are good ideas that it sound public policy. What I'm saying here is if that's not if that there's not true consensus, if no one on the council is truly expressing something that's a true compromise motion, then we shouldn't proceed on this process. I'm not saying anything about a ballot measure in the future. If someone puts forth a ballot measure, I honestly believe that if we put forth sound public policy, we probably wouldn't be in a position where we hear from the community about ballot measures. So I just want to be clear. I'm not saying that we should stop this and then start a ballot initiative on behalf of the city council. Okay. So that is that they're going to go and go to a vote, which is Councilmember Richardson's motion to receive and file. How I was just alerted by the clerk that the rebooting the voting system, is that correct? It's still not rebooted. Okay. So I'm going to I'm going to have to take a hand vote. Just to be clear, Mayor, this would be the substitute motion, correct? This is a substitute motion to receive and file. And Mr. Mays, the city clerk, told me that the voting machine is not working. So which would do a hand vote or. A hand vote would be fine. Okay. So what we're going to do then is, is counsel. So if you are in favor of the motion, which is the substitute motion to receive and file. Oh, the voting is a backup. Okay, just kidding. So forget that. Sorry. Is the motion back? Is the motion loaded, Madam Clerk? Okay. Motion is loaded. Councilman Richardson's motion substitute members. Please go and cast your votes on the motion. Motion carries. Motion carries. Thank you. And with that, we're going to go ahead and go to the next item, Madam Clerk.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 21.21.406, relating to the extension of the expiration date for certain subdivision and entitlement approvals and modifying the expiration period for future approvals, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06162020_20-0524

Okay. Item number 13, please. Report from Development Services. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to the extension of the expiration date for certain. Subdivisions and entitlement approvals and modifying the expiration period for future approvals. Read and adopted as read citywide. Okay. I see a motion by Councilman Richardson and a second by Vice Mayor Andrews. Our comment is. We have one comment from Victor Boosie. You have one minute or 3 minutes. Defund the PD because a lot of times lives matter. I yield my time. Thank you. As a conclusion of public comment. Hiroko. District one. I district to. I'm District three. A District Court I District five i. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. Hi. District nine. High emotion carries. Next item, please. I think that was 13. Let's see, item. 19.

Recommendation to declare ordinance making findings and determinations regarding contracting for work usually performed by City employees and authorizing City Manager to enter a contract with Plenary Edgemoor Civic Partners, LLC, for custodial, maintenance and security services, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12152015_15-1313

Okay. Thank you. We're going to transition now. Give me 1/2, please. Just want to give folks a chance to exit. Okay, Madam Kirk, if we can, we have the first hearing. And just as a reminder, we're going to do the other four public comments during the regular public comment period time right after the hearing. So, Madam Clerk, we can read the hearing item. Please report from Economic and Property Development, Development Services, Financial Management, Library Services, Parks, Recreation and Marine and Public Works. Receive the supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and adopt a resolution certifying a supplemental EMR and approving a site plan, review and conditions of approval. With respect to the Civic Center project as described in recommended actions one, two and three declare the ordinance respecting the Transportation Improvement Fee Credit as described in recommended action for as red and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council. Authorize the City Manager to execute a project agreement with Plenary Edge Moore Civic Partners LLC for the Design, Build, Finance, Operation and Maintenance of the Civic Center Project and all other ancillary documents necessary for such project as described in recommended actions five through 13 declare the ordinance respecting Prop L as described in recommended actions 14 red and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council. Authorize the City Manager to execute an MCU with the Port of Long Beach as described in recommended action 17 and approve the expenditure and appropriation requests as described in the recommended action 17. This hearing requires no. Want to do the oath. Please stand. If you're doing the oath after, I think we're going to do the statutory duty to do an oath for this and think we did, but. Yes, it. Is. An oath is required. Okay, so if you're testifying on this issue, please stand. Please stand. Thank you. Only those testifying. And if you're not standing. Okay. Thank you. Perfect. Please raise your right hand. Madam Clerk. You and each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. With that, I'm going to turn this over to our city manager. Mr. West. Mayor, council members. This is an issue. This is a project that we've been visiting for perhaps the last ten years. This council and previous council. First and foremost, we're at this stage tonight because of a serious public safety issue with both the city hall and the library. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the federal government required cities to assess all governmental critical structures. In 2006, our assessment showed major seismic deficiencies. City hall wings would separate, resulting in a policy to secure in place. The library roof was too heavy, resulting in the removal of landscaping and soil. At that time, we were investing only $12.6 million annually in our civic center complex. Today, ten years later, we continue to only invest the bare minimum. The same 12.6 million. Since learning the building had severe seismic issues. Combined with a collapsing economy, we stopped investing in optimal maintenance. A recent engineering study concluded that we should actually be spending $19.5 million and leave annually for the Civic Center Complex. On any given day, we face major issues. We have chiller problems. Plumbing issues. Asbestos in our stairways. Technology issues. Elevators breaking down daily. And security problems with the layout of the building. The Civic Center. Earthquake issues have come back to the city council occasionally throughout the past decade. In 2013, the Council directed us to perform a peer review. The city hired Mr. Nabih Yousef, one of the premier seismic engineers in America. Mr. Yousef concluded the city hall and library buildings were in much worse shape than previously thought. Both City Hall and the library could simply collapse in a large event. So what are our options? We could move, retrofit or build a new civic center. Regarding moving. There wasn't much interest to simply lease part or all of a building in the downtown or elsewhere in the city. In order to do that, we would still have to do a parcel tax. Regarding retrofit, the cost would be approximately $180 million, and that would also require a parcel tax, and it would also require City Hall in the library to move to another venue for a year or more during the remodel. This would end up giving us a building that would survive an earthquake. But after that earthquake, it would be red tagged and probably unusable. That less left us with the option of a new civic center. The council asked us to put on our thinking hats and find a creative way to fix this situation with minimal increases to the budget and no new taxes. Lucky for us. At the same time, the state was doing the redevelopment project across the street for the courthouse. Lucky for us, we had department heads who were very involved in that project. Using what we learned. We proposed to the City Council ap3d film project, public, private partnership, design, build, finance and operate. We felt we could do this project using the annual $12.6 million in the budget with annual CPI increases. Combine that with other existing structural dollars that were spending approximately $3.4 million. The expectation of further one time dollars. And also the value of putting some of our city property into play around the Civic Center area. This would provide us with a new civic center with little or no cost to our residents. First off, I cannot say how impressed I am with the team working on this and the incredible financing plan they have structured. It's simply amazing. I have to give congratulations to Mr. Mike Conway, John GROSS, Amy Bodak, Glenda Williams, Tom Modica, Craig Beck and also Richard Anthony working at our city's attorney's office. So I thank you, city attorney Charles Parkin, for all of Richard's help. We also have to thank the Long Beach Harbor Department that includes the entire board. The executive director, John Slinger up, the managing director of finance and administration, Steve Rubin, also Doug Sereno, Sean Gorman, Jamila Volkman and Erica martin. This is arguably one of the most important projects we as a staff have recommended. This is why we have been reviewing this solution for at least two years. A new Long Beach civic center will change the face of Long Beach for the next half a century. There are only three large cities in California on the water. San Diego, San Francisco. And Long Beach. We are poised to uniquely be taken advantage of our location. Long Beach will be unique in all of California, if not America. With this new civic center, we will have an 11 storey city hall, which will be the seat of government for one of the largest cities in America. Next door will have the 11 story port headquarters building, soon to pass Los Angeles as the largest cargo port in America will have. A world class brand new library will have a world class urban park. We'll have new three streets with open courtyards and gathering areas. And on the private side, there will be opportunity for several tall structures for residential hotel and office uses. Already a 200 unit condo complex has already broken ground, and all of this is basically on the waterfront. Finally, given the importance of this projects, it's critical that we share with you the financial aspects of the deal the risks, the rewards, the significance and how it evolved. Basically, it is pretty complex, but at the same time it is pretty simple. And know that the numbers you're going to see include 75% of the general fund with 25% of enterprise funds. At the end of the day, this is a small percent of our budget and includes input from over 100 meetings with the stakeholders and community . And if you look at what it will cost us to provide this new housing, so to speak, a city hall, a library in a park will be spending less than 3% of our general fund budget. Already the Parks and Recreation Commission have provided their unanimous approval for Lincoln Park. The Planning Commission has provided their unanimous approval for the entire development. The Harbor Department has unanimously approved the RFQ, the RFP and the selection of plenary adds more. And they will be voted on this project on Thursday night. So without further ado, I'm going to turn this over to Amy Bodak. She will lead off the presentation with a secure and designed presentation followed by Mike Conway and Jon GROSS. And I apologize for the length, but this will be about a 48 or 45 minute presentation. So, Amy, take it away. Mr. Manager. Thank you very much, Mayor. Members of the City Council. It is a great honor for me to be here with my fellow colleagues at the department head level. This has been an extraordinary effort and we are very grateful to have participated in it on your behalf. As Mr. West said, I'm going to be leading off the presentation. It's critical for you to understand the entitlements within which you are being requested to consider tonight. Those considerations actually must occur, and if you so choose to move forward, we do need those approvals to occur first before you can move forward in any other actions related to this project. So with that, I am going to start off by just reminding you and for the general public what the guiding principles were related to this project. These guiding principles were included in an RFP that was issued in 2013 that really spoke to what we were trying to achieve with the developed with the development of this project. We were very clearly trying to focus on all the work that had been done over the previous five years related to the adoption of the downtown plan. There were many sessions related to setting forth a vision for what the downtown should and could be, and the guiding principles for the Civic Center project fall in line with those principles of the downtown plan. So everything that we're going to be showing you today is fully compliant with the downtown plan. It does not need any variances or cups. The only approvals that you're being asked to consider from a project perspective, a design perspective, is the supplemental air and the physical design and layout of the project sites. So we also set forth a number of goals in addition to those lofty principles of what what kind of environment we're trying to create in the downtown. And those goals were also focused on fiscal restraint and the ability for us to manage our resources appropriately for the next 40 years. We were extremely concerned about how the facility would operate and be maintained over the course of 40 years. We were very concerned about how we could shift the risk of a significant development like this off of the public sectors shoulders and onto the private sector shoulders. We also had a primary goal which will we will go into in great detail related to affordability. And essentially that means, as you know, living within your means. We expect the city to live within its means as well so that we can continue to provide necessary services that the community expects of us. We agreed with the City Council, who set very strict parameters for us that we did need to be very cognizant of our financial stability so that we could afford what we were going to be asking a developer to design for us. So a little bit of background. We did the city council authorized the staff to release a request for proposals in February of 2013. A year later, we issued a request for excuse me, a request for qualifications in 2013. A year later, in February of 2014, the City Council authorized the issuance of a request for proposals to a shortlist of developers. Those proposals were submitted in June and in December of 2014. Just one year ago, the City Council selected Plenary Edge more civic partners as our negotiating partner. It has been an extraordinary year that we went through when the City Council approved this project last December. I don't think any of us understood the magnitude of the work that would go into getting to today. So I do want to thank the City Council for their support in understanding what staff has gone through for the last year and trying to get you the project where we are today. So again, the requested entitlements that we're asking you to consider is the adoption of a or certification of a supplemental environmental impact report. I'll go into that in detail a little bit further. And then also an approval of the site plan for the Master Civic Center BLOCK, as well as a third and Pacific site that the city owns. So just for the the project components, City Hall is, as Mr. West said, an 11 story building. We are currently housed in a 14 story building. The layout of the building will shift significantly from what you see today. The port headquarters will likewise be an 11 story building. The main library will be in approximately 138,000 square foot brand new facility that will be relocated to the north end of Lincoln Park. And then Lincoln Park will remain in its current location at its current size. I do want to emphasize that we are not reducing the size of Lincoln Park at all, and then the two buildings will be the two port headquarters in City Hall will be separated by a public civic plaza, which was critically important to us in the selection of the ultimate partner. We also are looking at your approval for conceptually some center block development, which could include up to 580 residential units, up to 200 hotel rooms, parking spaces and ancillary retail. And then conceptually, for the third and Pacific site entitlements that would approve up to 200 residential units with ancillary parking related to that. You should know that we have taken seriously a goal that you put in the RFQ and in the RFP, that there be a housing affordability component. And so 10% of any residential units that are constructed on the two private development sites must be affordable to moderate income families. There is a regulatory agreement in the myriad agreements you'll be considering tonight that would be in place for 55 years for apartments and 45 years for ownership units to ensure the affordability of at least 10% of those units for that period of time. We're also looking at three new parking structures, two public street extensions, and then, of course, the demolition of the existing old courthouse next door. The demolition of this building, the demolition of the main library as well. So I want to orient you a little bit. So the Civic Center site is this is Ocean Boulevard right here. This is Broadway Pacific Avenue here, Magnolia Avenue here. This is the federal building here, the new state courthouse here. We are located approximately right there, Broadway, a parking structure for those of you who visited today, that's where you parked this evening. The main aspects of the design of this was to breaking up the super block that was created four decades ago by extending both Cedar Avenue and Chestnut Avenue through the site. We also wanted to focus on the the extension of First Street through the site, both physically through a private street here, and then from a pedestrian mobility standpoint through the park and then through the Civic Plaza. The view on First Street terminates at the sit at the Civic Center with the the new City Council podium and the new City Council chambers. So there is a very distinct view corridor that terminates right here, essentially at the seat of government for the city. So. I'm going to see if we can make the laser brighter. I'll just describe it verbally. I meaning Mike Conway. So this slide demonstrates the mobility and access that will be created throughout the site. We have been speaking to Long Beach Transit about new bus lines and bus routes that are going to be surrounding the site to enhance mobility for the city. We're also talking about new bicycle boulevards and bicycle parking facilities as well. So Mr. Conway is walking around. He has shaky hands. This is Mike Conway, director of Economic and Property Development. This is other duties as assigned. So Mike is pointing to Mike, if you could point out, the first street corridor. I'm not sure this is going to. Work for me. I shall do my best. Council and members of the public make it. Okay. Come on down. Come on down, Mr. Conway. So this this site, this slide demonstrates for you how the blocks are broken up and how the civic uses are grouped together. On the left hand side of the slide along Magnolia, the existing police station and fire station number one across the street is the civic use, which is the courthouse parking structure and then the Anderson Federal Building. So you can see that city hall and the port headquarters are labeled on there. And it really does consolidate those civic uses into one portion of the site. The library, however, is much more oriented to the residential and the commercial users of the downtown and is in a much more open and engaging position. We've oriented it towards the north of the site in order to focus its its front door essentially on on two things. One is the residential neighborhood to the north and then the other one is to Lincoln Park. In the middle is the private development in yellow, which would be a link to the residential and commercial development on the south side of Ocean Boulevard, and then the residential and commercial development that is on the north side of Broadway. To the top of this slide, here's the proposed site plan of the three blocks that comprise the Civic Center Super BLOCK. You can see that the main library is to the north of Lincoln Park, to the northern edge of Lincoln Park. It sits on top of the existing Lincoln Garage, which will remain in place and will be seismically strengthened to support the weight of main library. Lincoln Park will be reoriented to be much more open to Pacific and Ocean Boulevard. It is still the the 4.9 acres that it is today. Cedar Avenue is directly to the left of Lincoln Park. And then you get to the middle, the mixed use commercial residential complex of the center block. Moving to the left of the screen again is city hall and the port headquarters. And you can see within city hall there is a projection that points to the bottom of the screen, and that is where the civic center, the civic chambers are for the city. I want to spend a couple of minutes orienting you to City Hall and the port building. Both of the buildings are oriented very specifically and sited where they are to reflect their essentially their constituency. They also, as buildings talk to each other and they are very much related in their design and the intent of the lobby building that is labeled lobby that is actually the port headquarters. They have views located, oriented out across Ocean Boulevard. They are responding primarily to their constituency, which, of course, is the harbor and the port complex. They they respond, however, to city hall, which is located where the the words lobby and public counter and council chambers are. City Hall and the port building are both 11 story buildings. City Hall is slightly larger in that it does contain the council chambers as well. It will contain all of the administrative functions that are currently in City Hall now, as well as some relocated functions. It will include the public counters as well as the permit center on the fourth floor, which would be relocated to a different floor in this building. City council chambers are going to be much more accessible. They will be oriented along the Civic Plaza so that there is a better relationship between the public gathering space outside and the function of governmental decision making inside the council chambers. Here is a view of both of the buildings from Magnolia and Ocean Boulevard. The building on the front, which has some blue and red on it, is the port building. Both buildings are similar, but they are not identical. The port building is actually designed to be reflective of the colors. An array of cargo containers that define the business of trade and commerce. And then the civic building is a little bit more staid and reflective of of a timeless nature of democracy. This you can see that we have tried to open up the corner of Magnolia and Ocean Boulevard to encourage folks to find the entrance of City Hall. We understand that that is difficult at times, and we'd like to rectify that by making it very clear where the entrances to both of those buildings are. This is the same view. But at night you can see that that we have a lighting component to both buildings that would add some impact to the skyline at night for both of the buildings. I also want to point out that the buildings are oriented respectively. The port building has a canopy roof structure that orients it to the south and then the city hall has a roof structure that orients it to the north to reflect its views to the greater city beyond. Again. Here's the Ocean Boulevard entrance right at the corner of Magnolia and Ocean. We hope that this is very clear where the entrance to City Hall is, where the port building will be. We will be developing a signage package in greater detail, but this should give an indication of those of those pathways. So moving on to parking and access, the the pink square at the lower left hand corner is going to be a subterranean parking structure that will be for city hall and port employees. There's access points for deliveries off of Chestnut Avenue and then access points for employees off of Magnolia Avenue, as well as exit points on Magnolia . The Broadway parking structure will remain the same. It's going to stay in its location. The entry and exit sequence will remain the same as well. Lincoln Garage will be in its same location and generally in the same configuration as it is now. But its access will change and will be taken via Chestnut Avenue through an underground tunnel. Lincoln Garage and the garage under the Civic Plaza will be employee only parking. Public parking will remain at the Broadway garage. I also want to point out on this slide, you can see in yellow at the far upper right hand corner of the commercial third and Pacific block, that is the first piece of the private development that we expect to be developed in as part of the entitlement request tonight. So now moving on to the center block, the big, bold red arrow that crosses the screen indicates the first Street View corridor and the private street between two commercial buildings . The commercial buildings, as I said earlier, contain approximately 580 residential units and up to 200 hotel rooms, as well as subterranean parking to serve those functions. The gray square above that is the Broadway parking structure where the visitors parked tonight. The yellow is essentially where we are sitting today. That cannot be developed until city hall is demolished. City hall cannot be demolished until we're relocated. Here is a view of what the potential private development could look like on the center block that the developer is proposing a potential high rise. We will clearly have to wait to see what the market will bear when when that site is ready for development. But you can see the corner where all the trees are. That is the opening of Lincoln Park, right on the hard corner of Pacific and Ocean Boulevard. This map shows you the park connectivity with Lincoln Park, the buildings surrounding it, and how we expect pedestrian cyclist visitors to access both the library and Lincoln Park. As I said earlier, Lincoln Park remains in its same configuration. We just essentially upgrade it and add more usable open space. The library has moved from the south to the north and then we have a number of programable uses that will be included in Lincoln Park, including a another dog park, a children's play area, a new restrooms and new restrooms to the south of that. And. A little bit right there. And then to event lawns. We also have an event terrace towards the south that can accommodate special events and special event users. This is an example of the different configurations that can occur in Lincoln Park. We do expect this to be a lively addition to the downtown that will capture the growing residential demand for events in urban parks. We can have small gatherings of, you know, moms and dads and their kids, folks walking their dogs and taking them to the dog park. At the same time, we can potentially hold a symphony with up to 11,000 folks enjoying an outdoor concert. So the design of this park is highly adaptable and flexible and should reflect the growing needs of the city as additional development occurs in the downtown. Moving on to the library. The library has been oriented, as I said, both to the north and to the south. The South access provides great views into and from the park to the library. The library has a exterior that is meant to be very welcoming to constituents, first time users, as well as long time users. It's also oriented along Broadway, as I said earlier, to focus on the residential neighborhoods that are to the north. This is a view from Pacific and Broadway, looking at the corner of the library, anchoring the link, the northern portion of Lincoln Park. This is also a view from the park itself looking north towards the library. We are hopeful that users of the park will also become users of the library and vice versa. Part of the project included a significant aspect where we wanted to encourage connectivity through the site and to the site, and that is being done through both a history walk and a cultural loop. The city and the port, as you know, have a number of archival resources that could and should be made available to the public. That does include some of the artifacts that are currently located on Lincoln in Lincoln Park on Current Centennial Plaza as well. These include the Marlin sculpture, the Centennial Clocktower, and, of course, the statue of Mr. Lincoln. The Parks and Rec Commission, as well as the Planning Commission, also recommended the relocation of a historic civil war cannon back to a site within Lincoln Park joining Mr. Lincoln. And that will be accommodated as well in the park in the park design. Focused very much, of course, on night lighting and how you move through the site at night. We want this park to be highly utilized and very safe. We want the location to encourage downtown residents and visitors to use it. So we are looking at a number of lighting schemes as well throughout this whole process. Here is an aerial view looking south towards the water of what the potential build out could be. You can see the park acting as an urban landscape opportunity for the downtown to gather around, and that is our goal. So moving on, we were required to do a supplemental environmental impact report. The downtown plan did a programmatic air that attempted to assess all the potential impacts of future development. We were not sure if the Civic Center would be able to fit under those. So we had to do a square review. And the purpose to seek was to disclose potential environmental impacts of development projects to the decision makers so that they understand those impacts as they move forward. It's also to consider potential feasible alternatives to the development project. Part of the Square review is is I should say not part of secure is really prescribed by state law. And so this flowchart shows you the sequence of steps that were taken and where we are today, which is asking that you consider making a decision on this project. As I said, the supplemental E.R. addressed a number of potential development impacts. But because it can't foresee all developments, we did focus this specific air on the on the Civic Center project itself. We are required to look at a different number of class of impacts, class one, class two and class three impacts under SEQUA. The definition of those impacts are on the slide before you. We looked at Class one impacts, which are significant and unavoidable, and these are those three impacts, air quality. We live in a non attainment area in Southern California, so every single development project has an impact on air quality. That is that is an expected impact. So there may be operational emissions issues and then exposure of new residents to air contaminants as we go through the construction process. Cultural resources. We do need to point out that both the old courthouse and the City Hall and library are considered potentially historic resources under sequa. And we are suggesting as part of this process that you make a statement of overriding considerations to allow the demolition of those assets from a cultural standpoint, and then noise and vibration. We do expect that there will be some temporary construction related noise and vibration that will occur over the term of construction. Class two impacts are significant impacts, but they are made to mitigate a, which means that at the end of the day they are resolved in one way or another. Under Sequa, these include esthetics, air quality, noise and vibration, and then miscellaneous issues. In this case, there were some concerns about the potential for an increase in vermin with the demolition of both the courthouse and civic center. So we did take that into consideration and do have mitigation measures for all of these issues that will address them so that they are no longer considered significant under sequa. There are also some minor impacts that will occur, but they do not raise up to the level of any kind of significance. We do have some mitigation measures in place for these, but because they are considered less than significant, we actually can move forward with this project even with these potential impacts. Lastly, we are required to look at alternatives. One of the required alternatives under SEQUA is the do nothing alternative, and there are many reasons that we're not supporting that alternative today. We did look at the ultimate build out of the downtown plan. We also looked at adaptive reuse of the buildings, and we also looked at a potentially smaller project. Given the goals and objectives for the project and the need to house administrative functions, the reduced intensity alternative and the adaptive reuse alternative were not viable alternatives. They did not meet the business needs of the city. So we are proposing what we're proposing is what we consider the project. And we have prepared for you a statement of overriding considerations to. Deal with the potentially significant impacts that will remain. There was a number of opportunities for public comment just on the environmental document. Mike And we'll talk about the myriad community input opportunities that existed for the remaining part of the project. But we are here today at the city council hearing. Towards the end of the road on Sequa. So with that, I am going to turn it over to Mike and Mike is going to walk through affordability and I'm pretty sure he's not going to need a pointer, so I am not going to be stepping on the dais. Thank you, Amy. So continuing our presentation, John GROSS and I will walk while actually will run through some of some of the staff's efforts since December 9th when City Council selected the project team. A lot has happened in one short year. Staff have completed or substantially completed the transaction term sheet, the basis of design conveyance documents and the project agreement with considerable Council support and leadership from the Mayor and Senator Laura. Senate Bill 562 was passed and signed by the Governor, providing clear legal authority for the city to pursue the procurement structure. We have started the abatement of the old courthouse and relocation of the storm drain at third and Pacific. And we have received an updated fixed price proposal and the project has been reviewed and approved by the Parks and Rec Commission and the Planning Commission and the State Lands Commission has also been briefed on the project. So during this same time frame plenary Edge, Morlot launched an extensive community outreach program, resulting in over 100 meetings with stakeholders and community groups throughout the city in both English and Spanish. Separately, there is a secure scoping meeting, a study session with both the Parks and Rec Commission and the Planning Commission and Workshop Workshop sessions on both the new main library and Lincoln Park. I'd like to spend a few minutes on the aspect of affordability first. It's important to recall that the responses to the RFP and the estimated project cost were submitted last June of 2014. 18 months have passed and some costs have increased. However, staff have spent some considerable time seeking ways to manage these cost increases. To add a little bit more detail to the sources of these cost increases. They include labor and material cost escalations since June of 2014. These actually work out to be about $600,000 a month for the city and $600,000 a month for the port. So delays can be extremely expensive for this project. Also, there is discoveries during due diligence that revealed the requirement for a specialist abatement in the Lincoln Park garage. There's been some community generated design changes, including a consolidated and streamlined permit center, articulated building design and exterior lighting. Relocation costs between the city and the port in order to isolate tidelands funds from any other fund. And those are related to both construction and operations and maintenance. And lastly, there are some financial market fluctuations relative to interest rates, but staff has identified a number of alternatives that can be offered that can offset some of the cost increases. And these include one time funding for capital cost operation and maintenance efficiencies and reductions, value engineering refinements, optimized equity levels and returns. Optimize fixed and indexed elements of the service. Fee reduction of developer and design builder fees. An on site point of sale for construction materials and long term property sales and transient occupancy tax offsets. So as a result, this is an important slide. This summarizes the cost increases and the cost decreases to the service payment, the revise service payment and with the long term tax revenue offset the net long term project cost of the city. This slide is all in 20 $13, which is a little somewhat hypothetical, but are used in order to compare the service payment to the 2013 cost to Occupy a civic center, which was identified a number of years ago as $12.6 million. And as Mr. West has indicated, this $12.6 million hasn't really moved since 2005. After applying offsetting cost decreases to the increases, the net increase in service payment is about 1.8 million, 1.88 million, which is about 15% higher than 18 months ago . This results in a service fee of $14.48 million staff and these are in 20 $13 as well. Staff is also recommending that a city controlled design contingency of 14.5 million be included in project costs, which would increase the service payment. An additional 4.5 I'm sorry, 4.5 million. Thank you. Which would increase the service cost payment, an additional $230,000. This would revise the service payment to 14.71 million or 17% higher than 18 months ago. If the design contingency is not used during the design phase, it will be used to apply to the first full year of service payment . And lastly, the private development is expected to generate property taxes, sales taxes and transit occupancy taxes, which would have a long term offset to city costs, offsetting that revenue against a service payment result in a long term annual cost to the city of 13.77 million in 20 $13, or 9% higher than 18 months ago. Separate from the project could be related to the civic center or costs that will continue regardless of the project goes forward. These other ongoing annual costs total $3.27 million. Council may recall that in their November 11th, 2014 study session of Hilton Park that staff identified up to 3.4 million other ongoing annual costs. And these costs still remain one significant source of these ongoing costs as the cost of off site leases that were not integrated into the civic center. Primarily, these leases are Workforce Development and Housing Authority. These leases were determined to be more expensive to housing in the expanded City Hall, created too large of a parking demand and better serve the community at offsite locations. And for these reasons, these offsite leases are proposed to remain offsite. Allocated costs are those departmental overhead costs that are applied to their occupancy of the civic center, and they will continue into the new civic center as well. To provide context to the $14.71 million service payment. Is it appropriate to analyze the cost of continuing occupancy of the existing City Hall and main library and the budget that is needed to ensure that these buildings are well maintained? The 2013 Parsons Assessment Report identified 234 million and needed capital investment over the next 35 years to ensure a like new physical condition of the civic center. This equates to $6.7 million a year on average for 35 years. Even with this significant investment, City Hall would continue to be functionally obsolete and energy inefficient. Additionally, employees and visitors would continue to be at risk in a significant seismic event. The budget for Civic Center has remained constant at $12.6 million since 2005. This budget does not reflect the funds necessary to maintain the buildings or reinvest in building systems. As a result, the buildings continue to deteriorate. If $6.7 million per year were added to the budget, as recommended in the Parsons report, the budget for Civic Center in 20 $13 would be 19.3 million instead of 12.6 or 12.6. So since 2013, the city has been pursuing a public private partnership to design, build, finance, operate and maintain a new civic center. The critical elements of this P3 debuff from procurement model is related to long term operations and maintenance. It is this long term operation and maintenance contract and hand back provision that buildings will be in a good or better condition that achieve the highest value for the city. The service payment covers all maintenance operations and lifecycle investment for the 40 year term, guaranteeing buildings that remain in good condition. If any element of this 40 year operations and maintenance contract is removed or changed, the guarantee at hand back will also change, severely reducing the value to the city. In that regard, certain services that are now provided by city employees will be provided by the project company. And as a result of Proposition L analysis was conducted which revealed that the necessary operations and maintenance services can be provided by the project company at a cost of less than what would be provided by city staff if provided at the same level. The city manager has long stated that employees identified in the Proposition L study will not be reduced in hours, duties or compensation, and city staff have and will continue to meet and confer on this issue. Now I'd like to get into a little detail on the project agreement. This is only a 700 page document. I'm sure you've all read this by the time of this meeting. The project agreement is the contract that sets forth the obligations of the parties during the construction and through the 40 year operations and maintenance period. It allocates risk, establishes the service payment and defines terms, identifies events of default, outlines, releases and indemnities, termination rights and termination payments. Risk allocation. It's one of the fundamental benefits of a free procurement model. The intent is to shift risk to the party most capable of managing the risk while the private partner is best capable of managing construction, cost and schedule and ongoing facilities maintenance. Some risks are best managed by the city, including secret clearance authorizing legislative legislation and construction inspection. There are other areas where risk is shared and staff is recommending that the city accept certain elements of risk. Some of these areas include regulated site conditions, differing site conditions, latent structural defects, possessor of interest tax and force majeure events. The risks associated with these elements include project schedule, delay charges, cost to address discovered risks and costs to modify the project. The recommended city contingency can be used to address costs associated with these risks as well. And from the project company perspective, these risks would be covered by contingencies which become project costs and which increase the cost of the project. In some instances, it is more prudent to accept the risk and the possible one time costs than it would be to fund a significant contingency over a 40 year term. The first element of risk for the city consider is regulated site conditions. Which I will. There's regulated conditions. Jeepers. Yeah, I think I got it. And so regulated site conditions regard involved the old courthouse site and these are unknown site conditions that when discovered, require oversight by a regulatory agency. This would include things like underground storage tanks or Native American artifacts. Since the old courthouse site is owned by the city, has been fully developed with the existing courthouse since 1958 and has been fully investigated by the project. Company staff recommends that the city accept the cost of this risk rather than finance a significant contingency over the 40 year term. The next element of risk for the city consider is differing site conditions. These are conditions that differ from the from those identified on site investigations conducted by the project company and as it relates to the old courthouse site. The concern relates to the soils underneath the old courthouse building. Because the project company was unable to collect soil samples under the building. The project company cannot eliminate the risk that the soils under the building might significantly differ from the soil surrounding the building. Geotechnical engineers have opined that this risk is low. Nonetheless, the project company would need to carry a significant contingency to protect themselves from this risk. Staff have negotiated that the first $1 million in additional costs due to differing site conditions are borne by the project company. The second million dollars in costs would be borne equally by the city and the port. If there are costs above that amount, the city and port shall determine an appropriate allocation or terminate the project agreement and pay a termination fee. Staff again believes that accepting this low risk is better than financing a significant contingency over the 40 year term. Similarly, the soils beneath beneath Linkin Park were also inaccessible and the project company was unable to thoroughly investigate. And as a result, project company seeks a similar risk sharing protocol as established for the old courthouse site. Rather than establishing an additional contingency, staff recommends that the $1 million project company contingency for the old courthouse site cover both the old courthouse site and the Linkin Park Garage as differing site conditions related to the old courthouse site will have been resolved before the start of work at the Linkin Park Garage. There will be an established contingency amount to apply to this risk if the cost of differing site conditions at the Linkin Park Garage exceed the remaining project company contingency. The city will bear any additional cost or may choose to terminate the project agreement and pay a termination fee. Staff again believes that this allocation of risk and cost is better than financing another significant contingency over the 40 year term. Another element of risk is latent structural defects. These are defects in design, workmanship or materials of an existing structure that are not readily discoverable, even with appropriate investigation. The project company's testing of the structure of Lincoln Park Garage reveals that the structure was built according to permitted plans and it is unlikely that there are latent structural defects . However, the project company could not test every area that may need to be structurally modified in order to support the new main library. The project company believes the city should bear any costs related to latent structural defects because the city owns Lincoln Park Garage built the Lincoln Park Garage and evidence indicates the minimal risk relative to latent structural defects. Staff again recommend city accept this risk. Rather than financing a significant contingency over the 40 year term. However, similar to differing site conditions. If there are any remaining project company contingency from regulated site conditions and differing set conditions, these funds shall first be used to address the costs related to latent structural defects possessing interest tax . There is a risk that it may be applied to the project. Possessor interest occurs when there is a private and beneficial use of a publicly owned nontaxable property. There is a risk that the county assessor's office may determine that there is a project company interest in the Civic Center over the 40 year term and apply a process or interest because our agreement with the project company over the 40 year term is simply a contractual provision for services. There appears to be no possessive interest. Additionally, outside councilors opined that there is a low risk of the application of possessing interest. So staff recommends again that the city accept this risk rather than finance a contingency over the 40 year term. Project agreement with all its appendices, which which was provided on a disc to City Council, was also uploaded to L.B. Civic Center AECOM. There are many more terms and conditions in the project agreement, but I intend to cover a few notable elements. The first is financing. Project Company shall be responsible for financing the project and intends to issue taxable bonds. Additionally, staff is recommending the inclusion of a city controlled contingency of $4.5 million for design related changes during construction and a risk related costs, which we discussed a little earlier. Also, the city, the port and the project company will contract with an independent building expert who shall ensure that the Civic Center is constructed consistent with approved design and construction documents and delivered at substantial completion with only punch list items outstanding. The project agreement also requires that the project company of the design builder and all subcontractors execute a project labor agreement and related to the civic project but not related to the private development project. Also related to hotel or hospitality uses on the private development sites, the project, company and successors and assigns shall execute a labor peace agreement with a local Long Beach union that represents hotel and hospitality employees. The primary reason for pursuing the Civic Center project is to reduce the city's exposure to liability from a significant seismic event and the related possibilities of injuries or death and the possible suspension of government services. So to address these concerns, Civic Center buildings are being designed to a performance specification that exceeds current building code standards and is equivalent to the gold standard of the resilience based Earthquake Design Initiative. Already, after a significant seismic event, which is approximately a 7.2 to 7.5 seismic event on the Richter scale, the buildings are designed to achieve the following few, if any, injuries. 50% confidence level of re occupancy within two weeks. 50% confidence level of full functionality within one month. 90% confidence level of full functionality within three months. And less than 5% financial loss when compared to the replacement value of the facility. This design specification is the leading edge of resilience based infrastructure and should ensure that city government can continue after an earthquake to provide US residents with assistance in rebuilding the city and for comparison purposes. A code compliant building has a 50% confidence level of full functionality in six months, with a potential financial loss of over 25% compared to the replacement value of the facility. Leadership in energy and environmental design. The project is required to achieve LEED Gold, but it is being designed to achieve LEED Platinum. The project agreement sets forth a number of steps that the project company is required to take in order to assure that the project achieves a minimum LEED Gold for new construction. The project company is fully experienced in achieving LEED certification for its new construction. Nonetheless, they are concerned that there may be issues beyond the project company's control that prevents it from securing a lead certification. In that regard, the project company does not want to be in default of the project agreement, so the city and the port have agreed to establish liquidated damages if the project company takes all reasonable steps to achieve LEED certification but is somehow prevented from receiving the lead certification. The liquidated damages amount are $1 million for City Hall and port headquarters. Separately, $1 million apiece and $500,000 for the new main library. As part of the achievement of LEED Gold Project includes a solar photovoltaic renewable energy system on the roofs of City Hall, new main library and port headquarters. It is expected that this PV system should generate up to 25% of the energy demand for the Civic Center, and this system will be jointly owned and maintained with the port. Operations and maintenance component of the project agreement is an important part of the determination of best value to the city. The cost of maintaining the structures over the 40 year term are built into the city service payment, whose annual cost is far below what would be needed to be invested in the current City Hall and main library. Additionally, the facility's management contractor, Johnson Controls INC or JCI, will be required to perform within established key performance indicators. They will implement a responsive service work order system and they shall be subject to penalties if qualified building systems are not available for use. The facilities management model is a fully integrated and cohesive model requiring all operations and maintenance elements to work in concert in order to be fully operational. As mentioned, the project company shall contract with JCI to provide all operations and maintenance in the new civic center, except for a movable furniture, fixtures and equipment and audiovisual equipment in the shared chambers. JCI will also be responsible for all capital investment during the 40 year term. The Capital Investment Program is designed to achieve a facility candidate condition index of 0.15 at the end of the term. This essentially reflects a building that is 84 of 85% of new condition. However, again, to reduce an ongoing finance contingency, JCI shall guarantee at the time of hand back in FCI of not more than 0.2, all which reflects a building condition of being 80% of replacement value or a good condition as reference. In 2013, the City Hall was at an FCI of 56%. The main library was at a FCI of 73%, indicating that both buildings should be replaced. JC. I shall implement a work service order system that requires them to respond to and complete work order requests within prescribed timelines according to the level of severity or pay a penalty as set forth in the project agreement. The response times ranged from 10 minutes to 24 hours, and completion times ranged from 2 hours to five business days again, depending upon the severity of the issue. The work order system is a highly functional, fully integrated and fully computerized system intended to ensure that facilities are well maintained, that the city's concerns are rapidly addressed, and that JCI complies with the performance indicators. Of particular interest is functional status of the city's elevators. The new city hall will include four passenger elevators and one service elevator. Studies on peak use have indicated that this number of elevators should adequately service the building. However, if elevators fail to function, wait times will significantly increase. And as a result, a separate penalty regime has been established for elevator failures. The penalties are intended to be a significant incentive to ensure that all elevators are working during business hours, with repairs and maintenance occurring during non-working hours. This type of penalty system for the elevators is a new platform in the industry and does not exist in a typical elevator maintenance contract. The project company is obligated to facilitate the relocation of city staff and port staff when their respective facilities are ready for occupancy. Certain liquidated damages apply if the project company fails to take prescribed steps that are intended to provide a smooth relocation process. Project Agreement provides for three general events of default. These are product company events of default, city events of default, which also include a termination for convenience and no fault events of default. Each event, a default if not cured, result in a termination payment by the city. In the event of a termination to a project company event of default, the project company would lose all of its equity and the lender would lose 24 20% of its outstanding debt. For a city event of default, the city would pay the project company the design builder's breakage cost, which is set forth in the design builder's contract and paid the expected rate of return of the project company's equity over the remaining period of the 40 year term, discounted at an annual rate for a no fault termination, such as a force majeure event. The city would pay the project company the design builder's breakage cost again and the project company would receive back its original equity amount, but it would not include the expected returns over the 40 year term. If this project agreement is not executed under the terms of the exclusive negotiation agreement, the project company would be paid $4 million. The city and port have been working closely and cooperatively on this project since 2013. One of the fundamental synergies achieved through joint development is shared space and shared facilities. These include shared chambers, shared meeting room, shared central utility plant and shared space in the port's parking facility and the city's Broadway garage. These shared uses the costs for construction of the cost for ongoing maintenance and capital replacement need to be carefully set forth in a memorandum of understanding that clearly inappropriately allocates these costs between Tidelands and any other funds. The project has long included the concept that the project company would be the recipient of any land access to the civic needs on which private development would occur. There are two private development sites. The first is third and Pacific at the southwest corner of third and Pacific. The site contains about 0.9 acres and is proposed to be entitled for up to 200 residential units, of which 10% will be restricted to moderate income tenants or buyers. The second type site is known as the Center BLOCK site, which is the property south of Broadway Garage between the prolongation of Cedar and Chestnut Avenues, essentially where City Hall sits today. The site is approximately three acres and is proposed to be entitled for up to 580 residential units, of which 10% will be restricted to moderate income tenants or buyers. The Center BLOCK is also proposed to be entitled for up to 32,000 square feet of retail space, 8000 square feet of restaurant space and 200 hotel rooms. Both properties will be conveyed to the project company without ongoing liability to the city relative to the condition of the property. The project company is also required to execute a labor peace agreement with a local union representing the hotel hospitality industry. So should the City Council elect to proceed with the proposed project. The project schedule should generally follow this slide with construction to begin in July 2016, after completion of demolition of the old courthouse building and occupancy of City Hall and main library and the port headquarters is scheduled to occur in mid 2019 with completion of Lincoln Park scheduled to occur in late 2020. It is further anticipated that this project will create temporary, permanent, indirect and induced jobs totaling 4764 for the Civic Project and 3268 for the Private Development Project. Over 8000 jobs will be generated as a result of this project. And so with that, I've concluded my report and I will laterals over to Mr. GROSS for discussion on financial structure and fiscal impact. Thank you, Mr. Conway. I'm going to I'll talk about the financial structure and fiscal impact and try to provide an overall picture how some of this stuff will be. Some of the materials will be covering what Mr. Conway has talked about, but I'll put it in an overall financial picture. I'll briefly cover the financial structure, the sources and uses of funds for the project, the annual service fee and other annual costs that the city will have budget impacts and then risks and uncertainties. This slide talks about the overall financial structure, essentially, as Mr. Conway talked about. We're talking about a public private partnership here, where the private company will design, build, finance and operate and maintain the civic center. That will be evidence through a contract called a project agreement, which Mr. Conway has talked about. We will be required to sell land to the port, sell land for private development, and the land sales will spur economic development and also provide funding for the project. In addition, the project agreement requires that the city will make upfront cash payments called service, and they help reduce the service fee and then make an annual service fee in return. As Mr. Conway said, we will get a civic center and PSP, the private company will operate and maintain it for 40 years. Thank you. This slide talks about the project agreement, construction costs of almost $300 million. Most of the construction costs are directly for design and construction, but we'll also be paying off the remaining outstanding bonds on this building. And then we have transaction and financing costs and pre occupancy costs. The construction costs are being funded primarily by PSP, the private entity, either through borrowing or for or from equity. The city will be putting in some cash through some funds available surplus, some borrowing, and then we'll be contributing land for the project again, matching the amount being put in. That's why these numbers are in red, just to say they are matching the expenses. Thank you. The sources of the $10 million in Citi cash and borrowing are varied. One of the more interesting ones is that the project builder is actually paying permit fees, and we're going to turn around and use those permit fees to help pay down the project. Costs will be also be borrowing proceeds from a ten year bond issue and we'll also be drawing on funds available, meaning surplus from various city funds that can support this building total of $10.78 million. Let's talk a little bit about the bond proceeds. The bond proceeds that we're proposing for the civic center totaled to $8 million. On this slide, we only see 2.39 2.39 million of that 8 million is going to be used to help fund construction. The balance of 5.61 will be used to pay down some one time costs. The debt service for the Civic Center portion of this bond issue, which is another item on the agenda tonight, is not included in the annual costs for the Civic Center. That debt service is about $965,000 a year, but for only ten years, not 40 years. And it's being paid. That debt service will be paid from RDA related tax revenue associated with state action earlier this year to reimburse the city for loans made by the city to the RDA. The there is about $30 million that the project is going to receive from land sales. About 8 million is it is from land the city will sell to the port at fair market value. We're also selling the land at third and Pacific and we're selling the center block site, what's called the center block site, which is where we are right now for private development. These land sales are a key factor in reducing the overall costs, and they're also going to be a key factor in economic development for the city. They will reduce costs because they'll bring in tax revenue. We also have some one time costs not associated directly with the project agreement, but which the city will pay for directly. Those are some transition costs as we move from the Old City Hall to the new facilities and the new library. There's some technology and AV equipment costs that we'll be buying because the technology changes very rapidly. Some adviser costs and project oversight during construction. Where are we getting the money for those nine project agreement costs? 9.71 million. We are drawing down the remaining funds from the Civic Center funds available. That's the the fund that pays for the ongoing operation of maintenance of this building. And we have some money left that would have otherwise been used for maintenance. But we're going to be using it to propose and use it for the new civic center. We're going to be getting sales and use tax during the construction of this building from the construction materials on this building. So we're going to turn around and use that about $1 million to help pay for this building. And then, as I mentioned earlier, 5.61 million of the $8 million in bond funding will be used to pay for those costs. I've covered now all of the costs of the building. Now I'm going to talk about the annual costs that we're going to incur. The project agreement, as I mentioned earlier, requires that we pay an annual service fee. While there are no actual service fee payments until FY 20 fiscal year 2013 has shown that several years ago, because it is the base year for the Civic Center budget which Mr. Conway talked about and I'll be I'll sing a few slides from now. Our FY16 is shown on this slide because that is the base year under the project agreement for all project costs. So the hypothetical service fee in FY13 would be $14.71 million. If new tax revenue from the development were available, that would be reduced to 13.77 million. And that's what's shown on the slides. Skipping to FII 22. When we are in the building, the service fee would be 18.1 million and the service fee, if tax revenue were available , would be reduced to 16.93. And keep in mind that during that time the budget also increases. But we also have on this next slide some other annual costs, again, that Mr. Conway talked about, totaling about $3.27 million. Next slide. Now I'm going to talk about the budget, which is you've heard about $12.6 million. That is the number. But there were some technical adjustments that were made that from a budget viewpoint effectively reflects 12.44 million. So you're going to see 12.44 million in these slides. The equivalent numbers from FY 20 through 22 are shown 13.92 in FY 20, when first full year in the building going up to 14.71 million. In FY 22. What's important to note about these numbers is they represent an absolute no maintenance investment in this building, and that's not necessarily possible. It's not necessarily likely, but it is the budget that we talked about an effort by 13. And so it's being provided here for comparison purposes. This slide then puts together the service fee that we've talked about starting at 14.71 million an F y 13 compares it to the anticipated budget and gives you the variance between the service fee and the all funds budget. So for example, in FY 13 hypothetical year, you have a service fee of 14.71, a hypothetical budget of 12.44, which is the adjusted 12.6 with a $2.27 million variance skipping TFI 22. Those numbers would be $18 million for the service fee, subtracting 14.71 is the anticipated budget. That again is a no maintenance budget and you have a $3.38 million variance. And again, this is against a total maintenance budget. The next slide takes those numbers. The for example, the in the blue, the first column, the $2.27 million and F 13 adds to it the $3.27 million in other annual costs and gets an all funds anticipated budget impact in FY 13 of $5.53 million or 4.09 million for the General Fund. And for most of the rest of this presentation, I'm going to emphasize the General Fund, because that's the fund where citizens get services, and that's the fund that really impacts most of us. In Fy22, those numbers would be about $5.37 million general fund impact. But again, it would be reduced to about 4.2 million when we get development revenue on an ongoing basis. This slide, while it shows you the total budgetary impact, doesn't really represent what's going to be happening in the annual budget process. It probably overstates what the impact is, and I'm going to discuss that in this next slide on required annual funding. The budget impact presentation ends with this slide. And required R&D funding is the amount we need to add to the budget in any year to fund the new civic center above that required to for the current City Hall and Library. F y 19 is the first year we're going to be in the City Hall. It is a partial year. The budget impact on the general fund is $1.29 million using all the numbers that I've talked about. In FY 20, the first full year in the library, we expect to have another additional impact of $3.93 million. After that, there will be almost no impact on on the budgets other than the normal impact that even the Old City Hall would have with no maintenance. So the impacts are in FY 19 and FY 20. We have to we will have to come up with 1.29 million in Fy19 and then 3.93 million in FY 20. And after that, we don't expect any significant budget impact. Those. Those amounts will be funded and incorporated into the normal budget projections and process and will be built into the normal budget decisions. So that's the end of the section on budget impact. And I have two brief slides on risks and uncertainties, most of which Mr. Conway has talked about. And I'll just kind of briefly summarize them. The Lincoln Park Construction and the Old City Hall demolition are predicated on the sale of land. There is no guarantee for the sale of the land, but because the price of the land is currently higher than what we need, we do not anticipate a problem. There are also material penalties to ECP for not proceeding. We don't think that's a significant risk. The center block development timing and what it will consist of are uncertain. Interest rates could increase between now and financial close anticipated in late January. There could be some costs with regard to that. The costs you've seen tonight are our best estimates of costs, but actual costs for the other costs and for one time costs may change. The service fee that we've talked about is, however, fixed and certain once interest rates are set. And we have contingency funding. It's possible that we'll need more contingency funding than what is set aside. It's possible we'll have some left over. We just don't know for sure. The city is responsible for any major improvements to the existing garages on this last slide. We have the Broadway garage and the Lincoln Park Underground garage. They're over 30 years old. We will have maintenance costs for that that are not included in these numbers, long term maintenance costs. We would have those costs regardless of whether the civic center, new civic center is built or not. We are responsible for costs associated with earthquake damage for the new civic center. But this is a well-designed, earthquake, resilient structure. We are, we may be responsible for unusual losses and costs, and Mr. Conway has talked about that. We do have a termination payment of $4 million if the project does not proceed. And once we do reach financial close, it's probably not practical to think of of termination after that point. We are committed to moving forward with the project. And with that, I'm happy to turn the microphone over to City Manager West. Thank you, Amy, Mike and John and everybody, thank you for your patience. This is our last slide. I just want to summarize that staff strongly recommends proceeding with this project. We've negotiate an agreement that achieves the lowest cost for this P3 project. The costs are manageable. They're appropriate and fiscally prudent, especially when compared to the alternative. Hypothetically, if there were continued occupancy in the current city hall, the cost exceeds that provided in the P3 model. This project will result in a new city hall, a new port headquarters, a new library, a new park, residential, retail and hotel development, and an activated corridor with a private with private partners motivated to develop and manage those investments. With over 8000 jobs, while every deal has associated risks and potential risks have been weighed, waited and disclosed, and the benefits outweigh the costs. So, again, I just want to remind everyone, we're not here to get a pretty civic center or a city hall. We're here because we have to be here. We have no alternative. We're in a very dangerous building. And not only for the public, but the employees and anyone else who visits this facility or visits Lincoln Park or the foyer below the Civic Center could be at risk at a large earthquake event. Again, I thought we met the council's directions for the past two years and provided this project without any new taxes. I can't imagine. I don't know of any civic center project being built in California without new taxes. And so I congratulate the team for coming up with this fiscal scenario. And finally, before concluding this report, I have to emphasize this project could not have reached fruition without the tireless effort, passion and leadership from Vice Mayor Suja Lowenthal. Ever since the first 26 seismic report, she has been championing the effort dealing with this issue over the past ten years. Vice Mayor Lowenthal has hosted downtown visioning workshops too numerous to count and has spearheaded the downtown plan, which has cleared the way for this development. So thank you, Vice Mayor, for your leadership and getting us to this point tonight. This concludes the staff report. And again, thank you for your patience. Thank you. I'm going to make a couple of comments. And I know that we're going to have council, we're going to public comment. We're going to have council questions and comments. This is a big project. And so there's going to be and there should be discussion and questions about the project and input from the public. All that's very important when you have a project of this size and of this of this scope and of this importance. A couple a couple of comments I wanted to make, just generally, I think I don't want just to get lost in all this because there's a lot of report that we just heard. But at the end of the day, at least for me, it has been and will always be first and foremost. This is a project about ensuring the safety of the thousands of people that walk in and out of this building every single day. These are not just employees, but these are people that come in for services, to pay a phone, to pay a utility bill, to visit the clerk's office and so forth. And I think anyone that's taken a look at the studies, the earthquake studies, will come away with a clear understanding that we are in a situation that is unsafe and certainly long term not sustainable. And so that brings us to where we are today. I want to thank obviously everyone that's been involved in in this process, this as well. While this council has been looking at this for a year since our last vote, there's been a lot of other conversation that's happened even before this last year long process. And I want to just start by thanking Mayor Bob Foster, who began this process when he was mayor. It was a project that he spearheaded when he was mayor, as well as former council members that were also involved in getting us to this point. I just wanted to make sure that we mentioned mentioned them. It's really important that they that we recognize their hard work as well. I wanted to to say that I know that we we spent a lot of time. When you think about the Civic Center project, there's a lot of components to it. But I wanted to just reframe what the part of it that I'm the most excited about. And quite frankly, that's the library. And I don't think we talk enough about the library, but while I personally the city hall component I think is the least exciting part of this project, but the fact that we're going to get what I think is going to be the best library in the region is is quite special. This is going to be a library of the future that still respects the most important central part of a library, which is research and books and and to be able to build a structure. The library alone, I believe, Mr. Conaway, is a $70 million project. I think just the library. And so what we're building here is an an all new central center of education, not just for for downtown Long Beach, but really to be a beacon of learning for the entire city. And I want to because they haven't been thanked. And you want to thank all the librarians and the Library Services Department, friends of the Long Beach Library and the Library Foundation, who have been behind the scenes, incredibly involved in the development of the library component of this project. And so thank you. I know some of that you are here, but I want to make sure that we pointed that out. I think we like to immediately turn our eyes to the city hall structure, but I think the libraries is the most exciting part. Of course, in conjunction with the Great Park we're going to have and and everything else that is part of this this structure. I want to thank staff for coming up with a incredibly unique financing structure. You know, P3 is, by the way, is are are something that a lot of people are looking at right now and has have been done successfully, as we all know, most successfully just here across the street at the courthouse. And so the proposal that we have is to finance this essentially in the same model that we financed the courthouse building, and it's in this unique public private partnership in a way where we are paying barely, barely more than what we are paying today to operate the current structure that we are already in. And this would not be possible if it wasn't for this new creative opportunity where we're bringing in the power of the private sector to help finance this public project. And this just would not be possible without the private sector. There is no way that we could go to Long Beach. Voters and residents and ask them to go put out a, you know, multi-hundred million dollar bond to finance this project. There is no way we could afford to build this type of project and a new library and a new port headquarters and all the other the other components that are coming with this, with the structure. And so for all those that have been involved in the P3 process, particularly the experts at the courthouse that have served as both advisors and supporters of this project, I just want to thank you for for for bringing us to this point and to be able to do this project in the way that we're doing it. And just just to conclude, I think that this is a this is a big project. There is no question this is this is a project that is also, in my opinion, transformational and will. Reinforce, I think, the excitement that's happening across the city when it comes to building and thinking big, when it comes to development, the energy and the thousands and thousands of units that are currently being built in and around this project. Just across the street on ocean, I can count four different residential conversions that are happening from old commercial space that are developing or being built from the ground up, all beginning in 2016 because of the excitement around this project. Not to mention other projects that are happening on Pine and other places. And so I think people are are using this project as an anchor for future development and growth. So I just want to thank the staff. This has not been an easy process. There's a lot of information and I'm sure there'll be a lot of questions. But to Mr. Conway, our city attorney team, everyone over at Mr. West on down, I just thank you for bringing us to this point. And with that, I'm going to turn this over to the council who I know has comments and questions. I'm going to start this off with Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I wanted to thank the staff for, I think, what was promised to be a 40 minute presentation. I don't even with Mr. Conway's auctioneer speed, speed talk, I think we had over an hour. So I want to thank the public for their patience as well. And we knew at several points you were still paying attention because you caught us on our slips as we were speeding through the presentation. But thank you to the staff, everyone that spoke today except for Mr. GROSS. But that's only because he chose to come to us much later to our city. But everyone has been a part of this process since day one, if not the entire ten years, a great majority of it. And there are those of you in the audience and and many staff members. But I will call out Mr. Craig Beck, who is also there as one of the guiding forces in the beginning when we started considering what our options were for our new civic center. So I'm truly appreciative of all the work that's taken place to this point in time. And Mr. City Manager, you're very generous and thoughtful with your comments. I realize when you speak and you talk about our decade of working at this together, that we have all aged quite a bit too. I had more here and others of you in the audience whom I won't name also had more hair. So. But it's well worth it. It is well worth it. I don't know that there is anything greater that we as a council, whether we were all constituted in this group from the beginning or not. But I don't know that there's anything greater that we can participate in than this effort to to give back civic center to our communities and our residents and our visitors. I want to thank. Plenary edge more time for their efforts to meet with the stakeholders around this project. I know as the staff was making its presentation, they went over the numerous meetings that were conducted well over 100 and counting, and that's significant. That is a significant public outreach effort. And the city staff and my Conway, Ms.. Amy Bodak in particular for the incredible amount of hours that have been poured into review of this project. When staff takes on a project, they are very good about managing our expectations. I don't know that we thought that we would work on this for ten years, but we had a Great Recession in the middle of it, and that's okay. Good things come to those that wait, and this has been a lesson in that effort. So when we consider all of this, all of the work that's gone into it, the community members for taking their time to really dream with us. This is not just a an imagination or an idea by the city council or the public servants in in this building. But really, it is community members coming, taking their time to just dream with us about what this civic center can be for the next century, if not more. And many of you heard me talk about the purpose of civic centers in the past and the great potential that they have. They have a great potential to achieve the human scale, purpose and goals that the center of democracy should have. We have not been that human scale or anywhere close to that proportion in a very long time. And it's not just our civic center or city hall, but many city halls throughout the nation have faced that struggle at one time. We know that civic institutions and the spaces around them where some of the most vital places in our cities and our property here, our civic center, has not been that in a very long time. Cities that engage in civic center redesigns and reintroductions to their communities. There's always a universal theme that's clear about them. They are cities that seek to turn their collection of somewhat foreboding, monolithic public buildings into lively centers. And I think that's what this city council and the members that were here before and the staff have tried to do in this decade is to really take this collection of foreboding , monolithic buildings. And make them into lively centers for a community. I've mentioned in the past that city halls, courthouses, police, fire headquarters, libraries and other civic institutions are the foundations of a civil society and the cornerstones of democracy together. At their very best, they have the potential to define a city and its communities identity. And that's what we do through pride, through opportunities for meaningful community engagement, meaningful interaction between residents, through the coming together in what can be a public living room. And so what we saw today in the nearly 100 slides is all of that coming to bear. And they also provide opportunities for a very diverse community to come together and to foster understanding. And so I want to congratulate our staff for the work that you've done, the stamina that it takes to see a project like this . To this point, we've come a long way in 12 months. I think we were here nearly exactly 12 months ago, and this is a quite a huge step forward, a big leap forward. And what we're poised here to do today, dear colleagues, is we are poised to approve buildings and public space that have the potential to once again anchor our communities to once again center the downtown. And what we don't know is that the investment that we make today, what the multiplier factor will be, we can imagine there are economists in the room, most likely, but I'm sure that those studies will be done very quickly. But I know, I know. And we have seen throughout not just our nation but really throughout the world, that when the public sector invests in a city and in the community, good money follows after that. So we're taking a leap forward really only to see what the boundless investment will be from the private sector. And so for all those reasons, I'm so grateful that our staff and Flannery Edge Moore held firm to the guiding principles that this council had laid out, that this council had adopted with the members that are no longer on the council as well. But this council together reaffirmed and re adopted, and I want to thank you for sticking to those. It has been a lengthy, lengthy process from its infancy nearly ten years ago. But I appreciate the evolution of our discussion. And frankly, as I've said before, we're all the better and in a better place because of it. Because we did wait. We had to wait. But I know that we're better off for it. A redeveloped civic center is a better investment for our taxpayers. Are mayor expressed his own comments to that effect. This is a better investment for us than our current civic center in terms of liability, ongoing infrastructure maintenance needs, economic development, water and energy savings, and reduction of offsite leases for city departments. In fact, the cost to bring this city hall and main library to current building code standards is greater than the cost to build new facilities that are environmentally superior, structurally, structurally resilient and functionally efficient. That's hard to imagine for most of us. It's still hard for me to imagine, even though I'm somewhat in that line of work, is how that that could be possible. But it is possible. And we've heard a great, somewhat lengthy presentation from our staff explaining why it costs us more to stay in this building. The most important for this council. It will be seismically safe. And I know that's important for our council because we feel a great responsibility to our city staff and their safety. And so the fact that it will be seismically safe for our employees, our staff members, our residents who work, the employees who work here or have business in City Hall, the residents that come here on a daily basis, we need to deliver a seismically safe building. The liability associated with the risk of our current city hall alone is immeasurable. We heard some of that from our team today, thanks to our downtown plan, and I'd like to be sure to acknowledge the debate. I know Mr. Craig cojones here with his staff. They were very instrumental in helping us with our downtown plan, the downtown visioning team that came together, the 12 members of this community that came together nearly ten years ago to lay out what a vision for the downtown will be. What we see today is their good work and their hope and their aspirations for our civic center come to bear. And so I want to thank everyone that was involved in bringing the downtown plan forward, the outward oriented layout, and the mixed use development that will reconnect the civic center with our residents, businesses and visitors in a way that's currently infeasible. That is thanks to the downtown plan that many of you participated in bringing forward. It will offer great access, greater access to decision makers and improve the economic viability of downtown. With the addition of employees from the Port of Long Beach Building located alongside City Hall. And there hasn't been that much focus about the efficiency of how public servants can work when we are all fairly close to one another. And so today, the way we work is not as efficient as possible. And I think with our new civic center and really recentering a lot of the functions that are at offsite leases will contribute to that efficiency. The city, the port and the project team have developed a project that transforms the downtown and will inject about $800 million in our local economy. It'll generate over 8000 jobs, as we've heard permanent, temporary, indirect and induced jobs. I like it when we can induce jobs. I think that's something all of us can get behind. And what's important for residents to keep in mind is that we are already paying about $12.6 million annually to maintain this seismically unstable building. And like many of you, I took note of the 17% increase in cost over the original estimate. But I think what we've heard tonight is, is something that is defensible and something that is reasonable, though I'm not surprised, given the news about asbestos above the parking lot, increases in labor. And I think Mr. Conway mentioned how much it costs us for every month that goes by the increase in material costs and project improvements. Another way to look at it is for $1.8 million more per year. We get a new civic center, a new main library and a new Lincoln Park. And perhaps we'll have our statue of Mr. Lincoln in a place where most of our visitors and residents can see it. I think right now it's a little bit of a struggle, and I believe it's a sound investment, and that's less than 3% of the general fund budget to eliminate our risk of liability and provide the city and the downtown with a vibrant, inviting and functioning civic center. We always refer to this current building as City Hall, and I appreciate that our staff has gotten accustomed to referring to this new project as a civic center because it does belong to the public and it is the center of democracy for the public. And so for us to refer to it as the center of government and its and our civic center for our community is something that I'm very proud of. So with that, Mr. City Manager, I have a couple of questions. I know you've gone through you and your staff have gone through a lot of this, but with the speed and everything, I've noted a couple of things. So if you'll bear with me, I'd like to just clarify a couple of things before I make a motion. And the first question is, in regard to security at City Hall and the library, I'd like to ask you if it's feasible to utilize our current city security officers to augment services provided by the project company and whether that's something we're able to amend tonight, if it's possible, under the project agreement. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yes, that's possible. Through the meet and confer process with our labor organization that I am. We've been discussing security at City Hall and the concept of utilizing our current security officers in addition to our agreement with JCI. We feel very comfortable in retaining our current six officers, providing security at City Hall and a library to augment the base amount of security GCI will provide by reducing portions of JCI security scope and using our own City Hall security officers. The service fee payable under the project agreement will be reduced, but additional employee costs will be incurred. This will result in approximately $430,000 net increase in cost that would not be paid until occupancy in fiscal year 2020. Being the first full year, the council can make that change tonight if they wish, and we will adjust the project agreement accordingly. Specifically, we will adjust the proposal ordinance as well, which will show a net savings of $122,000 for the remaining services. So again, the answer is yes. Okay. I appreciate that. And I think and I want to thank you for that, Mr. West. I think that's a prudent course of action. Want one additional question that I have, and I think I heard it in the presentation. But just to reiterate, by moving forward with the change in security and with. With building maintenance conducted by JCI. Will And this is something that several of our council members have brought up before. But will any current City Hall employees lose their job? Vice Mayor and City Council We've committed to you as a city council. We we were. On record committing to that. We've committed that to our labor organization, the IAM. We've reiterated here in our presentation that no employee will lose their job or be reduced in hours, duties or compensation. So that's correct. Okay. I appreciate that. And I and I know it's redundant and we ask you time and time again, but this is a long project and I think you'll have to remind us also from time to time. So with that Clark clarification, I'd like to. Mr. Mayor, if it's appropriate, I'd like to move ahead with a motion. And my motion councilmembers is to adopt and approve items one through 17 as recommended by staff. Subject to the following. One that no agreements related to the project shall be executed prior to the effective date of Senate Bill 562. And that's the bill by Senator Lara, which is January one, 2016. Two that no agreements related to the project shall be executed if the city manager determines there has been a material change in circumstance related to the project which might adversely affect the city, in which event the city manager is directed to promptly return to this Council for further direction. And lastly, items five and. 14 and any other items are as necessary or amended so that city employees are primarily, but not exclusively responsible for providing security to the project and the city. Costs and savings included in the proposal ordinance are amended accordingly. And that's my emotion. Okay. Thank you. I think there's a second, which is Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Okay. Is everyone ready for my 45 minute presentation? Just kidding. I'm kidding. I'm just very excited to be here. As the vice mayor mentioned, I think all of us are very delighted to be at this stage of the project. And so I want to also thank our city staff as well for their very hard work, our city commissioners, our port staff and commissioners as well for working with us. Vice Mayor Lowenthal, of course, for her leadership throughout this whole process, our friends and business as well as the building trades and of course plenary edge more. But I also have to give a lot of gratitude to our community. I know many of them have also been in discussion about this so many, so many times. And to be able to be a part of a process that's really incredibly positive, including great partnerships, ideas for innovation, creativity and collaboration to collectively move this city forward . We're certainly doing a large part in that tonight and tonight. Together, we are making one of the most important decisions I know for myself as a council member, being in office now for about a year and a half, this is certainly one of the most important decisions I will have to make. But I'm personally proud of our city and how we've been able to slow this process down, make this project extremely inclusive, and incorporate ideas from each of our unique communities. It certainly was a mindful project as well, engaging discussions about park space, about homeless individuals who are here and how to handle how to best handle those situations . And from new developments sprouting up along downtown corridors that had long been vacant. I know the deal is here as well. I have to also extend my gratitude to them because I know they've been working very hard, but with vacancy rates that had gone up, you know, to be able to now have new new businesses coming in is really great and wonderful. And now we can revisit, of course, our branding and marketing as a city as well. And I think it's just an extremely important and powerful project that we are able to now vote on. I too have a few questions. I know the vice mayor was great in asking a lot of the questions related to costs, and I know that has been a question on many of our minds. I know it's it's kind of scarier on paper to see that. But when reading the information and when being presented with this, it's it's less scary. And so I just want to ask, as far as the general fund, how much will we be impacted? Percentage wise. This project will be less than 3% of the general fund. Okay. Less than 3%. And we are currently paying now how much to currently exist in our building. I'm sorry. We're paying. How much for what? To be here in our. In our. In our building currently. The current operational costs are. And operational cost is 12.6, including the leases. And then that's compared to the 13. Million. Correct that we would be. Compared to the 13.77. Yes, 13.17. Okay. So when I look at those, I certainly don't see a stark contrast. It's nothing. I think the return on investment that we're getting when it when we look at property values that will be coming about rising. As I mentioned, property values, new economic vitality, new tourism, and of course, a brand new, beautiful looking civic center. A few other questions I have, though, as well is we will have I know it's been discussed before. We will have gender neutral bathrooms. Yes, ma'am. We will. We will actually have a gender neutral bathroom accessible off of the lobby. Okay, great. And there's over 8000 jobs being created. Wonderful. Okay, well, those are all the questions that I have at this time. Again, I just want to reiterate how very impactful this is for many of us and thank city staff once again for all of their hard work in this whole process. And, Councilman, I want to just one thing. I think actually is the most important part of the discussion that you asked about. Mr. GROSS. You mentioned the current cost being 12 point. Would you say 12.4? I think it was right. Or six. It's 12.6 to the current cost, which is 12.6, which are paying right now, and the new costs, which is 13.7. I want to make sure that the one part that I don't want to get lost in what you presented earlier is what we're paying right now, 12.6 And we've been paying the 12.6 since 2005 six And so the actual cost that we should be paying every year is closer to 18, 19 million a year. That because we're not doing deferred maintenance, we're not investing in the building, the actual cost that we should be that we should be paying is dramatically higher than what we will be paying. And to me, that is the key piece of this of the conversation. I just wanted to highlight that. And with that, I'm sorry, Councilman, do you have any more additional questions? Okay. Thank you. Councilwoman Pryce, please. Thank you. I want to thank our city team for the presentation. And I do have a few questions moving forward. First of all, as a start, there's no doubt that this is going to be an excellent development. It's going to provide over 8000 jobs. It's going to be built with skilled labor, which will serve us well in the future in terms of the sustainability of the structure as we move into the future decades and the future generations. It's a well thought out project in terms of the design components, the the way that the different structures interact with one another and the opportunities for the public to engage in this space. And to also, of course, I share the mayor's excitement about the library and the opportunities to enhance our library system in the city by providing the solid, great foundation at the heart of the city. So no doubt all of that is is very positive. I do have a couple of questions that are really fiscal in nature. So perhaps they would be directed to John GROSS, although I defer to the city manager on the best staff member to help address them. The $940,000 in expected revenues that we have projected in in the financials. When do we expect that 940,000 to come to fruition? Is it when the development is completely. It's completely occupied including the center block structures that prior to that. The the. We will start receiving some property tax revenue actually as soon as the center block is sold, there will start. The third and Pacific is sold. And then when the center block is sold, we anticipate the third and Pacific to sell shortly so that it won't be $940,000, but there will start to be property tax revenue . The bulk of the revenue will increase as development occurs and the assessor assesses the project as a private development as it moves forward. Obviously that'll be after the city hall is demolished, but the 940,000 represents a steady state after development occurs and sales and property tax are coming in. And that that timing is as soon as development can occur after we demolish city hall. And maybe one more question. Third and Pacific will develop way before that. In terms of that that $940,000 figure, how did we arrive at that figure? Is that is that figure conservative in nature? Is it a best case scenario figure? What's our risk in making an assumption that 940,000 and expected revenues is going to be in our calculations? We are not sure exactly what the development is going to be. We did hire a development expert to review a low, most likely and high estimate, and the high estimate is more than double the $940,000. So we thought using the 940 as the most likely was a very reasonable methodology to use. Okay. We have talked a little bit about the cost to the city of maintaining the leases throughout the city for various departments. Can you please explain what the status of all those leases will be with the new Civic Center, perhaps, Mr. Conway. Councilmember Price. We brought in three or four leases. A couple of leases have also terminated over this period of time. I did mention in the presentation the two primary leases that remain offsite and the reasons why we want that. We recommend that they remain offsite. One, it's lease less expensive to lease space than it would be to build additional space in city hall to accommodate them. Plus, their parking demands would exceed the parking availability in our Broadway and Lincoln Park garage. And lastly, we believe the services that they provide are better provided in the community where their target population is located. So about 1.2 million or so in offsite leases that weren't brought in to the Civic Center. And are part of. John Gross's 3.27 in additional ongoing. Costs. Okay. So when we talk about a 15% increase in the annual payment, we're we're calculating in the leases that we're going to be maintaining offsite. That's correct. Okay. Mr. GROSS, you mentioned several times the financial close. What is that process for those of us who aren't in the industry? What happens at Financial Close, which is scheduled but could change near the end of January, is all of the documents, the project agreement that's before you tonight, the financial loan that C will be doing in order to finance this project, putting in the equity. All of that will be money, will change hands and will be turned over to a trustee and the legal documents will be signed and locked into place. So money will change hands and the contracts will sign and the project will be formally underway. Okay. And that's projected to be in January? Yes. Late January. I have a question. Probably best for the city attorney. We received I think everyone received an email this afternoon, late this afternoon from the State Lands Commission. Is there any concern on behalf of the city attorney in moving forward? Is there anything we need to do to augment the language of what we're approving tonight to make sure that we are complying with their requests? No, we I reviewed that letter. We're satisfied this is on here. We're satisfied that the flexibility is already provided in the motion before you right now. And we're committed to continue to work with the State Lands Commission, of course, between now and the time at which we execute the agreements to address their concerns. We're confident we can do that. Okay. For for Mr. GROSS, assuming that we move into this the process and and we go through that, the whole process, and the end of January, we go through the financial close is what is the status of our annual payments moving forward? Can they fluctuate? What types of situations would warrant a change in the annual payments? What can we expect as a council? The service fee, the payment to the private company will be locked as a financial close. And in general, I'll identify some exceptions. In general, that price will be known for the next 40 years. It will go up with inflation and a fixed growth in amount, generally under 2.4% a year. That's all been factored into the projections and numbers you've seen today. So those that number will be fixed. There are some exceptions, such as extremely unusual events that occur, relief events that could change that number. But in general, that number is is fixed. In terms of that number, I'm really focused on two particular years of significance, and that's 2019 and 2020, specifically 2020. And one while one may say, you know, it's shortsighted to just look at a year or two as members of the city council, we deal with short sighted because when we answer calls and emails from our constituents , it's about what's happening in their neighborhood on that day. So given the gap that we see in the general fund for those two years as a result of the increased payment, what expectations do you have or what discussions have you had with staff regarding the impact of that deficiency to our residents in terms of basic city surface services, police infrastructure, that kind of thing? Our approach and what we're recommending is that we build those amounts and I think you're referring to the extra 1.29 million and the extra three 3.9 million in FY 20 into the operating budget. We expect that we'll have to we will make those adjustments. The one the $3 million, even at the $3 million level, the FY 21 time adjustment, it represents just a little over 1% of the budget. It's it's it's not that it's not obviously it's not a trivial amount, but it's it's an adjustment that we've made before. We've had adjustments and where we've had to adjust $20 million in the budget, we've had adjustments of $7 million in a year. So this number, while it's certainly nothing to ignore and is and is significant, is not a number that is we're going to be able to handle that number. Well, and I understand that. But aren't we projecting a deficit in 2019 and 2020? In addition to this. We have projected deficit in F, y, 17 and 18, and we do not have a projection for FY 19 and 20 because it's too far out. We will do an F by 19 projection in March. We literally do not have one at this time. We're not going to do FY 20 simply because it's too far out to be reasonably accurate. We do have a situation where and we've talked to City Council about this before, that our pension costs are going up about four and a half million dollars a year and that will continue through f y 20. And we hope at that point it will level out. We'll be updating those projections. But that's that's the driver of our financial some of our financial issues. The key driver actually is is our pension cost. So that is an issue. We also expect debt service to drop in FY 20 by somewhere in the area of $3 million a year due to a natural decline. And that will certainly help offset cost increases in FY 20. Given the pattern that we have and again, we don't have a projection for FY 19 and 20, I wouldn't be surprised if we continue to have at least some level of shortfall in those two years. It might be better than where we are now and really we don't have those projections. So that's that's where I think we are. Okay. I say that because I have heard our city managers have probably a lot of people in this room when we've done the pension projections say winter is coming. And we've talked very often about now until 2020 in regards to our pension obligations. And so I just wasn't sure that we're all going forward knowing that in addition to our pension obligations, we're going to have a $3.93 million shortfall in 2020. And I want to make sure that we are committed to the taxpayers, as we have been from the start of this project, and saying that this project is not going to result in a reduction of services to them in terms of police protections and public works, the core services that we provide, parks, all of that. We've made that commitment from day one. And that's the message that I've shared, is that we're not going to be changing the level of service that they're going to get as a result of moving forward on this project of what, you know, what is our position on that, knowing that we can't anticipate what our budget is going to be in 2019, but we're anticipating some some pension obligations that are going to give us a deficit during that time period. I'm. Did you were. You looking for a response from staff on. That? Yeah. I mean, what's are we, are we looking at possibly cutting city services to make that happen? Mayor Councilmembers No, we don't believe we'll be looking at cutting city services. We have an excellent finance and we look at things with a3c and we'll be preparing for that and taking a look at other opportunities for revenue opportunities and other areas, how we do organizational efficiencies. And I think we've done a pretty good job facing some of the deficits that we faced during the past ten years. And as fine a point, I believe that this is rise's level of something that we'd be concerned about. It's service reductions. That's good to know. In terms of going back to the presentation that you guys provided. In terms of the 10% of the residential units being reserved for moderate income households, what is that? That figure has that figure of what that constitutes a moderate income been defined? It's about 120% of area median income. So for a family of four in Los Angeles County, it's somewhere around $60,000. Right. Our first payment. And I know we covered this will our first payment actually be in 2019 as a partial annual payment, or will it be in 2020? 2019 as a partial. Yes. We will be we anticipate moving in July 1st of 2019. Okay. In regards to page 79, the sources of the funding, the one times and you may have gone over this, but what is a park impact fee? So the city has several impact fees that are assessed against development projects and they pay for essentially improvements to facilities. We have traffic impact fees, we have PERC impact fees. There's a sewer connection fee or impact fee as well. And we also have a public safety impact fee. What we need to do as a city in which we do all the time is that there is a nexus between development and impacts to city services and city infrastructure. And so instead of, for example, a residential development being required to construct playground facilities, in this instance, there is a park impact fee that is associated with residential development. So for every unit of residential development, a fee is assessed based on that residential development. The impact fee goes into a special fund that is overseen by financial management but is managed by the Parks and Rec Department. And then they manage that those funds in accordance with acceptable practices and state law. In this instance, park impact fees can only be spent on new facilities. They cannot be spent on existing facilities. And so there are new components of Lincoln Park, which would which would be eligible for the use of the park impact funds. Okay, great. Thank you for that. The $4.5 million contingency is that for the city's portion or combined city and the port. That is just for the city. Great. Thank you. I have no further questions. I just want to reiterate, my my biggest concern going into this is. Hitting 2019 or 2020 and having to cut some core services. Police, fire. You know, some of the things that our residents rely on because the commitment that I've made, the legislative intent behind my vote in favor of this tonight is premised upon the fact that our residents are not going to suffer core services as a result of us building a new civic center. And that's that's my intent. And so if I'm wrong on that or if somebody anticipates that, I'm going to that that legislative intent is inaccurate, I really would appreciate that notification now because I could not support a project that would result in us having to cut services down the road to support, even if it's for one year, because that's that's an entire year that our residents depend on those services and we need to be increasing, not reducing those services. So thank you. Thank you, mayor councilmembers. I would like to point out, however, not to pursue this unless you're to do a ballot measure. We could virtually guarantee that we'd be having to reduce services to stay in this building. So we have an option to make. If the council wants to do a ballot measure to do a new city hall, we can guarantee no service reductions. But if we don't go forward tonight and stay in this building, we can guarantee service reductions. But we are anticipating no service reductions, is what I'm hearing. STAFF Absolutely. Yes, that's that's what I'm for tonight. Absolutely. I'm not yeah. I'm not talking about ballot measures. I'm not going to that dramatic, you know, place. I'm just saying we're what I'm hearing from staff is that we're not anticipating any service reduction. Given the plan that we're putting forth tonight. Absolutely true. Thank you. I just one thing I just want to add is I think Councilman Price makes some good points is just as a reminder, though, for everyone, the public, the council, every decision that we make has an impact on what will happen in 2020. And so if next month the Council approves a new policy on Policy X, that will have an impact if next year the Council approves policy. Why that could have an impact. So, you know, you know, obviously, I think staffs try to answer the question and I and I appreciate that. But just as a reminder, the council as well, we we every single Tuesday have the ability to dramatically impact the future of the deficit as well. Thank you. And I also have Council Member Richardson. Thanks. Before I get to my comments along that same vein, I want to just chime in on the way that this is being framed, because I think it's important that we're responsible in terms of providing the real picture to our residents. I don't think anybody I personally don't support cutting core services, and I don't think anybody on the council supports cutting core services. But, you know, any any decision we make, whether it's additional hours on a Sunday and a library to, you know, additional park rangers to all of those things have additional impacts in the future. So I want to make sure that, you know, we're talking about this decision today in the context of this budget and what we do in the future. As long as we're being reasonable in terms of the impact, I think that's something we can manage. I think we've gotten a reasonable understanding from the city manager on what the marginal impact is of the budget. And what I want to do right now is I want to ask what. Mr.. Mr.. West. The difference again between what we pay today and what we will pay is about how much annually. Mr. GROSS has a number we. And the key impact will be $3.93 million in FY20. Okay. So $3 million impact. Against against today's budget. Okay. And do we expect that to increase or decrease? After that, I think I think it would. The projections say that there will be no material change after that. And that's based on conservative estimates on what we're going to generate. Correct. Or based on what we think are the most likely estimates. Could be higher. Could be lower. But I think that's a reasonable estimate to make. And does that get us a fully paid for library, park and community center and civic center? Yes, it does. So the first thing I want to say is, you know this, when I came to the council, I paid it, paid some attention. But I thought that I personally thought that this is a you know, this is one of the largest decisions the city any city council has made in the history of the city. And so I think it's good that we took the time, hit the pause button, went back to the community, you know, community meetings in all parts of town, including North Long Beach, to talk about this in my particular community meeting. You know, there was one resident that brought up concerns, but there were really good questions and those were engaged, you know, those were engaged by the team. So I want to acknowledge city staff, the council, the development team for taking taking the time to go through this process so that I, as a council member and in my community, can warm up to this idea of doing something large and scary and complex. I get it. It could be it could be challenging. But I think it's important that we look at the whole picture, that there's this thing called risk and opportunity cost for not taking action. If we don't take action, it's on us should something happen. And the alternative would be to do something much more expensive on the ballot or find some other source of raising revenue and to speak in straight terms. I don't I just frankly don't think that that's an option. I think that what's interesting about this is that we're sending an interesting message to, you know, our community in terms of the approach in adding a historic loop and a cultural loop to make sure that everyone that, you know, everyone in our city feel some sort of way to connect with the building and see that they're interested in their history and their cultures are reflected into the design of the building. I think that says a lot that we made that effort to connect with them in the very architecture of the space. I think what's interesting also is that by taking, you know, a new approach in terms of the innovative way that we've financed this , I think that it really sends a message also to our development community and business and says that we're willing to to do something different and we're not stuck in the same old ways. And the fact that we're able to do that to achieve our goals as a city, if you indeed believe that having a new building, a new park, you know, great facilities that our city can be proud of are something that we value. Something our value also is the commitment to the workforce. So I've heard early on this was referred to as a a live work development or live work space. And I really see this as a work live space because frankly, the rank and file spend more time at City Hall than I do as a council member. And so I'm glad to see that efforts have been taken through the meeting confer process to make sure that our rank and file employees we're at the table have had a conversation about how we're going to approach things like security. So that's something that should be acknowledged. I also want to acknowledge I think it's important to note that, you know, Pkkp Whineray Edge Moore had a very successful jobs job fair last week and that we've had even more conversations about doing more of that kind of outreach , particularly in North Long Beach. That is something that I believe encourages the whole city to connect with this project. So I do support that. And so for me, with this vote, absolutely, this has major implications. I think this is one of those moments where, you know, you have to really dig down to your values on this vote and for worker safety sake, for the residents pocketbook sake, and for minimal impact on our budget, for our main library sake and the inspiration on the future for our Linkin Park sake. For those reasons, I'm going to vote in favor of this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Durango. I like your analogy of a live, work, work, live and not the amount of time I spend to get to my work live type of guy. The amount of time I spend in City Hall. However, having said that, obviously there's a lot of concerns about this project. There's a lot of concerns about the current city hall that we reside in. I see this project as very promising. It's one that has a lot of moving parts to it that has a lot of potential. I think that the I think it's historic in many ways in the sense that this project has been able to bring labor and business together in support of this. The fact that we have a play that's going to be in place, that's going to focus on jobs for local residents, for Long Beach residents, is wonderful. I think that the potential growth for business in in regards to a commercial corridor that we're going to have here with this project as well is going to be very positive and it's going to make a difference for downtown. It's going to bring more, more people here. It's going to be the center of government. It's going to be the place where people are going to want to come if if not just to have a picnic in the park and visit Lincoln, but to come to the library and to pay their bills. So I think that's going to be a wonderful opportunity for people to come to downtown even more than they may do already. I think councilmembers Lowenthal and Gonzalez said it very eloquently in terms of what the impact is going to be on this project here. There is nothing that I've seen and heard that is negative on it, even to the point where they're raising concerns about the amount of additional funds that we're going to have in the future come 19, 20, 19 and 2020. I think that that is manageable. I think that it's something that our budget people have looked into. I trust their analysis. I'm not a financial person, but obviously, but I think that what they have said is worth is we're taking the risk we have. Everything that we do is risk. And it's been said, you know, the potential for change and risk is every Tuesday when we make a decision and we push this button. The also, I think I'm very confident and the city manager's comments that there will not be any jobs lost city jobs. In fact, I think it would provide a potential for growth. And the fact that there's going to be 8000 jobs added as a result of this pride not added, but a pool of people employed as a result of this project is phenomenal. So I'm looking forward to having something in place here tonight that we can move forward with. And let's get moving. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. Councilwoman Mongo. I want to thank the many residents who have engaged in this process. I've really enjoyed working through and talking with the individuals who come down to City Hall from the fifth District. And I have a list of questions that were submitted by members of the community, most of which have already been answered tonight by my colleagues and or the staff. And so I also want to thank many members of the community who thought, as I thought and I know Councilmember Price had mentioned one of my questions from closed session that I think was so engaging when I discussed it with members of the community about this park fees. And those park fees often are confusing because they cannot be used to revitalize the parks that we already have. That is the way that those funds were designated. And so while we would love to be able to access those funds for the parks that we already have, many of you know, the fifth District is in dire need , as is the rest of the city, of updating and improving our parks. We are moving in that direction outside of the park fees that are designated for a new park area only. I know there's been some constituents that have reached out to our office about the seemingly rush to act on the project. I think that city manager Pat West and Economic Development Director Mike Conway really laid out the process and how it started in 2007. And as my council colleague Richardson said, we've really taken a hit the pause button and reviewed and gone out into the community and engaged in that process. And I think that the 26 community meetings and three council study sessions, along with the nine district based meetings, was a aggressive and very appropriate engagement. And I think that that in addition to all of us as a council, working hard to include it in our weekly, monthly or quarterly newsletters, each district's different has really gotten the information out. I know that the components of City Hall are are quite large. It's important, as the mayor mentioned, to talk about the World Class Library that will be right here in Long Beach and the preservation of our history, along with the port headquarters and city hall and so much other important space in the redevelopment of Lincoln Park and the opportunity to bring mixed use housing downtown. I think the most important thing for me was when I was briefed that if we do not act today and move forward in this direction and we instead choose to stay in city hall, services would be cut and we are already facing potential cuts regarding our deficits ahead that are caused by the pension. And so for me, this public private partnership is the opportunity to ensure that those services are not cut because of the deficiencies of the prior decisions related to this city hall as built and voted on by our predecessors. That got us here. There is a quick couple of questions that had not been answered that I think the community would like to hear. And if I missed it when I took a quick bathroom break, please let me know that I did miss it. Why was the city? What was. Let me start with this one. Why was it in the city's interest to support Senate Bill 562 that was passed this year, allowing the city to execute the financial agreement for the new civic center lasting up to 50 years to. I apologize. I just returned. Did you say why was it in the city's interest to do that? So I know that we had originally talked about a 30 year plan, then we moved to a 40 year plan. When we went forward and supported the legislation, we supported a 50 year option. Can you talk a little bit about that and what that means to us as a city and where we ended up landing on that ? Sure. We thought that it was very likely that the structures that were being proposed about a year ago were legal, but it had not been done before. It was kind of a matter of first impression, and we didn't want to take the risk that there would be some sort of a challenge. So we sought the legislation. It passed, I think, unanimously, and we included, you know, I can't recall now whether we included a 50 year term or 40. I think we may have. Was it. Okay, Mr. Murdoch, do you want to just chime in on the details of that and kind of move up. To 50 to provide some flexibility, but we did not end up pursuing. That. Yes, that's correct. And why did we choose the 40 when we could have put it out over a longer period? Well, I can punt this to Mr. GROSS, but I believe that it's cheaper to to borrow over a shorter term. I believe he did say that in a closed session. I just wanted to make sure that it was out there in the public record. And I'm there in council, if I can add to that. In our RFP and RFQ, we had originally planned on a 40 year. And so, you know, that was really the direction from the council was the 40 year so that we endeavor to meet that target. I think that when discussing the long term maintenance and the viability and the condition that the building will be handed off to us in, I think 40 makes a lot of sense and so I'm supportive of that as well. There was some confusion in some of the discussion we had with a few community members related to how we future based the 20 $13. So the specific question would be why has the staff goal to achieve the annual cost of 12.6 million in the 20 $13 raised all the way up to the 2015 into 17 and $20 of 14.48 million. We use 20 $13 because those are the dollars when we went to council and council set the goals. That's why we use 2013. We report 20 $16 because the legal documents are based on 2016. That also happens to be in current prices. And then we reported other prices in their dollars like FY 2021 and 22, because those are when we actually make the payments. And we thought that city council would want to see what the payments were in those years. I appreciate that very much. And how does the 1.88 million additional, the 15% increase in the annual service costs impact future budget processes? How is that worked into it and accounted for? We have we have we FBI 13. That number 1.88 is an FBI 13 number. The actual numbers that we'll have to incorporate into the budget start an FBI 19. That's the 1.29 million and the 3.3 3.93 million in FY 20. And so that would be the respective numbers that actually get incorporated into the budget. And as I said, we'll just incorporate that into the regular budget process and into our projections. You'll be starting to see that in the projections and we'll work that out over the next few years. And then I really got several emails related to this question, and then I had a discussion with some of the city staff about the Taj Mahal city halls of Orange County that have completely gone out of control with their budget costs and the demands of those councilmembers. I think that here we are talking about a civic center, which is much more of a plan to ensure the fiscal stability of the city. But I think it's important to ask this question and have it answered is if the reason for the cost increases was a result of due diligence and realization of necessary asbestos mitigation, structural support deficiencies and new design features leading to changes in the project scope and the relocation costs and escalation costs. How can we be sure that that does not happen again? And and what does that mean? At this point in time? We've identified the risks that the city is exposed to, which is differing site conditions, regulated site conditions. We've got numbers that bracket around those exposures and we have some contingencies that the project company is accepting as well with those contingencies in place. Then project company takes all the additional risk relative to some of the design changes and some of the the change orders that occur in construction, the risk related to differing site conditions and regulated site conditions. If they exceed a certain number, then the city has the opportunity of terminating the agreement and paying a termination fee. That will always be an option that the city can consider if indeed it's facing some significant cost. But again, those costs that the city is assuming that I discussed in this presentation are considered to be relatively low and that it was more prudent for the city to accept a potential one time costs associated with those risks rather than financing over 40 years of contingency. And Mr. Mayor, if I can add to that as well, what you see in that, how this differs from some of those other projects that you talked about, is in that traditional model, which the other cities have used, it really is. The city is making the decisions and the city accepts all the risk, as Mr. Conway said, of change orders, of cost, escalation, of, you know, those are all things that the city, through its management, would have to accept in this agreement, which is completely different. Those risks are really, except for the ones explained tonight, are really on their set. They're defined and they're at the risk of the project company. So we do not expect to see, you know, change orders that, you know, unless the city makes specific, conscious decisions. And we've set aside a small amount of contingency for that. But it should be very different from what you've seen in other cities that are publicly managed and built. Thank you. And the initial project schedule contemplates that occupancy readiness for City Hall, the port and the new main library will be simultaneous. And then those transition costs are built in as kind of a bulk rate when moving people moving them all at once. Will there be an impact to our costs if that is not achieved? And how is that burdened by the team? Will there not be an impact if what happens? I missed it. If if all three buildings aren't ready at the same time as they're scheduled to be, where we would all move approximately at the same time of June 2019, and we have to do a phased in move in. Would those cost, as you mentioned before, be burdened by the developer? Our payment, our service fee, our annual service fee will be reduced by a certain percentage if buildings are not available. That's exactly what my next question was. And how will that impact the service fee? Thank you. And. The Exclusive Negotiation agreement and terms and conditions sheet and the global agreement. When and how will that be made public and how can we ensure that it's transparent and provided to the constituents in a way that doesn't hurt our negotiating standpoint, but gets out at the soon as possible moment? All documents are currently available at Long Beach. Civics are civics Entercom In-a term sheet and project agreement, formally known as. A global excellent agreement. I know they're in my next newsletter and I think Councilman Gonzalez emailed a note in her newsletter earlier this week. So you're a little bit ahead of us, but absolutely. I guess I'll end I have three more questions that I may or may not ask. I think a few other councilmembers have the same question because I know you are CC by the same constituents, but I just want to say that I'm really proud of the work that we have seen our partners do already in terms of negotiating and finding a place where we can meet common ground and it's best for the residents. I was thoroughly impressed with the job fair this weekend and the number of constituents that came. I think that it's great when our local residents are hired. It really reduces a lot of issues, especially most importantly, the unemployment rate here. It reduces if they get those jobs in the city, the environmental impacts of commuting to work and all of those types of things. And I also want to our also look forward to seeing I know that local businesses being on these teams was a big part of that. And I know that there are some conditions that allow for rebidding out business partners on this plan. But I hope that local businesses will be in the final plan because I know that many local businesses were on both teams at the beginning, and I hope that our partners hear the firm message that we expect to see local businesses as their partners when this is completed. So more on that to come. Thank you and I look forward to hearing public comment. Thank you. Council Member Supernova. Thank you. And speaking of public comment, I would certainly like to hold off on some of my questions and comments until we do hear from the public. That being said, I do have one question that has come up as recently as today, and that is what would it hurt to wait another 90 days? Like, we haven't done enough due diligence so either. Mr. CONWAY. Mr. GROSS, can you delineate some of those items, either construction costs, locking in those or whatever? We have our current estimate of delay cost due to escalation of both labor and materials is $600,000 a month for the city, $600,000 a month for the port. So about $1.2 million for the project delay per month. Okay. Thank you. Another question I've gotten is the amount we still owe on this building. I think it's 17 million and some change. Where does that go? Does that get rolled into the new project and etc.? The the project includes about $21 million. If I have the number right to pay off the debt, $17.6 million to pay off the debt on the current building that will be included in the and the financing of this project. Okay. And then just on a personal note, because I'm new to the council, I've only been here eight months. I've been asked, did I have time to do the due diligence? And so I just like to thank staff for bringing me up to speed on this. We certainly have done the due diligence. I believe that my staff and I have really researched this and asked every single question that's been framed here tonight and then some. So thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I want to thank my colleagues for the thoughtful questions. Hopefully, I won't have too many to to follow up, and I am looking forward to hearing from the public. I do want to thank our staff, city management, for their all hands on deck approach to dealing with this to solve this very important issue. I think it shows the the talent that we have, the professionalism of our our staff, and they've done their due diligence and done a good job of keeping this council and public informed throughout the process. I want to thank our partners plenary edge more for their public process that I think was very, very engaging and transparent. Questions were asked along the way, but also they were open to ideas from from the public, public and of course, our public who participated in the forums and learn more about this and have been informed throughout the way to help shape the the ideas and the concept for the new civic center. I want to thank the building trades for for their vigilance and in this process as well. Certainly they have an interest in putting our residents to work in the local hire agreement. And the project labor agreement is something that I'm particularly proud of. This is obviously a major undertaking that I don't take lightly. City Hall is for for all of Long Beach, all of its residents, its visitors. It's not a district specific undertaking in any way. And this is a decision that and ultimately will will transform our downtown, put thousands of people to work and make for safer work and business space. When you look at All Things Considered here and there were a lot of numbers put forth and there was a lot of careful analysis here. It appears to me that it's it's cost neutral when you look at the risk associated with keeping a seismically unsafe building. However, there are risk and I want to ask some questions about those risk. I think the success of this, ultimately the success of this project is going to require significant oversight and management and great management from from talented staff with the long term interest here of our city. And. There were a couple of there was an area of the staff report that that that jumped out at me and maybe you can help me get some clarity on it. And that was regarding the three interest text that was wasn't too clear on terms of what our exposure really is and who would be responsible for that , how much it is or may be. Um, can you help clarify that? Absolutely. So the possessor interest tax is applied when there is a private interest in public property in depending upon the financing methodology, there could have been construed by the county assessor an interest by a plenary edge more in the leasehold estate. And because at one time we were contemplating a land lease in a lease back in our financing structure, and so staff was a little nervous that there could be a determination by the county assessor that possessor interest would apply at the current financing structure is a taxable bond. What is being provided to the city as a service payment over 40 years outside counsel has reviewed the status of that financing structure and does not believe that possessor interest will be applied. So we don't believe there is much risk associated with that. If at some point possessor interest is applied for some reason and and it essentially remains applied and we haven't challenged it, the city would then be obligated to pay that possessor interest. Under our current structure. The city would receive back 21% of that possession interest into their general fund, so that even if there is possessor interest applied , the costs associated with that would be abated somewhat to about 70% of the total possessor. So. So with that, I mean, we you said we you he got direction from outside counsel. Was the assessor's office actually consulted? We actually met with the assessor's office and their chief appraiser and and others, I guess in the assessor's office, they were, let's say, somewhat coy in whether or not possessor interest would apply and the process by which they would do that calculation. But that meeting was taking place at the time that we were facing or considering a lease and lease back of city facilities. That's clearly not our structure, our financing structure at this point. So we don't see much likelihood of the application of possession or interest. In terms of a assessed value of the property. I mean, do we have any kind of ballpark on what that would be? Well, no, I guess is the short answer. I think our best application of what might be a valuation of the property would be the cost of construction. Being a city facility, there is not a revenue stream associated with it that's comparable to the office marketplace, which would be a more traditional approach to value. So there's there's not a clear way for us to identify what the value would be other than the cost to construct. Well, I think everything is pretty much been been laid out for us except that unknown variable with it is kind of kind of leaves me very concerned. I think, you know, if there were some sort of scale, you know, if it's $10 million, it's $5 million. And what what is the possessor interest tax on it? On $1,000,000? Do you know or would you know? I don't know if. Yeah, it's probably 11.1 1.25% of that would be just like a property tax. Okay. And you can because that's your interest has a sliding scale as well. So it would be up to 1.1 or 1.25%. Okay. So I guess my next question is what sort of guarantees, if any? And I think I know the answer to the question, but does the council have that these costs will continue to increase? From what we know today. The, the, the annual cost. I think that's what you're asking. Council member are you not? The annual cost, once we hit financial close is set by a formula. It will not change. It will go up with more or less with inflation or something equivalent to inflation. And those are the numbers we gave you. There are other other annual costs that we talked about, the 3.27 million. There's no reason to believe that those are going to go up at a different rate than what we've projected there. They've been stable for years, so we're pretty confident that we have those costs correct where there are uncertainties. We've mentioned them and Mr. Conway has talked about them. But where we don't have uncertainty is what the cost will be. The service fee cost that's going to be pretty locked in. Okay. And I think lastly, I'd like to learn a little bit more about the $4.5 million contingency cost for design that's being included in the financing of the project. Is there any other option other than just financing this project? I mean, year after year we deal with one time revenues and obviously we appropriate those in our budget process. But but is there a way for us to to get away from financing that that component of this. That financed that $4.5 million because we're not paying for it in upfront cash? What I believe you're saying is that there is a financing cost to that $4.5 million, and you are correct, that is the case. But we have looked at a number of ways to minimize the cost. We are contributing quite a bit of money, $10.78 million to reduce the contract construction cost. Already we're putting 9.7 in for one one time costs. And unless we can identify. Another $4.5 million up. We think we have the most inexpensive way overall for this project is to include it in in the financing costs. Okay. That's all for now. Thank you. Thank you. Before I turn to Councilman Andrews and I think, you know, Mr. Connor, I think you and Mr. GROSS said and answered the questions on the on the statutory interest tax questions correctly. I'll just let them the council members know that I've been in pretty close contact with the county assessor, and so we've had multiple discussions on this topic. And I would just concur with staff that I think everyone's feeling like that's going in the right direction. Obviously there's no closer to that at this at this point. But in just the conversations that I've had with him directly and that staff's had to staff, I think that that's there. There's good progress being made there. Councilmember Andrews. Yes. And thank you, Mayor. I think sometimes it's pretty good to wait to be the last one to speak on asylum, because the fact that you get a chance to hear what are you your colleagues are speaking about? And I think they answered all the questions that I was sitting here listening to. But most of all, when I think of this, I want to, first of all, thank Mr. Conway and Amy Bolduc and also The Edward Edge, more civic partners for their hard work and its incredible, you know, project. You know, sure, it's a huge project for the city of Long Beach, and I think I'm very excited about it. But I think most of all, when I think about this, when you came to my district and you gave us, you know, oversight of what we're going to build and how it's going to be built. And most of all, you talked about jobs and if any. But you know me, my whole thing is about jobs because I know the importance of jobs. But Jessica, like me and you sat down with us and told us about 8000 jobs that could change the whole complexity, you know, of this individual that live in the sixth District. But not only that, but I think for the city of Long Beach, because everyone at this point is trying to figure out if we build this project, will we have the jobs that you spoke about? And from what I'm here and what I'm listening to, this is what you guys have promised and this is what will be. Because the theme of my parade this year called Empowerment of Hope, and this has given individuals some hope because the fact that I definitely believe that what you've said you will do and by doing that, it's going to make a city that I think everybody is always very excited about. But I'm really kind of excited to hear what the public is going to speak on because every question I think that they'll be talking about has been answered up here in the diocese and for city manager and all the rest of the individuals. I want to thank all of you for playing such a large role in a big part in this. And I hope everything goes well and I will be truly supporting this item. Thank you. With that, I'm going to turn this over now. Public comment on this hearing. So please come forward. And make sure you say your name for the record, of course, as we always do. Oh. Please begin. Good evening. I am Francis. Emily Dawson Harrison Oversight in District one. And I wrote the majority of my comments and I have given it to all of you. And I've been listening to everything. And I wanted to say that Tom and Vice Mayor Sergio lOth. I actually served on Cape Cod when this matter was being brought forward, and ten years is a lot of time to invest into working on a project. So I commend you for your fortitude and your patience and your perseverance. And each and every one of you and I have 3 minutes to talk, some to try to stay focused and give you the main points that I felt this past year. New technologies and innovations hit the market in artificial intelligence, robotics, augmented reality and 3D printing spaces that could pave the way for a major shift in society today and tomorrow. Steve Long Beach Proposed Plan New Civic Center project will be awesome. While strongly reflecting the city's present and future needs, the city of Long Beach is known for its accessibility, for its inclusion, and for its cultural diversity. Now focusing on inclusion, I think the time has come for us to move forward and be more inclusive. And then the points that I have four or five mentioned about having companions saving and this hospital in the city council chambers, the mayor asking for a seat similar to the kind that are in the auditorium to be moved down so persons can have their companion, the caretaker, sit beside them. These seats are so can be used by persons that use cane crutches and walkers. Making chairs are more comfortable and respect them are sturdy. Also in regards to the library is just so exciting about the library. It has an informational center for people with disabilities. Not every city has such a center and you based and the center helps persons with therapy. It helps persons. Quite a number of people disabled cannot afford to buy a computer and persons that are homeless. They'll go into the library. They can communicate with family. They cannot afford a telephone. So now in terms of the library, it is and it's my understanding that there's no plan to have a not tourism. The reason for this is the chorus. Well, I can accept that as that. The reason not to have an auditorium. But however it needs to be a backup plan. The backup plan is the fact that perhaps the city council chambers can be used by the library. And if that's the case, I think that the library should have first rights for the city council chambers for usage, and I feel also there should be no cost. And then I also want to share about the Lincoln Park in a playground and that I felt that the playground needs to be, of course, of be, you know , first seat designed. It'll be a day compliant. But I'm asking that it also be inclusive. And then the thing you'll see something. Thank you. Francisco rep at times. I'll try to you'll see some things that can be used to help autistics and Down's syndrome and like a talking to. I'm sorry Francis. Time seems all up anyway. Thank you very much. You. Absolutely. It. Crisis. And we have your note, Frances, so we'll take a look at that. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and members of city council. My name is Randy Gordon and I'm president and CEO of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. I want to compliment staff for the great, thorough and very professional and well done presentation tonight. On behalf of the Chamber, we support the development of a new civic center in order to replace existing city hall and main library structures. It's been it's been almost eight years since both structures were deemed systematically deficient. Included in this new development will encompass the 16 Acres campus, a new city hall and port buildings and main library . We'll really develop this whole area and it's exciting, exciting project that our city has for our downtown. This is made evident by the downtown visioning process that was led by Mayor Long Vice Mayor, my vice mayor Lowenthal. A new civic center complex that will allow more modern amenities and efficient work place for staff. It's only the start of what should be a very beneficial for residents and business community to remain productive when conducting business in the new city hall. Taking this into account along with obvious safety aspects, this is the right decision for council to move forward at the right time. Plenary Action. Mary Edge. Moore Civic Leadership Partnership. The group who has been chosen. We have confidence in them and they will do a great job. Coupled with this 8000 or 8000 of, I should say, jobs, direct and indirect jobs being created. It's a win win for the business community and also for the city. While some have cited revised cost associated with the project as a potential issue, staff has conducted robust public outreach to the community, citing reasons for some of these new cost. Moving this project forward is the right direction for our city and our community. The chamber stands ready to assist the city and the downtown community in order to ensure that this project is one that's envied throughout our great state and our country. As our mayor likes to say, we're the only city other than San Diego and San Francisco on the waterfront. And this will give our community something to be very proud of, that we can show off our downtown for many years to come. Thank you. Thank you, Randy, very much. Next speaker, please. High level business and labor camp together, andI do that more often. Tom Beck. Good evening, Mayor and fellow council city staff in public. That's here today. I'm here tonight to talk about, you know, the the jobs that's been, you know, touted tonight. And, you know, and I understand that, you know, you have two factors here when it comes to public infrastructure that will work, that will create so many jobs and then private infrastructure that will create so many jobs. I understand that the building trades have negotiated a project labor agreement on the public infrastructure. But my concern and our concern is that we feel that private development has not come to agreement under a play. I understand that, you know, there's no there's no project that's actually in front of you today. It's only it's only a proposal. But we like to we like to see the developer and the building trades come together on a on a private agreement. Building trades has always negotiated private development agreements, like in downtown Los Angeles. Many, many of those projects have private development plays. So we like to see that, you know, moving forward. And, you know, let's let's talk about the port, the jobs that will be created out of this. Not just estimate jobs that they will be created. Thank you. Thank you, Tommy. Next speaker. Yes. Good evening. I'm Wally Baker with Jobs First Alliance. I want to start off by thanking the staff. This is not an easy task. And you've stayed right there. And I think the proposal is really excellent. You've thought of all the angles and just generally it's an excellent package. I do want to say something about plays and small business. The SBA sets a small business at 500 regular employees, which to me sounds pretty good sized, but that's considered a small business, and the play that you have on the public side is going to do a lot of good things for small business. But in the case of women, all of them will be paid the same as men. If you're an electrician, you're an electrician. Doesn't matter if you're a man or you're a woman. But the play makes that happen because everybody has a certain qualification. And certainly the qualifications and training that's provided is great because that means a small business doesn't go out and have to pay and organize all that. They can just acquire the labor that's already been trained and it guarantees them that their labor cost will be the same as a huge construction companies labor costs. So you don't have any battles over or using labor wages and benefits as a instrument of of reducing your costs, because everybody has to pay that cost. It also provides these local small micro-business with the ability to hire a certain number of veterans, train a certain number of veterans, train a number of local folks, which, again, they would really have a difficult time doing on their own. But through the play process that workforce provided, those objectives are achieved as well. And of course, the no strike clause, which you saw in the long term airport construction a couple of years ago, that is included in the play. That's very important. So I just want to conclude by saying, you know, this is a very good project. We hope you move forward on it tonight and you will have the support of everyone going forward. And we look forward to working together. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. Council members. And. Staff. I'm Ron Miller, executive secretary of the L.A. Orange County Building. Construction. Trades Council. And I'm very proud of the partnership that we formed with Plenary Edge Moore Group. And they've picked a great contractor with Clark Construction. We've done many jobs all over the country with them. They're top rated. They've did some good jobs right in your own city. And I got to say that the staff sure has done their due diligence on this. This is one of the most transparent projects that I've ever been involved in, over 100 community meetings. That's like unheard of. So there shouldn't be anybody in the room that doesn't know about this project if they've been to one of the community meetings. So this is a good project. We've negotiated a good fair project labor agreement that mirrors a lot of what we have with your city project, labor agreement as far as the local hire. I was glad to see many of you come out for the job fair the other day was a great. Success from everything. That I've heard. And we're really looking forward to putting folks from the community, the local community, to work because they spend their dollars in your city, which helps your economy. So let's move this thing forward tonight and get some shovels in the ground. Thank you. Thank you, Ron. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Richard Suarez. I represent the I am. And what we've heard a lot of discussion tonight about this project. I just want to clear something up. In no way, shape or form. My comments here today are to stop the project. I just want to redirect some of the discussion and bring it forward towards the legal perspective. The AM understands that the Council is considering a resolution this evening that would authorize the city to contract out what is performed by IAM represented employees. The city has failed to clearly define the work covered by the project agreement, but contracting out covers at least building maintenance, custodial security and refuge work performed by a and represented employees. At this time, I'd like to also bring to the attention that while everybody's known about this, we have asked to meet and confer over this issue . And since October we were granted a meeting seven days ago. Specifically, the member requires the city to negotiate the decision to contract bargaining unit work as well as the effects of the contracting out. The AM in the city have not completed bargaining over the decision to contract work out just this morning excuse me just this morning the city's attorney confirmed that the Iam confirmed to the and that the parties are not at impasse in negotiations because the IAM in the city have not completed bargaining over the contracting out. The council cannot authorize the city manager to execute the project. The agreement as it relates to contracting out of IAM bargaining work. If the City Council approves the contracting out of bargaining work this evening, the city will have will have in essence violated the duty to bargain. The state agency that enforces the MBA, the Public Employment Relations Board, would order the city to rescind the project agreement and start from square one. It is extremely disappointing that I have come up here this evening and deliver these news the city manager is well aware of. This city is violating the MBA. In fact, this is exactly what happened in 2009 when the city unlawfully furloughed iam employees before complete completing bargaining. All the IAM is requesting is that the city fulfill its duty to bargain in good faith. Tonight's agenda as it relates to contracting out should be tabled. The Council can only consider authorizing contracting out once the Iam in the city have exhausted the bargaining process. This is not asking for much. It is only asking that the city follow the law. The Iam desires to continue to bargain and once work wants to work collaboratively with the city to meet its labor needs for the new city project. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia's city council staff and guests. My name is Rick Foss. I'm with the sheet metal workers, local one of five. I'm a business representative and I represent 6000 members in the Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside Counties as long as well as Canino and mono. Tonight, I want to commend the the council. I want to commend the staff. It was a very thorough report, very transparent. And as we learned tonight, eight, nine, ten years in the making with Miss Lowenthal here. I want to keep this short and sweet. I think we all know what's going to happen tonight. You're going to hear a lot of things. This is ten years in the in the process. Proceed for tonight, vote yes and move forward. Let's get this shovels in the ground. Let's get the construction started. Let's get some of your constituents into the apprenticeship programs and start the career paths. Thank you for allowing me this time. Have a merry Christmas and happy holidays. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Larry Clark as the address I sent you all an email outlining essence number one. I think you should wait 90 days. The feds will be in here, I think, by the 1st of May, 1st of January or shortly thereafter. And you'll get a sense of when the new management structure will be in place. I would suggest possibly by the Ides of March. Number two, I have not had a chance to look into all of the financial aspects, and that's really not my biggest forte. But I rely heavily on and I have found to be very credible, as do a number of other people. The analysis of Terry Jensen, and I'm sure you've read that and this guy, he has underscored a number of major issues and major problems. Number three, I fully support a library. But there's no need to have the library attached to the city hall. I'm reminded that four or five times a week, every time I go down to Los Angeles, and it's not because my great uncle designed that main library. The fact is, a nice library can stand on its own. And I would suggest a good place for this one is in the location where the L.A. study has their arts school. I enter into a paradigm with them. What else here? Port offices and the City Hall Council offices need not be downtown. They can. You guys can be set up in cubicles in an airport hangar in the center of the city, making it more accessible to more people. Period. A nice advantage. Even though you will not have corner offices or paneled offices you will have. We will not have the expense or hassles of elevators. And I think the last point if this is still on. Now, I forget the last point is, but I think the the important thing is to go back and do the analysis and follow the follow the suggestions of Terry Jones. I know that final point was it was pointed out that there were some issues that were overlooked. They all. We got to come back and ask for more money. Take the business approach. If the person responsible for that, that was the contractor or the person that is in charge that you're working with, tell him he needs the cost or he can walk one or the other, period. That's an A. That is a lesson that I learned when I used to work for for a number of years from Roy Ash and Tex Thornton and one of their innovations. They had a project somebody had a project going with building a big hotel, nice and fancy. They forgot a little item like the plumbing or both. Roy Ash and Tex Thornton told them, Sorry, it cost havoc. Yourself. Thank you, Mr. Goodhew. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and City Council. My name is Brian Russell and reside in a third district. And my purpose of coming here tonight is to one compliment, city councilman and all the great staff for their analysis. But very narrowly. I'm representing the Seaspray Gardens Office Building right across the street at Chestnut End and third and ah ah, Broadway, rather. And our focus is making sure during the construction period that there's a plan in place for any mitigation of traffic impediment of getting the ingress and egress out of the building, costs related to construction, dirt, noise, things like that. So hopefully there's a plan for all the properties of private property surrounding the project. And, and it's a terrific project. I don't want to repeat so many things have been said today, but it's a terrific project. I'm here as a person speaking in favor of that. We just want to make sure that that building and the surrounding private property owners and and tenants are considered during the construction process. So thank you very much. Take care and appreciate all your good work. Bye bye. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is David Donovan. Honor those who put their lives on the line for our country. Please join the Parks and Recreation and Planning Commission in support restoring the Civil War cannon to Lincoln Park. Place the cannon in front of Lincoln. Historically, that was the configuration of the statue and the cannon. That's what the Union Civil War veterans wanted in 1915. As before, the cannon in front of Lincoln was streamlined and give visual direction to the monument, giving the overall design visual impact good landscape architecture. As opposed to a weak design that has a cannon next to or behind the statue. There is a cannon in Bluff Park that won't appear in Ocean, a gift from the citizens of Valparaiso, Chile. So the idea of displaying a cannon in a present day Long Beach park is well established in front of the statue. The cannon will be again in total context with the monument's chiseled rivals, names of battles and union generals and the Great Emancipator. My family will donate $500 for this historic project. I will be happy to work with Partners of Parks in the Long Beach Navy Memorial Historical Association. Thank you very much. And, sir, thank you for your consistent advocacy for for returning this the cannon to its location. And I know that we're working on this issue. We have all the information and know that staff also has an agreement in ensuring that we get the the memorial, the cannon, the statue. All right. So thank you. You've been great on this. Thank you. Absolutely. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Mayor Garcia, Vice Mayor Lowenthal, City Council members. My name is Margaret Smith. I reside in the third district and my address is on file. I am the past president and current board member and Vice President of Public Affairs for the Long Beach Public Library Foundation. As an independent nonprofit, the foundation has provided over $20 million in support to our public library in the past eight years, and we have been actively involved in this civic center discussion from the very beginning, over three years ago. We are extremely grateful to city staff, to the plenary team and to the City Council for your respectful approach to the library concerns, and especially to you, Mayor Garcia, for your commitment to an amazing new main library. But we have two major concerns about the design of that library. This project has a limited budget. Will the funds that are allocated to main library be enough to create this majestic, iconic, welcoming structure? Our city deserves the preliminary design is not that it is safe, it is plain and it is uninspiring. But it is not just about the size of the box and what's outside. We are more concerned about what will be inside. Main Library features, functions, flexibility. We've studied the current plans, voiced our concerns to plenary about specific elements such as technology. What will it be and who will pay for it? The city or plenary plenaries answer, which we understand is that that will be decided over the next five months in the design development phase. But with today's discussion about increased project costs, we are even more concerned about the quality of the design of the interior of main library and on the ability of the city to fund future library services. But our second concern tonight is about community outreach. Plenary has done an amazing job so far, but now as we entered this design development phase, it is even more important that the community be able to weigh in on the specific plans before they are finalized and at the November 9th meeting of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission agreed with us and made continued robust community outreach a condition for their approval. So we asked the Council tonight to require that plenary address these two issues the interior design of main library and community outreach. Plenaries an impressive team. But Long Beach has dealt with impressive teams before. We have not always gotten what was promised. As library advocates, we look forward to continuing our active role in this process. And we thank you for your commitment to making this an amazing civic center. Thank you. Next speaker, please. When it's not this number is concerned. And, you know, you see it, of course, you know, and a little Hilton Aquinas with other Long Beach. I mean, you'll be working a lot with other lobbyists in at least three to a number of courtroom. In St Kilda. They always hold this year less because loyalty is virtue. Gives to this akin long tunnel national. Pollo Loco retro trabajadores or mas windchill on four. The NBN is the core of the puzzle overall. Mozart futuro para no sociedad nuestros familias which I. Will translate quickly. Good evening. My name is Hazel Andino. I am a cook here at the Hilton Long Beach Hotel. I have lived here. I live in the fourth district here in Long Beach. I am here today to tell you that I am pleased that you all have chosen to do the right thing in Long Beach. This agreement of labor peace gives our city and our families a better future. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Lorena Lopez Masumi. I am an organization director with the Hotel and Restaurant Employees Union. Our office in Long Beach is located at 525 East Seventh Street, Long Beach. And I'm here to inform you that we signed an agreement, Kartika Quality Agreement with plenary edge more with this on the provision on Labor peace and this cartoon neutrality agreement ensures that a low risk investment, it prevents the risk of labor strikes in boycotts affecting the revenues that the city will earn and it ensures that good jobs are created in the city of Long Beach. So I ask you to move forward on this project. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Mayor Garcia. Vice Mayor Lowenthal, City Council, thank you so much for this time. My name is Toliver Morris. I am president of William Morris Commercial in downtown Long Beach. I am also on the board of downtown Long. Beach Associates. And served as chair elect. Excuse me. I can never think of the word and I used to represent them as chair of their Economic Development Committee. So I'm coming here tonight to speak from an economic development perspective. As I said, I'm a commercial real estate broker. I represent about a million square feet of space in our downtown. I've sold or leased about a million square feet of space in downtown. And we've seen a tremendous amount of investment in downtown, as you guys have seen over the course of the last few years, over $1,000,000,000 worth of investment, private investment coming into our downtown. But we have yet to see is the new investment that's coming. And a lot of that is predicated on the Civic Center. I sold Landmark Square a couple of summers ago for $135 million. I can tell you that one of the big pieces of information that helped to spur that sale was that the Civic Center was going to be developed. I represent Ocean West, who just bought 100 Broadway for about 35 million bucks. They spent to spend a whole bunch of money there, a multi-million dollars. A big part of their decision to buy down here was the Civic Center. So we talked about 8000 jobs being created by the Civic Center. I think there'll be way more jobs created by development that happens in and around the civic center because it's here because of what you build. So that's something we can't quantify. The tax dollars that come from that are going to be fantastic as well. We're seeing all sorts of new interest and activity, enthusiasm for the city. We are arriving. We have not arrived. And so this civic center is a big piece of that. And I just want to thank you guys for your efforts in that. Thanks so much. Thank you to our next speaker, please. Hi. My name Alison King. And I'm the co-chair of the Historic Preservation Committee for the First Congregational Church of Long Beach, right across the street. And I personally live in the third district. Many members of my congregation were present at the Planning Commission in order to hear about the plans set for the three the apartment building that's set to be built on the corner of Third Street and Broadway. And I'm very discouraged to hear very little dialog about what's going to be placed there and how it will impact the surrounding historic structures, including the church and the. WILMORE The First Congregational Church has. Fragile stained glass and very fragile terracotta that is going to be impacted by a very abrasions. I don't know the condition of the Woolmer, but I'm sure they have similar issues with their historic terracotta. We don't know how that's going to be mitigated. We've asked for additional vibrational equipment to be placed on the corners of third and cedar for the Wilma and for the church. But we've heard nothing. The Planning Commission, when they did approve the site plan, asked for continued correspondence between the church and plan outreach more. And we have heard nothing in the past 30 days about how they plan to address our vibrational concerns and our concerns about what's going to be placed in that lot. So I hope for further discussion to be ordered for plenary more and I look forward to continuing to discuss what's going to be placed on that lot and how it impacts the historic structures surrounding it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Gary Shelton's my name. I live a block from where I'm standing at this moment to expand a little bit on what Allison King just mentioned. The nexus between this project and the project at Broad Broadway and Pacific Avenue is that the storm drain runs underneath there, and it runs underneath both the city block and the private development block. The city, in its wisdom, to enhance the value of the property of the city block, which is called the Third and Pacific BLOCK, has designated about $1.9 million, I believe, to share in the cost with the private developer of the other block in relocating that storm drain. That work is underway right now and is being financed with part of that, I believe, ten or $11 million bond issue. And so there's also on your item number eight tonight in this item is to authorize the conveyance agreement on that property. And that's an $8 million value, as explained by the staff, which was also explaining that the fair market value was $8 million on the item nine piece. But he didn't mention fair market value on the Broadway excuse me, on the third street corner. So I would have that question. Does that $8 million include the enhancement that that the bond is going to be paying for? I wanted to remark on number two as well, and that's that in the course of the environmental impact, the supplementary environmental impact, the due to public comment, the initial air was amended to acknowledge the fact that there is a homeless population and that that's going to need to be I would say that that's going to need to be dealt with in some way or another and may in fact, be a cost factor in the new civic center. On item number three, I want to make it clear that the site plan approval that you're doing tonight is only on the city owned blocks and not on the other private development blocks. It's not clear in the backup material that you're only doing approval on the site plan on about half of the entire Civic Center project. And then finally, I would ask about the question of how the $11 million of increased cost due to the removal of the asbestos film underneath Lincoln Park was somehow unknown when we actually knew about that about ten years ago when we were looking at redesigning Lincoln Park, and that's why it wasn't done at that time. So it's a it's a surprise to me why. That's a surprise to you. Thank you. Thank you. Nick Speaker, please. Hi. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members Tom Sullivan, District five. I just have a couple of points, mainly surrounding some of the financing. It seems to me that 17 million that we have left on our debt will be paid for in a matter of two years based on our current payments of about 12. 4.6. It would, I think, be in our interest if we could roll that into a future benefit. Number one, paying for our labor negotiations that are coming up in about two years, potentially putting more services back into. Back into the city. I don't mean to diminish the importance of this project. It is a significant project that will put people to work and will put the city on the map in many ways. The importance of deferring I think is a is is wont to be considered. My other point is on the interest rates were a lot of the numbers, I believe, and I didn't quite hear this. A lot of the numbers, I believe, were based on current interest rates. It's my understanding that the loans as we move forward. Will be based on an adjustable. Rate, on a on an annual basis. Invariably, that's going to increase our costs on this project in the long term. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much. Happy holidays. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Ray Gavlak, eighth district. Thank you. Council members and mayor. You know, I'm as disturbed today, tonight as I was in 2006 when Mayor Foster and Councilwoman Lowenthal brought this to our attention and wanted to have this discussion. While during that period of time, during a nine year period of time, we made $200 million worth of cuts. Those cuts were not simply jobs. They were services to the community. And now here we're talking about I mean, the numbers were all over the board, and I'm certainly going to make comments on some of them. But I'm also very concerned about people referring to this, about the safety aspect. If we had felt that this building was in any way putting anybody in harm, we would have vacated it in 2006. We certainly wouldn't continue to run business as it is today. And also, I want to make sure that everybody is really clear that this was not just simply myself, but there were a number of council members that felt exactly the same way. Your predecessors. It was not the time to talk about putting ourselves in further debt. If we had made investments in this building all along, maybe we wouldn't have the problems that we have today. Those were ongoing. And as Mr. West said, you know, it should be $18 million as opposed to the 12.6. The other question that I have or the concern I have is when actually Councilwoman Pryce brought up, can we promise no city city cuts? And Mr. West, you said you you didn't think that there would be any cuts, but you could find other efficiencies. We already know from the numbers that were thrown out there that there is going to be tremendous debt. We've got the millions of dollars excuse me. There's so many numbers. We have the pension costs of four and a half million dollars through 2020. We have the FBI. 22 for this project will be $21.8 million in debt. I think that we need more full disclosure than what we have today, and it needs to be better understood by each and every one of you. This council will turn over five times by the time this building comes back to the city. And I think that's being a bit irresponsible. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, Vice Mayor Lowenthal Falls Council members, city staff Michel. Molina, managing. Partner of Newark's downtown business owner and property owner, resident of both the first and third District. Now, as the chair of the downtown Long Beach Associates, we want to come here tonight and strongly support the city staff's recommendation for this modern and innovative civic center project. We honor the process started by Vice Mayor Lowenthal and hard work by city staff and this development team. The LBA has been proud to have participated and often shared in the facilitation of over 100 community meetings. The project under consideration reflects many of those community. Driven ideas such as safe and inviting, flexible public spaces that accommodate fairs, festivals, events, and create a sense of place through entertainment and events, including music, theater, art, farmer's markets and festivals. A state of an art state of the art main library and facilities that engage and bring both innovation and information to our city. Pieces of architecture, urban design and history that Long Beach can be proud of while continually harkening to its main purpose to civically engaged via a well-planned design. And lastly, a were a park once strategy that will reduce dependance on cars through easy transit access and biking amenities. To really? Really. You could tell. It's like to reiterate. The last paragraph. Sorry. I lost track of myself right there. Sent to you by our executive director, Craig Cogen, in his letter today. As the proposed development moves forward, the debate will continue to work with plenary urge, more civic partners and the city in making the new Long Beach Civic Center. A world class base for our community. The redevelopment of the Civic Center poses a unique, once in a lifetime opportunity to reimagine this space in the heart of our revitalized downtown an inviting, well-planned civic core integrated into the existing downtown fabric. Could lead to increased civic engagement, greater accessibility to open space, added vibrancy through added residential units and retail, and much more. We enthusiastically support making it a reality. Thank you. Thank you. And before we go to the next speaker, these are our last three speakers. So Mr. Goodling is loud. There are last four speakers. Go ahead. I'll be quick, Mr. Mayor. Council people. My name is Jane Templin, long time member, resident of District two and involved in this. For the past ten years as an interested. Resident. Many areas interested in the. Opportunity of jobs, career paths. For our residents are youth bringing out. More opportunities. Trying to see our city as moving into the future. My grandkids are going to be probably coming. Back and living in the. House once we're gone. So it's an ongoing something we can pass on. It's an excitement. This project is quite. Wonderful and I want to thank you all for the opportunity to be part of it and to. See those shovels in the dirt and boots on the ground. I mean, I wish you a merry Christmas. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. A cut to the short of it. It's late. My name is Gary Cook. I represent 2000 plumbers in the area. I want to thank you, Mayor. Council members staff for such great teamwork work, making a transparent process for everyone to see. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Council City Management. On behalf of the CVB, we would just like to say. Ten years ago we remembered when Sue just started this process and it was a downtown visioning. And it's exciting to see ten years later a project before us that actually is going to continue to enhance the development downtown. The conventions and the convention planners that come into our city and the visitors that come into our city every week to take a look at us to book their conventions here. I hear one of two things every time. Boy, has this city changed. Or Gee, I never knew. It doesn't matter, but I hear one of the two and this project will be definitely again excavating one of those two statements. We also believe it will continue to help us to book additional conventions, which overnight visitors and conventions drive 300 miles into our local economy. Anyway, thank you for a wonderful project and we look forward to sharing it and selling it. Thank you. Thank you. In our last comment the evening. Hi. Good evening. Tom Stout live in a third district co-founder lobbies taxpayer association. I just have some real reservations on, you know, many of the things that past councils have done that turned out badly and that it's going to probably happen again, but not for maybe 30 to 40 years. You know, you talk about the P3 project with a courthouse, that courthouse nearly bankrupted. The court system in the state of California. It's the most expensive courthouse ever built. They even the state estimates the P3 cost an extra $160 million to the taxpayers. That's a lot of money. And then you have Bill five, six two. Why was that brought forward by Laura and with the new U.N. and. O'DONNELL You know, they're basically her lackeys up there. The numbers obviously didn't work out for the the project. So by allowing you to indebt taxpayers for an additional ten or 15 years, I'm sure the numbers did work out. You know, is this place in as good a shape as it should be? No deferred maintenance. I mean, the problem is it cost too much money to run this city. 90% of the the cost of running the city is is compensation. It's not going to go down. And they brought up the fact that pensions. Pensions are going to go up about $4 million a year. Mr. GROSS stated that pensions will reach at the end of that by 2021, about $135 million. You know, I would say that's probably going to be low because there will be raises coming before that time and there will be raises during the whole tenure of this this building that we're going to have 40 years. I know I won't be here. The vast majority of you people won't be here. So the only thing I got to say is, you know, a lot of bad decisions have been made in the past and you guys will be gone and the taxpayers and the residents will be stuck with a lot of a lot of bills . And hopefully what you're saying is true because so many things you've said haven't been in the past. Thank you. Thank you. When I'm gone out of office, I certainly will continue to be a taxpayer and a resident of Long Beach. So let me go ahead and go back to the council and questions. I have a couple clarification and then I want to one one which I'm actually going to let the city attorney do because think it's important that the city attorney respond to one of the comments made by one of the speakers about the negotiation part and that Mr. Suarez made. So did you want to comment on that before I go to these other items real quick, Mr.. City Attorney. Certainly, Mr. Mayor, more comfortable with the council moving forward with the motion that has before it tonight, as amended by Councilwoman Lowenthal. And we remain committed to continuing the confer process with the AMP. Okay. Thank you very much. One thing I want to just say to the library supporters and others that they're curious about and concerned about the process for moving forward. So the way this project is designed by its very nature is it's done in these kind of specified chunks and timelines. And so as we conclude this part of the process tonight, there is absolutely additional process and there's absolutely will be additional process that we will commit to when it particularly when it comes to the library as we develop it. I mean, that is the whether it's the interior or the exterior that is all still being obviously discussed in the future will continue to have an open process. And same goes for the private piece. I think a couple of folks mentioned the private development. We are still probably a couple of years away from the many decisions that this council will have to make over the private development piece. Every every piece of this project that that it's private, there will be interaction with the city on how it's developed, what's developed, how it looks, etc., etc.. And so I just want to make sure that that was mentioned as well. And then also I know that there's been discussions already as far as ensuring that anything that we do, that we're working with our neighbors, including First Congregational, who is one of our key neighbors around the project. And so, Mr. West, just let's just make sure that that continues. And I know I will say to plenary adding more whose here plenary they very fantastic partner and so I there has never been an ask of plenary that's been made of the city that they have come back and said absolutely not. In fact every time we've asked plenary no actually have 50 more meetings or no go out to this community or do these meetings in Spanish and come committee or change this or give us a better deal on this project. Plenary has come back to the table every single time and provided us with a partnership, and I want to thank you for that. And so for for the questions that are out there and process moving forward, I'm pretty confident in this team. They're they're they're an All-Star team. And and I want to thank you for that. So let me go back to a couple of final closing comments here, and then we're going to go to a vote. Councilman Gonzales. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank everyone for their comments. Really, really great. I think everyone, for the most part, seems very ready for this project to move forward. I myself am, as I had previously mentioned, a few quick comments and then a couple of questions on the third and Cedar for First Congregational Church. I remember talking speaking with them about it just real briefly, but where are we at? Do do we have another meeting set up with them in terms of impacts to them with noise and any disturbances that they may? So we are talking to the contractor who is doing the work right now. Plenary Edge. Moore is not a party to the agreements because they have not yet been approved, so they are not participants right now in the Third and Pacific Project. We have had the contractor make a visit to the Congregational Church and we'll follow up to make sure that those discussions are occurring. I do want to point out, though, that the downtown plan and the downtown plan are did anticipate that construction activities associated with construction could generate ground generated vibrations. And that was disclosed as part of the downtown plan earlier, as a significant and unavoidable impact. That impact does carry forward. There are mitigation measures associated with that, that we will make sure that both the third specific project and the Civic Center project comply with. Okay. Thank you. And I know since we're on historical and I forgot to forgotten to ask this question before for this city I'm sorry, for the courthouse and other historic mitigation measures. What are we doing specifically? I know there has been some talk about expanding the historical record, keeping at the library as part of mitigation. Would that be possible or potentially? There is. There are some requirements in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report that's before you for consideration tonight that do require documentation, standard documentation of the courthouse, the main library and city hall to occur before any demolition occurs of those buildings. There is also a requirement that there be an assessment of potential historic artifacts, both in the courthouse, within the city, the library, and then also within the port's archives to see if those document, those artifacts could be publicly displayed, either through the cultural and history loop or through installation at the library or even, you know, some of our other cultural resources in the city, like the Long Beach Museum of Art or some of our other buildings. So those are requirements of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report that would attempt to mitigate the loss of these buildings. But they are still considered a significant impact. And as part of your action tonight, you would be asked to adopt a statement of of overriding considerations, recognizing that. Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate the information in that. We're still staying on this. And then another quick question is how many local firms are working with culinary edge? More at this time. Maybe that's. At least three. Mr. Whereof. And Mr. Conway. I don't have an exact number. I know we've got three. Or four firms that are. Partnership, but. Kelly Sutherland McCloud sitting in the audience today is one of. Them. Todd Bennett, Landscape Architecture and then Cordero Consulting. Cordero Consulting. So we knew of at least three in the audience. Okay, great. Curious question. And and then lastly, I wanted to just say, I again, just reiterate my great pleasure with plenary more and all of their hard work with our building trades as well as just our community at large. And so I know that they potentially could be open to play on private development, but that's certainly for for us to discuss at a later time. But I just, again, want to thank you all for all of your hard work in all of this. And I look forward to voting and hoping that my colleagues will support that as well. Councilman Mongo. I think that perhaps Councilman Gonzalez and I were under the same understanding that there are still negotiations going on with some of the small businesses that were in the original deal. And those cannot go forward until this is finalized. Is that correct? Because I was understanding. They're still bidding out certain. Community partners. So the people who you mentioned in the audience, not all of them are assured of partnerships. So the ones that we mentioned are actually sub consultants to the development team. They're on contract and have been. So any any bidding that the development team is doing is not within our purview, that that is something that they're working on themselves. But there are no requirements that if they're in the original plan, it listed on local businesses. What happens if they decide not to work with one of their subcontractors or local consultants or any of those and they trade out? It doesn't actually have to come back to city council, is that correct? No, it wouldn't. And so what? How do we ensure we keep those jobs here in Long Beach? The the firms that are currently under contract with the firm, with the development partner, are under contract for the duration. They are required to participate in the process by virtue of what their tasks are. They will be involved throughout the process. Thank you. And Vice Marie Lowenthal. To close. Thank you, Councilmember Mongo, when you said those jobs, did you mean the those specific consultant jobs or the 8000 jobs. The jobs underneath the consultant job? So what I'm understanding is at least there's a large firm in my district that was mentioned in the original proposal, and I wasn't a part of the team that decided which firm was chosen, but I was really pleased that plenty more was chosen because a major employer in my district was a part of that team. And so my understanding is that they are not permanently chosen on the team, that there are still negotiations that are going to be continuing and that there's risk that those jobs could be Orange County jobs in the future. And so I don't know what assurances we have. I just want to make sure that a best put effort is made to both protect the taxpayers and the costs. And I appreciate that that would rip it out. But knowing too, that not only are the lowest costs, not always the best, sometimes bringing in people from the outside causes reduction in income to our employees, reduction and increase in pollution and traffic for people from Orange County driving up and such things like that. So I'm just looking forward to ensuring that the Long Beach businesses that are on the teams are secure and if not, if they choose to go with another option that other Long Beach businesses get that first option. So and thank you. Thank you for that clarification. I understand what exactly you meant and are talking about. And it is very important, I think if I can ask us to recall our history with Plenary and Clark Construction and their job at bringing the courthouse forward, just their history alone would inform us that that that would definitely take place. I'm also very confident that they are also looking out for our taxpayer's best interests. And so they'll probably want to assure that anyone that's on the team is competitive in pricing. So that's that's a key part and I don't want us to overlook that. And so I think those decisions probably are made with that. So thank you. Thank you for raising that issue. I just wanted to thank everyone that came forward and spoke. And many of you have been following this process for quite some time. It is late of all the deferred maintenance, I have to say, Mr. West, I wish you had invested in a heater. I look out at the audience. I look out at the audience. Everyone's got their coats on. They've been here for hours. Usually people take their coats off. So I'm sorry for that. We did not invest in a heater, but hopefully the efficiency of the new buildings, the new public buildings will will not have to have heaters. So I am looking forward to that. Mr. Goodling, Steve Goodling was here. He was one of our original 12 downtown visioning team members. And thank you for your continued vision. And I, I know that you do the best you can to sell our downtown and our city for conventions and visitors. And sometimes you work magic, and this time the public can invest and be sure that you're not always having to work the magic and to the library. Margaret, thank you for being here. And I know Sarah was here earlier and probably still is, but my eyesight gets very poor toward the end of the night, so everyone just looks happy in a right now. But I wanted to I wanted to thank you because it took a lot of faith, a leap of faith to have confidence in this process, whether it was in 2006 or any year after that year, all of the library advocates were concerned that the library would get left behind because of technology and because of all the reasons why libraries may seem unnecessary. And we made a promise to you. Several of us are still here. And and I want to thank you for your trust and for allowing us to fulfill that promise. We, too, want a majestic public library. We value the touch and feel experience of books and electronic resources, but really that touch and feel experience. And so we look forward to that as being a part of the public asset that this team will bring forward. And I think they understand that as well. They're very aware of the significance of main library. There have been many attempts to move it elsewhere throughout the years, but I am delighted that it is staying here right where it belongs. And to the comment about developers making promises and not delivering that is a key reason why I ran for council. I lived across the street from a project that was overpromised and under-delivered. But I can attest that since my service here and the service of others that have been here for the last ten years, that has not happened because we have learned our lessons. And when I look at the courthouse. That is a prime example of a team that did not overpromise and underdeveloped. I'm very happy for the community and the residents here, and I'm delighted that the courthouse was kept here in the downtown because of all of the jobs that would have left and all of the businesses that would have left that purposely co-locate because of the courthouse location. And so thank you for that. And I have faith that once again, we will have a team that is delivering exactly what the community coalesced to inform the project and what they wanted to see come forward. And finally to Jane, she is very modest, but I will tell you, she is our own Rosie the Riveter. She is an electrician. If I'm not mistaken, part of the IBEW. And she is living proof that women do not need to make $0.80 on every dollar. And so thank you for that. Yes, you're a second district resident, but you represent so much more than that. And I hope that this project will do you proud. With that, Mr. Mayor, I am looking forward to our vote. Thank you. And thank you all again for your comments. We have a motion and a second by Vice Mayor Lowenthal and Councilwoman Gonzalez. Members, please go out and cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you very much. And. Thank you all. Just also, before we we have two votes additionally on this. They're not directly the Civic Center, but they're tied in to it. So I just want to make sure that we vote on those. Real quick, before we recess, we go to the rest of the meeting. So hearing number two, if I can just read hearing number two, please, which is tied into this.

A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Kelli Carroll to the King County gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion task force, representing the King County executive office.

KingCountyCC_08182021_2021-0221

So it will be on the consent agenda for council that takes us to our next set of appointments. Proposed motions. 2021 221 222, 223 and 224, which would confirm the executive's appointment of Kelly Carroll, Johnathan Fowler, Temple House convener in one Bernardino Luna to the Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Inclusion Task Force application materials were sent out to council members separately by email yesterday and Sam Porter from the Council South will provide a brief staff report. Then we'll hear from the appointees who are on the call with us today as well. Ms.. Porter, the line is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me? We can. Great. For the record, Sam Porter, council policy staff. The documents for these four items begin on page 17 in your pocket. These were proposed motions would confirm the following people to their gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion task force. Kelly Carroll, representing the King County Executive's office. Jonathan Fowler representing the King County Council, capital City Byner, representing United Territories and Pacific Islanders Alliance, which is also known as Utopia and Juan Fernando Luna, representing country L.A.. These appointments would last through the expiration of the task force, which is 60 days after the reporting provisions outlined in the enabling legislation are completed. This task force was established through motion 15162 and June of 2018 in response to the Washington State Board of Health ruling allowing for a third option for designation on birth certificates to indicate a gender other than male or female. The six primary objectives of the task force are listed on page 17 of your packet and include reviewing the Board of Health ruling and determining any changes that the county may need to make in response. Consulting with county departments and community groups to assess county administrative processes, including but not limited to forms, questionnaires and interviews that include requests for information relating to gender identity and sexual orientation. And identifying administrative processes that could be modified to increase gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion. Table one on page 18 of your packet shows the current roster of Task Force membership with the organization. Organization stated in motion 15162 identified and board. The group has been meeting in accordance with the initial framework adopted through motion 15613 and is anticipated to complete their work mid 2022. We have three of the four appointees on the call today. Unfortunately, Mr. Fowler was unable to join us and that concludes my remarks. Thank you, Ms.. Porter. Questions of of the presentation. Seeing none. I turn to Ms.. Carroll to introduce herself and talk about your background and interest in serving on the Commission, the task force. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members Kelly Kilpatrick. And I'm delighted to be here in this capacity. I am honored to be selected to serve on this gender identity and Sexual Orientation Task Force representing the executive's office. I've worked for King County for 25 years, if you can believe it, and it has given me an incredible and unique perspective , as well as the skills to serve on this task force. When I came out as a lesbian 30 years ago, it wasn't safe for me to be my authentic self at my corporate employer. The managing partners made jokes. I was told that I needed to wear makeup, so I looked more approachable and nice and less angry. And I was told I could not bring friends, friends to company, corporate family events and took a pay cut to go work for an AIDS service organization. So I could be me, I could be seen, I could be safe and be my authentic self. I couldn't legally marry my wife until just a few years ago and 2012, and my marriage wasn't recognized across all 50 states until six short years ago. And let's be clear. I'm highly privileged. I'm a white woman. My black, brown, gay, lesbian, trans and nonconforming family suffers threats and violence much, much more than I have ever will due to the massively compounded inequities because of structural and institutional racism. Because of these reasons, I'm honored to use my voice, my experience, my skills and my power to serve my community and help make King County government a place where all of us can thrive and be safe. No. Thank you, Miss Carol. This minor. But we invite you to introduce yourself and speak about your interest in serving on the commission. Task Force be consistent in our mistakes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And good morning to all the council members. My name is Sarah Viner. I serve as the program director of Heads Up in Washington. I issued her proposals. I identify as a philosophy name and I am from the islands of American Samoa. What's presently known as American Samoa. And I. It's such an honor for me to be. Also, I'm grateful to have the opportunity to serve on this board. When I was first invited to sit on this table, I looked around and I didn't see anyone else. That was Pacific Islander. I didn't see a lot of indigenous trans binary nonbinary folks. And for me, it was the encouragement for me that I need to continue to be present in spaces like this so that my community, someone represented and so that I can at least help to bring this ability to my community and also for that visibility to hopefully empower more Pacific Islander trans women, to take up spaces, to take up the mantle in effecting change and why it's necessary so that policy, so that services are truly grounded in community priorities. I would say that's my life experience, my lived experience as a trans woman, as if I'm fostering a component with my cultural barriers. Living in America has prepared me to be on this table, has given me the necessary tools with the resilience that I had to exhibit to endure all that I had to endure to live authentically. The way that I am right now has helped me and prepared me to be on this table. And I find that it's my responsibility to make sure that not only my community is represented and visible in these businesses, but that I can also help to bring them back so that they are more active in this work. There's right to thank you. And I'd invite Mr. Luna to introduce himself and share about his experience, background and interest in serving on the task force. Sure. Good morning. Everyone. First of all, it's an honor to be appointed for to collaborate with this commission. My name is going to London to regionally promote and support and people living in the island for the last 20 years. I have dedicated my career as a social worker and to work for the rights community of the Latin community in different France. I'm also a theater artist. I think that that. Creating the information and these. Words. And providing civility and inclusion to sexual minorities and minorities in Seattle. Is very important. I may speak as a social worker. And as civic engagement specialist. I. Promise that I will work hard and collaborate with all the actors in this issue to improve the lives of the Latinx community and other people of Puerto. Thank you. Thank you. If I may, if I might just reflect on the comments of all three of the applicants, the nominees who were with us today, that it can be as a member of the community myself, it can sometimes be too easy to be complacent. Ms.. Carroll referenced that her marriage has been recognized for six years. Mine just shortly after that as marriage was legal. In that time, some might think that the work of the LGBTQ community is done and that we've achieved our work and the points each one of the three of you have made underscored how that is not true and how much more work needs to be done in the vigilance we need to continue to carry. It was acutely aware, acutely aware of damage 21 years ago when I was first elected to public office, and one was one of two openly members of the LGBTQ community serving in the state legislature at the time, two white men identifying as gay. The diversity we have within this very council, two members of the community serving on the council and the Council, creating the task force and supporting this work. And the fact that yesterday I filled out two health care surveys for two different organizations that had provided me service in the last six months, and both listed only a binary choice for gender identity health care organizations. One particularly aimed with questions around behavioral health really underscored for me that work. And then last night I and. Picked up some mail that had come in and read a newsletter from a national private college that addressed gender identity and transgender youth in particular that I found quite concerning. The work of this task force is carrying on the work that very much is vital in. And each one of the three of you have spoken to the passion, the personal experience and the work that you bring to it. I want to thank each of you. Are there questions or conversation from my colleagues? City Council member Lambert. I think we should ask 2500 questions to Kelly to make sure that we know her fully. Welcome. So good to see you back. For those who may not be aware, Ms.. Carroll used to work for the council's central staff. So we're delighted to have her filling this role. Knowing her well. Colleagues. Mr. Fowler was not able to join us today. I would entertain a motion to approve all four if members were comfortable doing that of the motions before us today . Mr. Chair? Council Member Dunn. I would move approval of all of the applicants for the position as present today. Thank you. Councilmember Dunn. Councilmember Dunn, this moved we do have a do pass recommendation to motions 2021 to 20 1 to 22, 22, 23 and to 24. The appointments of Ms.. Carroll, Ms.. Viner, Mr. Luna and Mr. Fowler. Any further discussion? Councilmember Dombrowski. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to just express my appreciation to all the nominees who are willing to serve without any disrespect to the other, to extend my personal appreciation and gratitude to Ms.. Carroll to her remarks and her service to Cook County for so many years, her leadership and her friendship. Kelly, I love you. And thank you for being such a wonderful human that you are. Councilmember Banducci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to again share with all of the nominees here appreciation. This is a commitment of time and energy and knowledge that will help us to adopt better policy and to be more focused on how we effectively serve and support the communities within King County. Your personal and professional experience is just irreplaceable and will help us to do a better job and continually improve how we support, you know, people of various gender identities and sexual orientations throughout our community. And thank you for sharing. Your personal stories. It's it's very meaningful. So and thank you for your willingness to serve in this way. We appreciate you. My record. Will you please call the Roll. Inc, Mr. Chair? Councilmember Barghouti. I think. Councilmember Gideon Barsky, a councilmember done. By. Councilmember coles i. Councilmember Lambert, i. Councilmember of the girl i. Councilmember von richthofen. All right. Council members online. Hi. Mr. Chair. Hi. Everybody's 980 now. Thank you. By our vote, we've given the unanimous House recommendation to motions to 21. I'm sorry. 2021 to 20 1 to 20 2 to 23 and to 24. We will put those on consent at full council in regular timeframe. That brings us to the final item on today's agenda, an ordinance that would amend regulations relating to the dispensation of land or unused county owned property and require a creation of a publicly accessible database of these properties. Randy Vina from Council South will provide a staff report.

A bill for an ordinance approving the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan and the creation of the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Area. Approves the Urban Redevelopment Plan for the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Area to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions as well as to stimulate growth and redevelopment in the East Colfax Corridor, generally bounded by Monaco Parkway on the west and Yosemite Street on the east in Council Districts 5 and 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-30-19.

DenverCityCouncil_08262019_19-0744

Evening speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes and there is no yielding of time on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please vote council 744 on the floor. Yes, President Clarke, I move that council bill 19 dash 0744 be placed upon final consideration. And do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Black. I understand you have a motion to amend. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 19 0744 be amended in the following particulars on page one strike lines 29 through 33. On page three, strike lines eight through nine on page three. Line ten, replace 11 with ten. And on page three. Line 14, replace 12 with 11. It has been. Do we have a motion and a second on the amendment, Madam Secretary? We do. Excellent. Thank you. Third has been moved and seconded comments by members of the Council. Council in Black. Thank you, Mr. President. This amendment is to conform to the amendment made last week at City Council to remove the establishment of tax increment areas. All right. Thank you. So, Secretary, I think we're gonna do work on the amendment before we open this up. Correct. Okay, so roll call on the amendment. Black I. CdeBaca when I. Gillmor, I. Herndon Hines. Cashman. Kenny Ortega I see Novo. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please. Because the voting in notes results. 12 US. 12 Eyes Council Bill 744 has been amended. The public hearing for Council Bill 744 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, Mr. President. Members of City Council. My name is Tracy Huggins. I'm the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. And Dura is requesting City Council approval of Council Bill 19 074 forward to approve the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan establishing the East Colfax Corridor, Urban Redevelopment Area. The Denver Urban Renewal Authority. As the city's redevelopment agency is statutorily charged to pursue the elimination of blighting conditions through thoughtful redevelopment and development. Therefore, a fundamental component of the proposed urban redevelopment plan is the determination by City Council that the approach that the proposed urban redevelopment area is blighted as is defined by state statute durect cannot undertake. Catch myself up here. Bear with me for a minute. There we go. Dura cannot undertake an urban redevelopment project in an urban redevelopment area unless the area has been determined to be blighted. While the neighborhoods in which the proposed urban redevelopment area is located have experienced varying levels of investment and growth over the last 50 years . The properties within the proposed urban redevelopment area along the East Cortex corridor have not experienced significant reinvestment. The creation of the East Colfax Corridor, Urban Redevelopment Area, as part of the approval of the Urban Redevelopment Plan, will allow various public improvement projects to be pursued, and it will allow assistance to the private sector to encourage projects, including commercial mixed use and housing developments and other statutorily authorized projects throughout the urban redevelopment area. When considering the creation of an urban redevelopment area, the boundaries of the area must first be determined. State law requires the boundaries to be drawn as narrowly as possible to accomplish the development objectives of the urban redevelopment area. The boundaries were determined in coordination with the city's planning department. Once the boundaries were determined, Duran engaged a consultant to conduct a condition study. When conducting a condition study, Durham must notify in writing. Each private property owner in the study area that their property is being included in the study area. During notified each property owner by mail, we then hosted a meeting of the property owners to describe the condition study process and then hosted a follow up meeting to share the results of the study. In making the determination of blight, City Council relies on evidence presented at this hearing, including the condition study. If the area is determined to be blighted, Durham will provide notice of the determination to all property owners. The proposed urban redevelopment area is comprised of approximately 80 acres and is located in the far eastern portion of the city and county of Denver within the Montclair, South Park Hill and East Colfax Statistical neighborhoods. The eastern boundary of the urban redevelopment area coincides with the boundary between the city and county of Denver and the city of Aurora. The urban redevelopment area is focused along Colfax Avenue and the real property parcels in the blocks immediately to the north and south of Colfax Avenue, including the Colfax right of way and other public rights of way that are adjacent to these parcels. The urban redevelopment area is generally bounded by Monaco Parkway on the West and Yosemite Street on the east. The urban redevelopment area encompasses all or portions of 48 city blocks, which are all primarily within the Main Street Zone district due to their orientation along East Colfax Avenue Transit Corridor and the commercial nature of the area. Der commissioned Matrix Design Group to conduct the study to determine if the area is blighted. That study, dated February of 2019, has been filed with the city clerk as part of the record of this public hearing. The study addresses each of the 11 factors and summarizes why or why not. A particular factor was determined to be present in the study area. For purposes of this draft report, I will only be speaking to the five factors constituting blighting conditions that were found to be present in the study area. Deteriorated or deteriorating structures. An onsite survey was performed in the study area to document existing conditions. Buildings as well as property were surveyed. Many structures in the study area were found to be dilapidated, with characteristics such as broken and or boarded windows and doors peeling paint deteriorated, fascia and or sockets and broken signs. Some structures were in good condition, but many more lacked proper maintenance, especially buildings that were vacant. The prevalence and frequency of dilapidated structures in the study area was significant enough to impact the overall character of the study area. As a result, there is a finding of slum deteriorated or deteriorating structures. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions. As part of this study, crime records from the Denver Police Department over the last five years, plus the year to date, were examined. During that time period, there were over 6000 reported incidents in the study area, not including minor traffic incidents that were not classified as crime by the police department. Over the same time period, the three official neighborhoods that encompassed the entirety of the study area again South Park Hill, Montclair and East Colfax had 16,512 reported crimes, not including minor traffic incidents. The three neighborhoods had nearly three times the number of crimes as the study area alone, but over an area 38 times larger, giving the study area a crime density and order of magnitude much greater than the surrounding vicinity. It should be noted that the three neighborhoods considered in this analysis are entirely developed and do not include a significant portion of vacant land or parkland. All three are composed of streets on a grid, contain high density housing, and all three are solidly within central Denver. In other words, population density is spread fairly evenly across the three neighborhoods, but crime is concentrated ten fold within the boundaries of the study area. Based on the high concentration of violent crime in the study area, a finding of unsanitary or unsafe conditions has been made. Deterioration of sight or other improvements. The conditions that apply to this play factor reflect the deterioration of various improvements made on a site other than building structures. These conditions may represent a lack of general maintenance at a site the physical degradation, degradation of specific improvements, or an improvement that was poorly planned or constructed. Overall, the presence of these conditions can reduce the site's usefulness and desirability and negatively affect nearby properties. During the Field Survey, a lack of adequate site maintenance was noted to be a common occurrence. Several properties had discarded mattresses or other types of illegal dumping. Others had deteriorated parking lots, overgrown vegetation or dilapidated retail signs or other improvements. Finally, broken or crumbling sidewalks and other pedestrian surfaces were commonplace. These issues were not universal. Many properties were found to be in good condition. However, the frequency of issues found warrants a finding of deterioration of site and other improvements. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities. The focus of this factor is on the presence of unusual topographical conditions that could make development prohibitive, such as steep slopes or poor load bearing soils, as well as deficiencies in the public infrastructure system. Within the study area, that could include deteriorated public infrastructure such as streets and alley pavement, curb gutter sidewalks, street lighting, storm drainage systems, lack of public infrastructure, the presence of overhead utilities or billboards, inadequate fire protection facilities and hydrants and inadequate sanitation or water systems. The topography of the area is generally flat and does not present a limitation to development. However, sidewalk infrastructure in the study area is generally present along Colfax, but in poor condition. Many sections of the sidewalk were noted during the field study to be absent along side streets or in other cases, severely damaged. Current conditions contribute to a general sense of a lack of maintenance and lack of infrastructure. Finally, the presence of billboards along Colfax Avenue through the study area has the potential to complicate redevelopment projects due to active billboard leases. The infrastructure needs mention to support a positive finding of unusual topography or inadequate public improvements in the study area. And lastly, 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. Municipal service calls are elevated in the study area, as described earlier. The study area covers a heavily developed mixed use area, but many structures and units within these structures in the study area were vacant during the field survey and many of these vacant buildings were among those found in the worst repair. Furthermore, due to the historical development of East Colfax in the area, many buildings cover a low percentage of their respective properties and devote the rest of the land to parking, contributing to a sense of underutilization. The current Main Street Zone code allows for three storey buildings in some portions of the study area and five story buildings in others. Envisioning a significantly higher development intensity than currently prevails. However, the lack of investment in the area means that the current character of the study area largely remains noncompliant to the code and is instead grandfathered in maintaining an abundance of parking lots. Low development intensity and automobile oriented buildings large, often empty or nearly empty parking lots are a common feature of the study area and contribute to its overall underutilization. The high levels of municipal service calls the the prevalence of vacant retail and commercial buildings and the underdeveloped character of the study area are grounds for a positive finding of the existence of health, safety or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical, underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings and other improvements. 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 and welfare of the area. In bringing forward this urban redevelopment plan, Darragh has sought to align the goals and objectives of the plan with the existing city plans for the area, including the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver, the East, Montclair, East Colfax Neighborhood Plan and the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan. Additionally, the Urban Redevelopment Plan requires any project to also be consistent with future plans, including the East Area Plan. Plan. 2040 is the holistic and sustainable vision of the city and the guiding document for shaping the city. The goals and strategies within Planning Plan 2040 are organized under a framework of six vision elements. Equitable, affordable and inclusive. Strong and authentic neighborhoods. Connected. Safe and accessible places. Economically diverse and vibrant. Environmentally resilient and healthy and active. The Urban Redevelopment Plan will help realize the visions of Plan 2040 by furthering many of the goals and strategies outlined under each vision vision elements. So by way of example, as we start in the upper left with equitable, affordable and inclusive, the outcome that is noted in in Plan 2040 is to build housing as a continuum, to serve residents across a range of income, ages and needs. This would be also reflected in the urban renewal plan. Strong and authentic neighborhoods create a city of complete neighborhoods. Build a network of well-connected, vibrant, mixed use centers and corridors, connected, safe and accessible places, promote transit oriented development and encourage higher density development, including affordable housing near transit to support ridership. Economically diverse and vibrant. Targeted investments and small business support to the most underserved or distressed neighborhoods. Environmentally resilient, focused growth by transit stations and along high and medium capacity transit corridors. And finally, healthy and active. Expand the efforts to recruit and retain fresh food retailers in low income and underserved areas. These are just several of the plan components that are also noted in the Urban Redevelopment Plan. Blueprint. Denver is the city's integrated land use and transportation plan. BLUEPRINT Denver aims to achieve an equitable integration of land use and transportation throughout the city by realizing the plan's vision for a city of complete neighborhoods and transportation networks, an evolving city and an equitable city. The Urban Redevelopment Plan will support Blueprint Denver's Vision for the Urban Redevelopment Area. Starting with a city of complete network, Complete Neighborhoods and Networks blueprint. Denver identifies that the urban redevelopment area primarily lies within the urban edge neighborhood context. The urban edge context is predominantly residential and acts as a transition between more intense urban contexts and suburban areas. Blueprint Denver foresees the majority of the urban redevelopment area evolving into a community corridor, community corridors within the urban edge contexts or destinations with an extensive mix of uses that draw visitors from surrounding neighborhoods and are characterized by a pedestrian oriented environment. Colfax Avenue, the arterial street running through the center of the urban redevelopment area, is envisioned as a Main Street arterial. Main streets are characterized by a mix of active street level uses that prioritize people walking or rolling. The Urban Redevelopment Plan will support the complete Neighborhood and Transportation Network Vision for the Urban Redevelopment Area, as depicted in Blueprint Denver. An evolving city. Focusing growth in centers and corridors helps to provide a variety of housing, jobs and entertainment options within a comfortable distance to all Denver sites, and is a key element of building complete neighborhoods throughout the city. Collectively, throughout the city, community corridors are anticipated to see 25% of new housing growth and 20% of new employment growth growth by 2040. The Urban Redevelopment Plan aims to stimulate the development of housing, retail and office space in the urban redevelopment area, which is consistent with the city's growth strategy. An Equitable City blueprint. Denver incorporates equity into 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 demonstrates that the urban redevelopment area is in an area which has low access to opportunity, high vulnerability to displacement, and low job density and diversity. The neighborhood falls in the middle range for housing diversity diversity. The Urban Redevelopment Plan will foster development that will improve the urban redevelopment area's equitable outcomes as measured by these three indicators. These include incentivizing development of affordable housing, community serving amenities and new employment opportunities. Blueprint Denver provides policy recommendations and strategies to create complete neighborhoods and networks, guide future growth and promote equitable development. The Urban Redevelopment Plan will further many of these recommendations. As noted earlier, the urban redevelopment area lies within three statistical neighborhoods which have adopted neighborhood plans. The first is the east Montclair East, North East Colfax Neighborhood Plan. The East Montclair East Colfax Neighborhood Plan promotes a pattern of land use, urban design, circulation and services that contribute to the economic, social and physical health, safety and welfare of the people who live or do business in the East Colfax Neighborhood. The East Montclair East Colfax Neighborhood Plan is applicable to the portions of the urban redevelopment area, north and south of Colfax between Quebec and Yosemite, and to the south side of Compacts Avenue between Monaco and Quebec. The East Montclair East Colfax Neighborhood Plan envisions a more pedestrian friendly, landscaped and thriving commercial district along East Colfax Avenue. The vision for the East Colfax corridor also includes an improved image and a, quote, cleaner and more beautiful, inviting business district that will strengthen existing businesses and attract new businesses to the area, end quote. Additionally, the East Montclair East Colfax Neighborhood Plans Transportation Vision for the area imagines a neighborhood friendly to walking and biking. The Park Hill Neighborhood Plan intends to promote patterns of desired neighborhood change. Urban Design. Housing development and preservation. Business development. Traffic flow. And safety and other public services. All of which contribute to the economic, social and physical health, safety and welfare of the people who live and work in Park Hill. The Park Hill Neighborhood Plan is applicable to the northern portion of the urban redevelopment area along Colfax Avenue between Monica Parkway and Quebec Street. The Park Hill Neighborhood Plan identifies Colfax Avenue as not only the main street for the neighborhood, but also for the city's metropolitan region. The Park Hill Neighborhood Plans primary goal for Colfax Avenue is to create a stable, safe, attractive, well-lit retail street with a mix of offices, neighborhood businesses and destination businesses that attract customers from out of the geographic area and with anchor tenants to increase activity and uses for other businesses. The city is currently working on the East Area Plan as part of the broader Neighborhood Planning Initiative, which, if approved, will replace the existing East Montclair, East Colfax and Park Hill neighborhood plans. Any future urban redevelopment project will need to demonstrate compliance with the objectives of the then current neighborhood plans. The proposed urban redevelopment plan seeks to eliminate blight through the creation of the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Area. The main goals of the Urban Redevelopment Plan are as follows. First, eliminate blight to renew and improve the character of the area. Encourage the creation of complete and equitable neighborhoods. Encourage mixed use development and redevelopment that is socially and economically inclusive. Encourage the growth of existing uses that are suitable to the area more effectively. Use underdeveloped land within the area, and encourage land use patterns that result in a more environmentally sustainable city. It also looks to encourage the participation of existing property owners in the redevelopment of their property to promote a diverse mix of attainable housing options, encourage affordable business space for small, independent businesses, improve access to healthy transportation options, healthy foods, and open space. And minimize the displacement of communities serving businesses or residents. When approved, the Urban Redevelopment Plan will describe the area and plan objectives. It will describe project activities and authorize tax increment financing. It will require projects to conform with Plan 2040 and its adopted supplements, which have a very intentional focus on equitable development. They will also require the application of the existing DURA programs, including project art, first source hiring, small business, enterprise utilization, enhanced training opportunities and prevailing wage if the project includes trunk infrastructure. As important as it is in describing what the urban redevelopment plan will do, it is equally important to describe what it will not do. Approval of the plan will not tonight approve approve an urban redevelopment project. It will not approve the use of tax increment financing. It does not authorize the use of eminent domain, and it will not rezone any property within the urban redevelopment area. Any future project that may require tax increment assistance will require City Council approval and which will require the project to meet the objectives of the plan. In approving this Council bill, council will be making the following findings. 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 the City Council. Based upon the blight study or other evidence presented to City Council that the boundaries of the urban redevelopment area have been drawn as narrowly as feasible to accomplish the planning and development development objectives of the plan. If any individuals or families are displaced from dwelling units as a result of adoption or implementation of the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan. A feasible method exists for the relocation of those individuals or families in accordance with the Urban Renewal Act. If business concerns are displaced by the adoption or implementation of the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those business concerns again in accordance with the Act. That written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the resolution setting this public hearing. City Council requested der to undertake this task. Written notice was mailed first class mail to all known property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the East Colfax Corridor. Urban Redevelopment Area. On July 24th, 2019, which was more than 30 days prior to this public hearing, find that 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 urban redevelopment plan. You will be finding that this is the first consideration of an urban renewal plan for this site. And thus the City Council has not previously failed to approve an urban redevelopment plan for this site, and as such, the requirement to wait at least 24 months since any prior public hearing is inapplicable. Conformance with Denver Comprehensive Plan. On July 17th, 2019, the Denver Planning Board unanimously found that the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms with the Denver Comprehensive Plan and it's applicable supplements. A letter to that effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing and that the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of Denver as a whole for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban redevelopment area by private enterprise. The Urban Redevelopment Plan does not consist of any area for open land, which is to be developed for residential or nonresident residential uses. Nor does it include any agricultural land. Finally, again, want to emphasize that no acquisition by eminent domain is authorized by the plan. In closing, Dura is very pleased to be working with the city and county of Denver to bring forward the urban redevelopment plan for this area. During staff has spent over two years working with community planning and development, the partnership as well as area residents, businesses and property owners through the East Colfax Corridor Condition Study Process, the city's east area plan effort and in preparation of this East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan, the potential for Darra supported redevelopment captures many citywide goals, objectives and strategies that are found in the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the Neighborhood Plans. We look forward to working with the property owners, business owners, community members and others to bring about the revitalization opportunities outlined in these plans. With that concludes my staff report, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We have 15 individuals signed up to speak this evening. What I'll ask is if you're sitting in the front row, sorry, but if you don't mind, maybe moving over to that row so that we can I'm going to call five people up at a time so they can be close to the podium, so that we can get through everybody quickly to have time for questions and all that good stuff. So I'm going to call up the first five if you want to come to this front bench and be ready to step right up to the microphone when your name is called. So first off, John Neal, Tim Roberts, Cathy Speed, Brendan Green and Jesse Paris. And John Neal, you are up first. My name is John Neal. I'm the secretary of the East Colfax Neighborhood Association. I was present at and recorded notes for the general meeting held Tuesday, August 20th, when I emailed the notes to Tim Roberts, president of the association, the next day, August 21st. I stated, quote, I did not include the so-called vote at the end of the meeting since it was not conducted properly. That is, there was no advance announcement of a pending vote in the agenda. Also, there was no consideration of a quorum. A number of the attendees had already left by then, and there were abstentions that were not counted. I hope you do not state to city council that the association voted to oppose the designation, since that would be a gross misrepresentation. Naturally, your passion and opinion certainly should be expressed at the city meeting on Monday. However, please do not abuse your position as President of Act Now to speak on behalf of all of the membership. Close quote. Tim replied quote I did add info on the vote to the minutes. It could have been less messy, but it certainly did happen. And that fact is all we are reporting going forward, close quote. In his letter to city council members dated August 23rd, Tim stated quote At the conclusion of the latter meeting, we voted with a show of hands to oppose approving the you are a 8 to 4 . Close quote. I respectfully disagree. Article nine of the bylaws of the association entitled Parliamentary Authority States quote The rules contained in Robert's Rules of Order Revised shall govern the association's conduct of business in all cases to in all cases to which they are applicable. Close quote. Pursuant to Robert's Rules of Order. Quote The formal steps in handling a motion or the making of a motion having a second. Stating the motion. Having debate on the motion. Putting the motion to a vote. And announcing the results of the vote. Close quote. These basic steps of parliamentary action were not followed. In addition, since there was no mention of a proposed vote in the agenda as announced prior to the meeting, attendees were, in effect, blindsided by the purported vote, which took place at the very end of an extremely long meeting during which attrition had reduced the number of eligible voters. I ask the Council to disregard the so called vote of the East Colfax Neighborhood Association, since it was not conducted properly. In addition, paragraph number three of the letter you received regarding Dern. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Next up, Tim Roberts. Thank you. Um hmm. I am an unpaid volunteer and I. Need some training. Let me think. First of all, the people. I'm Tim Roberts live in. Denver, East Colfax, business owner and president of the East Colfax Registered Labor Organization. I want to thank the people of East Colfax who have so far stepped up to grapple with this complex issue. I don't think it's easy. Thank you. We look at East Colfax, which close to 70% folks struggling to keep their homes, well over 30% in poverty. And we know that Doura does not have a record of protecting these communities. They seem in many instances, to have accomplished the opposite. For example, we know about the displacement in five points. We know about the severely homogenous community in Stapleton. How could we then be expected to stand by for any phase of a plan constructed by an organization that still tells us the city needs to be, quote, revitalized, or that areas where people currently live are, quote, blighted. We had a well publicized and well-attended R.A. meeting with the most vigorous debate I've seen in this R.A.. We were lucky enough to have the Dora director attend, and we argued back and forth for quite some time. The debate went on so long people were complaining, vote already. And finally we did. And it was 8 to 4 against. Again, this was a show of hands. It was relatively informal at this point. We're faced with a city council vote on a preliminary. But deeply structural. Policy that very likely will have massive effects on the neighborhood, just like it has on other neighborhoods. And when we go and try to make predictions, what we see associated with durable projects is a vast amount of displacement of exactly the populations we represent, not just once or twice, but for years on end, repeatedly not learning from things. Make no mistake, this vote is to stand with the people of East Colfax because we are working with, we are working with but in some sense under siege by the dirge generated community. To our north in Stapleton another Dora project in the south and Lowry and from the west by South Park Hill, now openly co-opting the east area plan. We are an outpost surrounded. We ask you to vote for a reset to an old school financial giveaway with a progressive mask. We own up to the truth that the value systems that are being overlaid on disadvantaged communities are themselves the blight we need to confront. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Cathy Speed. Thank you very much for your time tonight. I've looked at the. East Area plan and I am. Neither for or against it. I find elements of it that I enjoy and I also. Find elements that are somewhat challenging, that are missing. There are things in there that are ill defined, like the. Accessory dwelling units. There's no definitions. There's nothing in there that goes to how that works. And there's a June 2018 letter from. The OR I should say, a memo from the zoning administrator that gives definitions. But none of that was incorporated into the exterior plan. So that's an area of or an example of where there are some things that are not well defined within the plan, but there are other things that are great about the plan where. Adding in a new community center like UNITA and Colfax. Or Yosemite and Colfax, that's great. That would be a great addition to that area of town. But I rise really tonight for one reason, and that is I am a long time homeowner in this target area and. Starting back in. 1994. The area plans that were in these neighborhoods promised to redevelop Quebec Street. We are a stand watched neighborhood between Lowry and Stapleton. You had. 30,000 people added in. At Stapleton. You have 25,000 people that were added in at Lowry. Our neighborhood is compressed between those two areas. And the area that has been promised over and over to us to be redeveloped is a two and a half mile stretch of Quebec Street. It is still remains a two lane road. And in the East Area plan, there was a tabled item there that indicated that the funding for the Quebec Street renovation and renovation at $23 million was going to be postponed and tabled under consideration of. The East Area Plan. So I would really. Suggest and hope that City Council would at least earmark that $23 million in funds so that it does not get spent on something else while we continue to really. Struggle. With that area, because that's going to be a huge deal for us. Thank you. Next up, Brendan Green. Point of order, Mr. President. May I just ask if some of the speakers are referencing a plan that is not on the agenda tonight? Can you please clarify the scope of this hearing as opposed to or can the staff please clarify that? Just I think everyone's voice is important, but I want to make sure folks understand what we have before us tonight and what we don't. Thank you, Mr. President. Tracy, do you want to come up and clarify? Certainly. Thank you. And if I may go back to a slide that I used previously. Which, of. Course, may be easier said than done, but we are here tonight asking council to consider is the urban renewal plan. The Urban Renewal Plan is also a planning document that draws upon the goals and objectives of other existing city approved plans. So we talked about Plan 2040 Blueprint Denver. Currently, the neighborhood plans that we are drawing references from are the the East Montclair East Colfax Neighborhood Plan, as well as the Park Hill plan. The city is also working on the East Area plan, but that has not been adopted. And so therefore today the urban renewal plan does not reflect what is what may be included in the East Area plan. That is a separate, different planning effort than the urban redevelopment plan that's being brought forward for consideration tonight. Councilman, does that get to what you were looking for? I just wanted the public to make sure that we are not voting tonight on an east area plan. That term is used by community planning and developments. So I just want to. There are two separate votes at some point the council will vote on. So I just just wanted to make sure they understood that. But again, all of the testimony may still be relevant. I just want to make sure that that was clear for the right thing. Councilman, Councilwoman CdeBaca, do you have a point of clarification? Yes. On slide 16, the plan compliance. It shows the pyramid of how these plans interact together. If I recall correctly, you said that if approved, this replaces the East Area plan, Park Hill and Montclair, and essentially supersedes those plans. Am I correct? That is correct. So we kind of are. Okay. All right. We will get into some debate and questions. Just to clarify, again, this is the bill that we have in front of us, so to speak. Speak to that bill. We've heard some clarification up here, but we're going to move along, giving people their time at the microphone. Brendan GREENE. Thank you. My name is Brendan Green. I'm a long time resident of the East Colfax Corridor, grew up on 23rd and Forest graduate of East High School. I currently live on 13th and Wabash Street. I'm the new community organizer for the Facts Partnership with 20 years experience organizing. Most recently was the campaign's director for the past ten years for the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. The main focus of my work is going to be to organize, to preserve and protect local residents from displacement as the pressures of gentrification come our way. I'm extremely excited to be able to organize in my community to make sure that the development of our community is in line with our community's vision and that it prioritizes affordability and places a value on diversity and maintaining the vibrant mix of cultures. That makes East Colfax what it is. I'm here to speak in favor tonight of the urban renewal area for my neighborhood. As someone who grew up in between North and South Park Hill. I've lived the impact of gentrification and seen my old neighborhood change dramatically in my lifetime. My block used to have a great deal of diversity, and now that has changed as property values have skyrocketed, and many in my generation can no longer afford to live in the neighborhood. In East Colfax, we still have an opportunity to be intentional in our planning and make sure that we develop in a way that protects local community from displacement and places a value on economic and cultural diversity. I see the urban renewal area as an important tool to provide incentives to private entities to bring much needed investment to the neighborhood for affordable housing projects such as PHENIX on the Facts and the Supportive Housing Project on 7900 East Colfax. We can grow in a way where our community prospers and our communities are valued. We can fight and build our neighborhood in a way that pushes urban renewal and not urban removal. Most importantly, I trust in our community and I trust in you as our city council to be responsive to our community feedback and make sure that we only approve projects through this urban renewal area that our community is serving and that prioritize the construction of new affordable housing units in line with the blueprint Denver and the East Area plans. We will be highly organized. We will be closely monitoring projects. And we will be president here at the city council meetings to provide checks and balances and make sure that projects meet the desperate need to create more affordability in our neighborhood. I'm confident that the leadership exists in our in our neighborhood and that we can partner with you, our city council, to make to you to use this tool wisely to protect the cultural and economic diversity of East Colfax and expand affordable housing. We look forward to partnering partnering with East Convex Neighborhood Association members, community organizations and local leadership to monitor proposals that come to a vote. And we really expect that you are council members will be sensitive and responsive to our community's needs and feedback on which projects should and which projects shouldn't move forward. Thank you for your time and I ask you for a yes vote. Thank you. Next up is Jesse Paris McCall, the next five up to the front of you. As for Thomas Fussing, Megan Atwater, Lee, Larry Drees and Marsha Casey. Go ahead. Jesse Parris represented for Denver Homicide Law, Black starts a movement for self-defense and positive action command for social change. And I was on top of the ballot for at large May 2019, almost 15,000 votes with no money. I'm neither for or against this. As the previous status have already stated. We have a crisis in the city. We have a housing crisis. We have 23,000 vacant apartments that need to be filled. But yet we want to redevelop all these areas of town for who this area is predominantly black and brown neighborhood. It's been that way since as long as I've been living, which is 32 years. So why was this neighborhood blighted for so long? For 30 plus years? Why was there no kind of development going on the past 20 years in this neighborhood? It just leads into the degradation this was caused. This is cause and effect. We don't need any more unattended consequences. You guys don't understand. You're literally gentrifying the whole city. Every side of town is being gentrified. North, east, west, south and north, east, west and south is being gentrified. We are being ethnically cleansed out of our neighborhoods. I am a native of Five Points in East Denver and I do not feel safe at home or. Welcome. In my own neighborhoods that I was born and raised in and grew up in. So what we want to know is how many affordable units are going to be built in this neighborhood? Exactly who is going to be residing in this neighborhood? Because, like we've already stated, we are being gentrified, ethnically cleansed out of the city. So who is this being built for? Who is this being redeveloped for? Because obviously it's not for us, because when we were here for the past 20, 30 years, you guys did not care one bit about what was going on. And this is why the degradation occurred and this is why the deterioration occurred. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've lived it. I've lived in these motels on the facts in this neighborhood. This is purposely being done. And we are not going to sit up here and sit around and allow you to keep continuously doing this. So I want to know exactly how many affordable units are going to be built, what the amount level for these units is going to be. Because I know salaries is being talked to affordable housing. But I want to know what the AMA level is going to be because we need 0 to 30% housing across the board and we don't need areas of concentrated poverty. So if you're going to build 0 to 30% housing, need to do it in every single neighborhood, every single district, not just in certain districts. We don't want the same thing to happen in this neighborhood that happened on the west side of Sun Valley, that happened on the north side and in Sunnyside and what happened on the east side in five points. So if somebody could please ask them, I'm. Sorry, your time is appreciated. Thank you. Next up, Nabeel Assefa. Hi. Thank you. My name is NAB. Never go as far. I'm a community organizer in the Ethiopian community, which represents the second largest foreign born population in the state of Colorado, with our roots in East Colfax. My role in the community includes organizing the annual Taste of Ethiopia Festival and co-chairing the Ethiopian American Development Council. Ethiopians have been making significant contribution to the economic development and cultural richness of Denver since the seventies, and we're proud to call the city home. Unfortunately, though, over the past decade, our community has been on an exodus to Aurora. This is largely due to the consequence of hyper development and gentrification that has effectively pushed out many minority and immigrant communities from Denver, East Colfax and the far northeast Denver have been the exceptions in this, where our community has been able to stay and prosper, where we have become significant contributors as small business owners, homeowners and positive cultural influencers. However, and the East Colfax neighborhood, many in the community feel that our fate is uncertain and are anticipating to deal with displacement, which has already begun. The reason for displacements are many, including the city's nuisance ordinance, which has been weaponized to close down many women, minority and family owned small businesses on East Colfax Avenue. The writing is already on the wall. Denver is increasingly becoming a different town, one that does not include us. This is why, by large, our community is fearful of the East Colfax Development Plan, oppose and opposed tax incentives like TIFF to private developers that have a track record of destroying communities around Denver. By large, we agree on that principle to revitalize East Colfax. However, we oppose the status quo approach. The status quo has failed us throughout Denver. Take, for example, the great promises. All this great promises were also made to five points. However good the intentions may have been the end results of our displacement and gentrification. Also, let's look at other neighborhoods like Reno, Stapleton or Lori. Have the promises been kept? Where are the affordable houses? Where is the racial equity diversity culture or the inclusive character that represents the spirit of Denver? Is this the type of neighborhood we want to turn East Colfax into? Is there a place for the poor and working class in the city as you consider your vote today, I would like to kindly ask you to consider who will benefit from this change. Are we setting up the foundation and institutional framework for displacement? Are we putting a target on the backs of East Colfax residents and small business owners? Are we creating an environment that incentivizes the wrong people? With all this challenges, these cold facts is a beautiful neighborhood with character, beautiful people and culture worth preserving. Please vote no. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Thomas Fessing. I'm Thomas. Fizzing a steering. Committee member on the East Area Plan and also a resident of the East Colfax neighborhood, which. Is in the urban redevelopment. Area. In the last 28 years, I've lived in every neighborhood along East Colfax from this building all the way to the rural border, which is my last stop. This urban redevelopment plan gives focus. It gives guidance. It gives a framework for development. Development is going to happen eventually in this area. It's already starting to happen on its own through private investors. But through. This program, it gives more of a framework. There's checks and. Balances. To make sure that it is. An equitable growth. The majority of our housing stock that is in the neighborhood that is low income or affordable housing is actually not within the boundaries. The boundaries of this. Urban renewal plan, when you look on the map, essentially is 15th, 14th to 16th Avenue along Colfax. The majority in the East Colfax neighborhood, specifically of that housing is in the far southeast corner of the neighborhood. Outside. Of the boundaries. But for the actual redevelopment on Colfax. I and the folks that live in the neighborhood want it to be equitable. We want the diversity to stay in the neighborhood. That's one reason many of us have purchased homes. The last ten years in the neighborhood. The other thing is the. Neighborhood plan. As it exists now. The East Montclair, East Colfax neighborhood plan is 25 years old. The South Park Hill plan. I think, is even older than that. South Park Hill Many of the things in the plan actually have taken place in the East Montclair East Colfax neighborhood. None of them. Have been 25. Years. So I think this gives a lot more guidance to the city, to the residents, to the future. Of this part of East Denver. Thank you. I support the plan. Thank you. Next up, Megan Tortorella, you. My name is Megan Tortorella, and I'm on the board of the East Colfax Neighborhood Association and I also live in the neighborhood. I'm here to. Urge council to oppose the approval of the East. Colfax Corridor Urban. Redevelopment Area. Here's what I know. More than half of East Colfax residents. Are struggling and at risk of displacement. It seems certain that designating the East Colfax corridor as an urban redevelopment area will accelerate. Gentrification and people will. Be forced to leave our neighborhood. The primary goal of our R.A. this year. Has been to increase participation and better represent all. Of the more than 1000 East Colfax residents. And if I have learned anything from the outreach process, it's that our neighbors have a real sense of fear that the city's agenda for East Colfax does not include many of its current residents. I am especially concerned about comments from last week's city council meeting. And the picture they painted of there. Is outreach efforts. I'm paraphrasing here, but it was said that Dora has gone above and beyond to ensure. That problems that often exist with urban redevelopment, such as displacement, will not happen in East Colfax. It was also stated that the city and borough are doing. Everything they. Can to involve the community in this process. At best, those comments were a gross exaggeration of efforts that have been made. Well, it is true that Tracy and others from Dora have attended and presented at several East Colfax R.A. meetings. It's completely disingenuous to say that extensive outreach has taken place in our community. There's been no attempt to include our most vulnerable our most vulnerable neighbors. In this conversation with Dora, attending a few R.A. meetings with 20 to 50 people in attendance is not the definition of doing everything that can be done to involve a community. I'm not naive, and I recognize that development is coming to East Colfax regardless of how the council votes tonight. But I have big concerns about incentivizing this development, particularly before East Colfax residents understand our is complex plan and the impact it will have on their ability to stay in their homes. Thank you. Thank you. Next to Larry Drees. My name is Larry Reese. I live on 1160 Verbena Street. I am a board director as well as East Colfax Neighborhood Association and have been active in the association for six years. Lived in the neighborhood for 15. I am for urban renewal specifically because it's a chance for quality of life for everybody right now. Any one of you want to walk with me from my house two blocks down to Colfax at 830 at night to go eat? Come join me. I beg you. It's quality of life for the whole neighborhood. And it's important that we have the opportunity to have our own town center like other parts of the city. We don't we have. Car lots. Some very good restaurants and some convenience stores. That's it. We need this change. And I don't see this neighborhood has always been extremely diverse. There's 27 different languages that are spoken in our neighborhood because of the refugees there along Yosemite. They're not going to get to this place. Why not build affordable housing for people that are living in rundown shacks in the area because their landlords don't care? That to me is more important, making the neighborhood better and better. Quality of life for everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Marsha Casey and then call the last five to come up to the front bench. Stacey Loucks, Lashonda Weston, Kelsey Clarke, Monica martinez and Darian Horne. I mean. Have mercy. Mercy a Casey. Nope. Stacey Loucks. Kelsey Clarke. Hi. My name is Kelsey Clarke. And I am the business service outreach manager at the Facts Partnership, a community development nonprofit in East Colfax. And thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. In January of this year. The facts launched an East Colfax Business Support Office. With the support of the city of Denver to be an advocate on behalf of and provide assistance to our local business community. The majority of the businesses that we work with are located on the proposed urban renewal area from Monaco to Yosemite. Since January, we have been on the ground proactively and authentically getting to know our diverse and culturally rich business community. The facts recently concluded a business, a needs assessment, a survey, and receive an overwhelmingly 30% response rate. With their permission. I'm representing a handful of those businesses. Mr. Tank, owner at tanks, world class. Barbers quote Many of my current customers are having. To move due to high rent. End quote. April SS Office Manager at Kids Dental. Quote It is important that we stay where we are. Due to residential displacement, we worry that our patient base may be moving, making it more difficult for vulnerable children and their families to have access to quality dental care, end quote. The fact supports. The urban redevelopment area because the plan states that it will encourage affordable business space for small, independent businesses, including the promotion of diverse mix of attainable housing options. The facts will ease that TIFF is a valuable tool for developing affordable housing on this important transit corridor so that the Mr. Tanks and the assessors and their customers and their patients can stay in this community that we all love so much and continue to support these local businesses. Moses Alice Walker, property and business owner at Econo Emissions quote The property is my retirement plan for myself and for my wife. It is important to me that I work with people I trust when I decide to sell. I see the partnership as a trusted partner and quote the facts. Who believes that urban redevelopment area will help provide incentives to developers to invest in communities serving businesses and community benefiting development through our relationships and expertize? The facts will be. On the front lines of supporting our local businesses and we promoting such development opportunities. And we see TEF as an opportunity and a tool that will help us achieve that. Thank you again for your time. Thank you. Next up, Lashonda Weston. Hi. Thank you. I'm here to vote. Hopefully I'll vote against. I've been in community for a while. Long time, most of my life. And when Dora said that, they. They they notify people. This is my notice. It's just that there was a meeting tonight. I'm here because I feel that. That our area is very diverse. What I'm I mean, that I'm right off of Colfax. I'm on 15th in Colfax, so I'm literally right off of Colfax. 15th acknowledged. So my area I've seen grow. But to me, if Dora wants to help the neighborhood, there's plenty of opportunity to go up and down that street to help the people that are already in there. We have barbershops. We have restaurants. We just got a new brewery. We have Ace Hardware. We have many, many things on that corridor. And if they. Most of them are, you know, up to par in my standards. Some of them, yes. Can use a paint job or whatever. But the area that is there, people there, they support their businesses. They support their neighbors. And everybody gets basically alone. Yes. Our neighbor. And when people keep saying affordable housing, what does that mean? Because my house now, when I bought a long time ago, I can't afford to move back into that same house that I bought in 1980, which is very, very sad. So when you say affordable housing, what does that mean? It doesn't mean that you have to make over $100,000 like we do now. Like five points like we do probably in Swansea once they finish that, that new build. So when people say that that's just a word, it doesn't mean that's what they mean to me. It means they affordable to them, not to the majority of people. And when you have immigrants and all the other people, it has to be affordable to everybody. Currently it's affordable to everybody. Otherwise they would not be living there. So I vote for you guys. I asked you guys to vote no. Sure. Door got plenty of money, but with that money they can go like we just had. A 7-Eleven built there is already closed down. Why? Nobody supported it. Nobody wanted it. So they didn't support it. It was there maybe three years. The building still there. So if they want to brand new building door can go in there and work with the private or whoever they want to work with to upgrade that or get somebody in that building because it's brand new, right on the corner of Colfax and Monaco. So there's plenty of opportunity for door instead of to come through, knocked everything down with their developer and they raised the price up so high that they just want to gentrify it. Just forget about the black and brown in those whites that are not making $100,000 a year. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up, Monica martinez. Hi. My name's Monica martinez. You've heard from a couple of my staff members tonight. The Facts Partnership. It's a501 C3 that has been working on the East Colfax corridor since 2004. We have been advancing a vision of redevelopment without displacement. We've had some recent successes, and those votes have come to you all. The city of Denver acquired two parcels on East Colfax, and both of those will be deed restricted, affordable housing. We're really proud of that. And that's our vision to add higher density deed, restricted housing, where it matters on East Colfax. But we know that city finances are very restricted. And so as a result, the facts has been promoting this urban renewal area because we know that the city can only acquire so many properties and the private development is not building the housing that this community desperately needs. East Colfax renters, 40% of them are housing burdened. We have a 35% homeownership rate compared to a 50% rate in the city at large. So we know that we need development that will benefit this community. But instead what's happening is a pre that was submitted for a McDonald's on East Colfax. This community is considered the highest community with the highest health inequities as defined by the Department of Environmental Health. It is a food desert. It has high levels of childhood obesity, but instead the private market is going to build a McDonald's. So I believe we need intervention and using bold public policy that will have extensive community engagement and approval by you for any sort of tiff that's really provided. As a result, we might get something like the Mecosta project on West Denver that is a deed restricted affordable housing project that Gorman built its 42 units and it received $2.5 million tiff investment for a project that was $14 million. So TIFF was used to help get the community a nonprofit space and 42 dude restricted units. Or we might get Lowenstein, which is further down on East Colfax, and that became the home of beloved Tattered Cover and Twist and Shout records that received $3.9 million of tax increment financing in a historic rehab project. We know these projects are tough to build. And so as a result, I encourage you to adopt this urban renewal area so that we get the development this community needs and not what the market thinks that it can build. It does have it may have the consequence of increasing investment, but the facts partnership is going to be on the ground through our business support manager and our community organizer and proactively promote the kind of development we need, as well as turning out supporters to ensure that we get the types of projects that this community deserves and this type of the types of development this community needs. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Darian May Horn. All righty. Thank you. I appreciate the time to speak with you all. My name is Dorian Mae Horne. I'm a resident of the East Colfax neighborhood with the nearest intersection to meet me in Mountain View and Rosemary, within District eight. Well over a year ago, I went to a public meeting at Johnson Wells, where Tracy from Dora and Monica from the partnership introduced the study that would lay the foundation for considering East Colfax, bounded by Monaco in the West and Yosemite on the east as blighted. Tracy has explained at that meeting and at the very various meetings afterwards that this definition is legislatively defined and I would imagine defined with objectivity in mind. While the term blighted may seem jarring as defined, it is accurate. I work as an engineer for the federal government at the Federal Center in Lakewood, and since I aim to live a lifestyle that considers sustainability and our society's resilience, along with maintaining my mental health as our traffic increases, I use my eco pascal on the 15 hour to get to civic center and from there I use the 100 hour to get to the federal center. So every day I spend a great deal of time on Colfax as I get on and off the bus and make my way home and support the various different local businesses on Colfax, including the Barbershop that was mentioned earlier. So from the missing sidewalk connectivity to the underutilized properties, it is clear to me that the city has neglected truly public investment within this corridor. While the infrastructure of this corridor may be blighted. I echo what everyone else has said, which is the people and the culture within the broader East folks. East Colfax Community has been and will maintain its vibrancy. I was reminded of that on Sunday as I engaged in outreach with neighbors regarding a upcoming block party that will be hosted by the Neighborhood Association. I saw the diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, culture within our community, and what I believe the adoption of this plan will do is allow our community an opportunity to be intentional with how we incentivize development that aligns with our community's priorities in ways that we may not otherwise have a seat at the table. As others have mentioned, development will come to our neighborhood regardless. Without an avenue like this to have a thoughtful discussion. I'm excited for the new community organizing role that Brendan will take on at the Facts Partnership and Tracy's leadership at Dora to ensure that there is significant public engagement regarding potential projects, ideally before they even arrive here at City Council. Again, as a resident of the neighborhood, I believe we have an opportunity to have development that eliminates the blighted conditions while maintaining and supporting the local, diverse businesses that already exist in the area. I thank you for your time and I support the approval of this plan. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of Council Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like three people in the queue. I first one to start with Tim Roberts, if you could come up and then Tracy and then the honorable Dr. Aguilar, I'll have a question for you at the end. So, Tim, I want to have a conversation about this vote because I think it's really important for people to understand. I wanted to give you the opportunity to speak to some of the thing. So was the vote that's happened at East Colfax, was that notice prior to the meeting? We didn't use the word vote in the email that went around. What happened prior to the meeting was what I indicated in the opposition. Letter and that was a couple of different meetings with different ones focused specifically on tax increment financing. And then we had a reading group on blight and then we had our most recent R.A. meeting, which. Was where the vote took place. I can remember. Typing out I. Have a lot of people in the queue, so I wanted to make sure I be respectful of their time. So I'm going I want to read what I'm looking at the East Colfax Neighborhood Association post that you had for the agenda. And correct me if this is not right. Yeah. Denver Urban Renewal Authority Doura. Well we'll plant. We will plan to discuss the upcoming August 26 City Council vote on the proposed East Colfax Urban Redevelopment Area and how it might serve East Colfax residents and businesses. Details of the council session are here. Page 13. So as you said, and I'm reading this, there's nowhere in this notification that you're actually going to vote, you're just going to discuss it. So this is acting right. And but it followed. On an extensive engagement with this issue and with this construct of of influences. No, I absolutely understand. But I just want to say, for this notification, it is not mentioned anywhere that you're going to vote. And that's what makes sense, what. I just. Said. So my next question is, was, did you if you're going to have a conversation about Doura, did you or is anyone from the East Colfax Neighborhood Association invite Darrah to the meeting? We did not, and I did that intentionally. We because we had already like I just said, with all due respect. I had a number of engagements with Dora. So my my intention, again, as a volunteer, an unpaid. Volunteer who is untrained. Entirely and I just started in January. Though Robert's Rules of Order. Does have my name attached to it. The the intention was to clear the decks a little bit for the. Neighborhood and not have a professional planner present at the discussion so that we could then air whatever we wanted to without being afraid of. Getting. Shot down or whatever it is again. I didn't I went back and forth about using the word vote, but I honestly thought it was so obvious that. It I, I just. You know, I just. Don't want to do it. So going to the actual vote, so what are the rules and procedures for people allowed to vote? So the the first speaker spoke to that there was not a motion. How could you said the vote was 8 to 4? Do you know which individuals voted in support in opposition? Is there a list available? There's not a list available. And I like I. Was saying before, it was an informal it was an informal vote. A show of hands. It was the end of a two and a half hour meeting. I when we wrote the opposition letter, I tried to make that clear by just saying it was a show of hands. And I mean, yeah, so that's that's really what there is not a list and it was I could probably say who who did vote for for and against. I mean, I know that John Neal voted against or for the plan and others a couple others here. So I, you know, I, I think that there is a. A major issue. In this city. Okay. I absolutely. For but I want to give I have a feeling you might you might get called up for another speaker looking at the list. But I just want to make sure I want to speak to the particulars of the vote. So thank you so much. That's all I had for you, Tracey. I wanted to give there was. I know we did. We're just all we're doing now. We're just defining the you are a can we just take a step forward. So what would be an example of something that could happen just so that the community and the people could understand what might possibly be a next step? So what might possibly be a next step provided the council approves this redevelopment plan? Is that through the outreach of the sex partnership? There is a property that is identified and a developer that is interested in developing it for there is a property that is identified in the existing owner is interested in making some type of an initial investment. If that would be the case, that person or entity would then have to come to Dura. They would have to submit an application for our assistance, starting with a letter of support from the council member that it is a project that they are in support of. We would evaluate first and foremost, is this a project that meets the criteria of this urban redevelopment plan? Does it address all of these things that I just spent a very long time walking through? If it does, then we would begin an evaluation as to whether or not it even needs public financial assistance. So there is a very stringent underwriting process that we go through to determine what amount, if any, the project would both be able to generate and therefore be able to utilize in its redevelopment. Once all of that preliminary underwriting work is done, then we would continue through an approval process. But let me pause for a moment and say through all of this conversation, it isn't just a hand off from the partnership. The partnership to us in this example, there also would be community outreach as well, and recognizing that there could be a project in one of three different neighborhoods that could be in in East Colfax. It could be in East Montclair, it could be in Park Hill. But the development is going to impact the entirety of the area. So we would be talking with the community at that time about what this project is, what it means, what is the level of support that finally then culminates in us coming back to City Council because it is a formal amendment to the plan to add a project and to add tax increment. And part of that process as well is to then enter into agreements with the other taxing entities regarding our ability to capture property tax, if that was being requested. So a lot of different iterations there. But I want to focus on on on the community outreach, on making sure that any project that comes to us, we can stand before this body and indicate how it meets the objectives of Plan 2040, of blueprint of the neighborhood plans and the urban renewal plan to then be able to come back to ask for approval. Thank you. So just to focus, though, if a community is fearful that if council approves this tonight, there will be multiple opportunities for community to hear and give input on a potential URI project. Yes. Perfect. Thank you, Dr. Aguilar. Your work that you do with Nest. I just wanted to give you the opportunity, because I've seen you in East Colfax several times as you've been working in your job. And thank you for that. If you could in my apologies, Mr. Perez, this is my last question to give you the opportunity just to to speak on the work that you have seen along East Colfax in your thoughts on the potential you are. I'm sure in in the interest of full disclosure, I came in and said we can't do a you are and these Colfax is going to gentrify it. And then people sat me down and talked to me about what it means to do you a and how it could potentially help. And what I would say is the vote tonight, in my mind, is the easy one is just acknowledging that there are bad conditions on East Colfax right now. The harder votes will come to you when projects come forward, and that's really where you really need to do your due diligence. You need to make sure that it really is about for and that what you're incentivizing is affordable housing, is affordable business space, and is not things that will lead to gentrification. I see this as a tool because hopefully it will bring more projects to your attention because as you may or may not know, East Colfax is an opportunity zone under President Trump, President Trump's tax act. And so there's already great incentive for investors to buy properties there and do whatever they want. Our hope would be that they would come to us looking for it and bring these projects to our attention and give you another opportunity to work with them to make sure these projects actually help the community. We are aware of the the fact that this is an underserved community and that we need to really build it up. And as the director of Nest, one of my goals is to see whether we could actually demonstrate that it's possible to do development without displacement. As you heard, the city has invested in two buildings in the area, one of which will provide permanent supportive housing to, I think, approximately 70 people with chronic brain injury, another which will provide affordable housing to about 80 families, including a child care center on the ground floor. Someone mentioned, and it is true that there are a number of housing buildings there that are currently occupied by immigrants and refugees. And so we are working with those folks as well to ensure that that community has the support it needs. And actually through the East Area Plan, investigating whether this might not be made into an international corridor. And so I think it really provides an opportunity for us. This will just give you another tool in your toolbox. And and I would be there with the community making sure that anything you approve to fund would be for the benefit of the community. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman CdeBaca. First line of questions is for Ms.. Higgins. Can you explain to me there's a slide in here that shows that the original. So an idea to do these plan to do this plan is started by the city council member and a developer. Who were the original initiators of this idea? Sure. And just to be clear, the presentation that you're looking at would have been from the council committee. Correct. It's not tonight's presentation. And that is a a depiction that we use frequently when we are talking about the urban renewal process. So in this instance, and I actually was looking back at my files, this is a conversation that started back in 2015 that included several council members, predecessors, as well as members of the city administration, the Planning Department and the Office of Economic Development, as well as the Facts Partnership in their role as representing the businesses and community along the corridor. Were any of those council members or are any of those council members present? They are not. Okay. Can you explain to me the structure of Dora? Is this it's confusing to a lot of people because we call it an authority. But what I understand is that it's not a part. It's not a city agency. So can you explain a little bit about the structure? Sure. An urban renewal authority has its opportunity to exist as a result of state statute that put in place the ability for a municipality to create an urban renewal authority. That legislation was first introduced in 1958. That was the same year that Dora was created. That was a an ordinance that was approved by the city to create Dora back in 1958. Currently, we are an organization that works within through city government. As you can see tonight, there are very few, if any, things that we can do without city council approval. Our we are governed by a 13 member board. 11 members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by city council. There is also a position for an elected school board member representing Denver public schools and there is also a position representing special districts because of the overlap between the utilization of tax increment financing and what that means from the property tax and those the impact on those other taxing entities. State statute was amended in 2015 to make sure that those voices were represented on the Dora board as well. The board directs policy of the staff and then as we work through all of our efforts, again, it is really with and through the city government to make sure that as we are affecting plans, they are consistent with the city planning objectives in order to achieve our our mission of blight elimination. And so can you explain the funding structure there? What percentage comes from city? What percentage is private? So our funding. There was a point in time when all of our funding came from the city. That is no longer the case. I want to be clear. There are two functional departments of the Urban Renewal Authority. One is the redevelopment department. The other is our housing department. Would like to have an opportunity to talk about what our housing programs do and can do in this area as well. We have been longtime partners with the city and county of Denver in implementing a number of affordable housing programs that are intended to help existing single family homeowners stay in their homes by making necessary repairs. So we have our housing department, we have our redevelopment department. The Housing Department gets funding through the contract, the annual contracts with the city and county of Denver in implementing these programs. The redevelopment department gets its funding through the projects that we support. So a portion of the tax increment that is generated on each project is made available to Dora to pay for our operations. What portion is that? Is that consistent across projects? It is. It is quite consistent. Each project that we undertake is unique. And so it is it is negotiated separately, but it is typically 1%. Of the amount of the commitment that we are putting into a project we are able to take as revenue for the the operations of the organization. And so are you guys technically a five on C three or what's your tax status? We are not. We are a public body. So again, created under state statute and I am in no need to look over my shoulder and make sure legal counsel is giving me the the indication that that is correct. We are a a quasi governmental entity. Is is that a corporation? Is that what kind of we are, a public body. Okay. So I'm going to need some more information on that from counsel, if possible. But going back really quickly to what you just mentioned, the two branches of the work that you do. Is it possible to do any of this work, this redevelopment work without the plan? It is the housing side. On the housing side, yes. And in fact, that's it. The next question, the tip piece of this. So there are slides that are contradictory. One of the slides, I think it's the second to last says that let's see the actual wording. It says that this plan does not approve the use of tax increment financing. But then on slide 15, it says that we're authorizing TIFF. Correct. Can you explain what is happening there? Sure. In the urban renewal plan, you can, again, under the statutory language, include in the plan language that allows for the use of tax increment financing. That's the authorizing language that is in the plan currently. However, we don't have a project to apply that to, nor are we asking for a tax increment area to be established at this time. That would be that secondary step. If a project comes to us, we come back to City Council. You formally amend the plan to approve the project and approve the establishing of a tax increment area that there that therein allows for the use of tax increment for that project. So one lays the foundation, that's the language that is in there currently. That's the authorizing. When we bring a project back, if we bring a project back, that would be that step to approve the use of tax increment financing. So we're authorizing it. We're just not picking where we're getting it from. You are not approving a project, so it cannot be used until you set a tax increment area and approve a project. Got it. And so it was said multiple times that the purpose of urban renewal plan is to attract new capital, primarily through private growth and to incentivize private entities to invest in the area. Is that accurate? There is a condition in state statute that looks for us to maximize investment through the private sector. However, again, we have a balance of the ability to use tax increment to advance both public projects, infrastructure projects, as well as development through the private sector. But yes, it is the intention of the urban renewal statute to look to put that burden on the private sector as opposed to the to the public sector. And the authority doesn't do housing, affordable housing development. You all just hope that the projects that start up or catalyzed include affordable units, correct? No, that is not correct. Well, we are not the direct developer. We have a requirement in any project that we participate in that includes housing, that there be a component of affordability. So in our redevelopment agreement, which is a contract arrangement between the Urban Renewal Authority and a developer, it will have a requirement as to what the affordable housing requirements may be. And what is that typically? It again, it depends by project. You know, there's been comments made about the the Wilton Corridor. The first project that we made along Whelton was 100% affordable. It aims not to exceed 60%. Which project is that? 2300 Whelton. Can you talk a little bit more about where there have been urban renewal plans and the successes and challenges of them here in Denver? Sure. I think we've had we have a number of urban renewal areas that establish a number of urban renewal plans, that establish the urban renewal areas. And then there can be multiple tax increment areas within that. They really run the gamut of the city. We have spent a lot of our time since I first joined Laura in 1992 focused on revitalizing downtown. A primary objective of that urban renewal area was to make downtown a neighborhood. Back in the early nineties, no one lived downtown. Businesses were leaving. Retail in particular was leaving as quickly as they could. At the same time, when we had just built a new convention center and we were looking for ways to attract visitors back to our city. Dura emphasized historic preservation also emphasized the importance of workforce housing. And so we have a number of examples of projects the Denver Dry Goods Building, the Bank Lofts Building, Mercantile Square, Rio Grand, all of which represent two opportunities for us, together with the private developers to acquire properties that were vacant, repurpose those as from a mixed use standpoint very frequently, including housing and not just housing, but workforce housing as well, to help stimulate overall development downtown. In addition to that, we have been in virtually every council district. Safe for you. Councilman Cashman I do not believe we have undertaken a project yet in your district. Some of the more recent projects include One on one Broadway, which again is an affordable housing development in an existing structure. On on on Broadway. We've also had opportunities to work in in the former St Anthony's redevelopment site, again focused on affordable housing and historic preservation, including a project that we are doing with the Denver Housing Authority. We have worked at Stapleton and in Lowry in being the financing mechanism for the infrastructure that supported that development. And then in in West Denver, along South Federal, we have worked extensively with the Vietnamese community on facade improvements as well as additional infrastructure improvements on those area. So we've had a number of projects throughout the city. All part of those are all urban renewal plans. Those are all we can only undertake an urban renewal project in an urban renewal area. The only way an urban renewal area is established by approval of a plan. Okay. So yes. And so on. The downtown one that you mentioned that coincided with the era of white flight, correct? I am not as I don't know what you are referring to as white flight. This is an era that started in the late eighties with the economic downturn where businesses were leaving, large retailers were leaving, businesses were closing. And the blight conditions. So at the end of this presentation, it says that it will not authorize eminent domain. But is blight a blight determination a precursor to eminent domain? Yes, in order for eminent domain is a power that is afforded to urban renewal authorities if granted by city council in order to make that determination. If we ever were in that position, there would have to be a certain number of factors of blight. The number is five that are found in order for eminent domain to be used. It is a different standard than if if eminent domain is is not to be used. But I want to be clear. Eminent domain is not being requested for approval in this plan. On a specific project. Kind of like the tiff. Okay. It just is. It's not authorized. Okay. And so if this plan is not approved tonight, you all have to take 24 months before you come back to us. Correct? If it fails tonight, yes. We can not come back for. For two years. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Torres. Just a question for Liz. Hi, Liz. Can you clarify the questions that were raised about this plan replacing any neighborhood plans? Yes. I'm Liz Wagman with Community Planning and Development. I'm one of the project managers of the East Area Plan. This is an ongoing neighborhood planning process to create a community driven vision for several neighborhoods along the Colfax corridor. That process is still ongoing and will be brought forward in the future to City Council for consideration. The clarity point here is that the East Area plan will supersede existing neighborhood plan, so once it is adopted, it would replace the guidance from the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan and the East Kovacs and East Montclair Neighborhood Plan. This urban redevelopment plan in no way predetermine the outcome of the East Area plan. The point that I believe Tracy was making is that a future project that comes forward once the East Area plan is adopted, that east area plan will be used also to evaluate a project. Thank you very much. All right. Next up, we have Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. Let's see. I guess this is for either CPD or for Ms.. Huggins. I'm wondering. It's kind of an. Along the lines of councilwoman tourist. But why are we doing this first rather than waiting for the plan? So to answer that question, I think that we feel it's really important to put tools in place that can help us achieve that equitable vision for is COVAX. And rather than waiting for the area plan. To be adopted. This sends a signal that we're looking for that equitable, inclusive growth for any project that may come forward in the future, and with the fact that any future project would have to be consistent with any adaptive plans, we think that still puts that tool in place to be used once the East Derry plan comes forward. We think that makes sense to me. Tracy. Just just to clarify, it's your position, your understanding of the reality of an urban renewal area that it neither stimulates nor prohibits growth of small business or growth of affordable housing. It simply puts in place an area for projects to be presented that would then be up to us to evaluate. That is true, Councilman. But I would add that with the framework that has been put forward, again, drawing out the objectives of Plan 2040, a blueprint of the existing neighborhood plans, it is more focused to say these are the type of projects that we want to be able to support to to again, give that different focus to affordable housing, to emphasizing the importance of being able to support the existing businesses. So that would be the only change I would make to your statement. Thanks for the clarification. Thank you, Madam President. Next up, we have Councilwoman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. Tracy, don't go anywhere. Just one quick question for you and maybe it's not that quick. We've talked about this a lot in the neighborhoods and at the many of the meetings that we've been to. Tell me a little bit about what is going to be different about this this time. That is a great question. Thank you. And I certainly would be remiss if I stood here and said, I think we have all of the answers about how it is going to be different. But one of the things that I think is most different and it's really a carry on to what I just answered for Councilman Cashman , is the intentionality of the city plans that again, the urban renewal plan sits atop top of that is giving a charge to each of us that we need to be thinking about it differently. We already believe that affordable housing is a really important component to neighborhood stabilization. Make sure that as there are different economic pressures, that people have places where they can continue to to live and to be able to stay in the neighborhood. I again want to emphasize, even though it is separate from the urban renewal plan, the importance of those city housing programs that Derek administers to already help, to help those people who are already in the community deepen those roots by being able to make improvements to to their homes. I think the work of the office of Dr. Aguilar and Nest is going to be very, very critical to cause us all to make sure we are looking at development differently, community outreach, trying. The Office of Economic Development is working on a predictive tool to help us try to better understand if this then what? That is a different dynamic than what we have had before. While emphasizing that, we've always been mindful of the impacts that we have had on a community. But I think we have a very different collective charge, a mandate for all of us. And as was stated previously, as a project comes forward, this is going to be a continuing dialog between and among the community, the developer, the Urban Renewal Authority, City Council, to make sure that we are trying to do everything we can to avoid those unintended consequences and see if we can in fact be successful in rising up while still maintaining the importance of the things that the community. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Up next, we have Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem, Madam Director. So I recognize that you are saying that that this project would supersede all plans. I want a reference blueprint anyway, because it is a plan that had a robust stakeholder engagement and has been voted into, you know, voted by city council and accepted. So while I again recognized that that this doesn't have to conform to or report to blueprint, these are things that people have said they want and and city council has agreed. So just a one of the tenets of blueprint is about land use in built form. And so can you help me or can you describe so inside land use in both form? One of the tenets and blueprint is to integrate mitigation of involuntary displacement of residents and or businesses. Can you help me explain if that is one of these charges in this urban renewal and in how it. So a couple of things, and I'm going to answer your question and then remind me that I want to come back to where you started. So, yes, it most definitely is a tenant that is in the urban renewal plan that is drawing out, again, the objectives, a blueprint to be able to cause us to think about how we undertake the work that we do in a way that meets that objective. So, yes, absolutely. And the urban renewal plan is going to be an expectation that a project works to, in combination with other activities, mitigate involuntary displacement. Now, the other thing that I want to come back to, I want to again emphasize that approving the urban renewal plan doesn't change any of the plans beneath it on that on that pyramid. So if the East Area plan is approved, it replaces that second to the top regarding the neighborhood plans. But it doesn't the urban renewal plan doesn't change the neighborhood plans. It doesn't change Blueprint Denver. It doesn't change plan 2040. Instead, we look to take those objectives that are consistent with what the outcome of this corridor is looking to achieve and call just upon those. That would then include the criteria regarding the mechanisms to to try to help address involuntary displacement. So if we were to approve this tonight and then next week, you know, obviously this is hypothetically, but we were to then consider a zoning variance in this zone. Then we would still consider comp plan 2040, Blueprint 2019, and those would be factors that we would consider. So it isn't as if we would just throw them out and and just consider this urban renewal plan in a vacuum. That is correct. And I'm going to look at Liz. Is there anything more you want to add to that? She's the planning expert. Hi. Welcome back. Hello. So just to reiterate that the the urban redevelopment plan must be consistent with our adopted plans. It does not supersede them. That going forward, any project would again be evaluated, whether it is consistent with all of our plans. And for rezoning specifically, that's one of our criteria is consistency with our adopted plan. So that would not change or would be the comprehensive plan and its supplements, which include Blueprint Denver and any area plans. Got it. So, Madam Director, I have another question for you also from Blueprint. Blueprint talks about increasing the development of affordable housing in mixed income housing. How can this let's say we vote this in tonight, how can this augment that charge from Blueprint? Sure. As was noted earlier, the devil if if the delivery of affordable housing were easy, it'd be happening everywhere. But it's not. It is hard. It is expensive. It is complicated. And so being able to bring another tool, that being urban renewal in tax increment to the conversation of helping to deliver housing and affordable housing in particular is really what we would be looking to achieve. Okay. And another tenet of blueprint is mobility. Colfax has another project going in. I think that would also help blueprint with, you know, the blueprint charge of increased mobility. Does this help the BRT at all? What this would do would be to help support the objective of of having there be access to housing and services near transit. So as BRT or any transit activity continues to occur, helping to promote development that is consistent with increased ridership with reduced use of the automobile would again be something that we would look at as the project comes to us. And one more question, Mr. President. You looked different than just a couple of minutes ago. The what is to keep other than the city council just saying no, what is the key? Let's say again, we vote this in tonight. What's to keep someone, a developer or whomever, to just immediately go for 12 storeys because they want to, you know, one of the concerns, a real or imaginary and this is I guess the nature of my question is that we will approve this tonight and tomorrow. Developers will go bonkers and we'll have, you know, 80 plus story buildings all along this renewal area. So can you help address that or so? And again, Liz, I don't don't go far. Approving the urban renewal plan does nothing to the existing zoning. So right now, that type of development is not possible because it is contrary to the existing zoning. In addition, we can help a project that comes to us. If the developer is looking to do something that is already within the existing framework of this city, they can do that. It's in these areas that are a challenge that we frequently find that there there is a project that wants to be done, but because of a variety of conditions can't be done without some amount of additional public investment. That's where we can come in and that's where we can begin to. In addition to the project that is put forward, make sure that it is meeting as many of those objectives that that we've already talked about, that it includes the affordable housing, that it pays attention to the job creation, that it pays attention to the businesses that it would be bringing and the impact that they may or may not have along others trying to effect development along transit. All of those things now become available to us if the urban renewal plan is in place, because now that's a venue for Darrah to participate. Okay. Thank you, Director Huggins. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Before I go to the next member, I just want to address there were some concerns about sounds they might be hearing outside. Sound like gunshots. And Denver Police Department is calibrating the gunshot detection system, also known as ShotSpotter right now. So that's what's going on. If you're wondering about that, just want to put everyone at ease, Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. Tracy, if I can ask you to come out, please. Thank you. My first question is, are you willing, from this point forward to ditch the pyramid and come up with a new visual about the plans? Don't answer just. Okay. Thank you. I think one of the questions underneath what's happening tonight is about trust. And I think evidence is more helpful than promises when it comes to building trust. So can you talk about Mary Crust as a specific example of how an area that is vulnerable to gentrification on the border between Denver and Adams County working class neighborhood? How? Al Doura and Teff were used in ways that promoted equity and give just specific examples. Don't go into the history. Just give the specific examples of the outcomes related to equity there, in particular the housing and the way they used the training funds. You might want to put the slider that shows some of the policies that it has. While you're talking. I can get past the pyramid. There we go. Certainly. And and then I have one more. So just go quick and then I'm going to ask for another. So so the Mary Chris comment site is a former convent located in far north west Denver. It was acquired by a developer. And I think this is really fundamental to the answer as well, Councilwoman, is that this was a developer that was committed to embracing these goals and objectives of the city. And the intention of that development was to create a very different type of neighborhood. It has a very unique mix of housing options, including co-housing, very focused on affordability and attainability, focused on the community around it, making it be very, very inclusive. So tax increment was used both property and sales tax increment is being captured on that development site to help pay for some of the necessary infrastructure to to support that development. And there was local food production to help address the food desert. Yes. Yes. And there was a specific use of the ETO or the training dollars to do training for folks who needed career training in construction. That is true. And in councilman, we councilman, we have changed our program. It used to be such that you could either pay a dollar amount to the Urban Renewal Authority and then we would further deploy that in our construction employment opportunities programs or the developer could create their own program. This was a circumstance where that latter alternative was utilized, where there was a program that was put together by the developer that focused not only on construction but really women in construction as well, to be able to help build that segment of our economy. And when there's retail on that site, it'll do local hiring. That will include giving the first opportunity to jobs for folks from Denver who might be in need. That is true. All of our projects require there to be participation in our first source hiring program, and that is a program that says that any new job that is created in an urban renewal project, first opportunity to apply for that job has to be made available to a low income Denver resident. Great. And then can we just talk for a minute about one of the things that's been raised and I think one of the most important concerns raised tonight is about business ownership from immigrant and refugee communities and minority business owners. And so Doura had some experience in the District three with the Vietnamese business district there. And so can you talk for a minute about how urban renewal worked in terms of there were two different projects. The first one is there was a Lowe's where there was a concern about displacement. And and I'm going to talk to you in a minute about how some of these came to be because they did not fall from the sky. But can you just talk about the two projects there and the retention of businesses and how that was arranged and how that came about? Sure. And I want to make sure you're referencing the Alameda Square project as. Well as. Langley. The later there were two different. Is the one because there are two urban renewal areas, there are two urban renewal areas and the district boundaries have shifted over time. But one of them is the Alameda Square former shopping center. That is where we worked for a very long time to try to repurpose the back portion of that property, in particular, while there were existing minority owned businesses in the front part recognizing the need for there to be balance. And so there were several starts at that that finally culminated in the back portion of the site being redeveloped as a Lowe's Home Improvement. But meanwhile, then the existing businesses that were there had an opportunity to reinvest in themselves and to improve the overall functionality of the businesses that were there to the extent they they chose to and participated in. So Kingsland Restaurant you may be familiar with was is continues to function very similar to how it did at the beginning . There were two Vietnamese grocery stores. One of them decided to leave when they sold a portion of the property. The other had the opportunity to significantly through the tax increment as well reinvest to and enhance the tenant experience as well as the customer experience. Great. And then my last question, and it's kind of a compound question, so hang with me, but some of the things we've talked about are dairy policies and some of the things we've talked about were site specific agreements or. Commitments or outcomes. Would you say that involvement from community was key to achieving both of those things? I mean, did Dara just think of these policies on its own? Did Dara just think of these outcomes and what was the role? Because I think one of the questions that folks are asking tonight is how do they really know that community can impact your agency or these projects? And so I think that I just want to have you point to where these things came from and who they came from. Sure. And and I'm going to take those in two pieces as well. I'm going to talk about the the programs that we administer. And then I also want to talk. About in the generic. Don't go through each one maybe. But understood. You understood. Most of those have been brought to us by concerns from from the community. And I'm going to define the community rather broadly where there was recognition, particularly when we were becoming more active in downtown, that as these projects are happening, where is the opportunity for that low income Denver resident to be able to apply for a job? Where is that opportunity for there to be additional resources made available, particularly when we are still in an area where we are struggling to find construction workers to work on these projects? How can this public investment be a mechanism by which we can effect these different outcomes? So it really. Almost. Always were brought to us, evaluated, and they have been longstanding programs that have had a high degree of success. That's the program side. On the project side, there's, you know, I think some of our our best projects going back, Councilwoman CdeBaca, to how do these projects start when they really originate from the community? And case in point is the Dahlia Square Shopping Center in District eight, where it was a a dilapidated shopping center that at one time had been the largest African-American owned shopping center in the region. Certainly a very, very large region. But traffic patterns changed. The center fell into disrepair and the community said we need something else. What they really wanted was another grocery store and we had to work with them to help them appreciate that just the location of that was going to make that very, very challenging. But we worked with that community to better define how it is that site could be redeveloped with them. It is now at the home again to a Denver health clinic. It is home to senior affordable housing and it is home to the mental health center of Denver. Every single one of those development aspects was met with great support of the community because we worked so closely with the community every step along the way to work as hard as we could to make sure that anything that happened on that site met with those continuing community goals and objectives. Last question not every project originates with the community. Sometimes the project originates with a developer. Yes. Would you say that there is experience, though, where the where there is a community that is organized and exerts influence both with the council as well as with your agency and with the developer, that outcomes are sometimes achieved even where the idea did not come from the community. Yes, yes. Very, very frequently. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President. Clerk Tracy. I have a couple questions for you. So do you have some examples of when there's been an urban redevelopment plan in other parts of the city? How has that affected the surrounding property taxes of single family residential? Councilwoman I do not have that direct data and that has been a question that is asked, has been asked of us before. And are the the information that we have really is limited to the increase in the taxes in the tax increment area itself. So I know that it is happening. I know we looked at the the outlying impact when we worked on the Highland Garden Village redevelopment, which was the infill redevelopment of the former ILA to site when it moved out of northwest Denver into the Central Platte Valley. But I don't I don't have specific information regarding the the direct correlation. You talked a little bit about a predictive tool that Dito is working on, and it sounds like it might incorporate some of or might be able to generate some of that information. Or could you talk more about that predictive tool? I would really prefer that that question be answered by somebody in the Office of Economic Development. I just know that in part of our broader conversations, which again, I think is a really important component of this, is recognizing that every city department, many city departments, not every many city departments have their finger on the pulse of development , whether it's Parks and Rec, whether it's CPD, whether it's public works, urban renewal, the Office of Economic Development. And it's in those collective conversations that I'm beginning to hear about this. But again, I would ask that you ask that question of somebody from the Office of Economic Development lest I mess it up. Okay. We can do that. In the slide deck, it talks about 20% of new employment growth by 2040. And I wanted to understand a little bit more what sort of employment might that be? And are we looking at how we incorporate existing residents and businesses? So that is a statistic. And Liz, I'm going to look to you as well. That is a statistic and a goal coming out of Blueprint Denver that is again trying to, as I understand, focus development along corridors throughout the city. So I want to make sure it's clear that it's not saying that 20% of all of the new jobs are going to be in the East Colfax corridor. Right. It really is across the city in those corridors. And it will be a new employment of of all different sorts. But I will stop there, Liz, and ask if you want to add anything more. That is correct. That's the blueprint guidance that generally in our community corridor is we want to see 20% of employment growth. I think one of the objectives of the Urban Redevelopment Plan and something we've heard through the East Area Plan process, is looking at opportunities for affordable business, play space, community serving businesses. There's the ability, I think, with this with the urban redevelopment plan to help foster some of those opportunities that may connect existing or future entrepreneurs in the area or small businesses to help them stay in the area and expand those opportunities. Those are objectives that are included in the plan that may help us with achieving some of those goals. So it sounds like at this point we don't necessarily have a framework, though, in how to implement that and make that happen to be inclusive of the current residents. To answer that first. I think, again, that it's an objective of the plan. So it would be something that we would be using with a project that comes forward to evaluate the project. So how is it helping to further those objectives? Okay. My next question is for Irene Aguilar. It was mentioned previously by another speaker that there's 30% homeownership in the area. What are the investments that the city is currently making to ensure that we stabilize and not reduce that 30% homeownership? Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Actually, we are compiling right now lists of people who are delinquent on their property taxes. And we will be doing door to door outreach to them both, warning them of the hazards of predatory mortgages that might be approaching them and ensuring that they are aware of our programs that we have available to help with rebates. And then Office of Financial Empowerment. And that would be starting probably next week. And what exactly, I guess, is that outreach going to look like for because it's a very, very diverse area. Thank you. So for this first day, we're going to start with door to door knocking and we will leave behind fliers with some of this information on it. And a contact number to contact will hopefully do this partnership with the facts, partnership either them or NEST. And then we will ask to be giving them information on the programs that door has available for homeownership and improvement. And I understand I have a meeting actually tomorrow with Energy Outreach Colorado, because they may have some funds to do some energy improvements in the area as well. So we're hoping will be able to notify them about all of them. We have a small internal team that's been meeting probably once a month to talk about how are we going to actually get out there and do outreach on East Colfax and specific. And I'm excited that we're finally going to be getting started. And so the programs that are going to support homeowners, I'm assuming that's the same property tax refund program that we have within the city that is only at the 35% and 40% average median income level. Right? So that's the property tax program that's available. There's actually a state property tax program available as well that for those who are over the age of 65, we should make them aware of it. The ability to have the state pay their taxes, put a lean on their property, get that back when they sell their property and then ask to talk to them about some of the home improvement programs that exist through organizations like Brothers Endura. And so what are kind of along those similar lines? What are the supports for current business owners along this corridor? So are tools for business owners are more limited right now. But the Economic Development Department is has started up a pilot program this year, and we're hoping to expand the funding next year through business services to do a business improvement. I thought it would bias stands for I'm sorry, but to provide support for them through construction and through remodeling to help them further improve on their area. And then there are there is East Colfax bid, not just East Colfax, but all of these Colfax. And then the other thing we're trying to do is support the effects partnership to see if we could help them evolve to become a community development corporation so they can begin to provide funding to increase and stabilize that community as well. Okay. Thank you. I have another question. And as far if you could come on up. Thank you. I wanted to learn more. What you're hearing from current property owners or members of the Ethiopian community, specifically about what has been transpiring along this stretch of Colfax and where you see some gaps? Yeah. I mean, people overall, especially in the therapy community, are just nervous. And honestly, people are saying, we're going to move to Aurora. There is already, as I mentioned earlier, issues with small businesses being shut down as one reason or another, like the nuisance ordinance that the city has that's been used to close down small businesses that some newcomers consider an eyesore. But those businesses have been part of the neighborhood for decades. There's just overall, historically, when you look at other neighborhoods as well, our community has already been pushed out. This is, you know, a larger therapy community and a city park area. Like 20 years ago, we had a large community in five points. They're all in Aurora now, you know, and that's what's happening in East Colfax. That's the perception of what's happening in East Colfax. And all of this is happening very, very soon or rapidly, even though I know they've been working on it for years. But the other thing is all this details honestly are very confusing to a lot of people. And I know during your last meeting here, there was a passionate speech made by Councilwoman CdeBaca that really, like, got people's attention and say, oh, this is what it means. So there was also a lot of misunderstanding. And now there is a lot of alarm in the community saying, you know, we're next and East Colfax is next. And so, you know, that's why there is a lot of fear and nervousness. And, you know, some people are already making plans to to find a home or a business in Aurora. Have you gotten feedback or been part of the neighborhood outreach process? Can you repeat that? Have you been part of or had feedback on, I guess, the inclusiveness of the process so far? Yeah, the partnership has been great. They've been attempting to reach out. You know, we've worked with Nest to help reopen some of the businesses that have been closed. So we've had some success in that. But the issue is that, you know, as many times as you meet with this agency, it's an organization's first of all, it's hard to get this is a different community where a lot of the residents work two or three jobs, you know, single mothers or even the small business owners. They can't afford to hire a lot of staff so that, you know, the owners are working 16, 18 hours a day. So when there's a crisis, we'll make a call. People come out. But usually when you call people for planning, you know, the participation level has not been that great. And people just trust that, you know, a council or, you know, the good people take care of it. But there has been you know, I give a lot of kudos to the fact partnership and there's been a lot of attempts to reach out, but. This thing is very complicated. A lot of times people don't understand it. There has not been a lot of opportunities for a great deal of the community and not just the Ethiopian community, the immigrant community, the African-American community. I've talked to a lot of influencers from multiple of those communities, but not the fault of the good folks that are trying to put this together. But the reality of that community is that people don't have the luxury to actively participate and have a say. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman CdeBaca, you back up for questions. Just a quick question for Ms.. Aguilar. You were mentioning the the state tax program and that Alene would be put on their house for the payment. And you said that the lean would need to be paid back upon sale. What happens in cases where there is no sale and the person passes away? Because that's usually what happens when a senior is seeking support. Thank you, Councilwoman. It's similar to the Medicaid program where they would when the house was sold, they would take their portion and the remains would go to the family, the remaining value built up in the home. So the hope would be that on some of these homes that were perhaps purchased for 100,000, that in four or five years they'd be worth closer to 500,000. And what was behind on taxes to be taken out of that? And the difference in equity could go to the family for intergenerational wealth. Does that require a will? The I think my understanding is that the state would take their portion and then ideally the family would have a will to say that how the low equity in the home gets distributed once the family member has died. But otherwise, the usual inheritance structure. Or if there's no will, does it go to the state? Not if you have living relatives as like. There's a a listing of who gets it next. Like if you have a spouse, even if you've only been married to them for a year or two, they're first on the list. Unless Mom has, you know, drafting something up saying it goes to my kids or my grandkids. And it really behooves people to do that, even if it's just a handwritten witness by somebody, because that still has legal standing in their state. And in cases where there is nobody identified because that's that's what happens. Otherwise, they'd go to their family members for support. In those cases, what happens to the properties? To be honest, I don't know for sure. I know we have unclaimed property funds that come to the state and so I presume it would go there, but I'm making that up. I don't know. That is a fact. And do you know what percentage of Coloradans or Colorado seniors utilize that program? Very small. I think it's not well known among people. And as you know, there's a lot of distrust. And is there hesitance to sign that leen or documents that allow that lean to exist? Yes, I think that's part of the distrust. Interesting. The only good part about that, if you will, is that when you have that line on your property, if somebody comes to try to do some kind of predatory, mortgaging process on you, it will go through the the state or the city first so that you'll be counseled about the potential risks of that. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 744 is closed. And we're going to move on to comments by members of Council Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I got to tell you, thank you. That we don't have a public hearing for climate change tonight. You know, I. I wish we weren't having this conversation because that would mean as I leave the city and county building a hangar. Right. I'm Cherokee and I head east heading to my house on Colfax. And I see the vibrancy in District ten, District nine. Grocery stores, amenities walking. You hit Monaco and it's a virtual wall. You hit Quebec and you go in a time capsule because you go back to the 1950s when the Colfax was I-70, prior to I-70 , and you still see the same services and shop that you had back then. If you're curious, from Monaco to Yosemite, from this just under two mile stretch right now, there are 21 car oriented businesses, used car dealers, mechanical shops, auto body shops. 16. I say motel's I use that term loosely. I have been in those motels and the state that we have these individuals living in and the amount of dollars that they pay to stay in there is is a disservice to those individuals that are trying to survive. And I appreciate Doctor Aguilar, because you hit the nail on the head. This conversation tonight is easy. East. Colfax needs the support. And this is a tool. And this is all it is. This is not a silver bullet, but this is a tool that will give us the opportunity to serve a community that is in desperate need of it. I don't know if you're familiar of the community planning development done because we talked about equity in Comp Plan 2040. Each statistical neighborhood in the city and county of Denver recently received what's called an equity score. It runs from 2 to 4.4, and that equity score is built on five factors. And I read some of them to you socioeconomic families that are in poverty, educational attainment, the built environment, access to full service, grocery store parks or open space health care, first trimester care during your pregnancy, more morbidity, child and youth, overweight and obesity . Mortality, life expectancy. So they took all these different factors and they spit out a number. The neighborhood that has the lowest in the city and county of Denver is East Colfax. We cannot do enough to serve these people. People that have been neglected for a very long time. And I want to applaud the city because in the past few years we have recognized that and we have taken steps to move forward with it, investments in our infrastructure with the 2017 Bond acquisition of two parcels. And I'll come back to that as we talk about housing, making investments in a community that has been neglected for a very long time. And there was a conversation about the local businesses. And we support this. We support the small businesses. But I will tell you right now, and I'll look at the East Colfax neighborhood there in this front pew, there are businesses right now in East Colfax that are not serving East Colfax. And we are using the tools that we have in place to either have them turn around and serve those communities, or we will handle that accordingly because I've been in those stores. And it's not because we are picking on a particular group of business, not because you're not serving the community. And I want to welcome any of my colleagues who walk Colfax with me, because I've done it, walk through with the neighbors to see how can we better serve this community at night picking up trash to better serve this community. When it comes to gentrification, the first thing you need to do is build housing. And that's what we're doing as a city. 83, 15, 82. Units. One, two, three, four bedroom units. 60%, Ami. And if you're curious what that means, if you are a family of four, maximum income is $55,000 and below. Yes, we cannot. These are the tools that we're using as a city to support those in this neighborhood. So I encourage my colleagues to support this, you know, so that we have another tool that we can help this community be a part of it. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a couple of comments, because district three in particular, Westford was mentioned a couple times, and I just Stacy failed to, I think, adequately mention how much of an impact that had along Alameda and South Federal. And so I just want to make sure that folks here and appreciate the amount of work that goes into both the areas and the utilization of the turfs and how it can be a benefit. But always remember that it can also be taken advantage of. And so it is the investment of the people who live there. It is the investment of the communities who operate businesses there to pay attention over many decades of what's going to be happening in these corridors. So I saw it support housing and small business development. 42 projects were done in this particular area. One directly placed affordable housing at Alameda and Irving, 98 units under 60%. AMI because the project was mentioned, 42 units, 30 to 60%. AMI and their nonprofit actively working to support the economic success of West Denver families. Significant facade improvement including New Saigon bakery and and restaurant if anybody's not been there you should the retail malls on both sides of south federal Mississippi. These were years long process to build trust with dozens of individual owners. Each individual business was an individual property owner. All of them had to be brought along to approve facade improvement in their entire retail area. This took years and involved the creation of an actual alley behind one of them. Those business owners were taking trash home because they didn't want to take it behind their business. These projects were tough. Trust did not exist between first and second generation immigrant business owners and government. Not a shock. My work there was with the Asian American Pacific Islander Commission who wanted to understand what those business owner retail concerns were . Safety and upkeep and growth of their businesses were paramount. They wanted to be able to pass down their businesses to their kids. It took years of relationship building, years of tenacity by Tracy and her team, resulting in actual renovations, actual placemaking. And now we're seeing the burgeoning Little Saigon business district start to grow there and walkability and pedestrian access start. To be advocated. For. The successful outcomes come from partners, deliberate support and trust, and we all play a role in that, especially those who live, work and really love these particular neighborhoods. So I just wanted to mention a few of the successes that I've seen in West Denver that really can result from investment in our communities that need them. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to start by thanking everyone who came out to speak tonight. And I know it's a it's a long evening. It's a tough thing to stand up and speak. And so we appreciate your advocacy and your bravery for getting up there. I know there's been some confusion with this vote that's before us, and I believe we kind of owe it to everyone to just make sure we're setting the record straight about exactly what this vote is about. You know, it is not about the east area plan. It is not about whether to use TIF money for any project specific project along East Colfax. It's not about whether tax dollars should fund TIFF. Our decision tonight is about whether or not that's an option on the table. Whether it's a tool in our box if we want it down the road. To not have that option available to us, I believe, is shortsighted. I've been attending East Colfax Neighborhood Association meetings for a long time, and I just want to point out what a unique R.A. it is. Tim and the rest of the leadership have truly engaged this community, its community, members of all ages, of all cultures, of all nationalities. And, you know, we might not always agree on the outcomes or how to get there, but we can all agree that this is a level of community engagement that has kept the East Colfax neighborhood a vibrant place, even given the challenges that it faces with safety and affordability and the threat of gentrification and displacement. One of my aides lives on East Colfax and in the East Colfax neighborhood, so my familiarity is very, very deep and you guys are well-represented in my office, just. So you know. To say that there's a lot happening on the East Colfax corridor right now. Kind of an understatement, right? It's an economic opportunity zone. There are five active Reno's two active business improvement districts. It's two council districts. You know, they're talking about the pilot BRT program that you Syria plan is being developed there. It's home to a thriving immigrant community that brings a rich cultural heritage, but it's a place that faces a lot of challenges. The lot sizes along East Colfax are very shallow, which makes it difficult to do anything really on the land. The city of Denver requires that small businesses to tackle the significant costs of infrastructure upgrades to the alleys and the sidewalks on any parcels in this area and in all areas. But in this area in particular, and even though the data shows that the crime is down, we still have a lot of work to do. All of this adds up to significant barriers to entry for new business and development in the area. I've spoken to some of the parcel owners and most of them tell me the same thing. If it were economically feasible for them to do anything else on these parcels, they would have done it by now. It's just that simple. Denver has one of the strongest economies in the country, in one of the strongest national economies in our nation's history. Yet still right now, the East Colfax corridor is struggling. And if economic indicators are correct, we're headed for a market correction which is only going to make a shift in this area more economically difficult. So what do we do to change this? If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, how can we create a shift on this corridor? Like many people I've spoken with, I don't believe that doing nothing is an option, and I believe that imperfect action is better than perfect inaction. With all the economic uncertainty we have to do, we have to use every available tool in our toolbox, which is like altering the financial options in the area through TIFF down the road is an option that we shouldn't eliminate prematurely. Is there a perfect? No. Historically, it's had its challenges. But this isn't the dura of 1975. It's 2019. Jura isn't asking to use eminent domain here, or frankly, I wouldn't support it. And the scope is limited to very specific parcels that are bordering East Colfax. Tracy and her team have been working their tails off to do the outreach that is needed to be done. Discussing this with community members, answering questions, making herself available to discussions with concerned neighbors. I mean, look at how many questions she answered tonight. That's pretty amazing. You know, Darrah is walking the walk and talking the talk and showing their commitment to the neighborhood through their actions. And we have examples in Denver, like we just talked about the Vietnamese community over on federal and Alameda, where Dora was successful in revitalizing the community while still ensuring that it maintains its authentic character and that the community was not displaced. We need to make sure that as potential projects come in front of council, we vet them through the lens of equity and we are careful about the choices we make. But tonight's vote isn't related to a specific project. It's a vote to leave all the available options on the table in a time when we might be facing economic uncertainty. And this evening, I will be supporting this designation, and I ask that you do as well. Thank you. Councilwoman. Councilman CdeBaca. Thank you so much. I wanted to take a minute. Having heard these presentations, as well as having recently completed our race and social justice initiative, training as body and again highlight several of my comments from last week during our race and social justice initiative training. We discussed several times the policies that have impacted and exacerbated race and social justice injustice over time. Several times we saw that urban renewal has deepened race and social justice in our in our injustice in our country and our community here in Denver, under the guise of helping us. Here we have a plan that was initiated in 2015 through the leadership of council members who are no longer members of this body for various reasons. One perhaps being that residents did not feel adequately represented by said representatives. 2015 was also a time when we were not aggressively acknowledging and mitigating our housing and displacement crisis. We have an area of town that this plan itself recognizes as high risk for displacement. We've heard several members of marginalized groups share their fears and concerns with this plan. Tonight, through emails, through phone calls, 70% of residents are struggling to stay in the community and this plan is attempting to incentivize private development. Most of them are not owners and instead are renters. They have a very different level of access to the improvements and planning that owners have and that have been discussed on other projects. Doura is determining blight and the plan overall was not catalyzed by residents. In fact, outside of notice for this meeting, residents who are not property owners have claimed that they have not been a part of this process. There was a statement made that this plan, if that if this plan was accepted and relocation was required for displaced businesses and residents, that a feasible method exists to relocate them. That makes me very uncomfortable. I also understand that while we're not approving a TIV project, we're authorizing the use to generate funding for the promised improvements of future projects. Two Financing draws a boundary around the same neighborhood. That's asking for affordability, and 70% are at risk of displacement. To impose those necessary taxes that will effectively tax the properties in the area to pay for the new improvements. While tax increases and instability is one of the primary factors causing homeowner displacement across our city. This is already a trump opportunity zone that incentivizes private development in the area with federal dollars. A denial tonight is not a permanent denial, but a two year pause while Denver recalibrates, as we have promised our residents we would to address this housing crisis. Derek can also continue to work through their housing branch to help facilitate improvements along the corridor without the plan in place. We can also move forward with our upcoming neighborhood plans and decide if through those plans they still want to catalyze the same level of private development. I'm not comfortable with hoping that communities are organized enough to fight back and achieve the sometimes decent projects. That is too big of a risk to take right now. Knowing that all of our families are facing and I think Miss Aguilar's thoughts, while Miss Aguilar's thoughts have changed to realize how this might be used as a tool to mitigate displacement, I believe her original instinct was based on knowing the data we have. I'm going to have to again go with the many years and projects of proof. We have to show that the urban renewal plans have corrected blight of poverty by eliminating the poor, black and brown and driving them out. We need to press pause. We watched the devastation of what happened with Walton Street and the redevelopment of that area. I respect my colleagues underscoring projects that had satisfactory outcomes, and we can do those projects on a project by project basis. We know a lot of change is coming to this corner of our city. We've heard multiple tools that are being utilized by Nest and Ms.. Aguilar has been in her role maybe a year at this point. And we need to give those efforts a chance to work without using the same tool that we know catalyzed massive disruption in several areas of town. So for this reason, I still do not support this plan. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. Many of my comments were stated by Councilwoman Torres. I think, you know, I had an old saying, which is that urban renewal is like fire. It can keep you warm and alive in a winter or it can burn your house down. And it's all about how you use it. Part of the responsibility for how it gets used is on government and in particular how we institutionalize more policies to ensure that if this tool is used, it's held accountable. There were movements it took to make the policies that are in place, and we probably it's time for us to update those. I think there is pointing direction that points that way in our plans that we've adopted. And so it was not the case very recently that there was a policy of always including affordable housing and it's not a written policy. So there is definitely room for improvement for institutionalizing the government accountability. But I will always believe that it is important that there is wisdom in the community and that one of the most important things we need to go forward if this passes tonight, is to help make sure that the wisdom of communities who've gone before get to directly share their experience. With this community. So I think we need to pair the Vietnamese community that Councilwoman Torres talked about with some of the immigrant refugees in this quarter and create an opportunity for shared learning and then to create more resources for those communities that are now activated. I started tonight thinking that we were doing this too soon, that we should have waited until we had actual projects. But actually, as I listened to the discussion and all of the really important testimony tonight, I realize it's really important that we're doing it tonight because now everyone is paying attention before there's any project. And so we have to seize that. We have to resource this community with organizing dollars and the ability to self-organize, to learn about community benefits agreements and how to negotiate. And so together, we have to have accountability in government, both in the agency as well as the council, because we will vote on anything that moves forward, as well as finding a way to channel and collect the wisdom that's in the community about how to ensure that that power lives there. So I hope that those are steps we can take. I'll be looking forward to seeing what the first round of grantees are from the funding that is going to be out there for equity organizing . And if it doesn't include this neighborhood, how we ensure that there is more resources going forward. I'll be hosting an event on community benefits later this fall. I will make sure to invite those of you who are here tonight from the neighborhood to learn more about that model. And then we will continue, I think, to have an important conversation. I'm really glad the questions were raised. This agency has in recent history not had the same policies it has today, and it needs to continue to grow and evolve. And that responsibility falls on us. It is the history of this agency's evolution has been an inside and outside organizing period. It hasn't been one body. It's required both. And so I think if we continue to focus this important conversation, we can hold any future projects really accountable or reject them. And we can also make sure that the next plans that come forward potentially have even more mitigating tools built into them from the front end. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman each. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank everyone for coming. It's. It's late. I don't even know what time it is. Oh, 1030. Yeah, it's like ten past my bedtime. And. And I also want to thank people for. For, you know, sharing your views and your thoughts, regardless of what side of this particular discussion you you're in. I think that this is a framework and and not an actual implementation. And I want to say, I think this is I think this is good. I think that we should have additional development, particularly if it encourages locally owned businesses and affordable housing and allows people to age in place and continue to run their businesses in place. I would also say if you're a developer who is looking at this vote and starting to salivate and think, I don't care about race or social justice, I agree with Councilwoman CdeBaca. We need to consider that as a middle aged white male. I you know, obviously, I don't I don't experience the struggle, but we need to make sure that everyone is is considered and heard. And we and I heard the our recent training on race and social justice. And if you are a developer who is not going to consider that, don't expect this urban renewal to be a green light. For me, the last thing I'd say is my colleague to my left talked about the vibrancy of Colfax and District ten. I invite all of you to come, maybe as you go home tonight, but please do visit Colfax on District ten, west of Colorado, and enjoy our wonderful, vibrant businesses. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President. Clerk. I appreciate I appreciate everybody for Lee. And my comments will be brief. You know, my husband and I, our first home was at 1960 Verbena before Stapleton was redeveloped. And, you know, Saturday's was the location that we gave folks to make left off of Colfax to get to our house. And there hasn't been the investment by the city in this area at all for decades, specifically Québec and other areas. But. Really came forward for me. Today was a great conversation with Neb and. I value your opinion and I value that of the Ethiopian community. And I'm very concerned. I'm very concerned because I haven't heard tonight the plans that we need to really have in place to make sure that we are providing every resource possible to our residents and our businesses. And I can't in good faith vote on this tonight knowing that we don't have a predictive tool that is ready to roll out. We don't know how this investment will affect the property values of surrounding single family homes and businesses, and how are they going to mitigate and navigate those rising property values? How during this development we're going to keep local businesses in the neighborhood? I didn't specifically ask the question, but I purposely didn't because I wanted to hear someone tell me how for that barber shop, how for the dentist's office that was shared tonight. Where are they going to go? What's the interim plans to make sure that they stay in the neighborhood? And so with that, I'm not going to be able to support this tonight because I don't feel like there's the infrastructure in the plans to support our most vulnerable residents and businesses. Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman CdeBaca, I see back in the queue, we don't generally go back around to second time programs. All right, then. See nobody else up for comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Herndon, I swear I black I. CdeBaca No. Flynn I. Gillmor No. Hines. I. Cashman. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval. Torres, I. Mr. President. All right, Madam Secretary, please cause voting in those results. Tunis 11. Nice. Tunis Lebanese Council 744 has passed. Councilman Hines, will you please put comfortable 745 on the floor?

AN ORDINANCE relating to housing and displacement mitigation; expanding the information required for submission under the Rental Registration Inspection Ordinance for rental housing units; requiring submission of rental housing-related information; and amending Chapter 22.214 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_07052022_CB 120325

No objection. The agenda is indeed adopted will be on in our agenda to reconsideration of Council. Council Bill Vetoed by Mayor Harrell. This is reconsideration of Council Bill 120325 for the clerk. Please read item one into the record. Agenda Item one Constable 120 325 relating to housing and displacement mitigation. Expanding the information required for submission under the Rental Registration Section Ordinance for rental housing units requiring submission of rental housing related information and amending Chapter 20 2.2.1 for sale. Mr. CODE. Thank you. I am calling up the reconsideration of Council Bill 120325 to consider passage of the Bill and the Mayor's veto. On May 31st, 2022, the Seattle City Council passed one to Council Bill 120325. Mayor Harrell subsequently vetoed it on June 10th, 2022. Today will be voted on whether to pass the bill again to override the veto. It takes six votes to pass the bill and override the mayor's veto. Council members received a memo from central staff who received a couple of them last Wednesday outlining the procedure for this vote. Following the comments, I reached the Council bill 1 to 0 325 is now pending before the council. Are there any comments on the bill? Councilor Peterson. Thank you. Council President, I appreciate the co-sponsorship of this bill with Councilmember Morales. And as you mentioned, a majority of the city council approved council bill 120325 to collect basic rental data. City Hall has been lacking for years. Data we need urgently now on the eve of considering massive land use and zoning changes through a required comprehensive plan. As one of the sponsors of the bill, I outlined several reasons to support the bill originally. We need the data to prevent displacement of vulnerable residents. The data is vital before we make these changes to the comprehensive plan that impacts zoning and housing policies. The current census tract data and rental surveys on vacant units lack the vital details on existing rents at specific locations, and we already considered alternatives to this bill. But those alternatives are inadequate. The data can validate affordable benefits of smaller mom and pop landlords. Also in deference to active landlords who expressed concerns about the concept, the bill already included important accommodations. A research university would receive the raw rental data instead of the city government directly. The requirement would sunset in three years, so it was just a temporary bill needed at a crucial time in our decision making. Opponents of the bill then raised concerns about timing and cost. The bill was amended further, which ended up addressing those concerns. The city, the city's executive departments would be in the driver's seat. Nothing would happen until the executive executes a contract with a research university. After a competitive request for proposals and the RFP could help manage the costs. Specifically, the Council adopted was amended to state that effective three months from the date of their excuse me, effective three months from the date the contract described in the subsection is executed. The information that was requested will be submitted later, twice annually. So the timing issue was solved with that. I also want to point out that in between the bill was vetoed and offered additional supports for the bill. And bottom line is, I urge at least one of the four council members who voted against it to join the majority. So this bill becomes law. The additional supports are that rental registries like this are increasingly common in the United States. Seattle is behind. We are not progressive on this issue. Long standing laws requiring rent roles with rental data information already exist in other cities such as New York City. Moreover, many California cities have implemented these programs over the past few years. A 2019 report examined eight rental housing registry programs, including three that already require the rent amount to be provided. A more recent February 2022 news article highlighted that 16 different cities in California are moving ahead with this, not waiting for the state legislature to act. Costs are dramatically lower than what opponents claimed based on the actual experiences of these other cities. The fact that we're simply adding on to an existing housing registry, Seattle's rental registration and inspection ordinance that already enforces the collection of data. And we would be using a competitive request for proposals. The cost to add the collection of research components at CB 120325 could be as low as $125,000 a year. The two departments that should want this data and want us to have this data. They received budget increases last year and the executives required to have this information in doing the comprehensive plan proposals. So this bill would have enabled them to get the data they need and the university that would be chosen via a competitive RFP would be doing the bulk of the work, the data entry, the sorting and the mapping , the existing affordable housing projects, so that we make well-informed decisions. There was a $2 million estimate. That was over the three year period, and it was based on asking one real estate center how much money would they want to do this? And that is not necessarily the best way to get an affordable result. The competitive IRP process would get that resolved. There was also a $5 million estimate that was mentioned, but that was if we were to set up the brio program from scratch. So that was not a reliable estimate. Also, this bill did not charge landlords the cost to run this system. Landlords do pay for the RPO already. There could have been an option to increase that by $4 a unit that would have yielded plenty of funds to run this program. But we didn't choose to do it that way. But we could have. In other words, cost was really not an appropriate rationale to vote against the bill, in my opinion. So bottom line is there are plenty of reasons to support Council 1 to 0 3 to 5 as the majority of our legislative branch already did. So I urge a yes vote again today. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Petersen, before I go to Councilor Morales, who is a co-sponsor, then then it'll be customers to watch. I want to remind the public, when we voted on this on May 31st, the vote was 5 to 4. All right, Councilman Morales. I hear you. Yeah, we go. Sorry about that. It's you, colleagues. And thank you, Councilmember Peterson. I'm proud to have co-sponsored this legislation. And I'm disappointed that the mayor decided to veto a bill that would actually allow us to collect real information on rent trends for the first time ever. As the city continues to become more affordable. We as policymakers need data about our rental market that tell us the rate at which rent is increasing in our city. And we shouldn't be reliant on private, for profit corporations to do that work for us. We know that Seattle isn't affordable, but we don't really know the rate at which rents are skyrocketing right now. We don't. We don't know which units are seeing the biggest increases. We don't know if there is a ceiling to the kind of rent increases that we're seeing right now. My office worked with Councilmember Peterson on this legislation because we believe that it has the potential to provide us at the city with data that we're currently lacking. And it has the potential excuse me. I mean. It has the potential to put a tremendous amount of power into the hands of tenants, shifting the scale towards something more balanced between landlords and tenants. This is an opportunity that tenants in cities with rent roles like Chicago and New York already have. This could mean for tenants that they finally have the ability to make an informed decision and to make a choice between units when they're searching for a new home, something that landlords have been able to do with background checks on tenants for decades. What this means for tenants is that they'll actually know who's hiding behind LLC that owned the LLC, that owned their building. And that means that they can go directly to the person or persons who are responsible for keeping their unit habitable. If repair requests are not being fulfilled. This also means for tenants that they can have data that once and for all definitively shows the need for us to join the rest of the West Coast and pass rent control at the state and the city level. And finally, this means for tenants that we would finally have concrete data that dispels the illusion that private market trickle down economics is the solution to our affordability crisis. Data that could give us the extra push to invest in high quality, abundant, publicly. Owned social housing. So for me, this legislation isn't necessarily about land use decisions that may or may not happen in the next two years. It's about nothing short of giving tenants the opportunity to stay in Seattle, something that we know many of them are losing quickly. I urge my colleagues to vote yes to override this shortsighted veto and to give tenants the opportunities that they deserve. If you can spare Morales customers who want. Thank you. Guns in prison worries, as I said when this first came for a vote to the city council. This bill simply requires landlords to disclose the rent they charge so that policymakers can have accurate, objective data. Be clear. This bill going into effect will not make rental homes more affordable. It will simply collect data. But it is outrageous that the landlord lobby, who claimed to charge affordable rents, have called repeatedly to public comment in the past in opposition, the city having objective data. It would be good to have more data about the rent landlords charge and it is ironic that landlords have simultaneously claimed that they charge low rent and objected to actually disclosing the rent they charge. It is extremely telling that the landlord lobby has joined out in opposition to this bill. Several speakers before and during public comment today said if landlords are not gouging their tenants, why are they so afraid to tell the truth about their rents? And it is frankly scandalous that Mayor Harold chose to use a real veto. Do so brazenly do the bidding of the landlord lobby. More accurate and more complete data will help further confirm what every renter in Seattle already knows that landlords and the predatory real estate markets are gouging renters with totally unconscionable rent hikes. The cost of housing is being set by the greed of speculative banks, private equity funds and rapacious property management corporations rather than what it actually costs to house people. While the real estate barons make billions, working people and the poor are increasingly priced out just to have a roof over their heads or they're being pushed into homelessness . We need to strengthen all. Aspects of renters rights. Including strong citywide rent control and a big increase in the Amazon tax to file and increase expansion of publicly owned social housing. This bill will only provide more accurate and objective data, so if councilmembers do not support it, it would not stop renters from fighting for rent control. However, any councilmember. Who claims to be data driven has. No excuse to oppose this bill. I vote yes to make. Landlords disclose the rent. They charge. Thank you. If you castmembers talent. And finally, we have Councilmember Herbold. Thank you. Just trying to adjust my. There we go. I'm taking the opportunity. To address the need for this sensible data collection legislation. And I, too, am scratching my head over. Why the powerful tool of. A male. Veto would be used for a bill that is really again, it's merely a data collection tool that is really helpful to us as policymakers, whether or not it's on the council side of the of the aisle or on the executive side. I want to just uplift how we've used data in the past, data specifically about displacement to guide our decisions. Back in 2015, that was the first major comprehensive plan update that actually included it for the first time ever a displacement risk analysis. This displacement risk analysis was instrumental to council's deliberations on the mandatory housing affordability reasons, and it helped guide us. On. How to how to use the the ABS zoning tool to add more housing and collect funds to build affordable housing. And it was really, again, a tool that used data that helped drive our decisions. You may recall that. On April 5th, the City Council received. I think, an a really important bit of guidance from the Seattle Planning Commission related specifically to our next major update. And in that memo, they. Wrote that they believe the Seattle Planning Commission believes we should make displacement policies focus of the next comprehensive plan to drop aid to the equitable growth patterns that led portion proportionate displacement of bipoc and low income communities and draw up the comprehensive and expected in 2024 needs to include displacement policies as a central focus of the plan . The city should. Supplement knowledge shared by communities affected by displacement, with improved data tracking of high displacement risk areas and the outcomes of policy actions. I really hope that we can override his veto with a majority +166 councilmembers voting in favor today. And I just want to close out her remarks was saying just a little bit of the call to action from the cities this weekend. They encouraged us by saying, let's catch up with other progressive cities and better understand where all affordable housing is located in Seattle. So we can finally have the detailed data we need to prevent economic displacement as we update our cities policies for a better future. Thank you. Councilmember Herbold, before we go to a vote, Councilmember Peterson, or anything you want to say before I make a few comments? Oh. You're good. Yeah. Okay, so let me read again the instructions and then we'll go to a vote. The City Council will now vote to reconsider passage of Council Bill 120325. And to either override or sustain the mayoral veto. Jerry Roll Call. Council members will vote I or yes to pass the bill and override the mayor's veto. Or vote no not to pass the bill and sustain the veto. If the vote on the motion does not receive six votes, the bill fails and the veto is sustained. If the vote on the motion is six or more favors in favor, the bill passes, the veto is overridden, and all provisions within the bill go into effect. There any other questions, any other procedural questions on the vote before we go? So as a reminder, council members will either vote I to pass the bill and override the mayor's veto or no to not pass the bill and sustain the veto or the clerk. Please call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120325 and consideration of the Mayoral Veto. Madam Clerk. Council Member. Silent. Yes. Councilmember Strauss. No. Councilmember Herbold? Yes. Councilmember Lewis? Yes. Councilmember Morales. As. Councilmember Nelson. No. Councilmember Peterson. That's. Council president worries? No. Five in favor, three opposed. So the motion fails. Adam Clark. Correct. Okay. So I'm sorry. I was waiting for this. Okay, so the motion fails. The bill does not pass, and the veto is sustained. All right. I got that correct. Let's go to committee reports. Item number two, this matter is mine. Will the clerk please read item two and to the record. Agenda item two. Clip 4314495. Report of the City Clerk on the Certificate of Sufficiency for initiative number 134 concerning approving approval. Voting for mayor, city attorney and City Councilmember. Primary elections.

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Department of Transportation, the High Performance Transportation Enterprise and the Bridge Enterprise regarding Montclair and Park Hill basin drainage improvement and I-70 transportation enhancements. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves an intergovernmental agreement with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the High Performance Transportation Enterprise and the Bridge Enterprise regarding Montclair and Park Hill basin drainage improvements and I-70 transportation enhancements; the estimated total costs of $134 million for the drainage project will be shared by the City and CDOT, 60% and 40% respectively; the City's contribution to the transportation project will be $37 million (201522456). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review date is on 7-20 -15. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-3-15.

DenverCityCouncil_06222015_15-0381

All right. It has been moved in, second in. And now, Councilman Monteiro, we need a motion to amend. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 381 be amended in the following following particulars on page one line 17 Strike City Clerk's filing number 2015-0265 and insert City Clerk's filing number 20150265. Dash a thank you comment on the amendment. Councilwoman Montero Thank. You, Mr. President. The purpose of the amendment is to include technical changes requested by the Colorado Department of Transportation. The mayor's office reports that there are no changes to the financial commitments or project details as presented in committee, and the Colorado Department of Transportation and the City of Denver remain committed to creating a partnership that is mutually beneficial and keeps the community in mind. This amendment would allow for the substitution of the new contract with a new filing number. These changes would, number one clarify language at the Brighton Boulevard box. Culvert could be used for both city surface drainage needs and as an alternative connection point for the I-70 residual drainage pipe. This will enable us to build a drainage pipe in Brighton Boulevard prior to paving currently scheduled for 2017. Let me go back 2016 2017, thus limiting future paving impacts. Number two adds boilerplate language required for all state contracts with vendors per the request of the state comptroller's office. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Any comments on the amendment? Councilmembers Ortega or Fox? Yes. Go right ahead. I want to specifically address the box culvert because I'm not sure this is just a minor amendment because if you look at the actual agreement, number one, Denver is. The language is changed so that now we would pay up to 2.5 million. Actually, the state would pay up to 2.5 million towards the box culvert. And in the previous language that was the total cost. And so I want to know, number one, if the cost has changed in the estimates, because that language sort of changes the way that that it reads. So I don't know who wants to speak to that. Mr. President. Point of order. Could someone also reference it's a you know, it's a multi page contract. What section? The language change that you were referring to. Councilwoman Ortega. So we follow along. Yeah, it's. Let's see. I believe it's for me to find the actual page here. I think Sky. Council. Creatures on page three. It's in section one, the 2% drainage project, an early action drainage project in that Section A and I can hand you a red line if that. Helps you so I can read the way it read before in the way it reads now. So you have that clarification. Go ahead. Ahead. Just trying to start at the beginning of the sentence the two base and drainage project including the. Remaining. The EDP is the. East at the Early Action Drainage Project. Sorry I lost my my place here. Kathleen Kennedy. Did you find the spot? As long as. I do. It. Kathleen Kennedy dissatisfied. I want to go ahead. We can go ahead and get your questions answered, Councilman Ortega. So whoever. Okay, so I'm not sure who's addressing that, but what I'm what I'm trying to clarify is what is the cost now? Has the cost change? Because the language is basically saying now that the state will pay up to that amount. And that raises the question about whether or not the cost of the box culvert has changed. High Council president and council. I'm Leslie Thomas. I'm the city engineer, and the cost estimate has not changed. And the city attorney here, the attorneys are here, but the new language does not read up to it. Says that the state will pay the city 2.5 million. Okay. It must have been the language that I was reading before, because as as I read it, it was not clear that we were changing that verbiage. Says the city. The city will pay 2.5 million toward the construction of Brighton Boulevard box culvert. And before the language said that the cost was 2.5 million. So. If you read the the lines above it, it says the estimated cost was 14.9 million. For the Brighton Boulevard box culvert estimated to cost 2.5 million. So you're saying that that amount from the state is exactly the same and we're anticipating the cost of the box culvert to be. The 14.9 million. Looks like it's the residual drainage pipe, not the box culvert. So that's. That's where I'm confused here. And I just wanted to make sure I clearly understood what the cost of the box culvert part of this project is. In terms I think I'm sorry, Sean Sullivan with the city attorney's office. I think Miss Thomas addressed the cost being two and a half million. The language of the agreement went from the state shall pay the city two and a half million for the Brighton Boulevard box culvert on or before September 15 to the city will pay the city to one and a half million toward the construction of the Brighton Boulevard box culvert. It's it doesn't. The state. Excuse me. The state shall pay. So. So that doesn't change anything. And it didn't change the intent of the of the paragraph. Or the cost. Okay. That's the only clarification I had on this related to the amendment. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Any other comments on the amendments? Yeah. See? No seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call voting on the amendment. Montero I nevett i. Ortega I Rob Shepherd. Susman High. Brooks Brown high. Thoughts I can each layman i. Lopez, i. Ortega. I voted already I got. Mr. President. All right, now, Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 3939 as Council Bill 381 has been amended now. Councilmember Taylor, we need a motion to order published as amended. Do we need to do that before we actually discuss the bill? Okay. I move that council bill three 8381 be ordered published as amended. Is then moved in second and now councilwoman fights Europe. Thank you, Mr. President. It's for the people at home. This is an intergovernmental agreement between the city and various aspects of the state, especially the Colorado Department of Transportation, concerning I-70 improvements and drainage. This is not an issue that goes to the voters like the other two. Just to clarify. I am. I'm bringing this out in order to raise some concerns. And first of all, I'm to say what I what I don't believe we have any disagreement on. I-70 needs improvements. The area has drainage problems. And Gretchen, the staff all of the staff has worked very hard on this. Let me talk about the transportation side of my problem, though. And before I go into this, I want to clarify that in my past history in the legislature, my first at least six years were spent specializing in transportation issues and transportation funding. I chaired the Transportation Committee for two terms, and so I have some very strong feelings about what is proper public policy and what is not proper public policy. For me, the expansion of an existing interstate, a freeway is inappropriate to be handled through Lexus lanes. And so from from my perspective, I raised that issue with Colorado's Transportation Department. And when they asked for public comments, nobody is really talking about whether there's another way to fund these improvements. Everybody's just assuming we're going to do everything by doing expansions, whether it's to Boulder or whether it's I-70. We're going to do it through Lexus lines, and I don't happen to see it that way. And I'm speaking as a person who has voted for gas tax increases more than once. I believe there is a public policy involved here. And for 20 years, people have just simply taking a walk on that public policy. We need to have a discussion of how we're going to fund public infrastructure, not just use this kind of approach. Moreover, in toll roads, I carried legislation on toll roads very supportive of the A470 may be the only council person that has the express toll rfi the new transponder on my car. I use it. I pay for it. I'm happy to do so. It was going from point A to point B. A road was built and we got a connection that would not have otherwise been able to be there. I am just appalled to see that this that the Lexus lane is not getting more of a discussion and tolling this additional expansion. I do not support it at all. Secondly, the drainage. I have had only one comment from a constituent out in southwest Denver as a civil engineer who had done work on on transit projects before . And the comment was that if we lower the highway because of the drainage issues, we are about to enter the biggest debacle that we ever could have. That stuck with me. Now, I know that there's been a newer drainage plan, a much more expensive drainage plan suggested that may solve the problem. I'm a person who has a lot of skepticism. I really like engineers. I don't always believe that when they say this is going to solve the problem, it will solve the problem. So I don't know if that's going to happen, but I do know that for a drainage problem that is costing as much as this one is that to have urban drainage pay, only 9.5 million, they just told me today is just insane. Why would you have urban drainage contribute so little? To a huge drainage issue. Now, when you separate out, let's go to money. When you separate out money, there's a $1.56 million of city money. Going into this. 76 million of it is basically enhancements we've asked for. 37 million of the enhancements are on the transportation side. I really hope that the new council members understand this. They are going to be paying starting in 2022. $2.68 million from the city annually for 30 years. There is no source identified for this money. Moreover, if we don't, the state is given authority to notify the rating agencies if the council fails and it's right there in the agreement that we're going to be voting on. Now on the drainage side, 39,000,000 million of enhancements. That's not even the the big drainage project they added. 39 million are for connectivity and park like features. That is going to require along with that other bigger portion increases in the wastewater fees. I'm not going to be sitting here to vote for the wastewater fees. The people that are going to be either going to be voting them up or voting them down are not all here. Some are. Some aren't. So. My bottom line is that even though I do want in on improvements in this area and I am willing to look to other solutions, I don't believe this is the issue that this council ought to be deciding because I can't follow through on the annual payments that are required, and I also can't guarantee that the wastewater fees are going to be increased. I would be very interested in delaying this until the next council comes on. They can get up to speed very quickly on this issue, but I am not going to sit here and have them tell me she made me do it. I have to increase your wastewater fees because that stupid council that was sitting here before made me do it. I'm not going to do it. So I'm going to be voting no on this. And I would love it if the future council would have to deal with this issue. Thank you, Councilman Fox. Councilwoman Ortega. Mr. President, I want to request a public hearing on this. And you and I talked about when that would be most appropriate. Looking at the calendar of so many other public hearings, we have scheduled both for next week as well as for July the sixth. So my request would be to do that on the 13th. I know that would be the last night that this council would be seated for some members, but I don't believe we have time on the calendar to do it. On either of those two nights, unless we plan to be here till wee wee hours of the morning, which we're probably going to be anyway, given the large number of public hearings that have been scheduled. So the request is for a public hearing, but I guess I would need to move to postpone final action with a public hearing to the 13th of July. So that is correct, Councilman. But we will first need to vote as it currently on the floor to be published as amended. So once we have that vote, assuming that vote is successful, then you will make a motion to delay final consideration. Until we just published as amended. We just approved the amendment and now we have it on the floor, published as amended. So can we vote on this? Then we will have the conversation about your courtesy public hearing, and you will make the motion, and. Then we will. I have a number of questions. I don't know if we have time to go through that tonight. It's also part of why I think we need a public hearing. I think the drainage project is absolutely needed for the Park Hill Basin and for the Montclair Basin. They will provide tremendous benefit to these neighborhoods Globeville, Swansea, Elyria, which get flooded like the last two weeks that we've had really bad rain. These neighborhoods have borne the brunt of a lot of that drainage in the highway project, I think is one that we've been dealing with for ten years. And I've got a number of questions related to the costs and concern that we have taken the drainage project and added everything else as part of the I-70 project into it. It doesn't really speak to the mitigation issues. You know, one could argue that the benefit from the drainage is is going to provide benefit to these neighborhoods. But there are issues like the impact to the residents that are within 500 feet of the highway. That in the mayor's letter that he wrote to Don Hood from CEDA in October 31st, 2014, one of the things that he did ask for and it's something the neighbors were asking for, was to have windows and doors replaced because during the construction there's going to be a lot of airborne contaminants that are in those soils of heavy metals from the Asarco globe plant. And so the health of the neighborhood should be number one in terms of ensuring that the children who go to school, it's once a year, which will continue to stay there during the five years of construction, as well as the families who live within that 500 feet. That will not be whose properties will not be taken and will continue to reside within, you know, a close proximity to the highway and be exposed to heavy metals. In the A meeting that we had last week with CDOT, they did indicate that one of the things they were looking at was purchasing portable air conditioners for the interior of residences. But that doesn't deal with the window indoors and the concern of of dust coming into their homes. So there are some of those concerns that have not been clarified because we won't see those details until we get the final environmental impact statement. And so we're dealing with some of these issues in a vacuum without knowing exactly how those concerns will be mitigated that. Impact neighborhoods that are covered by NEPA under Title six, which means, you know, they're a protected class and we need to make sure that those issues are clearly being addressed, but yet we don't have that information in front of us. I've got very specific questions that I'd like to go through. I know that we've got other people signed up that want to ask some questions, so I don't know if your pleasure is that I go through them and then you defer back to. How ever you feel. Councilwoman, if you want to go, we can certainly bring you back in the queue. Okay. Well, let me start with a couple of them first and then I'll defer to my colleagues. And then if they don't address the questions, then I'm more than happy to come back. So the first issue is under the early action. Drainage project and the two basin drainage project. Councilwoman Fox talked about some of the cost, but. What's not clear, for example, about the box cover is who owns that at the end of the day? Can can one of you speak to whether or not that box cover is owned by the city or why? And then who's responsible for maintaining it? This is the 2.5 million that I was asking about earlier. Mr. President, City Council. I'm Tony DeVito. I'm the I-70 project director. Question on the box. We are working together with the city. Let me clarify that the city's design levels on Brighton Boulevard redevelopment has not reached a point. To fully understand the amount of drainage that's going to be associated. We know that there'll be shared drainage in that and as we move forward, that is one of the items that is identified for further negotiation as we negotiate a maintenance agreement. That's one of the line items in the contract. So does that mean then that we'll see a different agreement in the future? As with many agreements between the city and the state on different levels of maintenance, with snowplows and other city street ordinances that we utilize with we we negotiate. And a lot of times the mutual maintenance plans. So is that an agreement that will come back before city council? Leslie, I'm looking at you. I think as usual and Sean can jump here depending on what the terms are, we will follow whatever the terms are according to the council rules. So if there is money changing hands or other items that would require that, it would definitely come back to city council. We don't know what those terms will be at this point. So if it's required, we will certainly be here and happy to be here. And is the funding available for the design for Brighton Boulevard? Yes, ma'am. And what is that amount? We have $26.8 million available already as stated in the agreement. And then the remaining 42.2 of the early drainage action early action drainage project will be provided by CDOT as we spend money over the next several years. Per the agreement. So this part of Brighton, is it closer to the Coliseum? Or are you talking about the money that has been earmarked for the Brighton Boulevard corridor? This part of the Brighton Boulevard box covered is between 44th and about the property line of Pepsi, which is right around. We call it 41st ish. That's where you'll find it. All right. And then on the $80 million that the city will be spending, which is basically the. 2.68 million per year that we would be obligated to pay for the next 30 years. The 39 million, that's for the park like amenities. That's not part of the 80 million, correct? I'll defer to Gretchen. Good evening. The council president on his way out. Members of council. My name's Gretchen Haller. I'm the city's deputy CFO. And I'd like to thank Councilman Fox for acknowledgment of the team that's been working on this, but it's both the city and see that in partnership. Just to clarify on your question, the 2.68 annual payment that's anticipated to last for 30 years is actually on the transportation side of the improvements. That's the 37 million in project cost. That's the financing that 80 million for the city share. That's a 60% share of $134 million total drainage portion of the to base and drainage project that would be paid through the city's wastewater fund. Those would be wastewater ratepayer eligible project costs. And then you're correct, there's an additional 39 million to take that drainage project and turn it into the amenity that's anticipated for the community that adds the park, like features the connectivity that would not be funded through the wastewater fund. That would be if you were to think about the ratepayer costs being the conveyance of water, the movement and storage and water quality cleaning of water. These features would be the park bench that sits next to the open channel, the trail that allows bike and pad connectivity to allow that to become a greater amenity for the community. So that cannot be paid for with wastewater funds. No, that's. Not. Where will that 39 million come from? We will be talking so similar to the wastewater conversation where we will be the budget office will be bringing forward a rate increase regardless of this project for consideration. As part of the 2016 budget process, we will be looking to fund that $39 million as part of the 2016 budget process. But that's not part of the rate increase from wastewater. No, that will come from somewhere else. Correct. In the city. Not wastewater. Correct. And just to clarify for folks at home, because there are several funding parts of this project, there is a portion of this that's the 37 million for transportation related. Denver requested elements to enhance that project. There is the wastewater portion of the drainage project that comes from the Wastewater Enterprise Fund. And then there's the 39 million that is a piece of the wastewater project that is not funded through the wastewater fund. Do you have any idea what the fee increase will need to look like for the increase in wastewater fees to cover these costs or to be able to do other projects? Because we're going to use the lion's share of wastewater dollars for this project. Yes. So the Budget Management Office has been working with a financial analyst over the past several months. They were not on this timeline. They were bringing this rate increase forward anyway. The last rate increase, as you recall, was in 2011. It's been four years. So we need to bring forward a rate increase to accomplish a couple of things. One is to make sure that we have a fully funded and viable capital citywide capital program for the fund. The second is to build a water quality program for the city. That is actually a requirement from the state to help us keep our EMS for permits. We are in a ten year window and John Sullivan can speak to this on the legal side if needed. But we're in a ten year window of that. I think we're on year four. So we need to take some serious action to provide improved citywide water quality as our water flows to the to the plant. It does happen that the drainage project in front of you is one great big water quality project in our most serious and impacted basin for water quality. It's an enormous basin. And so what we are funding as a part of the rate increase, this project fits nicely into and you will see that regardless. So are we not doing a 2.6 annual increase from wastewater? No, that amount is on the transportation side and that is the amount that. Are I'm just talking about annual cost increases to the taxpayer from wastewater. Is that not something that we see on a on an annual basis? So we don't have the ratepayer increase for you today. We are anticipating to bring that as part of the 2016 budget discussion. We will begin conversations with you on that near mid to end of July. So that can be part of the September budget hearings. The only 2.6 number for today is on the transportation side, and that's the financed improvements and that payment would begin in 2022. And that allows us to leverage CDOT essentially to construct those transportation improvements. And the city does not participate in those payments until they're fully constructed. I will defer to my colleagues. I know you have other folks in the queue, so I will wait. And if you could put me towards the back, if my questions get asked, I will scratch them off my list. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I am looking at this bill, and I'm recalling our long Kent City Council committee meeting in which we discussed all of this, which we, you know, had the opportunity to really delve into the issue, ask questions, and then move this on to the rest of the council. Now, what I what I take back from it, yes, there's a lot of different intricacies, but what I take back from it is putting on my role as the chair of urban drainage and flood control. And Black is probably this is the basin, the drainage basin that is our biggest threat to the city and county of Denver , to people and property. And if we don't do anything about it, we're going to have ten times worse than what happened to Boulder and Aurora in this area with the ongoing construction, with the you know, I wasn't at first and very supportive of building this expanding the highway through this neighborhood. I was a big proponent of the reroute that's long gone and discussion. Now we're looking at drainage. We have to be able to get this done. We have to be able to move water out of this basin into the Platte River so we can do everything we need to do, but also protect lives and property, the most basic form of government in this area, and keep people safe and keep Denver out of a flood zone. So I you know, I really want to just express my support for it. I don't have any more questions. A lot of my questions were answered in committee. But I do want to see this move forward. And I'll hopefully I'm curious to what my other colleagues feel as well, too. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to just clarify two pieces, which is about the portions of this project that are necessary regardless of I-70, and then some questions about timeline. So I might just ask the timeline question first. One of the constituent questions that I've received that I think is really important in terms of respect for the legal process that we are in with the IRS, is what happens in this agreement if if the record of decision is not to proceed with the I-70 project. And so I think Sean Sullivan had answered this question for me, if I might ask him to share that answer. Sean Sullivan, the city attorney's office. The agreement provides that if the if there if the record decision isn't completed and doesn't come forth with the Lord, cover a partial underground solution, then it would be terminal at the mutual agreement of the parties. So it forces us back to the table to talk about what we need to do in next steps. Great. Thank you. Now, I don't want to be naive. Right? The agreement says that if the record of decision comes forward by December of 2016, then the agreement can be terminated. But we're planning to start construction in January of 2016. And so that detail has not escaped me that we're starting construction a year before the deadline for record of decision. So I really want to understand and this may not this may be you, Sean, or it may be someone from the project team. What it is that we'll be doing in year one and how it is how much of that portion of work that's happening in year one would be necessary regardless from or separate from the I-70 project, because I think it's a really important question my constituents have asked, which is, are we spending money on a project that's not yet approved before it's approved, or are we spending money that would be helpful for that project but would be needed regardless of it? And I really want to have you talk about that first year of construction. I didn't see in the exhibits a clear verbal description of what the Early Action Project was. There's a map. It's very difficult to read, so and neither could I find it in the PowerPoint. So I think if you can verbally describe what's happening in year one and exactly what it does for Denver, I would be most appreciative. And I'm going to defer to an engineer three great. Things. Thank you for your question and clarification opportunity to clarify the early action drainage project that is critical and we have agreed to have in place by December 1st of 2017. Yes. They're all nodding. It goes from the South Platte River up through the coliseum that we just talked about, up through the Pepsi parking lot and into Brighton Boulevard. And then if you can imagine what we were talking about with Councilwoman Ortega earlier, that's that 41st ish place. And then it goes within Brighton Boulevard over to about the entrance to the Coliseum or 44th is right where you get on the highway. That is the piece that we will need to be working diligently on within that timeframe between now and the end of 2016, I believe is what's referenced. That is the piece that is the very bottom of the basin. So think of it like the back, that plug to the back through the drain to the bathtub and the bigger of a drain that we have, the more capacity we have to pull the water out of the city. So while it would be bigger than if it was only funded by our wastewater rates, which are to provide a five year system, which is about an inch of rain an hour, as opposed to 2.6 inches per rain of rain in an hour. But it is always good to have more capacity at the bottom of the basin. So that's where we would like to see it. Thank you, Mr. President, if I may follow up. So I want to clarify then. Sorry I dropped my pen. I want to clarify then that. So we are taking input from CDOT with regard to I-70 with the design of this project. But if I-70 is never built. The project in the first year would still benefit drainage in the region, whether we go to a different I-70 replacement bridge solution, whether it. Nothing happens and we just wait for it to fall down. Whatever it is. The drainage project that we're doing in that first year before we know definitively is one that has a function for Denver's drainage. Yes, absolutely. So that's, I think, really very important. And then the other piece I wanted to clarify is in terms of the GMs for permit, you mentioned that the state has water quality. So one thing we're dealing with here is flood control. Does this first early action portion also have a quality portion to it that is contributing to the state or is that later phases? The majority of it would be later on because you're capturing so much in the basin and would have a place to store it. We are working with urban drainage and flood control and Parks Department to see what can be done in the first phase. Okay. Excellent. Thank you very much. So I'm just going to make my comment briefly since that question for me was really important. I do I shared in committee my question about the timing of this agreement being early. And I do continue to have that concern that it is early. But I believe in the benefit to our taxpayers of starting a process to be prepared and knowing that the benefits are going to accrue to the city and to homeowners and to businesses in this area, regardless of what happens with the project is really important. If that were not the case, I probably could not vote for this agreement today because it is early before the record of decision is definitive. But we have a transportation agency that has an RFP out for someone to build this project so that they're prepared. And if we are able to use our dollars wisely and leverage urban drainage and flood control dollars, then I believe that it is prudent to do that, to have those benefits accrue to leverage those dollars, and not without any risk accepting the risk that should this project not go forward, we would then need to, you know, figure out a way to, you know, everyone would have to pay their way and we would have to pay out of continuing the project further. So, so that's a risk, but it's one that I'm willing to accept given the benefits of the first year project. And really that's the period of time that we're talking about is one year. So with that, I will be supporting the agreement tonight. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Brooks. You know, Mr. President, I think a lot of my comments, Councilman, can each touch on Psalm and Lopez as well. I think, you know, at times we get in the technicalities of an agreement and we forget the reality. And the reality is this is the worst basin in the city where two basins in the city combined. The reality is, while it might be nice to wait, there's residents and businesses who are fed up about the constant flooding that comes in their neighborhoods and businesses. The reality is that if Boulder's rainstorm and in Longmont would have been over this area, we would have had $300 million of development to replace. Houses businesses I 70. And so you know, we're talking about Katrina like issues here and I know that everyone sees that it is an issue. But I think. There's not enough urgency and there's not enough acknowledgment that the city is trying to put together a plan that many businesses, many I know I have for the last four years have been looking for opportunities for us to combine projects to get this done. And so, you know, I just wanted to say that and be on the record for saying that as someone who lives in the area, who witnesses the flooding constantly. And I know that there are some issues within the contract that are good questions and we need to talk about. I just thought we were doing that for the last two weeks with the staff in committee special meetings, and obviously we need to continue to do that. But my my I would I would be wrong if I didn't sit up here and talk about the seriousness of this issue and state my my constituents concern that this project is not moving fast enough. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Laney, I. Just want to clarify one thing. That when they started the. East Line and they decided, well, how are we going to build it? They said we are going to build this, which goes right through that basin at a five year flood level. That would. Mean. That even in a regular rainstorm in Denver, if it was a heavy rainstorm, that the east light rail would flood. They would bring busses in and you would take people out to go wherever they're. Going to go. So I raised. Really a huge, huge objection to that as a result of what. Is being proposed this evening. That piece of light rail will be in the 100 year flood plain will be protected and that bright light rail line will be able to run. Almost. Always. Not by now, I promise you. Always, but almost always. It was if I've done nothing well in my in my 12 years, that was the best thing I did. So I certainly will vote for this. Thank you, Councilwoman Lemon. Councilwoman Ortega. You're back. Thank you. I'm sorry to be in the weeds with this, but I've been involved with this I-70 project, and since. Since I got reelected and actually before when I left council, we were at the beginning of the year for this project. And a lot of the focus right now on this inter-governmental agreement is on the drainage. Some of it is on the transportation. And I think it's important for taxpayers to know what we're committing to. I don't dispute the need for this drainage project. I've seen the area flooded and know what the need is for these communities that bear the brunt of of where that water flows to from these two basins where it's needed. But I wanted to ask a question about the liquidated damages. And, Sean, if you wouldn't mind, coming up to the microphone under this section. Basically, it would obligate us to pay five. Thousand dollars a day for the project being late if it's not done by the deadline spelled out, which is September one, 2019. But I didn't see anything in there that would address circumstances like the kind of weather we've had the last two weeks. Any act of God that might occur, and it seems that there should be some wiggle room and it doesn't look like there's any wiggle room in that language. So can you help me understand if if we don't have it delivered by that date, that we'd have to start paying 5000 a day, regardless of whatever kind of weather conditions exist? Yes, Kels. Well, I hope her partners would be reasonable in those circumstances. But in any case, if you look at paragraph 24 of the agreement, there's a force majeure clause which requires or disallows the collection of damages in a situation that's an act of God or that kind of thing. Okay. Thank you. That that's helpful clarification. Gretchen, can you talk about how many properties are going to need be needed for the drainage project? And does the funding that we're approving include any of those takings that we will have to purchase as a result of the court order that we will utilize? Well, I may be as good as anyone answering this on the budget side. Yes, there is budget included in the total project cost that contemplates some land that will be necessary for the city to acquire to accomplish the project. As far as which properties would be impacted, that is not known at this time due to the stage of design that we're in. But it will be accompanied and this is really a public works question, but with a robust public process on as we move through design phases. Okay. And one last question for Leslie. Can you give us an idea what the the width of that drainage channel is anticipated to be? Yes, but I have to get out my map and maybe my glasses, so just hang. So while you're doing that, I just wanted to let my colleagues know that I had a request for an amendment that would have addressed trying to keep truck traffic out of the neighborhood and trying to tie that to this agreement. We talked with David Broadwell today, learned that these agreements are considered contracts and council does not have jurisdiction to amend contracts. So that's why that amendment is not was not brought forth. So just want to clarify that. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. So in your exhibit, it does refer to how much water is being carried in the drainage channel. So without providing you had your hydraulics lessened, it will depend upon the slope and several other things. So you can think about somewhere between 150 to 250 feet, just depending upon the circumstances. And what's the average width of a street? An average width of the street. Typical downtown streets are 80 foot right of ways and 48 feet. Flow line to flow line or curb to curb is a typical downtown street is what you would see here. Okay. So what would you equate that to? About half a block. Half a block wide. Maybe if you're on the skinny side of a block by Denver, blocks are around 300 by 600. So, yes, if you're on the thin side of the block. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President, I. Any additional questions that I have? I will continue to direct them to staff. I've been ongoing meeting with them, had a meeting with manager, I guess it's executive director now, Courtney Hoh on Friday to address some of these additional questions. I would like to request a public hearing. So let me do that in the form of a motion. Well, Councilman, first we have to vote EIS and then we will write that. Then that issue will be addressed. Okay. All right, Council. Councilman Monteiro, you're up. Thank you. Since it feels like we're having a public hearing. I want to get on the record a couple of questions. What? What I. We did a proclamation back in April. The city council voted on it. And we talked about things that we would like to be included as the city team is looking at the is looking at the negotiation. And generally they had to do with drainage, air quality fumes, emissions, noise, traffic counts, displacement of residents, connectivity, quality of place, jobs and education for residents. And specifically, some of the things that we had talked with you about was the and I know this has nothing to do with the AG in front of us , but I have to bring it up since so many other things have been put out there. But so I would like for someone to tell me with the compensation or whatever in a position during this negotiation to talk about narrowing the footprint of the highway and what that answer is. Also the the railroad tracks at 47th and York Street, which is no secret to any of you because I'm always talking about this stuff and then also the truck reroute. So if you can answer those and then tell me, tell the public, for the record, whoever the most appropriate people are. Is this the last bite of the apple or tonight? Are we specifically talking about the transportation and drainage issue as it relates to this agreement? So who wants to go first? I'll try. And then Tony and Gretchen, maybe you will help me. So your first question was about the highway full width highway footprint. And so what I would like to share with you is that we have had a group of technical experts from both CEDA and Denver, FH, W.A. and the consultant teams taking a look at what is the reasonable type of recommendations that could be made to see that and the number of feet that they recommended that could be narrowed or taken out of shoulders and things is eight feet. Yes. And so that is a recommendation that C will carry forward to FAA and Tony can speak more about that when that time is appropriate. The City Council. Mr. President, again, Tony DeVito would see that. I want to emphasize that this agreement, while it codifies a lot of the working process that we've had over the last couple of years, in no way does this stop the commitments and the mitigation that we are working towards. On the environmental side, the NEPA process working through the next year and getting to a record, a decision, the record a decision is the binding contract with the Federal Highway Administration that mandates the commitments that the D.O.T. will deliver. And so in no way does this agreement modify, minimize, do anything to that effort as we move forward. And so with regard to the air construction dust. Air quality noise, noise, walls, everything else that we are working through will continue in the normal process. All this does is it identifies a path forward for some of the agreements of the transportation and drainage issues that we have come to terms on. So I'll do the specifics then. So on 47th in York, which we all know is a very tricky intersection of the railroads and the corridor for children to go back and forth to school between Elyria and Swansea, we worked diligently with Seedat to see if there was a way that this could be included at this time and what was determined because of some of the land that was needed, as well as some public process in order to understand whether going over or under and other things that would really could be impacts to the neighborhood needed to be looked at. And so it is not in this agreement, but it is a study funded that we funded last year, I believe through and DCC and will be as we move forward looking at those kinds of changes to that intersection to see what can be done. And I apologize. I don't remember the last part of my truck. Reroute. Oh, truck reroute. Can you talk about truck free routes? Once again, we've had numerous conversations about the different truck movements during construction. We have had very viable conversations about being sure that there's certain areas that when we're putting together a procurement documents that will be very sensitive towards idling the types of equipment staging. And so we have come to some agreements on some of those because it is interstate and does invoke interstate commerce. We have to be very cautious about restrictions, but we can encourage routing, especially during construction, especially for the through the long haul haulers that are utilizing the interstate. And we've had some conversations on that and those conversations can continue. If you have something specific I can try to answer. I just have a question for David. David Broadwell. So Mr. David always talked about the obligation in terms of interstate. And so I wanted to just ask you at what point, even though I know we don't have anything definitive, would a city ordinance be in place regarding truck rerouting? David Brock, also associate attorney. I'm really not prepared to answer that question because I'm just not close enough to the project details to do that. I would prefer that perhaps someone else in the team has a sense for when that might happen. Questions coming up to the podium. It's not an issue that we've discussed, but we can certainly look into it and see. I think Mr. De Vito was making the point that we've got interstate commerce issues, so we're going to have to look into those kinds of issues. Well, I would request that you do. That's a huge issue for the neighborhood, and it's been outlined in the health impact assessment. So I don't want it to be ignored. So if you would do that, appreciate it. Yes. And I'm certain some of those things are going to be addressed through the NEPA process as well. So. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Monteiro Castro McKinney. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to chime in. I appreciate Councilwoman Taylor. I'm sorry. Montero's questions in particular, the question about, you know, later negotiation, because I can see that as a good thing, that this is not the last bite of the apple. But my concern is that we on the transportation side of this agreement, we're committing $37 million. And what I don't what I am concerned about is that that is our leverage. And I am concerned that when we have asks to finish these other pieces, whether it's employment opportunities for the community, which the federal government is opening the doors for in ways that see that should take advantage of for this project, for example, or other mitigations that we are not in a position. And I'm just saying this on the record. Well, you know, Director DeVito is here and our commissioner is here. I don't want to hear that. We don't have any consideration to offer for those things because, you know, we've given you the money up front. And so it is critical that when we come to the table to finish all of these other pieces that are really important, that CDOT looks back at the consideration in this agreement and takes that into account when considering the other pieces that we may yet need to come to agreement on. And and I'm really serious about that, because there will be other contracts and other agreements and other approvals required, including the annual appropriation process, which this agreement is subject to. And, you know, budgets with amounts in that amount. I mean, I would say to this council and future councils that it's critical that we continue to negotiate for these remaining items and that our commitment of this $37 million upfront does not, by any way, forgo our ability to ask and demand and negotiate for other things that this community needs in mitigation for this project. So I'm very hopeful and encouraging that that will happen. But I just I want it to be known that that if it's not if the moment is passed on, the $37 million, this council has an annual appropriation where we can follow up to make sure that that negotiation continues in good faith. So little, little heads up. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm still voting for it, but with that stern warning. Thanks. Thank you, guys. Okay, so just remind my colleagues what we have before us right now is 381, which is to be published as amended. See no other comments. Madam Secretary. And after this vote, we will deal with the conversation of the currency, one currency public hearing. So that will be the next issue. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Montero High. Nevitt Ortega. Abstain. Rob Shepherd. Past Susman by Brooks Brown. I thought no can teach the layman. Lopez. Hi. Ortega. She states. Okay. Shepard Epstein. Mr. President, I. I'm secretary. Please positively announce the results. Nice one. Nay, two abstentions. Anais. One, nay. Two, two abstentions. Three, two, one has been published as amended. Okay. So there is a request for a one hour courtesy public hearing on July 13. Just to give the viewers a little bit of background, typical requests for one hour courtesy public hearings are done at the discretion of the council president, and it's usually followed the next week. The one caveat for this time is that it will be because the request is to delay final consideration. That will require a vote of council. So what we're going to do, Councilwoman Ortega, what I need from you is a motion to postpone final consideration to Monday, July 13th. Then we will have comments and we will vote on the motion to delay final consideration and have a one hour cursory public hearing on July 13th. Okay. Let me just be very clear and specific that if the motion fails, I want to request a one hour public hearing for next week when this bill comes back. If there are not enough votes for the postponement. Certainly it can be next week or another date certain if another council member chooses to do that. You're absolutely right, Councilman. So I move that council. Bill 381. Be ordered published as amended with. So we haven't done that yet. Right? So we've done that. So it's just move for final consideration. So I move that final consideration on Council Bill 381 be postponed until July 13th, 2015. With a one hour curfew, but. One hour workers, a public hearing. Okay, second. So we need you. That technology will catch up with us, Madam Secretary. Councilman Ortega, you can go ahead and begin your comments if you have any. I think, you know, I think this just warrants the opportunity for the public to come and ask questions. We're obligating a large amount of money towards both the transportation side and the drainage side of this project. I absolutely believe in the need for the drainage. I wish these two would have been separated so that we could have dealt with them separately. But I just think that there's so much here that we're committing to. And as Councilwoman Canete said, we are basically giving up all of our leverage upfront without ensuring that the kinds of things that need to be addressed. And, you know, there have been ongoing negotiations back and forth between Denver and Seaport on many of these details. There hasn't been a public meeting with the neighborhood in a while for them to be privy to what a lot of these negotiations have included. And I'm concerned that this is part of the NEPA process. It's part of the Title six process, ensuring that the residents are involved in in these kinds of decisions that are being made. And so I think it's important for the public to have an opportunity to come and share their comments, concerns with us. The agreement is up on our system for anybody who wants to take a look at those details and be able to come and express those concerns. I've talked to a number of residents that live in the neighborhood who had concerns about where all the mitigation is related to the truck traffic that we talked about, related to the air quality impacts and what is in fact, going to be done with the homes of people who live within 500 feet. As I shared earlier, all the air quality studies we've looked at really indicate that anybody that is within that 500 feet are subject to greater health effects and especially for small children. And so I'm concerned about how we're going to deal with that, not having had not having been privy to seeing the details that are going to be in the final year. So I would just respectfully request that my colleagues support this postponement to allow us to have this one hour courtesy public hearing on a night that we're not already overloaded with other public hearings. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, Catwoman fans. Thank you, Mr. President. Had Councilman Ortega pushed this out to the next council, chosen a much later time? I may have been very supportive. We're still dealing, though, with the fact that a group, even on the 13th, who is not responsible for the 2.68 million annual payment for 30 years, who is not responsible for raising wastewater fees and who is not looking in the next budget for the 39 million for connectivity and park like feature funding? We have we haven't gone out to the people who actually will be doing that and giving them a chance to hear from the public. So I am not going to be supporting this motion. It's not that hearing from the public is wrong. I really believe that in a case like this it would be very appropriate, but not at that time. Thank you, Councilman Fox. Councilman Brown, Councilwoman Monteiro said you can go before her. So you're up. Thank you, madam. Thank you, Mr. President. You got to stick around here a little longer. Yeah, well, as we all know, the the final meeting of this council when seven of us will be leaving. Thank you for withholding your applause. We've been trying for the last couple of months to avoid a public hearing on our last night, and that's why we cowboy it up and decided to have a meeting. On a night that we usually don't meet. And that's the 4th of July holiday. So we will be meeting on July the six in order to avoid a public hearing on our last night. So this does completely the opposite. Here we are again. But the public hearing proposed for our last night adamantly against that. I'm not against the public hearing, but not repeat, not on Monday, July the 13th. Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Monteiro. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be opposing the public hearing for July 13th. I think that I think that the city team and Seerat are prepared to come back and answer more questions. I want to tell you that I feel that you have done an excellent job tonight. Having said that, honoring Councilman Ortega's request, I think it is a good idea to take some time for the public to weigh in. But I will be opposing it because I am not in favor of July 13th. I think that having a special meeting on the evening of July 6th is appropriate. I took the time today to talk with Brad Buchanan, who all of you know is the head of planning and the other the other zoning, the other text amendment, public hearings that are coming up on the six relate to the Highland neighborhood. And we have worked very long and hard for two, two and a half years to work on these text overlays. And I completely believe the neighborhood is organized. They're always vocal and opinionated, which is that's just how we roll in North Denver. But I do believe that we can accommodate the request for a public hearing, not on the 13th, but on July six. So I would ask my colleagues to consider having it on July 6th. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you. Council President. And, you know, I count eight. Public hearings. For July six. Two were on national western, which. Is. Very important. And just the staff reports alone are going to go on. You know, I'm paid to work either. Night, so. I would be fine with with either time. Although I have to say Councilman Fox has been somewhat convincing to me and this is. Just first reading. I'm open to a public hearing. I'll probably support the 13th. Thank you, Councilmember. I just. Madam Secretary, just wanted me to make sure that it will be five public hearings on the six, because some of them are combined. So there'll be five on July six, correct, Madam Secretary? Great. Oh, Councilwoman Sheperd, you're. If I understand correctly, a public hearing on the 13th would be a one hour courtesy public hearing, correct? Correct. And then, I mean, I think it's entirely reasonable to have a one hour public hearing on the 13th in order for these issues to be aired. Thank you, Councilwoman Shepherd. Anybody else for the motion to postpone final consideration and have a one hour cursory public hearing on Monday, July 13th. Scene on Madam Secretary, Raquel Ortega. Hi, Rob. I Shepherd. I Susman. No. Brooks Brown. No. No. Can each layman. Pass? Lopez No. Monteiro No. Nevitt No. Lehman No. Mr. President. No. Catwoman. Lemon, need your. Sorry. Madam Secretary, please positively announce the results. Four eyes, nine nays. For eyes nine. The motion to postpone final consideration have a one hour cursory public hearing on July 13th has failed. Councilwoman Ortega, you're up. Okay, so let's try for July 6th. I move that council bill 381 be postponed with a one hour courtesy public hearing to July six, 2015. Wait for technology catch up. It has been moved and seconded. Do we Catwoman or take a Catwoman fight? A question. And this is maybe a rhetorical question that could just be and nodded. Is there anyone on this council who would be interested in delaying this for the new council? I'm getting the feeling that new council members would not necessarily be opposed to that. I became. And I would think that you might even want to pick enough time to get them up to speed a little bit so that it would be probably the end of August. Or if that can't. Even be chiming in. Go right ahead, sir. Well, we haven't had a chance to have the conversation between US attorneys, but you all are familiar with the charter rule that says if there's no action by counsel within 30 days of submission, then the the the matter can simply be executed that charter rules for a reason. And so we need to have a conversation about where the whether this is even feasible depending upon what the day would be. So so I don't see a lot of nodding going on, but I just wanted to alert you to the fact that you might kick into that issue if if you were to delay it and delay July. I withdraw that little rhetorical question. Thank you. Councilman Fox. Councilman or take it that you have more or are you just chiming in here? Councilman Lopez, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. With all due respect to Councilman and take I know your questions are very valid and I know there are some answers that she needs. You know, I like I said, I, I do believe we have a council process. We had a long committee meeting. We had questions at that time. We had the opportunity for public to chamber. I mean, we could have had the opportunity for public to chime in. I think I don't know. I think we had it was I think we had a speakers list, but I haven't had any emails about this. It hasn't been on my ticker as something that was controversial. As a matter of fact, I thought maybe we'd spend a little time on this. We've now spent probably 2 hours on this particular issue. I don't I'm not a fan of doing committee work on the floor. And I think it's had it's process. It's you know, staff has done their job in making sure that every single one of us had the opportunity to be briefed, had questions asked. Again, I'm not I'm not challenging the questions posed by my colleague, Councilman Ortega, but I just think that we run that 30 day deadline and we run, not lose. I'm not putting this on. I mean, just fizzling it out. And like I mentioned before, there's a lot at stake with this particular bill in terms of drainage. And that's why I, I mean, I'm not a fan of postponing it any longer. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, Councilman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to clarify that my support for the bill is separate from the fact that I believe the public has a right to weigh in when when they've requested it, because the portion of this contract that deals with the transportation improvements. If it were only a drainage agreement, I would consider it much more cut and dry. But it does include the $37 million for transportation improvements. And unfortunately, we don't have council, we do not, as a matter of policy, have comment on contracts in committee. So there was not an opportunity for the public to comment in committee. It's always the discretion of a chair upon request to add it, but it's not required. And so so in good conscience, I have to give, you know, give this a yes vote. Although I having a courtesy public hearing at the end of five required public hearings, I don't know really meets the standard of a good I don't know the quality and what we put the public through in waiting to speak. So with that caveat that I recognize that I voted for the first motion which failed. So as a as a second time around. But I did just want to clarify that it's the transportation portion of this that I think makes it valid for public input. So thank. You. Thank you. Councilwoman Canete, any other comments? We have the motion before us for final consideration to be postponed in a one hour courtesy public hearing happen on Monday, July 6th. Scene nine. Madam Secretary, I believe Councilman Ortega is comments are good. I don't know why. It's okay. Madam Secretary. Raquel Ortega. Hi. Rob. I shepherd i susman. Brooks Brown. I fats. No. Can eat lemon. Lopez, monteiro. Nevitt. Hi. Mr. President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. And as a result, 12 eyes. One name is one day. Final consideration for 381 is postponed to Monday, July six, and we will have a one hour courtesy public hearing. All right. We are halfway there. The next one. Madam Secretary, 376 caught out by Councilmembers Fox and Lopez. Councilman, did you want this called out for a vote? I do. Councilman Lopez, you just had a comment. What I you. I'll defer to Councilman Fox for comments because I think I'm going to follow up with them. Perfect. Councilwoman Ortega, could you please order 376 published?

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.

DenverCityCouncil_06072021_21-0516

Nine Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0404 has failed. We're going to go ahead and move on to our next item here. We need to do a point of clarification. Tonight, council voted to postpone final consideration of Council Bill 20 1-0516 and it looks like a motion was inadvertently skipped and so is a point of clarification. For the record, the previous and last vote on Council Bill 21, Dash 0516 will be reconsidered so that the minutes can correctly reflect and be corrected the intended action accurately. And so Council Member Flynn, we're going to go ahead and do this now before we get into the next two public hearings. And so would you please make a motion to reconsider the last vote on Council Bill 21, dash 516 for us, please. Certainly, Madam President, I move the council bill 20 1-0516. Be reconsidered. If I get. Thank you. We've got the motion and the second. Any questions or comments by members of council? All right. Seen none. Madam Secretary, roll call on the reconsideration of Council Bill 21, dash 20516. Black I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. I guess. I. Can I? Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes. Final Consideration of Council Bill 21, Dash 516 will now be reconsidered. Councilmember Flynn, can we get you to please put Council Bill 516 on the floor for final passage as amended? I think I can be persuaded into that. I move the council bill 21, dash 20516 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We've got the motion. And I believe I got that second from Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone. Yes. Now that I move that final. Consideration, the council bill 21 to. 0 516 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, June 28th, 2021. Very good. We've got the second, I believe, by Councilmember Flynn, questions or comments by members of council. Councilmember Herndon. Yes, ma'am. Apologies to my colleagues. We are doing this because I failed to do the motion earlier when I was looking at the wrong line on the script. So my apologies. Thank you. Marcus, for trying to correct me my mistake earlier, but we need to do it over. So I got it right the second time. Thank. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. We've got the postponement for final consideration to the meeting posting requirements, and I don't see any other hands raised, so. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement, please. Herndon, I. Hines. All right. Cashmere. I. Can I? Ortega, I. Sandoval. Hi, Sawyer. I. Torres I. Black I. Clark. All right. So I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. Final consideration of Council Bill 21, Dash 516 with its public hearing is postponed to Monday, June 28. All right, we got that one all taken care of. And so now we are moving on to our second public hearing. And a reminder, we have one more after this. And Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill four or six on the floor for final passage, please? Yes, Madam President. Thank you. I move that council bill 21, dash 0406 be placed upon final consideration and do as. Thank you. We've got the motion and the second the required public hearing for Council Bill 406 is open. Maybe please have the staff report and we have Scott Robinson here, I believe. Oh, let me see. Scott, your audio doesn't seem to be working for us. No. Go on it. No. Okay. We're going to go ahead. We have had this issue before and so Scott's going to go ahead and get back in and join us so that he can do the staff report. And so if our legislative analysts can be looking for Scott as he returns.

A resolution approving a proposed Multi-Year Festival Lease Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Denver Festivals LLC for the use of Overland Golf Course for a multi-day, multi-stage musical festival. Approves a lease agreement with Denver Festivals, LLC, for five years at an annual rate of $200,000 with additional monetary and non-monetary considerations to produce an annual three-day music festival at Overland Golf Course in Council District 7 (201735508). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-14-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 6-20-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Clark called out this resolution at the Monday, July 24, 2017, Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, July 31, 2017.

DenverCityCouncil_07312017_17-0687

Did I get that right, Councilwoman Sussman? Councilman Clark. Okay. Thank you. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screen? Councilman Herndon, will you please put the resolution 637 on the floor for adoption? Yes, Mr. President. I move the resolution 687 be adopted. All right. It has been moved. And second, it comes for members. Of the second. You need a second on the screen. Okay. It's been moved. And second it comes members of council. Councilman Clark. And then we'll go to Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I do have some comments. I but I didn't know if Councilwoman Ortega had mentioned maybe having some questions. I would defer to her if she has a few questions that she'd like answered. I didn't know if you enough. If you don't mind. Councilwoman Ortega. So as I read through the document, I didn't see anything in there that had protections, if you will, for Ruby Hill. And Councilman Clark and I were talking before this evening. About. What's going to stop people from going to Ruby Hill? Because I understand you won't have concerts during the same time that will have concerts at Overland. And as you all know, the Lovett Pavilion can now have somewhere in the ballpark of 17,000 people. Because what I've heard is the number. So that in itself could bring lots of traffic to the neighborhood. And how is that being addressed as part of the the overall traffic plan? I want to make sure that the park continues to be available to the neighborhood, the ball fields, the the bike program, you know, just being able to have picnics at the gazebo up on top. So I don't know if if you want to answer the questions about how we're making sure that Ruby Hill doesn't become the magnet for people who can't afford to pay the price for the tickets, but may be able to go listen to the music at that. Okay. Creates more impact to the neighborhood. Councilwoman Ortega, I'm going to call up Parks and Rec, and we probably want to call up some folks from Superfly as well. But go ahead, Fred. Fred Wise, director of finance for Parks and Recreation, Ruby Hill will be part of the plan in terms of parking and protection of the park during the festival. It will clearly be open to the public during all set up and tear down. And we believe it's far enough away from the actual venue that people won't be going to leave it to listen to the concert. But we will be stationing Denver police and Rangers and private security to. Take the park out of commission for being able to have the ball fields being used during this time frame. No, not at all. Not at all. But what part of the park is going to be used for staging that you just talked about? None of the park will be used for staging and for the music festival. You just said police and others will be. Too to ensure that that there's crowd control, that there is no issues or problems in the park, but none of them. There won't be using the park. You're saying they'll be staged at the park, too, for the park not to be utilized as a venue, if you will, for people to go listen to music? Yes. I mean, first of all, we don't know whether the music will carry. And you can actually even hear it from from Ruby Hill Park or not. So just help me understand, because I'm concerned about the impact to the the access people will have to the park to use it for just normal, you know, as as their neighborhood park and whatnot. So the the intention is clearly to leave it open for all of its normal uses during the entire time that the festival is occurring. Load in during the festival and load out. So if. People want to come and park there. Who's going to make sure, whether it's neighborhood people or people wanting to park there that aren't using the shuttle service that will be set up as part of the event. And walking over to Oberlin from there. Well, that would be part of the parking plan in terms of having officers and security stationed at the entrances to the park and to the best of their ability. Obviously, unless people are, you know, good at not deceiving them. They will be asked and they will be told that they can't. There is no festival parking in Ruby Hill. So I would suspect if it's neighbors that walk there as opposed to drive there. So I'm just concerned about the impact to the park. Right. And how we protect that. Yes. So that it doesn't become overtaken by people who want to come to the event, that don't want to utilize the shuttle service and. Absolutely an. Easy place to park. Yes, we are we we recognize that a concern and we will be sure to include that in the parking and security plans that need to be submitted. So do you have anything different you want to add? Yeah. Would I would just add two things to that. The first is we've had significant discussions with Levitt Pavilion in terms of how we work together. We've entered into a sort of mutual support and marketing agreement. Mr. Erlich, can you please introduce yourself? I'm sorry. David Erlich Working with Superfly. So the first issue is the operators at least of Leavitt Pavilion. We have a very significant agreement with and are going to be working with them in terms of both involvement in the community and operations. But the second thing I'd point out is, as Fred said, as we've gone through this process, we already have a very specific way to protect the southern neighborhood with both staffing and with police. And that's because it came up in the neighborhood discussions. This issue has come up as well. But later and so as Fred said, we're committed to both police and staffing so that it's very similar to how we'll protect the southern neighborhood. We'll have ingress and egress controlled by the plan. The city's going to have to sign off on that plan. And we feel very comfortable, given our relationship with Leavitt and the neighborhood groups, that we can protect the park and we can actually make it a benefit to the park. So I want to ask a question about traffic for a minute. So you all will be required to have a traffic plan that would be submitted to the Public Works Department and the manager of Parks and Recreation. And if our public works folks. Don't approve it within a certain designated timeframe. Your plan automatically goes into effect. One of my concerns is this is a five year contract. We're going to have lots of public works projects going on where our folks are going to be, you know, trying to move all these bond projects, assuming they all pass, you know, when they go to the voters in November. So I. I'm hopeful that our city staff will and that Councilman Clark will be shepherding this to ensure that we have that input and review, and particularly after the first year, if we find that there are nightmare traffic problems that the community is dealing with, which, you know, I appreciate the fact that it does spell out that if the community wants a parking plan with restricted parking similar to what Mile High Stadium neighborhoods have and whatnot, that they can they can get that. And that could be something that further protects the neighborhood. But if public works doesn't have the time to look at it, their plan automatically goes into effect within a certain time frame if we're not looking at it. So I'm just hopeful that we'll have the folks in the time to be able to look at that and address any issues that need to be worked out. Let me see. I had one other question. Councilwoman tell you? You want me to go to some other folks and come back? No, let me just go to this last question. Some of the others I've I've gotten my answers to. So will the service of alcohol shut down, as is the case in nightclubs before the music ends, before the end of the, you know, the night. And how much earlier is that? So your your music can play till ten. How much earlier does the alcohol service stop? So what would. So. So that will be also part of our operations agreement. But the answer to your question is yes, the serving of alcohol will stop earlier than the music at 10:00. Approximately a half hour, an hour, depending on mutually what we all decide is appropriate in terms of crowd control and everything else. Okay. That's it for right now. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman, I take it. Councilman Flynn. Yeah. Mr. President, did you want to go. With Councilman Clark first? You know, because I only had comments. I have no questions. Oh, great. Why don't we do this? Councilman Clark, if you're okay. Those with questions, we go to first, and then we can go to a comment section. Um, are there questions? For members of council Kathmandu. Councilman Clark and I were talking about the evaluation mechanism in the contract and how it seems to be very sketchy and not really clear. And I wonder if have counsel Clark Gooden clarify and describe a little bit about the evaluation post concert evaluation process, please. Thank you, Councilman. The administration also is very committed to this. After meeting with neighborhoods and I circulated a document around I think it was in the packet last week that outlines the accountability committee and who will be on it also had brought some great ideas of including others like police and fire in that. And so, you know, meeting with the attorneys. There is a provision in there that provides room for that. It doesn't specifically call that mechanism. But I think, you know, Superfly and the administration, you know, have been very committed to that. I'm sure we could commit to that. Now that that that accountability committee, as outlined in the paper, will definitely be a part of this process. Does that help? Yeah, very much. And there'll be a documented review as well as recommendations for improvement. Yeah. That group is designed to have neighbors that have stakeholders to all talk about all of the first of all, all of the impacts. What happened, what went wrong, what went right, and how do. We move forward? Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman. I have a question for Councilman Clark and the promoters in the city. You know, something came up in our hearing last week and it talked about San Francisco and San Francisco having this event as well and making sure that we're getting the biggest bang for our buck in Denver as well. And so I know that you've done you've seen some of the financial analysis and maybe we can talk about that. But I want to make sure as a city that the city of Denver will be able to recoup a lot of these funds. And you know that we're not getting shortchanged as a city. Great. Thank you, Mr. President, for the question. You know, I think that that's been a part of this conversation all along, not just in how much what's the overall, but in specifically the golf course being made whole, being made better, and the neighborhood being whole and being made better and parks as this falls within the Parks Department . But I'll let David come up and just speak quickly to, you know, this as a what the market conditions for this kind of festival are, especially, first of all, starting out and the deal that we're getting as it compares to San Francisco. I think if it's okay, Councilman Clark, I'll defer initially to Fred Weiss of Parks, who has run an analysis of both the San Francisco contract and this contract and can point out at certain attendance numbers the true comparison. Happy to. We do have the contract, San Francisco's contract. So we know specifically what that is. And their attendance is 70,000 a day. So that's the easiest comparison to make. And San Francisco makes $2,676,000 at 78 70,000 a day. And Denver would make 2,635,000. So it's within $50,000 in terms of in total the net, and that's after the $200,000 waiver of expenses. So that's already accounted for. So we are right on par with the arrangement in San Francisco. And and not my major concern is this neighborhood in the park. How are you allocating some of those resources to make sure that we get the park revived in after the, you know, the event happens, that that money goes back into a park and not into the citywide system? This was an email exchange that I've been having with someone in the community. Sure. Well, the the renovation of the park is included in the contract. That's a requirement of Superfly to bring it back to as good the golf course, as good, if not better condition as when they took possession of it. So I'm all right in saying that that 2 million supersedes what's already embedded in the contracts. Over and above. That's correct. Over and above their responsibility to fully restore and renovate anything that's damaged in the like. Fred, last question. So that 2 million is is money that we've not talked about how we're going to use that money as a city. So is that still up for conversation about the community, not the community at large, but the specific impact at community? Sure. Well, a certain amount. Whether a certain amount is going to the Golf Enterprise Fund, and that is. 200,000. I need my glasses. So again, let's use the 70,000 a day because that's that's easier. The Golf Enterprise Fund will be netting $1.1 million out of that. The remainder is basically sea tax. And the commitment on the part of the comptroller's office is that the equivalent of one third of the sea tax will go to the neighborhood , one third will go to parks in general. And I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank with the other third. One third will go to golf. So and those are all four improvements because the restoration of everything is included in the base contracts. So this is above and beyond and going to be a miss. What's the numerical value? The third? Well, the numerical value of a third at 70,000. Okay, got it. At 17,000. And that's what I missed. Okay, we're good. Thanks. Thanks for that. $700,000. Okay. Roughly. Thank you. And I think that's important for folks to hear. Sure. That the immediate neighborhood will receive a financial benefit as well. And that does not include the contribution to the community fund that's over and above these numbers. Yeah, that's right. Thank you. Councilman Clark, do you want to take away. Looks like everyone else has asked their question. Councilman Ortega has another question. One councilman, I should have known. You want to call a number? Okay. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. So several questions for you guys. First off, thank you for the follow up on my concerns about traffic. I still have them, so that's probably where most of my questions are going. But based on some of this, what one of the comments at the public comment was that the $200,000 rent was too low. What is the rent for mean for Golden Gate Park and out in the outside lands? First of all. The structure is very different. There is no rent. There is a percentage. It's 11% of ticket sales and then a dollar 50 or a dollar 75 per ticket. So there is no base rent in the San Francisco contract. Do they then still have a seat tax that's applicable to that or no? We didn't talk about this, but I assume that you're going to have some sort of on site triage and EMS. Is there a route through the neighborhood? And will that be a silent route or will we have you know, because we're talking about a population roughly about most of the size of Boulder that will be on site for 10 hours. You know, what do you how do you handle emergencies on site? Well, there will be an emergency an emergency plan both on site and an emergency evacuation plan and will consult with. We will let Denver health and Denver fire and police really drive the the requirements of that plan because they're the experts. But will they be putting sirens like as they leave the facility or will they get out to, say, Evans or Santa Fe before they do that, if they're actually taking somebody to the hospital? I don't I don't know. That would be a sort of we would I would assume that we will follow their protocol. Okay. Is there a charge for the parking that will be offsite or if you're using the city owned facility or not? Part of the reason why I'm asking is so we just had the Dragon Boat Festival in my district this weekend. We're still waiting for our attendance. Usually draws about 100,000 over the course of two days where they constantly stream of busses going through the neighborhoods for two days for that 50,000, which is akin to what you have. Right. As a sort of constant flow. But they only charge five bucks for the parking, which I think encourages people to use that. Will that be will the I know you had been speaking to possibly including transit to the program possibly and ticket price. Would that also include parking at the parking ride's or downtown at the Mile High Stadium or something like that? So Rick Freeman from Superfly. Typically what we've done in the past is not charge for the parking, but charge for the shuttle pass. So and that can be anywhere from a 10 to $25 fee for the weekend, depending on various pricing levels and things like that. You know, the plan here is really to utilize all sorts of different transportation options. And so just to be, you know, direct about it, we do think public transport will be a big part of it. And that was to answer your question about the inclusion. We've used that method before. We have an event right now where we work to deal with the transit authority of that particular location, where the actual ticket is a ticket to get on a light rail or a public bus. So we will try and accomplish a similar thing here. We want to encourage as much public transportation as possible and use this as a vehicle to help get people to use the public transportation that is there more than maybe they normally do. Well, certainly one of the things we also love about the site is that it's on the Platte River bike path and we feel like that's a tremendous asset. We typically do see a lot of people using bike transit to events like this nationally, and we think with the biking culture here in Denver, it will be significant. We'll provide a free bike valet. So you just come leave your bike, you get a ticket and somebody will bring your bike to you as you leave. And of course, you know, with the popularity of ride sharing services, Lyft, Uber taxis, that will be a significant portion of the attendees utilizing that along with the shuttle service that we set up that that's, you know, kind of the holistic transportation plan options that we have to. I think you guys explain it that if there is no sort of agreement on this whole parking and transit plan, that the you know, when you guys you're doing this several months in advance, that that is actually that is grounds for termination. I mean, that is, you know, if we're not satisfied as a city that, you know, the community is properly protected. And in this in this regard or this situation in transit is not properly addressed, we can comfortably back out of this. Yes, that that's my understanding as well. And we say that from a producer standpoint, this is a, you know, one of our top issues that we have to get right for this to be a successful event. This is not something we think of. Secondarily, you know, our relationship with the customer, the event starts from the second they leave their door. If they don't have a comfortable, easy experience getting in and out of our venue, then they're not going to want to come back and spend the money it is to come to something like this. So it is imperative not only that we do a great job from the beginning, but that we make improvements on that plan, you know, continually and really examine in real time how it's happening. We're very good with utilizing data, really understanding how people are transporting when they're coming, when they're leaving, all of those things to make a plan that really creates a comfortable atmosphere. And we've been able to do that in our history. We also there's a lot of other events nationally that are great examples for us, that operate in parks, that are in similar, you know, locations like this that have access challenges that you have to overcome. And we believe that this is a site that can be done very well. We have a very experienced traffic engineer that is part of our team that does this nationally as well. They, too, have looked at the site, looked at the different logistics and feel that this can be accomplished really well here. So we feel confident that can happen. Okay. I think I'm going to have to at some point in the next year, I get Councilman Clark over to my house for a Broncos game to for him to see sort of the entirety of the the day and evening of what 76,000 people looks like. And then forced into a concert with me as well, one of these events so that he can also see that because this is this this will linger as one of my sort of concerns until I see that plan. And I want him to be cognizant because the explanation you provided, you know, speaks to upwards of 40% taking TNC in taxi, which would be, you know, 30 some odd thousand of the attendees. And that's a loss, even if. Carpooling. That's a lot of cars and anything you can do to use that TNC to get them to transit and then shuttle from the transit stops or bus service to the site you know, would go a long way because you're not going be able to queue up or store those shuttles, but you're going to have to figure all that out because this is a lot of people in an area that doesn't have a lot of free space even. One of the things that we see, if you don't mind me saying in San Francisco at the outside lands, is that people will typically take a taxi to an area that then funnels into whatever our walkable ingress plan is. So it's not like we expect all of the TNC to drop off right at the front door here. You know, they'll go frequent the businesses on Broadway, get a coffee, walk in to the event. And of course, we'll be controlling the different avenues of pedestrian access coming into the site, along with law enforcement. So when you think about it more broadly, you know, it's not just the location, it's getting people to the area or, as you said, getting people to some of the transit hubs that we're going to be supporting as well to then come in. So that's how we've seen it work in the past. Well, your transit plan also include, you know, some some of the on sort of led display signage, you know, miles and blocks out to sort of direct people as well as advertising. Yeah, absolutely. Well, advertising is a big part of it, right? That starts at the very beginning. And as I said, you know, the goal here would be to create something where your ticket is part of the transit plan. So you take public transportation, right. With that ticket. That's something we would advertise very aggressively to get people to take those modes of transportation in general. People come to our site, the event website and this ad looking for that type of information. And we find that people generally follow a lot of the recommendations that we put out. So be a huge part of it. You know, the second part of your question is, yes. I mean, we're working in a very detailed manner with law enforcement, everybody else in the community, to figure out exactly what messaging is needed, exactly what routes are most advantageous for ourselves, for the businesses in the area to get traffic to them. But yes, signage, variable signage is a big thing because you can, you know, change it up on the fly as you realize you want to make an adjustment. So we will utilize all those techniques. Okay, great. Thank you again. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, I'm going to go to Councilman Cashman for a question and then Councilwoman or take. Turner. Your Turner, Mike? No, sir. You're. Mike's not on. Mike. There we go. So you said you don't generally charge for parking. Is that correct? We charge for the use of the shuttle service so we don't generally charge for parking. Okay. Help me understand. I was looking at the outside land site and what I thought I saw was 48 bucks for three day shuttle. That's right. And then 255 bucks for three days of parking. The that parking that you see on the outside land site is for a VIP parking pass where we do have some limited parking within the park itself that is accessible to people who are willing to pay for it. I don't think we have that at this location, so I don't think that would be applicable here. Great. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. All right, Councilman Ortega. Thank you. The question's generated a couple of additional. So first, why not look at something like Mile High Stadium or Dick's Sporting Goods as opposed to one of our parks and specifically a golf course. Sure. You know, nationally, there is a trend of these type of events being held in public spaces such as Eisler Park in Austin, such as Golden Gate Park and San Francisco, such as Grant Park in Chicago. And I think the reason is, is that people want more of a green sort of, you know, nature friendly environment. You're going to see a show in a stadium is much different than going to see a festival where you're experiencing lots of different types of activities from all sorts of music, but also food, crafts, art. And the way that these events really work well doesn't really lend to something that's a stadium environment that's built for a completely different purpose. And they just the configurations don't really work well. So we have extensively looked and worked with Parks and Rec at other locations. We all determined based on a variety of criteria that really Oberlin was the one that made the most sense for this particular location. So I want to ask a question about the clubhouse. So I see that you all will have access and use of the clubhouse. The revenue that will be paid back is for damages to the golf course. So what happens if the clubhouse is damaged is. I believe we. Can make this. An amount of money. Yet same. It covers the clubhouse, is my understanding. And so the amount of money that's been set aside for the park you're saying is sufficient to include the clubhouse, or is that in addition to. Well, we have to repair everything. Anything that stands. So there's not a limit of that, and we'll be insured to protect against that as well. So there's not a specific number. So, yes, the clubhouse is included in that. Okay. And then let's see. I had one last question. This is for Katie, if you wouldn't mind coming forward. It is stressing the Office of Special Events. So, Kitty, how many other parks do we have that are being looked at for various types of music venues? You know, we've got. Various sizes of parks in our city. I just saw something that came across today that looks at Zoo Night Park for a music festival. And, you know, I'm not sure the the size of the event, but I just saw that today. So do we have more and more of these that are being looked at for the use of our city parks? And I don't know if that one is a free one. I think that one is considered to be a free event as opposed to a private. So. Well, I think I can answer part of it and I can think and Fred perhaps can answer another part of it. We don't have any specific venues that we're guiding people towards for for music specifically. I think an event comes to us and they have a park in mind and then we consider it. It's sort of a case by case. There are certain parks that only allow alcohol, so most music festivals would probably go towards those as are larger regional parks. So I think that that's probably the only thing that comes to mind right now that a music festival would go towards is one of the venues that allow for alcohol . Does that answer your question? Yeah, it does. So what you're saying is, you know, I know some of our RINO's are registered neighborhood organizations, organize some of the various types of events in the parks, and oftentimes they include music, so they call them music festivals, but they're really fundraisers for the the neighborhood association. And I see that very different from this. But, you know, I know, for example, we have jazz at City Park that's much smaller scale than than this is proposed to be. And I guess what I'm trying to understand is if we're seeing more interest in people wanting to do something of this scale in any of our other parks, do we see this being like the only one that we're we're looking at so that, you know, the the public and we've heard from people on both sides, but that this doesn't end up being a slippery slope, where now it's like, okay, whose park is next for, you know, some major event that takes it off line from, you know, in this case, the golfers who who normally utilize this park to play golf. Well, I can assure you, at least on some level, that this level, this size and scope and event is is very rare to come to us and for us to look at it happening elsewhere. I can't foresee anything like that. I mean, this this is a massive event and it will be unique. And we don't we don't foresee. We're not looking for. I mean, if an event comes to us and wants to do this, I mean, we'd certainly consider it. But we've spent the last year considering this one. So for anything to come through again, it would it would be very consuming. And I don't I don't anticipate it. I mean, of course it's possible. And people will see it's successful potentially. But I don't anticipate as just, you know, going and starting other music festivals. Councilman Clark wanted to jump in and. I was going to just bring up Fred. Can you talk about the exclusivity clause in this contract specifically that. Would would prevent. Something of this note that. The city is agreeing in this contract to not engage in in any other contract of a similar nature in terms of a major music festival. So during this timeframe or at all. During the term of the contract, that's all the recovery during. The term of the contract. For the month of September or the five years. Of year. Of five years, yes. So there will not be another festival of this type of this size, of this nature, four or five years, it'll, you know, during the term of the agreement. Okay. Thank you. All right. So we are into comments. Pro tem president, pro tem clerk. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I just wanted to thank everyone who's been involved in this discussion for lending their voice to the process. I want to thank again and not a lot of them made it out for a second week after sticking around for 5 hours last week. But everybody who came out to the public hearing last week and for sticking around to have a chance to speak. And all my colleagues who asked great questions and pushed and prodded throughout this entire process. It's been a long process and one that didn't have a roadmap. There isn't a specific thing that we do or how we work to engage the public written down when someone asks to have an event on a golf course. This was new, and while the process that we landed on was certainly not perfect, it was robust with all of the meetings, the surveys, the opportunities for public comment and engagement. This contract looks the way that it does because people, the citizens of Denver, the citizens of Overland and Ruby Hill and all of the surrounding neighborhoods got involved with it. And because supervisors was willing to meet the concerns that the neighborhood had had on and not run away from them. I do believe that this is a good contract. It's a contract that protects the golf course, that protects the neighborhood, that brings revenue to the course to make improvements that would otherwise not be possible, brings revenue directly to the neighborhood for improvements that citizens have been asking for for years, and revenue to the Parks Improvement Program citywide . But most importantly, this is something that my constituents, the neighbors, the leaders in Overland Park are asking for. And I don't mean for a second to imply that this is unanimous by any means. There are constituents of mine and people throughout the city who don't want this, but there are so many that do. And we all saw last week during the hearing that those who do span all ages and represent the diversity of this entire neighborhood. They're also a very smart group of people. Some of them have been fighting for this neighborhood for more than 40 years. They stood toe to toe with the Shattuck Chemical plant and demanded that they clean up what was at the time the most polluted site in Denver. And that land is now clean enough that it's being developed into townhomes, places where people will live. And money from. The settlement that that neighborhood negotiated was a catalyst for the $30 million of investments that we now have along the South Platte River in the last five years. This is a group of people who knows how to defend their neighborhood, knows how to build community, and they have asked me and they're asking us to vote yes. Scott Rutledge And his crew from the golf course have met extensively with Superfly. They visited the festival in San Francisco and they have assured me that the course will be better, not worse, because of this festival. Happy Haynes stood up here. She negotiated. Fred negotiated this contract to team with Parks and she stood up last week and told this us that this is a good deal. I know that Scott and his entire team, I know that Happy and Fred and the entire Parks team, the board of the Overland Park Neighborhood Association, all the residents of Overland, Ruby Hill, Ardmore Park, Platte Park, Wash, Park and beyond will stand shoulder to shoulder with me to make sure that Superfly lives up to everything that they've promised and delivers an event that our entire city can be proud of. This vote isn't the end of that work. It's just another step as we continue to work to address all of the concerns that were raised throughout the public process, in the plans that will be forthcoming. So tonight, I will be voting yes on this contract, and I ask all of you, my colleagues, to put your trust in the work that's been done and in the people who have done it in our golf and parks team, in the leadership from overall and my constituents and the surrounding communities and join me in voting. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Great words, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to say to Councilman Clark and to. The Parks Department. And to Superfly that I respect all of the work that went into this. And I believe that there is actually probably the foundation. For a very good. Contract and an event here. But just in my gut, it just feels like the wrong location to me. And so I'm going to vote no tonight, and I ask my colleagues to consider voting no for the following reasons. I think we need to respect. Process. In the city here, especially when it comes to our parks, which are in Denver, fairly sacred to us. Right. And only seven years ago, we had. A very robust. Public process that said, these are the parks where we will have admission based events. And that policy went through a round of. Public outreach. And consensus building. And in the. End, golf courses. Were excluded. And we also have policies regarding amplification in parts in the code in Denver, revised code 3962. Only two parts were were granted by ordinance the right to use amplification at City Park and Civic Center. Park says the council may from time to time by resolution resolution designate other parks. I don't know if we're going to get another resolution that will go along with this when it comes time next year to grant the right of amplification in on this golf course. Ultimately, it just feels wrong to use a. Golf course for this. And I understand that this might be the best site that you mentioned. This was the best site you can find in Denver. But the the least bad. Best site for me isn't good enough. I think we need to respect the public process. That said, we don't do festivals and we don't do admission based events, special events on golf courses. And if we can waive that the first time an offer comes along and just say, okay, we'll do it anyway, I think that. Disrespects the public process. It disrespects the neighborhoods and I just don't think it's right. And so I will be voting no. Mr. President, and I hope everyone else considers whether would they want this to have happened in their neighborhood, to have gone through a lot of debate. And where should we have festivals? You know. We picked Ruby Hill. I got the list here. Mr. President, we have City Park, Civic Center. Confluence Park, Skyline. Park, Central Park, Stapleton Park, Field Park and Ruby Hill that are designated authorized for admission based events. And if somebody comes in the door and just says, well, I'd like to do one on your golf course also that we can just throw. Away all that public process. It just doesn't seem right to me. And so out of respect for the neighborhoods and out of respect for our process, I'd have to vote no on this. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Sussman? Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I was actually going to talk about process two, but mainly it was to appraise all of the people that are engaged and how much process there was and how much engagement there was with the neighborhood. I know that our city people that have worked so hard care about our city and wouldn't want to be doing something that might, you know, harm it. I know that Councilman Clark is committed to the city and to his neighborhoods. I am pretty impressed with the deal that's been worked out to keep the golf course, to actually pay for all the lost revenue, to pay for any damage, to improve the golf course after you're finished. I'm not sure we've made such a good deal for any kind of festival ever before in the city. I also think that they I remember the process that Councilman Flynn's talking about, and I think they left out golf courses not for any particular reason. They just didn't discuss them. But of course, golf courses are the open spaces that we pay to use. I think a lot of that discussion was about paid festivals on park lands, but golf courses you have to pay to use know no matter what. And the reasoning that we've just never done this before. So why should we were? That's never been. An excellent reason for trying something new. The multiplier effect that I see from visit Denver economics is pretty outstanding, upwards of perhaps $10 million into our economy. I really appreciate what the and the all the communications we have had with the neighbors on both sides. But I do know that Councilman Clark worked very closely with the leadership of all of his neighborhoods. And I am pretty excited about the prospect and perhaps having a very famous Denver music festival that we've never had before. And so I will be voting for this project. Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman. No, I'm sorry, too. You had a question and I got cut off. I had a question to this. I do appreciate what Councilor Flynn saying. And also, I really appreciate what President Bruce brought up about the financial return on this I had, and I wasn't aware that the $2 million I was only seeing, all I was seeing was $200,000. And in that regard look, Fred, let me ask you a question, if I could, please. Only the $700,000, supposedly, whatever that split is for the neighborhood's neighborhood improvements. Will the neighborhood be involved with the decisions that what improvements will be made? That neighborhood? It's not something that Public Works is going to decide at a city department to decide we're going to pay streets or it's actually a decision making process that includes the neighborhood to make sure that they have a strong voice on how that money is being spent. Well, the the funds will be appropriated through CIP, through the capital improvement program. And Councilman Clark will have will represent, as you do, as all the council members do, how that money is spent in in the district. And so it's not there won't be a formal process for the neighborhoods to determine how to spend that city money . But through the normal process, which neighbors have a great voice in, through council members, they will influence that significantly. I guess I misunderstood. I thought it was the director neighborhoods involved. You're just talking about the entire district for for Councilman Clark, right. Maybe council clerk. Yeah. So again, there are two sources of revenue. One that will go to the neighborhoods through the community engagement nonprofit, and they will have board members from the neighborhood who will discuss those projects. And the other is the one that will be coming from the general fund. And I think this is a great opportunity to explore some of the participatory budgeting that we've been talking about, to say this is money that right now is just earmarked to come back to that community. There's not a specific boundary that it is only overland because the residents of Ruby Hill and of Platte Park are saying, hey , what about the impacts around us? And so I think it will be part of what are the impacts that are happening, what are the infrastructure that everyone's been wanting, and how does the how does the public engage in those decisions as part of our budgeting process? And how much money is in that foundation that the neighborhood will receive? That one is a dollar per ticket sold, I believe, for the neighborhood fund. And then there's. Also another contribution that we're determining where when we give a comp ticket, we ask for a contribution. So, for example, you could get a common ticket, but there's a 20, 30, $40 contribution. That money also goes into the nonprofit we're generally anticipating around the first year, $100,000, but that could grow depending on attendance. So when you start talking about 70,000 attendees, then you're talking about around 200, that 200,000 plus each year. So we think when you go directly to the neighborhood. So that goes directly to the neighborhood nonprofit as opposed to the the other money that comes through the city process. And the nonprofit is for that specific district. As Councilman Clark stated, the the board is essentially made up of representatives from Avatar Park, Ruby Hill and Overland Park. So, yes, the board is comprised of neighborhood members. With with more neighborhood members from Overland, which is the neighborhood that that's happening. Okay. I'm just going to make sure that, you know, I was really feel strongly about the evaluation committee and and having a fair and comprehensive evaluation of the program. And I'm sure that will occur. And I'm also to make sure that all those neighborhoods are benefiting strongly from this, first of all. So we need some assurance that that money will go back into community improvements there. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman, new Councilman Castro. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I'm going to talk about a few things that concern me. A few things that I believe and a few things that I believe. I know. I know that there are good folks who live close by the Overland Golf Course that are excited by the possibility of a major rock festival on that site. And I know that there are good folks who live close by who are not. And I know that there is mixed opinion in the greater community as well. This is one of those where no matter which way this vote goes, some people are going to be happy and some people are going to be quite disappointed. I believe the process of informing the public while there have been blips along the way, I think as it has evolved, I think all parties have been heard. The fact that we might vote one way or another doesn't mean people have not had their opinions heard. It's just we agree with some and disagree with others. I believe the process has been about as transparent as any large profit making project is going to be. The possible benefits of welcoming 30 to 80000 people a day to two overland have been touted, and the possible downsides of that, I think, tend to tend to not get as much airing when a similar event was proposed for City Park a number of years ago. I was opposed from the start. I simply could not see any way that traffic and noise could be adequately mitigated in a park so completely surrounded by established residential neighborhoods without being an unfair burden. My first reaction to Overland was not that clear. The presence of Santa Fe Drive on the eastern edge and a less intense presence of immediate neighbors made me think that maybe this can work. Since the first time that I was told about the possibility of this this event, I have said, and I continued to say, to vote yes, I'll need to be convinced that the community is going to be better off for this event taking place than it would be if it never did. I personally want to thank David Erlich, who has served the Super Super Lives Point person for the event, for his openness, his candor, and his willingness to work with the community and attempt to get to. Yes. I laughed when I heard that super fly who was meeting strong resistance from the neighbors closest to the Gulf. Course, would be willing to offer them, quote, significantly discounted tickets. Mr. Erlich went to the promoters and who stand to make millions off the successful festival. They have agreed to make those tickets available to the people most most impacted when presented with concerns regarding those with health burdens that would not readily, readily tolerate the disruption of festival weekend. He began searching options to relocate them to comfortable environs during the event and to look at sound mitigation alternatives for those that would choose or need to stay put in their homes. He work to add detail to a provision that would bring a part of ticket proceeds back to the most affected community. I believe that if the event takes place at Overland, the golf course will be restored to playable conditions afterwards by nature. As Councilwoman Sussman pointed out. Golf courses are admission based events. A very small percentage of Denver sites have ever set foot on overland golf course because it takes a good penny to do so. Retail rate is 28 bucks during the week for 18 holes, 40 bucks on the weekend. If you want to ride around in one of those fancy little car, you should dump another 15 bucks on top of that. Now, let me add my concerns. I am clear that if this event takes place, it does set a precedent for use of golf courses for admission based events other than golf. This is something we haven't done before. It's something that's being proposed. So it would be wise to keep an open or an eagle eye on what we now do with our golf courses. While not a deal breaker in and of itself, the I need to take a little bit of issue that this is a family friendly event . By my calculations and all I have to go by are what I read as far as the prices of outside lands for a single day for a family of four is 670 780 for a three day family of four and 1650 980. And thank you for clarifying that. There's no apparently no parking and 48 bucks to take a shuttle. I'm concerned that the details about the management of this festival that will lead me to believe the nearby neighborhoods will be better for the event taking place than if it never was. Are not available to me in the contract being presented. The contract, as has been discussed, that we're being asked to approve calls for, as it certainly should security plans, trash plans, traffic plans and other plans. Unfortunately, those plans are not required to come before the city until 150 days before the event and don't have to be finalized until 60 days before the event. And they will be approved by city agencies and not city council. While I have great respect for our departments, public works, parks and the police department, environmental, health, all the people who might look at this and I have partnered on them effectively on other projects. There have been times where I've also disagreed with all of them about a variety of important issues with a contract that has such potential impact on the community. Reticent to cede council authority and operate on trust at a time when I'm hearing from from many folks thinking that council should be taking back increased control over our green spaces. I'm not inclined to give control away. Another concern for me is the five year length of the contract. While there are cancelation provisions, if terms are not met, none of those provisions equates to, you know, we appreciate your good efforts. We just don't think it's working for us. The decisions as far as breach of contract will be made by attorneys looking at strict details of the contract. Next to my family and friends. Music is the most important part of my life, and I can't believe that I'm sitting here and I'm going to have to vote no on this festival, as I say, because the information that I need to get to that point isn't available to me. I went to Coors Field the other night to see the Zac Brown Band. I think I didn't see the official estimate, but I'm guessing around 45,000 people. And when that event let out, that stadium had I'm guessing didn't count this exactly, but six, seven, eight different exit points for people to get out. As I look at Overland, I'm guessing they all dump out onto onto Florida. And now there may be an exit to the south along here on I don't know what the plan is. These people, I believe, know how to run festivals, but I don't have that information. And so. With that said, I'm afraid I'm going to have to vote no on this event. And that's why I have to say thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman and Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Black was in the system. Do you mind if I go to her? Councilwoman Black? Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to thank Councilman Clark and Denver Parks and Rec and special events for their incredible community outreach and for learning so much about the festival in San Francisco. I know you all went there. You talk to neighbors, you talk to businesses. You learn the ins and outs of it and the impacts on the community. So I really appreciate that. I've heard from lots of people who are really excited about a world class music festival here in Denver. And I've heard from a lot of younger people who do not play golf and they don't get a go on golf courses. You can't walk your dog on a golf course. You cannot go on a golf course unless you golf. And they're super excited about being able to use a public greenspace for something that they like to do. I am confident that the golf course will be put back in better condition than when it was started. I am confident in the contract. I know you all have done an incredible job and also that you've responded to the neighbors and you've had a lot of meetings with them and you address their concerns. I also know if it doesn't work out that you won't be coming back. I've been thinking about it more in the lines of the Cherry Creek Arts Festival, which this year I think there were 351,000 participants and our attendees and the Cherry Creek Arts Festival takes over Cherry Creek. And if you live there, it's a bummer. But it's a world class event. It's incredible. Artists come from all over the world to come to our Cherry Creek Arts Festival and then the neighborhood is put back together again. And it's a fun event for people in Denver. I know all of you are committed to the success of this event. I know you're committed to. The people who live in Denver and to the people who live nearby. So I appreciate I appreciate all that. And I'm keeping my comments brief. And I implore my fellow council people who I've yet to speak to also be concise because I'm supposed to be at Red Rocks in 20 minutes. She's had. The. Bucket List concert for me, and I don't want to miss it. Thank you. Councilwoman Black, I can't believe you just said that, Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Now I can't be. Go on and on the way I had intended. There are lots of measures. Both mean financially, physically operational, to to address the impact on the public and safeguard assets. And in those are those are key provisions. Those are the sorts of things that if this had come to my district, I would be looking to address and address robustly. And I'm glad to say that, you know, in large part, those those things have been met. But if you are just a warning, if you are predisposed to being bothered by noise of this type, just know for three days. For those three days, no. It's more likely to happen than not. What I ask is that you report real time so that they can be checked and informed decisions going forward. Well, I think the contract is fair for five weeks of loss of use. I do think that there was a harder bargain that could have been made. And so you're lucky you weren't in District one. However, there is a this is a slightly. More considerate contract on the community's terms than most that this city agrees to. I still think that this whole experiment is most vulnerable on the traffic. And impact of. The intends on the surrounding neighborhood, but at least there is a commitment to address these concerns and consequences for failure. I think that the points raised by Councilman Flynn and Cashman should be at the forefront of everyone's mind in the aftermath of year one and before moving forward into year two. Um, I do think this, this is a great way to, to everyone's point about the charge of greens fees to play this course. It's a beautiful place. And so I do think it's a great way to experience this public land. I would suggest because of the cost of entrance, it would be nice if there was a free, soft opening on the main stage so that people could be in that center space or one of the side stages so that people can sort of experience what it's like to be on that fairway. Having that sort of quasi country urban experience, you know. And so, you know, that is that is so it's giving access where it could be a tool to give access, where currently access is restricted. That said, the other thing is, is that I would be remiss not to mention this part of the reason all of these spaces are available for use of this sort of park use is because there are big, wide open fairways. And if we had ground up a portion of this property to create a stormwater detention pond, that would not be a place you could occupy. And so there is a very big distinction. I want to be clear and go on record saying that a, you know, converting a fairway into a picnic place, a hangout place, a concert venue is another public use that is viable for park use. But stormwater detention, if that was stormwater area, you could not go in and stand there for hours on it for three days. And that is not a park use and that. So with that said, I will be supporting this because it is just an extension of how we can utilize public lands in a way. But it's done the contracts are done in such a way that we're either going to get it right, we will tweak it to get it right or we will stop doing it. And I think you guys have acknowledged that from the get go. I have been tough in that regard. And so I appreciate the concessions that you have made to the community, to golf in particular and to Denver in deference to trying to get this through. So I'm looking forward to that experience once it comes forward. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I, um, I definitely appreciate a lot of the conversation around it. I do you know, I do respect the the concerns of the folks that live adjacent to the, uh, and in the community of the golf course in high school. Was the only time I ever set foot on that golf golf course and was, you know, immediately kicked off the team. As Yogi Berra says, you know, when it when I hit the ball, I like somebody else to go chase it. So I have to I have to say this. I do I do understand the concerns with parking. Remember that it's very close to Santa Fe Drive. That is a very big access point. It's close to Evans as well. I mean, it's not just embedded in the neighborhood in the middle of of an urban center. It does have some some good access points. I do share the concern of Ruby Hill and want to make sure that folks are respecting not only just our I decent neighbors and neighborhoods, but the park. You know, there are some some places and I know one member of council will agree with me when I say this that are not public venues that are bars that empty out all the time. And as they empty out, people urinate in their front yards. They leave bottles, they leave garbage. It is a disaster. Amen. And so and so I want to make sure and you know, that that is being enforced. Right. We have to make sure that the community is respected. Having said that, in listening to some of the testimony, there real concerns. However, I don't I don't believe it's going to be Woodstock. Right. Woodstock was awesome, Paul. I know it's awesome and I'm not going to Woodstock. I think people are going to be setting up camp on Platte River and making permanent homes. I don't believe people are going to be bathing in the river and and carrying on or whatnot. I think, you know, the Platte River is there for people to enjoy, but it's kind of so we're a little bit removed that I don't think people are going to want to do that. One of the in music. You know, but I do understand those concerns. This is what I'm going to say. In 2010, I sat on this council. And we were thinking of doing a a mission based event and either civic center. Or City Park. And those are two of our primary parks. And you know what? To be honest, at that point in time, I really was sold on on the on the on the thought that, well, these are our public spaces. Nobody's going to be able to use those at that time. And should we charge for our public spaces? And. And I look over at Civic Center Park and I see how barren it is as your under-utilized it is. And because we don't use them, utilize it as much, a lot of bad things happen. We need to utilize our parks and we need to do them in a way that strikes a balance in the community. I voted no on that. And I feel that because of that, we have to go to golf courses and whatnot. And I'd much rather come right down here and enjoy it. We have other events here. They may not be an event where it's admission based, but it gets a lot of people and it's a good time. And when I go to other cities, I mean, I didn't get the chance to do this when I was in Austin because there wasn't anything going on at the time. But that's why I wanted to go to Austin for I mean, if I'm going to be in the heat. Sweating at least one, listen to some good music in a public space. And I was there in L.A. when when Jay-Z and Fox, when you saw that, I mean, it was it was actually pretty cool. And the use of these public spaces and I don't want a Denver to miss out on that. And also, here's the other reason why in my final reason. We are lucky. Because all this talk and all this worry about our open spaces. Well, yes, we have our parks and our beautiful open spaces, but. You drive 20 minutes. West on Sixth Avenue and new at the Gateway to buy one of the largest. Majestic. Most beautiful open. Spaces we. Have in Colorado. And that's our mountains. I don't see this as an attack on our open spaces. And our recreation and our ability to enjoy the fresh air without noise. It's all out there waiting for us. Right. And that's more of a challenge. So with that, I mean, I do look forward to having this to seeing it. It is it is something not too far away from not too far removed from us. And I really have to give Councilman Clark a lot of credit for the process. For the. Convening. He truly was and is somebody who I believe is is is super careful with his decisions and very, very inclusive in the what he did. And I think, you know, a lot of this is taken lead from his leadership and his assurance. So with that, I do vote I will vote yes on this. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I am always, as always, impressed by the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of my colleagues. And so but as often happens, it's it's that we are looking at the same factors, but sometimes weighing them slightly differently. And I was listening to Councilman Cashman, who I deeply respect for his thoroughness. And I feel like he covered most of the things that I'm weighing, but he weighed them slightly differently. And so I will be supporting this contract tonight and wanted to identify a few of the reasons why for my constituents who have been asking and feel like they want to understand why and how we're making the decisions we make. So for me, I feel like as well, the fact that this is a fee based activity today that people pay for golf courses today. And actually, I'll come back to that point because golf courses are in trouble in in Denver. You know, we are looking at the potential closure well, the certain closure of the Park Hill golf course. So there's this tradeoff between this very expensive infrastructure to upkeep. And then the amount you're willing to charge, you're able to charge for an urban course without some of the amenities of private courses and trying to keep it affordable to the residents. You want to use it. And so it is no exaggeration to say that the financial stability of golf is in question. Our Golf Enterprise Fund has has struggled with those issues. And so the ability to earn resources that can help keep these fees low, not just the infrastructure costs, because I know there's improvement fees, but the solvency of golf generally is important to keep the fees low. So we're not in a position where we're trying to trade off the affordability for golfers. So so to me, I think that that's all connected on the financial side of this deal. Would that have been enough by itself? No way. Right. There are other things to weigh for me. The public hearing was really beneficial. I heard very sincerely the concerns of the immediate neighbors about their disruption, and there's no way to deny that. But I also balance that with the fact that those parks that are listed in the list Councilman Flynn mentioned, the neighbors from those parks bear so much burden from us having all of our events focused on those parks. And those neighbors have asked us repeatedly as a city to balance out some of the things happening in other areas. So when I can't and this is partially my At-Large seat, I can't think just about the residents next door to one park. I'll start to think about what is equitable and what are the other things in our neighbors of Civic Center and our neighbors of Civic City Park are deeply burdened. And so for me, this is a balance, right? It's not it's not perfect. And there's no denying the impact, but it's balancing rather than putting all of that burden on one neighborhood over and over again or eight neighborhoods. So for me, the other thing that was really persuasive is the depth and history of the leaders who supported this. You know, when I see a jack on row, when I see Ronnie, these are folks who I would not consider to be easy in terms of meeting their standards. I don't always meet I often don't meet their standards as a council member. So I know they're tough. And when they get to the point, there's a point at which my job as a representative is to say, who are the trusted community leaders? And if, if, if, if I'm going to represent the trusted community leaders in this neighborhood, the ones that I've worked with for years, the ones that I've seen in leadership for years are there and they supported it. So I have some faith in the fact that they feel enough a part of the process that they will be able to have a voice in those final plans that we don't yet have. Right. And so so they're they're the liaisons. And if they have that trust, that's that's a big leap because they're on the front lines of those discussions. So I think that there is always risk in a new venture, and I think this contract manages a lot of that risk. I too would like an easier non-renewal clause. I feel like the bar for non-renewal in, you know, years, two through five is is, is high. I would have liked it better if we had an easier decision to say, listen, you. Complied with everything, but it still was not good for the city. I would like that out, but we didn't we didn't get that. But weighing all those other factors, I'm going to vote in favor of those long term residents who who have told me that that this is what they would want. So, again, good points on all sides. Just I'm weighing on those for me tonight. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each Councilman Flynn and councilman knew you've given your comments? Okay. If I skip to Councilman Ortega for comment. Councilman, thank you for something. I have to get Councilman Lopez out to the golf course or to aqua golf to practices. I scheme to. So this one has been kind of challenging for me because I'm a huge music advocate and have have championed our creative industries that we have here in Denver. And, you know, folks who live here know that our music scene is way bigger than Austin's. We just don't always promote ourselves the same way that Austin does. But at the same time, I'm also, you know, a huge neighborhood advocate as well and want to make sure that we're always doing what we need to do to protect our neighborhoods. I can remember one of our very first fee based program was when we closed down the park across the street and we had our first Grand Prix downtown. Kevin You'll remember that very well. And I think after was it the first or second year they didn't come back? Yeah, they were here for two years, but they didn't make the kind of money they thought they were going to make on the event. I want to make sure we keep marijuana out of the facility, especially if we do have children. I agree with Councilman Cashman that, you know, these aren't affordable family prices where you probably going to see lots of kids in the in the park at the event. But for families who can't afford it, that will bring their children. I hope that that's something that know I know they can advertise, but you get to these big events and you smell it at every single venue where you have large music events. I want very careful attention paid to the impact to Ruby Hill, and I'll be looking at that very carefully. I know the neighbors there will as well. I appreciate the community investment fund that's been created. I think it's a creative way of looking at how to mitigate some of that impact to the neighborhood, how to compensate them, if you will, where they can put that money into some of the priorities they identify, working together with those for neighborhoods. It's something we've been talking about and working on trying to get National Western to do the same for the impacted neighborhoods of Globeville, Illyria and Swansea for what will be a year round place with lots of activity that will affect those neighbors. One of the things that I noticed and this was brought to my attention by the couple of the neighbors that live near Ruby Hill, where they had heard the ticket prices for the paid events at Levitt Pavilion, where we're going to be capped at $25. But when you add in all of the fees, it significantly adds to the price of the ticket. And I'm assuming that's going to be the case here as well. So what you think may be one price by the time you add in all the fees ends up being a significant more than that. There's only one road into this golf course. I've played it many times, and so the ingress and egress is going to be from that one road. You know, when somebody mentioned traffic that would let out onto Florida. I'm assuming you were talking about foot traffic because vehicle traffic for the you know, whether it's going to be Lyft and Uber or busses or whatever. And I heard Aqua Golf is going to be like a staging site for some of the busses. So people will have to walk because there really isn't an access point into the golf course from Florida right off a Santa Fe unless there's. Going to be cutting into the fence or doing something different to get traffic in there, and then we'll repair that later. But so how we deal with that traffic flow of people getting in and out of the site, whether it's busses turning around in the parking lot, which is, you know, if you're going have people parking in the parking lot, you need room for all of that traffic to maneuver in and out of there. Somebody mentioned the fact that not having some of the plans and I understand as you get closer to those details will be put together and we won't see those. But ensuring that the the details are paid attention to. We're dealing with this with a different contract where we're looking at those details now. And the devil is always in the details, making sure that the concerns of the neighborhoods are front and center in how those plans are put together. I'm still not sure how I'm gonna vote on this. I mean, I'm feeling very conflicted. You know, again, I'm an advocate for for, ah, music industry and, ah, creative sectors. And I think as as a whole, as a city, we do a really good job. We have smaller events all over the city. I understand that some of our local talent will be part of the entertainment. I don't know what that that split is of. It's 20% to 80% of the big name bands you guys are going to bring in. But I think that's a a. An interesting and good part of this project as it will move forward. And I'm pretty confident you have the votes for for this to move forward tonight. But those are those are some of my my concerns. You've heard my questions earlier, and I'll decide when it gets time to vote where I come down on this thing. Thank you. Okay. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll try to be brief so that Councilwoman Black can make it to Red Rocks in time for the encore. I want to thank Councilman Lopez for bringing up Woodstock and risking the wrath of Harriet. When I get home by disclosing that she hitchhiked from Chicago to Woodstock back in the day, and she remembers it as one muddy mess. And so I certainly hope that it doesn't turn out that way. Just for clarification, Mr. President. The reason I wanted to comment again was to clarify that if when you pay a Greens fee at a city of Denver golf course, you're not making that an admission based event. Year round of golf is not an admissions based event. The policy defines an admissions based event as when the. City Parks and Rec. Permits out a park facility to a private party to conduct a private activity to make a profit off of our parks for an admissions fee. So a Greens fee does not make a golf course, an emissions based event. And I want to finally, I want to thank Councilwoman Ortega for reminding me of those three words that keep ringing in my mind ever since I heard this proposal. And that is Denver Grand Prix. In 1989, the city went into a five year contract. I know there are a lot of differences. The site is different. This is the Grand Prix that ran around Civic Center, not the later one that Cronkite ran the Pepsi Center. This was the original one that tied up downtown for two years and lost $5 million and declared bankruptcy and actually had to sue Mayor Webb to try to get out of of running the other the other three years. I keep hearing that in the back of my mind. I hope I'm wrong because I think this has enough votes to pass. But I do think that in light of. Of our. Policies. Well thought out. That we ought to stop and give pause and wonder whether we just ought to admit that we simply don't have the right place to hold an event of this sort. And that to to pick the least worst place is just not good enough. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flint. I think they do have private parties on those golf courses, but Councilman do. Thank you, Ms.. For a brief comment. I came into this meeting ready to vote no on this project, and I felt my two big concerns were, again, about the neighborhood participation in the evaluation and whether they truly were going to have a be fairly representative and have a voice in whether this festival would continue, if it was detrimental, if it didn't work, would they really say that they would have a part in that decision or where this this contract would continue? Also, the economics here in economics discussion tonight, I want to make sure that the neighborhoods get their fair share of the improvements in this. And so what it boils down to me tonight, even though I have real concerns about this location and I'm an avid golfer and I'm really interested, I really wish I had asked Hale Irwin last week what he thought about this golf course improvement. But anyway, I'm going at the boils down to me is is I trust Councilman Clark who says the district I have great confidence in him and he'll make sure that the residents have a voice, a strong voice and make a good decision to be treated fairly. And he'll make sure those improvements will be made to that neighborhood. So I'll be voting yes tonight. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. So I have a golf course in my district, and I wasn't going to chime up. But I just wanted to say, when Councilwoman Kenny. Made the comment, certain closure of Park Hill golf course, I just need to make. Sure. I echoed that my sentiment is different. To that. I am unaware of the certain closure. There are certainly conversations about the future of the. Park Golf course, but I certainly would not characterize it a certain. Closure. So I wanted to say. That before I get emails about it tomorrow. And I think about if this organization came to District eight and said, We're interested in doing this event, and I look at the process. And the conversations that Councilman Clark has had, would there be anything that I would do differently? And while if I thought really hard, I am. Sure that there would be something I have to applaud. Councilman Clark, the city, the organizers, because they. Took all the questions and challenges head on and they tried to reach a place that, hey, outside of not doing the festival, we are we hear you. And this is how we believe we can help mitigate some of your concerns. And so I do want to applaud you for that, because that is something that we do not always see. And so. This is something that I. Will be supporting today. Mr. President. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Hernan. Okay. Guzman Espinosa. Yeah, I sort of. I'm glad I'm dovetailing off of Wayne's being councilman new in Councilman Herndon's comments, because that's the only reason I chime back in. I just wanted to throw my support again around Councilman Clark and and do stress that, yes, he was he was always forthcoming hearing our concerns. And he no, I mean, he and I and I, I think the reason why you see so much support from his community is because of his his leadership in his in his in how he's handled himself and the community throughout this thing in such a positive way. And I would expect nothing less going forward. And I think everybody on that side of the table knows that Councilman Clark has earned the support from members of council. So if you know, if you're not agreeing with him, you're not agreeing with a bunch of us. So but that's this speaks to Councilman Clark's, the way he's handled it. And they just want to acknowledge that it is a very good contract because of his work. So thank you. You got a problem with Clark? You got a problem with all of that? All right. I'll put it down somewhere. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry. I do need to thank Councilman Herndon. You heard me stumble over my words there, and I just want to apologize. I kind of was stumbling to get it out. Certain changes, right? With certain that something is going to change there. And I was struggling to get it right. And I apologize because I will now get the emails too. So I figured I should take credit and just say, yes, we know change is coming. We know it's in trouble, that we know. We know that it is under water to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So that we know and I apologize for the misstatement. Long process ahead to figure out what's happening. Sorry. All right, Councilman Black, I'm the last one speaking so you can get ready. I'll just say this has been an incredible process. Thank you all from the city. Thank you for the community. Folks have been calling me, emailing me. Thank you, Councilman Clark. One year. I mean, I feel like we've been talking about this for about a year. And so this is a lot of work going in to make sure we got the right deal. And to me, the thorough process is what it's all about. And I won't repeat what a lot of my council members have said up here. The debate has been rich and great. But here's the problem in Denver and you're hearing it up here, you feel people feel in the city of Denver that the success that Denver is feeling is not reaching to neighborhoods, to neighbors, to the grassroots individuals. And this is the first deal that I've been a part of where I see how much money, specific neighborhoods, nonprofit organizations are getting. And, you know, for the next folks coming to make a deal with the city, you're in trouble because we really want to make sure that there's a significant investment in our neighborhoods. And I'll just talk about the music industry, the music scene here. We had we had artists in here from the Rhino neighborhood. Well, there's a whole community of of budding entrepreneurial musicians that want to be a part of the success. And if we just have this huge event and no connection to the success of these individuals, we can never be like Austin, even though we have more music venues than us. And so I am voting in favor of this because of that point that we really strike the balance of investing in the community. And I hope, Councilman Clark, you will report back to all of us how much money the community is getting, how much money the neighborhood is getting because of these ticket sales. So and Councilman Flynn, you asked the wrong question when you said how many of you you all want this in your neighborhood? Because I live in the five points, right on neighborhoods. So we have this all the time and we enjoy it. Protections are important, but some of us love the urban environment and want to be a part of an eclectic, diverse, dynamic community. And I believe this will bring it. So without further ado, Madam Secretary, Roll Call Clerk Hi. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Now. Gilmore, I. Herndon Cashman? No. Can each. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Pass assessment. I. Black I. Ortega. No. Mr. President, I. Close voting as a result. Ten eyes, three nays. Tonight, three nays. Resolution 687 is passed. Madam Secretary, will you please bring up the next deal on our screen? I believe it is. Council Bill 680. All right. So, Councilwoman Sussman.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2875 North Albion Street in North Park Hill. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2875 North Albion Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-15-22.

DenverCityCouncil_04042022_22-0147

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. I will move that council bill 0147 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 2-0147 is open. May we have the staff report? Um. Good evening. My name is Kenny Vanya and I'm with CPD before you. Today we have 2875 Albion Street and the request is from Usb-C to Usb-C one from a single unit. Two Single unit with Adu. So it is located in Council District eight in the North Park Hill neighborhood, and as the request is a single unit dwelling, the site is approximately just underneath 6000 square feet. And what is requested is an accessory dwelling unit with a minimum lot size of 5500 square feet. As you can see, the existing zoning is us. You see, it's surrounded by us. You see to the north, south and the east and to the west you can see Main Street and mixed use up to three stories as well as Eastside one which is allows for accessory dwelling in every single unit. There you can see the subject property in the top left. That's the property on the left primary. Most of the structures are one story in height. Single unit on Albion Street. And this went before the planning board. On February 2nd. It was approved unanimously and is before you tonight. So far we have received one letter of support from the Greater Park Hill community, Arnelle, and as well as three letters of support from the public which are attached to the staff report. And there are several review review criteria that are analyzed that we look from the Denver zoning code. The first one is Kansas City with adopted plans. And we're looking at specifically three plans, which is comprehensive plan 2040 Blueprint Denver, a language transportation plan of 2019 and the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan of 2000. There are several strategies and goals that are consistent with this specific rezoning that are specified in the staff report. And I would jump into Blueprint Denver. So Blueprint Denver classifies this area as urban, which is the neighborhood context as classifies it as predominantly residential. And homes are typically low scale single and two unit residential with some small scale multi-unit residential. When you're looking at the future place type classification, it is classified as residential low, which is predominantly single and two unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Albion Street is a local street which is categorized as residential uses. And when we look at the growth area strategy, it's classified as all other areas of the city where we anticipate 10% of new employment and 20% of new housing here. Likewise in blueprint under the line you built form housing policy number four it states diversity of housing choice to the expansion of addus use throughout all residential areas. When we jump into the Park Hill neighborhood plan under the land use zoning section, it does mention on page 32 about maintaining the existing integrity of the residential character park here and ensuring the continued growth of development in Park Slope results in a balancing compatible mix of housing types as well as action number and Ozone three, which is create and maintain a mix of housing types that are attractive and affordable. And under review criteria two, two, three, two, three and five. It is consistent as found in the staff report and under the fourth criteria which is justifying circumstances, is based off a city adapted plan as blueprint calls for allowing accessory dwelling units in all residential areas. Therefore, CPD recommends the approval based on all the findings of the review criteria. Having met staff is available for any questions that you might have. Thank you. Thank you. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening, Jessie Paris joining us online. Jessie, go ahead and unmute your mic and go ahead. He has being a member of the council. When I was just a short person, I'm a presenter for Blackstar, for self defense, positive action, social change, as well as the new party of Colorado, the Residents Council and Frontline Black News. I will be the next day. This is foreign aid, correct? So I'm in favor of this travel and for movement throughout one building as it related to city council. Um. Well, it's going to be intimidating. Uh, well, there are a lot of questions I have. Thank you, Jesse. I think we got your question. That concludes our speakers questions for members of Council and Council 20 2-147 No members in Q. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council and Council. Bill 20 2-147. Councilmember Herndon Thank. You, Madam President of the District eight show tonight. I think the criteria has been clear. I hope my colleagues support that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call on Council Bill 22 220 2-147. Herndon, I. Hi, I'm. Cashman. Ortega Sawyer. I'm black. I see the Barca clerk. Hi. Flynn. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, to close the voting and announce the results tonight. Tonight is Council Bill 20 2-147 has passed there being no further business before this body. The meeting is adjourned.

Recommendation to request City Manager and Long Beach Health and Human Services in coordination with Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health care advocates meet and develop written recommendations on how Long Beach can partner with Los Angeles County to respond should Roe v. Wade be overturned and report back within 45 days.

LongBeachCC_02082022_22-0145

Thank you. That concludes our hearing. Now we are going to go to the regular agenda and we will be hearing. The first item, the instructions for my agenda here. We will be during our first item, which is going to be item 17, please. Communication from Mayor Garcia, Councilwoman Allen, Councilman Price, Councilman Sara recommendation or to request City Manager and Long Beach Health and Human Services in coordination with Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health care advocates, meet and develop a written recommendations on how Long Beach can partner with Los Angeles County to respond to Roe versus Wade, be overturned and report back within 45 days. Well, thank you. And I do want to thank first just the incredible group of women's health organizations, particularly Planned Parenthood, that I know have worked really hard on this issue. And we've been we've also been having some conversations with the county about the seriousness of where this actual really health conversation is at at this moment in time . I want to note that because Long Beach has its own health department and because we have a health jurisdiction, it's also our responsibility to have robust conversations and insert also and insert ourselves when we can in these important and these important conversations in debates around women's health and access to, in this case, abortion and and women's health care. We just celebrated, as we probably know, the 40th anniversary of Roe v Wade. The idea that access, safe legal access to abortion is now being debated in our courts, especially in our highest court, where we can actually lose this constitutional protection for people is is is really hard to do to witness and to see. We know that right now in this country, over 80% of Americans support, access and select safe and legal abortion access. We know that also this this access to reproductive health is under attack across our country. And we have a responsibility as a city to continue supporting not just our community, but but folks are going to look to our community and others as restrictions are placed across across the country. And we're already seeing that happen today. I want to want to make a couple a couple notes right now, because access to reproductive health is or is being limited already in some states, we are seeing a wait times dramatically increase in states that are just adjacent to those. This is happening right now in our country. We could be months away from this constitutional right being decimated. And what that could mean for particularly for women across this country is is is immense. I want to note that here in Long Beach, we have had a proud history through our health department of working with Planned Parenthood and other health partners and agencies to support this important work for women and for reproductive rights and for safe and legal abortion access. We need to prepare as a community on what could happen to this to to not just us here. Unfortunately, we are in California, which is a state that has a very progressive view on this access. But what that could mean for us as it relates to jurisdictions and states that are just adjacent to us, that we could see limitations for reproductive health for women. The L.A. County and working with Planned Parenthood recently passed a series of recommendations. Those recommendations really revolve around working with Planned Parenthood and other agencies to address what the overturning Roe v Wade could mean for county health agencies and their relationship with, with or with clinics and the coalition of health groups that are out there. And so we have been asked and are working with Planned Parenthood as well, since we have our own health department as separate of L.A. County, to pass a similar resolution and look and work with L.A. County on this issue so that we have a unified response if we are faced with this really terrible decision in the in the months ahead. I want to thank L.A. County and the supervisors that have taken a leadership role in bringing this to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. I also want to thank Councilwoman Cindy Allen, Councilwoman Suzy Pryce, Councilwoman Sally Sara. I know all three are very interested in this in this conversation and in this legislation. And so I want to thank all three of those council women for their support of this and for sponsoring this. I know they all have relationships and with some of these health organizations and Planned Parenthood as well. Let me also just finally add that California right now is in the process of becoming a reproductive freedom state and is willing to step forward and provide these critical services for women that may be in need from across the country. And I think it's important for us in Long Beach to be prepared to also open our doors as a community and be a part of that network of spaces where if women need these critical services, they can they can look to us to help provide those. And so with that, the recommendation that everyone has in front of them from our city management team to come back to this council in about 45 days after talking to L.A. County. And looking for opportunities to expand health care opportunities to address some of these health disparities that could arise and other issues that have been brought forward at the county level as well. I want to thank the team at Planned Parenthood and our health agencies for their incredible work in preparation of this. Really, I think, really dangerous and dark time in our history as it relates to reproductive health. And so with that, I'm going to ask that we get a motion on this and then I'll pass this off to the agenda of this. Of this item. I see Councilman Allen has made the motion and I have Councilwoman Sara and Councilwoman Price all cued up. So let me turn this verse over to Councilwoman Allen. I just I just want to say thank you, Mayor Garcia, for leading on this and for coordinating this item. What we face is a potentially dangerous Supreme Court ruling against women's health and against women. Against women, period. And I'm scared. I'm worried about women all across this country that are scared, too. I think, you know, as you mentioned, as a city that owns its own health agency, in a city that values women, it is our duty to protect anyone made vulnerable. If the Supreme Court strips away a woman's right to choose. There are so many low income women, men in our community who rely on public services for care, and we must be ready to provide these services. I'm going to share just a little bit of a shocking story. So I would ask anyone who's sensitive to this topic just to turn off your volume for a couple of seconds. In a recent trip to Kentucky, I stayed in a motel room where a woman. Had an underground abortion performed on her because she had nowhere else to go. An abortion in a hotel room. This is unbelievable and it's dangerous. And I'm not going to give you any more details because it's too hard to hear or even believe. You know, this is this is 2022. And women are being driven to these dangerous and harmful extremes. And many more women will be, you know, would have would be forced to make these drastic measures like this woman in this motel room. This is unacceptable. We must provide support for women who would otherwise be forced to consider dangerous procedures. I wish that we could protect women all over the country. I'm so glad to hear the mayor talk about how California is going to reach out to women. But we start right here in our backyard, and I will be completely supporting this item today. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sara. Thank you, Mayor, for your leadership in bringing this item forward. It's unfortunate that we have to prepare for the worse. You know, the attack against women's reproductive rights have happened ever since Roe versus Wade have passed and so many efforts taken to chip away at not just, you know, older women, but young women, miners rights to be able to make the decision over their body and their access to health care, especially marginalized young women of color. There's been already enough shaming about women's body, and then there's already a layered challenge for them to be able to access care, much less have these legal right and access affordable access to care provided to them. And I definitely stand with our county and our state being a reproductive freedom state and and becoming a reproductive freedom city to make sure that regardless of your status, regardless of your income level and regardless of your background, we want to make sure that women feel safe in in the decision they make, not just for themselves that their partner. So if the reproductive justice issue is a gender justice issue, that the attack is being targeting, targeting women, but also it impacts on men and the families of these women before the fact that if they're taking desperate measure like potentially to lose a daughter, a sister. And so it's really a family. It's a community issue. At the end of the day, because we want to make sure that women regardless have access to care and feel comfortable being able to get them. So for that, I stand in preparing for, unfortunately, the watershed, the right for access to abortion and care is taken away that we look at in every way possible to put measures in place and resource in place, to continue to tell young women and all women that we stand with you and we will fight this. And if we can't, we're going to make sure we protect you. Thank you. Councilwoman. Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you to my colleagues for their comments, especially Councilwoman Allen, with sharing that story. That's just a reality that I think we don't talk about very often. And it's obviously happening. And I appreciate you sharing that story. And that's such a horrific, horrific thing to even imagine. Thank you to our mayor for asking, bringing this item and for asking us as females to sign on to this item. I think it's very, very important that we highlight the importance of women's rights to reproductive health care through this item and beyond. In recent years, we have seen the courts move closer and closer to overturning a landmark decision that protects women's rights, fundamental women's rights. It is this legal decision that has changed and caused a lot of anxiety for people around this nation. And if this decision changes, it will change the rights of millions of women across America, and their fundamental rights will be impacted in a detrimental way. It's important for us as a local government with a health department. We often talk about our health department. Our health department protects everyone and should protect everyone, especially women in this scenario. And we need to work with our federal partners, our state and local partners, to make sure that we take a stand together and are prepared to work together to protect the rights of women and to protect the women. Should the laws change in the future, we need to stand together to protect them. This is a fundamental right for all women, and I thank you for bringing this item forward. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman's in the house. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you to my fellow council women for signing onto this very, very important item. Roe versus Wade recognize the fundamental right to choose an abortion. Since then, it has served as a layer of protection for women's reproductive rights. However, it's been challenged time and time and time again by claims that disregard or just devalue a woman's right to autonomy over the decision regarding their own body. I am proud to support this item that stands to reassure our women here in the city of Long Beach that your health and your rights are important. We are committed to working with the county and other partners to ensure access to contraceptives, abortion services and other services that we need, even in cases of even in the case that this week to be overturned. However, I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will find to uphold the president it established in Roe versus Wade. But thank you for this item. And I welcome the opportunity for us to become a city for reproductive freedom and a state that really embraces the rights of women to choose. Thank you, Councilwoman. I have Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for bringing this forward. Thank you to my council colleagues. Alan Price, borrow for your comments. Hey, you know what we've seen in Washington, D.C., in terms of partizanship and gridlock? All it's done is force local governments to find ways to expand what we traditionally haven't had to do. And I think this is another example of local government thinking about adding additional protection for folks, because we can't count in many ways on consistency from the federal government on issues that are that are critically important. So I think this is a great strategy. So I applaud the L.A. County Board of Supervisors for really being creative and saying, what can we do in the event that is, you know, this landmark this landmark ruling is overturned? What can we do to add an additional layer of protection and safety and comfort to the women here in Long Beach, across L.A. County? And so I think that's incredible. And so I just wanted to chime in at my, you know, my strong, unequivocal support and to thank my colleagues for bringing this forward. Thanks a lot. Thank you. Councilman Ringo. Thank you, Mayor, and to my council colleagues for bringing this forward. I totally agree with all the commentary there. We are in dangerous times, and if we don't do something now to prepare ourselves, we'll be in a very bad spot once the season goes forward. Hopefully won't. But we have to be prepared. And I sit in solidarity with my council colleagues. Thank you. Councilman, Councilmember Austin. Thank you so much. This is just a reminder that issues matter of political ideology, matters of Supreme Court justices. Those decisions whose make who sits on the bench matters. This is an issue that is a landmark if you thought it was settled many years ago. But it has served as a litmus test for an issue in a very divisive issue for many, many years. I wasn't going to say anything this evening because this is this is a matter of women's reproductive rights. And I want to yield to those my colleagues who we have a great deal of respect for. The majority of our city council today are women. And so absolutely, I stand with women and I stand with my wife. I stand with the women in our country who are standing up for our reproductive rights. And I certainly support this item. I think we have to be very, very strategic, just like we were with. The immigration reforms that were coming down and the draconian kind of efforts that were coming from Washington, D.C., from the administration just a few years ago, we designated ourself as a sanctuary city. In this regard, we are going to stand strong and show as the city that we stand up for women's reproductive rights. So I'm happy to support. City councilman, Councilmember Superdome. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. I would also like to thank the councilman who brought this item forward. And I'd just like to state that as the father of a daughter and grandfather of two granddaughters, I stand in support of this item. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Let me go ahead and we will make sure if there's public comment and if there is, we'll go to that right now. But I just want to add one thing. Mr. Murphy, as we develop the motion that certainly when the report comes back, it will also be great to hear from the health department as to how we are, how we're preparing as far as these partnerships and what we're currently doing as the date, as it relates to reproductive health and and what our partnerships look like. We obviously have a Planned Parenthood clinic in the city and in services and other agencies as well. And so be great to get that as well. Is there any public comment on this, Madam Kirk? If any members of the public would like to speak on this item, please use the raise hand feature or press star nine. Our first speakers, Tiffany, Simon, Davey. Thank you. Tiffany Simone, Navy fourth District resident, sworn to speak in support of this item. I think. You know, just and, you know, women haven't gone through enough. There's there's always more to overcome. Sisyphean feat, they say. Looking forward to seeing this item again when it returns. Being able to read that memo that will be issued in support and really hope to see, perhaps, you know, a detailed guide for residents of the city, you know, this year, possibly from the public health department, you know, for those residents already residing here and thus something to make it easier to know. There are, I believe if you ever use two of the most popular abortion, you know, search sites there are really only showing two clinics, although I know there are other private offices as well as those in the area. So just looking forward to again seeing, you know, collaboration between the Black Health Equity Collaborative as well and really glad to see, you know, former first council district now current senator. Supporting S.B. 245, which just made it to it through its third reading. You can go ahead and resign this comment with saying. Also hope the city can draft a similar memo to support the passing of the VRA. Thank you. Our next speakers, Sue and Vasquez. Good evening, everyone. I hope you can hear me. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And the city council members. My name is Selina Vasquez, and I'm the chief external affairs officer for Planned Parenthood, Los Angeles. I'm also a daughter and a mother of a young child and teens. I want to thank the city of Long Beach for your foresight and for working alongside Los Angeles County, as well as the state building off of what Governor Gavin Newsom, the pro tem and the speaker and the California legislators have recommended to preserve abortion access and the breadth of reproductive health care services to reduce health disparities and inequities. This item should not be happening at a more critical time. You do have the health department in your jurisdiction. Planned Parenthood. Los Angeles does have a. Very robust presence in the city of Long Beach. And we see hundreds of thousands of patients every year at the Long Beach Health Center. As a result of the end of this federal right to abortion access, we have been preparing and we are already seeing patients from Texas and other states. We know that more people will travel here and we have to be prepared to ensure and increase access to abortion. Last month, we marked the 49th anniversary of Roe v Wade, and we're sobered and really understanding that this moment could be her last birthday. We just want to thank you again for your leadership, your fierce commitment to ensuring access and to ensure that wherever a person comes from, whether it is in the city of Long Beach, the county, Texas, we will make sure that access is protected regardless of what the Supreme Court will do. What regardless of what the courts are doing. So, Mr. Mayor and council members that are in support and that have spoken up and have shared their perspectives, you speak on behalf of all of the patients that we serve in your city, that we serve in the county, and that we serve in this great state of California, the Reproductive Freedom State. Male grace Yes. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you and thank you to Linda Vasquez, a great partner here in Long Beach. And as a reminder to the community and to the council, I would recommend, if you haven't had a chance to visit the incredible facility that it has that serves these tens of thousands of patients on a regular basis. I think you heard the numbers from from his past, because right now I would recommend that you do. So it's a really incredible facility here in our community. And with that, I want to go and take the vote. If we can do the roll call, vote, please. Madam Fourth. District one. I district to. I. District three. I. District for. My. District five. District six. By. District seven. I. District eight. II. District nine. All right. Motion is carried. Thank you, city council. We will be moving on to the. I think we have actually one item of unfinished business, I think, which was 28. And then we'll do general public comment and then go to the regular agenda. Item 28 Report from Development Services Recommendation to adopt a resolution declaring the Long Beach Community Investment Company owned property located at 4151 East Fountain Street as exempt surplus land District three.

A bill for an ordinance amending Article XI (Refund Payments to Elderly or Disabled Persons) of Chapter 53 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (Taxation and Miscellaneous Revenue). Amends Article XI of Chapter 53 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) relating to the Refund Payments to Elderly or Disabled Persons program to expand eligibility including to low-income homeowning families with children, citywide. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-19-18.

DenverCityCouncil_01072019_18-1507

So thank you for calling it out. Councilman Brooks, you. Thank you. All right. Madam Secretary, will you please put the next item on our screens? Councilman Espinosa, will you go ahead with your comment? I will. So thank you. Also, I wanted to say, as I sort of I'm glad I'm wearing a hat today because I feel like I'm a bit of a writer. Oh, you bet. The NWC people are here because when? Because I got to watch my colleagues, Robin, Robyn and and Stacey Gilmore sort of really ride herd on on the administration and trying to make sure that this this these measures, these tweaks, these much needed tweaks in this bill got done executed, and that the administration went further than they wanted to go and kept testing that comfort zone and making the case on why this was important and needed to be. And even sort of expressed concerns about this may not being enough, agreeing to figuring out how to monitor, take measurement, mean measure and then maybe improve the mean tweak the performance going forward. So all's I want to say is this is this bill is it expands the refund payment programs to elderly and disabled persons on property taxes. And it and it and it expands to homeowners and it does a number of things that it has been it's just been a great pleasure to watch both of my colleagues lead a whole group of very expert and capable people on their work group. And so it's just I just wanted to take a time to sort of think both Robin and Stacy, thank you.

Recommendation to request City Manager and Department of Health and Human Services to study the feasibility in Long Beach and report back to City Council on a meter donation program to raise awareness about the issues of homelessness, generate new revenues to help address the problem, and potentially reduce the amount of panhandling in our business corridors.

LongBeachCC_05242016_16-0498

Item 37 is communication from Councilman Alston. Councilwoman Pansy Gonzalez. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Recommendation two requires the City Manager and Department of Health and Human Services to study the feasibility in Long Beach, an immediate donation program to raise awareness about the issues of homelessness. Okay. There's a motion in a second. Councilmember Alston. Thank you. I want to thank my colleagues, our Councilwoman Gonzales and Vice Mayor Lowenthal, for signing on to the item. I also want to thank our homeless advisory committee member, Andy Kerr, for bringing this issue to my attention. As we've heard during the discussion over the past two agenda items, homelessness remains a daunting problem for Long Beach in the entire region. And as we just heard, it's an ongoing issue. Several cities throughout the country, including Pasadena and San Diego and Southern California, as well as Denver, Orlando, San Antonio and Phenix have implemented a new approach in recent years that I believe is worth while for Long Beach to take a look at. They've repurposed old parking meters as a way for people to make donations toward programs that provide direct service to homeless. This program, known as Real Change Movement in Pasadena and the Make Change Camp movement in San Diego, is also a public awareness campaign about homeless programs and resources and educating the public on how to provide real help to the homeless. This program is raise public awareness, generated new revenues for homeless programs and discouraged panhandling in some business corridors. So I'd like our city manager to study the meter donation program utilized in other cities and report back to the Council within 90 days on the feasibility of implementing such a program in Long Beach. And I would ask for your support as well. Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez. And I think Councilman Awesome for bringing this forward. As we're talking about the theme of homelessness, I think it's important that we look at all solutions to tackle this. And then I also want to just say, I know, Susan, just to kind of segway to saying that I really appreciate your work as well. And I know we share an alma mater, which is Laguna Hills High, and I'm very, very proud of your work. I didn't get a chance to say that formally, but very happy that we came from the same high school. But also that you've served this city very, very well for us. So really appreciate it. Just wanted to say that to you personally. Councilman Price. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this item forward. And this is an issue, actually, that our office has studied quite a bit because we have been taking a look at the panhandling ordinance. I'm I'm going to vote in favor of this item tonight. But this particular idea or concept is going to, for me, need a lot of vetting in my community because this concept of putting the meters works for some cities. I don't know that it would work for us. And I'm I'm curious in terms of what. The data that comes back is going to reveal regarding the success rate in terms of its impact on panhandling in other cities. So I just want to put that out there that I think this is one of those things that's going to require a lot of vetting through the community. Like I said, we've been studying the issue for a while. We've we've talked about it at some community meetings with our residents. And I think a lot of residents feel strongly opposed to panhandling. But I think that they also have a very strong feeling about putting up a permanent structure, so to speak, that acknowledges that there is a problem and that encourages money to be given to the cause. They really are looking for us to come up with other solutions. Absent that, so not to say that I wouldn't support it when it comes back, but I think it's really important that we look at outside the box ideas. But this particular idea is one that I think Susan shared with Jack from my staff a while ago. And we've we've talked about it a lot with our community members, and there's there's a lot of discussion to be had. So I'm looking forward to receiving the data so that we have that to go forward with. And I think Councilman Austin and the Cosigners on the item for bringing it forward and encouraging us to think outside the box in regards to long term solutions. Thank you. Very much. The auto. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to address something that Councilwoman Price's comments reminded me of. So in the city of Santa monica, there are very public places where residents and visitors are encouraged to place donations in place of directly giving to those who are panhandling. And they take artistic forms because it is the city of Santa monica. So there are dolphin statues in the in on the promenade. It's not repurposed meters. And I am encouraged by pursuing ideas like this. And any other ideas, truthfully, that the community might come up with. One of the things that I want us to be very aware of and stay clear of is this discomfort that many members of the public have with. The vulgar disparities of life. I don't know how else to put it. They are just vulgar. Disparities of life and homelessness is a fact of life in our city as it is in many cities along with other. Socially unacceptable or uncomfortable facts of life. And so, yes, even residents in the second District may have some concern about that public reminder that this problem exists. But I'd like us to be bolder than that. I'd like us to be more brave than that and come forward. We are elected to stand upright and stand upright for all constituents and not just those that might take issue with others that may be confronting social challenges. And so it is my very, very, very impassioned plea to remind us to be bold and not to leave anyone behind. And if someone is uncomfortable by a very public display acknowledging that we have homelessness, I think we are the better for it. It is through discomfort that we have advanced as a society on all major issues, and I have to imagine we will on this one too. So I am in support of it, whether they take the shape of dolphins or any other sea creature or or meters. But the public does need an alternative to showing their compassion. If and if that works, that's great. The other piece of it is on the panhandling ordinance. I worked very, very closely with the city manager of the city attorney's office many years ago to update our panhandling ordinance. Several councilmembers on this dais were here at the time, and we and Mr. Mays can remind us we went as far as we possibly could without violating individual's constitutional rights. And so we took a very careful and methodical approach to it. If there is room for improvement, I'm sure Mr. Mays would have identified it at that time. And from that time to now, there's new case law that would allow us to do even more to protect members of the general public. Then I'm sure he will let us know. Thank you. Any public comment on the item? You do cook as they dress. I'm all for people giving donations to established organizations such as the people that have been here to do the work. Dead set against panhandling. In fact, I would have I would have an ordinance that if somebody is could be ticketed for. Giving money to a panhandler and in fact, a financial. Ticket and then a requirement. That they go on a feces, urine cleanup detail in the given area where that person is concentrated, period there. The I don't again, I'm not sure you fully understand the wave of homelessness that is will come down to this city within the next 24 months. And every day I sit on Second Street, Helpful Henrys and Henry Adams and even some kids whose parents would probably go into coronary arrest if they knew they were flipping money over to some guy who's going to obviously go out and buy a joint with it and so forth. So I'd be dead set against any. Anything other than established organizations and enforce any create any ordinance we need to to stop the panhandling and stop the people giving the cash, which is feeding the problem. Thank you. Is any other public comment saying, please cast your votes. Voicemail. Bush and Kerry's. We're going to be 33. Kay. 33 is just the second reading.

Recommendation to direct City Manager to implement mandatory General Fund budget saving targets for Fiscal Year 2018 for all departments at the maximum level possible without eliminating jobs or programs. Further, direct City Manager to work with the Department of Financial Management to provide a mid-year progress report of such budget savings efforts to the City Council.

LongBeachCC_09052017_17-0751

And the next out of turn, we're going to take item 23. Click we read the item. Sure. It's long. I can try. Communication from Councilwoman Mongo and Vice Mayor Richardson. Recommendation to direct the city manager to implement mandatory general fund budget saving saving targets for fiscal year 2018 and direct city manager to work with the Department of Financial Management to provide a mid-year progress report. So I want to thank the community for the overwhelming support and feedback that this Council is doing a fiscally appropriate job in setting out goals and targets so that we can fend off the currently anticipated shortfalls in the next fiscal year. We want realistic opportunities for savings, and we look forward to working hand in hand with our department partners to ensure that the future ahead is bright and that no city services will be cut in the future fiscal years. Because we know that those are the kinds of services that our quality of life is dependent on. Vice Chair. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember. And I second this motion strongly. I think we all know we've seen the three projections that we may have to make some difficult decisions in the years to come. You know, having worked in the city through some very difficult budget years, I remember those those were tough choices. And so as we, you know, adopt a budget tonight, I think we immediately look to the future by identifying ways to sort of balance our budget next year and diminish limit the impact of the programs that are important to all of us by starting to identify those efficiencies today. You know, this is a tool. I think this is a smart tool. So thank you, Councilwoman Mongeau, and all the budget staff and city manager staff that have advised our advisors through this conversation. The budget savings target is a great tool to start. You know, with the carrot approach, you get to set a target, keep that money in your budget, but try to find ways where you can spend a little bit less without major impacts to staff or major impacts the program to where in a year from now. When we come back, the homework has been done. So we're taking the problem of stretching over a year and figuring it out over a year's time, because we know that this budget conversation, it comes up on it pretty quick every year. So it has my strong support. I encourage the city council and city staff to really embrace this and build support. Thank you. I actually have had some dialog with some of our department heads already and they did targets even this year and created some scenarios before we knew where we were. And so some of them are already a year down a path and hopefully halfway to the new goal. So we like to set ambitious goals so that we can achieve them. So I urge my colleagues to support this item. Public comment. Oh, public comment on this item. See CNN. She? I was saying this time I got a public comment on the part that he moved without eliminating jobs or programs. Well, as a black man in Long Beach, too many jobs for black folks. Everywhere I look, black folks sitting around doing nothing. But everywhere I see you can almost look at it. You can't always tell who's illegal and who's not. But everybody who has a job seems to be Hispanic. Is that your doing, mayor? I'm pretty sure he didn't do it, so I didn't do it. So the thing is, is what I'm here to ask you as mayor is when are you going to try to help black folks out? When are you going to do it? Yes. Rhetorical. Because I really don't think you're trying to do it. You know, so I'm here to represent that. Help us, Mr. Mayor, because you go about Section eight office. Look right across this all over. When you walk right out here, when you walk right out here, they're laying right by the library. You got those? You passed $225 million bills. I went with my camera asking and nobody heard nothing. They couldn't get in shelters. Right. So I don't know where the hell that money's going to. So you got the we fought a civil rights movement. We came over as slaves and we ain't got work. We came here to work and we ain't got work. This ain't the white man's fault. You talk about the gentrification, all the little groups that you find in everything. This is your fault. You're the mayor. The white people seem to be on Main Street with cops. They got a problem, just like the black people. But that's your problem. I just did a thing over of Chair in the Alamo, and there was a three foot dam high. There's so much. This place is starting to look like what? This place is looking like. What? You got people up and down. Cherry Guy Cab. You can't even be a citizen. He's selling watermelons. Ever since. I've been living here for four and a half years, and everybody got to see him. But let me get my ass out there with a barbecue pit. See if I can stay out there for two days. Get out of here. So maybe I should start selling barbeque fried chicken and potato salad out there and see, you know, see if you protect me. I know you've had to pass it. So what I'm saying is I'm asking you to make sure there's some justice. Justice? You see something legal? You drive around this place, you see this ghetto that you make. And I never heard of a Republican get all my life. And I say these Republicans, we have a PR angle, miss. No names start voting like Republicans and act like Republicans because well, we call them as rhinos when you vote like that. You vote everywhere with a Democrat and a liberal. First of all, Democrats have nothing for black folks in Iowa. How many years away? I'm just saying, change your ways as far as brothers. Start helping brothers and Republicans start acting like you and Janine Pearce leave town or something. That's what you need to do and change your ways. Do something for somebody else. Thank you for your time. Senior Fellow Public Comment. Members cast your vote. Motion carries item 1.1 to recommendation to adopt the budget oversight committees proposed funding recommendations as amended to the fiscal year 18 proposed budget. And I will read those now. So as mentioned, Budget Oversight Committee, the budget process has changed considerably over the last several years.

Recommendation to approve a first substantial amendment to the 2018-2022 Five-Year Consolidated Plan, Citizen Participation Plan, and Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Action Plan to incorporate emergency funds from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) and Emergency Solutions Grant Coronavirus (ESG-CV), and approve a substantial amendment to the Fiscal Year 2017 and Fiscal Year 2018 Action Plans to reallocate Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds for COVID-19 response; Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and other entities necessary to receive these funds, and execute agreements necessary to implement and comply with related federal regulations; and Increase appropriations in the Community Development Grant Fund Group in the Development Services Department by $5,465,696, offset by grant revenue. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06092020_20-0495

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. So I know that Madam Park read the item and then we have a staff presentation. For From Development Services recommendation to approve a first substantial amendment to the five year consolidated plan, Citizens Participation Plan and Fiscal Year Action Plan to incorporate emergency funds from the CARES Act. CDBG. CV and ESG CV. Authorize City Manager to execute all necessary documents with HUD and increase appropriations in the Community Development Grant Fund Group by 5,465,696 , offset by grant revenue citywide. America. Thank you. Remember Mayor and members of the city council. So this is a significant program. We want to spend some time to educate you on what it is that we're proposing. This started with the council item asking us to look into doing some assistance for rental properties and or people, tenants, I'm sorry, and funding it out of our cares funding. So the county has done a program. We've got some information on that. We are proposing a $5 million program as well. And I will turn it over to Linda Tatum and Patrick here to go through the program briefly. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the council, we have a slide presentation for you with this item and we will walk through that as briefly as we can. This item is a request for approval of the city's in an amendment to the city's consolidated plan to accept the federal COVID 19 CDBG and emergency shelter grant for COVID, the stimulus funds that were allocated to 34 of four COVID response. So back in March of 2020, the federal government passed the what they called it the Cares the Cares Act that included a an approximately $5 billion allocation to city funding as well as a to $2 billion in CDBG funds for. For shelter. Available to jurisdictions for their 2020 city BG allocations. So of this federal allocation, the city will receive $3.6 million in CDBG funds for COVID relief, as well as $1.8 million in emergency shelter grant funding specifically for COVID. I think I just want to point out that this is an immediate allocation. This funding that we're going to be talking about tonight is a is available immediately. It is only a portion of the approximately $9 billion that was allocated by the federal government. So we do we learned today that we will be receiving additional funding under both of these programs, both the emergency shelter grant, as well as the CDBG grants, specifically for COVID. So this is part one. Again, the proposal that I will be walking through tonight, talk specifically about the rental assistance, but with the subsequent funding, we are hoping to be more expansive in terms of the programs that we would be bringing back to this Council for consideration. Okay. What? Essentially, what the CARES Act does is it eliminates some of the provisions that cities would normally have to go through to expand their city by defunding. So I'll give you the broad categories under which the city can expend these COVID funds. They can spend it on building or public facilities. They can also use it for business and economic development, and they can also improve or enhance public services. And that's the category under which we are proposing staff implement the rental assistance program. The fourth category that it could be used for is for planning and technical assistance. And I think I would actually point out that there is an administrative component to these fees that's also included in this grant. So as I talk about this program, I didn't mention it, but it will be all of the staffing costs associated with the implementation would be covered under the grant funding. So again, in early April, staff, once we received word of this allocation, we began looking at potential program areas with the objective to focus on areas or areas that weren't currently being served either by other state or federal programs or by local programs that have been put in place by by this council. With that in April, about April 21st, the city council, as the city manager mentioned, we got direction from the council to take a look at the county's rental assistance program. And we did so. And we were also, through the mayor's action, pursuing additional funding from the county. This program, however, reflects the city's very specific allocation, specifically for use in the south, in the city of Long Beach, because the county's program and their funding was available specifically for unincorporated county residents. However, we did look closely and confer with the county staff in terms of looking at how they administered their program. And we realized that because we could not share their program and nor their funding, we had to develop our own program. But we wanted to make sure that we were at least looking at the components of their program, especially given that we were going to receive funding or we had anticipated getting some assistance from the county through Supervisor Hahn. Okay. As I mentioned earlier, there are three actions that the county's being that the city council is being asked to take. We are amending our current CDBG documents and these the amendment of these three documents, the citizen participation plan, our five year consolidated plan and our current fiscal year action plans. The city will amend these documents as a basis to receive and implement the and expand the CARES Act funds. So I talked earlier about this being a special allocation and and HUD has seen fit to waive some of these standard requirements. Those requirements that they waived are listed here. And I think it's been particularly helpful because the idea was so that we can get the money in hand and get it out to the to the community needs as quickly as possible. So these these waivers essentially enable us to develop a program quickly and to get I guess, to just get it underway as quickly as possible. So I'll talk really briefly about the program elements. I mentioned earlier that the the $9 billion Federal Cares Funding Act of the the amount that's available to us currently there are 3.6 in city B g funds specifically for community development related activities under the federal objectives. There is also 1.8 for the emergency shelter grant and those funds are being currently implemented by the the city's Health and Human Services Department in addition to the federal funds. Staff was asked to look to see if we could supplement this program funding with additional funds to to stretch it a little bit further. And we've been able to do so and are proposing an additional $2 million in CDBG funds to extend the the number of households that we can reach with this funding. So I'll walk you through really a highlight of the program proposals we are proposing to provide up to $1,000 in monthly rental assistance, up to $1,000 and up to three months. So a maximum of 3000 for any any one household. And this would be for households, low income households earning 80% or less of the area, median income. And the criteria are that they would have to have experienced homelessness I'm sorry, experienced income loss due to COVID 19 or and they also have to make sure that the payments are made directly to the landlord. And this was a part of the reason why staff thought that this was an appropriate spending mechanism, because there are currently no other programs that puts money directly into the hands of the landlord, specifically for rental payment and any of the other direct federal programs. And we thought that it would also be assisting landlords because they are in some cases small business owners at will as well. So we felt that this was hitting kind of hitting two areas of need in the community. As I mentioned, we modeled our program after the L.A. County program and adding the 2 million. In addition to the 3 million allocated by HUD, we will have a total of $5 million program. And if City Council adopts the program recommended by staff at 3000, a maximum of 3000, we could serve up to 1600 households. If Council determines that they'd like to see some other financial allocation of these dollars. There are some options available and I'll just throw out a couple. For example, if we allocated up to $800 per month, that would serve approximately 2083 households. And if you did something as as low as $500, that would allow us to serve even even more households up to just over 3300. But staff is recommending the $1,000. We do want to model it and be consistent with the county program because we are receiving an additional $300,000 in county funds from Supervisor Hahn. I would just note that I mentioned earlier that the emergency shelter grant funds are being administered by the Health Department. And I would like to just point out that all the funds have to be expended by December of 2020. I've included an income and a household size just for your reference, so you can get a sense of the eligibility for the program. And I just want to really briefly wrap it up by talking about how SAP would roll out the program. We think that it's important that we spend an adequate amount of time marketing the program in the community. Appropriate noticing. We're thinking of a program of approximately a minimum of two weeks to make sure that we get the noticing out to the community. We would work with stakeholders and others, including our economic development department, to get the word out to the communities as well as council offices. We will make sure that the application materials are available online, but we would provide direct staff assistance to mail the applications to anyone who would like to apply for the program. Lastly, we are recommending that we use a lottery system to receive the applications that we receive in the mail. We would ask for a minimum of 2000 lottery spots be given and then we would work through those to identify the qualifying households and again proceed to implement the program. We would do a very strong language access component just to make sure that the the applications as well as all of the program information are available in multiple languages in the community. We do have staffing to complete this task and we are ready and anxious to move forward with Council's recommendation of this program. And I again just highlighting that we did receive funding from Supervisor Hon and this funding of 300,000 will enable us to support an additional 100 households. So if we go with staff's recommendation, that would be approximately 1700 households. This concludes staff's presentation and I'm available to answer any questions. I will leave up on the board the next steps. And that's a rough schedule of how the program would be rolled out. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you to the team for that. That's a great, great update. I want to I do have a motion in a second already. I'll go to those in a minute. I just want to add how important it is for the city to give direct financial assistance to to renters and to tenants. Essentially, this is a program that's going to give tenants in Long Beach that are were affected by COVID 19 with direct rental assistance. And we're talking about $1,000 a month. We know that for many that is not enough. But that is going to be that is going to help a lot of working people and working families in our community that need that support. So I want to thank First Councilwoman Janice Hahn for adding to our our program. That's significant. We're still asking and seeking for more dollars so we can make this program even more robust. Also want to thank Councilman Austin, who is kind of leading this effort at the at the council here as well. And I know he's queued up to speak next. And so I want to thank him and his work. And I've heard from from from renters across the city, they need this additional support. And and I'm really proud that the city was able to put this program together. Let's get it done and let's get it and let's get folks the support that they need. So with that, I want to turn this over to Councilman Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank staff for their quick response and quick work on this particular item. We brought this forward maybe three weeks ago. I'm going to I'm really amazed at how quickly our city can respond under crisis. We asked if this was feasible, if this was possible to be able to develop a rental assistance program. And you guys came through in a big way. $5.4 million is nothing to sneeze at. It will help a lot of working families. The mayor said it will also help a lot of housing providers, property owners who are behind on their mortgages as well. I believe this these funds will go directly to the landlords and I'm encouraged after our state led committee and know that our city, our lobbyists in Washington, D.C., are working very diligently to get more resources in the next round of Cares and Hero program. And so with that said, I'm thrilled to have been able to bring this forward. I'm even more elated that we are able to provide this assistance to many families in our city. Of course, not enough, but we'll work to continue to get the funding as it comes available in the next weeks and months to come. And so with that, I'd like to make the motion to support the staff recommendation. Of $1,000 a month of up to $1,000 a month. But before I do that, I do want to ask what the up to actually means because probably less. And yes, it means that because they will have to show the actual arrears of the rent as well as what their monthly rent payments are, they would get up to whatever their standard rent payment is, up to a maximum of 100. So it could actually, in theory, be less if their rent is less than 1000 per month. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. With that, I make the motion. Thank you. And ask for my colleagues to support as well. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. Councilmember Austin. Excellent work. I love this program. I think that it's exactly what's needed at this time. I do appreciate the thoughtfulness that came from staff in setting this up. I would only say that if I were a tenant or a landlord and I was waiting for a lottery to determine my ability to. In my apartment or my housing. It just seems to me like a big risk. I guess my question for staff is if you were to take a guess at how many applicants we would receive, what would be your thoughts? We don't have a really good idea. I think in large part it depends upon how how exuberant we are with the advertising and we are going to try to do that is as widely as possible. I think it will be. I would just throw it a wild guess and say probably 3000. And I will tell you that the need in the community is far greater than that. I mean, if you look at the need based upon incomes in the community, the impact of COVID, if you look at overcrowding, if you look at overpayment of rent, all of those are factors that determine need. So we know that the need is great. It's it's just hard to to guesstimate. But if I had to throw out a number, I'd say upwards of 3000 applications. And then for. Your process? Will we be providing technical assistance to individuals who'd like to apply? You said they would mail in their application. What does that look like? Is it simple? We have a hotline established to provide technical assistance to applicants, and we will be providing assistance. We will mail applications out to those who don't have direct computer access to download the applications. So in short, we'll be doing everything we can to encourage a very robust outreach for this program, as well as a robust support system, as well for applicants who want to submit. So I'm not making a friendly amendment or anything. I'm just going to throw some ideas out there if the city staff think we'll be receiving up to 3000 applications. My thought would be that we would look for a way to be able to meet 100% of the need. Meaning that. Of course, we'd like to receive another $5.3 million, which would get us up to 3400 homes. That up to $1,000, but we don't have that today. And so my only thought would be that we do have today it's $5.3 million. And if we gave 50% rent to 3200 people and then a second payment came in for $5.3 million, we would already have everyone pre-qualified and ready to potentially get a second payment and then everyone theoretically who applies could get help. Now, I'm not the main guru of this idea, and I didn't write the program. I didn't do the research. I really would love to hear from my colleagues, not my motion. I appreciate the opportunity to secure it and be a part of it. And I want to make sure that the idea, though, that if I were one of the applicants, I would rather receive 50% of the money than a 5050 chance of getting zero. That would just be my initial gut reaction. Thank you. Thank you. Let me just keep going down. I have a few more speakers. Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Austin and staff for all of your work on this. I have a couple of questions for Linda and then a couple questions for our city attorney. I really, really appreciate this. The need is great and we know that even the people that have received unemployment, it's not enough for them to pay all their bills and pay all their rent. So my first clarifying question is, is this money going to the tenants or the landlords? Because I thought last time it was directly to the landlords. The Court The criteria that are specified by HUD will require the payment be made directly to the landlord. So we work with the tenant to qualify the tenant, and once the tenant is qualified, the actual payment will go directly to the landlord. Great. That's what I thought. The second point, Stacie Councilmember Margo, I know you mentioned it's not. We don't have to get into a back and forth. But my concern with that would be that some people might get a job by, say, you know, September or October and then they wouldn't qualify for the second part of the payment . So I would just worry about people not being able to get the rent assistance that they need. You know, if it is one or two months instead of the full three months. So that is that point. And then I have questions for our city attorney. So we this council, we I'm really proud of all the work that we've done on this council around renter issues and tenant issues. And I think, you know, while some of us, more than others, would like to see programs in place around, you know, prohibiting rent increases in their fault evictions, but we're not going to do that for the entire city. We know that. And my question for the city attorney is here we are giving city funds or county funds and CDBG funds. Could we say that for those landlords that accept this funding, where their tenant qualifies for this funding, that they then would agree to a temporary prohibition on rent increases, say, until the end of when tenants are paying their rent. So like July 31st, is that something that could be done with these funds? I'm going to ask Rich Anthony to respond to that question. Thank you. Over. Okay. Hey, can people hear me? This is Rich Anthony. Yes, Rich. Thank you. Sorry about that, Billy. If what you're. I think the answer is maybe. Let me understand what you're asking a little better. I don't think. That the city can say if a tenant applies for. This assistance and qualifies that the landlord. Is. Or then to not raise rent or to not. Engage in a no fault eviction. I don't think we can do that. But I'm not sure that that's what you're saying. I think what you might be saying is. If we could give the landlord the choice, if the landlord wants to accept. These dollars on behalf of a tenant, then the landlord knows that the two strings that are attached is if if he or she is going to accept the dollars, then they are not can be able to raise rent through a certain time period. They will not be able to know. For eviction through a certain time period. Little bit. Though, that gives landlords effectively the. Right to deny a tenant or a tenant that otherwise has. Qualified. The landlord can refuse that and say, no. I'm not going to accept my rent. Okay. Then if we're giving taxpayer dollars, could we then say because we're in the middle of COVID, right. So people are going to be saving. Sorry, guys. Yes. Thank you. You mean just leave it at that. Sorry, guys. So we would be able to have tenants accept the money. I don't want to deny tenants the right to the money, but it makes sense to me that it would protect them from eviction or everything else. Thank you. This is Rich Anthony again. I don't think we can do that. I don't think we can make it so that a tenant that qualifies then cannot have. His or her rent raised or cannot be evicted for a no fault eviction, which would otherwise be legal under applicable law. I think that would probably raise some legal issues with landlords. You know, certain landlords that happen to have tenants that qualify for this COVID related relief and. Rental assistance payments would suddenly be. Operating under different rules than. Similarly situated. Landlords who didn't have tenants that qualified. And that seems. Arbitrary to me at first pass. Admittedly, I have. Not done a deep dove on. Research on this, but I think that would. Be problematic. And the way. To address that problem, like I said, would give the landlords the ability to to not. To not accept the rent. That might. Be a problem. For the very constituency of tenants that we're trying to help. Yeah. I personally don't want to give landlords the ability to say no to money and then I am not a tenant, not be able to pay their rent. So that that is my my concern. I mean, I guess if there's more funding coming in and we've all been distracted this past week, I think it would be great if more funding comes in, if you could present some more legal background on this. Just because I feel like it's the only chance that we would have to protect people that have been impacted by COVID. Unless other people on the council would want to get to that place. So I'm my other questions. I'll move on from that issue and just ask that you've been able to do a little bit of research when you come back, if there's more funding provided. Second is, I know that there were some questions that community members and other people that I've talked to around the CBD funds, those funds are able to be spent throughout the city. Correct? That is correct. The benefit is seen as being to the income qualified applicants. So yes, there is not a limitation to CDBG eligible areas as there are in other CDBG programs. Okay. And then second. With that, with that funding, it seems like that's close to 4 million. Correct out of the hole fund. The the CDBG allocation is 3.6 million six. And I guess it's the same question is even though it's allowed to be spent throughout the city, I want to make sure that undocumented immigrants do not get left out of this process. And so for each of the funds, would people that are undocumented be able to qualify? You know, there are no there are no. Just to be clear also yet and this is available for everybody, including undocumented folks, and that's really important. So, yes. Okay. Okay. I am going to take a minute. I'd like to hear from my colleagues on the questions I asked the city attorney just in regards of I guess the bottom line would be, do we want landlords? That would be good landlords to be able to qualify to get this funding if we were to add strings to it, like no rent increases during the COVID period and no eviction, no no fault eviction during this period up to July 31st. So I'd love to hear what what people think because maybe I'm off on not wanting to go that route, but like to hear my colleagues. Thank you. I think you councilman's in Sunday house. Their first love. Thank you very much to the staff for this very, very comprehensive item. Thank you, Council Member Austin, for your motion on this item. As you all know. And many. And this is not exclusive in my district, but it's overwhelmingly in my district that what my my residents are asking for is help with rent. Long Beach was very proactive in enacting the eviction moratorium when the COVID 19/1 first time. And I want to thank my colleagues for all the amazing work that you did in bringing forth the moratorium and supporting policies like this, especially during our emergency. So I'm really excited about that. I'm also very thankful to know that the payment will go directly to the landlord. I think that that's a great way to to really help honor our tenants that are struggling with rent, to be able to to be able to help them in that way, especially for those that may be undocumented and prefer something going directly to their landlord. And not only that, but it also kind of helps out our property owners, which, you know, have been very, very much affected by this. And that's something we don't talk about much. But, you know, our property owners are landlords, you know, have been. They're suffering a lot through this as well. So this is going to be really good to be able to give them a little bit of of money that they've been owed and so on, and also bring some kind of relief to them going back to council . Council. Woman Pearce's questions in regards to the landlords, I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong. Council Member But I do think that what you might be trying to do is kind of like. Bring some. Use this as an incentive for those good landlords that are out there that are willing to come forward and accept funding like this. But like, I'm not sure what the legalities are as well. So I look forward to hearing the report from the city attorney's office. If we do get additional funding that maybe we can take a look at it then. Also wanted to see how the the city needs. Funds would be distributed, how much it would be. And I know that's part of this. So I'm looking forward to this program very much because I know that, especially in my district, this is going to help so many, so many families. And as Councilmember Mungo said, it kind of makes me nervous the lottery way that we're doing it. But it also seems like the most fair way I would like to see all of the families that apply, know, get, get help. And hopefully, you know, we don't know how it's going to work. We don't know if there's going to be a whole abundance of families that are going to want to apply right away or we don't know if we'll be able there won't be that many applications and maybe we can help everyone. So I can't wait to see this program move forward. And you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Andrews. Yes. Thank you very much, Mayor. You know, I don't doubt that we need this. I think, you know, let's get the website. You know, as we speak. Let's get all the website, you know, with this system that is, you know, equitable and provided, you know, payment on behalf of those working families that have been laid off, I has reduced hours. I think that to me, it makes a lot a lot of sense. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilmember Turanga. Thank you, Mayor. When it comes right down to it. We don't normally we legislation like this because we want to make sure that we do it right and get it right. And when it comes down to it is that there's a lot of good players out there and there's a lot of bad players. So sometimes we would come up with these types of options. It's to make sure that the good players get rewarded and the bad players get to go somewhere else. So, I mean, I support Janine's idea because I think it's a good one and we need to keep landlords honest that they're going to take the money and that they're going to do right by their tenants. And hopefully that when we come to the end of it, to the end of the day, is that everybody gets everybody's happy. Landlords get their money. Tenants get to stay where they're at and and be able to survive this public crisis until it's over and until they get back on their feet. So that's all my comments for now. Thank you. I think I'm got some more super out. Thank you. I just wanted to thank Austin for. I think that's the best thing. And I. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Catherine Pierce second time. I did queue up a second time. I was really looking forward to hearing if Councilmember Austin had any thoughts on. On the mainly the two items, the prohibition on rent increases and the prohibition on no fault evictions. Since the city attorney did say that they were they were legal, it would just it would just mean that landlords would have a choice in the matter. Councilor Pearce. Anything else? I would like to know nothing else. I. It counts. I think that's the customers queue up again. She asked me to talk. About some present day has. I do. Oh. I was just. Yes, I'm good. Okay. I have no one else cued up to talk, so we'll go ahead and call a vote on the motion. No one else has a comment. I understand. I don't have any other cues. I'm just making sure I'm following the colors. You're so. Madam Clerk, please go ahead and call the roll. District one. I. District two. I. District three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. District seven. By District eight. Or. District nine. I know. She Kerry's. Okay. Let's do item 19, 20 and 21, which are just as I think, I think additional readings of items we've already passed. Item 19, please.

A bill for an ordinance amending Chapter 48 of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver to repeal the fee on composting and implement a volume-based pricing system for trash, including recycling and composting services at no extra charge, to facilitate improved waste diversion and its related environmental benefits. Amends Chapter 48 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to repeal the fee on composting and implement a volume-based pricing system for trash, including recycling and composting services at no extra charge, to facilitate improved waste diversion and its related environmental benefits. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-7-22.

DenverCityCouncil_06272022_22-0685

Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. We will alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in-person participants and then alternating to virtual participants. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. We're going to go ahead and get started here first with council members sharing amendments that they may have to the bill, and then we'll go to the staff report. Council Member State Abarca, will you please go ahead with your comments? Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. It is my intent to offer an amendment tonight to this item that automatically rebates people living in. A specific. Type of nest neighborhood based on our 2016 gentrification study, so that folks who are in those neighborhoods do not have to jump through any eligibility testing, requirement hoops. We know that this is a big barrier to people accessing our different resources in the city, specifically rebates, for example, with property tax rebates. We know that eligibility testing is a barrier many people don't overcome to absorb the benefits of those rebates. And so what this would do is it would take the information that we provided that we paid for in our 2016 study about neighborhood change and income attributes of households in our neighborhoods. And it would. Automatically give those folks a credit on their trash bills simply because we already know the data based on those 20 2013, I believe, was the latest data sets, those data sets. And that is what my amendment would do tonight. Did you have something additional council member say to Baca to add? No, that's that's the gist of them. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon, please go ahead with your comments. Thank you, Madam President. It is my intent tonight to offer a technical amendment to this item that doesn't change anything. There is a reporting requirement for the volume based draft proposal. My technical amendment will codify it, so it will put it in the code. There's no misunderstanding that that is required. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Flynn, please go ahead with your comments. Thank you, Madam President, I. I have the intent of offering an amendment tonight that would change the effective date from next January to October to push it back to October 23. After hearing the data, the input from Doddy at the committee a few weeks ago about the vacancy, the high vacancy rate and the inability of the solid waste crew not through no fault of their own, by the way, very hard working crew, but their inability to meet the current schedule that the ambitious addition of weekly recycling that requires 22 additional operators in addition to trying to make up a 28% vacancy when we've only managed to hire 7% in the last five months is an obstacle to effectively starting this program and could, in my view, cause it to fall on its face and be the source of many, many more complaints than we already get about the existing program. I don't support the fee at all in any case, but if it were to pass, I would want to see it succeed. And I believe this is a necessary delay so that solid waste can staff up to a close to 100%. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Ortega, please go ahead with your comments. Thank you, Madam President. I intend to bring an amendment forward tonight. And this is an amendment that was discussed last week as a compromise to my compromise that did not pass. And this would basically require that anything above 5% that is being recommended as a fee would have to come to the city council for approval. So that's the essence of what that would do. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 22, Dash 0685 on the floor for final passage? Yes, ma'am. I move that council bill 22 685 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. The one hour courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 22, Dash 685 is open. Speakers may offer comments on the item directly or as I think we may see, speakers may offer comments on the item directly or as well on the attended amendment. The council member spoke about and before we dove into the speakers, may we please have the staff report? Good evening, council president. Good evening. Members of council and the public listening in here today. My name is Adam Phipps. I'm the executive director for Denver's Department of Transportation and Infrastructure. Before I jump in, I want to take a quick minute just to thank a members of council here. This is our fifth opportunity to present this proposal to you in the last couple of months. And in that couple of months, we've received an incredible amount of good feedback, suggestions, ideas, and working with our partners here on the dais. We've worked to an ordinance tonight that I believe will successfully leave Dottie to a much greater diversion right here in the immediate future. So thank you for that. Secondly, I want to remind everybody that this is not something that came to be without a lot of attention. We started the community outreach, the public engagement process over 20 years ago around what we wanted to do with a volume based trash pricing system for the city and county of Denver. A lot of public outreach, a lot of great ideas, a lot of good commentary. And I appreciate that thoughtful process. Thirdly, I want to recognize that for ten, four, nine out of the past ten years, this council body has identified that solid waste management and increasing our diversion rate as a priority for the city and county of Denver. Tonight, I'm excited for that to be in front of you for a final vote. With that, I'm going to bring up my project manager for this effort, Jessica Holley, to walk you through the staff report. Hi, everyone. Jessica Lolly, Daddy's project manager for this program. Thanks, Adam, for the introduction. So I'd like to start off by saying that our collective commitment to the environment is having an impact. Since we started tracking our greenhouse gas emissions in 2005. We've seen improvements in the commercial building sector in transportation, but we've actually seen 0% decrease in our emissions from waste over the last 15 years. The city has a sustainability plan. It's over a decade old as a solid waste master plan from 2010, recently renewed. And all of those things call for reducing how much we send to the landfill, which for these customers, the hundred 80,000 single family homes and apartments of seven units, we send about 180,000 tons the landfill each year. The city recently updated its emissions reduction reduction goal to align more with climate science, saying that we are aiming to reduce our emissions by 100% by 2040, and that includes waste, because waste truly does have an impact on those emissions. It's not just what comes off of the landfill, but it's also everything that it took to extract those resources, transport them, you know, the whole production process, transporting them again. And then if it's unfortunate enough to end up in the landfill, it is emitting greenhouse gases from there as well. So waste does matter. But those emissions for waste from waste are something that we can control. We can and should take action on them. High or low diversion rates are a proxy for how seriously cities take the issue of climate change. Our low diversion rate, how much we recycling campus, does not reflect Denver's commitment to this issue. It actually harms our our green reputation. Our customers need the tools, the infrastructure, the expanded services to put this commitment into action. So where does Gunvor stand with its waste? As I've said before, our residential waste diversion rate is at 26%. Comparing that to the national average of 34%, we're doing we're much lower than our comparable cities. So everything every city that you see on this screen are cities who are equivalent to Denver and also do not include construction and demolition diversion in their diversion rates. So volume based pricing is a nationally recognized, successful strategy at getting residents to increase their recycling and composting. So why is it specifically going to work for Denver? We've seen it work for other cities, so mainly because Denver needs to drive behavior change for one, unlike many residents in Denver. Solid Waste Management Services do not pay a direct fee for their trash. There's no connection for them between how much trash they generate, what it costs to provide our services, and the cost of that has to the environment on top of that. Our compost program is optional and fee based and therefore we are not incentivizing our residents to do the right thing or disincentivizing them. Secondly, like I said, Denver's diversion rate is at 26%. That number has only increased 1 to 2% over the last 20 years. But when we look at an average trash cart in Denver, 50% of what's going into that is compostable material. It's all of your yard debris with their grass and your leaves. It's all of your food waste. And that content is significant because that's what it takes to increase diversion. For Denver, we want to give the customers that, you know, feel burdened or feel a barrier with our current fee based system, the infrastructure that they need to do the right thing. Thirdly, compost takes direct action at fighting climate change. Not only are we removing food from the landfill where it emits methane, we're actually finished. Compost can be applied to parks, gardens, agricultural land, and it sequesters carbon from the atmosphere, increases water retention in the soil, and it just improves overall soil health. So I've been speaking to our customers, the 180,000 homes, and I just wanted to point out that the commercial sector is doing better than us. As far as recycling and composting goes, they're at a 37% diversion rate as opposed to our 26%, and that's not including construction and demolition debris. So these are the items that I want to highlight in our proposed ordinance, removing the fee for compost service, replacing it with the volume based service fee, establishing that the revenue that we earn from this program can only be used to provide the service. We're adding language to require Dotti to provide an affordability program in the form of an instant rebate and then also adding language surrounding compliance. How does this look for a Denver resident? Well, basically, the smallest trash card costs the least. Vermont, the largest trash cart cost the most per month. And the recycling compost carts will be included at no additional cost. So really, the price of the trash cart incentivizes maximizing your use of your recycling your cycling compost carts. I also want to make note that these are the lowest rates in the Denver metro area and also some of the lowest rates across the country. These are the services that are included in those rates. So something that our residents and all of you I think are really excited for is weekly recycling. We will see about a 2000, a little over 2000 tons per year increase in recycling with weekly recycling to capture the excess cardboard that we're seeing overflow into the trash with their current biweekly collection. We'll also be expanding compost service to all of our customers. So another 150,000 homes and then everything else on the screen are services that solid waste already provides. An important piece of this is the affordability program, which is an instant rebate provided in partnership with Denver Human Services. Eligibility will be based on income and number of people in the household, so residents will be eligible for 50, 75 or 100% off, depending on where they fall on that scale. These applications will be available prior to rollout so that the first invoice that residents receive reflects what they can pay. And then we are also adding some efficiencies with Denver Human Services programs where they're able to auto enroll customers into our program based on information that they already know from other local programs. So I'm going to speak to the education and outreach for this does pass. Salaries will be hiring a new program manager to manage the $3.8 million annual education budget for this program. There will be multiple multilingual education pieces on how to recycle and compost video, digital print card signage, truck signs. There will be paid partnerships with community organizations who will be helping us do outreach on recycling and composting, but also on the expanded services and new fee. There will be direct, multilingual customer education on billing services rebate program, including print and digital communications. There will also be increased information for compost customers on how to proposed and reduce contamination. We will be participating in many community events, whether that's through our community based orgs or asking ourselves. And then throughout all of these things, we will be promoting the rebate program and assisting residents with applications. And that's the end of my presentation. All right. Thank you for the presentation. We have 33 individuals signed up to speak this evening. We have one hour as a courtesy public hearing. So I would ask that folks withhold their applause because that's going to take time from other speakers, because as soon as the first speaker starts, I begin timing. And we have 60 Minutes allocated for the courtesy public hearing, and then we'll go into questions from members of council on this. And then as you heard prior to this presentation, we have four different amendments to the bill that we also have to make. And so we want folks to also know that you have 3 minutes. But if for whatever reason you don't feel like you need to use your full 3 minutes, please see that to the next speaker because then that will allow us to hear from more folks. And so we are going to go ahead and get started with our first speaker, and that is Kevin MATTHEWS in chambers here. We've got Kevin MATTHEWS after Kevin MATTHEWS, Margaret, at ten zero, followed by Brian Lomax. Go ahead, please, sir. Thank you. My name is Kevin MATTHEWS. I am speaking as a member of 350 Denver this evening, and I am a resident of Congress Park. And speaking in favor of the expanded waste services measure this evening and wanted to point out that 350 said in a letter a few weeks ago supporting this measure. The first time I heard about this proposal was four years ago, and I know some people have been working on it a lot longer than that. I hope that a few of you recognize the problem with that timeline. According to the IPCC, we need to cut emissions in half by 2030. When it comes to climate justice. For every million metric tons of organic waste that decomposes, 469 metric tons of greenhouse gases are released. Composting can reduce those emissions by more than 50%. The potential for municipal composting can remove 1.4 gigatons of emissions by 2050, which is like taking over 3 million gas powered cars off the road. For my own part, my household has already enrolled in the home composting program, which we pay the yearly fee for, and I'll be very happy to have that here go towards trash instead of getting composting and recycling for free. Since we've joined the program, the amount of trash that we actually throw out is very small. The bag, a small bag a week. I know there are concerns about people not being able to navigate the proper program. I'm not that bright. I figured it out. I think the rest of the Denver residents can figure it out as well. I also know there's concerns about the cost of the program. Denver Homeowners have gained over $200 billion in equity in the last ten years and now have $400 billion of collective wealth. I think we can manage it in surveys. Even 80% of Denver ANC members, that bastion of progressive change, supported this policy. This may not be the most perfect policy as no policy ever is, but we cannot wait any longer. Please support this measure this evening. We can't. Wait. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Margaret. Attention. Excuse me. All right, we'll. That evening. Madam President. And members. Honorable members of Denver City Council. My name is Margaret Atencio. I live in Denver. I was born. In Denver 75 years ago. So I've. Seen a lot of changes. In this town. My my father was a city attorney, an. Assistant city attorney for 42 years. For Denver County. And for ten of those years, he was the counsel for city council. And my father used to say something to me. And each of my siblings, he said, Always live in Denver because as long as you live. In Denver, you. Will always have good water. And free trash pickup. And he he said that again and again over the years, and he meant it. I feel that installation of this program would be a dire. Dire. Hurt to many people, including myself. And I'm on Social Security. There are many people in Denver that are on Social Security or in the. Lower income. Brackets. Of this town. And I don't see many. Of them here at this point in. Time or people that are on Social Security. Basically. I. I am. Interested in. Sustainability. But believe me, I am I am more interested in human sustainability. Denver has always been a town with a heart, and we have been a. Good place to live. We've tried to do good over the years and as much as we can. We've got various things. But every time we've done wonderful things for our community, for life, like the zoo or the Botanic Gardens, we've taken votes and we voted those. Funds through. Agreements of all the. People, not a few people that say you will from now on. Be paying this. And this and this, no matter. If it takes if it comes during a period of economic. Problems that we have now with gasoline, with food, with baby formula, I want you to think about it. Think about it with your hearts as well as your economy and think sustainability. Think about human. Sustainability. And I would like to. Congratulate everybody here who is here for the St Patrick's Day parade. And thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Brian Lohman, and then he will be followed by Rosario CdeBaca. Good afternoon to council members of the community. Everybody at home. My name is Brian Bouma. I'm a resident of Council District nine, owner operator of Cut the Plastic Environmental Litigation Solutions. And I represent Waste No More. Denver The complimentary citizen ballot initiative being voted on this November to bring recycling and composting to festivals, commercial properties of eight units or more corporations across the city and construction sites. The first thing I want to say is that I am very disappointed that this is a courtesy hearing when we charge our citizens money. We should have a full blown hearing and let everybody have the chance to speak. And I know that I don't stand alone in thinking that we should have more than an hour to discuss this as the public. But I'm going to make my answers really easy. Whether you're listening to the avalanche game on public radio or on the radio or in person at the arena, they talk about recycling and being responsible . When we go to festivals like Five Points Jazz Festival. Volunteers are already working to divert at that festival. This year, 75% of our consumed material to recycle and compost. Households are the worst offenders in our county. For those who should have access to having free recycling and composting and the education systems, not just by the city, but by the schools, by the corporations, by the citizen groups all across the board that to save our planet, we need to do better. As we see in our state legislature with an enhanced producer responsibility for manufacturers, composting and recycling is a reality. Styrofoam has been banned in the state in the next couple of years. We won't have any more of that nuisance product being sold in our stores. There might not be enough education happening. Councilman Flynn, I saw your post the other day and I'm glad that they included in the presentation. But as a society, we're learning and we might make a few years of not getting it 100% right. But we need to establish the infrastructure and the processes, just like waste. No more will be for 31 million consumers in Denver. We need the 190 roughly thousand houses to get on board and on track as well. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Rosario CdeBaca. Good evening, President and Honorable Council Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. And my name is obviously debacle. I live at 3570 West Evans Avenue in southwest Denver. I just want to share, you know, one kind of little indignity when I got the property tax bill. It would have been wonderful. It would have been very nice if the city had included notice that it intended to start charging fees for trash services, something that I've never had to worry about because it was included in the services provided by the city. And you know, I voted for all the bonds, everything that the city has ever asked. I have voted. And but there was no no this no mention. And I you know, in this meeting, they realize that it's the press. You the management has been trying to work on this matter for, what, ten years? It would have been a great courtesy for taxpayers to be told that things were changing. And, you know, I do my best to be a good neighbor. I live in a very busy intersection. I pick up the trash for the storm drain. And Kevin will tell you, I'm out there shoveling snow on both sidewalks and breaking up the ice so that cars don't lose traction. And so I unite with what Margaret was saying. You know, there are many of us who are on fixed incomes. Except for that, I still work part time as a union organizer. And the reason I worked as a union organizer is because I believe in treating people with respect and with dignity. My mother worked in the fields and I volunteered to organize forces that Travis when I was only 14. So I'll be 70 next year. And I am not stopping when I see that there is. Abuse in dignity and equality. Denver is going through a rapid gentrification process, and the demographics are changing fast. And so I don't know if it's calculated measures to drive seniors like myself who are working very hard to still live in Denver or people of color because five points. Swansea. And now, you know, in my neighborhood, I mean. We're beginning to feel like we're just getting in the way. My husband and I raised five children. So I understand the frustration of people with residential trash. But do you know how many diapers? One baby generates. I mean, there are things that perhaps I don't know. How many of you have babies? Have children. Babies generate a lot of trash. Thank you. That's the time we have a lot of for each speaker. And so. Yeah. So, Holly, I just want to add that please consider that Denver is a great city, but these can have a very racist and a just. And we're going to have to move on. Thank you. Robert Bailey or Sara Taylor Ryman is our next speaker, followed by Robert Bailey. Just right here at the podium. There's a mic right there. So can you just speak normally ahead, please? Hi. Good evening. Members of council. My name is Taylor Ryman and I am a resident of District ten and a member of Denver's Sustainability Advisory Committee, a council on the Zero Waste Committee. But I'm only here speaking for myself. I'm also a public service professional, so I share your love for service. I first learned about pay as you throw systems in 2015 when I studied abroad in Hong Kong. My small group of students was tasked with studying the local waste issues and proposing something that might address them. Hong Kong at the time was facing some imminent landfill closures, and so the issue was rather pressing. But we ended up deciding to propose with pay as you go, and that's kind of was my introduction to it as an idea. Fast forward to today and writing these talking points and I decided to go back and Hong Kong actually just finally passed approval of the pay as you throw scheme. I don't know how much influence my little ragtag group of garbage gremlins had on that decision, as the political will was in a lot of flux and there was a lot of other issues there. But I digress. I thought it was really cool. I'd like to urge your support for expanded waste services for the following reasons. The service structure has proven successful in many communities. The fee schedule is lower than most, and it would be a great help towards meeting Denver's diversion goals. Some cite the equity issues, which I think are totally valid and how this would impact low income communities. And the plan does outline an affordability program that would of course adjust the fee based on your AM I, but that doesn't solve all of our problems. My greater concern, though, is how the equity issues with the current system and the fact that some people pay for services that they don't have access to and that high contributors to the landfill stream are essentially subsidized for their wastefulness. Since everybody pays through sales and property tax to fund our trash collection, we all don't get equal access. And people who throw out more garbage are, again, just being subsidized for for that and creating this program. And the fee structure would justify current discrepancies in who pays for trash collection and who gets the service. It would expand the services that we offer, equalize access, and provide accountability and incentives for high generators to reduce their garbage. I don't think education alone will be successful unless there's an incentive component. Plus, why spend more resources on educating people on how to divert their waste when some will not have the diversion options needed to act on education, on the education that we advance? Since trash is again currently paid the way it is, people don't think twice about throwing trash away, but away as a place and trash is a resource. It's a buried issue, pun intended, and creating a fee structure that incentivizes recycling and compost would make the issue of wastefulness more visible and an accessible matter and could drive positive behavior change. Make your point. Our next speaker in chambers is Robert Bailey, followed by Madeline Singer. Hello. Thank you for having me here today. I appreciate it very much. First of all, just to add a little bit of credibility, I've been composting and recycling every day. I've been filling up bins every day for 14 years. Bills from GFL. I believe GFL does some of the recycling sorting for Denver. My June bill here only $900. Only $900. It's a business. They want as much money, as much volume as they can get. They're in cooperation with the packaging industry. The more the better. Generally, we decide between more money or more green. It's generally one or the other. It's not both. Sometimes it's both, but generally not. Volume based trash service is is is a perfect example. Volume based trash service will have the exact opposite of green. The problem with recycling is that too much? There's too much trash. It makes no sense to have big diesel trucks pick up all this trash, take it to a sorting center, and then have big diesel tractors, put it into big diesel trucks and then take it to the landfill. This makes no sense. It's much less green to do it that way. It's much more green to take your trash directly to the landfill. This is trash, by the way. I know there's a recycle logo on this. The reason is, of course, because the recycle industry wants that recycle logo on there and it takes four times as much energy to recycle this as it does to not recycle it. Well, driving 40 miles is not more green to driving ten miles. It's more volume. There's plastic, there's glue, there's there's wax. Makes no sense. But see, the thing is, people are going to be putting this in the recycle bins and then we're going to be paying $30 million for GSL to sort that and then haul it to the landfill. Let's talk about the money for a second. Does everybody realize is this a typo? Is the Department of Transportation, are you guys still here? Is this what you guys give 20 cars in a row, a ticket? You are you you call a street street sweeping the streets. Don't get swept. You're financial predators. Is this is this real? Is this fine? $1,000 is if if you have profit in your recycle, is is this a misprint or is this real? Is it $1,000? Is it $1,000 or is this a misprint? Does everyone know that there's $1,000 fine from the Department of Transportation? If you have trash in your recycle, I guarantee you I can find you. Fill up a recycle, I'll find trash in every one of them. I just went out and took a picture of the first recycle bin. There's food waste in there, so there's $1,000 fine. And then right here, they will leave your house. If you don't pay the the Department of Transportation $1,000, they will leave your house. That's the money part of it. This is all about the money. It's a big money grab here. This is education and outreach. Okay. That should say propaganda. Okay. It's all about demonizing the landfill. Okay. I would recommend having a picnic at the landfill, but there are no problems with the landfill. The methane is captured. It's turned into electricity. Thank you very much for having me today. Appreciate it very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Madeleine Singer. Dear members of the Denver City Council. Good afternoon. My name is Madeline Singer, and. I'm a rising 10th grader at East High School. I strongly urge the passing of the Expanded. Waste Service proposal because the proposal encourages people to. Cycle and compost. There are. More than 220,000. Tons of waste from Denver homes each year, according to the Denver gov. Org. The proposal will not only make recycling and composting easier, but will force people to think about whether the item they're throwing away should be put in a certain bin. This will make dendrites more conscientious about climate change. I talked to my neighbor today and she was really enthusiastic about the proposal and would pay the fee but wants to know whether what she's recycling will actually be recycled and reused. The city plans to double the recycling and. Composting rates by 2032. When we hit that goal, it will be equivalent to removing the greenhouse. Effect of more than 600,000 cars from the atmosphere. Why would we not take the equivalent. Of 600000 hours worth. Of greenhouse gases. Out of the environment? This is a huge step toward decreasing climate change, but we can always do more. As a young person, I urge you to vote yes on the proposal because not only will it affect my generation, but future generations to come. Thank you for your time. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move virtually to Lawrence Murray. You. Me? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I agree. My name's Mark Murray, and I'm from Bob MONDELLO. And the subject I have here is trash. The OR volume based pricing is still a tax. Inflation is fed by the interest rate hikes as hikes, food hikes, rate hikes, medicine hikes and now I city which the hike up taxes would be nice if the city would consider the tax paying citizens more than inflation. It seems to be getting really attention already. The main reason I presume the city is looking at this is consideration for climate change. Yes, please consider that. So I have another idea to consider. The city wrap issuing building permits to mandate all new. Commercial construction. Of solar systems as well as all or all part of its energy generation and for all affordable new housing, the same requirement. That would be a significant positive impact on the environment, as well as providing savings for homeowners to avoid the new trash tax. You will not consider my suggestion. I will not support suggested tax hikes. On another note, GREGORY Let's return to the requirement for certain city employees, such as police officers and firefighters, to live in the city they serve in. Thank you very much. I'm then. You do. Our next speaker is joining us in chambers, Muhammad Khan. Good evening, everybody. Council members and everybody who's here in support of expanded reserves. Please raise your hand. Thank you all for coming here. My name is Bob McCone. I work in District ten and I am right down the street, Beneke and Spear and I live on Sixth and Sheridan and I have. Another property in Clayton, which is on Bruce Randolph and Garfield. So I heard a lot of things here and I actually. Had a script that I was going to talk about, but I'm going to try answering some of the questions. So people talked about, you know, the trash used to be free in this city. Water used to be a fly parade in Denver until 1991. And now we pay for water by each thousands of gallons we use. And nobody backs an eye on that. Denver Water launched their light reduction program a couple of. Years ago and. They're even. After it dead. Their hype. Their rates and everybody was happy. I'm happy as a homeowner that owns two homes. I would rather pay $3 extra per thousand gallons of water versus being $18,000 per water line replacement. So this is and the other thing I heard here is, you know, we. Have grass here that we drive around. The country, momentum, glass open the recycling facility in Denver, and they don't have enough. Glass to run their facility. So they are bringing grass from. Outside the state to for further facility needs. Similarly, Ball Corporation is an aluminum can manufacturing company here in Golden, Colorado. That could that we use. The land that we use the aluminum that we are recycling. It's all about closing the loop, keeping things local. That's where all the pipes are coming from. I have also heard about contamination issues. Believe me, I live on Chagrin Boulevard. My trash bins are right on schedule Boulevard. There are people walking by and they throw this stuff in the trash bins. I have not seen contamination and I am the one who gets in my dumpsters. Every single day. Checking what is in there because I want to be responsible. Citizen. However. When I forgot to put the recycle. Bin out to the curb. One time, I had to wait for weeks in order to catch up on my recycling. There was recycling in my house. There was boxes. Full of recycling just because I wanted to do the right thing and not want to put it. In the trash. I think. Weekly recycling would be. Very helpful there. And last thing I want to talk about is the equity piece of this program. As a homeowner who owns two properties, it is not fair for me that my coworkers who live in a condo across the street pay for my free recycling and trash. It is only equitable that I paid $9 a month. It's not the most amount of fresh. And last thing I would say is I ran a case study. At our office. In two years. We went from zero recycling to 100% zero waste. It is doable. We just have to educate it and we. Have to provide the means. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Where our next speaker is, Claire Harris joining us virtually. Can you hear. Me? Is my. Microphone working? Yes, yes, yes. Yes. Okay. I want to agree with the man who mentioned having solar panels and all those things. Also, I agree with Kevin about adding another fee. I can afford it, but I live in a neighborhood where that's. A big expense. For my neighbors. But I have another point that I haven't heard so far. I'm opposed to it because. I'm going to read from what I wrote somewhere else. Most plastic recycling is dumped somewhere else. It's a. That's great. But what I read is. That most of that actually. Ends up in the ocean or in a foreign country. We don't really end up with recycling, producing, recycling. I think educating citizens about all the ways to divert, compost, reuse, etc., to prevent disposable of extra waste, that's something that's education. But also the biggest issue is to stop. Having so much plastic. At the source. So. To me, the goal would be less PAC. Doing more use of paper using actually recyclable. Plastic or. Taking. In fewer recyclable. A fairer place to contain insurers from restaurants. Bags. So. Working on the song verse. And there's a beginning of where plastic. Waste is. Rather than trying to get at that at the end of it, to find a way to use the waste or reuse it. This is not this is not efficient. The problem is we produce so, so darn much waste. I Denver. I love that we charge for plastic bags. The other walk out in Denver across the street from me. No charge but soap in a toy for a kid. Anyway, that. My point is that I think we need to start with education and then. With looking at the. Sources of plastic and packaging and try to work with that. That's that's a way bigger way to start working with plastic and the other aluminum waste, etc.. Can it work? Okay. I miss Harris. Were you finished with your comments? I saw that you turned your camera off, but I wanted. You had a few more moments. I am. I was finished. I just wanted those points. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Adam Meltzer. Followed by Nick Campion. Go ahead, please. Evening. City Council names Adam Meltzer. I am in District six in Denver. I was in Councilman Cashman's, Earth Day remarks to the event. And even though I spoke to a handful of attendees about what neighborhood associations in Denver do in relation to our environment, I realize that the impact I would have talking to a dozen people at a sparsely populated neighborhood event is minimal compared to the power of the city council and elected officials have. I want to focus on three points here. The first is the faults of representative democracy. The second is the unwillingness of the middle class and our fellow Democrats to pay for their landfill waste. And the third is why we consistently make wrong decisions around action oriented climate issues. Yesterday I realized that there was a fault, a representative democracy system that we work in. People who have the loudest voices don't always have the best interests of the community in mind. They may just have the best interests of themselves. I am fully aware that as a middle class white male, I can afford to pay for the privilege of filling our landfills with trash, creating methane, exacerbating the climate crisis we live in. But I don't. My family of four fills less than a half of a 35 gallon roll up in. Of waste per week. The rest is recycling compost. People are unwilling to pay even if they can, unwilling to change their behavior because they don't have to. There's no financial disincentive. I hope that tonight when the council vote, you consider the impact of your decision. A no vote means that we keep delaying progress on climate issues around waste. A no vote means we keep accepting the status quo and the consequences of adding more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. A no vote means we keep denying our impact as single families while redirecting blame at other sources. A yes vote and a yes vote means we're willing to stand up and take action to address the climate crisis at a cost that makes us uncomfortable. A yes vote means we show. Denver writes that the city council is willing to make tough decisions that will benefit their communities, even though the community might not see the benefit. I don't think that I'm a minority with my perspective. I think that I'm part of the silent majority. There are neighborhoods in Denver where my perspective is a minority, and I guess I would expect council members to vote to reflect the opinions of your constituents. If you didn't, you'd risk being not elected again. But here's the problem the endless circle of inaction, creating toothless policies, talking and talking, but not doing enough to address our climate crisis. Eventually, we'll all pay. But it won't be just about money. Thank you. Our next speaker is Nick Champion. Hello, council members. My name is Nick Campion and I'm a member of the Sustainability Sustainability Advisory Council, Zero Waste Committee and Women's Sustainability. I'm a writer in District seven. And I support the expanded we services proposal. Tackling the climate crisis is a yes and situation. Yes, we need to reduce concrete waste, construction waste, and yes, we need to electrify our transportation. And yes, we need to improve our presidential waste diversion by providing free weekly recycling, encompassing or charging for trash, space and usage. Denver is the Mile High City and with a sad 26% waste diversion rate, are we trying to build mile high levels and low hanging fruit? Pretending that we have impacted. Sorry about any fruit that we can have impact on this rate through residential residents by implementing the Waste Services proposal. And yes, education can help increase the diversion rate, but changing the system is more effective than education for me. I tried years to convince my parents to compost. I sent them videos and websites about composting and local services that would provide them composting, but they never paid to sign up. Then I finally bought them a composting tumbler, and it was magic. And now they're composting advocates. They have less stinky trash and have healthy dirt for their gardening. There's pulling carbon out of that in the sphere. I was the cheese that cheese my parents to compost and helped the planet. Denver needs to change its residents mindsets too. How can I compost and recycle more? And how can I sell less trash and landfill? City Council Council needs to throw the broken system into the bin, probably preferably the composting recycling bin and become a city leader in composting recycling. In order for us to be the environmentally friendly city we want to be. We need every Denver resident in single family homes and multifamily buildings. Summer, a few unions, composting and recycling. In order to achieve this, we need to provide weekly recycling and composting for free. And I'm a renter. My taxes. Through my taxes, I pay for single family, house, trash and recycling, and I pay for trash recycling in my apartment. That's not a fair system. With the proposal a fix, this problem creates a new source of money in the general fund, which can be used to tackle other climate related issues in the entire city. I understand this can be an inconvenience for some residents, but are inconveniences such as large trash bins for free are a major reason why we are in this climate crisis. Cities such as Denver need to be on the front line of tackling climate change to set an example for other cities in Colorado, the country and the world. The climate crisis is getting worse and Denver can take immediate action now. Trees, greenhouse gas emissions through the expanded waste services proposal and I and many others in this room that support it. So to end my talk, can all the guests in the room like that support the expanded food service proposal? Our next speaker is me, Brzezinski, and it just says me is the first name. Okay. All right. So here's the key. If I. Yeah. Just because you are eating at work and. Your first name. Please. Katrina. Katrina. Okay, great. We'll correct that for the public record. Thank you. Hi, I'm Katrina. Courtesy. As we all know now from Denver, District 11 was. Days ago more. Thank you. I wanted to thank you specifically. For you and your team listening to our needs and making things. Happen that are in. Line with our community's requests and goals. I know today is just going to be the same. So while there are many things I'm super passionate about and of course, as I'm. Sure you can tell. The environmental impacts is one of them. I'm actually here to talk about our optics. And I got to tell you, they're not great. They are not great right now. We are thought as a relatively green city, and with that it's due to great marketing. And I believed it until I moved out to the suburbs. And there I saw our trash cans and they're overflowing with recycling. And I started to understand the numbers. We're lagging behind when it comes to our waste. Where I live, we are fully reliant on the Denver system to work for us. And I have to tell you, it isn't working. It is not working. And. You know, we need things delivered to us. Things are getting better. How important are these? Denver Thank you so much. Stacy Yay! Costco. But the overflowing recycling has. More to do with the fact that the system as it is, is not keeping up with our demand. And the easiest way to do this is to have our system fixed. And we're talking about fixing it today. Unfortunately, if we miss one day of recycling, our cans are overflowing and people are just going to pick throwing it out instead of holding on to it for an entire month and then hoping that the neighbor next door has room in their ben. To put it in. So that is going to really impact our current recycling percentages to double simply easily by just doubling the amount of times that it's picked up. And that brings us closer to the national average. Actually, it would probably just help us far. Exceed those numbers. Also, I have been doing backyard composting for. 12 years now. I'm a. Proud homeowner in GR and I run a small business where I teach. People how to grow their own food and with that. It includes healthy soils and a conversation about composting. I would love to have better exit. Access as well. So the proposed system, one where I can have a place to dispose of the branches and the types of food scraps that just don't work in our backyard, tumblers and small scale systems. And with this. If we normalize our weekly service and have the composting normalized, it's going to increase the equity of healthier soils, which means healthier foods. So these two pieces are going to help align our marketing with the fact that Denver is a green city. It's going to send a clear and strong visual message that we're green. When you see recycling and green beans out everywhere for compost every single week, we can. Fix this problem and have a clear visual cue that Denver does, in fact care live up to its Green City moniker. I know you care. I do too. Thank you for voting yes and supporting our expanded Ways Services. Next speaker is Beth Burchfield. And after we have Sherry Shelton Butler. Thank you. City council members. My name is Beth Burchfield. I'm a local entrepreneur. I'm the board chair for Women in Sustainability, and I'm a homeowner in District one. I'm here today to urge you to support the proposed expanded waste services for Denver in the over 9000 other communities across the country with similar services. Waste diversion rates for 2 to 3 times higher than Denver's dismal 26%, which is way lower than our national average of 32%. To echo what Katrina said, Colorado is known for our love of the outdoors. Yet our policies and diversion rates don't really reflect our caring for the planet. Since when is Denver comfortable being below average of anything? I feel like the only thing we should be below average on is obesity rates and unemployment. As I mentioned, I'm an entrepreneur and my company collects and delivers sustainability feedback. I concern. Citizens consistently. We see that compost and recycling requests are at the top of those lists. The data not only shows that this is what people in our community want, but would also have a tremendous environmental impact with organic waste, such as food scraps and yard waste, are thrown into the landfill. They emit methane, which is 84% more potent than CO2. I don't know if any of you have been out to any of the landfills, but I personally went out to one a couple of years ago. And after you see the volume and the impact that one landfill has, it's impossible to look away from that problem, and it's really important that we do something about it. You have an opportunity today to really help Denver take a huge step forward and go from below average to a potential leader in sustainability, which is much more reflective of the amazing city we call home. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Sherri Shelton Butler. Followed by Ryan. Call Madam President and. Members of the commission here. I want to thank you for this. My name is Sherry Shelton Butler. I live in Littleton. I support this 125%. I want you to know that I got involved. With this eco cycle because I have. Invented an apparatus that washes plastic in the dishwasher, your zip top. Plastic bags. So it took me down a research channel. To find out that. The state that I love. Colorado is the 20th worst state in recycling. You heard a lot of statistics here and they are all things that I would have brought up, so I don't need to bring them up again. I really urge you to to listen to the statistics and make the step forward. It may not be the exact step. I agree with kind. Of coming in with some some meeting in the middle. But to make this step forward so that we can protect our state, our planet. And the promotion of proper waste. Management is far cheaper than the remediation. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to move virtually now. Ryan, call. The City Council. I was hoping to join you all in person tonight, but I'm a bit under the weather. Anyway, it's no surprise that I'm joining all the folks dressed in green to express my support for the expanded Waste Services Policy and eco cycle. We just celebrated our 46th year anniversary, and I have the privilege of working with some of the absolute best zero waste policy experts and educators every day. So I brought to them the concerns that you all raised and thought that tonight I'd focus on the intersection of zero waste, education and policy. Recycling. Experts everywhere agree that education alone will not move the needle the way that volume based pricing for trash does. One recent study analyzed 500 cities and found that volume based pricing adds, on average, 10 to 11 percentage points increase to overall waste diversion. In comparison, education programs alone only add 1 to 3 percentage points. The best way to boost diversion of raise is through policy change and education. Still, education is needed every step of the way to make policy changes effective. Based on decades of experience. We support voting and plans not either or continuously heard that Denver has done nothing for recycling education. That's simply not true. Eco cycle help do education and outreach for the city in 2017 and 2019. Canvased on recycling and compost. Teaching folks the how and why of zero waste. And let's not forget about the Denver's 2019 quarter million dollar grant in partnership with Coca-Cola and the recycling partnership and the statewide erase the waste effort. Despite these educational efforts, our residential waste diversion rate has only moved from 23 to 26% in the last three years. Also, if you haven't been on the Waste Extravaganza tour with the Cancer Office, I would highly recommend it to our landfill recycling center and a compost facility seeing operations in-person and hopefully this. Getting rid of some of the misinformation that you might be you might hear and you learn from experts along the way. Education never stops. Now, I've looked at diaries zero waste education and outreach plan. For implementing this policy initiatives. My colleagues, based on best practices, we believe that as a comprehensive as anyone could ask for. It's very robust and well thought out plan. Of course, the criticism that I've heard is that the plan wasn't delivered five years ago. Still, I've said this sentiment every time I've addressed you all. But again, while the best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago, the second best time is now. In fact, this policy, if this policy hopefully passes policy implementation is the ideal time to engage residents with education and outreach. We're looking for our biggest bang for your buck. On improving residential waste collection and expanded waste service. That policy has it all. It's a proven testing approach, approach that will increase our recycling composting rates and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Passing this policy tonight, we can move forward in becoming a more sustainable and equitable city. Please don't wait. Vote yes on expanded waste services. Thank you. Thinking. Changing, changing. Our next speaker is Sonya Hanson. Hello. My name is Sonia Hansen. I'm here to enthusiastically support a transition to expanded police services in Denver as I find myself in a transition. I'm a lifelong Coloradan and ten year resident of Council District ten, where I am part of the one third of Denver to subsidize waste services for those in single family homes and complexes of less than eight units. I am also a part of the population who benefits as a free rider from that subsidy. Since I recently purchased a house in District six, this proposed policy corrects the imbalance and establishes greater equity by allocating services to those who actually pay for them. Treating waste as a metered utility just like water, which has been metered in Denver since 1991. It's a basic conversation conservation principle that works. If we use less, we pay less. I'm actually so impassioned by this topic because I completed my master's thesis on improving waste diversion in Denver and have been advocating ever since for Denver to meet its waste diversion goals. I am also a public servant who works in recycling. Increased education was suggested as an alternative to policy change at last week's city council meeting. Instead, education is most effective when it complements robust policy. Education is indeed a powerful tool in reducing contamination and waste streams, but it does not increase recycling behaviors and thus waste diversion to the extent achieved by unit or volume based pricing. Also, copy as you throw. In fact, research indicates that 80% of the factors influencing pro-environmental behaviors do not stem from knowledge or awareness. That's starting to 28. Similarly in information, intensive campaigns are applicable only when a lack of supportive attitudes and a lack of knowledge are the barriers. And that is usually not the case that those are the only barriers. That's data from McKinsey More 2021. On the other hand, a variable fee system increased recycling by an average of 8 to 11%. It's the single most important factor in contributing to higher levels of recycling. That's data from Sue Moss, 1996. Pay, as you throw, has continued to deliver since the 1990s as the most viable, commonly accepted and proven policy tool for diverting valuable resources from the landfill. And it's been implemented by municipalities of all sizes around the world. The 2020 Climate Action Task Force, made up of diverse Denver stakeholders, made it their number one waste recommendation for good reason for council action. Frisco, Colorado, recently joined the 9000 plus municipalities already harnessing this policy, along with local leaders Durango and Loveland. Like Denver, Frisco faces real world civic challenges, inflation and affordable housing included. But seize the critical timing of doing the right thing for health equity for current and future Coloradans. Job growth in Colorado itself. Frisco's plan combines education with policy to reduce contamination and increase participation. Education alone won't move the needle. Thanks so much for your time and for your yes vote. Thank you. Kristina miller. Can you see me? Hi. Can you hear me? Is it working? We can hear you. Okay. Go ahead. Okay, great. Great. Thank you. My name is Dana. Miller, and I have been. Involved in the sustainability world around Denver for the last few years. I including co-founding Grow Local Colorado. And I also served on the Denver Sustainable Food Policy Council. I'm excited to be here to support this initiative and really can't find anything else to say other than the wonderful things that other people have said. So please vote yes and I'll feed my time to the next speaker. Thank you. Zan Fussell. My name is Van Fussell. I am the founder and director of Calm Post Colorado, and I also serve on the Denver Sustainability Advisory Council as well as the US and Colorado Composting Council and am testifying in support of expanded services. As many in the audience know, Colorado's waste diversion rates that's recycling compost are below the national average. In Denver, we only recycle encompass about a quarter of our waste, despite the fact that over 40% of this landfilled waste could be composted or upcycled into other bio resources at the landfill. These organic resources leach methane gas into our atmosphere, a potent greenhouse gas that's causing climate change. I started Compost Colorado in order to make composting more accessible to households and businesses across the metro area. And while I'm proud of these efforts of my team and the environmental activists here in organizations working to divert waste from the landfill , I recognize that few things will impact our diversion rates more than the policy here today. This policy this policy will rapidly accelerate composting recycling rates in our community. For several years, this council has heard from countless tenacious environmental activists advocating for a more sustainable resource management policies such as Extended Waste Services. These experts, such as the Denver Sustainability Advisory Council, have scrupulously researched the best policies for our community to adopt. I'm very proud to work alongside these informed and passionate heroes fighting not just for a more sustainable Denver, but for a more sustainable world in a country where democratic institutions are withering away. I'm still hopeful and confident that at least at the community level, our community officials, you counsel listened to our community listen to these experts. It is because of these volunteers, these activists on green, these heroes that I'm confident that this body will listen and will pass expanded waste services. Thank you so much for your time. I greatly appreciate it. Our next speaker is Alex Truelove. City Council. Thanks for having me here so you can hear and see me. All right. My name is Alex Truelove. I'm a Denver resident and also the legislation and advocacy director for the Biodegradable Products Institute, which is North America's leading certifier of compostable materials, products and packaging that hundreds of member companies worldwide. As you might guess, I'm particularly interested in improving access to the collection and processing of compost because of how much potential it provides compared to how little we take advantage of it. So just to zoom out, the U.N. estimates that in food. Waste and loss for. A country, it would be the third largest emitter of. Greenhouse gas emissions after the US and China. Number three, it's that huge. And as others have alluded to, composting food. Waste avoids those methane emissions created by landfilling, which are unfortunately almost entirely that captured. Across the previous. Speaker. And on the back end. If regenerative agricultural practices like compost application cover cropping, no. Till we're used on crop and pastureland around the world, we would sequester more than our total global annual carbon dioxide emissions. True. In other. Words. This is an extremely low tax effective. And based on my years in environmental policy, I sincerely believe relatively cheap climate solution. Living a few years waiting. Like many of you I've seen through my work and privileged positions, cities and communities. Across the country embrace these value based systems that give. Residents greater access to resettlement and compost while also taking low income residents into account. And I've seen people adapt to those. Systems and I've seen the systems work. So I hope that this time Denver steps up to meet the challenge. Please vote. Yes. Thanks for my time. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and transition back in chambers. Our first speaker back in chambers is Sebastian and Andrews, followed by Courtney Zurcher. Hi there, Council. Long time no see. Good evening. The first time I spoke to you was on climate, and the last time I spoke to you was on climate. The last time I spoke to you was in favor of passing Proposition two on to the Denver 2020 November ballot. And that was made me a very proud Denver. All of you voted to pass climate action on the ballot in Denver, turned it around and by a 25 point margin said yes. In the time of pandemic and financial instability. We still want climate action, even at the expense of a few bucks per year. I was so proud of my city council and I was proud of you for another reason. I was proud of you because you all promised to adhere to the Climate Action Task Force recommendations in 2020. Now, I do not expect all of you to remember that report in its entirety, but I would I would expect you to remember that promise. I'll admit I had to reread the report myself, and I found that on page 97 it says The task force recommends that council adopt a volume based draft proposal by the first part of 2021. Suffice to say, this proposal today is already coming a year late than you passed. It does not make sense that Denver residents currently pay for best. A 2020 Princeton study found that municipal compost reduces waste emissions by roughly 50%. This doesn't even include the carbon dioxide that is captured by the plants and trees that will grow on increased Denver compost. I understand this proposal has equity concerns. Just like I understood them when I helped draft the Climate Action Task Force Recommendations report. But for years, Denver families living in larger buildings of eight or more units have had the burden of paying for commercial trash services on top of paying for the rest of Denver services. And nobody threw up their arms then. I would love to consider Denver a leader on climate. I would love to consider all of you climate leaders. I would love to consider all of you people who care deeply about the future that you leave for Denver's kids and your kids. I would love to consider you all people whose legacy is built on a better world and leaving an earth for our children. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Courtney Zurcher, followed by Elisabetta Stach. When you can correct me, when you come up and introduce yourself and then Brandi Moore. No, go ahead. Thank you. Hello, everyone. My name is Courtney Zurcher. I am a Denver resident and I am here today to speak in favor of the expanded waste services. Why is this important to me? Soil health matters. Diverting waste from landfills matters. Our community's voices matter. I am morally compelled to speak today about the disparity between the potential composable organic matter that should be collected in Denver versus the actual compostable organic matter that's collected and diverted from landfills. Today, soil health matters because it is linked to human health. Diverting waste from landfills is important because organic matter breaking down in landfills is not only an opportunity cost of building nutrient bioavailable bioavailability, but it is also important to water retention in our soil. And it also a lack of composting leads to an enormous amount of unnecessary greenhouse emissions. When these compostable organic materials. Go to landfill and I'm speaking specifically about methane here as a member of the community who is aware of our soil health crisis, I am here to remind us that the that composting is a simple and natural, multifaceted solution that we should be focusing on our way. Our waste diversion rate in Denver is dangerously low at 26%. It's lower than Austin, Texas. It's lower than Boulder, Colorado. It's lower than Salt Lake City, Seattle, Portland, Longmont and many other cities. The list goes on. Los Angeles, Gainesville, Portland. And this is counting. As I said, it's going on. So why do we why do these other cities have better waste diversion rates than Denver? A major reason is because the times of policy cities that I've mentioned are beating Denver, Colorado, to enacting policies for recycling and composting. When policy says to compost and to recycle, more composting and recycling happen. So again, I want to thank you for your time and this is very important. So cheers. Thank you. Our next speaker is Elisabetta. Justin. Yes. Go ahead, please. Hi. My name. Is Elizabeth at. The. Start. I am on the. Board of directors of the multifamily. Building where I live. We have 77 households in a building and on Capitol Hill. I'm here to urge you, of course, to pass the expanded. Waste Services bill under consideration. Today. As dwellers of a multifamily building, we have to pay extra for waste collection and recycling. While most. Households. In the city only have to pay. For their. Taxes, in addition to our taxes, our homeowners spend about $781 per month on trash and recycling, plus another $400 per month on composting. Together, we spend $14,000 on. Waste services. Last. Year alone in addition to our taxes. We don't we don't think paying. A fee for service is. Is wrong. In fact, we are all for it. But we think it should be applied equitably and equally. Across the city. But the current system is completely upside down in Denver. Because it is exactly the smallest households in the most efficient housing. Types stacked multifamily buildings that subsidize the services for single family. Homes. To add insult to injury, many who live in multi-family units are often exactly the people who can't afford the least to subsidize single family more affluent homes. Also, we should be incentivizing. Efficient, high density. Living, not penalizing it. As this current system does. One trash. Truck makes a. Stop at our building and collects waste from 77 households. A second trash truck or recycling truck collects the recycling for the same 77 units. That's two stops by a trash truck. These are if these households in our building were instead in single family detached homes, the collection would require 77 truck stops. For waste and. 77 truck stops for recycling. Not. That's a total of 140 154 stops. Instead of the two stops that is needed to service our building and I. And don't forget that each individual house would need its own recycling and trash containers that needs. To be provided. So this all means that more time, more staff, more fuel, more trucks, more resources need to are needed. To service single family homes then multi-family homes. Yet we are subsidizing single family homes. I mean, this is. Completely upside down. So thank you. That's the time. We have a lot of have our notes. I think you've got the most. Thank you. Thank you. Randy Moe. President Gilmore, council members. Thanks for. Me be here. My name is Brandy Mo, and I live in the Ruby Hill neighborhood in Denver. I spent the first. Half of my adult life working as a social. Worker, and now I work in the recycling industry, and I've learned a few things during my career. One human. Behavior. Is immensely difficult to change and to Denver's recycling and composting rate is kind of embarrassingly low. You might be thinking, well, she's biased. She she works in the recycling industry. And sure, I might be a little bit biased. But I can tell you that most. People are absolutely floored when they hear that. Denver's recycling rate is just 26%. And we can do better like we really can. We just need to make. Decisions that foster positive change. Recycling experts. Agree that the best way to boost waste diversion is through policy. Change and. Education. Your vote this evening can support positive change in our city. As I mentioned, human behavior is immensely difficult to change. Shifting to a volume based pricing model will be. Tough in the beginning. Change can be and usually is tough. But it's going to be worth it. When our neighborhood was eligible to receive the green compost cards, I was so excited. It took a while to reconfigure our waste system in our house, but after we did, we were amazed at how much of our trash could be composted. Eventually, we reduced our black trash cart to. The cute 35. Gallon container, and at this point, we fill up the smallest trash cart. Once, about every month we are able to recycle and compost so much. Of our waste. Please consider voting yes this evening. Change can and usually is tough. We know this. But this change is worth it. Let's make Denver a leader in waste diversion. Denver deserves it. Thanks so much. Thank you. And that concludes the time for our one hour courtesy public hearing. We're going to go ahead and then move into questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 685. And so I would ask council members, if you have questions to pose to the Dottie team members who presented. We'll go ahead and get you transitioned into the Q. Give us a second here. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I have a few questions that I want to ask of our team. So let me just start with the first one. So on slide 19, it talks about the diversion rate, and I'd just like to know what year it was that we actually got rid of all the dumpsters and went to the single where we moved into the roll out barrels because we used to have a lot of people that would come. Most of them were on the edges of our city, and people would dump into our dumpsters that either had to pay in neighboring counties, or a lot of times it was contractors that knew where the dumpsters were. And they would basically, instead of having to go out to a landfill to dispose of their waste, they would drop it in our dumpsters. So that slide did not reflect any of the diversion that we saw happen as a result of moving to the dumpsters. So I'm just trying to figure out what year did that happen? Because I would like to see that included in the slide because it it's like a missing piece that made a huge difference in terms of a lot of the waste that ended up in our landfill from what our trash trucks had to pick up. Can I get that number back to you? Unless someone else from Daddy knows that answer. I'll get it back to you. I know it was after 2011, but I don't remember which year it was. And Jessica, could you introduce yourself with the apologies? Jessica Lally, daddy's project manager. I will get that answer to you. Okay. Let me just move on then and whenever you can get that, that would be much appreciated. Do you have that at that council? Adam Phipps We've got it. I believe it was in 2015, but we're working to confirm that right now. Okay. Thank you. I would just suggest updating that information because I think that's really important piece that was left out of that slide. Let me move on to my next one. I'm just curious to know what changes have been made to the billing system. I've actually had some people call my office that have had problems with the billing system online. They went to 311 and wanted to make their payment through 311 and they were told that 311 can't take payments. So I don't know, like if if changes have been made and if they have, what are those changes? So that if we're rolling this program out, we're not continuing to have some of those issues and challenges with people who will be expected to pay online. And then we have some people I walk every morning with a friend of mine who after she retired, she just said, I don't want to have anything to do with computers anymore. She has a flip phone so he doesn't not have connectivity to be able to pay a bill online. So what are we doing for customers like her? So I'm not sure who wants to answer that one, but. And I think this may apply to a lot of our folks in our community who are not connected either by choice or sometimes it's cost. So councilwoman and VIPs with. We certainly encourage the people of Denver to do online payments and leverage that technology if they can. It saves us both money from a mailing standpoint, but also the environmental impact here. Regardless of that, any payment that's needed for any service rendered by body is collectible. In in a person transaction at our wastewater facility or in our web facility will ensure that this is an allowable use of that service as well. So not everybody has that mobility. And I know wastewater is not easy to access, so I appreciate that in-person is another option. I think that's good. But for people who may be mobility challenged, is there a different way I can imagine? You know, a lot of our seniors who are choosing to age in place may have that challenge as well. Yet we can certainly accept him by track as well. So if there is a mobility impairment, that options is available as well. Okay. I have a few of these. Madam President, if I can just keep going. And then when you feel like you've got people lined up waiting, I'll get put in the back of the queue. All right. So question about the company that currently handles the composting for Denver. Are we going to continue to work with that company for where the waste goes to? And was was this rebid or will it be rebid? Because we I don't want to just pursue presume that it's a sole source contract without our normal RFP process that we normally do. And given that this is anticipated to be a new program. I'm just curious how all of that is being expected to be handled. Yeah, let me defer to my operational team on that one. Art Media Director of Solid Waste Management. The current company we use is called A-1 Organics. We do have a contract in place with them. We have made contact and are working on the additional material that it's going to be delivered to them if this ordinance passes. So we are planning to have that company continue to serve as our compost material. So did we do an RFP or will we do a new or a PAM, assuming they're not the only company in the city or the metro area? Because it's my understanding they're not in Denver. Is that correct? They are not. The contract was already in place. If I'm not mistaken, the contract stipulates stipulate that they will handle all of our compost material from the city, whether as 30,000 customers or 180,000. And how long have they had the contract with the city? Oh, started composting. And what year? I don't have that information. I can certainly get it and get back to you today. I'm asking this because I know that we routinely put our contracts out to bid and just to assume we're rolling into a new one. I'm not saying anything about the quality of work they've done, but I'm just challenging the practice of what we normally do and whether we're doing that with this one council. One thing I can certainly confirm there is that there are procurement requirements within the city in County Denver that would prohibit us from a sole source contract, unless that was the only vendor that was able to provide that service. And we well documented that. So as we look at ensuring that we're getting adequate value for any of our contracts, we'll certainly be in compliance with that program. And that would apply for this service as much as it would anything else. Yeah. And I guess if there are others in the metro area that are closer than Kingsburg, you know, it may be who, especially when we're talking about transport, distancing and emissions and where we know that greenhouse gas emissions come more so from vehicles than they do our waste stream. So that becomes an important part of this conversation. So thank you for answering that question. Let me go on. I have a couple more. And then, Madam President, after I ask this next to, I'm happy to be put to the back of the line. So in the slide that it talked about weekly inspections for illegal dumping. We didn't do this when people were illegally dumping in our dumpsters. And we're basically seeing lots, a lot more waste that was being put in our dumpsters, that was being taken out to our landfill. Where were the staff come from that will do that because we're challenged today to have enough drivers and we still need 22 more to ramp up this program. Where will those workers come from that will do that? Certainly, Councilwoman. And to further clarify the previous comment you made in regard to dumpsters. We didn't confirm with the team it was a phased out process where we eliminated dumpsters starting in 2015 and concluding in 2017 for this enforcement aspect. And this will be performed by inspectors that will be included in the hiring process as we step up for the implementation of value based pricing. And so those inspectors will be expanded within the service. So that that cost is built into the fee schedule? That is correct. So how many inspectors then? Well, we have total. We'll have. One inspector at a minimum in each district. I believe it will put us at a total of six inspectors when we're fully staffed. Okay. And what role will complaints play in the process? I mean, a lot of times neighbors don't like their neighbors. We've had incidents where, you know, dog complaints, trash complaints could I think in Councilman Gilbert's district, where she recently passed a new piece of legislation to deal with complaints about trash and how that was, you know, adding to people getting put on foreclosure lists and things like that. So just curious about how that how complaints play into that. Good. Good question, Councilwoman. Each complaint that we receive through our customer service will be investigated by one of these inspectors. That inspector will first start with a robust educational campaign to make sure that the resident understands what is allowed or what isn't allowed. And then we'll follow up with enforcement down the line if we can achieve compliance with education. And I know we have some people who don't have room in their yards and their trash bins sit in the alley. I know that's the case for one of my trash bins. And I often have people who are dumping their waste, their their animal waste in my trash bin. And, you know, how do you factor in something like that if it's dumped into a recycling bin or, you know, something like that, where the inspection the inspector may be getting complaints or they may see that happening. And so all of this then will lead to how does that play into penalties? And then came the penalties lead to a lead on a property. Yeah. So a series of the questions are so similar to the previous answer. I'll start with education. Right. And so when we make contact with that resident, whether there's a report of a lack of compliance with what's allowed or not, or we notice that on our routes when we speak with them, we'll try to understand what the limitation is, what the barriers, the lack of understanding, or is it maybe a fellow resident that is dumping illegally into their bins? If that's the case, we certainly would not pursue any type of fine or fee associated with that and certainly would never take that to the point that we're looking at only needing a piece of property because a neighbor is inappropriately using another trash can. Okay. So then assuming it is somebody that is just hasn't quite got it in terms of what race goes into which bin, what is the penalty for. After the education is done, the inspectors had to go out to that home maybe more than once. What is the cost of that? Fine. I'll emphasize this one more time, that compliance is our goal, and we really do want to achieve that through education. If that's not the case, the rules and regs will determine what the fine is associated with a first time offense, which will likely be somewhere in the neighborhood of about $40. That's for a first offense. And if they're a repeat offender, is there a max that it could go up to? The rules of regs are not finalized at this time. Again, we're not looking to financially penalize somebody that's attempting to be compliant. And so we'll try to close compliance as low as possible to achieve that compliant. Okay. And if you have somebody that just. Those are like this program. They're not going to do it. They're going to put their trash wherever they put it and they start getting fined. Is there a max and can that fine then lead to a lead on the property? Just kidding. I do not believe so. Okay, so. So we're just talking about the fees then that lead to the lane, not the fines. Correct. The fines for contamination have nothing to do with the lane process. Okay. Just want to clarify that. We would take away their recycling and compost carts if they are not using them. Okay. Great. Thank you. I'll get that put to the back of the line and do have a few more. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Council President. I just have one question that I don't believe was in the slide, but certainly a lot of people ask, why isn't this covering 100% of households? So, Councilman, in regards to why does this not apply to residences that are that house more than eight families? Is that the question? Yes, sir. So we're working within the establishment of solid waste ordinances as as it exists today. Those are not where we're able or seeing the greatest opportunity to affect change of those commercial properties or those mobile resident properties or have recycling have in most in many cases, composting available today. And our goal here is to simply provide that on the residential level, that gets us to a diversion rate that's more comparable or even better than than our system comparisons. Uh, so it's not because of a state law that precludes us from competing with private trash vendors. That's what I was hoping you wouldn't say so. I'm confused. But yes, we as a municipality cannot compete with commercial vendors. State statute as your reference. Thank you for that recollection, Councilman. I apologize, Director, that I was asking you a question I knew the answer to. But but I wanted to for you to say it. So perhaps someone who's more familiar with the state law can go into little more detail on what the what the preclusion is. Why why we're tackling seven and fewer units. And I am and I'm not asking for speculation, but may be why is the state law that way? That seems really weird to me and to a lot of other people. So. So if if there's a way to describe it without just, you know, speculating, I'd be curious to know what the answer is. Yes, certainly, councilman, I am not an expert in that state statute. I'm not sure that we have anyone here who represents that perspective. I don't believe 711. Guys doing their job is going to go the Oracle. Service guys do or mayor's office. So you've correctly described it. The state statute precludes us from serving personal multifamily properties over a certain number. Again, without speculating, that was certainly something that was lobbied for to keep the private sector from having to compete with the public sector for moving forward on our services. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I think that's compelling because otherwise why while I commend the director for his answer, I think that state statute is is a you know, unfortunately, we have to live with the the laws of the state and federal level. And but why? There's a citizen initiative also that's considering tackling the rest. How can the citizen initiative override the state law? And we can't. So the state law prohibits us from providing those services to commercial and multifamily properties. It doesn't preclude us from legislating requirements for how that services provided, which is what there was no more ballot measure would propose to do. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council president. All right. Thank you, Skye. And thank you, Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Councilman Hines, I was going to address that very point that for the folks who were talking about the fact that large multi-family and commercial subsidizes single family and small residential, that is the that is right at the feet of the state legislature decades ago to carve out the that market for the private hauling industry. They prohibit the city from serving the folks who live in high rises or large apartment complexes so that the private hauling industry has a part of the market just for themselves. So if it's not that we don't want to serve you, it's that we can't. I would like to ask you a question, and I don't know who would answer it. Maybe Margaret or Jessica, or if there's somebody from Human Services here. But with regard to the rebate program, I've had several constituents really reach out to me and ask, will the Denver renters and homeowners who receive the Denver based senior and disabled property tax refund that's at the city level separate from the senior homestead exemption that applies to anyone, regardless of income. Will those people be included automatically in the rebate program? Because otherwise I was asked to please maybe introduce and promote an amendment that would make that very clear. I know that that program is run I believe it's run by Department of Human Services. So it ought to be on their radar. And folks who are in that program ought to be automatically in it. Are they? So thank you. Council member Jeff Galloway, that is project manager. So unfortunately, Denver Human Services isn't here with us today, but I can answer that question they will be offering to everyone who applies for the property tax relief program this year that they are eligible for our instant rebate program and offering to automatically enroll them in our program as they've already provided everything we need from them for the property tax program. So we are definitely doing that with across all local DHS programs. Thank you. And I was told I think Jason Gallardo touched to me before the meeting because I had asked that question earlier today that there are actually very few households that are in that program. We ought to maybe want more widely advertised that program, probably fewer people doing that than doing composting right now, and they deserve this break. I think my next question might be for you also. You spoke during Jessica. You spoke during the presentation about construction and demolition. Let me find a slide, 37% diversion from commercial. And here it is. Commercial wage, 20, 20, 37% diversion, not including construction and demolition recycling. So can you be a little more specific? We have three categories that we've measured at the landfill. I believe we have Denver's program. Which is about I think we said 18% of what goes to the landfill comes from our program. It was 30 about 32% of what goes to landfill comes from, you know, waste management and and Republique or whatever the name of that is now, the private haulers. That's about 32% of what is dumped. And then construction and demolition makes up about 50% of what is dumped at the landfill. So when you said the 37% diversion of commercial waste, you're only referring. This is going to sound weird to the 37% of the 32% of the total dumping at the landfill. Referring to apartment complexes greater than the units and businesses that we don't service. Okay. So what is the what do we know? Is the diversion or do we know the diversion by a construction and demolition sectors? I say that because I know that Portland has a very high rate of diversion, and it may be, in fact, due largely to the fact that they mandate a diversion from demolition of buildings that they can't all go to. The landfill has to be recycled, reused, etc.. I don't have the breakdown by material right now. Okay. I. All right. That would have been president. I have that available to answer. Councilman Flynn. Okay. Go ahead, Councilmember. The Solid Waste Master Plan has a sustainable resource management plan update that came out just a couple of months ago. And table one of that plan indicates that our diversion from construction and demolition debris is 36%. So it is very similar percent to the commercial commercial 37 as the slide indicates. And the number for construction and demolition is 36% diversion, 10% higher than our residential rate. Okay. But of course, the volume is 50% that goes to the landfill in the first place. So 46% of what goes to the landfill, another 36% is diverted somehow. Okay. Actually, construction and demolition is 36%. I'm sorry, it's not 50%. Construction demolition is 36% of the landfill and 36% is it diverted. So about a third of a third. Okay. We were told earlier the construction demolition was 50% and large multifamily and commercial waste was 32 and residential was 18. Grace Rink maybe the best person to call up to clarify. I will just say this resource plan update just came out a couple of months ago. We began these briefings before this plan came out. So it may very well be that the data was updated as the new version came out. I thank you. Councilmembers Grace Rink, Executive Director of the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability Resiliency. And my apologies, Councilman. I don't recall ever saying 50% or hearing of it because. It's the as councilwoman. Can you just said in our most recent report, construction and demolition debris is 36% of the city's total waste. And and oddly, 36% of that is diverted. Okay. Not 50%. All right. Thank you. That's all I have right now. Okay. Thank you. Grace and Councilmember Canete and Councilmember Flynn. Next up, we've got Councilmember Herndon. Thinking I'm present. My questions are for Dottie. I just want to go a little bit into the diversion number that people seem to keep bringing up the 26%. How often is that number recalculated? Is it an annual number like Denver's conversion rate is 26. We calculate this annually should this program pass. How? With the frequency of updating that number. I'll start with that. Thanks to school Ali. Program manager. Project manager. It is annually. Continued to be annually. So you said earlier going back it will come down next. So what is the expectation or goal should this path. To exceed the national average. But we know that by expanding comp of service to the rest of the city, with at least 70% of them composting, the projections put us at about 40% diversion. So over what period of time? 2424. I believe that I can send you that projection. So our expectation is in one year of this program, we will go from 26 to 40%. Diversion, right? I can send. You the. Details on the data and how our projected tonnage increase would increase our diversion rate that high. With 70% of the city participating in compost at least. So what if we don't hit that number? Great question. It's not our intent. If we don't. Do so, Adam flips with. So, Councilman, if we don't achieve that objective, which is 2024, given that we have pushed back the rollout here by about three months, we'll have to look at an exact date and we can follow up with that. If we don't achieve it, education is the key with any new program, any new policy we recognize will be a learning curve there. But we also recognize that we need to push ourselves, we need to push the community. And so if we don't get there within our timeline, we'll continue to educate and reevaluate our educational tactics to ensure that we're reaching all aspects of the community. We'll look if we see neighborhood discrepancies so that we can ensure that we tailor our outreach specifically to that individual community so that we can ultimately get to that goal if we don't achieve it right off the bat. And I ask that question because is this something that's going to continue in perpetuity? The yeah, the feat. Because if our goal is to increase and we're not at the rate that we want, we still continue to charge for trash. So it's a good question, Councilman. So let me answer the first part of that. So we do have budgeted within the annual financial plan with the Special Revenue Fund an educational component. So we certainly would anticipate a robust educational program continuously throughout from from here on, we recognize that there will be new constituencies, new folks in Denver , folks that are that are growing, that are aging, that might need different assistance, whatever help we want, ensure that engagement is there. And so we certainly believe through previous evaluations of pay as you throw or volume based pricing trash programs that with a proper amount of education, you can have substantive change and meet those objectives. Okay. So when during the presentation it was mentioned we had been in the twenties for years up until this point. What have we done as a city to raise that number? I, I hear I heard education. So help me understand prior to this proposal what Denver has done. Yeah, let me let me make one point and then handed over to Ms.. Rink here. I can tell you what we have done is we've disincentivized, we charge for composting right now. In fact, if you choose the lower sized carts moving forward with this volume based pricing, you pay less than if you're a customer today. And so we disincentivized to include composting. If you recall the graphic from the presentation, approximately 50% of Denver's revenues on a weekly basis is composed of oil. And so we've disincentivized it. And so what we're hoping to achieve here is not only a continuation and expansion of education that we've done to date, but also providing those alternative options and recognizing that there's an impact based on the amount of trash that each family produces. But, Councilman, if it's agreeable to you, I'd like to turn it over to Mr.. And before Grace comes up to talk about the education piece. I absolutely agree with you, Adam. We have disincentivise it, so why don't we simply just stop charging for compost? Well, we also. So that would remove the disincentivise. And yet we now also want to go further and incentivize. So if you reduce the amount of waste that you send to the landfill that's cost, the service is going to be the lowest. If you do not make a substantive change there, you chose the largest cost you. The family will see that largest cost as part of the program. So, again, we're not only trying to remove the barrier of just incentivizing it with a paid compost program, we also want to make sure that folks understand that there is value to reducing the amount of refuge that they create. Why do we charge for composting in the first place? This may not you may I know your found out. You may not know the answer to that. When we first brought composting to the city wide charge, if we knew that was going to disinvite some folks. You know, Councilman, I do not know the answer to that. I can speculate that, but I'm not sure. Fair. Thank you. Great. Hello? Excuse me. I just wanted to add a couple pieces of information. So, first, in the year 2000, Denver's recycling rate was below 10%. So it has increased 1 to 2% every year for 20 years. So it has been increasing. We would just like to increase it faster. And I would like to think that, or at least the way I look at the numbers, I think that the education program to date for both recycling and composting has had an effect. I would argue it has flatlined. And so this is a change that we need to bring to the program to in order to really drive change. So right now, we have actually succeeded in collecting about 60% of the recyclable materials in our homes today. So the recycling education is getting to people. They're hearing it. I suspect that perhaps because they don't have weekly recycling, many people are having to put some of their recyclable material into their weekly trash in order to get it out of their house or they're holding onto it for the extra trash pickup. Now, with composting, we have succeeded in recruiting or are transforming 15% of our customers into paying customers who are willing to pay into the composting program, even though they could otherwise have that taken away for free in their black garbage can. So I think that education has worked. We just aren't seeing enough of a change. And I agree with Adam when he says that in addition to providing the tools that the people need, the infrastructure to put our education into action. Right, they need that compost cart. And then what goes along with that? The complementary piece is the incent, the financial incentive to then downsize their trash part to this size that really works for their household and only pay that amount in order to have that trash taken away. So here's what I'm not hearing. I keep hearing we have educated, but what have we done? Like I hear education specifically. The city has invested x millions of dollars to flier x number of neighborhoods. And from that, from September to December, we did see an increase. We did not. This is how we adjusted an impact of that. I have not heard how we have impacted it from that. I hear what you're saying. That's what I'm trying to get. I hear what you're saying. And I think that because I am not a marketing professional and I don't know that any of us are. I don't know that I can draw that direct line to say, because we fly to this neighborhood or because we ran this program, we saw an X percent uptick in recycling or composting. I just as a I don't want to fall back on the fact that we're government agencies, but we are a government agency. We we educate, we make people aware. But we don't have that data that I think you're looking for, which shows that direct correlation. Thank you, Grace. And and thank you, Madam Chair. Madam President. And that is my problem, because we have not. Sorry. That was a comment. Thank you. I'm good. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. And thank you for the staff members who answered. We'll get to the comment section here pretty soon. Councilmember Ortega, I've got you back in the queue, but I haven't heard from our other. Okay, great. Thank you. Councilmember Kinney, please go ahead with your questions. Thank you. Council president. We had a couple speakers, Lawrence, and I am just looking for the other named Clare Harris, Lawrence Murray and Clara Harris. And I think it's always important to hear the feedback from those with concerns about the program. And they both asked us could we be requiring more of commercial folks and of people who build buildings? And I think that's a really important question. Before we ask something of our residents, what are we asking of our businesses and builders? And so, Grace, I was going to ask if you could please address this idea that, you know, the concern was why aren't we requiring solar panels? Why aren't we requiring more of builders? And so could you please talk about what we are doing in that regard? Because I think it's really important for folks to know this is not the only requirement we're talking about. We have others. So can you just describe a few of those requirements for those speakers who wanted to hear more about that? Certainly, you're right. This is definitely not the only policy that we're pursuing. And so I'll speak to two. First, you've just asked about in our Speaker House about really new construction requirements. And we will we are hoping to come back to council later this year with our first introduction of solar ready electrification ready requirements for new construction in the code. So this is something that this. It has been working on for a couple of years. It takes some time to get into the building code, but we were there last year. In November, the council already passed the energize Denver building performance policy, which will require all of our large commercial buildings 25,000 square feet and larger, as well as some other requirements for smaller commercial buildings to get as close to net zero as possible by 2040 with significant reductions required by 2030. So we are we're absolutely working on I want to add my Midwestern roots. I say soup to nuts. We're trying to do all of it. I'm trying to do all the different things. And managing emissions from waste is certainly one of them. But so, so is managing emissions from buildings and homes as well as for transportation. And then can you just mention one other ordinance, the Green Roofs Initiative and what that requires, please? Sure. The green roof the green roof ballot initiative back in 2016 was transitioned or evolved into the green building ordinance, which now requires that all new construction buildings have to meet certain energy requirements or put vegetated roof on their building or I'm sorry, onsite solar, but it also requires the same of any existing building that is replacing the roof. And so that I'm able to tell you that 95% of the buildings that are going through that requirement have chosen the energy efficiency option. And so they're all working on reducing the energy usage in their buildings because of that ordinance. So between the green building ordinance, the energize Denver for large buildings and then the upcoming building code, is there any piece of our built environment that won't have some sustainability requirement once we finish that building code update? I mean, there are get no so there are within energize Denver. There are some requirements that we're still working on for special types of buildings like manufacturing and agricultural buildings. But yes, the built environment, we are covering it with policies between all three of those. Some everybody's covered by something. Yes. Okay. Thank you for that. And then really quickly, there were several questions from councilmembers about diversion rates. And this particular slide deck tonight did not have the historical line graph with the diversion rates in it, but I have emailed that to all councilmembers in response to those questions because I had it handy and you were asking about it. So for council members, that is in your email box, that slide that shows the historic diversion rate. So if there are follow up questions for the staff, it is now in front of us. So just wanted to to answer that. And with that I will pass it back to I don't know if our vice chair is taking over, but it looks like Councilman Ortega is next in the queue or. Oh. Councilman Clark has the has the mic. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. I think we have customer receipt, tobacco got ends and so Councilmember Ortega already had a chance. If we can go to Councilmember Silver. My line of questioning was the same as Councilman Herndon. So those questions get answered. Thank you. Take care of your backup. So let's see. Grace or. So I'm not sure who needs to answer this. But let me just go back to the billing question for a minute. So we're talking about collections of $33.5 million, basically with this new program. Right. So today's trash service is $27 million roughly? I don't remember that. I heard Councilman Herndon ask this question, but what would it cost just to add composting if we paid for that for all of the households? Same as we do with the rest of our services. And I'm assuming you all would still look at weekly service for all three bins. So, Councilwoman, the change in cost between what you see between the general fund appropriation today and the $33 million number you just referenced is representative of both the weekly recycling as well as citywide composting. I don't have the numbers available to me that delineate the costs between those two programs. Looking to my staff to see if they may, I believe we do have it. So give us just one moment, Councilman. So. Well, while you're doing that, let me just ask. So I guess sort of getting back to the question that Councilman Herndon raised, I, I couldn't understand why, number one, we didn't start with education and then roll that out similar to the way we did with the recycling. And as you heard, we've continued to get more and more people to participate in the recycling. So I'm so that's why I'm asking the question, how much would it cost just to do that? Because essentially what we're doing is saying, well, we're going to collect a new $33 million, 33.5 roughly today. It costs us 27 million. But that 27 isn't like automatically being folded into this program. And one of your slides showed that some of that some of what we collect today would be put into a number of other programs. And there's like a difference of $12 million that would be left supposedly returning back to the general fund. So if we're returning that much money, why wouldn't we just add composting and do everything we can to start getting everybody to be composting? Same way we did with recycling. So let me first invite my finance director, Zack Carter, to the answer, the delineation number, and then I'll tackle this. Okay. Thank you, counsel. Good evening. Decorative financial director for Dottie. So I understand the question correctly is the cost of rolling out compost citywide as the general fund activity? We currently invest about 1.9 million for the paid service appropriated for compost service. To expand that out to the full city would be about an additional $4 million. We're looking at about 6 million total to have a full compost service provided by the general fund. And that would be taking away the program for people who are paying for it today and just covering it for everybody. That is correct. And consistent with the cost of rolling out citywide recycling on a weekly, weekly basis. Okay. So that's why the numbers don't make sense to me. I mean, I get the the the push that if people are paying that, they're going to be more encouraged to recycle and compost. Again, we've raised the recycling party's participation rate, but we've not. We so some people have chose to pay right today and others feel like, you know, my trash service has always been part of my taxes, so why should I be paying for that? And then since there's such a significant cost difference between just adding that versus rolling out all of the trash service into a new fee structure , which I'm assuming will be set up as a as an enterprise fund. Help me understand why we didn't start with that. So, Councilman, I'm struggling to follow the question completely, but let me make a few clarifying points here. One, the numbers I believe you're referencing here, speak specifically to 2023. Where is. Yeah, I looked at that as well as the projections over the next six years to 2034. That's correct. And so certainly next year, we will experience some expenses that relate to one time implementation. And next year we'll wait to determine what the cost to the city is for the affordability program. We don't have a certainty around that cost because we don't know who's going to subscribe to that now, and we want to make sure we do not shortchange it. Now, to add additional information to the question is, what am I not answering there, Councilwoman? Well, we're adding more cost to the program because we're including the affordability program. We're also saying to our drivers, if you have, you know, people on your routes that are, you know, in in an area where you've got topography, that requires steps for people to get their trash bins down the steps. And I know in some of our neighborhoods, they literally have to take them down the alley to this to the side street and then bring them to the front. And we're saying if they're elderly and they can't get their their trash bins down, three of them. Right. We'll have our driver stop in the middle of the street and our driver will go do that. And I'm concerned about the workman's comp claim. So we will see if we're asking our drivers to do that when it snows. And if, you know, we're talking about elderly folks who can't take their trash bins, more than likely, they have an. Had a chance to remove the snow on their sidewalks. So it's some of those kinds of things that I've been told in the briefings that that's something that we're going to do. And in fact, we're adding to emissions in the middle of the street by by forcing them to stop and asking them to go do that, take three bins, you know, bring them down, probably take them back. So I'm just not understanding why we didn't just start with that. And given that we're only talking 4 to $6 million instead of $33 million per program, because now what we want to do is create a separate fund just for all of our trash services. So yeah. So Councilman, first of all, I want to clarify the service that we would provide to any resident that's mobility impaired is provided today. And so any increased risk to that is is incremental. And so certainly not a concern that I have that I have now as it relates to would there be a different way that we can propose how we manage waste it? Certainly we could look at a less aggressive we could certainly look at a more aggressive. What we're bringing forth to council today is what our recommendation is based on review of peer cities, based on actual results over the last 10 to 20 years on how we achieve the goals that we've set out. And so that's where the recommendation that's for council today was developed. Got it. Okay. So on the fees, is that intended to be done through the wastewater? So when the wastewater bills go out, somehow now will include billing for trash service with wastewater. We used to see wastewater bills with our water bills, right? Yeah. So how are we looking to do that? Yeah. So we were working towards a single consolidated bill for the utility services that you receive from the city and county number of be inclusive of what you were traditionally used to in wastewater in Denver water bill as well as this volume based pricing service. So we're going to include water, wastewater and trash. These all in one bill. Just the utilities provided by the city and county of Denver. So wastewater and the trash and. Trash, correct. Okay. And is wastewater absorbing any of the costs associated with the billing system? So the billing system will. Mailing out the notices. So both programs will be hit with that expense. So we will appropriate the appropriate amount of expense for any billing system to the wastewater fund. And we were appropriate the of the right amount of expense to the SRF for this solid waste, as we're calling. It, a special revenue fund, not an enterprise fund. So wastewater is an investment? No, this one, we're not calling it an enterprise, but. It is not are we not calling it an investment? It is a spectrum. Okay. Let me see. I think I have a couple more, so. When I had my briefing, I was told that we were going to start the billing notices in October. So the program would would start January, but it was based on, you know, starting to get the bins out to everybody in October. I don't know how that has changed since that briefing, because I believe there was an agreement that the program would be moved to January. Now, so has has that timeframe changed of when those notices go out and when people would start getting their bins? So we certainly are continuing to propose a phased roll out. And consistent with what we have referenced before, the timeline will certainly shift as a result of the initiation date of the ordinance. Okay. So what I'm getting at is I was told that people will start getting their bins, you know, in that phased out system that you just mentioned. But everybody would start getting their notices, their bills, and some people would then basically have theirs credited. But when we were having the conversation, it was going to be an onus put on the household to have to contact the city, to say you need to, you know, credit me. So has that changed? So that onus will not be on the customer to contact us? I think we will be doing that automatically. So we're automatically tracking who's getting the bin. Sort. Of bills. So we're not starting to notify anybody who hasn't received the bins. They're not going to get a bill until they get the paper. That is correct. Okay. That's. Thank you for. That. And Councilwoman. Just to clarify, if you receive a bill and you do not have a bill, you will get a credit for the fact that you do not yet have a bin or that bin service is not yet available for you. I want to make sure I'm answering that question here. So it's tracking whether they get the credit and making sure that they haven't received the bin. The same team that's tracking whether or not they've received a bin and whether or not bin service is available yet. Okay. So my last question is about the annual costs that are projected starting in 2023 and 33.5 million. It shows 6.5 ranged from 6.5 to 7 million as an annual cost just for the trucks. I know we approved something like 15 trucks, if I'm remembering correctly, that came through here. I don't know. I want to say about a month ago. Yeah. And just curious if we're going to be buying new trucks every year and how that fits into that batch that we just approved. Are we are we moving to electric electric trucks? Are we, you know, just continuing to buy the same trucks we've been buying? Because if we're making that very clear to the people we're buying them from and technology keeps changing, I want to make sure we're continuing to move that needle on the emission side. Yeah, so good. Good question, Councilwoman. So the purchase the lease purchase that this body saw approximately two or three months ago was for replacement of the existing fleet. Today, that is not included within its volume based pricing within the line item for the annual budget. What we're anticipating is that replacement of approximately 14 trucks a year. Moving forward, the average service life for a solid waste vehicle industry standard is four years. We are far we are nearly double that with the fleet in Denver right now. So we certainly have a backlog that we are looking to not only catch up with and address, but we also have just started the process for initiating a heavy duty electric vehicle study so that we can ensure that when the technology exists, we as a city are one of the first to market. We we were the one of the first to roll out an all electric sweeper. And we see a lot of promise in our total vehicle technology for the heavy duty market. And we're beginning that study just, in fact, in the last week. Thank you, Adam. I have no further questions. Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I don't know who should answer this question, but on slide 24, which is in the appendix, it says and I remember reading about this in a couple of months ago in Denver. Right. I think had an article online. And the first bullet says about weekly recycling that there's been a high demand from customers and city council, that we go to weekly recycling throws. And I was puzzled when I read the article and then when I see this in the presentation, because in seven years that I've been here, I have never had any constituent ask me for weekly recycling. And I thought, Well, do they cut the telegraph lines to Southwest Denver? Maybe I just did not get the news. But I have had a lot of constituents who have said, you know what, I fill up my cart every two weeks and I have more I could put in there. Could you give me a second card? Or better yet, could you give me the 95 gallon purple card? Because we seem to default to the 65 gallon cart when when somebody gets a new card, they get 65. Or my neighbor, for whom I got a second card, he got a 35 gallon one. You know, we should always be if we want to encourage recycling, we should always give out the 95 gallon. So have we actually documented who it is that's demanding weekly recycling? I have never had anyone ask me for weekly recycling. So, Councilman, I certainly understand that that's not something that you may be hearing from your constituents within your district. I can say this from a citywide sample. When we went out to do our public engagement for this effort, it was something we certainly heard from a city wide perspective. And so in regards to documenting those individual conversations, I'll defer to my communications team on that. But do we keep hearing it myself as well? I mean, do we keep a log or anything? Like who? Who are these forms? I can say accurately that I have had near unanimous opposition to this proposal. And I can say that I've had only one constituent that has told me they support it. And she's sitting in the room here, and I'll acknowledge that. But everyone else I've heard from has said weekly recycling is a waste of resources, driving twice the number of twice the amount of mileage, twice the number of trucks around the city every week instead of every other week is a waste, and it will offset any gain in lowered emissions from the landfill. By doing that, because we're just driving twice as much with diesel trucks around the city. And why did. We or did we evaluate keeping the biweekly recycling? Because unlike compost, it won't rot. It won't draw maggots. It will sit there for the second week giving the 95 gallon cart or two cards to customers, the few customers who actually would need we. Who. Would benefit from weekly recycling? What was our evaluation on that? Because it seems to me it's a waste of resources. Councilman Flynn. My name is Margaret Mather and deputy manager here. I just wanted to address a few of your comments and questions. First of all, we do keep a log and a record of public comments that we get. And we actually look at that and we map it. We have a top concern so that that helps us direct how we can better serve our customers. So we we do have a record and a log of comments we get. But then we also I know council, our council members get comments and then they will then get fed to us. And so we know that we have heard, you know, maybe not every council member, but we have that has been a big comment that we've had. Margaret, how did we reach out to people in order to see what they've what they wanted? Because we've heard a lot from from people who are organized, the Climate Action Task Force, it's in their recommendations. But I have a feeling that Rosario and Margaret didn't know that people were asking, Do you want weekly recycling? I have a feeling that folks in Brentwood and and Marlee and Harvey Park had no idea that we were asking the folks in the green shirts what they would like to see, what was more outreach to the broader neighborhoods on this. And I know that we did do a citywide outreach effort, I think specifically to talk to the weekly recycling, though, part of the benefit of the reroof that we did in breaking the city up into districts and aligning our solid waste teams. So we have a supervisor who is responsible for a district and that's a trash district that doesn't align with our city council districts, but that we have our staff out in the field. They talk to people, they connect with them. And a big concern that we hear is carp management. And so the idea that you're going to now bring more carts and again, this is dependent on the part of the city you're in, in the neighborhood, and that's why we really try to tailor our our service. But the last thing a lot of people want is a bigger bean in another bean. And, um, and Director McGwire did it and his team did an analysis of the weekly recycling. And, you know, the thing we need to remember is we're not changing the tonnage. What we're doing is changing what Bennett goes into. And when you do weekly recycling more, that gets into the recycle bin. And maybe you don't need to take your card out every week if you don't fill up the weekly recycling. But it is not double the trucks. That's not the way that the math works out. And I don't know, Director, you want to. Let me ask you this. Would we have a way should this pass in our analysis of whether it's successful or whether it's falling short, whether it's exceeding goals? Would we have a way of determining? Because I would contend that giving 95 gallon purple cards one to most households would suffice for biweekly and not need weekly pickup. Most households won't need a weekly pickup. If we gave them the 95 gallon card, would we have a way if this were to pass? To report back to council in the two year or five year review. How often are households? Are they putting it out every week? That and if they are, I mean, will we know, you know, 50% of the houses put it out every week, 25% put it out every week or whatever. And will we know how much is in those cards? If I were to do it, it's just me and my wife were empty nesters, so if I were to put it out every week, you'd be picking up half every week of what you could wait the second week to pick up a full car. Right. You don't have to bring the card out if it's not. Yes, that's. And that's what I'm getting at. Will, we know in the reports that you might give. Us, we. Are. Are people putting it out every week or are they not? Because I would suggest that if they're not, then it was pointless then to do weekly pick up if people are still putting it out every other week. So part of the modernization of our system that we're going through right now is also adding some software, some software that will be in the truck so we can we'll know when we've picked up the car. We're going to know we're going to be collecting a lot more data. Now, we're not currently weighing weighing the bin. So we're not going to be able to tell it. You know, we're not going to have that type of data, but we will know the number of households that use the weekly recycling. We'll know the number of households that use compost. And that's the more data that we'll have and that will report in our we. Will know that when a truck picks up a car, does it somehow register that I've done one, I've done two, I've done three. So if we have 100 customers and they only pick up from 75, we would know that. That's information that the drivers collect. So that is part of the information. And since we're moving to a billing system, we're going to have to have more data and more data on our customers. And and that is part of the system that we're putting together right now. But I did just want to bring up that point that we do hear a lot from the community asking for weekly recycling. We understand council hear. Is a lot. From people wanting weekly recycling. And our number one issue in a lot of areas is what to do with the carts. And I think the idea of having one more cart in a lot of areas would be problematic. Or one. Larger cart, which might suffice. I think I have a 65 gallon purple cart and I've had it filled enough that they'd prop the lid up. And so maybe a 95 gallon cart for me would suffice every other week, probably for most households, probably for Rosario and Margaret for. Certainly. Thank you. Thank you. That's why I have. Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Kenny. Thank you. Council President I wanted to just clarify one very important point that came up in the questions and answers from Councilwoman Ortega. So I think she was asking some questions about Slide 16 from the appendix about actually I'm sorry, slides 17. And in passing she mentioned that there would be $12 million left over in return to the general fund, but that is not what this slide shows. So I wanted to ask if someone from the team can please refer to the fact that so so it's a 25. I'm going to ask the question and then ask you to two to fill in. But it's a out of $25 million, about 13 ish million is programed in this slide that will stay in the general fund in 2023, which means $12 million doesn't show up as a line item, but it is not true that those dollars are unspoken for. So can you please talk about why those $12 million are staying in the general fund and what they will be used for and how we're going to work through that? And you know, if we need someone else from the team to answer as well. But can you just clarify that, please? But yes, Councilwoman, so the $12 million are not programs because they are identified for the affordability program. And so because we do not know the extent of which households will ultimately pursue the affordability program, we're not going to shortchange it by putting a budget number in here right now. So what you see as a remainder is, a, to be determined. And once we know what our applications are, where we end up with the affordability program, we'll know what dollars and to what extent are available for repurposing. At that point, those dollars would be eligible to be repurposed. Councilwoman, does that address the question? Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. And, you know, the councilwoman can chime back in as well. But can I just follow up with one more question, which is that so to the to the to the idea that we should just make compost free or that we should just provide, you know, improved. Services without this fee. I just want to clarify, is there extra money in the budget to do either of those things? No, Councilwoman, there is not. So what would have to happen if we wanted to do these magical things and provide more services with no fee? We'd have to expand our appropriation to solid waste management within the daily budget. Okay, so there is no extra money sitting there waiting to be used for these free services if we were to go a different direction. No, there is not. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate it. If I may add, on the flip side, if we then create a new fee, then we're adding that much more. We're adding we're creating $33 million. And then you're saying of this 25 that we collect today, then 12 million of that is what's remaining. But part of that will go towards the affordability program and, you know, the billing system and the education and the things that are on this slide. There are onetime costs that are associated with what you see on this slide in front of you right now. Moving forward, there will be costs to the General Fund for Solid Waste Management that are outside of those services that we provide to households. So for example, they keep Denver beautiful programing. Councilman Flynn, I appreciate your interest in that program. Our graffiti program, where we keep the city clean and free of graffiti, as well as the affordability program. And so you see those costs continue to be a general fund supported item moving forward with the passing of volume based trash passing . But if you look at slide 31, slide 31 takes you from 2023 all the way to 2030 and shows what your admin costs are, your waste collection vehicles. And we go from 33.5 million in 2023, up to 38 point. 2.3 in 2030. So those are. Ongoing costs continuing to be added to the program. Specific to the special revenue fund. And so these don't these costs do not include the affordability program. They do not include our graffiti program. They do not include I keep them or beautiful program they don't include. So these are all part of the new program, the new fund that is is being collected from the fees to continue trash service of regular trash recycling and composting. And education and other components that are related to volume based price. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmembers Kenny and Ortega. I had a couple of questions, Adam. Are there requirements within city buildings within this building, within the Taylor building in Montebello? Are there requirements for there to be composting offered in those city facilities? I'll defer to Jessica Lally for that question. We do provide service to city facilities, including fire stations, municipal buildings and libraries. So there is currently composting available at the Taylor Building. For city employees who have their offices within the area. Taylor Building Is there composting currently provided? As those buildings reach out to the Solid Waste Team? We've expanded our services to them. And so I'm not sure if that building has it, but any buildings that have reached out to us, like Denver Human Services or libraries, we've added compost to their collection. Can you tell me the number out of all of the city buildings that are city assets, how many of those currently today provide composting? I can send recycling. Certainly get that to you. But you don't have it now. Not at this moment. Okay. Well, I will let you know right now that there is no composting service unless I've missed it, but I'm pretty sure I haven't at our own city owned facilities in Montebello. And so that is concerning, but we'll go ahead and move along. How long has composting been available in the city and county of Denver? What was that year again that we started it? Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm just looking for a note. But we believe that the city started the composting program as a pilot that was grant funded in 2014 and then it was moved to the city budget, I believe, in 2016 or 17. Okay. So we. Didn't see the budget as it. Was at the moment. That the ordinance was passed to create a special revenue fund to expand the composting service beyond the pilot stage. Okay. So we'll even give you a 2016, 2017. How many customers do you currently have in the Montebello community who are participating in composting? I like to just go. For that data. It's very few. Most importantly. It's 126 customers in Montebello. Do you have how many are participating paying for composting currently in Green Valley Ranch? I apologize. I need to pull up the data. Okay. It's 294. My follow up question is if composting has been available since 2014, 15, 16, 17. Where was the marketing plan around it? Who was the company that either Kasper or Dotti or Solid Waste? Who was the marketing company that we had an RFP with a contract with to market and increase those composting customers? Who was that company? Well, I would only say that. Kessler does not have a contract for that. Okay. So cancer doesn't have any marketing company to increase and provide education to constituents to increase these numbers. Dottie, who is the vendor that you used for marketing and outreach income person? I don't have that information about what we'd have to look back historically to see what we leveraged and specifically who we leveraged or if we did that service in-house for marketing. Okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate the answers to those questions. The public hearing is closed. We're going to move to our Amendments Council member Herndon. We're going to go ahead and start with your motion to amend. We don't have Councilmember Hearn. Councilmember Cashman. Can I get you to go ahead and read or make the motion? We're on page seven. Yes, I've got you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. I move that council bill 22 685 be amended in the following particulars. One on page nine, line 27, strike section eight reporting the manager of transportation and infrastructure shall report in writing to City Council by February one, 2025 and every two years thereafter regarding the operation of the program and replace that with Section eight, a new Section 48 of Chapter 48 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code shall be created by adding the language as follows Section 40, Dash 49 reporting the manager of Transportation Infrastructure shall report in writing to City Council by February one, 2025, and every two years thereafter regarding the operation of the program. All right, thank you very much, Councilman Cashman, for making that motion. Yes, Councilman, do you. Have a. Copy of the item? I don't have a copy digitally or or on paper. Is that available to us? Mark Page, I believe, sent out the script for the meeting tonight a little bit after four. Thank you. We're on page seven. And so it would be the exact language there. We're going to go ahead and go to Councilmember Herndon for we're going to go to questions or comments on this amendment, and we're going to first go to Councilmember Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilman Cashman, for reading that. As I said before, this is just a technical amendment that codifies the reporting requirement for Ms.. So this is more than likely the easiest amendment we're going to have tonight. Thank you. Agreed. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Flynn, did you have any follow up questions? Are you good? Okay. All right. Very good. I don't have any other members in the queue for questions or comments on this amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment to Council Bill 22, Dash 685, please. CdeBaca, I. Sandoval. Sandoval. Sandoval. By Torres. I. I. Black tie, Clark. All right. Sorry. Flynn. I Herndon. I Haines. I Cashman. I can each i. Ortega, i. Sawyer, i. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, to close the voting and announce results. 13 813 IES Council Bill 20 2-685 has been amended. Councilmember Ortega, your motion to amend. Thank you, Madam President. Council Members I move to amend Council Bill 20 2-0685 as follows On page six Line one strike article and Ad Perin article. If the adjustment results in an increase that is less than or equal to 5% of the fee, if the adjustment proposed by the manager results in an increase that is greater than 5% of the fee. City Council approval fee ordinance shall be required. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. It has been moved and we've got a second there. Questions and or comments by members of Council on this amendment. Councilmember Ortega. So the purpose of this amendment, it would limit the authority of the manager to increase fees beyond 5% and instead would require require city council for any increase exceeding 5%. For example, based on the fees in 48 dash, 40 to 5% be an increase exceeding $0.46 per month on the smallest bean and a dollar six per month on the largest bean would require city council approval. So that's just a breakdown of what those numbers would look like. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Ortega. We've got a few members in the queue here. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. I just, I guess, need a little clarification about how this amendment, if approved, would function in the real world. Right. So if there is a situation where like this year, the cost of doing business has gone up at least 8% and potentially is anticipated by the end of the year to be looking at more like 11% if the cost of the trash service passes and and is at that same 11% rate and council says no to the to the proposed more than 5% growth in the fee. How then are we going to pay for. The trash service? Is that question for me or you asking that of the folks from Dottie? What I'm asking you, I mean, I guess but it was probably a question for financier Dottie at the end of the day, like, I just don't understand. First of all, this is based on them having to come back and show that there's justification for an increase. Sure, I understand. And they they can do that below the 5%. What this is asking for is anything above the 5%. And just to be clear, this was a an amendment that was proposed last week. It was shared with me by one of our colleagues, actually, a couple of our colleagues. But when mine didn't pass and I didn't vote for it, they chose not to support it tonight, and you'll probably hear from them. So this was, again, a compromise to what I was bringing forward, which I thought was a compromise that was asking for the fees to be approved by council in general. But this is making that 5% threshold a requirement where council would then have approval authority, very similar to what we do today with other fees that we still have that power over some of those over time. Council has abdicated that authority to the manager of agency. Sure. I totally understand the purpose of it and the intent of it. I am asking for clarity around what will happen, like not in theory, what will actually happen if this amendment passes to the trash services because it's a fee. So it has to be zero. It has to be revenue neutral. So like, is there a I guess I'm asking Finance or Dottie or Kaser? I'm not sure who I'm asking. There are a lot of hands on the. Pot, but like, what is the what's the plan for. If worst case scenario this were to pass and it were above a 5% price growth and council said no. Councilwoman Adam Phipps with Dottie. What I will say is we're proposing the amendment. We're proposing the ordinance without that cap so that we don't end up in that scenario. That's where Dottie's position is on this. Got it. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Sawyer. Councilwoman Greenwich. Thank you. Council President. I will just pick up with my comments where we're left off. I will not be supporting this amendment tonight. We always are exploring ways to find common ground with colleagues. And we made that attempt last week and we didn't find it. And so the amendment last week was struck down. And I would urge folks to vote no on it this week. I would like to just add a little more coloring in of the lines to add to what Director Phipps said, which is that here's here's how I see the risk. This program is required to provide essential services to residents and including things that this council has prioritized, such as education. So daily, sir, you know, a weekly service with all the bins getting picked up and education to make sure that they're used properly is really important to this council. If if the cost of providing that service requires an increase and this council because of fear of political reprisal or fear of pressure, bulks at paying for what the program costs. Then the program is faced with having to cut services or somehow find another way to compensate and make sure that the service is not compromised. That's the risk of putting this in a political process versus a technical process. I think it's important for us to monitor and use our oversight powers to make sure we read those cost of service studies. When the agency does them to make sure that they are being responsible, that they are being lean, that they are making sure that they are going to service the increases as a last resort, that they try to find efficiencies to try to find rebates from the state and grant funding and all those things they do today. They need to keep doing that and we need to stay on them. But I am I don't think it's best for us to subject an essential city service to kind of political process that could compromise it, you know, in a future in a future situation. So I will be voting no tonight, and I would urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Khanna, each Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I was supportive of the amendment. I was supportive of the amendment that launched last week that attempted to keep the power to set the rates with this council. We've abdicated and ceded. A. Lot of fees to the agencies that are now on autopilot. Oddly enough, I would cite many of the same factors that Councilwoman Kennedy just responded. But I would suggest that listening to our constituents and what they want. Is a good thing. Responding to their needs and desires is why we're up here and we shouldn't put this on autopilot. And to Councilwoman Sawyer, I think the reason the response of this council to say an 11% if there had to increase by 11% and we didn't want to do that. I think what we would have to do then is suggest to the agency that they restructure the service, that they come back to us. Perhaps it would it would be the case as I got it got out in my questioning that the recycling program isn't necessary every week. Maybe we could go back to every other week, and that would provide the savings that we wouldn't need an 11% increase. But without the pressure of having to come back to us for permission to raise the fee above 5%, that's all gone. And we don't have to respond to what our what our struggling families are saying out in the neighborhoods. They'll just get hit with a with an 11% increase in this. In the example that was that was suggested down the other end of the dais just now, I think it's a good thing that it has to come back to the council if it's over a certain amount. That's why we're up here. And so I will support this amendment. And I would ask that my colleagues do that, that they approve it also. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please. CdeBaca, I. Sandoval. No. Torres. I. Black. Clark No. Schwinn. I. Herndon No. Hines No. Cashman can reach me. Ortega, I. Sawyer. No, Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announce the results. Eight NIS. Five Eyes. Five Eyes. The amendment to Council Bill 20 2-685 has failed. Councilmember Flynn. Your motion to amend. Thank you, Madam President. Looking through the script. All right I move the council bill 20 2-6 85 be amended in the following particulars on page nine, line 32. Strike January and replace with October. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. It's been moved and seconded. Thank you. Questions or comments by members of Council on this amendment? Council Member Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. That might be the shortest amendment I've ever proposed. There are several reasons to pursue this change. The effect of it would be to push back the start to October rather than January next year. My concern is that when we were presented this in committee, we were told that in January this year there was a 35% vacancy rate. 35% of the positions in solid waste were vacant and that by the beginning of June there was down to 28%. And that's after a really remarkable, commendable period of aggressive recruitment and hiring. I think we were paying sign up bonuses where we as a $4000 to $5000, I might sign up. And so we closed we filled 7% of the open positions at that rate of hiring and council and commission. I did have a discussion about this this afternoon. And and she has some optimism about future hiring that I hope is true, but I can't rely on it. But at that rate of hiring in five months, we filled 7% of the vacant positions. It would take 20 more months to reach 100% of staffing for the current level of service, not even accounting for the 22 additional operators we need to hire to go to weekly recycling. And so one of the biggest calls and complaints we've had from constituents since January is that their their trash and recycling and compost, not so much compost, but mostly trash. And recycling has not been picked up on their new assigned day. I think Adam and our assortment is here. Still here. Thank you. I think, Art, that your folks are doing an incredible job under very difficult circumstances. When they go by my house and I happen to be home, I go out and I thank the driver for probably holding him up a little bit from completing the rounds, but I let them know that they're doing a great job under difficult conditions. I believe that by starting this program, especially weekly recycling too soon, we are setting it up to fall flat on its face and that by giving it those extra months to October rather than January, we will give them the time to do the hiring. And I would expect the department to welcome that breathing space. They probably won't admit it, but I'm hoping they feel it better that I'm doing this as a favor to them and I would ask for support. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Clark. Thank you, council president. You know, with with respect to my colleague, you know, we've been in the trenches working with the department. And this to my knowledge, you have not reached out and asked for this delay. That's not something the department is asking for that we have talked this through and talk this through. There is no need to further delay coming out of committee. There were members who pushed for later implementation date and we were proposing originally, which the department was ready to to to implement that. And those members made a strong argument for that. And that's already led to the move to a January one implementation. So we've already had this conversation. We've already determined the original date put forward should be moved to January 1st for a lot of reasons that I'm not going to relitigate here. That made sense. The bill was altered to address those concerns. Further delay is not needed. It will cause additional logistical and financial issues. I've talked to the folks in the department who do this as their job. Instead of me trying to do them a favor, talked to them and heard from them. And this is sticking with the January one date is is the right way to go on this, you know, in addition to making sure that that is operationally what works and working closely with those folks. You know, we have heard tonight and we continue to talk about the urgency when it comes to the need to take action on climate. We cannot wait any longer and just pushing this out arbitrarily after we've already talked through and made a further delay and waited decades after talking about this and and years and months after continuing to talk about this to implement. I think that this is extremely detrimental for us. On top of which, pushing the implementation that then puts the implementation straddling right in the middle of when there is a new administration coming in. There will be. Change over with staffing. I think for all of those reasons and more, this is a bad idea. I will be voting no and ask my colleagues to also vote in all and vote this amendment down tonight. Thank you, Council President. Thank you, Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I'll be brief. I will be supporting this tonight. I think there are a number of aspects that we've talked about that I'm not going to, you know, elaborate on or be repetitive about, but I just don't believe this is baked yet. And for that reason, I will be supporting this amendment to delay the implementation. Some of us have tried to address some of the concerns that we've heard from neighbors. And overwhelmingly, the input that I have received from people that have reached out to my office have been in opposition to this. Yes, I have heard from people who support it, but overwhelmingly the people I have heard from do not support this fee. So some of us have tried to figure out how do we make sure that we're reflecting that input that we've heard from our constituents? As you know, you're all my constituents, but a lot of them are concerned about the cost implications. And at this time, when so many people are struggling with all the other things that they've been hit with as a result of of COVID and, you know, more fees and other increases yet to come with other services. And so we'll be seeing one from Parks and Rec before too long. So these are yet more fees being imposed on our our citizens. And when you look at it, you know, one household is bearing the brunt of those ongoing costs. So and this will be a cost that will be in place forever. As someone asked earlier. So it's not something we're doing just to get it ramped up and then, you know, have it on its feet and then incorporated into the general fund. It's something we're going to put in place that we can continue to raise the fees just like we did with our wastewater fees. So I'll be supporting this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please. CdeBaca. I. Sandoval. No. Torres. No. Black. No. Clark No. Flynn All right. Herndon No. HINES No. Cashman Can each name Ortega? Sawyer now, madam President. I, Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Nine nays for ice. Four eyes. The amendment fails. This is the Second Amendment to Council Bill 22, Dash 685, which has failed. Councilmember CdeBaca. Your motion to amend. And move that council bill 20 2-6 85 be amended in the following particulars on page seven Line 27 After customers add such rules and regulations shall provide for a full and automatic rebate to any owner or occupant of eligible property located in a neighborhood identified as at risk or susceptible to gentrification. In the 2016 study conducted by the Denver Economic Development and Opportunity Agency, entitled Gentrification Study Mitigating Involuntary Displacement if the owner purchased such property prior to 2013. Think, think, think, think. Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Never say to. Thank you for reading that amendment. And I see that it has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council on this amendment. Council Member Sayed Abarca, did you want to explain it a little bit more? Yes. In 2016, we paid for and conducted a study about involuntary displacement and the study aimed at understanding our neighborhoods on a census tract basis. It deeply analyzed household income, years of ownership, years of change, and it identified our most vulnerable neighborhoods, places where gentrification had not yet occurred. Places where it had started occurring. Places where it was already completed. And so what I'm aiming to do with this amendment is protect the areas that have not yet experienced gentrification at the time of the study, its likely low experience of gentrification early stage at this point. But what we do know is that those household incomes have been steadily, deeply. And therefore, we don't need to put those owners or residents through entitlement testing. We know who they are. We know where they live. We know what they can afford based on that study that we already paid for. And it would be a conservation of resources, and it would help the residents to not have to jump through any hoops in order to obtain this rebate. Thank you. Council members say to Barker. Council member Sawyer. Thanks, but the President just quick question for our Legislative Council is this. Allowable under TABOR because I know exemptions are not allowed under state, but the taxpayer bill of Rights under state law. So does this count as an exemption? Would this be. Legal? Thanks, councilman. So I'm not sure about TABOR does regulate in terms of whether we can exempt certain people from being able to pay the fee. TABOR does have some restrictions regarding whether it's a tax or a fee in terms of who has to pay it. Councilman said about this amendment suggesting that we had a group of people qualify for the rebate. General, at any time the government determines that one group of people is not up to something and another group of people are locked out of something. As long as that's not a protected class, they can do so for a legitimate purpose. But that classification has to be rationale added to that purpose. The problem classification, the more tenuous you make that classification the purpose. And so you risk not being rational that maybe what you're getting at from a tamer perspective that's more on what you're charging. This is about the rebate and who gets the rebate. Okay. So let me make sure I understand what you just said clearly. So, because this is a specific class of people that we know is facing pressures of gentrification and displacement, and we have the data to prove it. And we and we are considering automatically qualifying them for the rebates at 100%, not automatically exempting them from paying for the service that is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose and therefore would withstand any sort of state or federal constitutional challenge to the law. Sort of. So what I'm saying is that because this is about a rebate, it's about equal protection instead of TABOR, and because this is about a rebate, what you have to do is ensure that the people that get the rebate, that that class of people is rational, pointed at the purpose of why you're giving the rebate. Okay. Is one study. Done in 2016 sufficient for us to make that determination. Whether so that's sort of up to the body, whether the group of people identified in the study should get the rebate because that furthers the purpose that the body believes that's up to the council. Okay. I would add that our entire minority business approaches and social equity licenses, those are all grounded or based on justified by a single point in time study of the demographic data. And so this would be no different. It was, in fact, the purpose of conducting this study so that we could build policies that were protective in response to this data. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And say to Baka Councilmember Kenny. Thank you. Council President I guess I'll just follow up with a quick question to our council based on the prior questions. If a individual has a home valued at $1 million in Westwood, would they be exempt from the fee under this amendment? Thanks. Councilman Ken Trabuco, assistant city attorney. Again, because the amendment is being specific about neighborhoods identified in the 2016 study, I'm not sure. But if statutes in 16 study did classify them as at risk and. The answer is yes. Okay. So, you know, I will just posit that the the neighborhoods in question here point to Globeville area, Swansea, Westwood and perhaps East Colfax. And so I just want to clarify. Just. Just say it back to you so that if a person owned $1,000,000 home in one of those neighborhoods that's identified in that study, they would be exempt from the fee. If the person owned if the person on a mandatory home that's identified in those neighborhoods and they purchased at home prior to 2013 then. Yes. Okay. Even if it's worth $1,000,000. As long as it's an independent study and I gotcha. I gotcha. So let me just say the inverse then. If you are an individual who makes has a home, you know, worth, you know, the median, let's say, of 400 and some thousand dollars, aside from our momentary little bubble we're in, or you're a homeowner earning $70,000 a year, perhaps as your income and you happen to be in a neighborhood not listed, would you be exempt from the fee? That the amendment does not change the rules and regulations that Daddy may promulgate that they were given, I think gave a presentation so that I still promulgate rules and regulations that allow a rebate based on am I. So potentially, but under the language of the amendment, they wouldn't qualify under the language of the amendment. I'm just going to move your comments because they're they're together on amendments. And so let me just state that this amendment absolutely would treat two homeowners with very different incomes, the same if they are in a neighborhood. And it would actually advantage wealthy homeowners who could be exempt just because of where their houses. And would continue to have those wealthy homeowners be subsidized by more moderate income homeowners who happen to live in another neighborhood. I believe that makes us very vulnerable to a challenge of rational basis by treating similarly situated homeowners so very differently and potentially so inequitable based only on geography. I agree with the underlying goal of mitigating the impacts of this to those who are struggling to make ends meet. And I will just review what our income thresholds are. If you are a household of one earning less than $50,000, you are eligible for a rebate under this program to help you with your fees. If you are a household of three of three people and you earn less than $63,000 as a household, you are eligible for a rebate under those program. These are some of the highest income thresholds we have for an assistance program to help with some of the lowest fees and costs of any utility. These utilities cost less than Denver Water, less than Xcel, and they have much more generous rebates. And so just to be very clear, we have a mechanism built into this ordinance that mitigates the impacts to families who are struggling. We do need to find them. We do need to work with them to help make sure they're signed up. And we need to be very thorough and fund that. It's why we have a program that is funding nonprofits that are based in these very neighborhoods. That is a major target of the nonprofits we'll be partnering with to have them do the outreach as trusted partners, not government employees, not DHS staff. But these partners will be out there on the ground in communities that already know and trust them to get folks signed up for these rebates. So we are working to mitigate that in a way that is fair and equitable and will be much more likely to stand up in court than this amendment. So I do urge people to vote the amendment down, both based on the inequities it could create, as well as based on the legal risk it could put us to . Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember, can each council member say to Baca. Thank you. I just wanted to point out that it does not change the rest of the proposed income eligibility program. It's in addition to it, and it does an automatic rebate to households that we already know qualify under those for those income brackets. And we know that based on the study that we did. And so we're specifically putting in the house being purchased before 2013 because when the study was conducted, if you go back and read it, what you'll see is that they assessed each census block to see how far along gentrification was. And these were areas where the census blocks suggested that gentrification had not even started yet in that particular area. And so that is why the 2013 date is important, because that means that it would be consistent with the data that we had at the time of the report. And so it would automatically give them those people their rebate without them having to jump through hoops. It does not remove the other pieces of the program. Anyone else anywhere in the city who qualifies under the income eligibility requirements could also obtain this benefit. It removes a barrier simply for people who we already have studied and know do not need to be studied again or put through any income testing processes. Thanking Council member CdeBaca. Next up, we have Council Pro-Tem Torres. Thank you, Madam President. Just asking for clarification, Anshul. Is that what the language is that's drafted in front of us? Because it read as though it applied to whole neighborhoods and didn't have that discernment. That's. I can't hear people. Operating in their neighborhoods as identified in the study. Angel. Can you repeat that? I couldn't hear you on Zoom. So the answer to your question is yes, it would apply to homeowners and occupants of eligible property if they're located in a neighborhood identified in the study. So it would it would allow a rebate to people within a certain geographical area. Everyone in a geographical area, meaning the neighborhood or the census block or the property. B it would be the neighborhood as defined in the study. The study used neighborhood boundaries. Okay. If it's. If it's not able to be as specific as property. Councilman CdeBaca I get what you're. Aiming for, and if it is, if it doesn't accomplish that, it can't. Support it. I do appreciate, I think, what you're trying. To zero in on, which is making it less burdensome for. Low income households to apply to qualify for the instant rebate. And I think that's a commendable thing to try to apply to. To amend for. I just worry that it's not going. To achieve that. And looking at the study as well and some of the neighborhoods that. Are growing in displacement, vulnerability aren't even on this map yet. Westwood and Sun Valley don't even trigger on this map yet because they didn't have the data. So it also misses quite a bit. So I unfortunately, I can't support it right now. Counsel Pro Tem Torres. Next up, I have Councilmember Ortega. I just want to ask a question of our folks either from daddy or cancer. I understand the expectation is to identify organizations in these neighborhoods. We may have some areas that don't have a neighborhood eye. I'm thinking about some of the properties in Councilwoman Black's district where they might be eligible. And so part of my concern is if you're not already in the Denver human service system, it makes sense. They're going to reach out to people that are in their system, that have case managers and whatnot. That's going to be easy for them to reach those individuals. But for neighborhoods that don't have an active organization that that have affordable housing, where families that may also have some language barriers are not going to otherwise know about this. I'm a little concerned that we're going to be missing some people. So is there another way besides just community based nonprofits in Denver, Human Services trying to get this word out? I'm hoping that, you know, there will be some firing with various languages because depending on where you're at in our geography, languages vary. And so what what are some of those other approaches to address this so that we don't have people finding themselves in a situation where. They just didn't know about this. They're getting leans on their property. You know, that's the extreme right, which is what we don't want to see happen. But if we can figure out how to do all of that education upfront, and that's why that piece becomes really, really critical at the front end. You know, some of us would have liked to see that before we just adopt this. And I get through probably wanting the fees to pay for some of that cost. But help me understand how else we reach some of these families. Certainly. Thank you, Councilwoman Jessica Lolly, daddy's project manager. So in addition to the community based organizations doing that outreach for us, we will also be mailing a number of things directly to the home, you know, communicating the new fee, expanded services. The affordability program will absolutely be a highlight of that. Educational materials are all going to be provided at least English and Spanish. We have translation services for whatever whatever the other languages needed are. So will there be robust folks available either through 311 that can have direct contact to the program so that as people have language issues or more questions, that if they're not understanding the flier, we have people that will be able to answer the questions at the other end. Our three on one staff will be fully equipped to answer and think about this program and direct them to the right place for help. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment. Please see the Baca I. Sandoval. No, Torres. No. Black. No. No. Flynn. I. HERNDON No, no. Cashman When can each man. Ortega I. Sawyer. Madam President, may, madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results? Ten days. Three eyes, three eyes. The amendment to Council Bill 20 2-685 has failed. Councilmember Cashman We need a motion to publish as amended, please. And with the Council Bill 20 2-0685 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Council Bill 20 2-685 is on the floor for final passage as amended. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 2-20685. Council Member Clerk Thank you. Council President First of all, I say thank you to the whole team who worked on this. So many people across Dottie and Castor and the entire city and the mayor's office who worked really hard on this for a really long time. So I want to say thank you so much. Thank you to the members the members of council who worked directly on this. For those of you who supported the direct work on this along the way, and for the ones who have just been real champions for waste, diversion and sustainability up here on on council. And I also want to thank you I know we don't have a lot of people in green still left without talked most of you but I really want to say thank you to everyone who came tonight virtually took time out of their day to come speak. And to those of you who are still hanging around here and thank you so much for for being here tonight. In the fall of 2019, we put together a citywide task force that was charged with putting forth an action plan for how we tackle climate change as a city. We knew that that work would not be easy. We knew that the recommendations that would come forward would touch pretty much every aspect of life in our city. And we knew that it was critical to have a plan and to start enacting that plan immediately. In the aftermath of that task force, we took bold action. We acted as councils before us, had not and stood in that space. We chose to rise to the challenge of tackling this emergency head on. But with that action, we only brushed on the surface of what we were called to do. In that plan, it's not enough to turn and to celebrate the first bucket of water that we took to put out the fire while the building still burns. We have to continue to do the hard work each and every day until the fire is put out. Tonight, we have in front of us another recommendation from that task force action plan. That also was a recommendation from all the other places. I won't relitigate that slide, but from that plan is what I'm focused on. We rose to the challenge. The task was put in front of us while drafting a proposal to protect those who are least able to pay through a first in the nation affordability program that is more robust than any affordability program for any other program in the city. Additionally, this proposal will literally divert tons and tons of material from the landfill or otherwise sit and produce methane for hundreds of years. This program will ensure that we are not needlessly burying the 75% of our waste dream that could be reuse and recycle and burying it in the ground and instead make sure that we're being responsible stewards of those resources for generations to come. We can do all of that through this program that costs a fraction of what citizens in any other city in Colorado pay. We can't stand by and watch while we continue to use materials at an unsustainable rate and contribute to the warming of the planet that has already led to droughts, fires and human suffering across the planet and right here at home in Denver. It's irresponsible for us to throw things out that can be reused and recycled, and the city cannot continue to have these reusable and recyclable and compostable materials to the landfill where we are then complicit in the destruction of our home. Every city that has implemented a plan like this has seen their diversion rate go up. People recycle and compost more when the recycling and the composting are free. And when you're held accountable to pay for what you send to the landfill, nearly every other city in the United States has a paid trash service, and our fees are a fraction of what residents have to pay in these cities. And as I already mentioned, we have a robust rebate program for low income folks. So this will be one of the most affordable trash utilities in America. We must take bold action on climate change. We cannot afford to continue to bury reusable, compostable and recyclable, recyclable materials in the ground when we have the opportunity to reuse and recycle them. And the time for action is now. I'll be voting yes on this proposal tonight. And I implore all my colleagues on this council to please vote yes as well. Thank you, Council President. Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Councilmember Herndon thinking i'm president. I want to echo Councilman Clark's sentiments, thanking all those who came and spoke and spoke on this issue. I did want to give a shout out to Madalyn, the rising 10th grader at East. I wanted to applaud her for coming out. I love. I love when our young people come out and show share their passion for the issues. That are going to impact them longer than just about anyone else in the room. No one here is denying the challenge that in us as a city need to step forward and commit bold action. That's not what I'm hearing. I'm hearing. Have we done all. That we can before we take the easy. Way out? In the midst of a global pandemic, gas prices rising, everyone's wallets shrinking. Should we as a government be a little more sensitive to the plight of our everyday citizens? If there was no other way to move forward to do this, I would wholeheartedly be encouraging. Like, absolutely, let's move forward. But I sat here and asked us, what have we done as a city to educate? And there was no answer. Yes, 1 to 2% incrementally over time. I do think that's because people have become more aware of the importance of sustainability, not anything we have done as a city. So yeah, we're taking that as a reason to only go to the example that's going to hit people the hardest in their pocketbooks. Because I think about Denver water use only what you need. Every time I open up my bill, I see that that is stuck with me. I think about that when the thing is running and I certainly turn it off because I'm not using anymore. That's education and it does make a difference. We've done it as a city to be a smart ass parks and RECs campaign to encourage and educate people. We have not done education. People say education doesn't work. What education have we done? Nine. I would first want to do that. First, you demonstrate that that doesn't work. I will be your champion for the next more important step. But I'm not suggesting we don't do anything. I'm a no on this bill because I don't believe we have done the outreach that we should do first when it comes to that. But while we're waiting, let's do something crazy. Let's stop charging for composting. Let's make recycling weekly. I heard a conversation about, hey, what about the cost? This body approves the cost. We don't have to wait till budget season. I would approve a supplemental next week. To do that, to cover the cost of composting and weekly recycling. You would have my support because that's not impacting the people of the city even a greater burden than they're going through right now. Let's do the work that we should be doing first, as well as to add a new setting and education. And education. Some catchy slogan Don't waste your waste. Something that just sticks higher. Company who are a lot smarter than I am. And let's do that before we suddenly hit people with this big. Because you can't do it on your own. I just find it. I cannot believe that we as a city couldn't do it the better way. I think it's irresponsible for us not to go that route as opposed to just we're now going to charge you for trash. So I encourage my colleagues to vote no and then turn around and work with Dotty to find ways to find funding to make composting free. Recycling weekly or other ways that don't impact. Member citizens in their pocketbook. I'll be a no, and I encourage my colleagues to do that as well. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. I just want to echo the sentiments of both of my council members in saying thank you for all of your hard work. You know, whether or not this passes tonight, you all have done an extraordinary job of community outreach, of pivoting and making changes based on councilmember requests. And I'm really appreciative of all of your all of the work that you guys have done in a lot of different areas. So thank you very much for that. And personally, I can speak to the conversations I have had with District five residents about this. I regularly receive requests from my residents for weekly recycling. And when we first started talking about this, gosh, I think it was like maybe 18 months ago. I mean, it was really like four years ago before I was even elected, but 18 months ago that we really started to kind of have conversations about potentially moving this forward . And so, you know, I sent I sent a survey every year to my community members to 20, I think like 4000, 24,000 households with a survey asking, you know, what are your priorities? What do you want to see your representative advocate for? And I will tell you, climate change issues and addressing climate change concerns was number four, behind only crime and safety, traffic and infrastructure and housing affordability, climate and safety. And this was over a thousand responses that we received. That's pretty extraordinary. And so I am in support of this tonight. Is it perfect legislation? No. But offering free composting, offering weekly recycling, offering an affordability program in recognition of communities that are struggling every day just to make ends meet right now offering. This is thoughtful legislation in a way that we sometimes don't. See thoughtful. Legislation. This has been vetted. It is extraordinarily thoughtful legislation, and I am absolutely in support of it and very grateful for all of that outreach and work that you guys did to get this done. So. Thanks so much. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, Councilmember Hines. I thank you. Council President. Councilmember Herndon, you are wasting your branding talent by being here on council. Since Councilmember Herndon gave a shout out to someone in the audience. I would also give a shout out to Jasmine Barkow, who sat right close to where Evan Dreier is now. I first learned of Pei's. You throw from eco cycling, specifically Jasmine back in 2017. I have been aware of this topic here in Denver since 2017. So Councilmember Sawyer's points is before I was even a candidate. Let's do it. I'm so happy to be here today where we can actually vote on this. We can have the discussion. We can have a vote. So I came to Colorado and here's my prepared statement. I came to Colorado for nonprofit start up, and I stayed for that rugged outdoor lifestyle. That's right. I stayed in Colorado because of access to our lovely planet. My first stop was in Boulder when I lived in a single family home. The trash bin was so small that effectively had to be recycled to ensure that my waste left the home each week. So I was shocked to learn that Denver had a deplorable deplorably low diversion rate. So many of us care about our relationship with the Earth, but for some reason that relationship ends when it comes to trash. Some of this is possibly because of the disconnect between waste and where it goes. It's an operational feat that our city hall is a way trash for hundreds of thousands of people each week. It's a logistical marvel that bins get collected like clockwork, even if we miss collections by a day or two. The sheer size of the engine required is impressive. But our relationship, our personal relationship with trash ends, when we put it in the bin, we don't see the landfills. We don't see the impact of trash for a planet or a wildlife. I think those organizations that are helping with outreach and education now, because we're recently getting more awareness about what happens to our trash. I'm excited that this particular program will help Denver kids with additional education. So how can we address climate change? As MISMO said, human behavior is difficult to change. So it's an important it's important that we align our city services in a way that encourages people to do the right thing. There are many of us who want to do the right thing, but currently can't because of our city's limitation. I want to compost. I could pay extra and and I actually sometimes use my neighbor's compost because we I live in a high rise with 55 units. And I think I don't know, at least a quarter of us have composting as well. But wouldn't it be better with economies of scale if we just had it on a more systemic level? But then there are also some of us who don't currently want to change waste collection. But a systemic change can help those folks understand what we that we can help our planet and still live a healthy and reasonably trouble free life. I do want to touch more specifically on concerns in District ten. Perfect ten residents have a concern that's prevalent in our district since the vast majority of my constituents live in large multi-family buildings. Effectively, as a couple of people have already said, District ten residents pay for trash collection but do not benefit from it. A lot of District ten folks are the people who are subsidizing the fees for the single family residents and for small unit buildings. This has been in multiple testimonies tonight, including from one single family homeowner who who believes it's unfair that that this person benefits from a system that others subsidize but cannot use. At the end of the day, we must do everything we can to save our habitability on our planet. Yes, this bill doesn't apply to 100% of all of Denver. Still, I would far prefer to move forward with 60% of our city, then act on 0%. Also, regarding the other ways we can help, we could help our planet. Let's do those two. Passing. This doesn't mean we can't immediately focus on addressing those other causes of greenhouse gases. And we are working on on other things like mitigating transportation's detrimental effect on our climate. Like the 50 to 80 trail and shared streets. Shared streets to get people out of cars entirely. Thank you for working on that study or EB incentives or more in the infrastructure or encouraging development that creates 15 minute neighborhoods so car trips can be limited or eliminated. We can, I would say, rock walk, but I'm going to say we can roll and chew gum at the same time. We can do this. We can do transportation work. We can do all the things at the same time. So I'll be voting yes for this. I hope my colleagues do as well. And happy St Patrick's Day. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilor Pro-Tem. Torres. Thanks the president. And just a huge thanks to all the. Speakers tonight and everybody who's been engaged. As we've been. Navigating this through committee. One of the speakers tonight pointed to a pretty key issue. That those who can't afford this should pay for it. Eventually, we'll all pay. But next time, it won't be about money. That that really hit home for me. We can't keep waiting on this. I appreciate the reality that Brian brought to the discussion that. We may have to adjust and accommodate. Over a few years. Everything to extending an adjustment. This proposal has made great strides to not overburden low income households in a way that I haven't seen before in a steady program or fee based structure. Denver's bigger, and it has just a huge growing divide. Those who can pay should pay. My grandmother passed away last month. She was on a fixed income, Social Security income. She would have qualified for the full 100% instant rebate. So this program started tomorrow and she was alive. She would experience no change from today. Our lowest income households will have options, but it does put a huge onus. On the city to ensure that. They are not having to jump through major hoops to figure it out. The median household income in District three for Villa Park was just over 38,000. Westwood 34,000. Lincoln Park 34,000. And Valverde 35,000. Perhaps half of these neighborhoods will qualify, and we need to make sure that they get signed up correctly and appropriately. And because I remember I remember correctly when composting was first rolled out, it actually wasn't available in our district. So it isn't a surprise that we have some of the lowest numbers. But what it does not mean is that it's not something we don't care about in our district or that we would struggle to adjust to and champion. We weren't given the early. Opportunity to do that. I think as a city we've definitely dropped the ball. On encouraging composting when it was made available citywide or outreach needs major work everywhere, though not just in this program area, and it's honestly where community based organizations have stepped in. Groundwork, Denver revision and perhaps have been more successful. What I don't want to see, Dottie, is that we lean on our. CBOs to help the city. In things that are as is our responsibility. Signing up rebate, qualifying households. I think they can be more successful than. Us in engaging on deep. Educational efforts. But environmental stewardship is not a new concept in District three or community cares deeply about environmental justice and and wants to step up to that plate. I think avoiding this only further protects households that can pay $9 a month but doesn't want to. So I'd rather have a more sophisticated system and not charge our lowest income homes. And I think this accomplishes that. I will be supporting tonight and I also support knowing that. The outreach that we have to do is significant. Thank you, Madam President. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you. I couldn't hear over that echo. If I could just take 1/2 to say something I should have said at the start of the meeting for folks who are in the room, have been here for a long time, they might have noticed the doors to the chamber. I just wanted to point out that late last year we named this room for the late councilwoman Cathy Reynolds, the longest serving council member on this body. And just over I guess over the weekend or before Friday, they painted her name on the door. This is the Cathy Reynolds City Council chamber. And I just want to make note of that. Thank you. I should have said at the beginning, but first of all, on this, I want to I want to dispel a false dichotomy that could easily get baked into the discussion unless we push back on it. Supporters of this proposal believe that it is needed in order to increase Denver's diversion rate from the landfill. And that creates that that a fee is needed to increase the diversion rate. And that creates a false impression that if you don't support the fee, then you must not support increasing diversion from the landfill. That is untrue. All of us who will end up opposing this program the based on the fee. We also believe that we need to increase diversion. We simply believe that the fee is not a necessary tool to achieve that, that in fact, it is a deleterious factor to our cost burden households. Until and unless, as Councilman Herndon said, we do the public education that has never adequately been done. Repeal the compost fee. Provide 95 gallon recycling cards to our households by default rather than the smaller ones. No wonder people want weekly recycling their fill in the smaller carts given the bigger cart. It costs less money, lowers our carbon footprint, and doesn't burden our struggling families with higher costs to live in this city. I disagree with one of the speakers who said that if we oppose this, we must want the status quo. We don't want change. We do want improvement. We just don't find that the fee is required to do that, especially at this time. But if we go ahead and institute the fee, followed by robust education, mandating diversion through that initiative that's on the ballot, mandating diversion through large from large multi-family commercial businesses, we will end up with a higher diversion rate, but and some folks will declare victory by giving credit to the fee, when in fact the real reason will be the changes that will be made by the Citizens Initiative should it pass to mandate a diversion from the biggest contributors to the waste stream, which is large multi-family, commercial and construction demolition. Also, with regard to the many remarks we heard about the large multifamily subsidizing single family and small multifamily, I need to make something very, very clear about the nature of this town. The portrayal of single family households as being affluent may be true in some neighborhoods, but in southwest Denver and I suspect in some of the other districts of which I'm not overly familiar in southwest Denver, they tend to be much more humble. We have some we have some pretty high valued homes in some areas of my district, but they tend to be much more humble. I've been in Margaret's home. I've been in Rosario's home in Brentwood. They came down here from Brentwood and 1940s, postwar neighborhood, wood frame bungalows that very well could be ground zero for gentrification. Part two. They came down to testify about the hardship this will cause them as fixed income seniors. They are not among Denver's affluent. Many of whom in fact, do live in luxury multifamily developments. They live in high rises downtown and elsewhere. So let's not make this about class warfare, please. There are poor households in many of our single family neighborhoods. As Councilwoman Torres just outlined in her district, just as there are wealthy households in multifamily neighborhoods and high rise condos in the modern luxury apartments in this town. So let's let's be clear on that. And even with that inadequate public education on this, many of our customers in the residential trash program already are doing what we ask of them. My constituents have expressed frustration to me that after recycling sometimes with two bins and composting, they're going to be charged now after doing the right thing. I've heard from seniors who put out their trash cards only once, only once every several. Weeks. Because they generate so little and recycle so much. It's not an incentive to do better if you're doing all that you can and you still have to pay. There is no opt out here. I've had constituents who have been doing what we asked of them tell me that they're now going if they're going to be charged for the black card, no matter what they do, they might as well just toss everything in it and not even bother recycling or composting. A few weeks ago in committee, I showed my slideshow tours of the apartments and commercial dumpsters in my district. They were overflowing with more than half of the waste in them being recyclable or compostable. I cannot ask the people who already are largely doing the right thing by filling one or two recycle bins to pay up to 252 bucks a year. While we are not mandating diversion from the 82% of the market that throws such an enormous amounts of needless waste into the landfill. I cannot ask people who are struggling with eight and a half percent inflation. $5 a gallon gas. The prospect of higher utility bills through Excel's upcoming time of day pricing, plus more fees potentially on this November's ballot to pay up to $252 a year. For this, large families with lots of kids will be hit the hardest. I believe this is a terrible thing that we're doing tonight to the struggling families of this city. Most of them are already doing the right thing with recycling. And if we remove the fee from composting, more would join them. We often talk up here about how expensive it is to live in this city. Yet here we are, adding to the cost burden for many of my struggling families. My vote tonight is with them. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. Let me start a thank Ms.. Attention, Ms.. CdeBaca, for being here. And I wanted to comment that no matter how this go goes or what you hear or how individuals vote, I believe your request for a heart is is taking place in all of us. I know. I know it is with me. And I've talked to almost everybody on the dais and I believe it is with them. I have. I'll thank Dottie and Casa. And the mayor's office. And all my colleagues, just about. I have struggled with this vote as much as any I've had on city council. That said, I want to be clear that I do not struggle with the science. I believe that climate change is not only an existential threat, but a clear and present danger. We're not trying to ward off its effect. Its effects are already upon us. We see it with ever increasing high temperature swings. The intensity of our storms are forest fires. The flooding is a new to to us. I spent. If you don't think climate change is upon us. I spent several days this past week at the Colorado Municipal League conference and spoke to the police chief in La Habra, a 900 person municipality in the San Luis Valley, spoke with the city manager of Alamosa and he was the mayor of Kersey out on our Eastern Plains and talking to them about not having enough water. I spoke with our friends in Boulder County about the fires and the devastation they're trying to recover from. And then I sat and spoke with our colleagues from Denver about our air that is is falling behind clean air guidelines on a far too regular basis. That said, I certainly do struggle with adding a fee to the program being proposed. I don't believe that we will have the full cadre of drivers that we need when this rolls out. We won't have all the bins on implementation day. We have not put forward the education that we need to put forward. There is no question that we have pitfalls that need to be addressed. The our financial situation, our economy is having historic problems. I pay the same gas prices y'all pay. I pay the same increase in grocery fees and all that. But the news about climate change gets equally as bleak every day. The studies. Our science is becoming more and more urgent. The time frame for for mitigating climate change is getting shorter and shorter and shorter. One of my colleagues I have respect for my colleagues, but my good friend, Councilman Flynn, spoke at one of our last sessions about the small percentage of change that Denver will make in the greenhouse gases in the worldwide atmosphere. If we pass this program and I never do math on the fly, but I'll trust his math. But while Denver's reduction in global greenhouse gases may be a small percentage related to what the world must do, it will be 100% of what we can do in reducing our landfill contributions for 180,000 Denver households. If people participate as ardently as they can in Denver, we're not an island. You know, I certainly saw this at the CMO conference. Denver is high profile. In our state, it's our high profile in our country and we're nationally recognized. So while our individual contribution may be renewed on one level, people are going to follow us. Whatever we do, we see it. And we saw it recently in the gun bills that we passed and watched our friends in the front range follow us. If we move forward with this bill, people will follow us and our contribution to reduce climate change will be magnified if we fail to lead. If we fail to act, it will give justification for some people to not act. And again, we reduce our efforts to control climate change. And. I know that again, as has been emphasized, it's going to be a rocky ride. I believe it's going to be a rocky ride rolling this out. I do. I don't believe it's going to be smooth. It reminds me a few years ago some lives in Juneau, Alaska, and he got sick. And my daughter and I, right at the beginning of the pandemic, had to fly up there. If you have ever flown into Juneau, Alaska, on a good day, it'll get your attention or scare the pants out of you. It was bad weather. It was snowing and we were bouncing and we had to get there. And I feel the same urgency about the climate. We got to get there. The people I talked to around the state of Colorado, this is not something we can delay. I think I don't want to carry on too long. In short, I think it we're serving our citizens better. By acting now, then waiting a year or two years. We don't know what our timeframe is. As I was talking with one of our colleagues who will go nameless at the conference and we we were talking about getting older. And I think it applies to this discussion. And this fellow's a golfer. And he said, yeah, you know, you know, you're on the back nine. You just don't know what hole you're on. And I believe that's where we are in climate change. And everything that I read tells me we're heading towards 16, 17 and 18. We do not have time to mess around. I think we're better served by passing this. The pain there is definitely going to be pain for some of our families. There's no question. I'm not going to minimize that. I'm not going to minimize the impact. But if if we wait and think and think of the economic impact we're all going to feel when Colorado ski areas don't have the snow and they're worried about it. I talked to people from Breckenridge. They're worried about the declining snowpack. And when the tourist dollars stop flowing in to to our general fund, what's the pressure going to be on our families then? Like I say, I have not heard I disagree with some of my colleagues. I have not heard anything set up here that I think is is is silly or not worth consideration for sure. But after a great deal of consideration, I will be supporting this bill. I will be all over Dottie to get those drivers. I mean, we're all in this together. It's for real. I've got a bet with Mr. May here. He's going to owe me dinner, and I will guarantee that. But, I mean, we're all going to need to pitch in. The education has got to be there. And the last thing I wanted to I'm not going to call out but call on is our mayor. We happen to have a mayor who is. A spectacular speaker. If you have not heard him at the annual Martin Luther King event, he will get your attention. He is a great cheerleader. You'll see him. If you are out there at the AB celebration, he will get you riled up. He needs to step up and be our voice. You know, those of us who are somewhere around my age will remember when Jimmy Carter, first person I ever heard of that they cared about climate change , you know, put on a sweater and turn your thermostat down. And people did. And people did. And I keep saying last thing, I promise this will probably, probably be. But as to what is the motivation? You know, we. I like to guard the lawns to be green. But Denver water, as Mr. Khan said, changed from flat rate to charging for what you use. And so we figured out a way to not use so much. We'd like to be warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer, but we pay more. To excel. So we figured out a way to do that. You know, we want to eat better at the grocery stores, but we have a budget and we figured out a way to do that. I remember before climate change was ever mentioned, my father was all over us. Turn the lights off and turn the heat down to keep the build down. Okay. And I believe that that motivation will work. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman, Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you. I commend everyone who spent time working on this issue and climate crisis issues in general. This is something I'm very passionate about. I'd like to thank the Elders, specifically those who spoke tonight, as well as elders whose ancestors were probably the more harmonious with the planet of all of us. We don't often get diverse perspectives on an issue that's been so dominated by conversations rooted in white savior ism and is so deeply rooted in colonization and capitalism generally. I speak to you as someone who spent many years trying to convince environmentalists that environmental justice is different and will be the only way we can heal our planet . We're a country that was once stewarded by indigenous people who lived in harmony or non exploitative relationship with our mother Mother Earth. When this land was stolen to extract its resources in service, in service of capitalist profit, our ancestors were punished and killed for their spiritual and practical relationship with this planet. Our planet presented only one opportunity to colonizers and capitalists, and that was profit. From living in harmony with the land. My ancestors were forced onto the most poisoned land among us due to others dis harmonious relationships with the land. We've historically suffered the consequences. So we certainly want and expect changes to just not in a way that ignores us in a continued fashion. I heard a commenter say people don't bat an eye out water cost increases. I strongly encourage that person and all people to learn about the racist history of water rights in this city. Today, people do bat an eye at cost increases of all natural resources, including and especially water. We just don't pay attention to them in these conversations. We literally have people who can't and will not even take advantage of our free trees because of the costs associated with watering them that they cannot afford. This is not different. People want to do the right thing. We need to make the right thing to do. Free the right thing here. Is an example of perhaps reimagining public safety in our city and our budgets. A public safety budget should prioritize paying for behaviors that make us all safer from the harms of continued planet degradation . We're literally doing the thing that put us in this situation to begin with. We're putting a price on doing good for each other and our Mother Earth. There's no dispute here about what we want to do. We all know we need to divert waste from landfills. We just do not agree on how we do this. Those of us who can afford to pay should, including those who are disproportionately responsible for waste generation, including the corporations and developers. Coming from someone who was raised in poverty. I don't struggle personally with upcycling or recycling. I'll use the month for ten different things. I'll go to the segment before I buy anything new. I'll shop in my friend's waste piles and make things brand new. And most of my neighbors will and do as well. What's not okay is pretending that we're doing some magnanimous or righteous thing while ignoring those who literally do not have two pennies to rub together. Those people exist here in Denver. The blatant denial that those people exist is the problem with this proposal and the privileged advocacy that ignored all of the ways to make this more doable and more enjoyable for everyone, because this cannot feel like punishment if we're going to do it right. Healing our planet requires us to feel joy and connection while we're doing it. Have you ever tried to make something grow? Well, if you have, then you know that joy and loving intention matters. We cannot punish people for not being able to afford to do this. We need to remove the cost entirely. Leans on. The poor are not in alignment with the spirit of healing our planet and should in no way be a part of a proposal that so many people feel so good about. I agree that the taxpayer and voter should have a voice in this, and fortunately, at least the most important component they will get to vote on with the waste and the more ballot initiative. I agree that we should be ashamed of all of our dirty little secrets in Denver that contradict popular false narratives about how green we are or how liberal we are, or even how welcoming we are. There are metrics that are appealing, like being the types that are important for us to pay attention to, like being the top six city, displacing Latinos and the second top city gentrifying or displacing all people. Those are important to factor in here. The green cans as a visual cue that were somehow superior won't be enough to grandstand the other visual cues of more trucks on the roads picking them up. So, yes, please. Let's listen to the speaker who talked about one stop for several households versus individual stops. That was a great argument for returning to dumpsters where we can all do this as a collective and be as efficient as she points out we should be. I hope we search for a better visual cue of planet and community health. One that's not just green plastic bins. I hope that everyone who wants to make our metrics match our values does all that they can to make sure that our recycling doesn't just get dumped into other sacrificed communities. I hope that everyone here who wants to talk about leadership takes it upon themselves to stay connected to the body so that you as an individual can help monitor homes that are struggling to pay and pay yourself for them, or raise funds for those people or help them get enrolled in the rebate program. Because we certainly do not have the staff capacity in the city to do the basic things, let alone an extra eligibility testing program. Above all, I hope everyone in here takes this same passion to the corporations and the developers generating the largest share of waste in our city. This is tough for me tonight, living in the most polluted zip code, in a zip code in America that also happens to be one of the most vulnerable to involuntary displacement. Every fee matters. I don't want to support an ordinance that makes the most vulnerable an afterthought as usual. I don't want to ignore those who act and actually not build collective wealth in this city because there are a bunch of us who have not built collective wealth. I do not want to support a policy that will put leans on people's homes if the fees go unpaid. And I don't want to support an ordinance that doesn't have a plan for assessing impacts. I don't want to support a proposal that didn't try to just give us free composting to begin with. I really think that's where we should be beginning if we want to change behavior. And I'm not sure where I will be on this vote tonight at a time like this. I'm just not sure another new fee will serve our residents as intended. That's it for my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca, Councilmember Sandoval. Madam President. Just want to thank all the speakers and everyone who's worked on this ordinance. I don't think it's easy when we talk about. Implementing any fee in the city and county of Denver, especially in a place where I was born and raised and it's getting more expensive to live. But as I was contemplating and thinking about this ordinance and thinking about hearing from my constituents, Albert Einstein popped into my head and Albert Einstein said, We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we use to create them. And in Denver, we do not charge for trash, and we have not. And so I believe that we have to come up with new solutions to come to face the issues that are plaguing our world. We are in the middle of a crisis with our planet, and I hope that we can all live by the same that our indigenous people taught us that my grandpa, who is native to this non Navajo, that we are stewarding this for the next seven generations. So with this vote I will be voting for the next seven generations and my generation will be impacted by the fee. And I will do everything possible in Council District one to ensure that we do what we can to make sure people are using the smallest black container. So that's $9 a month. So it's not 200 and some dollars, as my colleague, Councilman Flynn said. So with that, I hope my colleagues vote yes and vote with the next seven generations of Democrats. Thank you. Thank you. And Councilmember Sandoval. Councilmember Kinney. Thank you. Council president. I first learned of this policy from members of the community. They educated me on their desire for us to do this differently. These community members hassled. The mayor's office went from agency to agency. When Councilman Clark got elected, they started to hassle him. This policy was actually born of community, and I want to thank first and foremost that community, the speakers who are here tonight. As of today, council has received more than 300 emails in support of this policy. Unfortunately, our email filter continues to eat the vast majority of them. I uploaded hundreds last Monday and we got hundreds more today that I didn't have time to upload. But that support has come from every district, every one, every single district in this city. The Climate Task Force, Food Policy Council, all the community leaders from groups like ECOSOC or Cobourg, Sierra Club, dozens of organizations, 350 that signed on letters, just that community is what brought us this policy. This isn't the city doing something to the community. This was the community demanding that the city do something for the climate and the city. Taking a minute, but responding. That's what this represents. I want to thank the city folks that were involved, my dear partner, Councilman Clark, Grace and the cast, your team, Adam and everybody at Dottie, the mayor's office that was involved, my own aides, Teresa and Jamison, who educated dozens of residents with questions. So thank you to all the parts of the team that responded to that community demands and helped bring us here today. So I want to start with a quote from Jane Goodall. You cannot get through a single day without having an impact on the world around you. What you do makes a difference, and you have to decide what kind of difference you want to make. Every single week. Denver influences the behavior of 100,000 180,000 households. We give them a signal that is more powerful than any flier, than any tweet or any ad on a bus. Our signal tells them that we will charge them nothing to throw away an unlimited amount to the landfill. And our signal tells them that if they want to do the right thing, they have to pay up. Our actions speak louder than any of our words could. And in America, our dollar incentives speak louder than any advertising campaign we could ever launch. Our policy and our fee structure educate our residents very clearly. Every single day, our message is heard. And our residents have responded to the education we have done perfectly. They have thrown things in the landfill because it's free and they have not taken up composting because it costs something. Those results speak for themselves. They are the education program we've implemented over 20 years. So just to highlight a few things that we've discussed tonight, this question of equity. So I'm not just a champion for this policy for climate. I just have to say that I've spent more of my career to chagrin or some championing policies that fight income inequality. I sponsored the minimum wage with the administration. I sponsored the housing fund. I sponsored a number of things. I would not support a climate policy that I thought exacerbated or didn't take into account income inequality. It would go against every other piece of legislation I've ever run. That's not who I am and that's not where I come from. And I just you know, Councilman Torres said this more eloquently than I ever could about how this policy breaks new ground in considering and centering actually residents with the with the lowest income who are involved in this policy. Right. Who are involved in this customer base. But I really want to reference what other speakers said. Elisabetta, who lives in a condominium and described how her residents right are subsidizing the cost avoided by higher income median income homeowners and duplex residents. We had renters who live in apartments describing the inequity of our current system. So not only does this policy that we're voting on tonight center equity through the rebate program, it actually undoes some inequity in our current system. And I'll reference my comments and all the math I provided last week of how that subsidy works. The other thing that is built into this policy, it's a small piece, but I want folks to know about it is based on the inspiration of Councilwoman Gilmore and all the work to protect HRA residents. This bill includes a prohibition on fining residents for leaving bins on the right of way. It's the city's right of way. It's not the right of way. And they have no business charging fines and penalties to people for using the right of way, even if they think it's a day later than it should be. That's not their business. And this bill makes that clear and it protects them from any fees or penalties or fines for leaving bins on the right of way. I'm proud that that little piece is in there. A little piece of equity built in. I believe in science. And I do know that everyone up here believes in the science of, you know, the climate is changing. We don't have any climate deniers here, but climate science isn't the only science involved in this policy. There is empirical research right behind this policy. There is you know, we have some criticism here of weakly recycling. Here's the real math. Cities that do weekly recycling tend to see a 3 to 5% bump in recycling tonnage. Let me just quantify that. This was mentioned in passing in the presentation. We had 44,000 tons of recycling in last year. Okay. A 3 to 5% bump would be one 1300 to 2200 additional tons tons taken out of the landfill and recycled. That's math and that is science. And it is real. And it is documented from cities who've done weekly recycling. That's science. And I believe it. And it's behind this policy. We've also been sent empirical research and we've heard testimony tonight on folks like from Ryan Call and Sonya Hansen that documented the wide range of peer reviewed research that compared education only campaigns in the climate context to those that had economic incentives built in every study by real scientists of these policies, including in the waste context, found that economic incentive motivated more behavior change than education. That's real science. I believe in science, and it's behind this policy. Now, that said, I believe it is our job to listen and respond. I appreciate it. Councilman Cashman acknowledging the need to have hearts and understand and those who described our obligation to respond, monitor and adjust this policy where needed to ensure that its heart stays centered . And I also appreciate the concerns our colleagues have raised about better and different education. So it is important for our agency implementing this to do the things that have been asked of them. Right, to prioritize hiring and to do something fundamentally different with education. You've heard that message. Councilman Clarke and I have requested and invited ourselves to a monthly briefing on implementation to ensure that we carry that message that you all have raised forward. So we want higher profile education, more values based education, and more education that links these things to climate than we've seen from Daddy in the past. We want something unlike what you've done in the past. That's the expectation, and we'll be around to help you deliver. But really, tonight, the decision's up here. We're faced with a simple question Should we take action to reduce the climate impacts of our customers solid waste habits right away? Should we or should we not? I want to just close with one more quote, which is from Greta Thunberg. Everything needs to change and it has to start today. Everything needs to change and it has to start today. Not some things need to change, not just other things need to change. Not just bigger things need to change. But everything's. We in Denver were part of everything. The climate does not care if greenhouse gases come out of a tailpipe or a smokestack or a cardboard box in a landfill. It is agnostic. Our waste is part of everything. And tonight it appears, based on my accounting, that we do have the votes to do something and to do a reduction in greenhouse gases. And I'm excited to vote yes to be a part of that tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Kimmich. And seen no other speakers in the queue. All Fine. I'll finish out our conversation tonight with my comments. I do want to thank the community members who spoke this evening, who sent us emails, who spoke at community meetings. I'd like to thank my colleagues for all the work that you have done to find compromise and try to get us to this place. And this proposal and vetting process has been very challenging and difficult for my constituents and me. I co-founded a nationally recognized science based nonprofit over 26 years ago. I have a degree in zoology and chemistry, and I've worked as a wildlife biologist for state agencies. I understand the science and I feel the same urgency as the speakers and my colleagues. I would be an easy yes vote on this if it was only my voice and and my values I was voting on tonight. But that is not the case. As the elected representative for District 11, I must consider and bring forward the concerns, feedback and voice of my constituents who I represent. To be clear, we are going to have to do something like this sooner than later. There are going to be additional policy discussions around climate. But as I have attended and participated in many community meetings in regard to this topic and in listening, truly listening to my community, it is clear that because of a lack of education and outreach, along with inflation and the cost of living, I have had overwhelming opposition to this in my district. The gravity of climate change insists that we must have our constituents along with us on this journey. The current education plan shows that there are many gaps in the overall lack of education. Montebello in the past had the highest water usage in the city. I know that because Denver Water came to my prior nonprofit and asked us to help star an education campaign to mitigate the water usage. Turns out the city allowed developers to build homes in Montebello, a historic African-American community, without requiring them to amend the soil, which is very, very sandy. In order to conserve water. But Denver water created an education campaign. Use only what you need and through ongoing educational programs. We started to fix that high water usage through different tactics and techniques, by working together as a community. In communities of color, decades of systemic injustices have contributed to a lack of access and knowledge in regard to climate change education. To me, not including a robust educational campaign contributes to those systemic injustices and purposely leaves low income people and communities of color behind and out of the process. The composting participation map shows a clear delineation between the far Northeast District 11 and the rest of the city. The horrible effects that COVID had on our residents, either through lack of access to health care, food or housing insecurity, loss of employment. Not to forget family members, illness or death. Simply put, we have been dealing with life and it shows there hasn't been the participation. And with no coordinated or consistent marketing for composting or recycling. We unfortunately only have 126 customers in Montebello and 294 in GRT for composting. I'm proud to say that my family and Montebello are one of those customers, but I also recognize the privilege that we have in order to pay that $9 a month. I have heard from older adults, families and others in my district who are struggling to pay their mortgage, their car note to buy groceries, to pay for gas , asking me. I've got to decide between buying medicine for my food for my child or food. How am I going to pay for this cost? We still don't have a good, solid answer for my constituents that are asking me these questions. The cost of inflation in this country has increased dramatically. Many of my constituents are feeling the financial burden of these unprecedented inflation pressures. City Council should hold off on the passage of this plan until Dottie and Casper can clearly articulate at least the year one goals which they couldn't do tonight. Thank you, Councilman Herndon, for that question. If we can't do it in the public hearing and explain that, how are we supposed to explain it to our constituents and get them involved other than charging them a fee? I'd like to see us build out a comprehensive outreach and education plan. I firmly believe that we need this education campaign and that we should wait for a new administration to set this up so that it can be rolled out properly. So we're not dealing with staff from the end of a mayor's term leaving mid-stream in the rollout of this program. I ask my colleagues to think about what I have shared with them. I share with Council member Kenny that I do believe you have the votes to pass this tonight. Either way, I am committed to representing my constituents, carrying their voice forward and and making sure that we ensure that we are mitigating our trash and that we are working. To mitigate all of the negative effects of climate change. But to be honest, this all started with the Industrial Revolution. And if we really think that we're going to flip this on a dime in the next 3 to 5 years. I would ask us to have a reality check because there are so many constituents who are living in our city that are worried about staying in their home, worried about paying for everyday items that a lot of the folks that spoke to tonight maybe don't have that same fear or that same reality. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 685, please. CdeBaca I'm very reluctant. No. Sandoval. I. Torres, I. Black. Hi. Hi. Flynn? No. Herndon? No. Haines. I. Cashman. Kinney. I. Ortega. No. Sawyer. Madam President, no, madam Secretary, close voting and announced results. Five Nays. Ayes, Ayes Council Bill 20 2-685 has passed as amended our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, July 25th Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 637 changing the zoning classification for 4710 North Stuart Street in Berkeley and a required public hearing

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 8.120, temporary enforcement of Long Beach Health Orders related to COVID-19; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11022020_20-1054

huge thank you on behalf of the city. Again, it was it was really special to be there last night. So thank you again. Let me go ahead. We have two items we're going to hear. Item 2/1. Madam Clerk. Item two recommendations Declare Ordinance Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 8.120 to extend the effective date of the ordinance to January 20, 2021. Can I have a motion by Councilor Murang'a, seconded by Councilwoman Pearce? I don't have any public comment on this item. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Roll call. Vote, please. Mayor. This is City Attorney Park. And just a one note on a correction on the ordinance. The date is set for January 20th, 2021. We're asking that line on page three, lines ten, 11 and 12 be deleted. That was placed in error. That was extending it for 180 days. It was placed in there as a typo. So with that change, we would move forward on the motion. There's two votes necessary. One is on the urgency, and then the other would be on the motion itself. So the first motion is on the urgency and the first vote. We're taking it we're taking the urgency vote right now. And Mayor, this is the city manager. If I can make a quick comment on that. We we chose to do January 20th is that we have the ability to have this for discussion of the ordinance in front of a full city council. And so we would expect to bring that to you on January 19th to have kind of a decision so that we didn't, but we had to put it on today. It's time sensitive because the current ordinance does run out November six. So that's the reason it's on the agenda. Thanks. Sure thing. Go ahead and cast your vote, please. Councilwoman Cindy has. I can't remember Pierce and Councilman Price Council membership in all. Councilwoman Mango. Vice Mayor Andrews and Council Member Miranda I. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson, I motion carries. Thank you. And now, please read item number two. Actually. I'm sorry. Please, please, please read the second part of the vote, which is a second vote for for the audience. So I just want to just one more time, just read the second vote again. Thank you, Mayor. Yes. We need a second vote on item two. The first vote was the adoption of the urgency, and the second item will be the adoption of the ordinance. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And so District one. Canto District one. I'm down to district two. I can sadistic for three. I was a District four councilor. District five. Council. District six. II Council District seven. I Council District eight. Council District nine. All right. Russian case. Thank you. And now read item number one, please. Item one is recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 8.101 relating to tenant harassment and declaring the urgency thereof. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading.

A bill for an ordinance authorizing a supplemental appropriation from the General Contingency Fund to the Liability Claims Special Revenue Fund. (GOVERNMENT & SERVICES) Authorizes a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $3.25 million from the General Contingency Fund to the Liability Claims Special Revenue Fund to address settlement claims. This bill was approved for filing by Councilwoman Kniech.

DenverCityCouncil_08042014_14-0622

It has been moved in second to comments. Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to reserve my comments for the other piece of legislation and just simply say I will be voting no on this. Thank you. Councilwoman five Councilwoman Ortega. I just want to indicate the same message that I stated last week that I will be abstaining from both of these votes tonight because my daughter works for the sheriff's department. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Any other comments from members of Council on six 2213? None, Madam Secretary. Roll Call Fights Now Finished by Laman Lopez. Hi, Nevitt. Hi. Ortega. Abstain. Rob Shepherd. Sussman. Brooks Brown. Hi, Mr. President. I am secretary. Please close the vote and announce the results tonight. One day, one abstention tonight. One nay, one abstention. Council Bill 622 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. Councilman Lopez, will you please put a resolution 647 on the floor for adoption?

Recommendation to direct City Manager to examine case studies from similarly sized municipalities that presently guarantee free preschool for their residents and report back to the City Council in 120 days with his findings about ways to fund such a venture in Long Beach, along with concrete policy goals and eligibility requirements that would allow for universal access without a major impact on the city budget; coordinate with Long Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) to ensure that any proposed program would not interfere with existing teaching contracts or place an undue burden on their resources; and reach out to existing community groups that provide this service for children to hear their ideas and input.

LongBeachCC_03042014_14-0178

Good item 1212. Is a report from the Office of Vice Mayor Robert Garcia and Councilmember Susan Lowenthal with a recommendation to direct the city manager to examine case studies from similarly sized municipalities that presently guarantee free preschool for their residents and report back to the City Council at 120 days with various request. For help. Mr. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is just an extension of, I think, a a conversation that's happening right now across the country, certainly in the state. And it's happened here with a lot of educators in Long Beach for for many years. There's certainly been a discussion for and it's intensified, particularly the last few years, about the quality and about the importance of a pre-K education for children and what that really does for for cities and for communities. And I think as an educator, I think most educators would agree that there is there are very few things that you can get a better return for your investment than ensuring that every child has access to a pre-K education. pre-K pre-K education and report and study after study has been shown to do incredible and provide incredible support for children. It prepares them for that K-12 education. It certainly provides support for parents. It provides support for particularly single parents who are able then to to work and provide income for the family and and find other support. So pre-K and the idea of universal pre-K is certainly something that's been supported for for many years. What's happened the recently over particularly the last five years is that municipalities have entered into new partnerships and agreements, and in some cases, they have established their own pre-K systems and others have worked more directly with the state, and others have been funded through a variety of different grants and with some federal support. So now what we have today across the country is we have a variety of different pre-K models that are working. And you can look to, for example, San Antonio or other cities across the country, whether it's Chicago or Tulsa. And New York is now discussing it as well in how pre-K and universal pre-K could work when it's driven particularly by by a city or municipality. So this item is really just informational and is asking for three things in particular. And I'm going to to change part of the motion just a little bit. The first is to ask the city manager to come back to the council some time in the over the course of the next few months with information about what best practices are happening with pre-K across the country from a municipal point of view. So what are these other municipalities doing that perhaps is working? What other models are available to to cities? The second thing is we want to ensure that we're working with the school district directly. There was a suggestion, which I like to forward this as well, to our Joint Use Committee to have some in-depth discussion about what Lambert Unified is doing and how that could how we could support, you know, elbow stitch effort in pre-K. And then the last part of the motion will be, if we could please reach out to our early childhood education committee, which has been working on this issue, obviously, for for very long, and kind of coming together with that group as a city partner and getting their input and ideas so that when we come back to the council, we have a really healthy discussion of what's happening currently in Long Beach, and there's a lot of good things happening currently. And then what are the possibilities for us moving forward? So with that, I'd like to make the motion. Moving, seconded Mr. Dole. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for this item. It raises heightens awareness of the need for pre-K education. As a teacher and a parent of two young ones, I know the importance of this. And I don't you know, I don't know what the vision is here and maybe the vision isn't even complete. Certainly there has to be revenue to pay for this. I know. What did San Antonio do? They did a sales tax. Correct. And I don't know that the city would be the best provider of this service either. I would hope we would look to the school district, our superintendents, school board and teachers over on the Long Beach Unified side to provide this services. Is that kind of your vision or do you even know yet? We're certainly not laying out any sort of vision right now. I think that there are there are different models in different cities that are being used. So San Antonio is one model, but there are certainly others. And I think at the end of the day we would want this process driven by bi by educators. And so the idea is to get the information to meet with constituencies and then come back for a fruitful discussion report. Great. Thank you. Well, I think even, you know, bringing it out, throwing out in the post so people can be just aware that we, too, know the importance of pre-K education. And the fact of the matter is, we are the tale of two cities, and we need to build that bridge between the two sides. And pre-K education is certainly a way to help that. So I'm certainly supportive of that. But again, I my my thinking would be this would probably best be best fit within the the purview of the school district. But again, it doesn't mean that we can't help move this down the road and get something like this going in our city. We do have some other efforts. I know the school district already engaged in a number of efforts across our city as well with their limited resources. Remember, their their funding is still below the 0708 level. So they right now don't have the resources to provide this service, but it is necessary. The fact of the matter is that if a child doesn't read it, though, at the fourth grade level, there's a 75% chance that never that child never will read at grade level. So we need to get literacy kids introduced to literacy at a young age. That's very important. And pre-K education does that. So again, I appreciate the the raising of awareness of that tonight and your open mindedness as to how we would get this moving and provided and language for that. Can I just respond and part of I think Councilmember O'Donnell's your comments is is right. I think part of the reason to go to the Joint Use Committee is to have a discussion with the superintendent and the school board as well, so that we're all on the same page. You know, and Pat West can probably finger paint, but I don't know how well he tells a story. And inspires kids to love reading. So I have no idea what the heck is going on. Kind of saying is I don't know that this necessarily belongs within the purview of the city. I think I got a. Story from the city manager a week in the briefing. And the fiction or nonfiction. Yeah. It's like preschool here. Mr. West I would hope that in this report, if you could add L.A. Universal Preschool, they're actually a nonprofit organization that has come to the city many times. They have they are privately funding universal preschool in Long Beach. And our own Jean Bigsby Smith is on their board of directors. So it would be helpful to see what they're doing because they're not relying on government funds. They right now have funded about 60,000 children in L.A. County and have quite a extensive list for the mom beach preschools they're funding. So hopefully we can include that information as well. Thank you. That's very long ago. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank the vice mayor for raising this issue. We have our youngest supporter, I think, Miss Jubilee, in the audience, who's come to speak on on validating why it's important to have this accessible to everyone after she's finished with her snack. Of course, we know that early learning is one of the best economic investments a society can make, and regardless of who pays for it, it's an investment that's worthwhile. And for every dollar that's invested, there's an exponential return on that investment in the form of earning potential. And how how we actually place value on that is not clear to me. But I do know that that value is there. There's also savings to society in decreased costs for special education, grade repetition and, worst of all, criminal justice. I think most people would prefer to build more preschools than prisons. But politics and life's complexities have a way of making that choice more difficult than it needs to be. However, as a former school board member and as a mother of a young child at Long Beach Unified, I can attest to the value of pre-K programs. When my son started in kindergarten, he was probably only in the third of the class that actually had any pre-K education. And that's difficult. That's difficult for the teacher in kindergarten where you have 19 students and only about eight or nine have had any preschool education. So these fee based programs aren't ones that most families can afford. They're very expensive. They can be very expensive. And I'm aware of existing programs that limit unified offers. And I'm quite sure the superintendent and the school board would welcome the opportunity and funding to expand worthwhile early learning programs. And they do a good job. Let me be unified as one of the first that actually pursued making kindergarten mandatory. And we all know that that's very critical. So I'm interested in finding out how other cities went about funding their pre-K programs. Were sales tax ballot measures the only source, the sole source? And then let's determine whether Long Beach is able to partner with our school district to offer residents this choice. I'm appreciative that the Vice Mayor added that component to the motion, working with the Joint Use Committee. I think together we can find opportunities to ensure that these. Early. Early education programs are available to our young residents. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank the vice mayor and Councilmember Lowenthal for bringing this forward. I think all of us understand and agree that preschool is critically important. I think that I appreciate, vice mayor. Your addition. To the motion to send it to the Joint Use Committee. And this is exactly the kind of item where the city and school district have joint interest that we should move forward together. I think the school district's already doing a great job. What they have. There may be some opportunities, too, for the city to assist them. In getting more grants or perhaps making their grant. Applications, you know, more successful. And that would be my interest. You know, how can we go out and get outside funds, whether from private nonprofits or from the federal government, etc., to expand and build upon what we're already doing. So I look forward to having that conversation as the chair of the Joint Use Committee, and thank you for coming out with this item. Strangers. Yes, thank you, ma'am. I also would like to welcome my sentiments for the individual part, this item forward and I also thank the educators here tonight were supporting this item. But you know that, like I say, we can't talk about money when we talk about education because, you know, without education, you know, we would have any money . So you guys please take this into consideration, understand that this is one of our prime was our kids, our future. We want to thank you guys for even bringing this item forward. Thank you again. Thank you. And remember, the public was just a council on side. And please come forward, identify yourself. Be mindful of time. Good evening. I am Francis Emily Dyson. Harris and I reside in District one and Mayor Foster City Council members, particularly Council Vice Mayor Garcia and council member Dr. Lowenthal, thank you for bringing these findings forward and thank the city. I'm looking at the writing of this and it's just absolutely phenomenal. And I heard Mayor Foster speaks many times about what about the children? So I look at this now, what about the children, our youth and our future, which is a very good thing. And the segment that says allow for universal access. Universal access in terms of early learning. And I'm thinking in regards to children with disabilities, there's children with disabilities that have physical disabilities that are quite capable of going to regular schools. And I would like you to look into the feasibility of this also for children with disabilities and preschool, having this opportunity to be able to go to school with children that are not disabled because we've got to move forward in a world that all persons are equal, that you have, you know, sensitivity, understanding. And I really think starting at the beginning would be a very good thing. So if you could possibly look into this fact that there's applications to include children with disabilities, physical that do have that the mental and the educational capacities to be able to go to a preschool and please give them that opportunity. Thank you. Thank you. Any further public comment? Okay. We have motion second members. Cast your votes and I'm pleased I'm so. Hi. My name is Christine Integrally and I live in the fifth District. I'm here on behalf of the Long Beach Early Care and Education Committee, and we're extremely excited about this particular item and this discussion here in our city. Given the President's Federal Early Learning proposal, as well as all of the initiatives that are taking place here in the state of California with regards to transitional kindergarten or kindergarten for all four year olds, we think it's really important that the city continue to engage in these conversations and help the public to be aware of these opportunities . And also, as these opportunities come forward, we want to ensure that all of these programs for the four year olds are of the highest quality, with the most well-prepared teachers for the children. Hi, I'm Judy. Carrie Fisher. I'm a consultant with the Long Beach Early Childhood Education Committee. The committee is comprised of more than 40 organizations the school district, private childcare providers, home based providers, etc.. We do want to extend a special thanks again to Vice Mayor Garcia and Councilmember Lowenthal for pushing this initiative forward. Hearing the connections to the school district, I think is really imperative right now because the early learning community is very concerned about the educational shifts that are going on through Common Core State standards. And one of the things that we're doing to ensure that those standards trickle down to the early learning community and can also be very integral in preschool for all to ensure that our children are ready to enter kindergarten at a brand new standard, ready to go. It's not the same kindergarten that it used to be in order to show that movement week of the young child is coming up, that it will be the week of April the sixth. And our push is to engage all of the early learning environments, whether it's home based, center based, whether it's the school district. And you will see banners outside that say children are educated here. There is the misnomer that our child care providers are baby sitters. And our message is that our children are educated here. And the way that will be further reinforced is through a universal pre-K approach that the city takes. For. Our youngest children. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Good evening, Mayor Foster, council members and staff. My name is Cindy Young and I'm the director of the Child Development Centers for Long Beach Unified. And I'm here just to support your conversations. And we're very grateful that you're entertaining the conversation about universal preschool and wanted to share some interesting statistics. Research shows that if three and four year old children participate in a quality preschool program, they will require less intervention in the K-12 system and will be more likely to continue to go on and graduate for college and career readiness. What we do know is that students that don't have access to a quality program are more likely to commit a violent crime and end up in prison. What we do know is that 60% of our four year olds across the state of California do not participate in a preschool program. What we do know is that low income children, which represents a large portion of the community we serve on average, are exposed to 30,000 fewer words a year than their same age counterparts, and when they enter kindergarten, are more likely to be two years below grade level than the peers that they go in at the same time . What we also know is that children that represent six years and younger represent the poorest and largest population. So we really appreciate your continued conversations. We we want to be a part of those conversations. I believe that it's going to take local level legislators, as well as the state level joining forces with the district in order to make this happen. And look at fleshing out what additional funding sources are available to ensure that we have universal preschool for all. Thank you. Thank you. Very good. Hugh Clark is the address. Let me suggest something that might be a little novel. Why don't instead we focus on educating the kids at this point? Why don't we focus in on educating the adults? Training them and educating them on the merit and holding off excuse me, holding off having a family until such time as they can financially support that family. Right now, as I've often said, the DNC policy is worry not. If you want to bring money into your household, pop out a kit. Don't worry about it. We'll send you the money. For every kid you get, you get more money. Why don't you focus in on educating them to be about educating people to be responsible? Try that. I know it's a novel idea. It's a novel. It. There's no question that the education is necessary. But all one has to do is take a trip up on the blue line and you see where the problem is. One in three people in the county of Los Angeles is on some type of public assistance. From the county or from the state, and the majority of the people referenced are in the lower income. That's where you need to focus. Is focus on the adults, on how to be responsible. Thank you. Any further public comment? Our members cast your votes on item 12. Motion carries nine votes.

A bill for an ordinance designating the River Drive Historic District as a district for preservation. Approves the designation of River Drive as a Landmark Historic District for preservation, including 20 adjacent lots fronting River Drive, bounded by Clay Street to the west, 23rd Avenue to the north, North Bryant Street to the East and West Front View Crescent Drive to the south in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-4-19.

DenverCityCouncil_06242019_19-0547

12 hours. Council Bill 406 has passed. Councilman Espinosa, will you please for council 547 on the. I move the council bill 0547 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 547 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. My name is Jenny Battenberg and I am going to present the River Drive Historic District Landmark Designation Application Number 2019 l0 zero two. So just to get us started off the ability for the city and county of Denver to designate Denver landmarks and districts came through the 1967 Landmark Preservation Ordinance. So over 40 years now, we have been able to enable this program, the purpose of which is to designate, preserve and protect, to foster civic pride, stabilize and improve esthetic and economic vitality, and promote good urban design. So basically to prioritize historic preservation for the city and county. The map that you see on the screen indicates all of the designated individual structures and districts that we currently have within the city and county. The colored areas represent the historic districts of which we have 54. And the individual red dots indicate the individual landmarks of which we have 344. This equals about 6800 properties of a total of 161,000 in the city and county, and that's about 4% of the city or one and 25 structures that are designated landmarks. The designation program is very much created to be a community driven process. Eligible applicants are owner or owners of the property, manager of Community Planning and Development, a member or members of City Council or three people who are residents, property owners, or have a place of business in Denver. In the case of River Drive, Councilman Espinosa submitted the designation application. Property owners reached out to Councilman Espinosa in 2017, expressing interest in the designation. I do want to note that this designation is actually a long time coming. There are two neighborhood plans that have recommended it for historic district designation once in 1976 and again in 2005. We have 19 properties within this proposed district, 16 of which are contributing. Three are non contributing because one has had too many incompatible alterations, so it no longer meets the criteria for designation. And then two are empty lots that you see on the north side of this map here. It includes multiple dresses on West River Drive. This is the Jefferson Park Neighborhood Council District number one. Again, Councilman Rafael Espinosa in Blueprint, Denver. This is a low neighborhood or excuse me, urban neighborhood context and low residential area future place. The current zoning is YouTube in you oh three. In order for a property or properties to be designated as a landmark, they have to meet a set of criteria. They have to meet designation criterion in at least two of the categories of history, architecture and geography. They have to maintain their historic and physical integrity, and they have to be considered by the Landmark Preservation Commission for its relation to a historic context or theme for River Drive Historic District. It actually exceeds meeting that criteria by meeting one in each of the categories and meets history A, Architecture A and geography B for history A It has direct association with the historical development of the city, state or nation. This is one of the oldest established residential areas of Denver. It is the 1881 riverfront addition to the town of Highland. So you can see an advertisement for this on the left hand of the screen. This was a girl, brothers, real estate investment company developments, and they had invested in a number of other areas in the areas in the area of Denver as well. This was primarily an area which was home to the working class residents representing immigrant the immigrant population at the time. If you look at the map on the right, you'll see the proposed district outlined in blue. In the top right, you'll see the location of the former Zheng Brewery in in the lower right, you'll see the former location of roundhouse a railroad roundhouse. So a number of these working class residents who lived in River Drive supported local early local industries like the zinc brewery and numerous rail companies like the Colorado and Southern Railway in Denver and Rio Grande Railroad. The owners and renters of cycled out over time. And if you guys were able to read the full application, you got some of the more unique stories of some of the residents who resided in River Drive. The district also meets architecture, which is to embody distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type. It exemplifies architectural styles and building types representing the Victorian Arts and crafts era and illustrates architectural trends over 38 years in Denver's early history. If you take a look at the screen, you'll see an example of these architectural trends from top to bottom, left to right. Queen Anne Dutch Colonial Revival, four square terraced type, which is pretty unique to Colorado and gable fronts. The similarity among all of these buildings, even though they have different architectural styles, is found in similar materials like brick and stone and design elements like arched window openings, brick bell courses and front porches that create a cohesion among the properties. Each structure remains in good condition, with impressive retention of character defining features. The district also meets Geography B, which is to promote an understanding and appreciation of the urban environments by means of distinctive physical characteristics. A rarity for River Drive. This is the curving layout of the parcels in the street. If you take a look at the map on the screen, you can see that in this area and throughout most of the city and county of Denver, we have a very North-South East-West grid pattern in this area, has a very curvilinear layout. This was due to its proximity to the river. There's also another unique feature, which is the above grade front entrances that were designed to accommodate the street slope and topography down to the river. So we don't see this very often where you have what we might call subterranean entrances to buildings. So this is very unique to this district and to the city as a whole. Additionally, this is a very rare intact portion of that 1881 Riverfront Edition. It represents the most complete portion of the Gurley Brothers original development. The neighborhood has lost a great deal of its physical integrity, historic integrity due to the demolition and construction of residential infill that has happened over the last few years. That stands in sharp contrast to the district's historic character. If you take a look at the photos on the screen, the one on the left is looking East and West River Drive at the Clay Street intersection. And you can see the right photo looking south west at the south side of the West River drive block and how both ends of the block are now kind of bookended by much larger development. I do want to note that this was part of the Jefferson Park survey that was done by Discover Denver. This is the citywide building survey that is being done in partnership with the city and historic Denver. And the information that was gathered in that survey helped to inform this designation application. The 16 contributing structures in the immediate setting of the district also have a high degree of physical and historic integrity related to the district's period of significance from 1885 to 1923. Each building retains its original residential dwelling in the location where it was constructed and continues to serve in a residential capacity. There have been minor alterations, but they have been compatible in size and material to the original. It also relates to a historic context or theme again, the period of significance since 1885 to 1923. This represents the early growth of Denver, the working class of the city, some of whom were immigrants that supported nearby industry and commerce. The images on the screen represent the ordinary family who lived at 2550 West River Drive for over seven decades. John Denver, who's pictured in the lower left there, moved into the house in 1915 and purchased it in 1921. He worked for the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad in the Colorado and Southern Railway as a brakeman and engineer. Because this is a historic district. The planning board also has the ability to review the designation application. They are specifically directed to consider a proposed designation with respect to its relationship to the Denver Comprehensive Plan. The effect of the designation upon the surrounding neighborhood and such other planning considerations as may be relevant to the proposed designation or amendments. The Planning Board found that the proposed district is consistent with the applicable plans, including the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint. Denver, the 25 Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan, the 2013 South Platte Corridor Story or study excuse me. And it will have little impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Just a reminder, YouTube you oh three for zoning. This is a lot of words up on that screen, but these are all the vision elements and strategies that the district meets. It advances several of the comprehensive plan vision elements, goals and strategies. It's most directly consistent with a strong and authentic neighborhoods vision element, which includes the goal to preserve the authenticity of Denver's neighborhoods and celebrate our history, architecture and culture. It also meets goals and strategies within the equitable, affordable and inclusive, economically diverse and vibrant and environmentally resilient vision elements. Given that this application came forth in partnership with the property owners in historic Denver through its action fund, the proposed district also meets implementation strategy to to build diverse partnerships to help promote and implement the plan. According to Blueprint Denver, the proposed district's neighborhood context is again urban, and the future place type is low residential. The proposed designation will help preserve the unique character of the block within the urban neighborhood context and allow for infill that is compatible with the existing neighborhood character per the design guidelines for Denver Landmarks, Structures and Districts. This meets the blueprint strategy that recommends using historic designation to ensure residential neighborhoods retain their unique character as infill development occurs. It also meets the blueprint vision to improve quality design that preserves and creates authentic places. In terms of the 2005 Jefferson Park neighborhood plan. That plan specifically identifies River Drive, as I mentioned earlier, as a sub area with a vision to enhance it as an important and unique part of the residential core of Jefferson Park. It also specifically recommends potential local designation as a historic district. So this designation proposal implements the plan recommendations. And lastly, for applicable plans, it relates to the Water Street Opportunity area that is called out in the South Platte corridor story that study that calls for revitalization of the parking lots on the north side of Water Street as residential and retail infill. When you head west, Water Street turns into 23rd Avenue, which runs a half block north of the proposed district. Water Street was the site of early residential and commercial development, like the Zane Brewery. The plan notes that surrounding neighborhoods and areas like the River Drive Historic District could be well-served by any revitalization of the water street area through potential greater connectivity and economic impacts. So the proposed designation helps retain the residential character of the block and reinforces the potential benefits of safer and better connectivity to the South Platte River and a revitalized water street. The proposed designation will help preserve the character of the district and the Jefferson Park neighborhood. The designation ordinance and the design guidelines that go along with it are only enforceable by the Landmark Preservation Commission within the district boundary. The intent of the designation is to recognize this unique district. The buildings that define it and their contribution to the historic fabric of the Jefferson Park neighborhood and city as a whole. So in terms of recommendations and public comments, both the Landmark Preservation Commission and the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the River Drive historic districts. We received no registered neighborhood organization comment. All comments that have been submitted to CPD by individuals by last Thursday had been in support of the designation of those 11 comments. Eight are from property owners within the proposed district and you guys should have had a map within your packet that indicated the location of the online comments that we received. Of those eight property owners, those individuals they own 11 of the 17 properties within the historic district boundary. After that point from Thursday, when we were selecting comments directly sent to CPD yesterday, an email was submitted to City Council from a property owner, which you guys should have received as well in the district in opposition of the designation. We did also receive three comments in support of the designation, which were shared verbally at the Landmark Preservation Commission public hearing. Two of those comments were from property owners within the historic district who also provided online comment. And then there was one from Historic Denver. There was no public comment shared at the planning board meeting. So right now we are at one in opposition and eight property owners in support. So based on ordinance designation criteria and the findings of the Landmark Preservation Commission that the application meets the criteria for designation of a district. Staff recommends approval of the application. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have seven individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call the first five up if you could come up to the front bench Kim Foster, Ashley Morgans, Ashton Altieri, Joan Bondy and Kristi Mineola. If you could come up to the front, Kim Foster, you are up first. Thank you, counsel. Kim Foster I live at 2606 River Drive and a 1906 house. I've lived there 20 years. I've raised two children. We I am involved in the Japan neighborhood organization have been on the board for years. I'm on the land use committee and we this past year established a neighborhood watch. I would base the neighborhood watch purely on the fact that we are a close knit neighborhood. We all have front porches, we know each other and we have a community. Unlike some of the newer buildings that are kind of separated from the street and from each other, we are a group. One of the things I think that's super important is when people walk down the street, they only comment how much they love it. I hope you do, too. Thanks. Thank you. Next up, Ashley Morgan's. Good evening. My name's Ashley Morgan. I live at 2620 River Drive. It's that beautiful blue house that you saw in the PowerPoint. I have a husband, Ryan Morgan, two young children, a nine month old and a two year old. And I love the street I live on. I really love it. Our neighbors that lived down the street from us, we've known them for a decade. They're the reason we live on that street. They knew our house was going up for sale, told us about it, and we bought it. We've done substantial renovations to our home. We plan to live there forever. I don't ever see myself moving. I know that things change, but I just love every piece of my heart. I love our streets. We had a wedding on our street a month ago. I'm sorry. Could you make sure to speak to the reverend? Thank you. We had a wedding on our street a month ago. It's that beautiful and charming. I love everything about it. I love my neighbors. All of the people that you're going to hear from. I know really well and I respect. I really care about them. When a year ago, neighbors came to me and asked me how I felt about this, my position, and it still remains today as that while my husband and I don't like to have infringements on our ability to do what we want with our property. If our whole neighborhood wants it, we're on board. I believe all of my neighbors here have good intentions and they want to maintain the historic character of the street for good reasons. But there is one person on our street who doesn't want this to happen to his property. He's upset and he's let all of you know that, but he refuses to give public comment about it. I don't know why. I think that's kind of hard for some of us to really understand, because that's his right as a citizen. But there could be a lot of reasons why you wouldn't want to come here and be emotional, which as you can tell from my voice, I'm emotional about this. He's upset because he bought this. It's his house 18 years ago as an investment and he wants to sell it and potentially sell it to a developer. And that's the house that I look at right outside my home. And I love his house. It's beautiful. But I think he should have the right to do it with that property. What he wants. It's his property. He made the investment. And if we decide that people can come together and tell you what you can do with your property and don't consent, I think we really need to think long and hard about what that means and how you would feel if that were your home and someone came and told you what you could or couldn't do with it . I truly believe that all of the people here that want this designation want it for the right reasons. They don't want anyone to feel alienated or hurt or upset. But I do think at the end of the day, everyone here needs to ask themselves whether they think it's okay to do this with the with the procedures that we have right now. I think the process is flawed and that every homeowner who this affects should have to opt in to it or have the ability to opt out. I'm sorry, but your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Ashton Altieri. Good evening. My name is Ashton Altieri. I live at 2608 River Drive, and for the past year or so, I have been proud to be the chair of the steering committee that has helped put this application before you this evening. I do want to point out, we do have a couple of residents from the proposed historic district who are here this evening who will not be able to speak. So I just wanted to recognize that we do have a few additional people from our street that do support the designation who unfortunately you will not hear from. Our special st is largely all their remains from the 19th century subdivision riverfront. And remarkably, more than 120 years after most of our homes were built, our street remains largely intact and serves as a vestige to the past and a vast sea of change. Speaking personally, my home was built in 1888. It turns 131 years old this year. But its age alone is not why my wife and I support the designation. It's more about all 17 homes together in our proposed district, exemplifying the best of the past in our area of the city. I want to share with you how we got to this point tonight. As city staff noted in the presentation, the conversation about preservation on River Drive goes back decades. The most recent concerted effort, however, started about two and a half years ago in January 2017. That's when a group of homeowners, myself included, started to learn more about the process for designation and the responsibilities that come with being in an historic district. We organized a committee and from the beginning our goal was to communicate often and offer total transparency about the process. After many informal conversations among neighbors, we hosted a community meeting one year ago in June 2018 that included nearly 100% of the homeowners within the proposed historic district. The meeting was attended by Councilman Espinosa, as well as city staff who made a presentation and answered many, many questions at the meeting. All homeowners were encouraged to contact Councilman Espinosa's office to express support or opposition, and the same message was communicated by email about two months after the meeting. We contacted Councilman Espinosa's office, who informed us that all they had heard at that point was positive feedback, and his office encouraged us to proceed with the application to save money on the application. Many of us on the street volunteered our own time to go and work on the research, which I think illustrates the deep passion many of us have for this designation from. Even before that first meeting, we had one homeowner who has shifted many times between skepticism, opposition and support. Throughout the process, we worked incredibly hard to answer his questions and earn his support, and many times we have encouraged him to express his opinion through the many channels that the city makes available. He chose not to do that, but did write an email that all of you received over the weekend. And while we truly respect his opinion, we strongly disagree with his statements describing a nontransparent process and his inquiries being ignored. I want to sincerely thank all of you for your consideration of this designation, and I'll certainly be available if anyone has any questions. Thank you. Next up, Joan Bondy. Good evening. My name's Joan. Bondy. I've lived on. River Drive for 35 years. My house was built in 1886, and when I moved to River Drive, it was a very depressed. Part of town. Well, the city. Was kind of in an economic slump at that point anyway. But my street was really grim. The next door house was abandoned, gutted and had no glass windows. So obviously, our neighborhood has improved quite a bit since then. Thank goodness. So now we have a lovely neighborhood. Which was. Threatened many times in the. Past by developers. But I'm. Very gratified to see that we have. Everybody. Here in this place. Right now, and I wholeheartedly support the designation. I think it's a wonderful. Gem. Of a neighborhood for Denver and deserves to be rewarded. By a historic. Designation. And I thank everybody who. Participated in the hard work of bringing all of this information together. And putting their heart and soul into it. So thank you very much. Thank you. Next up is Kristi minnillo and then I'll invite Shannon Stage and Jeff Rogers to come if we can make room for them. If you've already spoken up to the front, you'll be next. Go ahead. Good evening, council members. My name is Kristi Minnillo and I live here in Denver as an architectural history consultant. I was hired to. Prepare the application for the River Drive Landmark Historic District. I support the bill designating it the city's 55th such district. The neighborhood offers a glimpse of what life was like in one of the oldest established residential areas of Denver. Those 17 houses that comprise this small district. Were part of the 1881. Riverfront addition to the town of Highlands. As Jenny mentioned. And they remain. As some of the. City's oldest building stock. Although small in number. Several architectural styles and building types are represented here. Including the terrace. Type, which previously mentioned is unique to Colorado. The Queen in Gable Front. Dutch Colonial Revival and the four square. The topography of the street gently slopes from west to east, a feature that builders incorporated into. The design of those houses along the north. Side of the street, with their unique subterranean entrances. Set on a bluff. Overlooking. South Platte River and downtown Denver. The district was originally home to a number of working class residents. Many of whom were employed by some of the city's earliest and most influential industries. Including the Zane Brewery and the various railroads. And those were within walking distance at one point. Or a short streetcar ride away. If you read the application, you will likely agree that its history is quite colorful. The steering committee that was formed by five residents in River Drive was instrumental in assisting with my research. And several residents allowed me to borrow personal belongings that. Were associated. Associated with the district's history so I could develop a better connection and express its history effectively. Along the way, they proved to be willing, motivated. And eager to reach the point where we are today. I'd be happy to answer any. Questions that you may have that landmark staff or historic number may not be able to answer. And I thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next up, Shannon Stage. Good evening, council members. My name is Shannon Stage and I am the preservation coordinator at Historic Denver. My colleague and the executive director, ENI Levinsky, is also here tonight and we can both answer any questions that you may have. Historic. Denver is a membership based preservation nonprofit here in Denver. We are thrilled to be here tonight to show our support of the proposed River Drive Historic District. The area has been known to be historic for quite some time, as you have heard a bit tonight from Jenni, as well as other speakers with one of the earliest neighborhood area plans in 1976 and then again in 2005 indicating River Drive's significance. Then the Discover Denver City Wide Survey reconfirmed the significance and its eligibility for local historic district status. While there has been many conversations over the years to create a historic district among the neighborhood, a couple of years ago, some of the homeowners of River Drive came to historic Denver to discuss the potential of a historic district and what was needed to begin an exploratory phase and then pending neighborhood support a district application. Eventually, the neighborhood applied to historic Denver's Action Fund to proceed. We provided River Drive homeowners with technical assistance. Guidance through the process, helped as a resource at meetings and connected the owners to many ELO consulting who researched and ultimately completed the application. As she just mentioned, the Committee of River Drive homeowners have really been involved, as you have seen, with the passion. They not only just through consistent neighborhood outreach, but really got involved with researching, providing additional information that they had on their homes to the consultant as well as organizing the project. Throughout, this really has been a community driven effort from the bottom up. River Drive was one of the first residential blocks from the 1880s in this area of the city known as the Riverfront Addition and is now the last remaining intact block in the quickly changing Jefferson Park neighborhood. Many of the early owners and renters of River Drive homes were employed, as Christy mentioned, by the earliest and most influential industries within walking distance, including housing, brewery and the railroads. Because of River Drive's historical association with the growth of Denver, as well as the blocks intact architectural character of the homes many built between 1886 to 1896. It is worthy of being classified as a historic district. Historic. Denver is here to support the proposal, and we strongly urge you to consider this to be Denver's next historic district. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Jeff Rogers. Hi. I'm Jeff Rogers. I'm a homeowner a homeowner on River Drive. And I just want to say, it is a wonderful neighborhood. And I think part of the reason why the the friendships and the families that get together every week, one of the great reasons that that happens is because of the historic nature and the way it creates a sense of community in our neighborhood. And I really want to say how thankful I am for Ashton for running a process to inform all the neighborhood residents in a way in which their voices can be heard. And and I think what I'm most extremely proud of is the overwhelming support that exists from all our neighbors. And it probably doesn't happen often, if at all. But I think tonight all of you would probably cheers with a beer for the folks in our neighborhood that say thank you for helping to support something that we cherish so much. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Jenny, could you address just a couple of questions I have on the the compatibility with plan 2040. A number of these seem I have trouble seeing how they apply here. And it's not that you don't have enough. To begin with. It's not like we would eliminate all of them if they didn't apply. But I don't see, for instance, the vision element, environmentally resilient goal. One, mitigate climate impact by significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Strategy B Reduce energy use by buildings and advance green building design, including green and cool roofs. How in the. World does that apply to this? There has been a great deal of research, especially in the last 5 to 8 years, on the environmental benefits of retaining historic buildings. The vast majority of buildings across the country are existing buildings and there is an embedded energy. So you're talking about not demolishing. Right. So by maintaining them and protecting them and not demolishing them, we are. Yes. But that's not the purpose of designation necessarily. No, but it is. Right. But it is a is a benefit of designation, let's say. Okay. I was thinking that maybe there were plans to put green roofs or cool white roofs in these buildings and landmark designation would prohibit that. No, actually, we would allow for that. Now we had in the. Front part. The we are design guidelines for solar panels, especially assets in the rear. But they are a lot of allowable and historic properties. Yes. Okay. And then there were a couple of others. But given that, I can see how you can thread the needle here. Thank you. That's always a problem. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, council mechanic. Thank you so much for the staff as well. Pardon my ignorance, but why did this go through the planning board? Our landmark ordinance doesn't require that. So I'm just. Is there another. Trigger that I missed? I'm sorry. It actually does require it. So the landmark preservation ordinance for historic districts only requires review by planning. Okay. Thank you for refreshing. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Council Bill 547 is closed. Are there any comments by members of council? Councilwoman Kennedy back in there, is it? No. Councilman Espinosa. So just this is you know, this is in my neighborhood. It's not just in my district. It's in my neighborhood. And it's interesting to see Joan and Kim, longtime residents. Kim is, you know, bonding with Ashley and Jeff and Ashton, you know, and them all recognizing that sense of community and river drive. If you're ever in Jefferson Park and you make the mistake of driving down that crooked street, you know that the one that's off the grid, you you immediately recognize that it's a special place and that that that community sense of community that you guys have now has persisted actually for a long period of time. It's just a natural thing that occurs on River Drive, and it's always just been this sort of eclectic place with eclectic homes. It is a commented at at the landmark meeting how it was sort of the greatest hits of workforce housing for the last 140 years of Denver. And and so, you know, I just appreciate the fact that you guys were finally the group that didn't just talk about our uniqueness and wanting to to memorialize it, but actually then doing it, you know, it's probably no, it's probably somewhat circumstantial because of what's going on around the rest of Jefferson Park that you finally recognize that if we don't do this, things could happen. And so, you know, it is so I just want to applaud you guys for everybody that spoke and everyone that worked to get to this outcome. Hopefully, my colleagues will will support this as I do, because it was codified in the 2000 and certainly 1979 plan or 76, I can't remember 76. And in the 20 in 2005, which both Dave Burton, who was the prior applicant and I, co-chaired the steering committee for that neighborhood plan. So, you know, I just will acknowledge. Mr. TOBIN Yes. Your concerns have been heard. I did speak to him specifically and directly at that community meeting that we had a year, more than a year ago. And I will just say that unfortunately for the in to speak to that situation, that he opined to me at that time that his hope was that one day a developer would buy his land and he would go five or eight stories like River Clay. And I made it very clear to him at that point in time that that was never articulated in any sort of plan. It was never in any sort of entitlement. And just to be clear, six years ago that land was pre zoning. I will not bore anybody with the details of PRV zoning, but Larry's laughing. And I know that Councilwoman Ortega understands the difficulty of redeveloping in pre zoning that has no sub area plan and that will also mean something to the attorneys in the room. And then it was deliberately rezone in the 2010 legislative upset of zoning. I mean rezoning to sue be consistent with our neighborhood plan are adopted you know city council adopted neighborhood plan. And I can also then tell you that in the 2008 rezoning process, we deliberately created the SUV so that we could recognize small parcels like what you have in River Drive because they didn't have a designation that went that small. And so the the redevelopment potential that is there remains and persists, you know, and that is consistent with everything that has been articulated and codified and written, you know, in the last 20, 20 plus years in this neighborhood, if not longer, particularly, again , the the the landmark designation of this potential of this particular neighborhood has been codified or written in adopted plans with the city for almost 40 years. So it's been a long time coming. I'm born you with technical details, and that's not what you need tonight. You just need a vote. I just want to thank you all again for the work that you did, the research that you put together. And I want to mention this two landmark commission specifically noted that this was the they praised the quality of this application. You know, about the. A little of research. And so just kudos again to to the entire neighborhood for pitching in on that and the research that was done. So thank you all. I will be voting in support of this rezoning a long time coming. Thank you. I mean, a landmark designation. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to express my support for the application as well. I've had a long history with this neighborhood. This used to be part of my old council district. I just want to know by a raise of the hand, which one of you lives in less than Lucille Bloom's old house? Oh. Okay. All right. So any of you who were familiar with Jefferson Park, Lucille Bloom was a very active community member after her husband, Les, had passed away. And I'll just leave it at that. She was very lively in her communication with with the neighborhood about preserving her community and to see you all step forward. And, you know, among all of the change that's happening and has already happened in this neighborhood, you know, those of you who had a chance to go to the old La Loma, that site sits vacant. Right now we've rezone that property. Nothing has happened on it is primed to have some some high density development in the neighborhood. Councilman Espinosa worked to try to save a couple of properties on 23rd Avenue. I supported those and we weren't successful in making that happen. But really, to see this come forward from the residents and be supported pretty much across the board by the entire community is is really exciting. One of the pieces of history that I think is important to share is our neighborhood association used to be just Jefferson, Highland, sunny side that represented all three neighborhoods. Frank Quintana, who was a firefighter in northwest Denver, was the the chairman or the president of the neighborhood association. And now, as you know, we have probably more than one association in some of these various neighborhoods with a lot of activity that's happening across north Denver. But to see the work you have put in to bring in this forward, I just commend you in preserving part of the history of our city by stepping forward and saying, pick me. I want I want this for my neighborhood. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Kinnick. Thank you so much, Mr. President. I just wanted to briefly acknowledge the the research that was done and how well they described the way that each of the criteria were met, both in the original application and then in the staff report. So in terms of, you know, a particular geographic feature, this, you know, the flow of the street and the ways that it related to the river, the way that the criteria was met with regard to the different architectural types. So I just wanted to say that I will be supporting this this evening because of the strong application and the way that this fits the criteria and to thank the neighbors for the dialog and the work that they've done to to really work together as a community. And I think for me, I always think of historic designation as the bookend of a responsible plan for growth, which is that if the city will grow, it's important that we have pieces of our history preserved while we then channel growth into, you know, neighboring areas and that the two can complement each other, that they are not incompatible. And so I really appreciate the opportunity to establish another district that definitely meets the criteria. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy. See no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. Espinosa. Black eyes, I. Flynn i. Gilmer i. Herndon, i. Cashman Clinic. Lopez I knew. Ortega, I. Assessment i. Mr. President. I. I'm secretary. Please because voting announced results 12 days. Well, I. As Council Bill 547 has passed. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 401 on the floor.

Recommendation to request to enact a resolution recognizing the third Tuesday of every January as the Day of Racial Healing.

LongBeachCC_01222019_19-0058

Thank you. That is the end of public comment. Now we're going to move on to item 21:00, please, with the item. Item 21 is communication from Councilmember Richardson. Councilmember Peers and Councilmember Muranga Recommendation two requires to enact a resolution recognizing the third Tuesday of every January as the day of racial healing. Councilman Richardson. Thank you. Late evening we heard we've heard a lot about racial healing today. So I'll just give some quick background and ask for council support. So the Day of Racial Healing is an initiative started by in 2017 by the W.K. fellow Kellogg Foundation. It's supported by 559 of these leaders, 130 organizations. There'll be activities taking place here in Long Beach with CCJ. And it's made. It's designed to follow Dr. Martin Luther King Day. And so this record this is this motion is to allow the city of Long Beach to be on record as a city that also recognizes this day . I want to acknowledge all the people who participated in the the event earlier in the lobby. Long Beach Office of Equity. Safe Lobbies. Violence Prevention Lobbies. Public Library, CCJ National COMPADRES Network Community Development YMCA. Long Beach Opera, California African-American Museum, Historical Society, Long Beach and all the council members who joined us this afternoon. The event is going to take place January 24th at 5:30 p.m. at St Mark's Baptist Church in Long Beach. And. And the final thing I'll say is that in October, I was able to participate in National League of Cities, Cities for Racial Healing and Racial Equity, convening in New Orleans with cities from cities of Charlotte, Wichita, Rochester and Pittsburgh, who are also in this cohort with Long Beach. So it's good work. Thank you. And I encourage and I vote. Thanks. Yes. Councilman, your anger. Thank you, Mayor. And I want to thank Councilmember Rich for bringing this forward. It's a good way of celebrating our diversity. One of the things that I said earlier today at our at our event right here at the lobby was that, unfortunately, over the last couple of years, we've had. Items come in to our vernacular that I thought we had gone over. Words such as bigotry and racism. And, you know, I thought that by 2018, 2019, that we would have moved on beyond those terms and those hateful vernacular would be gone from our vocabulary. But apparently it's not. And I think that the weekend really brought that into focus from some of our national leaders, basically pointing to the fact that it comes from the top that comes from the White House. And we need to change that. And we need to change. And one way of getting there is by coming together, like, is being planned to have a national day of racial healing. And I think that this is a great opportunity to do that. I strongly support it. And I'm glad that you brought this forward and I will be voting yes on it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman, you. Councilwoman Pierce. Yes. Thank you. And I want to thank Councilmember Richardson not only for this item, but for really leading the discussion in this city alongside many community members and organizations around talking about race. My work on the steering committee with the California Endowment, we had a lot of conversations around. We want to talk about racial equity in the city of Long Beach, but people are going to be uncomfortable. You know, and it's been several years where we've said, are we going to be comfortable or uncomfortable to try to get to a place where everybody can live in a life of equality with their neighbors? And so I really appreciate you for leading this discussion. And I look forward to, you know, every year trying to have a space of healing. And we know that whether it's grieving a family member that's lost or your own trauma that you've been through, healing really takes having to talk about it first. And as leaders in the city, I'm really thankful for all of my colleagues for creating a space to where we get to talk about racial healing. And so I look forward to playing a role next year and creating that space in the district. But I just want to thank you and all the organizations that are really leading this effort. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Myself also, I'd like to thank Councilman Richardson for allow me to send you to the side of me, because I am thrilled to see so much of our community coming together for the purpose of healing. This is the third year that organization across the country has planned events following Martin Luther King Jr Day to celebrate the progress and racial healing. This same day is also a reminder of the actions we can all take to further push for equality and and unity when we all come together and we accomplish more. When we begin to unpacked our past. There's a transformation in our healing. Let's tonight be a fresh start and how we can acknowledge and engage on different paths that over come ourselves. Thank you very much. And now we can move on. I would like to remove any comments on this item. Anyone from the Irish like to speak on this? Please cast your vote. Motion carries. Now we're going to be moving to item number 23. Would you please read the item?

A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and K-M Concessions, LLC to provide support services at the Denver Coliseum and portions of National Western complex to support auxiliary shelters in the City in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Amends a contract with KM Concessions, LLC by adding $4,015,930 for a new total of $5,645,405 and 1.5 months for a new end date of 7-15-20 to provide support for food, snacks and beverages at the Denver Coliseum and portions of National Western complex to support auxiliary shelters in the City in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (HOST-202054549). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-29-20. Councilmember Kashmann approved direct filing this item on 6-11-20.

DenverCityCouncil_06152020_20-0558

And, you know, when we start talking about equity, not, you know, targeting the same neighborhoods over and over. So these are some things that I want to make sure that we as a council are being brought into that conversation and not be expected to just rubber stamp something at the 11th hour. Okay. Thank you. And I believe we are coming back to the safety committee at some point in July for an update. So we're working to schedule. Great. Thank you so. Much. Thank you. Hold on. Just take somebody else. Councilmember Kenny. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a comment. I really appreciate Councilwoman CdeBaca highlighting the need to maintain and sustain the level of service we're providing. We may actually even need to prepare to expand it if people fall into homelessness because of the economic crisis we're facing. So even while we successfully house people, we may have more people coming into homelessness. It does not mean that our solution of supportive housing doesn't work. It simply means it's not to scale, to keep pace with the need, particularly in an economic crisis. But I do just want to say that for for those who may be watching or listening, who are passionate about maintaining the level of care and emergency shelter that we've been providing, it is critical that you check into the group living zoning process. I know I may begin to sound like a broken record, but our zoning code has codified some of the same racism and exclusion that we are talking about in other systems in our city. And there is a proposal that would expand the ability and modernize the ability to provide shelter so that we can not only maintain but improve the quality of shelter to provide, for example, 24, seven services versus just overnight sleeping on a mat. Our zoning code right now actually codifies the fact that people can't be in beds in some cases because a shelter might lose its, quote unquote, emergency overflow status. Those are some of the back flips our current zoning code requires of providers. So I just want to say that if these issues are important, it is about money. It's about our budget conversation, it's about the safety conversation, but it's also about zoning. If our neighborhoods do not include and welcome people of various backgrounds to live in our city, then we will not be able to achieve the goal of making sure that when this shelter closes, people don't end up on the streets. So I just wanted to connect issues again that are connected. You can go to Denver Gov Dawgs Group Living to learn more about that change. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. All right, that concludes the comments on this item. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and that will be Bill 508. Councilmember CdeBaca, go ahead with your questions on. You're right.

Rezones 3268 West 32nd Avenue from U-SU-A to U-MS-2x in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 3268 West 32nd Avenue from U-SU-A (Urban, Single Unit, 3,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to U-MS-2x (Urban, Main Street, 2 stories less intense use) in Council District 1. 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 9-16-15.

DenverCityCouncil_01252016_15-0625

Connects east west across the site. A few more vantage points were looking northwest from spear, close to Spear and 32nd Avenue intersection. We see an office building. Along Speer Boulevard. And here we're looking at the site in the foreground or bordering east of the site is this commercial car wash. And then the actual site is this small. Formerly Medical Use Office Building, which is now vacant. These images. Reflect the longstanding commercial use uses that have been a really long 32nd Avenue. In particular. At this corner, we're looking here at 1933 aerial imagery with superimposed Sanborn maps. We can see the uses highlighted here in red that were commercial whether it be filling station where the carwash is today. The little office building on the site. The Denver bred company was in operation in 1910. So very much a commercial node for many decades now. Compared to the residential nature of 31st Avenue. You see in contrast that looking. East along 31st Avenue, we see the residential streets next to the existing mayor's church. And also looking north along Irving towards 32nd Avenue, we see residential character of that street. Rezoning process to president has included public outreach to these registered neighborhood organizations, including West Highland Neighborhoods Association, Federal Boulevard, Corridor Improvement Partnership, Denver Neighborhood Association, Inc. and Inner Neighborhood Cooperation, as well as other outreach efforts by the applicant. The African outreach is focused on both the rezoning as well as a proposed project, and really started back in August of 2013 when community meetings were were held and organized to try to engage residents and representatives in the neighborhood, including to community meetings, as well as two meetings focused on property owners within 200 feet of the surrounding site. In February 2015, a website describing the proposed rezoning and intended project was set up to provide current information as well as background and. Background related to this effort. Then in April and June of 2015, there were two site design workshops that were coordinated between the applicant in West Highland neighborhood. At these meetings, neighborhood representatives were selected to explore building form and materials that might be appropriate. They applied to the site under the UM's two zone district, and this resulted in a vision document produced by the applicant intended to guide the design and potential development of medical office project. The applicant has been seeking to regularly attend and participate in West Highland neighborhood meetings since October 2014. The original application was submitted on March 3rd, 2015, and it consisted of Lot six through ten. These are surveyor lots, the green lines and you see the numbers here within the parcel which is outlined as yellow. The parcel or the actual area proposed for rezoning to um, is to ex. And so initially this was just over 39,000 or about a 39,000 square foot proposal. The feedback received in West Highland neighborhood at this time was that a traffic and parking study was requested of the applicant and that this would be needed before forming an official position. On July six, CPD received a revised application revising the area proposed to be rezone to Lot six through nine, thus reducing the proposed area to just over 31,000 square feet or just under three quarters of an acre. Also to the same zone district. And then about a month later, written and posted notice of an August 19 planning planning board hearing was provided three days prior to that hearing was titled Neighborhood Provided a letter of opposition to the application. And just to get us oriented, the application under consideration this evening is this modified application request, which counsel and I should say accepted the modified application rather than approved it. Tonight you'll vote whether to approve or not the modified application. But you've proved that. This is now an application consisting of surveyor lots, six through eight. Just under 23,000 square feet or just over a half acre is still at the proposed you me two zoning. So back to summer 2015 when the revised application went before planning board. Public testimony was offered in both opposition and support of the proposed rezoning. And Opposition has expressed concerns over some negative traffic impacts and parking impacts. There were concerns expressed about the unknown scale and character of the building in the project. There was disagreement with staff's interpretation of Blueprint Denver, which I'll cover in just a moment. And there was also quite a bit of interest in a pod over ums two x, although details of what that might become were not provided. And then there was quite also some opposition to rezoning from the current U.S. district. The official West Highland neighborhood position was that single family residential development was unlikely and that a planned unit development was preferred. Public testimony in support of the application, expressed support for a more productive and vibrant use of a vacant parking area small office building that was in decline and at the time some of the former school buildings that were also vacant. That were part of that larger site and the earlier application. There was support expressed for mixed use services in the neighborhood, such as medical office. It was recognition that of the existing commercial character along 32nd Avenue, in particular at this Speer, Irving and 32nd node and then planning board recommended approval with a vote, five three vote. Two of the opposing votes were based on the context and scale, in particular, the depth. And the total area of the proposed area for rezoning was of concern to two planning board members and one planning board member expressed opposition. Based on her expressed disagreement with staff's interpretation of Blueprint Denver. Has provided plant support for the application. This is planning board. This is the process that we've been through to present and to state initially that all of the written and posting requirements have been met for all of these public meetings, including neighborhood and planning committee meeting on September 16th, after which there was an initial council hearing date scheduled for October 26. But this was postponed to November 2nd to allow more time for mediation between the applicant and representatives from the neighborhood. And this concluded on October 23rd without the two parties reaching a resolution, after which there was a protest petition submitted by property owners within 200 feet of the proposed area for rezoning on October 26th. And about that time a submittal by the applicant a request to modify the application which. Council voted to accept the modified application and reschedule the hearing on November 22nd to tonight. And here we are at the rescheduled or postponed January 25th hearing. Since Planning Board CPD has received numerous public comment letters or emails, including letters of support, supporting mixed use development, supporting medical office as a neighborhood service and amenity, and expressing support or a view that the church is compatible as a nonresidential use next to the site that the proposed commercial site or mixed use site. Letters of opposition continue to focus on assumed traffic impacts, potential impacts to nearby residential uses. Stating disagreement that blueprint Denver's single family concept land use would support the requested commercial mixed use zoned district. There's continued has been expression of continued interest in a planned unit development to reflect neighborhood input and to protect character. Neighborhood character. Opposition by some to even changing the current single unit zoning. And then there's quite a lengthy letter packet from a West Highland resident that provides multiple opinion statements, as well as a lengthy summary of an analysis of an online petition. So I think you've got all of that in your 270 page staff report. And on January 15th, we did receive another protest petition for the modified area that was you can see here on this map, the 200 foot area surrounding the proposed. Map Amendment area and after review and verification of the signatures, CPD found that signatures represented 24% of the property ownership in this area, which exceeds the 20% minimum required for a ten council vote for application approval. I'd like to now go through the review criteria as spelled out in Section 1247 of the Denver Zoning Code. The first review criteria is consistency with adopted plans, beginning with Plan 2000, which encourages infill development near existing services and infrastructure intended to establish mixed use neighborhoods consistent with existing neighborhood character and quality. These could provide convenient access to work and neighborhood services, strengthen sense of place, and even activate neighborhood based facilities. Including places of worship blueprint. Denver provides a land use concept recommendation of single family residential, and that's this yellow area that you see. And this reflects the predominant residential character and composition of this neighborhood. But it is important to read the definition of what this yellow area represents. And as we look at the text of Blueprint Denver single family residential lies under the general residential area neighborhood definition, which is primarily residential, but also providing for a variety of housing types as well as some complementary land uses, including stores, apartments and schools, and then specific to single family. That the definition of single family homes. Are they predominant development type? But there's still a significantly smaller employment base, thus suggesting that there is some variety to the land use and it's not 100% residential single family uses. So the question becomes where? Where could these? Complimentary land use stores, parks, even smaller apartments and townhomes. Where could those be located? Within single family residential. And that's part of the analysis that CPD has conducted and that I'll continue to share with you this evening. Blueprint Denver also calls this area as an area of stability. And we read the definitions of areas of stability, and we see that there is a committed area of stability where neighborhood and neighborhood may benefit from minor infill development and reinvestment areas of stability or of stability where reinvestment could actually help to stabilize an area or a site such as an underutilized parking area and a vacant building. The UMC two zone district could implement some of the strategies that are spelled out for areas of stability, including addressing incompatible zoning and land use issues. Improving compatibility between existing and new development through design standards and potentially even increasing housing diversity as UMC two X allows for commercial as well as residential uses. We also look at the street classifications in blueprint Denver to help answer the question where. Other uses besides single family residential might be appropriate in single family residential concept areas. Irving Street is an undesignated local street. These streets provide access and circulation to homes and services throughout the neighborhood. And then key here is this green label or depiction of 32nd Avenue as a main street collector. Collector streets provide access between neighborhoods. They promote walking and bicycling in addition to vehicle trips. With features such as tree lawn's amenities on sidewalks, on street parking and buildings located close to the street. This street classification reflects historic. Land use and transportation patterns and past uses along 32nd Avenue that we see here in this historic map of the Denver Tramway Corporation Service Network. And two used to be streetcars that went along 32nd Avenue connecting downtown up to the Lakeside Park and Berkeley Park area. And the star that you see here is actually the site of 32nd and Irving. And so 32nd Avenue was a very important segment along this tramway service that we also see in the previous zoning code, which was originally adopted in 1925 and revised here in 1944, the dark area that you see lining the north and south sides of 32nd Avenue. And here again, you see the star indicating this. The subject property. This was commercial zoning and had a direct correlation with the type of transportation, the multi modality that was provided along 32nd Avenue , connecting folks throughout the entire city along and through this corridor to access services and of course, serving this neighborhood. And here's the result of that, that land use and transportation dynamic and relationship. And we see this continuous main street street wall of buildings that have. High level of transparency, which encourages pedestrians to walk and look through windows and enjoy parking along the street and walking and shopping and accessing other services that are provided in this mixed use environment and also serves to buffer the intensity and the vibrancy along 32nd Avenue from the adjacent residential uses on either side of the these buildings to the rear. So that could be described as a complete main street, whereas here we're looking at what could be described as an incomplete main street, looking at 32nd and Irving, this segment where we see no buildings other than the small office building, but a fairly significant gap in terms of this main street fabric along a main street corridor. Another important ST classification to consider is Spire Boulevard, which is a mixed use. Arterial arterial streets connect neighborhoods to employment and commercial centers. They can accommodate 10,000 or more vehicle trips daily and still can provide a variety of travel choices in addition to vehicle trips, including bike and pet. This is significant in that although the site does not front Speer Boulevard, it certainly is serviced by Spear Boulevard in the provides access to the site not necessarily frontage, but certainly access from the north and from the southeast. And really is quite visible as we saw in the earlier existing conditions. Photos from Spirit Boulevard. And here's an image of Sphere Boulevard not far from the site, but looking south towards downtown or he's southeast towards downtown. So the UMS two exon district is consistent with O plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver and that this is a zone district that provides some of the highest. Level of design standards as well as the most restrictive use limitations. Than any other mixed use or commercial zone district intended to support this Main Street Corridor experience and a successful transition from Main Street to predominantly residential or single family residential neighborhood. Again you miss two X is intended to promote consistent neighborhood scale and character, as we see elsewhere in West Highland, particularly along 32nd Avenue, and does help to address the need to transition from Main Street Corridor to the residential surrounding areas. Want to mention that the applicant and CPD explored a few different zone districts as the uh, we're going through the pre application period, including a ums three as a, as well as a ums two. And through discussion we landed on ums to X and encourage the applicant to seriously consider this as it provided the additional use, restrictions and limitations that would be considered of the surrounding residential area. But looking east or west in particular along 32nd Avenue. And I could show other slides later of the current zoning, which is max two and three along that corridor. The second review criteria is that there should be uniformity of district regulations, including uniform application of the building form and design standards which could be achieved or would be achieved with UMC two X and that public health, safety and welfare would be further advanced through implementing the recommendations from these adopted plans to meet the third criteria. The fourth criteria is a justifying circumstance that the land or its surrounding area has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changed character of the area, specifically commercial mixed use. There was a commercial mixed use building built just to the west of Erving fronting 32nd Avenue in 2012 after it was zoned in 2010. There is a vacant school building adjacent to the proposed rezoning area, as well as a small vacant office building on the site and an underutilized surface parking area. The immense church has divided its property into two parcels, anticipating potential redevelopment or beneficial use of the area, fronting 32nd Avenue and has obtained a recent Certificate of nine historic status for the small commercial building on the site. And just a look going back to 2010 and these aerial images, you see a vacant lot on the site across the street, West Irving, and you see what appears to be freshly painted parking and even playground indicating active private school use of some of the church property buildings. And go to 2012. We see the commercial building under construction and possibly some of these lines fading just a little bit. But in 2014, the school had. No. Was no longer in operation on the site. And we see a fully operational mixed use commercial building. So this progression of images reflects the change or changing condition that we just. Went over in this list the fifth and final review criterias consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. So the urban neighborhood context can be characterized as single unit, primarily single unit two unit residential uses. There can be embedded small scale multi unit residential and commercial uses. And this is typically within a regular orthogonal grid of streets and blocks, usually served by alleys to provide vehicle access interior to the blocks. The U. M's two acts are urban neighborhood main street. Two storey maximum with youths and. U.S. limitations and other restrictions. Is intended to advance neighborhood quality and define neighborhood character. It provides for a mix of uses, including accessible neighborhood services. It is intended to give prominence to the pedestrian realm and prevent more pedestrian activity, especially along the fronting the main street corridor. And it is intended to establish a sense of security and community and provide for a successful transition from Main Street to the nearby residential uses. And again, MZ two X is intended primarily for embedded commercial and mixed use. And in this case, we have it as a key component of a main street corridor, but again intended to limit the potential impacts on surrounding residents. CBD is finding is that. The review criteria has been met and we recommend approval of this application. And as I mentioned earlier in a presentation, planning board also recommends approval of the application. Thank you, Sam. All right. We have 58 speakers signed up, 39 in favor, 19 in opposition way. This is going to work. I'm going to call the first five speakers and I would ask that you can make your way up to the front pew to go ahead and get started. And the first five names I will be calling out have 6 minutes each. So and apologies for any mispronunciations. Neal Lindorff, David Hagan, Bradley Zweig, Sonari Craft and Keith Bush Dyker. So you five can go ahead and make your way up to the front pew. And Neal, you can go ahead and begin your remarks. And each of you have 6 minutes. Thank you, Mr. President, and members of Council. My name is Neil New Dorf and I live on West 71st place in Arvada. I've been the volunteer president of the mayor's church congregation since 2012. You may have put a lot of thought and prayer into the decision to propose a neighborhood medical office building project. It was very important to us that we use this valuable church resource, the underutilized land north of the church on the 32nd Avenue Main Street, in a way that would serve the community and be consistent with the church's mission. Over 2012 and 2013, we heard a wide variety of proposals with everything ranging from single family development to mixed use to commercial projects such as the sprouts. After a significant amount of decision, discussion, deliberation and prayer, the May the mayor's church community decided that a neighborhood medical office building would be the most consistent with our mission. We believe that when Jesus was here, he healed bodies as well as souls. In our sanctuary, we share the gospel with our congregation and with the Medical Office Building. We would love to provide health care and physical wellness to our neighbors. We've been talking about this project with the community for two and a half years, and for most of that time there were as many opinions about what should be built on our land as there were neighbors. However, recently, a few neighbors have joined together to raise their voices in favor of leaving the current zoning in place and building single family houses. Even though the land is along a main street corridor and is surrounded by commercial uses and has always been nonresidential. The immense community did consider building single family houses, but we decided against it for a variety of reasons. It is very important to us to utilize the land in a way that provides a needed service to the community and the increasing neighborhood population and need for more medical care options, particularly doctors that can take Medicare, Medicaid and CHP plus fits that requirement. We were also very conscious of parking issues in the neighborhood, and we wanted to make sure that there were no conflicts between the parking needs of the church, which is busy on Sundays and occasional evening activities and whatever was built on the land. Again, doctor's offices that were open only during business weekday hours are a great fit as an added bonus. We plan to offer space to our parking lot, to neighboring businesses on evenings and weekends, which would help relieve the parking situation in the neighborhood. And even though we love the residential area to the south of the church, providing a few more houses or townhouses didn't seem to fill a need the same way that medical care does. The reality is that Hamas has been working on this project for years. If a rezoning is denied, we would not be able to even submit a different rezoning request for one year. The church cannot afford that kind of a delay, especially since we started. We'd be starting over from the beginning. If he mayor's is not able to utilize this land in an ongoing, financially sustainable way, it is possible that the Church will have to leave all of the land mass owned 63,000 square feet from 32nd to 31st would be sold to a developer. If the developer knocks down the 100 year old church and redeveloped the entire property as a large block of residential. I'm not sure that the neighbors would be happy with what they got, particularly given the amount of vitriol that exists around other modern residential lots in the neighborhood. We brought Centuri into our team a year ago in part to help with some of the technical things, like building a website and answering questions in social media. However, we did a lot of outreach before community outreach before soon to be joined us. Our initial outreach was to the West Highland Neighborhood Association back in August of 2013, including a meeting with their zoning committee members. And in early 2014, we went door to door to speak with all of the neighbors living within 200 feet of the project. During those conversations, we were honest about what we hope to build. We also talked about the potential outcome if the land wasn't zoned, which is that a developer might try to put as high density single family housing on that land as he could. During those conversations in early 2014, we secured support of over 50% of the people living within 200 feet of the project. We also held two meetings in the spring of 2014 that were specifically for people living within 200 feet of the project. When members of the West Highlands Neighborhood Association learned of these meetings and asked if they could attend, we welcome them. During those meetings, we listened to our neighbors thoughts about the project, talked with them about why we felt that the medical office building fit with the church's mission and our potential concerns about other kinds of development, such as residential housing, creating competition for church parking on weekends as an issue that wouldn't happen with a medical office building. I lived in the church parsonage for three years while I was getting back on my feet. You see, I was convicted of a drug offense back in 2007. I was released to a halfway house in 2010 and then returned to the community fully. One year later, I have been sober for nine years. Parties participating in Narcotics Anonymous and work as a volunteer capacity at the church because I believe in serving my community. During the time I lived at the parsonage, I was sober and working and there was no reason for anyone to know about my past. However, I believe in connecting with my neighbors, and I also believe in being honest about my past. I am the one who told neighbors about my past, criminal conviction and the spirit of honesty and supporting my commitment to my rehabilitation and reintroduction to the community. It saddens me that a few of these neighbors have not only chosen to use my past criminal conviction as a way to attack the church and the project, but they have gone beyond that, distorting my record and telling unconscionable lies about me in order to convince those that previously supported our project to instead oppose it. This kind of fear based attack creates an environment in which distrust takes over and attempts to tell the truth aren't heard. It is truly unfortunate. Thank you for your time and God. Bless you and your families. Thank you, David Hagan. Thank you. Mr. President, member of the Council. My name is Dave Hagan. I live on Little Raven Street in Denver. I'm the developer and a partner with the Mayor's Lutheran Church on the Neighborhood Medical Office Building Project that we're talking about tonight. Our partnership plans called for an initial 5050 partnership with the church, whereby the church can take full control and ownership of the project over probably about a ten year period. Depending upon how it leases and cash flow. So I just wanted to give you that by background so you understand that the church is a participant and long term holder and owner. Tim laid out all the ways in which the application meets the legal criteria for rezoning, but I wanted to highlight the concept of context and what it to the important role it plays. As we look at the designation of area of stability for this parcel. It's not to correct and it's not correct to assert that an area of stability means that no change can ever happen. Instead, Blueprint Denver clearly states that areas of stability are meant to maintain the character of an area. While accommodating some new development and redevelopment. As has been established. The character area along this Main Street quarter on 32nd Avenue was clearly commercial. Tonight, you're going to hear a lot of testimony about things like building size, design, traffic. And we understand that these are important aspects of development and probably need to be addressed for any new development. And that's why we engaged with the community and neighborhood to the extent that we did and we provided the information about the project during the course of the last two plus years. However, we also think it's important to note that these things are actually not part of the legal criteria for rezoning. We'd like to keep that in mind as you hear all these speakers tonight. Both CPD and Planning Board have found the rezoning proposal does meet the necessary criteria laid out in the city code and blueprint. Denver and I agree that that assessment would I agree with that assessment and do not believe that the area that they are legally just file grounds for denying this rezoning. Our traffic engineer was planning on being here tonight, but unfortunately he's ill. So I'm going to step in and explain a little bit about the traffic study that we conducted. And it's in a handout. It's in tab three, I believe. The handout. Each of the council members has, and I'm available for questions about the traffic study, although I'm not a traffic engineer. But there are a few things that I want to highlight. First, the study area was for a larger building for I believe it was a 25,000 square foot building. What was the original intent? The traffic study is comparing potential potential traffic to the most recent use of land, which was a school building. The traffic study focuses on the morning and afternoon peak hours. If you look at your packet and look at the traffic study, you'll see that there's a decrease in traffic projected for the morning peak hour and only a slight increase for the afternoon peak hour. The peak hour traffic cannot be reasonably extrapolated to all hours of the day. The nature of doctor's offices is that there will be an evenly spaced flow of cars. And as you'll look at the traffic study trips as a defined term on the traffic study, represent a trip in or a trip out. So ten trips equals five cars. Even though the building size and traffic are not part of the legal criteria for rezoning. I'd like to present some facts about the building and how we we came to the conclusion what size building we're going to be looking to build. And we're not exactly sure what the city will approval ultimately, but we've got some limitations that we want to talk about, and that is that we we have a letter of intent signed with a hospital system to be a major tenant in the building. Their criteria calls for a parking ratio of three spaces per 1000 square feet of building area. So in order to meet the criteria, we work backward into building sizes. At a minimum, code requires two spaces per 1000 square feet of building area. If you look at a 22,000 foot lot and we have a two storey building under UMC two X, we can build a building of about 17,500 square feet and that's an exhibit in your packet as well. If we were without then that's all onsite parking at a 2 to 1 ratio. If we're able to get the 3 to 1 ratio by utilizing some offsite parking, we can build a building of about 22,000 square feet. Once again, a two storey building, each floor plate being about 11,000 square feet. So as you can see, we don't really understand what we can build yet because we haven't been through that process . But we do have some limitations on building size. And I think it's important, as you hear some additional speakers come up in terms of context for the neighborhood. So some of the other things you might hear tonight are some claims by the neighbors that we're going to build a gigantic building by either providing underground parking or try to sneak in a third story by building a garden level to the office building and just addressing the underground parking. It's not a financially feasible model to look at underground parking on this project. The project is too small to support that at a cost of approximately 30 to $35000 per parking spot to try to fit, you know , 60 spots or 70 spots on that would be not feasible for us and and or tenants. And in terms of fitting in a three story building by building a garden level or basement level, if you will, the same limitation on parking applies with the tenants that we have in place. So therefore, our range. Mr.. Hanging your 6 minutes is up. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Bradley Zweig. Good evening, cast members. My name is Bradley Zig and I live at 1285 Dexter Street in Denver, as retained as the commercial real estate broker for this project in 2014. There are currently good doctors practicing in order to Denver area. However, the population in that part of the city is drawing including families, young children and older people who are aging in place. There is a need for additional medical care within a neighborhood friendly context. We're not going to be building a hospital or a big fancy medical facility. This building will not be accepting ambulances and overnight stays will not be allowed as per the zoning code. Our hope is to offer a family practice that keeps long, extended hours, as well as a handful of other doctor's offices. The building has not yet been designed and we don't have any leases signed, so we can't speak to specifics about exactly what will be offered. However, we do have a letter of intent from Lutheran Hospital to provide the doctors for the family practice. We feel that a partnership with Lutheran hospitals, a natural fit for the American Lutheran Church, and we feel fortunate to have the opportunity to provide such high quality health care in the neighborhood. Despite what some may think, there's still economic diversity in that part of the city, and good quality doctors who can accept Medicaid are an important part of providing real health care services in their community. Jennifer Rona is here this evening from Lewiston Hospital. She will able to testify to provide more information about health care, questions that you might have. I want to speak about one aspect of care that has been frequently misrepresented in neighbor discussions. It's important to recognize there are probably thousands of medical procedures. There won't be providers in the medical office building simply due to its size and the limitations of family practice. Doctors, all patients who need a procedure is not done by doctors in the building will be referred elsewhere by their physicians because the land and building will continue to be owned by Lutheran Church. They may ask Lutheran Church. They have stated that abortions will not be performed at the building. This is something that is deeply held belief in the church, and it's not an unusual practice whether medical facilities are owned by religious organizations. Just as with any procedure not performed in the building, patients needing an abortion will be referred to a where they can provide that service. This facility will not diminish the number of medical services available to women in the community. They will serve the same number of legal options they are currently have. The medical office building will just be adding more options for things like pediatricians, pediatric care and primary care for the residents of the neighborhood, including internal medicine for seniors. There are some members of the community that are especially passionate and knowledgeable about walkability, and all of them do most of the speaking about that, I just want to state that an important part of creating vibrant walking communities is integrating land. Usually people can be closer to the services that they need. Please see Tab two of the handout for an infographic from Walk Denver. By the way, you guys just approved applying for the Dot Smart City Grant, and I think that fits nicely into the kind of thing we're trying to do here within this embedded neighborhood business. When we talk about the need for mixed use that can refer to mixed use communities, not just a mixed use of sort of mixed views within a single building, insisting on segregating residential and commercial areas as a way to guarantee to business on cars what this project is proposing to put medical care along a main street corridor surrounded by other commercial uses with residential nearby. This strikes an ideal balance. In addition to and walkability, the site has a bus stop right in front of it and B cycle station one block away. There are numerous active, active transportation options. There are a lot of big statements about negative impacts of this project that have been made by a few neighborhood opponents. However, it's easy to use rhetoric. Our focus should instead be on what is actually supported by facts. Traffic, for example, even though traffic isn't a part of the legal criteria for rezoning and traffic, studies typically are not prepared until later in the process. When the neighborhood organization ask us to do a traffic study, we're happy to oblige. In short, the studies show the driving impact will be minimal compared to the most recent use. In addition, Development Services Transportation Department reviewed our concept and so the traffic actually was not needed this stage, which means they determined there were no negative impacts to mitigate those. Were attacking this project based on fears about traffic or misguided concerns about parking are similarly unfounded, particularly since we're providing 150% of the parking in corporate code. In fact, the typical business time, busy time from parking prospective for the neighborhood is evenings and weekends when residents are home and local restaurants are at capacity. Our medical office building won't all be needing all of the spaces during those times, so our plan has always been to partner with neighborhood businesses to offer some sort of shared or valet parking. Our project with this large parking lot will actually serve to decrease overall parking pressures in the neighborhood. It's also important to acknowledge all of the intervention use limitations are written into the code. Our request is not for you and asked to, but for you and to x that indicates a less intensive zoning and carries with it additional restrictions, including design guidelines. One last note lands. The Medical Office Building will be held by a for profit LLC, which means all the taxes will be paid both on the land itself and with the income promises from the building. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sun Craft. Thank you. Mr. President, members of council. My name is Elizabeth Craft. I live one block outside the boundary of West Highland on Elm Street in Wheat Ridge. A year ago, I was hired by the mayor's team to help provide help with communications. So often, community members feel that developers don't communicate enough, provide information about their project, or respond to their questions. And so I was brought on to help with that. We've provided you with a timeline of all our community outreach and communications and tab four of your packet, and I promise I will not go through all of it . I just wanted to note that since the Church first reached out to the neighborhood organization back in August of 2013, since that time, the mayor's team has attended nine wina meetings, held four additional community meetings, including two specifically for those that live within 200 feet of the project, hosted two community design workshops and participated in an extensive mediation with neighbors who had publicly stated opposition to the project. This has been, in addition to our online outreach, the website and other things like hosting a booth at the Highland Street Fair. We've interacted with the community in a lot of different forums and there have been some interactions we've had that have been primarily about providing information and other interactions that were purely collaborative. But in every interaction we have heard and paid attention to community feedback and as a result of that community feedback, our project has changed in some significant ways over time and there's initially planned a three story building. However, there was a concern from a business to the north about a three story building, casting a shadow on their property. So we commissioner architects do a shadow study and when it was determined that it would create a shadow on their property and amassed, then agreed to lower our desired building height to two stories. The original size of the north parcel to be zoned as as Tim went over it was 39,000 square feet. People were concerned that that was just too big. So we revised our application to reduce the size to 31,000 square feet. There was continued discussion about lot size, and that discussion specifically focused on the location of that southern boundary and community meetings and many other discussions. We heard the neighbors clearly express a wish for that southern boundary to be brought up so that it matched the U.S. UMass two X Pincher Taco's development to the West. This was also something that our council person said that he would like to see during our committee hearing to bring that lot line up to that place. So after our mediation was unsuccessful, as you know, we came to you to ask to revise our application specifically to bring that line up to where people had said they wanted it that area reducing our to 22,000 and change the initial vision called for the family practice in the building to be open 24 hours a day. However, again, after hearing concerns from neighbors, we agreed to limit the hours of operation for the family practice to 77 P and the rest of the doctors would have regular business hours , 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.. So I'd like to talk a little bit about the mediation process. We initiated mediation on September 16th and our mediation process was closed on October 23rd. Confidentiality was a condition of mediation, and therefore none of the participants can share what was discussed during the meeting, during the meetings. But the facilitators report stated that mediation was done in good faith. We had engaged in conversation with the community leader as early as May 2015 about our willingness to codify the project concessions that were important to neighbors. But we were told at that time that there was not an acceptable tool available to codify those concessions except to Pudi, which CPD had already told us they would not support. It wasn't until our council committee hearing on September 16th that we were told that there was in fact an acceptable tool available to capture and codify any outcome of mediation. And I contacted the mediator that same afternoon. I think it's very important to emphasize that even after all of the outreach and discussions over the course of this project, Mayor's entered into a professionally facilitated mediation process. The mediator was someone who was contracted by the city with extensive experience in these types of situations. And again, the confidentiality prohibits us from sharing things that were discussed during mediation. But this was a thoughtful and thorough process, entered into in good faith and it was unsuccessful. I encourage you to listen closely to the testimony tonight, to look at the changes and concessions Mayes has voluntarily made to the project and understand that throughout this entire process, unfortunately, every single effort to reach a compromise acceptable to the project's opponents has been unsuccessful. We have really tried, and now we ask you to consider this rezoning request based on the legal criteria and to allow the church community to move forward with its project. It is a significant thing, as I know, you know, to come down here and testify at a public hearing. And obviously, the people here, as wonderful as they are and as many as they are, represent only a minor fraction of the number community. Some of the citizens have chosen to participate. Sending in letters or emails. We had 34 people send direct emails to planning board in support of our project. Around 40 people have sent emails to all of you in support of the project with about 20 additional hard copy letters. Some of the people here tonight are very active in local government issues, which is also commendable. However, it can be problematic when they present their position as being the voice of the neighborhood. Our neighborhood is incredibly diverse, and the truth is that those who hold different opinions about issues like development sometimes don't feel welcome at neighborhood meetings . They are also uncomfortable with the idea of coming to a public hearing like this, particularly when they know about the passion with which some of the neighbors disagree with them. We're grateful to the many community members who have showed up tonight in support of our project, some of whom have been members of the mayor's church. As you'll hear, it's amazing for 60 or 70 years or even more. They're looking forward to sharing their stories with you and their reasons for supporting the project. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Keith Bushtucker. And as Keith comes forward, I'm going to call the next five names. You can make your way up to the front pew. Paul Hack, Eric Wills, Cara Cara Fitzpatrick, Sean O'Connell and Donald Grimm now. So you five, please make your way up to the front pew and so you can begin remarks. Thank you, Mr. President, and members of council. My name is Keith Stecker. I live on West 95th Avenue in Arvada. I've been a member of the Mayor's Lutheran Church for about 20 years and continued to come back to my church home even though I don't live in Denver anymore. Currently service volunteer chairman of the Church's Property Board, as well as a member of the Development Committee for the Church. As you know, as. Tim pointed out, the planning board. Considered our application vote in favor of our project, found that it does meet legal criteria for rezoning. There were three dissenting votes of planning board members who subsequently addressed those concerns to the planning board. Members who voted no stated that they felt the lot line at the time when the parcel was bigger should be moved more so . It was in line. With the new impacts to X property. Immediately to the West in November. As has been discussed, we revised our application and moved the lot line to where those planning board members wanted it. The third planning board member who voted no made a statement saying that he wished the development team and neighbors could sit down and figure things out. We did, as you've heard, engage in comprehensive, facilitated mediation with our neighbors. Unfortunately, that was unsuccessful. So even though I'm already playing board member support our application back in August, we want to be sure. Council is aware that we've heard the concerns and address those as we move forward. I'm one of the smartest members that went to door to door to speak to nearby neighbors. We started this back in 2014, I believe, and then did again once we realized neighbors had previously signed letters of support, had somehow been convinced to sign a protest petition opposing our project. The turnaround didn't make sense to us, and we thought it was important to reach out and learn why. As you may know. The city's forum for protest petitions does not provide any actual information about the rezoning request. Just a complicated legal description of the property in light of the city, then hands petition to the people who most want the project fail. And there's absolutely no oversight. Or what they. Say about the project when they go around to gather signatures. Several neighbors we spoke to reported being told that Neal is a drug dealer and a felon. So he's discussed how. It was stated that he. As a criminal would personally profit from this project. Which is which is untrue. Most disturbing of all, Neil's previous success recharge of charm, deodorant. Because of his child was in the home when he was using drugs, was present at least to one neighbor that we heard from, has charge of child abuse and molestation, which is very disturbing to me. In addition, neighbors told me it would use eminent domain to condemn nearby properties, knock them down and build something huge. Neighbors are told by petition canvassers that project was part of a plan for May is to take over neighborhood, kitchen and leave, which is just the opposite of our goal. Our goal our goal is to stay in the neighborhood by developing a portion of our property. We did have one neighbor sign a protest withdrawal form once we learned more about the project. Other neighbors reported being told. Other exaggerations either did not sign the protest petition in the first place or just wanted to be left alone. Even if we were to set aside methods used to collect signatures for the protest petition, there are basic legal grounds for concern with protest petition. We an Afghan team, not a lawyer. So we showed the protest petition to an attorney without numerous issue who found numerous issues with the legal validity of many of the signatures and found that remaining valid signatures did not meet the 20% threshold. Therefore, we believe that a determination of adequacy of the protest petition was improper. We do not know if City Council has an authority to override CPD's determination on the protest petition, but if you do, we'd ask you to take a close look at the legal issue file issues filed by our attorney. We frequently heard neighbors posing as projects that we could build something gigantic, perhaps covering the entire lot with the building and constructing an underground parking to meet our parking needs, as they've described earlier. They've discussed our parking needs, along with the prohibitive cost of underground or structured parking. They create a real limit on the potential size of the building. However, because the church recognized that this is such concern, while a few of our neighbors, the church membership, voted in support of a formal resolution, please refer to to have someone on your handouts. The resolution states a clear limit of 23,500 square feet. Other for the size of the building is a maximum. The resolution also prevents underground or structured aboveground structured parking restricting parking to surface lot only. This resolution was passed unanimously by the church membership, some of whom are here tonight. Tonight, we're asking council to also delay the final vote on a rezoning until February eight, when the full council is scheduled to be present. We recognize that council frequently votes on items without everyone in attendance. However, we have significant concerns regarding the legal validity of the protest petition. We would also like time to learn about our options for challenging it prior to City Council voting voting. We also feel that the extremely high requirement of ten votes for approval create a unique, uniquely extraordinary circumstance. As you know, typically Democratic decisions are made with a simple majority vote, even Congress's supermajority of 60%. The requirement of ten votes out of 13 represents 77%. And with or without 13 councilmembers. Tonight, that's an even higher standard to reach. We understand that everyone here wants to see a resolution to this issue. However, last time we appeared before council to revise our application, the mayor's team was willing to come back in five weeks to complete the process. Our opponents requested and received a delay of almost three months so they could collect their protest sections. EUR six months is up. All right. Thank you for your time. Next, we have Paul Haake. And Madam Secretary. Thank you. And you say you have 6 minutes as well. Now you can go ahead and begin. We'll get to that. You can go ahead and begin your march, please. Good evening. My name is Paul Haake. I live at 2935 Grove Street, two blocks from the proposed development. I'm also principal at Anderson Mason Dale Architects. We have the building directly across from the site. And many of the people that work in our firm live in the neighborhood and walk to work and walk down Main Street to many of the different establishments. We took this commission only because we had the commitment that we would be able to do a good urban building. And that's why I'm here. I won't. If you turn to the first page of the handout, you can see the context of the site. It really is a commercial context on Main Street. The site is bordered on either side by a car wash. And as you've already heard, the pinched taco building as well as the Denver Bread Company across the street, our building, which is an office building and the frame shop. And when we look at this site as architects and urban planners, we believe that the role of the building is really to tie these disparate pieces together into a cohesive image for West Highlands and actually as a gateway site into the West Highlands and Highland Square. The next illustrations, the next to demonstrate the two floorplans are footprints and massing studies that David already alluded to. So I won't spend a lot of time on those. Only to point out that the massing studies and the footprint studies are almost identical to the pancaked taco development across the street from Irving. So we believe that it's very much in the character of Main Street and is very compatible with the existing building that's going on. Page four of your handout. I thought this is interesting. It really demonstrates where demolishing that existing office building out on 32nd as well as a piece of the as well as the school and office building. And if you superimpose those demolitions on the proposed site, you'll see that the amount of square footage or the footprint that we're proposing closely mimics what we're taking down. But essentially we're building it back on Main Street. I think that's what's really important here. We're trying to fill in the missing tooth and there is a neighborhood precedent for this. If you look on the illustration on page five, the floorplan underneath is the floor plan of the proposed development, and superimposed over that is the Mondo Vino building, which Tim had a photograph of earlier. And what you can see in both in terms of building square footage and street frontage, they're almost identical. So the kind of development that already exists on Main Street is identical to the kind of development that we're proposing for this project. And if you turn the page and look at illustration number six, that shows the kind of character and massing of Main Street on 32nd. The top image, of course, is the Mondo Vino building. And Tim already alluded to the quality of that building about the transparency and the rhythm of Baz that are very human scale to the pedestrian level, as well as having some simple brick masonry openings above the drawing below. That is one of the sketches from our neighborhood workshops where we explored what we might propose for this site. And you can see that the same character exists in that building at that very comparable, compatible, excuse me, to the precedents that are already in the neighborhood. We're also hoping to integrate the bus stop as well. If you look. At illustration. Seven, we've taken that elevation and superimposed that and dropped it in on the south side of the proposed site. And I think you can see in this illustration the compatibility between the pinched taco development and the proposed building. The arcade level continues across the street. There's an active pedestrian edge. Some of the comments that the neighbors made about reinforcing the corner are integrated into that. And I think this really shows what a great. Main Street. Building could be on that side, and this is the basis of our proposal. The next several sketches, I'm not going to go into them in great detail, but Sundari had indicated that we had. Two workshops in our office. The first one, we explored the implications of M.S. to zoning, and we went around the neighborhood looking at different precedents. And we shared those with the neighbors, and they shared with us their preferences and their concerns about certain aspects that we showed them. And based on that discussion, we developed a series of sketches which if you go through the next several pages, you can see and we asked the neighbors to participate and to mark upon the drawings, the things they liked, the things they didn't like. And we summarized all of these things into a vision document that we are going to use, hopefully when we start design to guide us and how we develop and develop the project, because I think that is a project that both the neighbors can support as well as the mayor's development. And we think this is a good and appropriate use for mass zoning this site. So thank you. Thank you. Eric Wills. We not have Eric Wills. These are what is unfortunately, the name is Eric Will. So that's who I have to call. So. Madam Secretary, that's the correct name, right? Eric Wills. So if Eric Wills is not here, we will go to the next speaker. Kyra care excuse me, Fitzpatrick, and you have 6 minutes as well. Carrie. My name is Cara Fitzpatrick, and my husband is the pastor of a mass Lutheran church in the West Highlands. I live in the church parsonage at 3245 West 31st Avenue. The church proposal to build a neighborhood medical office building in our empty lot at 32nd in Irving has brought about a lot of discussion in the community . We are sometimes asked about the work of Masters and what we plan to do if our project is successful and the church is able to remain in the neighborhood. I wanted to share a little bit about a miss and we hope and what we hope for and the future for our church and serving the North Denver community . Growing up in Saint Louis, I learned a lot from my parents, especially my mom, about helping those in need. Working with Catholic Charities, I saw my mom strive to improve the lives of the poor and the needy, as well as those suffering from substance abuse and other challenges. We were blessed with much in life and so learned to share with others who weren't as fortunate was part of my upbringing and in part is what drew me to my husband. He has a caring heart, especially for those who are hurting and suffering. Throughout our nine and a half years of marriage and ministry together. We work to ease the suffering of many in different areas of life. Moving to Denver from Garden City, Kansas was in some ways like coming home. A big city was all the joys and sorrows that big cities have. Since we came here 13 months ago, we've begun integrating into the community, especially among those in need, by using a major amasses resources to connect to ministries such as Bienvenidos Foodbank, the pet food pantry of Colorado, Habitat for Humanity, and countless ministries, just to name a few. The Neighborhood Office Building Project would help not only to stabilize the church financially, but would also allow us to grow our ministries, lifting up those who are suffering in need. Here's just a few of those hopes that we are the mayor's have for our future as part of the North Denver community. A community garden on our South Green face was classes teaching how to grow and use fresh produce for your family and Chris Archer Port for the Neighborhood Foodbank more organized community events to feed those in need. Like our recent Christmas Eve outreach to feed people experiencing homelessness, provide outreach to the elderly, drive them to appointments, shovel snow , take them grocery shopping, etc.. Offer us space and supervision for our youth and teen activities for the neighborhood. Faith based marriage classes, community social activities like cooking classes, music classes, or summer music programs for kids. These are just a few of the things we hope to do as a mayor's ministers to others within the North Denver area for the next 100 years. We truly believe that rezoning just the north portion of our unused space for a medical office building is appropriate. And the resulting building will serve the neighborhood in a way that's consistent with the mission of the church. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms.. Fitzpatrick. Next, we have Sean O'Connell. Hi. My name's Sean O'Connell. I'm a resident of the neighborhood. I live at 3010 Irving Street. And I'd like to speak a little bit about some of the concerns that the and some of the neighbors have about this project. You know, the. The large office building that's coming in just doesn't seem to be viable traffic wise, in line with the neighborhood or in line with the zoning that we currently have. And there's a reason that we have that zoning. It's because the area is majority residential. I think the staff report showing the nature of Speer Boulevard, showing the nature of some areas of 32nd was completely incomplete and didn't show the entire nature of the area. First off, this property isn't accessed off of Speer Boulevard, meaning that when people are coming to this building, they have to go past bear to another light in the residential district and turn their past to other residences, creating new traffic issues for the neighbors. Also Irving Street at 32nd dead ends. It's not a through street now. But the blocks to the south of the proposed property will become very much a through street, with traffic coming off of 26 , 29th, all the way from Colfax using Irving Street, which is now mainly just a residential street as a thoroughfare to get to this business. It's not something that we need. It's not something that we want. The Church seems to. You know has has said that the process. The the the. Development will meet their mission as a church. We've heard this before. When they last sold property. It was to meet their mission of providing school service. That money is all gone. That school closed three years later. What is our guarantee that after they spend this money, the next thing isn't going to be to redevelop the church, building, the current school, building, other areas that they own, and that they'll be back here to ask for a new zoning for those areas that also doesn't meet the the neighborhood in focus, in size or in feel. The church membership. And you heard from some folks so far who basically work for the church and don't live in the neighborhood. But the church membership appears to be dwindling, which is why they're willing to give up their last parking lot after selling the last two parking lots that used to be needed to support this church. By selling their admitting that this church is a dying thing and that it no longer is viable as a church, we can only expect so long before the entire thing goes away. Mr. O'Connell, your. Your 3 minutes are up. Thank you. Thank you. Donald Graeber Now and as Donald comes forward, I will call the next five names. You can make your way up to the front pew. Jenny DAVIES, Daniel Gribbin, Randy Mast, Dalton Grima Now and Connor Farley. So now you begin your remarks, sir. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Carl. It's an honor to be in front of you. As I said, as you said earlier, my name is Donald Gravina, and I grew up in North Denver. I married my wife and I didn't. Move from too far from where I. Grew up. And I was in northwest Denver and I'm in West Highlands and we haven't moved. I've also been a member of MRA. Since I was in my baby in arms. I went to this school for nine years and. Was married in the church as well. So I have a long history with the church and still live in northwest Denver. Not too many blocks from it. I just started give you that as a little bit of background. I was one of the members who volunteered to go out and talk with the neighbors again after we learned that there had been a successful protest against our old zoning application. I was really surprised at some of the comments that were made personally. One of them was. That our church president, the one who was accused of many different things and had served his time and is a committed Christian at this point and a very successful and contributing member of our community. He would personally profit from that. And I, I can attest that there is no money to profit from that. We did sell property in 2009. As gentleman that just spoke said, we did use it to try to continue with the school. We found that we could not support the school we are. My wife will probably talk about why we couldn't, but we didn't squander it. We paid our our teachers as we released them and kept the health insurance going until they could get their new positions. And we paid off debts that we had incurred, but we found that we had not made a good decision in selling the property and decided at that point we would rather keep control of our property rather than let it go to whatever it was. That property was actually sold and what amounted to a fire sale. We needed the money. We sold it as residential. One of the things that really bothered me was the Assocation or the the statement that our church president at the time was a child molester. There is no record of any child molestation. And he did take care of his daughter. So that one was sent to a number of people in the community and that it is patently false. There was a statement that we would use eminent domain. We're not allowed to use that domain to buy any additional property. We have no desire to. It's also that there's what we as this project is a way to cash in and leave the neighborhood. We've been there for 125 years. I've been there not all of that time, obviously, but I really have no intention of leaving this building or my neighborhood. And I think it's important to have churches within a community. And we've lost way too many. There's no there's nothing that says a petitioner cannot say whatever they want. There is actually for the neighborhood organizations, there are things that they have to should really to be legitimate. Follow that for a petitioner. Petitioners saying, you know, we don't want this because of this, this or this. There's nothing that says they can't say anything that I know of. But it's it's a lot easier to make hesitations than it is to try to correct exaggerations or misrepresentations. I guess I could say against that. And I guess I would say one more thing. We went out to try to get people to rescind their signatures. I better check that. I can understand why neighbors would not wish to rescind their their signatures. They've got to live next to these people within 200 feet. And the petition people are in that area and you owe a lot to your neighbors. I do, too. I guess I. Could go on, but I want one. I. I did want to say is. That I have been involved in politics and in neighborhood organizations, including Weiner and Sloan's. Like citizens. My wife and I are members of Wild West or the West Highland Neighborhood Association. But well, I'll leave it at that. I enjoy good relations with my neighbors in my own neighborhood, and I do support many of the functions. Of the neighborhood. Organization, and I'm very pleased with it. But I am disappointed in the way this project's opponents have misrepresented why. West Highland Neighborhood Association's formal vote on the rezoning. I've heard it said more than once that West Highland neighbors voted to oppose our project. Actually, that was one of four options, and it was not the one that got the most votes. The vote of the West Highland Neighborhood Association. Was how we got time. The members of West Highland Neighbor Association, having listened to the arguments and discussions over the past many months on this issue, are under the conclusion that the redevelopment of the site and then this is a task other than for a single family is unlikely. And we believe is the best. Way to move forward as we have something that we would be able to live with, which is a 50 year plan. Mr.. Mr.. FREEMAN, we. Cannot. Your 6 minutes. Thank you. Thank you much. My apologies for saying that you had you had 6 minutes. I didn't say that. Next, we have Jenny DAVIES. Good evening and thank you for the opportunity for me to speak with you tonight. My name is Jenny DAVIES. I'm one of the 200 footers. I live directly catty corner from the property. Before I even say anything, I want to say that I've heard a lot of stuff about rumors and innuendos. I, for one, have not heard any of these things before, so I just kind of want to put that out there. Anyway, I live right catty corner. I am. I consider myself a very reasonable person. I would love to see some kind of development on this corner because it is very underused at the moment. But this is just not the project. It is vitally important that we make well-reasoned decisions about development in this city. Every proposal can't be approved simply because growth is happening and we have to accommodate it. We must ask questions like, Is the infrastructure in place to support this? And if the answer is no or if we can't build it, we've really got to look at different options. In this case, we have narrow streets. And nonlinear intersections surrounding the parcel. These are already dangerous for pedestrians and motorists. I know that in my letters to all of you, I've. Encouraged you to really. Actually come and visit it because it's really hard to describe it if you actually haven't been there and seen it right now before we have a medical center and. Before we have a huge don't forget, we have a huge, large apartment complex going on two blocks west at 32nd and Lowell. Before these two. Projects. These intersections are frequently backed up and difficult to negotiate safely. I have a daughter. She walks to North High School every day. She has to cross both 32nd and Irving and 32nd and Speer. And I am telling you right now, before these. Projects. Are built, I am concerned for her safety twice a day. This jog in. Irving, it's not. Not only is it closed a one block thing, there is a dramatic jog. So any time somebody wants to make a left onto 32nd. It is a. Very stressful situation. Just this weekend, I saw two cars come this close to getting into a crash. The odd angle was Speer in 32nd and the volume, because it really is a commuter way from North Denver, but also Wheat Ridge and Arvada. And there are already tons of commuters. And in November, a mother and child were hit by a car. I'm trying to. To cross that intersection. So continuing to act like our infrastructure. Is enough for what we have now. Let alone continuing. To build and build and build without really taking this into consideration and and mitigating it, if that's possible. I don't think it is 32nd because of of how narrow everything is. I've heard about this traffic study that concludes that there'll be. Somehow less traffic based on a something that, you know, is not have anything on it right now. I'm pretty. Skeptical. And honestly, I just want to say it's time to go back to the drawing board and project. That could be a win win. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Daniel. Agreement now. Council President Council members. My name is Dan Grosvenor. I live at 2967 Okello Street in Council District number one. I live in West Highlands or Northwest Denver as I grew up knowing it. I purposely purchased my own home just so I could stay in this neighborhood. I've been attending services at Amherst Lutheran all my life. It's my home church. It's been a historic part of the neighborhood. It's within walking distance of my home. I've been a member of and a board member of many of the recent successes and challenges at Amherst and in the neighborhood as it's gone through. Historically, back in. 2008, Amos basically had to think about and eventually did sell a parcel of land owned at the southwest corner of 32nd and Irving. Now, that's where sits a taco shop, a gym, even an orthodontist. We use that money from the land sale to help fund our school. Our mission at that time. But that money ran out. We did what we could to keep the school running. We updated equipment. We did outreach. We did tuition help. But eventually it just wasn't financially possible. The funds from the sale were used to help keep the school going so that we could close with a minimal of hardship to both our workers and our students. We now have land that's in a wonderful Main Street location, but it's currently just a parking lot with a big chain link fence around. It's not enhancing to the neighborhood. It's not contributing anything dynamic to our community. Now we've been criticized by a lot of people for in the neighborhood for how we handled that last land sale. We basically, you know, stuck up a sign and put it up for sale. It was within it without any restrictions. It was basically sold to the new owners who resumed it and redeveloped it. Now. We learned a lot from that experience, and that's why we want to do things differently this time. We don't want to just sell our land and abandon it to whomever. Not only is that just not a financially sustainable solution, but we want to stay connected. We want to be a part. We want to. Put something into what becomes part of our neighborhood. We're now proposing to keep ownership of the land and partner with a respected local architecture firm to create a beautiful building. Will allow us to stay involved in the property, stay in our community, as opposed to losing control of what's built there, how it looks, how it's used, what our nearest neighbor to us becomes. We really want to create something that's a benefit to the neighborhood. A mission for our church, not just another business or a building. The land along the Main Street corridor, surrounded by commercial uses should be redeveloped. We think the way that we could zone it right is for it to become UMC to X, which is really the most appropriate zoning. So I hope that we can all look forward to seeing how this building will be incorporated into our wonderful existing neighborhood and city. Thank you so much. Please vote in favor. Thank you. Randy Mast. Good evening, Mr. President. Council Members, thank you for your opportunity for this opportunity to speak to you this evening. My name is Randy Mast. I am a neighbor to the mayor's church. I live at 32, 33, West 31st Avenue. I have no ill will towards this church. In fact, I have been a neighbor to this church and in good standing for more than 19 years. I am opposed to the business that this church has chosen to partner in, and I am against this rezoning application. This church has made the decision to become business partners in a development process, a project that I oppose. That does not mean I am against the church. I am also not against development. I understand for Denver to continue to thrive and continue to grow, we as a city need to develop our underutilized properties within our city. But bad development is bad not just for immediate neighbors. It is bad for Denver development that fails to recognize the unique character of Denver's communities and focus only on what will create the most income for developers is a failure for us all. This proposed development is just such a project. It is too large and out of scale and out of character for our community. We have repeatedly asked to be included in the important aspects of this process. We have been repeatedly been ignored and dismissed our views and thoughts on how this development could benefit. Both the development team and the neighborhood have been told they are neither pertinent nor desired. The unyielding reply from this development team has been that they will not discuss lot size, building size, building usage and a desired zoning designation. The Mayor's Development Team repeatedly told us that they have decided what is best for our community. The mayor's team has given us only two choices either support their development or oppose it. They offer no middle ground. This neighborhood is designated as an area of stability stability for small scale infill projects. The proposed project seeks to develop single family home lots into a single, huge commercial lot that is not small scale. This rezoning is outside of our neighborhood commercial center, encroaching into what the 2010 rezoning designated this area as single family homes only five years ago. Families and mortgages and communities rely on the consistency and predictability of stable zoning. This application is asking you to throw all of that away in favor of one development. This has been a long process with arguably no winners. The last thing I want to be spending my time doing is fighting with my neighbors, the mayor's church, about zoning. But I do not think that the proposed zoning is good for our neighborhood or community or Denver. The neighborhood. The community. The city deserves a voice and a seat at the table. And until that occurs, I respectfully ask that you vote no on this rezoning application. Thank you. Thank you. Dalton Green now. Thank you, president and council members. I'm Doyle and Gribbin. I live at 2944 Osceola Street, which was my grandmother's home. My husband and I are both members of West Highland Neighborhood. Association and have been involved in our community for many years. My husband served the Denver Planning Board under. Mayor Pena's administration. I have been a member of a. Mayor since I was a child. My parents were married at a mass. And my husband and I were married at a mayor's. The church has a long and wonderful history in North Denver. My husband attended the Amos. Lutheran School. Through eighth grade. The architecture of the church is special, and the church's place in the community is special. The request to zone change for the north section of the property would fit with the city's plan and would be less invasive to the community than what is happening. At 33rd and lower. 38th at Lowell and. 33rd and Vendrell at Federal. Many people think of me as could have kept the school open. But the Denver. Public Schools Choice Program and the Colorado Charter Law has enabled parents to make numerous choices for their children and not have to pay tuition, as has been done in the past when they wanted. Different options. It was not economically feasible for Amyas to continue to operate the school because people had choices and didn't have to pay tuition. The zone change would enable a mars to continue to be a viable part of the North Denver. Community. Without dangerously impacting the community life of the surrounding neighborhood. The church could continue to operate as a church and provide. Spiritual guidance. To the area as well as community activities. A mars has been a good neighbor in the past and the congregation congregation plans to continue. This request for rezoning is not an effort to destroy the neighborhood, make buckets of money off of a project, or ruin the quality of life in the immediate area. The rezoning will enable Mars to continue as a viable part of the. Neighborhood. And hopefully be embraced by the neighbors as friends and fellow North Denver ites. Please vote in favor of the rezoning. Thank you for your time and patience. Thank you. Next, we have Connor Farley. Mr. Farley, you have 6 minutes, and I'm a call up the next five names Colleen McGowan, Cindy L-A, Ronald Leach, Ray Defer and Judy Labs. So you five can make your way to the front pew is the Farley. You can begin your remarks. Thank you. Council president and council members, thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight. My name is Connor Farley, and I live on 31st Avenue near to a mass Lutheran church. Like the others who oppose this rezoning. I have no ill will towards my neighbor and the Lutheran Church. I am also not against development. However, I am against the proposed rezoning here for several reasons. But given time limitations, I will address only two. First, the application does not satisfy the legal requirements for a rezoning. Specifically, it is not consistent with Blueprint Denver, which is the first factor that you have to consider under the Denver zoning code. Blueprint. Denver lists our neighborhood as an area of stability, yet the mayor is seeking significant change. They propose to go from one of the strictest residential zoning categories to a much less restrictive commercial zoning category. Such significant change is incompatible with an area of stability. For this reason, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with Blueprint Denver and should be rejected. The proposal is also inconsistent with the public health, safety and general welfare, which is another factor that you have to consider under the Denver zoning code. Irving in 32nd, which found the amass property, are both heavily used by pedestrians, including children. Children, including mine, use Irving and 32nd every day to walk to and from the Skinner Middle School to and from Highland Park, where Westbury, the Westbury branch of the Denver Public Library is, and to and from Norris High School. In addition, as you heard previously, the intersections at 32nd and Irving and 32nd and Speer are high risk because the streets are offset and do not intersect at 90 degree angles. The proposed rezoning will lead to more traffic and vehicles driving at higher speeds along these very roads and through these very intersections, given our already high levels of traffic and congestion. The proposed rezoning and project will inevitably lead to more accidents involving injuries and fatalities. Such an outcome does not serve the public health, safety and general welfare welfare of our neighborhood or this city. The proposed rezoning. There's also no circumstance justifying the rezoning, which is yet another factor that you have two legal factors that you have to consider. The primary factor cited as evidence of a significant change circumstance is that the school on the Imus property is no longer operating. But this, I would respectfully submit, cannot serve as a changed circumstance. If it is, it gives every landowner the incentive to allow their properties to fall into disrepair to create a justification for the rezoning. Such an incentive is contrary to the public interest. In short, there is no circumstance justifying this dramatic rezoning. And finally, on the legal criteria, the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with a neighborhood context. If approved, a mayor's would be permitted to build only the second 100% commercial building in our neighborhood. But it would be more than twice the size of the only other 100% commercial building in our neighborhood. In conclusion, the application does not satisfy at least four of the legal criteria that you have to consider in ruling on whether the rezoning application should be approved. Now, let me just touch on briefly the the outreach that you've heard about. What's important to note here is that there hasn't been genuine outreach, as Mr. Marsh just told you. We have been eager from day one to discuss our major concerns with the mayor's team, the dramatic ups, zoning and the size and 100% commercial use of the building it proposes to build. But the only issues they have been willing to discuss with us are relatively inconsequential things like the exterior finish and landscaping. Everything else we have been told from day one is off the table. Now you've already heard amassed asked how to alleged compromises that they have made in the neighborhood. The first involves scaling back the project from 3 to 2 stories. Yet it was readily apparent that the city would never allow a three storey building on this property from the start. As a result, AMASS is opening position that it would build a three storey building was designed for one thing to allow a mass to make a fair concession up front and thereby create the appearance of reasonableness. Amass has also pointed to its most recent amendments reduce the size of the part of the parcel subject to rezoning as evidence of their outreach. Like its earlier concession, this one was also made for the sake of appearance because a mass will allow cars visiting the new building to park on their property. This alleged concession has no impact on the size of the building that amassed plans to build. In some analysis, outreach has been superficial at best. I would respectfully submit and designed to create the false appearance of reasonableness and willingness to engage with the neighborhood. In conclusion, I would respectfully request you to vote no on this dramatic upskirting, and I would also add that I concur with the points made by those who preceded me who oppose the rezoning. Thank you very much. Thank you, Farley. Next, we have Colleen McGowan. Thank you. My name is Colleen McGowan. I live at 1915 Grace Street in Adubato. I first began attending a mass in 1991. I found them in the Yellow Pages and chose them because they had a Spanish speaking congregation sharing the building. Now, I appreciate a mayor's four more important almost reasons the scriptural teaching and the loyal church community. In 1995, I adopted a ten year old special needs child found through the Rocky Mountain Adoption Exchange. Initially, and for all the past 20 years, emails members have supported me in this very challenging adoption. Sorry. Today my daughter is independent. She's married and a mom she homeschools. I'm a Kaiser. R.N. officially retired, but I still work on call in part time in neurology at three different locations. We very much need additional medical care options. There are some private physicians in this area, but not nearly enough providers to serve the neighborhood's population. Also, it's important to have care close to where we live. This not only reduces the travel time, but it makes timely care more likely because of being convenient and accessible. Any financial benefit from the medical office proposed would go toward sustaining the nonprofit work of the church, which in turn would inevitably benefit the immediate community. We hope to build on the support we've been giving Bienvenidos Food Bank and we also hope to expand services for the homeless. For example, on Christmas Eve, we help provide homeless individuals with warm, fresh burritos, hot chocolate treat bags filled with fruit, nuts, candy plus clothing and blankets. We believe doing these things is part of what we're here for. We believe caring for the poor, the fatherless, the widow and the stranger among us is part of our mission. We hope to continue. Please vote in favor of this rezoning request. Thank you. Thank you, Cindy Ely. Good evening and thanks for the opportunity to talk with you tonight. My name is Cindy Eby and I live at 32, 33, West 31st Avenue, which is one house away from and from the mayor's church. And I've lived there for 19 years. Tonight, I want to speak to you against this rezoning. I do want to say, as others have said, that I am actually for development of this parcel. I just think this rezoning and proposed development is the wrong zoning. It is too high intensity of use. I was going to talk to you about traffic. You've heard a lot about that. So I'm not going to say too much. While some have painted the picture of it being misguided to be concerned about traffic, I do have two children who walk to Skinner Middle School also. One will start to walk to North High School next year. I'm very concerned about their safety as they walk on the streets in this area. As my son's friend was hit by a car just blocks from this area and hospitalized. So I would challenge anyone to cross the intersection at 32nd and Speer and not. Fear for your life. It is frightening. And I would like to also talk about my concern for the changing residential character. Should this commercial building be built, it would increase intensity of use. Would I live there? It would change how it feels every day, day to day. And that is a concern for me mostly. I do want to talk to you about the process and the high level of neighborhood opposition to this. So you've heard some today about these rogue neighbors who are scaring other neighbors into into opposition. And that has not been my experience. Apparently, I'm one of those rogue neighbors because I'm in opposition. But there's clear disagreement with this rezoning and clear opposition from neighbors. And I want to point out a few different ways. The West Highlands Neighborhood Association did vote against this rezoning. There was some reinterpretation of that from another speaker, but it was clear that West Highlands Neighborhood Association voted against the rezoning. There have been also two successful protests petitions within those who own property within 200 foot of the parcel, not one, but two. We had to do it twice and we did it twice and we were successful. And also we had a petition where we have over 270 signatures from those from citizens, largely a huge percentage right around the area in opposition to this rezoning. And the underlying theme there is that it's in opposition to the rezoning, but interested in having conversation about different use of the parcel that engages community input. And that just has not been allowed, as you've heard others say. So I just want to say I request that you vote no on this and I agree with others points that have been made in opposition to this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Ronald Leach. Do not have one. Oh. I will make mine short. My name is Ronald Leach. My residence is 351 Milwaukee Street, Cherry Creek North. I'm glad to say tonight I'm one of the many people in that area that voted for this gentleman when we knew. I've known the staff from two years. This may have hurt for over 40 years, everyone. And tonight we've been talking about the challenges that face us. And in this great nation, this great city, this great community that we have. I'm proud and very grateful in my heart to see that this congregation is going to step up and and do what they can do to become a part of the solution and not part of the problem. And I will be very pleased to see you pass this motion tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Leach. Next, we have Ray Devore. And you have 6 minutes. My name's Ray Depay. I live at 30th and Rollin. I'm a member of the West Highland Neighborhood Association and served on the Joint Committee of the West Valley Neighborhood Association that worked with the St Dominic's to create a rezoning application was that was acceptable to and supported by all of the parties. City Council approved the same Dominick's rezoning application on December 7th with the City Council vote of 11 to 0, Saint Dominic's request for neighborhood involvement in the rezoning process and willingness to engage in respect for dialog and compromise to each to reach an acceptable resolution for all parties stands in sharp contrast to the approach of the Mayor's Development Team. St Dominic's came to the West Highland Neighborhood Association meeting last winter to inform us of its general plan to expand and invited our input. After a joint committee was formed, the committee met on a monthly basis with several members of Saint Dominic's for about ten months. Both sides got to know each other and made compromises to reach a consensus. As noted, this process was successful within a ten month period in the West, Highland Neighborhood Association supported the rezoning application of Saint Dominic's. Amos's approach has been completely different. The mayor's development team made it clear from the start that it would not discuss with the West Highland Neighborhood Association, nor the neighbors, immediate neighbors, legitimate concerns about his proposed rezoning or the size and scope of the proposed project. In essence, the mayor's development team came to the West Highland Neighborhood Association and its immediate neighbors declared its plans and said, Take it or leave it. Given the dramatic changes that the mayor's development team proposed, it is hardly surprising that its neighbors were and are concerned. Yet Imus has remained unwilling to even discuss its neighbors legitimate concerns. It is very important for you to keep in mind the successful sealing Dominick's rezoning application. As you consider the mayor's application, the mayor's development team will seek to proprietary the West Highland Neighborhood Association and neighbors as unreasonable and unwilling to consider any development in our neighborhood . Saint Dominic's successfully. Successful community outreach and resulting successful rezoning application proves the focus of the portrayal and reveals that Imus is the only unreasonable party in this situation. I ask that you do not support the mayor's rezoning application. Thank you. Next, we have Judy Labs. And as Judy comes forward, I want to call the next five names Jackie Youngblood, Don Mueller, Marilyn Quinn, Danny Wise and Pat de Fe. So you five can go ahead and make your way up to the front pew and you can begin your remarks. Thank you, President and council members. Thank you, each one of you. Thank you. Is that better? Well, yeah. I just didn't want to echo. My name is Judy Loves, and I live on West 112th Avenue. And I've been a member of Imus for says almost 50 years. 1967. The part I think I love most about Emerson's community is that we are relentless in our giving and our commitment to our helping people in the neighborhood and showing them God's love and caring and hope. And we've done that for over 100 years. So we are doing something right. Lord bless us and we bless the community and they bless us. There's been some talk during the public discussion about the masses supposed greed and the idea of that. We're designing a project in order to make the most money that we possibly can. First of all, I think any sensible person could realize that a building of neighborhood doctors and an extra large parking lot is not the most profitable commercial use in the world. Secondly, all the acquisitions or acquisitions, I should say, of Greed by Amos make no logical sense that the church is a nonprofit. Obviously, the money we make will make by renting the rental, the building, the spaces to the doctors will also pay off the costs and construction of the maintenance of the building. But any money's left over will go to the church's ministries. All our church councils and committee members are volunteers. So nobody's going to realize any money off of this project. We pay, of course, our pastor, like any church, we pay the accountant and our part time secretary. That's it. The project will enrich no individual, but will only serve as we have in the past and can hope to continue in the future. Our wonderful community. One of our groups is our UMass quilters and they just celebrated their 50th anniversary. And some of the ministries and missions that they give money to are the Tennis Center for Children Rescue Mission, the Elsie M EST Disaster Response and Meals on Wheels, just to name a few of their that they do. I belong to the S Little Lutheran Ladies Guild, and we do various projects like selling greeting cards, bake sales, my collection boxes, things on that order. All of the money or of the offerings and the residuals that we get from these projects are donated to good causes, both religious and secular. Some examples of those groups that we give are excuse me, Concordia Technical Seminary. Glory Reborn Motherhouse China. Hearts for Jesus. Lutheran Family Services. Lutheran Bible Translators. Lutheran Prison Ministries. Email Social Ministry. Miss Labs. Your 3 minutes is up. I'm sorry. Your 3 minutes are up, ma'am. Your time is up. Oh, I'm sorry. I know. Thank you very. Much to you. It goes by fast. Next, we have Jacqui Youngblood. My name is Jackie Underwood. I live at 2975 Irving Street. I'm the current president of the West Highlands Neighborhood Association. WEINER The property is within Weiner boundaries. You may, as has appeared many. Times before, the neighborhood association while Weiner was on summer break, he may have requested a special meeting. The special meeting was held on August 4th, 2015. After their presentation and discussion, the following was decided Weiner would not support the redevelopment of the site other than single family homes or a negotiated site plan. There were 40 eligible voting. Members in attendance. 34 in favor. One opposed and five abstaining. You may as. Proposed. Use of the site is not a good fit for the area. The site is zoned. You eschew a single family homes. It is located across the street from the Ghost Historic District. I respectfully request that the zoning application be denied. There is a very large crowd here tonight and I would like to ask those who live at our current residents. Of West Highlands to. Please stand. Current current residents. If you are opposed to the rezoning, remain standing. Most of you do not live in West Highlands. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Youngblood. Next up is Don Miller. 3 minutes. Thank you, Mr. President, and members of the council. My name is John Miller, and I live at. 81 West 10th Street. I have been attending services. At events for all of my 69 years. It's been my home church. My parents were married at a mass 1943. And I went to grades one through nine. At the Mayo School. I find this new development exciting. I am also a fan of church history, and since. The church has been at this location. In West Highland since 1907, a lot of history to know. For example, there's a building that sits in this section of the land that we wish to rezone. Now we call it the ARC Building because it's. Used to hold the church's archives. Unfortunately, the building was ruined when some pipes burst and it is. No longer usable. Back in the thirties and forties. The ARC Building. Used to be a. Doctor's office right on the UMass land. So you see, this is not a new use for this location. In fact, we're honoring our history by returning this land to its previous use. Now, just a final thought. We know the city's rezoning process is set up to be extensive and thorough. We understand that. However, we in the UMass community have really gone through a lot in our efforts to redevelop our land so we can better serve the neighborhood. We would just like to ask that are rezoning requests received fair consideration by council? We hope the Council will agree that part of having a fair hearing is allowing all 13 members of the Council to vote on our rezoning. We know that we need ten. Votes to pass and we want a fair consideration. This hearing was delayed for almost three months so that the opponents could gather protest petition signatures. And now that they have done that, we think asking for two weeks so that we can have a full vote of council is only fair. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mueller. And that's an incredible radio voice. Nothing. Right next to Morgan Freeman. I want you talking about, you know, they also invite you back. Next up is Marilyn Quinn. Tough act. Tough act to follow. My name is Marilyn Quinn. I live on Fairview Place about a block and a half from a mass church. I've lived there within a block and a half of a mass for 15 years. And I'm one of the West Highland neighbors who oppose this application for rezoning. I'd like to mention two specific reasons for my opposition and to suggest a broader policy recommendation for you to consider in the future. First, the mayor's proposal is inconsistent with a blueprint Denver. It would take the property from. One of the most restrictive residential zoning. Categories to create the. Largest single use commercial. Building in West Highland. A development of this size outside our commercial center in an area of stability as designated by Blueprint, Denver is completely unreasonable. A project that was truly. Transitional between this residential area and the commercial area that begins a block west of our area would be much more appropriate. And I think that that sentiment is reflected in the vote that was taken up, y'know, that you've just heard about. Secondly, it is the proposal is inconsistent with the neighborhood context described in the zoning code. Thousands of hours of public participation and hundreds of thousands of dollars of. Consultant fees. And staff hours were spent to describe neighborhood, character and function. This request ignores the huge amount of work that has been done. Both blueprint Denver. And the zoning code should offer. Residents stability and predictability in their neighborhoods. But this. Proposal completely. Overrides those assurances. I'd like to. Contrast the quality of neighborhood outreach in two recent rezoning requests in West Highland, both by churches located two blocks apart. The pastor of St Dominic's Church came to the West Highland Neighborhood Association shortly after they began internal development discussions. Although they were not required to do so, they invited neighborhood participation at every stage in their decision making. I was one of the, y'know reps. We attended their pre application meeting with the City Planning Department and were involved in every step along the way for about ten months. Their proposal passed council unanimously on December 7th with great neighborhood support. By contrast, the Mayor's Development team brought its neighbors an almost finished product and has been unwilling to engage in substantive discussion or to consider alternatives with the neighbors, except for inconsequential features such as building, exterior and landscaping. While I have seen the Mayor's Development Team at Neighborhood Association meetings and I don't attend all of them, they don't seem to interact with neighbors and are often clustered at the periphery of the discussion. Because of the development team's unwillingness to engage in constructive discussion. After nearly two years, their proposal is not only completely unwelcome in the neighborhood, but is only just now arriving for your attention. The church has been part of our community for a century, which makes their inflexibility especially disappointing. The contrast between Saint Dominic and the mayor's projects illustrates a flawed public participation process in which the city only includes neighborhood outreach as a box to be checked off after the developer has spent many months of negotiation with the city planning department. It sets up an adversarial situation between neighborhood neighbors and developers. This is where policy changes could make a difference. There has to be a better way. But that does not excuse a dismissive attitude toward residents of the stable Denver neighborhood, who themselves have invested many hundreds and even thousands of volunteer hours to craft a vision for their neighborhoods future. Regardless of the timing and openness to public participation about this request, the AMA's proposal is a poor fit at this location, as demonstrated by a lack of consensus among the Denver Planning Board, which only narrowly supported the proposal. I urge you to vote no on this rezoning application and ask that you in the future, you strongly encourage rezoning applicants to begin discussions with neighborhoods well in advance of present city requirements. This will help minimize friction between those looking for change and those who are most affected by it. I am not opposed to development, but I do oppose this rezoning proposal. As neighbors, we welcome an opportunity to work with the mayor's church as they plan for their future. Your no vote on this proposal will support our efforts. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Quinn. Danny Wise. Thank you, Mr. President, and members of the council. My name is Danny Leece. I live at 4415 West Hayward Place. I am one of many people here. Tonight in support of the project who lives in Council District one. I just want to say that I am in support of this rezoning. I believe that the medical. Office building we hope to build will serve the people in the neighborhood. We understand that there are residential areas on either side of the Main Street district. However, there are no residential. Right next to where we are. Will build the building, the residential areas to the south along 31st Avenue. Our building would be along the 32nd Avenue. Main Street. South of the building would be a large parking lot. Then the. Church building, the DNR lawn. Then there's also. The parsonage and the closest neighbor who lives across the alley from the parsonage. There are commercial developments all along Main Street on both sides of 32nd Avenue. We're glad that the commercial Main Street is enabled in the resident area because this means more people can walk and bike to the commercial business. It's a great thing. Please vote in favor of rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Pat Defang. And as Pat come forward and Pat, you have 6 minutes as Pat comes forward. I'll call all the next five speakers Jerry Meline, Scott, Nemours, Marie Benedict, Ling Lee and Bertram Sanchez. And begin your remarks. You got it right this time. I'm Pat Duffy. Good evening, council members. I reside at 30th and Raleigh Street, less than a mile from this proposed rezoning in northwest Denver. I have lived and volunteered in our community for over 36 years and have lived in my second home in the area for the past 30 years. The entire city was resigned in 2010 after months of community meetings throughout the city to make sure the entire city was zoned properly for many years into the future. One of the outcomes of the rezoning in 2010 stated by then CPD director Peter Park was to show developers where they could go to build the developments they chose to do. It is all spelled out in those binders that you all have in your council offices, direct to direct you as developers approach you on projects in your districts. Please note council members that almost all of the church facilities in the city and county of Denver were zoned single family. That is what the mayor's property is currently zone. Please note another document that all of your city council offices should have on your bookshelf and its blueprint. Denver, Page five and Blueprint Denver. Areas of stability include the vast majority of Denver and are primarily the fairly stable residential neighborhoods where minimal change is expected during the next 20 years. Meanwhile, the vast majority of new development will be funneled to areas that will benefit from and thrive on an infusion of population, economic activity and investment. These places are areas of change. Page 120 and Blueprint Denver Areas of stability shaping Denver's future involves more than deciding where and how new development will occur. It is equally important to enhance what has drawn people to live in and be loyal to Denver over the years. In recognition of how strongly Denver's citizens feel about their neighborhoods. Blueprint, Denver includes tools that focus on keeping valued community characteristics in many of Denver's older and stable neighborhoods. These new measures provide tools that help shape where and how development occurs. Page 122 In Blueprint, Denver shows a picture in the upper right hand corner, and it is of West Highlands. It's very small. It's up here in the corner and it says. You can find it here. West Highlands is a neighborhood that illustrates the characteristics that draw people to Denver. Chapter seven Areas of Stability and Areas of Change. So the map is here and you'll see. Its area of stability. I would like to thank our Northwest Denver community and once again coming together to supply testimony that this proposed rezoning of the property at 32nd and Irving Streets, which is currently zoned residential, should remain that way. A stable neighborhood. On a side note, there are many residents and homeowners that prefer to stay in northwest Denver, but they're not able to find affordable and suitable housing as we age. There is a lack of so-called patio homes with no stairs in our neighborhood. This property could be a perfect location for that type of homes, with the central location and access to downtown, the freeways and to local bus service. Thank you for your time and please vote no on this rezoning. We do not need a huge medical building or whatever. They end up wanting to build on that very busy corner, an intersection our gateway to the 32nd and lower business district in the West Highlands neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Jerry Moline. My name is Jerry Moline and I live at 30th and Irving Street, one and a half blocks from this site. The Highland Square area is a favorite destination for people all over the city. One of the reasons they come is the historic commercial buildings and homes in the Highland Square area. This creates the old small town atmosphere that contributes to the area's value. People get a warm, comfortable feeling when visiting the local shops and restaurants. It's like the goose that lays the golden eggs. You can't create it or design it, but you can preserve it and nurture it. Our neighborhood is an area of stability which calls for small scale development. If new buildings that are non contributing to the local character are built, it can spoil the charm of the area and decrease the draw to the current businesses, causing business closure and property devaluation. This leads to the urban blight that other areas have suffered. So now across from the Ghost Historic District, we're faced with the proposal of construction of the largest single use commercial building in the neighborhood, which is blocks from the neighborhood center. I hope it does not become the ghost of Christmas future. If a modern steel and glass building is planned for the site, the appropriate structure would be a phone booth and nothing larger. If a properly sized, small scale mixed use brick building consistent with the context of other buildings along 32nd Avenue were constructed. It could contribute to the character of the approach to Highland Square. A mixed use building would be acceptable if its size were small, small scale similar to the building across the street southwest corner. And it contained the architectural features of the period buildings at Highland Square and contributes to the character of the area. Please help protect the goose that lays the golden eggs by sending this turkey back to complete the Medich mediation process. Maybe we can turn it into a quail which should be smaller, look better, and will not foul the neighborhood. Please deny this application until the applicant is willing to meet with the neighborhood and work through a site plan that works for everyone. Our neighborhood is an area of stability. Let's keep it that way. Thank you. Thank you. Scott Nemours. Mr. President, members of the council, my name is Scott Demers. I live in Lakewood, just south of Sloan's Lake. I am not a member of a mass Lutheran church, but I do get benefit from its membership in the community. I am a member of the North Denver Board Gamer's Group that meets there on a weekly basis. If you're ever in the neighborhood on a monday, come get your geek on 32nd. I've frequented the area for over 18 years with both my time and, as importantly, my money. 32nd Avenue is undeniably the main street of West Highland. I find it interesting that Mr. Mast referred to the commercial this as being an extension of the commercial district. The commercial district already goes. All the way down to Speer Boulevard. Adjacent to this lot is pinto tacos, Denver Bread Company, a car wash, 211 photography and a framing studio. The thing that doesn't fit. If you're familiar with Sesame Street, the thing, you know, one of these things is not like the other is the parking lot with a chain link fence around it that doesn't fit. Frankly, what does fit would be the two story doctor's office, which, as facts say, from an impartial presenter. The first one to go tonight said that there were there were rules on what it could look like and how big it could be. And it fits in with the things around it. Additionally, there was reference to the traffic study or at least reference to traffic being increased. I think Mr. Farley and others have spoken about that. The reality is, again, the traffic study presented in partially said no impact. So I please encourage you to consider facts and not just doomsday. Speak when thinking about how to vote on this. I love this neighborhood. As I said, I've been coming here for 18 years. And I find it really sad, these attacks on the church, this project and frankly, the people whom I know from a personal basis, you know, are worthy of affection, not the vitriol that we're hearing here. There's really no factual evidence to support the things that people have said except from one side. And that would be the side of a mass Lutheran church. I think it's really important to meet the needs of all people and not just some people in the community. And that's what a doctor's office does, is it brings a service to this neighborhood. I think putting a two story doctor's office in that commercial location is the smart thing to do, and I encourage you to vote yes . Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next year, I'm Marie Benedict. It must be an ex. You have 6 minutes. Thank you. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. My name is Marie Benedict's. I live on 3284 Osceola streets here in Denver. I have no ill will towards the famous Lutheran Church, and I'm not opposed to developments in our neighborhood. But I do I do not support this rezoning application. It is not appropriate development for our neighborhood. Contrary to what you've heard from some here today, this proposed up zoning is not supported by Denver's zoning code. This property is located in an area of stability, which is overwhelmingly residential, in character and in zoning. Therefore, it is not correct that an up zoning would be a fit with the existing surrounding environment. In addition, this lot is not located adjacent to the existing embedded business district. The Neighborhood Center for Blueprint Denver, which ends at Julian Street, a long block of residential property along 32nd Avenue, separates the embedded business district from this property , which is located at Irving Street. And even if this property were located right next to the existing neighborhood center, it would be incorrect to state that we're dealing with a small property and that rezoning it would in any way fit the existing character of that district. Here's why. The embedded business district on 32nd Avenue between Julian and Perry is characterized by small, unique businesses, each occupying a typical life size of 3780 square feet. That's the median size to 5960 square feet. That's the average site size. The proposed zoning before you is for a lot of approximately to 22,700 square foot. That is 4 to 5 times larger than the typical lot size in the embedded business district. In fact, a 22,000 square foot size, the proposed up zoned lot would be larger than every property but two in the area. Those two are the Eden Manor formal old folks home and the strip mall at 32nd and Lowell. If you know the area, we can intuitively agree that neither of those two is really representative for the character of the area. In fact, you'd more be more likely to hear the opposite that those two stick out and do not fit the area's character. In summary, this is not a small lot. It is located in a residential area and not next to the embedded business district. And even if it were, its rezoning would not fit the existing character of that business district. If approved, the proposed up zoning would allow the construction of a large 26 to 28000 square foot two story, character altering building. It would be the largest commercial building by far anywhere along the business district at twice the square footage of any other commercial building. This large new development would attract several hundreds of new daily car trips added by doctors, nurses, assistants, administrators, patients, service providers and others. This would adversely impact the quality of life of the neighborhood, and especially for the residents immediately surrounding this lot in a residential area. Specifically, the small residential streets like 31st Avenue, 30th Avenue and Irving Street would be treated to an increase of up to 86 car trips per hour at peak hours. I read the traffic study according to fact from that traffic study, which misrepresents current conditions in order to present a false conclusion. And because both the city and current development plans for the site call for fewer parking stalls than are needed. In reality, 20 to 40 overflow cars attracted by this development would be parked on neighborhood streets at peak hours. This estimate was made by civil engineers and traffic engineers who volunteered their time to wina. The applicant has not provided any such data, despite being asked by the Neighborhood Association for about two years ago. In conclusion, this development is not supported by Denver's zoning code. It is not a small lot and its up. Zoning would in no way fit existing character or the built condition. It would negatively affect families, neighbors, property owners who bought properties on these residential streets to raise families in a safe and quiet neighborhood. They have the right to expect stability and predictability. That was why the 2010 rezoning, big rezoning, was put in place. I heard some interesting things from CPD here today. I heard that infill should be consistent with existing context. This one is not. I heard that suitable components, aside from residential properties for neighborhoods are stores, parks and schools. Don't those sound wonderfully small scale and like they serve the local community? It doesn't sound like a 26000 to 28000 square foot single use commercial building that attracts several hundred additional car trips onto small neighborhood streets. I also heard the CPD characterized 32nd and Irving as an incomplete main street. Yes, indeed. That's because there's a long block of residential properties along 32nd between Julian and Irving. It's fantastic. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have bowling alley. Thank you. Members of the city council. My name is Lee Ang Lee. I actually don't live nearby. I live on 854 Pearl Street in Denver. Resident of a council term right now. I've actually only been in Denver two years. I'm a summer. I'm from upstate New York, so I'm sort of an outsider and I really appreciate the chance to have my voice heard regardless how highly you take my opinion. I'm a member of the board game as well and the church and really generously allows us to use their space for the weekly community. For me, the church has been a gateway for not only not only the community, but given me with opportunities for engagement and holiday events, but also many of the local businesses that would otherwise not visit. Just down the street, there's bookstores there, bars, restaurants that I would not know of if I'd didn't go to the church. I feel, furthermore, that the character of the church is really more than the board game club as well. And I feel that the the code of the church will continue to more than the medical center that they are proposing. I think it's easy right now for some people to stand for the council and claim that they know what the neighborhood wants in the neighborhood once what they want. But I think they don't acknowledge how diverse our neighborhoods are. There's many people of all ages, me included, from all walks of life, and that we want many different things and many people would agree with me and that the medical center would be a great idea. I don't know how many of you have had the opportunity to come out and actually see the place. I think that if you stood in the corner and looked around, it would be very clear it's a main street. There's a it's already a commercial area, as far as I know. I really have no idea why it's zone residential to begin with. And, you know, there's business around it and businesses down the street. I think the church is already a great gateway for me as a foreign traveler who from New York can plan on staying in Denver. And it's a great gateway to the neighborhood. The story, the building would fit nicely and the parking lot tucked behind the building would be much better than with the chain link fence parking lot that's there right now. And please vote in favor. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Bertram Sanchez. And as Mr. Sanchez comes up, I will call the next five speakers Virginia Rier, Brad Balsam, Dennis Fitzpatrick, Harry Brick and Greg Pratt. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. President. Council members. My name is Bertram Sanchez. I live at 3225, West 31st Avenue. I'm one of the 200 footers that opposed this. I've lived there for 29 years and 29 years. I have seen traffic. Exponentially increase. I have my kids went to north. I bought that house, raised my son and daughter there. My kids went to North, went to Skinner. They had to dodge cars in the eighties. It's worse now. I have my grandson that lives in my house. He's 16 and goes to north. I went to North. I'm a native of northwest Denver. I grew up on 38th and Teal. I'm 67 years old and have seen a lot of changes in North Denver. And this is not a good change. There are so many things wrong with this. Not just the traffic. The church itself. I didn't want to speak about religion. I have my own religion. I have nothing against anyone else's religion. There was a there's a church on the other corner of 31st Avenue on Grove. It was the fourth Church of Christ when I moved in. And that church didn't have the congregation and had the courtesy to sell it and get out of the neighborhood. They sold it to a Zen Buddhist, which didn't didn't get the congregation they needed. So they sold it to another church last summer. That church is doing great. They build two parking lots up all the street up on Sunday Mass. I have never seen a mayor's church in 29 years try to increase their congregation. As a matter of fact, 29 years ago, when I moved in, one of the members told me that there were other Lutheran church for people of my color. And I. Didn't like it then. I don't like it now. I don't like prejudice. Like I said, I've lived there for 29 years, have not seen anything. With any future in that church. They've never, ever been part of the neighborhood. And to put in a medical center there, there's 29,000 square feet is absurd. I'm against this. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Virginia. We're. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of the Council. My name is Virginia Rear. I live at 891 14th Street Council District nine, and I'm retired now after practicing law for 24 years. I'm here tonight to speak in favor of the rezoning application. As such, I would like to speak about the importance of legal predictability. Denver Zoning laws clearly lay out the criteria for rezoning. This has to mean something. Without predictability and consistency. In the way our zoning laws are applied. The law and the code. The zoning code becomes meaningless and capricious. Subject to political whims. Thus, if a citizen or an. Elected official takes issue with an element of the zoning law, the solution is not to ignore the law. The solution is to go through the proper process to change the law. But the zoning code, as currently written, must be adhered to. I am very grateful for our representative. Democracy. And for the fact that it is. A group of. Elected officials representing the entire. City. With that is charged. With determining whether a rezoning request. Meets the legal criteria. As provided in the code. And in this regard, I'd like to point out a recent Boulder initiative, ballot initiative that would have. Allowed a micro community approximately 166. Of the population of Boulder to determine the fate of nearby rezonings. The ballot that ballot initiative failed by a large percentage, and I believe this reflects a good policy reason behind the fact that we don't put redevelopment decisions solely in the hands of adjacent neighbors. Instead, a code is relied upon, which takes a. Broader view based. On the guiding principles of smart city growth. In closing, I want to thank you for your time and service to the city and to strongly urge you to join. The community planning and Development and the Planning Board in. Recognizing that this present rezoning. Proposal meets the legal. Criteria for rezoning as defined by the code and is consistent with Blueprint Denver. Thank you, Mr. Bolton. President Council people, thank you for allowing me to speak. And my name is Brett Bortz and I live at 32, 39 West. 31st Avenue with my wife and two daughters. We are a taxpaying homeowners in the Highlands. We have another property in Berkley. We've experienced a ton of growth. We've watched the growth. We moved in 2009 to Highlands, to a bigger house. I am 100%. Opposed to the redevelopment request by the mayor's church. I'm I'm also. A little bit sick of it. This has been going on now for three years. A church that's truly embracing the community and working with the community wouldn't have. To hire a PR person. To push an agenda. That, in my opinion, is based off of, quite frankly, their own agenda. It's not representative of the neighborhood. I think it was extremely telling to see how many homeowners we have here that are paying taxes that are opposing this project. I would like you as council people to. At least consider the fact that you have so many people opposing this project. You have the board. Gamers from all around Denver speaking tonight on behalf. Of the church. My heart goes out to the members of the church. I actually have no ill will towards those people, but this project has gotten so ridiculously out of control that I strongly encourage you to think about. What the people that live in the community are trying to tell you, and that is that it doesn't fit in the neighborhood. We're passionate group of people. My neighbors are. Incredible. This whole process has brought us together even more. And we'll continue to fight this as long as we need to. Having said that, I would I would like you to. Reject the notion to have a vote when. Assessment is here, because there's no telling what's going to happen when they want to have the vote. There could be two of you missing. And then what? We just want to. You know, move on and keep doing what we're doing. So thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Dennis Fitzpatrick. Mr. Fitzpatrick, I believe you have 6 minutes. Thank you. Good evening and thank you for hearing me. My name is Reverend Dennis Fitzpatrick. I live in the parsonage at 30 to 45, West 31st Avenue, just south of he Mass Lutheran Church. When my wife and I moved here 16 months ago to serve in Ministry Mass, we were very excited. Both because of the creative thinking of the people you see here gathered and how they want to use their property and the warm community that they're part of. I was impressed by the determination and commitment that they offered me that they wanted to stay in the neighborhood and not just simply give up, sell and leave like others had done. The doctor's offices seemed like a perfect opportunity to both give something back and stabilize the church and be useful, not just another bar. No, it isn't. The most profitable use for this land. But it is useful to many in the community. The diversity of which can be seen on our side of the table. In my short time at Mars, I've been working hard to fashion our church as an outpost to help those who are needy and in need of a hand up. And I intend to continue to push an agenda of mercy and caring to those who are suffering. And while I have enjoyed working with these wonderful people, they asked me after my first year here how it was going. I said they were great. They laughed because they know what we've been going through. I said, it's okay. All the misery is coming from the outside. I have to say, I was very disappointed in how we were treated. I have compassion for the fact that zoning issues can be heated. I get it. All of us get angry at times. The harassment my wife and I have endured goes far beyond. What any of us would consider rational. Or reasonable, as I've heard, words like that used tonight. Our nearby neighbors have repeatedly shouted, used profanity, abused and threatened us. They've come out of it. Come over to our homes multiple times, sometimes pounding on the front door. I've gone out to speak with them at length on the porch while being shouted at called. All manner of kind of things. Things that aren't proper for this venue. While my wife sat inside. Afraid. A member of the development team who is familiar with the history of harassment in West Highland encouraged me to call the police. Well, I believed respect and understanding could prevail. I was mistaken. The harassment and verbal abuse by the nearby neighbors continued, and I had to call the police and later a report against them. We asked that the neighbors stop harassing us and refrain from coming on our property in the future. There is a persistent assumption of bad faith among the opposing neighbors. That's troubling to see. It has no basis in rationality. At all. A social media discussion about our development included the following comment about myself. The pastor is a hatchet man. The Lutherans have sent here from out of state to get rid of the property. The church is next, mark my words. And if you think those comments are odd or out of place, it's all too common with our opposition. We have tried over and over to explain. In fact, the opposite is true. We want to stay. I was called to a mass in order to expand and deepen the church's work. The doctor's offices being proposed are being proposed in order to allow the church to stay in the neighborhood. We want it to stay for the next 100 years. And there's one more issue I'd like to address briefly. You're hearing repeatedly that the AMA's team has not been willing to engage in substantive discussion or offer any real compromises. If we were not bound by the confidentiality requirements of the mediation process, he may ask would be more than happy to share what we were willing to put on the table. However, since we can't share that, I simply say that the claims you are hearing about our lack of willingness to meaningful compromise are deplorable and untrue. In the extreme. It is unfortunate that people are taking advantage of the mediation confidentiality in this way. It's despicable. And repeatedly making inaccurate statements that ignore what really happened in mediation. Good neighbors. It's part of what this is about. We're trying to be good neighbors. We're trying to find our way. Find a new mission. Find a new way to continue to serve. This medical building will allow us to stabilize the congregation and continue to work on outreach and do good things for Denver. Denver deserves better. And what this R.A. is presenting before you today. And I ask you to seriously consider accepting our rezoning application and allowing UMass to remain serving the community for the next 100 years. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Harry Brick. Hi. My name is Harry Breck. I live about a block and a half from the church and I'd like to thank the City Council for letting me speak, even though I'm not wearing a Denver Bronco jersey. But thank you very much for that. I am strongly in agreement with the others who have spoken in opposition to this rezoning request because it is grossly out of scale with the neighborhood. I was going to make a lot of the same points that my neighbor Marie Bendix made. I just like to remind you that I agree with all the point she made. The only thing I would add is that I would been a health care provider for over 40 years. And when you consider the number of doctors, the number of nurses, the number of lab technicians, the number of receptionists that would be in a building this size and serving people for 15 to 30 minutes a visit. How this wouldn't grossly impact the traffic in the neighborhood is beyond me because those roads are already quite busy. Also, a lot of the points that were made by some of the people who are for the zoning as well as Mr. Watkins, are incorrect in saying that the pinch taco building or the Mondo Vino building are good comparators because those buildings have several different small scale establishments in them rather than one built one commercial establishment that's going to be bigger all by itself. I suspect that if the church had been amenable to discussing other things than just the plantings and the sides of the building, and that's all that was allowed to be discussed by them. Perhaps a mix of stores and apartments. The community response might have been different, but we are where we are. I would like to ask the County City Council to respect the many developmental democratic steps that have been taken in the development of the Denver zoning. It was only five years ago that there was an extensive citywide planning effort to update our current zoning system with a great deal of community input. West Highland was designated an area of stability. Furthermore, churches throughout the city have been zoned in accordance with the houses that are immediately around them. But at the planning board meeting, which considered this proposal, Mr. Tim Watkins stated that he had gone to the site and while he recognized it was an area of stability, it just looked like an obvious entry point for commercial district. You can check the records to see if that's correct. So we have the substitution of a democratic process for Mr. Watkins view about how the city should develop. At the last election, our neighborhood spoke clearly replacing a city councilor who favored a large scale development with a candidate who was supportive of thoughtful development, compatible with existing. Communities. To break here, 3 minutes are up. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next, we have Greg Pratt. Do we not have Mr. Pratt? All right. I will call the next five speakers in Trevor Grieco, Ryan Wright, M Jensen, Ken Random and Karla Jones. So, Mr. Greco, you can begin your remarks. Thank you, Mr. President, and other council members. My name is Trevor Greco, and. I reside at 33rd in Ocala. I am in opposition to this proposed rezoning and in the interest of time of your time tonight. I just want to say that I do support the other issues that were brought forward by the other opposition. Thank you. Thank you, Ryan. Right. Hmm. Well. Thank you. My name is Ryan Wright. And I live at 2770 California Street in what I believe. Is known as Fine District nine. That's right. I have only been attending. Services at a miss. For three years, but in that. Time I've come to care. Deeply about this church. I want to see the church. Continue to grow, to share the grace of God through practical ways. Such as food, shelter and a place for broken and hurting families to find. Hope and truth. As someone who. Cares deeply about his church and its future, I'm aware. Of the tone. Of the community discussions about this project. What I've seen is truly unsettling. For months and months, this project's. Opponents have demonstrated outright hostility against Hamas in public discussions, horrible and unfounded personal attacks against our pastor and other church leaders in support of the project. Antagonistic behavior and community beatings. And harassment of our pastors family in the neighborhood and at his home. I understand that this kind of outrageous neighborhood behavior shouldn't have anything to do with the legal criteria for rezoning. But unfortunately. I think it does. It does because we're at a public hearing and council is weighing public comment before making its decision. I think it's. Worthwhile to look at how. This public comment has been influenced. For example, in a recent. Letter to the editor of our. Local paper, the opposition's leaders made multiple misleading statements about the project and then encouraged readers to join them in opposing. They stated that. We were planning a 26 to 28000 square foot building, which is untrue. They grossly misrepresented the findings of our traffic study and said it wasn't worth the paper. It's written on and they outright lied. About a mayor's outreach and willingness to compromise by omitting the fact that we had engaged in prolonged good faith mediation with the neighbors. There is another tangible, extremely serious consequence of these kinds of misleading statements, the protest petition. Other church members who went door to door. And learned what. Neighbors were told in order to. Convince them to sign. The petition will. Speak directly about what they learned. But I would just like to point one thing out. The individual neighbor who was quoted in Westword is saying The congregation has done. There are more funerals there than there are new. Cars in the parking lot. And who completely lied in. Westford about the medical services we would be offering? The same neighbor. Who shouted at used profanity. And verbally harassed our pastor and his family multiple. Times until pastor eventually had to call the police. This is the same neighbor who circulated the majority of the protest petitions. This is the person who went door to door. To his very nearby neighbors and convince them to oppose this horrible project. I hope the spirit of bullying doesn't prevail. Mr. Wright. Thank you. Your 3 minutes are up. Thank you. Next, it's M Jensen. Hi. I'll try to be brief. I know you're tired, and God knows I am too. My name is Mary Jensen. I live in West Highlands in in Denver at. 37th and Raleigh. I'm a homeowner. And an active community member. And a registered voter. Please forgive me. I have a terrible cold and I am a really lousy public speaker normally and the combo is just not good. I am a nurse. My husband is works. In the construction industry and as you may have guessed from my very Danish sounding name. I was raised in the Lutheran religion. As a result, we are generally pro-development. Pro medical and pro Lutheran. However, we. Are strongly against this ill conceived up zoning and huge commercial development in a largely residential area. And I urge you to please vote no on this rezoning application. It is simply out of place and out of scale. As we strive to make our neighborhood more pedestrian friendly and. Bicycle friendly. Does it really made sense to add commercial scale traffic to narrow residential streets? Trust me when I tell you sick people do not walk to medical appointments. This can only make our busy roads busier and our hazardous off kilter intersections even more dangerous. This residential area is an inappropriate site for a massive commercial development. Currently the is zoned single family residential and as luck would have it, the neighborhood needs, wants and is willing to pay handsomely for single family homes. There is enormous profit to be made in single family homes in our area and the AMAZE team will not lose money if the current zoning stands, but the existing residential neighbors and homeowners will suffer greatly if this up zoning is approved. Please don't be fooled by this slick PR. Please vote no. Thank you. Thank you. Can random. My name is Ken Random. And welcome to the president and the people that are involved here. Appreciate your staying late to. My mother has gone to that church. She's 93. I'm 73. I still take her every Sunday. I went to the school through Charlie Brown is through the basketball hoop and I promised myself I wouldn't demean the other side and I'll try not to. Years ago, we had the Spanish ministry there. We started the Spanish church. We had Alcoholics Anonymous there now. So government thing. We taught Spanish English to immigrants for a year. I did that. We had quite a bit of effort by a lot of people who are gone and a lot of people who really care about the corners. The people and I grew up in the neighborhood, so that's my comment on the, you know, the interracial thing and all that kind of bothers me. It's the same thing. It's getting mad at somebody. You know, we have to make these decisions over like any council. The Forest Service has to make decisions for both sides for that. That is not a good thing to do because, you know, there's three things to the truth mine, yours. And the truth is pretty tough sometimes. And I. Recognize that. And I think. They've done enough to make the world work. And I I'm really feeling guilty because I helped bring the pastor here. I'm a little worried about up above because Pastor Dennis and his wife got shot down the first time. And I, I read their real they were kind of small town owners and and Garden City Council and I, I kind of pulled that off. So that's my comments. Thank you. Fingers. Traynham Next, we have Carla Jones. And as Miss Jones comes up, I'll call the next five names. Larry. Excuse me, Dyson Sharman Safer. Pamela Beck told Dwight Helmers and Sue Pop. So you five can make your way in, Ms.. Jones. You can begin your remarks. Okay. Thank you. My name is Karla Jones, and I live at 3206 North Sphere Boulevard. I am directly catty corner from the parcel. And so I wanted to speak because I am a neighbor of a mass Lutheran church. My oldest son went to a mass for early childhood education prior to the closure of the school and we loved it. So I have no issue with a mass, but I do oppose the rezoning. And additionally, I am frustrated with the the claim that they reached out to every neighbor within the 200 foot radius because. I live across Spira Boulevard and I. Wasn't contacted until after I signed the petition opposing the first time, and I've signed it twice. So additionally, there are plenty of doctors offices in their neighborhood, so I don't think it's a legitimate argument that we need an additional doctor's office. In the area. There are plenty. I take my kids there and traffic would be an additional issue. So thank you. Amos Jones. Larry Dyson. Thank you. My name is Larry Diaz Land and I live in Wheat Ridge. My wife and I have been members of the Mayor's Lutheran Church since the mid 1960s. My wife was a teacher when we had a school. She is currently the church organist and I am an elder and we are both active in the church. As someone who has been part of this church for half a century, it deeply saddens me to observe the recurring pattern of distrust and suspicion with which this project's opponents have treated us. Regardless of what we say, how many discussions we participated in, or how many changes we make to the project, there is a consistent assumption of bad faith related to everything we do. For example. The opponents have posted on the public Facebook page a long message ahead of our preceding appearances. City Council accusing him as of only pretending to want to delay the public hearing. To dissuade opponents from showing up. The opposition group also stated that he mass was revising the application as a dishonest trick to postpone the hearing. In reality, the AMA, his team did want to revise the application and risk edge of the hearing. Even the concrete changes that he makes to the project are not met or met with distrust. Our initial plan called for a three story building. However, after listening to concerns expressed by neighbors and paying. Our Architect for shadow study. We agreed to lower the building to two stories. This was not a trick, as so we could pretend to negotiate the size down. As our opponents claim. If it was a trick, we would not have paid the architect fresh out of study. Emails has been sincere and open throughout this process. However, it is impossible to constructively work with people if they believe that everything you do is dishonest and in bad faith. The church has been part of the neighborhood for 109 years, and we want to build an attractive medical building on our property that will be an asset to North Denver for years to come. Please support this zoning request. Thank you. Thank you. Shaman say through. Hi. My name is Sharman Slater. I live at 3317 West 30th Avenue. As far as the church goes and location, the access to the alley where I parked my car is kitty corner from the church. I am in favor of the zoning. One of the few neighbors here that is. But. I have reservations. I'm not 100% in favor. I've stood back. And every once in a while, of course, I had to say something, but. There has been contentious comments. On both sides. Of this whole story. And I didn't want to get involved. So I pretty much I haven't. I won't say good or bad about either side. But it has been bad at times. And like I say, from both sides now my reservations are. Traffic will increase. And 32nd. And Speer. 32nd. And Irving. Are going to be bad. What I want to be. See. Is that city government? Do something. Sit up and take notice of what the problem is and don't just sit back and say, okay, this zoning has passed. Now it's their problem. We're telling you now that if you pass this, which I want you to do. We will have traffic problems. Let's see. As far as the church goes. Yes, I do not think that they were 100% honest with us. They told us what they wanted to say. And one person in particular who I won't name. I think that's where from the very beginning, they didn't know how to hold meetings, didn't know how to answer questions, kind of. Spun the. Whole thing. I still and I've been to almost all the meetings, including the design process. Don't know where the hell we are. I didn't know. They weren't talking about an urgent care anymore. And we just had a1a meeting a few weeks ago. Why didn't they come and tell us that sort of stuff? I didn't hear it. But you're 3 minutes are out. Thank you. Thank you. Pam. Pamela Beck told me. Thank you, Mr. President, and members of the council. My name is Pamela Berchtold, and I live at 15 to 78 West LaSalle Avenue in Lakewood. I currently work as the secretary of the Mayor's Lutheran Church, a position I have held for more than 25 years. During my time at Mass, I have seen the dedication of its members, some of whom who have been a part of the church for decades. I have also witnessed the arrival of new people to the church where they were existing, accepted by the existing community. As someone who works for me, as I am very familiar with the roads leading to the church. I am aware that a few opposing neighbors tell horror stories of back up and congestion along our Main Street corridor in West Highland. But that has not been my experience. In fact, it seems to me that the patient traffic for the medical office building would naturally trickle in and out throughout the day. There is no natural rush time for doctors appointments and I doubt that a few people coming and going here and there would be noticeable on our streets. The only conceivable time there might be a small rush is when the officers staff is arriving in the morning and leaving in the afternoon. However, what's interesting to notice is that those people will likely be moving against the flow of traffic. In the morning Highlands residents are heading out of the neighborhood toward downtown and the highway and commuting doctors and patients would be driving in. The opposite is true in the afternoons. This is a clear reverse traffic pattern and I don't see how it will burden the traffic, as our opponents say. Also, during many of the years of my stay at UMass, we had a school, we had like 58 parents coming in the morning to drop their student, their children off for school, and then again they would pick up their children after school, causing a rush. And I never. Heard. These opposing people oppose our school and the traffic that the school presented and. I would like to say that if the Council does not approve this zoning change, there is a good possibility the Church will not be able to continue to exist and therefore the property would have to be sold to a developer who in most probability would not listen to what these people want or what they need, but more what their interests are, which is money. Aspect of. Youth remains. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Dwight Helmers. Mr. President and members of the council, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak this evening. I would recommend you people get paid overtime for staying so long here. I live not in Denver, but at 1079 South Johnson Way in Lakewood, Colorado. My connection here is that I presently serve as a vice president of the Rocky Mountain District of the Alchemist, the in the central area. This is the church body to which the AMA means congregation belongs. And I've had the opportunity to work with them for a little bit of time here, particularly in the calling of their pastor . I would suggest to you that the stability of the church is an advantage to this neighborhood and that accepting this particular rezoning would be indeed a help to that stabilization. I think the congregation has attempted to some degree to to develop a win win situation, even though it doesn't always look that way. They were looking for a way to serve the community while providing for a continuing source of revenue for their own ministry of Outreach. Serving the community here meant developing the opportunity, so to speak, of a of a health care facility where people could come and receive care. I wanted to say just a little bit about the calling of Pastor Dennis Fitzpatrick, because I was quite involved in that about a year and a half ago. One of the prime criteria for calling Pastor Fitzpatrick was that he would be involved in outreach. I heard one of the other speakers say I may have never tried to outreach. I'm amazed at the things that Pastor Fitzpatrick has done and continues to do. I attended one of his sessions, for example, his Memorial Day picnic, and I met more nonmembers at that than than members. I think he does a very good job. My wife and I attended church there. And here's Pastor Fitzpatrick, not inside the church waiting for people to come, but standing out on the sidewalk, welcoming those who were coming into the church and welcoming those who are going by. I see a man who wants to outreach for the sake of serving the community. Denver is a great city. It is one of the reasons is because it has many historic neighborhoods, often defined by a house of worship. A mass defines the neighborhood for 109 years with with this rezoning, it will continue to define the neighborhood with service to the community for many years to come. In Christ's name. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Could you say your name for the record? Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't. My name is Dwight Ellmers. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Sue Pop. And as Sue comes forward, I'm going to read off the next five names James Foreman, Jane Bustamante, Mary Williams, Amelia Miers and Elliott Sawyer. You five can make your way to the front pew. This part, you can begin. Mr. Chairman and the Council. Thank you for allowing me to testify. My name is Sue Pop. My husband and I live at 4557 Wyandotte Street in Council District number one. We have been members of Remains Lutheran Church for 24 years. We like attending services there because we enjoy pastors, sermons and his wonderful Bible studies. The people are very friendly and we enjoy this community. We support this project because we think that having a medical office building in this location will be very handy for the neighborhood. Also, it may as well make the parking lot available to other businesses on evenings and weekends. So we think that will be helpful. We've heard a lot of people talk about how they don't want to see any changes in our neighborhood. We've lived here a long time and things are always changing. Our neighborhood isn't meant to be dipped in amber and preserved in one way forever. This should not be about a few people wanting things to stay exactly the same for them. But we should be looking at the whole community and the types of services that are necessary. People like mixed use buildings, which I understand. I don't understand why our two storey building is being criticized for only having doctors offices and not adding a bunch of other things. Mixed use doesn't only have to happen within one building. Mixed use can be a mix of nearby uses within a neighborhood. We need primary care doctors and this building will provide that mixed in with the restaurants, shops and the residents nearby. Please vote in favor of this rezoning application. Thank you. Thank you. James Foreman. Hello. My name is James Farmer. And although I'm from Broomfield, Colorado, I do a lot of work in this particular area and I'm usually down here around 2 to 3 times a week. First of all, I just want to say this is the last time I go to a rezoning meeting and skip dinner. Bad move. The lot of land that we're talking about is in a very interesting position. It's surrounded on the north side by commercial property and on the south side by residential. 32nd Street is a main street. It's where all of your businesses are located, converting that one parcel, the northern portion of it. Too commercial would bring it back into alignment with the rest of that street. It seems to me that the church is trying to find a use for that particular spot of land that meets both their beliefs. As well as their mission. I just asked the Council to review that particular partial. And reason the. Land is commercial. So that way it can fit back into and blend in with the rest of that street. Thank you. Thank you, Jane Bustamante. Mr. President. Council members. Good evening. My name is Jane Bustamante. And I live at 11387 Lawson Lane. I have been a part of the mayor's community for 52 years, and although I haven't lived in the Highlands area since I was a little girl, I continue to be important to me as continues to be an important part of my life. My mom and stepdad were married in the church. I went to school at UMass and so did some of my granddaughters. All of my children. Granddaughters, and now a great granddaughter have grown up and belong to Mass and most are still members of the church. I have two granddaughters who work in the Highlands area. I support the Medical Office Building Project because I feel it is a way for us to give back, to contribute to the community, and it would also allow us to continue as a church. In the future. My main hope is for us to expand the work that we do with the homeless. For many years now, my granddaughters and I have spent Christmas Eve making sack lunches for the homeless throughout the years. Throughout the year, we collect coats and blankets, and on Christmas Eve, we make breakfast burritos, fill lunch bags with snacks and toiletries , make a huge container of hot chocolate. And then we go to a spot near the shelters downtown and spend time handing out all that we've collected. This year, we were joined. By over 25. Of our highlands neighbor neighbors who came to help us make the burritos, fill the sacks and give to those in need. My granddaughters and I are hoping to be able to add other giving days throughout the year, not just Christmas Eve with the help of our neighbors. Thank you for listening to me. Describe the charitable work that I so enjoyed doing with the. I know that the church is good. Works are not part of the legal criteria for rezoning, but they do fit with this project's goal of serving the community. The legal criteria for rezoning has been clearly demonstrated by the presentation from the gentleman from the City Planning Department. The Planning Board agreed with the CPD's position, and others familiar with Denver's code have stated that the rezoning is appropriate. I would like to make a plea for fairness and say that in light of this ten vote requirement that I hope the city council will agree to delay the final vote on our project for two weeks. We agreed to wait almost three months to come back to council after revising our application and surely waiting two weeks for the final vote isn't too much to ask. Please vote yes on the delay and on the rezoning. Thank you. Thank you. Mary Williams. Do not have Mary Williams. Amelia Miers. Good evening and thank you. My name is Amelia Miers, and I live at 1550 Platt Street in Fine and number nine. I'm a transportation policy consultant and Denver native, and I came to speak about this project because it is bigger than the Highlands. It's about Denver itself and how we need to be treating our population. Our elderly population is growing. Could I get a show of hands of who is over 60 in this room right now? All of these people are going to be needing medical care and as they age, hopefully longer into their eighties and nineties, eighties and nineties , I'm talking about hopefully when they age into their eighties and nineties, they're going to need reliable transit and walkable. Places to get their medical care. And this is an issue that needs to be addressed in the community. This is a great place to have a medical facility that's walkable. It's right by a bicycle. It's right on a transit stop. And having the bus line go to this medical facility is much better than having to spend our money on non-emergency medical transportation that would have to pick people up individually to transport them to a medical facility. This will save the community money and the city money overall. This vibrant and walkable community that will be created is integral. To having a smart city. And I'm really proud of you guys for passing the Smart City. Grant this or accepting that. The Department of Transportation can go along with the Smart City grant because this fits right in. And if a Smart City Grant is awarded, this is the type of community that will thrive with connective transit and walkability. And I urge you to support this for the greater good of Denver. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Elliott Sawyer. No. Elliott Sawyer. Then the next five, we have Charlie Johnson, Chad Johnson, Brian Kowalski, April Vermillion and Jennifer Salvatore. So the first one up should be Charlie Johnson. Sure. Madam Secretary, could you grab. Thank you. Q My name is Charlie Johnson. My address is 1415 Park Avenue West. I belong to a Lutheran church that is a sister church to a mass. I also own a business nearby. Because of these things, I have followed the issues closely. I've often heard opposing neighbors broadcast numbers from a Change.org petition. They started considering that this translated into actual inform community supporters for their position. To begin with, the basic language of the petition is incredibly incendiary and inaccurate. This day they may as well be building something much larger than what it sounds like Hamas has committed to do . They also characterizing mass as refusing to engage in mediating dialog, meaningful dialog. Despite the workshops, the mediation sessions and other kinds of outreach. However, the most troubling aspect of their position is the public publicly viewable comments that go along with these online signatures and provide you with some of the screenshots of comments on the petition demonstrating that many of the people signed for reasons totally unrelated to this rezoning request. For example, I'm sick and tired of the gentrification that is happening in North Denver. High low can explicit off. Obviously this project is in West Highlands, not low, high or high low. I'm worried about my daughter being run over by speeding ambulances when of course, we know that the metal office building will not accept ambulances. I don't believe that we have coherent discussion at the last meeting at the Methodist Church was a farce. This is not worth it because the meeting at the nearby Methodist Church was for the development project at 30th and Lowell of the Mace Project. And last say, I'm sick of seeing all the tasteless new houses in the Highlands neighborhood going up, stopped destroying us, saying this position. There are many, many additional examples. It seems very clear that these folks are upset about use by right development that are using small rezoning as a way to funnel their anger. Lastly, there's an issue with the anonymous nature of Change.org and how valid and supporting signatures actually are. I did a little experiment. I went to change that. Oregon created my own petition, and I created five separate email addresses in Gmail and sign me on petition five times. This whole exercise took less than a half an hour. There was no reason to believe that the 270 some supposes signatures represent the 270. Some actual people hope that City Council will decide this issue based on the legal criteria for rezoning. That's a smoke and mirrors that those would claim some sort of community mandate based on the petition and is demonstratively unreliable. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Next, we have Chad Johnson. Chad Johnson. Brian Kowalski. Good evening, and thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Brian Kowalski. I am connected to AMS only through their hosting of the gaming group that I go to and I'm connected here, helping represent them just because of the ongoing, continuous generosity we've experienced from EMS Church. As for in the nature of the lot and quest and it. Sounds like it will event. Based on this decision it either becomes the medical building or eventually becomes residential again. But it's really hard to imagine that site as a residential as residential buildings, their front windows will look into businesses and their backyards will look on to the carwash. It will be a very. It will stick out considerably from what it already exists there. And leaving it as is would just be a continuing dilapidated parking lot. The. The Church is focused mostly, as I understand it, on helping the least served of individuals. And most of the complaints that I have heard have been focused on protecting property values. Which strikes me as two very different populations being served here. And just based on what I met of the people I met and connected to the church, it it seems almost impossible for me to believe that they were not forthright and earnest in their efforts to connect with the community, because that is the nature of what they intend to do. Thank you. Thank you. April Vermillion. Good evening, President and council members and congratulations. You are almost done with the testimonies. My name is April Vermillion and I live on Decatur Street in Potter Highlands. I lived in West Highlands for seven years. The Highlands have been my home going on 12 years. Also, I own a real estate marketing business. I spend hours a month learning and understanding the Highlands, growth changes and culture. I know the. Church's location intimately and I support the rezoning and would like to see the site offer medical. Services. As a longtime resident who has not. Attended a mass, I'm shocked by my neighbors rude behavior and lies in public. And even today, as the pastor shared his and his church's pain from harassment. I believe this historic church is doing their due diligence. So on behalf of the Highlands. I'd like to apologize to the Amos for our community's behavior. They do not reflect all neighbors opinions. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Jennifer Salvatore. Jennifer. Right next to and last because Jennifer Rona. And Jamie Chester after Jennifer. Good evening. My name is Jennifer Arona and I am the Vice President Business Development Strategy at Lutheran Medical Center. And I am really. Glad to be here this. Evening and hear all of the diverse opinions and the passion about this community. That Lutheran Medical Center has actually served over the last 100 years. And I think that this community here. This evening, in addition to community members that are not here this evening, really represent the community and the diversity of the population that Lutheran Medical Center serves. There are. Only just a few things. That I really want to speak to this evening. The primary purpose of Lutheran Medical Center's involvement with this development is to make sure that health care stays local and is available to all members of the community. It is intended to be a family practice to serve the immediate community of the West Highlands neighborhood. The other piece that I'll speak briefly about, I don't have an expertize on traffic patterns, but I do know in health care facilities we typically have a 2 to 1 ratio for parking that accommodates our communities. And in this particular development, one of the. Reasons why we've been interested in participating in it is that the parking development. Actually is a 3 to 1 ratio, which is higher than what the standard is. I know that there have been a number of questions about the scale and scope of services that are provided. I think I've mentioned that it would solely be to the community immediately in that neighborhood. So it would be a reflection of members who are commercially insured, who are Medicaid patients, who are chip patients, and that is the community that we intend to represent and that we see we've represented over the years. And then lastly, the one last point that I wanted to make is that our real interest in supporting this effort is to continue to preserve the health and the wellness of the community. Thank you very much. Thank you. Last speaker, Jamie Chesser. Good evening. Guess I'm wrapping things up. President and City Council Members. My name is Jamie Chesser. I reside at 32nd AV and Osceola Street. With my husband and two young children. We've been there for about ten years. Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts. I just want you to know that I have no ill will to the amazed church and its members, and I'm not. Opposed to thoughtful development in West Highland. Or the city. I agree with the. Points. That were made by the others. My neighbors who've spoken before me in opposition to this proposed up zoning. Connor. Randy Mast, Marie Benedict, Marilyn Quinn, Pat Duffy. And I respectfully request your consideration. On this matter and do hope you will vote no on this up zoning proposal. Thanks very much for your time and your service. Thank you. All right. That concludes our speakers. Thank you all so much for being efficient and thoughtful and colleagues. As we move to the question period, I would ask that we just make sure we stick with the questions and then we'll go to comments afterwards. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Let's see here. CPD. Thank you. Could you repeat for me first the change in condition that you see that would justify the rezoning? Certainly. So I'm pulling up the slide presentation and I'm on slide 40. And the list here. Includes the commercial mixed use building that is on the west side of Irving fronting 32nd Avenue, which was built in 2012. Was the rezoning leading up to that's very much part of the analysis of the changing condition right. To further characterization and. Completion of that Main Street character, then the disused school building, the vacancy of that and the underutilized parking area on the site, and the small commercial office building, which is. Um. Seems to be in disrepair from what I've heard. We also look at changes in entitlement and or. Not just excuse me, not so much entitlement, but actual. Creation of parcels anticipating development that's included here see me as church having divided church property into two parcels and the certificate of non historic status for the small commercial building. Thank you for the four that we listed. As far as I assume this is the usual deal where we're not approving a particular plan, we're approving zoning for the site, correct? That's correct. Okay. In terms of the rezoning. Criteria, right. So the size of the building, we're not determining and the use on the property we're not determining. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. I don't know whether it's sundry or the developer. I'm wondering the packet that we were given on the front page has a picture yellow rectangle. It says two storey, 17,500 feet, total square feet. And then last page, the resolution from the church and condition number two says restrict the building size to be constructed on the property to no greater than 23,500 feet. Hi. I'm Keith. Bush, decorated to me as a Lutheran church. Could you repeat the question? Yeah. Yeah. So this packet that appears on the front page, the rectangle representing the building to be built, says two storey 17,500 total square feet. But the letter on the back page, which shows a mass Lutheran Church resolution, says restrict the building size to be constructed on the property to no greater than 23,500. So I'm just wondering if you can clarify. Yeah. The the smaller size is we we did an evaluation. If we. Have to provide all the required parking of 2 to 2 parking spots per 1000 square feet on the zone lot the size of a building, we conclude we could have a 17,500 square feet. If we. Are allowed to use offsite. Parking and share some of the parking with the church to get 3 to 1 parking. Then we could have a building is approximately as big as 23,000, 23,500 square feet. So the church itself wanted to restrict itself because there was criticism that we were going to build a much larger building. So we sort of limited ourselves to the maximum size we felt. We wanted to. We would build on the on. The property and that maximum is 23,000. 23,500 on two storey. So. Okay, about 11, 1200, 12,000 square feet. And I believe it's the second drawing in the packet. You were given. Thank you. Thank you for that. And the last question that I have is for Mr. New Dore. So you you had mentioned that you had considered town homes at one point, but decided against that use. I was wondering why what. Your thought is that also would require a zoning change. And in early discussions with our neighbors and our congregation, there was no, you know, desire to do that. We got no positive response from anybody regarding those. And they also required a zoning change from single family. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. President. Thank you. Councilwoman Cashman. Just one. The I was in on those discussions, too. And the other reason we didn't proceed with with townhomes or multifamily is because it would have taken the parking away from the church. What we've come up with is something that doesn't we don't compete with ourselves for parking. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. I'm going to have questions for Tim. Tim, Dave and Keith. Keith, Dave. Hey, Hagan and Keith, the D.A.. Is still here. Oh, great. You changed your jacket. So can you go to the slide that actually shows the the noncommercial I mean, the commercial thing that you're justifying using to sort of justify the change in condition. Not just the slide that has the text. It's a progression of three slides showing, well, 2010, 12 and 14. Is that correct? I don't know. And I apologize. Everyone asked system, my system and Councilwoman Gilmore's art system seems to lag really far behind. So. You've included areas on this plan that actually haven't changed condition physically. So can you go, too? So you've got you've got the P.J. Taco site, and I don't know if I should even be saying that on TV, but, um, you got the taco site which got zoned legislatively in 2010, and that definitely has gotten a building constructed. But you still have the same parking lot, you still have the same car wash, you still have the same two nonconforming uses across the street. I mean, exceptions across the street, one in a residential form, the other one in a in a building structure. I mean, a commercial building that's got an exception. So go to the zoning slide that you had previously. The. It's like existing. Zoning. Oh, sure. Existing slide. Might be faster to scroll. Right? So I just want it to be very clear that the only thing that's changed is the addition of these of this new small, small building, a 10,000 square foot. Commercial structure caddy corner. I mean I mean, it's just across the street from this vacant lot and that all the zoning surrounding it is, in fact, residential. So in the case of the USA a the least, the, the least, the most restrictive, it is the most restrictive residential use that we have. So yeah, so it's U.S.A. one across the street. We have the pad. That hasn't changed. We have the U.S.A. on the subject parcel and surrounding it. And then that one exception, that one carve out for the Peachtree taco. So. When you're doing justifying circumstances, it's nice that you go and color in a bunch of things that sort of optically render a certain way. But this is very much the heart and these are sort of going into comment. So I won't. But this is what I want eventually. I want my colleagues to understand is that this is in the very core. This is the map that one of the members I'm going to I'll comment later. The question is, have you performed so have you performed a planned review of this design? Are these proposals compliant with the zoning? That's a question for the applicant. No, that's for CPD. So with development services, I can't answer that. I'd have to defer to the client to. Respond to that question. How about that? Sort of. One is based on the prior. To my knowledge, these are not approved by development services. So can you can you the question came up earlier from the audience. Can you create your own change of condition? So if you leave your building, if you if you abandon your pride in your building from its prior use and you let your product, your parking lot deteriorate or turn it into a parking lot, does that can you create that and self create your own change of use? Because the only change of change of condition. I'm sorry, I'm using the wrong time. The only change in condition is the adjacent site across Irving. That's the change in physical form condition. But the change in use and activity is another condition, changing condition. Okay. So the bread company hasn't changed since 1994. The the the car wash is probably longer. So. You mentioned the parceling of the property as a change of condition. My concern is, is this second. The sequence here shows a 17,500 square foot and 35 space lot. And then this option two, which shows the obliteration of a school building in a US Hughes owned district that is now a parking lot. So are we now? Is that prelude to that becoming another area of change in an area of stability? I mean, can you do that? Per our analysis of blueprint Denver which. Debs states that the street classification is main street collector and the properties fronting that. That st are appropriate for. Converting to mixed mainstream land uses and mixed uses, then that would not support blueprint Denver, as it's written today would not support. Zoning rezoning further south, embedded further south where the church is. So I'm sort of trying to struggle with the healthy amount of parking that supports both the existing church structure, which is significant in size and a total build out of the to the agreed to 23,500 is a massive block sized redevelopment. That is a significant difference than what we're even talking about. But that's you know, we're getting to that. But I just if we're using the fact that a change of a parking lot can be a change of create, this sort of change of condition in an area of stability that that is concerning. So and I'll get these are much more brief. So I listened to the planning board again prior to entering chambers, and I'm concerned that your portrayal of the planning board, a statement of concern about the depth of the lot, when the concerns were about scale, intensity of use and lack of design standards, was the depth of the lot mentioned in the deliberation, and if so, by whom? I recall it being. Her name will come to me. Renee Martinez. Stone. That's my recollection. And that she. Okay. I will. I that's one that I paid particularly close attention to because she had very cogent comments on the scale issue. I believe Christopher Smith as well. They both. Both of them spoke to this. That was my understanding. Chris. Chris. His comments comments were particularly. I'll get into that as well. You stated that no details were provided by the opposition at the Planning Board testimony. Is it customary for the opposition group to come armed with APD, with Puti language? I don't know. But there were no ideas or concepts or. Direction, even in concept that we could understand what was encouraging rather than. Welcoming than at when and at what point in the development process. Would you welcome outside PD recommendations? It's primarily for the applicant to consider, but they were not provided specific details as to what a party might entail. So at that testimony, at that hearing, they testified that CPD advised them that it did not meet the criteria of uniqueness. For a unique and extraordinary circumstance. Okay. To. War and peace. And then a member of the Planning Board lamented that two questions for CPD had remain unanswered. And actually, this is in Renee Stones testimony. I mean, in her deliberations. And I suspect you're prepared today what is considered a small site for the U. U. M's to access own district. There is not a definition in the Denver zoning code of a small site, of a medium site of a large site. And that's where looking at the existing context becomes very important and in this case, looking along. The 32nd Avenue corridor and the alley alignment of the depth became very important consideration during and after planning. But we look at the 32nd Avenue corridor. Passed. Julian then, because if you look between Irving and Julian you have a very different characteristic mean the depiction in your photographs of 32nd at Lowell. Looked primarily west of Irving. Which is where should I pull the map up? Yeah, west of Irving is the picture Tycho. And then there's probably about eight or nine single family and duplex homes. Then you get to the the three dogs and then you get to you get into mix of commercial. So it was a look at the adjacent or. The the corner building west of Irving Street and then a look. At the general development pattern along the corridor. I mean, because if you look north, south, east and west, I mean, north, south, northwest and south. I've got it all screwed up. But if you look just about anywhere where you took pictures, you're going to find residential construction. And in some cases, you have businesses operating with exceptions in residential construction. And indeed, we found this area to be in particular at Irving and Speer, 32nd, the main street commercial node. At this location and then corridor wide. There's a recurring pattern of stretches of commercial Main Street. Then there's some residential than others. But we didn't recognize that at the blueprint. Denver. On Slide five, I just want to have for clarification, you have Irving Street dashed. Continuous North-South. I want my colleagues to understand that that is not a through street. It is blocked from through traffic. It is cut off as well as it indicating 32nd Avenue is some sort of really viable route, east, west. But even the traffic study that was provided shows that there's almost no through traffic there because it's it's a glorified alley. So I just want you to understand that the depiction sort of belies the actual way you navigate the system in a car. So my question for David, the excerpts from the parking study that were provided lacked the total car trips for the school if it were in use today. How many total car trips did that? Was that number? You also have to apologize. I don't have the study in front of me. So on these two. So the two sheets that are what do they do over here? So you've got this sheet here that is missing the same information down below, which is the weekday. So there's a total car trip here that's not here. So you just give me the peak hour for both. But in only one case. Did you give me the total car trips? Excuse me. Would you mind just turning your pager on that? It is. They weren't numbered. Sorry. It is these two that looked like that. You need. So. Excuse me, would you repeat the question? I'm just trying to find out what the total car trips that are, because in certain areas I've heard people testify to the sort of delta, the difference between how continuously used a medical facility, which we're not doing. You know, we're not talking about a project, we're talking about zoning, but we are talking about something that is a significantly different in scale than anything that has been constructed there other than the apartment building. The which. So there's that in the use that has been described, there is a continuous use, not just a peak there both have peak hours, but with a school you have a big rush, you know, at drop off. And another big rush to pick up a little bit of rush when the teachers are arriving and then sort of a very, very low amount of traffic throughout the day with the medical facility. You know, they the way they tend to operate, at least the one that is right across the street from me is a very full parking lot. And they try to keep people moving in and out of there. So we've got 808 car trips a day for the medical facility, but no depiction of how many car trips the school was. And just Connor. Do you have that information? Is Connor here? Mr. Farley, if you want to respond, we need you to come to the microphone. Anyone have that information? Oh, I think you mentioned it. I specifically do not have that information, but perhaps my neighbor Mary does. I don't. But I did hear the secretary of the church say that when the school was running, there were 58 students. And if I recall correctly, from the traffic study, not parking study, it assumes 125 students. And I suspect it wasn't an overly used parking lot considering the amount of play area that was painted on the floor. And then the last question is for Keith. And I don't know. I hope that you can speak to these. You should be able to. Because the way they are written. Can you. What are what were the key concerns for the neighbor in the. In the mediation process. I'm sorry, what was the question? What are the key concerns for the neighbors in the mediation process? Well, I'd be happy to answer that question, but we can't because the mediation was confidential. The entirety of the mediation or. Yes, that was a major conversation was that this is all. Confidential. So did you hear anything there that you hadn't heard before? Did I hear anything in mediation? Because you've heard things. You've heard. Don't tell me about what? The mediation. What you discussed in mediation. Tell me what the key concerns are for the neighbors now. That would. You know, we we agreed to. Confidentiality, you know, on the issue. And if I discuss it now, Councilman, I feel like I'd be disclosing what was discussed in mediation because of the way you phrased your question. Because that's what you're trying to ask, I believe. No, actually. So let me let me scratch the mediation thing. And actually, I won't even ask you. I send Ari because she's very good at answering these questions. And Councilman Espinosa, you're at 16 minutes now. I was just hoping that we could if the four other council members behind you, I want to afford them the opportunity to ask them questions, too. So if you could if you have several more, we could just defer and come back to you. I just have four here, but I can I can defer. I'd be glad to do that. All right. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. My questions get to the crux of kind of what everybody's talking about here in this blueprint Denver area, stability and kind of our consistency with adaptive plan. So to answer this question for me and if if you can maybe Nate Lucero can give me the kind of the legal definition of what this means . But the first point is committed neighborhood may benefit from minor infill development. That's not what I really want to go into. But reinvestment stabilize or underutilized site through reinvestment. What does that exactly mean from a legal definition? You know, I get the idea. I get what we're going for, but. How do you decide what's. Appropriate for an area of stability, since that's one of our. Sure. I if there is a legal definition of it, I'll leave that to Mr. Fitzgerald. But I can describe to you what the language and blueprint Denver is and how it describes or defines what could be pictured as a continuum between very stable to going all the way up to full areas of change. And so we have area of stability. We have area of. Let's let's keep let's stay in area stability. Let's stay in our context right here. What does reinvestment mean? Reinvestment. Encourages. The. Redevelopment or re-use of a site that could actually bring stability to a neighborhood. That reinvesting or redeveloping or bringing property to more beneficial use could actually have a stabilizing effect on a neighborhood. And it lists examples including and not so applicable to this neighborhood. But if there's a neighborhood that has housing stock that is in a decayed condition, okay, that's appropriate reinvestment. That's helpful area of stability. Nate, let me ask you a question. From a legal standpoint, does reinvestment in a area of stability, is there any can you quantify that at all? Is there is there a size or I mean, or is this just the the vision and the value that we're looking for? Thank you, Councilman Brooks, Nate Russo on behalf of CPD and. So reinvestment, I think, is, is a term that's going to be. Defined by the by CPD or the manager of CPD, and in that term will somehow be defined through the comprehensive plan. And so the definition that Mr. Watkins gave is the only definition that that we have to base that opinion on. And and so I don't think that there's necessarily a legal definition to sort of quantify what that means. Okay. Not sure if that helps. Even if I could just refer to as does. He. But go ahead. Page 13 of the staff report describes according to Blueprint Denver areas of stability are intended to maintain the character of an area while accommodating some new development and redevelopment. So that's text from Blueprint Denver. Areas of stability are defined on page 122 as belonging to one of two categories. And so jumping to reinvestment areas where neighborhoods character is desirable to maintain but would benefit from reinvestment through modest infill or major projects in a small area. Okay. So it really is flexible and kind of nuanced and applicable to unique circumstances in a neighborhood. Reinvestment areas are intended to encourage investment, but in a more limited and targeted way than areas of change. Reinvestment. Challenges. Such as lack of services and improvement opportunities, such as redeveloping underutilized land to provide needed neighborhood services can be addressed through infill development. But those are two examples. Yeah. Thank you. And then one last question. We get this a lot, I think, in planning what percentage of applications are denied? You know, I think the the idea is that we see, you know, everything that that comes out here is, you know, just makes it all the way through the process. But there's been many times when you talk about the number and percentage of applications that get denied. The percentage I don't have on hand, but I believe the majority do not get past that initial pre-application stage. And advanced to full application. Majority 660 about. 50 plus 1%. I don't dare guess, but okay. If a number magically appears on my phone, I'll share that with you. Okay, great. Thank you. That's impressive. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions, so I'll try and get through them quickly. My first one is for Jenny DAVIES, Cindy Lee or Marie Benedicts, whoever still in the building here. Looks like you're up again. Cindy. Okay. You all to my best recollection and keeping notes all mentioned that you are not against redevelopment of this corner, just not this kind of development. Can. Can you speak, I guess, for yourself? Maybe not the other people. What is is is your concern from a is this consistent with the neighborhood? Are you are you it should only be residential. It should only be redevelopment as within its current zoning. Or do you think is there a scale and massing issue? I'm trying to get at, you know, what what did that mean? Because a lot of you said that but didn't expand upon what that meant. That's a great question. And I think it's a great question for the neighborhood. And I think what the neighborhood would love to see is a collaborative process where neighbors have really input and especially those who live really close to the site as to what they would feel comfortable with, what would be perhaps enough zoning, but not too massive. And maybe I don't have myself a specific opinion on whether there should be enough zoning or not of some kind. I know some people would like to see none. Others would be open to some. What I have heard mentioned by people who are open to some is some form of perhaps commercial downstairs, residential upstairs right at 32nd, and then with perhaps more residential as you go further south away from 32nd Avenue. But I by no means pretend to speak for all close neighbors. And I think the main takeaway would be to perhaps send this back to a drawing board where neighbors and the applicant work collaboratively together and come up with a solution that neighbors will support here. Okay. Thank you. Is that okay? Yes, thank you. A couple of things. And Tim, maybe you can take a stab at these. First, somebody had said that this is the only the second 100% commercial building in the area and it's twice the size. Do you have any statistics? I'm trying to look at these maps like how does this compare to me? What I struggle I'm struggling with here is lining up with the criteria for rezoning is the scale of this. I'm trying to get a feel for what is the scale of this compared to what is existing? Sure, I know the applicant has studied the surrounding buildings in greater detail. I have looked more at parcel sizes. Okay. Not as much of actual square footage. So before you leave, then, from a personal standpoint, the the parcel that's proposed, is it how does it line up in comparison? I mean, on the map that I'm looking at here on slide eight, it looks considerably bigger than the adjacent, um, x2x is it is that two times is that a one point? How much bigger is that than the directly adjacent you x2x. So there are a variety of parcels and some of the buildings fronting 32nd Avenue are comprised of many small parcels, and then some are on larger sized parcels. But I don't know if you see this graphic on your screen. Now, this is just a actually a supplemental slide, as I anticipated some questions related to parcel size. I've labeled select parcels at the corner of Lowell and 32nd Avenue all the way to Speer. You can see a range of 0.29, all the way up to .95 acres. But some of these parcels, which are even smaller, have wall to wall building on the sides. And so it's hard to gauge. Collectively what the ratio of. Building to and that's 0.95 is the strip mall. Is that correct? That. Yes, the part shop it whatever it may be. Sorry, strip mall. Not the appropriate terminology. I apologize. I didn't mean to offend. Okay. And then somebody from the applicants I'd want to talk to square for the square footage versus the person size. I'm sorry, what was the question? So from a personal standpoint, I'm trying to get the scale of this as as it fits into or doesn't fit into the neighborhood. So have you looked at the scale of other 100% commercial buildings or other buildings built in the X to X that are nearby? We have looked at the buildings, not at the parcels. Right. So Tim answered my partial questions. Now you're on for building. Yeah. So I think in your packet, or at least in the one that I handed out comparing the the 22,000 square foot, 23,000 square foot building to the building adjacent, the depth of the building and the height of the building are, it seems to me, relatively close. The square footage of this building is bigger compared to that. To what scale? Bigger. It's 10%. Bigger, it's 20%. I don't I haven't done that calculation. It'd be hard for me to answer that, but I could you could compare it to the Mondo Venus site, which is at 32nd. And Lowell, I did do that. And you have that information in front of you where those both in terms of square footage and street frontage, they're almost identical . Those two. Buildings. Okay. Okay. Back to Tim for a second. So, you know, we've seen lots of maps and they know that we're considering zoning and not a specific development plan. So without getting into the specifics of, I guess, what this will be. Can you explain to me because we've seen lots of different drawings on this parcel as. You know, Councilman Espinosa asked a question and it is confusing to me to see additional parking lots attributed in some of these images to it, because it looks like we're looking at this parcel. But then is it this parcel plus? So just this parcel in this zoning, what kind of massing could be achieved? Because the truth of the matter is we rezoning a property as possible that the church, whatever happens, life happens. They can't do it now. It's zoned. Somebody can come in. What scale of building could be built on that size lot in that with that zoning. Can you can you can you draw a picture for me of that? I'll attempt to describe in relative terms what the scale could be. Mm hmm. And it could be a building built right up to the property line on the front and the sides to maximize the. The width and the configuration of that parcel, but then the depth and then of course, the maximum height. Two stories. But the depth of that building would be a formula based on the proposed use, whether it be restaurant office, residential, that there are specific parking standards in the um's two zone district that would. State the required minimum parking, which would then have to be provided on that site or and I'll just acknowledge that with an adjacent church parking lot, there is potential for offsite or shared parking in the Denver zoning code. So right now, it's it's a formula that development services would have to approve that is not known for certainty at this time. So so I'm unfamiliar with the offsite parking and how it plays in, let's say, offsite parking with the church parking lot. But then whatever is developed here is, is a separate ownership, separate parcel. It is now has a different owner from the church. The church leaves and says No more shared parking. What happens then? Then they would lose that parking and title. They would have a building that isn't parked because there was an agreement between two property owners. Yeah. That's correct. It's based on agreement between property owners. Again, outside of these applicants, this zone district, this lot size, could you build subterranean parking and build literally a building over the entire mass of the of the parcel at two stories. The that allowed. Would not prevent or disallow underground so. The biggest but building size then could you go edge to edge on the parcel if you manage to park it to use but either offsite or underneath. I suppose hypothetically you could build underground parking if it were cost feasible and. Right. Not seen that with a two storey product. So here, I don't know. Again, it's hard because we keep being told, hey, we're not looking at a development thing. So I'm trying to look at what could be built here because it's not part of a development plan. Yeah. And so juggling that. So I'm just trying to get a feel for what could be done most probable. And I think what development services would encourage would be. The. Some onsite parking to meet parking requirement minimums, and then any supplemental parking or extra parking desired above the parking minimum might be explored off site that that could be part of what's explored through development services. I would expect building and surface parking in a two story development, but that's just a possibility. Okay, sorry. I'll try and wrap up here. Last question. Paul Haake again. So again, what I'm trying to get at is, is what what is the scale of this? And does that scale is that fit with the neighborhood and with with with the criteria? Again, there are lots of drawings showing, you know, hey, if we tear down this building and a building that's not on this parcel, then it adds up. It shows extra parking spots. So now I know we're not talking specifically about it, but we're talking specifically about it. So what what. What is the it feels a little bit like we've there's been a lot of concern, it sounds like, along the way, I think the applicant side has said with the parcel size in the parcel size has shrunk in terms of what's being resolved. But I also look at page three and it looks like it hasn't shrunk because the two adjacent parcels are both owned by the same person. So can you talk to me a little bit about what what is being designed? And is it really being designed to fit on the parcel that's being resolved? Or is it really still being thought of as a contiguous piece of property that is co-owned and under two parcels? It's being thought of as one parcel, a main street development, two stories with full frontage on 32nd Avenue. The only change when you add the other parcel is to get the parking count up to three parking spaces per thousand. That's the only real difference with the. Except I should correct myself. It goes from 17 five to the 23,000 because that's how you balance out the three parking spaces per thousand and the building. So I guess maybe to be more succinct, if you take out anything that is not on the parcel that is zoned, the rest gets bought by somebody else. Could you build this 17 five and park it according to use, or is the only way that you can do that's what you can do on this parcel. But if to get to 22,000, you need the additional parking. In my understanding, not correct. I think you're interesting that correct. The first. The 17 five is what by right self-parking you could do on that site. That's what would make in my estimation. That's the point of departure for a really good urban building. The additional parking is to the additional site is to provide additional parking to get the count up to 3 to 1000. And also allows for. A lot. It allows you to build an add on about 12 feet to the building in order to get to balance out the parking and the square footage. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Clerk, Councilwoman Ortega. This is along the same lines of questioning that I had. And I've got a couple of questions. First for so for the folks from the church. So is it your intention to own the medical building? If someone can address that? So you will continue the church will continue to own all of the land, regardless of the fact that we're being asked to rezone the parcel where the new building would be built. Yes, the church will be. A partner with the developer. Because a developer knows how to build buildings. We don't know how to build buildings. But we will continue to own the property. And the plan is to ultimately buy the developer out after about a ten year period. Okay. And the parking would be between the new building and the church or the school. Right. Essentially where the school playground is today. Yes. And the school would be take school would be taken down. We have no need for it now, since we have no school. So we're we have a high heating bill right now is what we have. So that adds to where you're able to do more parking by taking the school down, is that correct? Yes. And that's part of the parking that would be shared between the two. If we had shared parking, we would, as Paul is just talking about, with the 17,500 square foot building they required, parking per zoning would be on the zone lot and any supplemental parking would be on the adjacent. A call to school lot. So, Tim, I need your help here for a minute in understanding when we have. Parking requirements for the church. I'm assuming the taking down in the school gets factored in to what the current requirements are for parking for the church in the school. Correct. I mean, there have to be certain parking requirements for that site today. You know, that. Church, the standard, I believe, for parking for the church, for a religious assembly would be two spaces per thousand. And I think it's an 8000 square foot church. I believe so. There could be excess parking that is on the immense parcel after the church, after the the unused school buildings are demolished that if they have excess parking , then that could be devoted to another off site project. So I guess what I'm. Struggling with is we have parking requirements for an existing structure, which is the church and the school. The building has not yet been demolished. The school building. So. How do we. Factory and parking for a new building when the current structure, regardless of whether it's fully occupied or not, it has these requirements . So how do we then blend those two? It's a good question because currently there cannot be approval of a site plan until steps are taken to further establish what the end use is on the main site and their parking and meeting their parking requirements. Then development services would look to see if they have excess parking or what a proposed shared parking agreement. So it's subject entirely to their review and approval. And this is just conceptual at this point as to what could take place under the provisions of the code, the parking chapter in particular. So I see one of the challenges that we're experiencing with more and more of these earnings that are coming forward is the fact that we this body don't have anything to do with the the set criteria on how many parking spaces will be required, what the total square footage size of the footprint of the building will be on the site. We disapprove the zoning and then CPD goes and works through the details. And so residents are looking for a little bit more security or detail in the zone application, but those are details that we no longer see after the 2010 zoning changes occurred. And so it makes it a little more I don't know if people are looking for us to to insert more details, but that's not what we do under the current zoning code as it as it currently reads. And so that is a a tough place that that puts us in trying to address and and speak to the the point that residents want to see addressed in these projects, where you're looking for some balance to the developments that are being brought before this body. So I want to ask David Broadwell a question about. Where it is in the zoning code that we. Split. A site where we can then change the zoning. I mean, is this just available to any property owner where they can split the site? Is it isolated to certain sized parcels where that can be done so that you can look at more than one development on a site? I know we started this conversation about accessory dwelling units on on residential properties. So help me understand just that piece. David Broadwell, assistant city attorney there. There is no limitation in the zoning code for taking a larger parcel and dividing into two and zoning only a portion of the parcel. There are certain limitations on the size of the Rees owned area that apply very in very detailed ways to very specific kinds of zoning. But essentially you're creating a separately defined zone lot with a different zoning category and that that's basically doable. I mean, it wouldn't have gotten this far unless it were doable. And there's nothing in the zoning code that prevents it. And thus thus you end up with common ownership. But on one end of the block it's its own one thing, on the other end of the block, it's on something else. Yeah, but they're not always under the same ownership in some of these cases where we're splitting. So I'm just saying there's no rule against adjacent differently zoned properties being in common ownership. I think the issue is ensuring that where we are allowing shared parking, that we're ensuring that each you know, the existing. Building structure and the new are not competing for the exact same spaces that there's adequate parking to address the needs for both both uses. It's for me. I would just further address your question. Go ahead. Okay. So I have not been in a position to provide a hypothetical build out of what I think the range of square footage might be. But the applicant has chosen to bring that information, although it's outside the review criteria, to at least provide a range of potential of what they're interested in exploring with development services. And so I think they've been as transparent and forthright as possible with that information that we have a sense in this room, despite it being outside the rezoning criteria, what the potential yield is in a low to high range. Subject to development services review and approval. Right. Right. And I've heard those figures talked about and, you know, it has been sort of within a range. So it's not it won't be clear until they go before CPD and have a clear, um, site development plan that's approved that defines what those exact square footage and parking requirements are. Okay. I think that's it with my question. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. Tim, I was wondering if you have any familiarity of the history of the zoning north of 32nd Avenue in terms of the Denver bred company. I can tell you that although it is currently zoned. Let's look at the zoning U.S. way. A one. In one. There is a provision in the code which allows for recognizes the historic nonresidential buildings in Denver as. The UMC or UMC to ex uses would apply to those buildings. And so that's certainly the case for that property. Even more specifically than that. Do you have any knowledge of a conversation in the department over the last five years about the fact that that property was owned in error to usou that in fact it was just an oversight in the city by zoning? I do not familiar with OC. Been asked to rezone that as a sponsor at one point because it was zoned an error. It has continuously been the bread company, as Councilman Espinosa said for 20 years. So. So there is some history there with that site. And Usou is. Was. Probably not an accurate zoning at the time that it was applied. So anyway, the second question I have, a number of folks have mentioned the St Dominic's rezoning. I don't know if any of those folks are still here, but are any of any of the folks or any of you familiar with the parcel size that was involved in that discussion? Okay. No worries. I can look it up. Thank you. I'll reserve the rest for comments. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Keys. Councilman, you. Just had a quick question about the mediation and the confidentiality agreement. Which party did did one particular party insist on a confidentiality agreement? The truth is, is that I feel like I can't answer that question because that would probably be breaking the confidentiality and. Sorry. No, I don't think you could get away with it. I think I want to go asking. Details about what was discussed or anything. But I'm just I find it so unusual, especially with say no breaks, how successful that was and how excited we were and approved it unanimously. And I was so excited to hear that you all had a mediation and all of a sudden I heard that there was this confidentiality agreement. Then it all fell apart. But I just wanted to know, was there one party that insisted on that? Part. Maybe you could answer the question. Maybe I just. Yeah. Once you get it. You want to tell him, like. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yeah, I mean. I also am hesitant to say I mean, we we we entered into the confidentiality to allow the parties, the freedom to say anything to each other and not feel like anybody was going to be spun afterwards based on what was said in that room. Okay. So. So you can say yes to a legitimate exercise? Well, I think the confidentiality agreement was important because it did allow us to have a full and frank discussion. Okay. Thank you very much. I apologize. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Brooks just passed me now. So in 2015, 16% of the submissions, rezoning submissions were approved, 84% were denied. So Councilman Brooks asked and I would say that. So I did. Councilman Kenny Tribeca. Yeah, I just wanted to chime in and my colleagues should have used Steve Charbonneau in the past, should correct me. But in my experience, Steve Charbonneau as the mediator, insists on the confidentiality. It's usually his idea. So it's my experience that generally comes from our mediator. I don't know if any other council members have had different experiences, but that has been my experience when I have asked for his services. All right, thanks for the clarification. Thank you. Counsel National's Rebecca. All right. Personally. So I'll take Councilman Brooks this question and it was on your slide committed areas. This was sort of I think you said it was a reinvestment area in a committed area, but committed area are committed areas are stable neighborhoods that may benefit from stabilizing the effects of minor infill development rather than large scale large redevelopment. Major redevelopment, for example, reinvestment in the Wash Park neighborhood is not necessarily necessary to improve its character. And then so in reinvestment areas, examples of challenges include concern about deteriorated or poorly maintained housing stock, inappropriate land uses or inadequate buffering between uses, lack of services such as grocery stores, lack of curbs and gutters and other infrastructure , and maintaining affordable housing opportunities for improvement can also vary widely. Examples include redeeming vacant land for a neighborhood park or redeveloping underutilized land to provide needed neighborhood services. So and I'm saying that because Blueprint Denver defines these two types of areas of stability, the committed areas and the area, the reinvestment areas. And just so you know, this is the map of Denver. So the yellow is the area of stability. It's huge. And so it does capture a lot of a lot of our stable neighborhoods. But some of our stable neighborhoods are in decline and some of them are not. This is not one that is in decline. We have a vacant parcel that could be a lot of things in a use by right as use zone district. And if you don't think it can get developed, I got one in my district right now. It's a block. It's six houses. You know that. And. And this is happening. So. But my questions to send now. So this is not about. Whatever you guys talked about, because this has been a three year long process. And to correct the record, it was stated that Cinder has been on for a year. She was at the first meeting that I witnessed, which was in May of 2014. No, Councilman, I was I was went under contract on December 29th, 2014 and began work January. Yeah. Okay. So you might have been in a contract, but you were. As I said. Councilman, I wasn't there. Okay. So obviously I really wasn't. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Yeah. But I do want to say that you did take my comment out of context with regard to where the where the appropriate break is, because there were several other recommendations at that time. And I also was not the councilman at the time. It was councilman elect. Oh, you're talking may and May of 2015. Yes. Yes. That meeting I was that. So. So what? In all the research that you've done, what are the key concerns for the neighbors? Well, in my experience, because we have gone through a lot, it's sort of been this evolving situation. So give me five. I'm going to answer your question. So our experience has been that a concern will come up and we'll do our best to address it first. What is the. Key? Give me five. We've done this before and are in this room. I just want five words. Give me the five key. I would like to speak to our experience of continuously addressing concerns and then having something new evolve. And so I thank you. No further questions. Councilman Flynn, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. Gentleman from the church grieving. All who went to the school. Is he still here? Oh, hi. There you are, right in front of me. Has in your experience, has the lot there, the parking lot on Thursday. I'm over here to your right. Oh. Right. Has the lot there? Always, always been vacant. I'm looking at the Sanborn map from 1933. Has that always been a vacant lot other than that office, little office building? As far back. As I can remember, it has been a vacant lot ever since I was there. Okay, so there's never a prior to that though. I do know there was housing in that area. On this property. I think you are on this property across the street. It was. I know for sure. Okay. Okay. And. The. Let me ask somebody, I don't know, maybe from and from the neighborhood or is Randy here still? I. The school building that is on there is about 16,300 square feet. And if that is demolished and replaced with this medical building, it'd be about 23,000 square feet on a lot that's been vacant at least since the Sanborn map here in 1933. I'm really struggling with this. I've been up to the site three times. And I want to understand from the West Highland perspective, why do you consider this to be so out of character when it's been a vacant lot for probably about 100 years and a 16,000 square foot building will be replaced with a 23,000 square foot building . Why is that such a radical change in character? Are you asking me why the developing this lot is a change of character? Yes. The school is on the same lot. It's just farther south. The school is on the lot defined by the church and defined by the city. Right. And that is, as far as the neighborhood was concerned, was part of the church. What you're asking is about the portion that fronts 32nd Avenue, which potentially would be twice the size of the nearest closest precedent building that they're citing, which is the taco building next door. And this, if you notice, the one slide where it showed this island here is significantly to the east of the neighborhood city center. And which one are you looking at? I'm sorry. Tim. Where's the slide that shows? The. The whole neighborhood. Is this a good one? No, I want to see 30 seconds also. Oh. And clicking and arriving. Here we go. Thank you. So this this is an anomaly. This island is an anomaly that we're adding to by adding this US USB max two to it. Whereas the center of our neighborhood commercial area is is not here, it is to the west at 32nd and low. And so by adding to what has been an anomaly, we are reinforcing that anomaly, which then over time will give precedent for other building along 32nd Avenue. Who knows? Maybe down spear. Who knows? Maybe down Irving. In other words, to close the gap between Julianne and Irving and with commercial rather than the current resident. That's right. That's right. Okay. I was just trying to understand. Sure. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilor Flynn, Council National's Rebecca. Try one more time, but I'm going to go with more of a straight shooter. Neal, can you answer that question? Can somebody. What is the question? What are the key concerns for the neighbors? Like, you know, if if we were just talking about, hey, you want two things, the key. Concerns of the neighbors is change. No. I mean, what were they asked? Like, what were they going saying? Hey, how can we make this work? I wasn't part of the mediation? No. Just in two. Years, we had several meetings for 200 footers. We went to, I think a dozen, y'know, meetings at least. And it was a, it was a moving target. They would bring up an issue and we'd say or get you some answers and we would have our development team meeting and we'd try and address that. And they'd say, That's nice. You know, we have a new issue for you. It was it was a shell game that we that we struggled with. And and no matter what answer we gave in, no matter how much and how much we conceded. We couldn't we couldn't find common ground to make them happy. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Europe. Thank you, Mr. President. Maybe this would make it easier. Maybe one of the neighbors come up and answer that question. What are your five key concerns about this? Thanks. So am I obliged to come up with five? Only if there are five. The key concerns with this are the fact that it's a dramatic zoning from very restrictive residential that was just put in place five years ago by this body. After a lot of consideration and a lot of input from the neighborhood. And we're going to a much more significant up zoning commercial, less restrictive zoning. The size of the building that they're going to build on there or our capable building on there. Under the proposed up zoning. And by the way, I just would like everybody to know that the two numbers you've heard tonight, 17,000 523,500 square feet. That is the first time that we have heard that. Prior to tonight, we'd only heard 26 to 28000 square feet. So that speaks to their outreach as well. But so I would say dramatic up zoning going from restrictive residential zoning to much less restrictive commercial. A two storey building that will be. At 23,500 square feet. I've done the math. I've looked at the pinch tacos building, and I apologize for saying that incorrectly, but it's approximately twice the size at 23,500. So it's only the second 100% commercial building in our neighborhood. And it doubles the size of the only existing 100% commercial building that we have in our neighborhood. Parking and traffic are huge issues. You heard me talk about it. You heard many people talk about it. You've heard about their traffic study, which somehow concluded that the building of a 23,500 square foot building in a place where there is no current building, is not going to have any impact on on on the traffic in our neighborhood or maybe even decrease it. That's obviously incorrect. And that's another very major concern of the neighborhood. Let me just turn to my neighbors and see if I missed anything. I think that was four. So if there's one. So I get one more. Now. Mr.. Mr.. Brady, if you to speak, you can feel free to. Harry Brick I live about a block and a half. All the comparative buildings that were mentioned by the architect. I have multiple small stores in them. You know, Pincher Taco has at least three or four organizations in it. Mondo Vino has several. So it's not only larger, but it's out of character with the other kind of smaller commercial establishments. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other comment on some of the statements. On that question? I would I would prefer we. Do you think question period just took an hour probably longer for comments. Oh, Councilman Clark, you got a question? Just a quick follow up to that. You said you'd never seen the 17,500. Again, I'm really struggling with the scale here. So is that a scale that had you seen before is more palatable? At what level does the scale fit? So what I what I tried to convey was that's the first time that we ever heard that number here tonight. Yes, I know. Part of it I'm less concerned about the process. I think we've heard complaints on both sides. What I'm trying to get at is, does this fit with the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood? What is the scale that does fit? Well, to give you a comparator, looking at the Denver real property records, my understanding is that the taco's building is in the neighborhood. It's approximately 11,000 square feet. So this would be a very significant increase over that. I, I, I personally still think it's 17,000 square feet. It's still way out of context. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Espinosa. Well, you in a way. All right. Any other questions? Thank you. Public hearing is now closed. We'll move into comment and it's midnight. So, colleagues, if you each talk for 5 minutes, we'll be here for over an hour. All right, Councilman Espinosa, you're up. So I wanted to be the example that I use because you were talking about scale building is that and I don't know that everyone has this reference point, but we created this, um, ask to zone district for a very particular need. When we were remapping the city, we had these little small embedded business districts like the lush parks and similar little coffee shops where you had a business use. Not unlike the bread company, actually, where you go, okay, I've got a commercial use in a neighbor in a predominately sub zone district. So we created this little, this little carve out to X and that's key and that's a big difference between two. And so that's sort of why they're sort of articulating and finessing this in a way that says, well, it is the least intensive commercial zone district that we have, but it also is the most restrictive residential zone district that we have that's surrounding what is being proposed. But this is not a wash. It is not a you don't get a 20 to 17000, 22,000, 26,000 square foot coffee shop. That is a different that's a different thing. And so I get what you're saying now, and I wish somebody had sort of articulated all along, because in my own sense, you know, when we show pictures of 32nd and law, we see that granularity, that pattern, that cadence. And while you can do it architecturally is a single use. I mean, it's going to be alive at a certain time and it's going to be not alive at a certain time. And yeah, you're capturing that for the church. Maybe we didn't answer the question about whether and I forgot to ask that question is can you do surface parking in a useful way? Pretty sure you can't. Maybe there's a carve out for churches because there's a lot of little nuances there. But then can you do it in the church? That's a whole ball of wax, but it comes down to the scale, scale, scale, scale. And that's where the that's where the concern lied in planning board because our blueprint Denver is we don't have a small area plan for Walsh Park I mean for I'm sorry sorry West Highland so we don't have a small area plan for West Highlands. So we have to rely on the on conformity with Blueprint Denver and Blueprint Denver is very, very clear that this is in an area stability when you that the idea is that you're trying to redirect growth. The reason why we have there is stability in areas of change. You're trying to direct area growth to the areas of change so that areas that will benefit from the infusion in activity, we're sort of going and stretching the truth. I mean, not the truth is sort of stretching reality to say that this is an area that exhibiting change when the only thing that's new besides some new housing is the taco building. If you look at there's a lot of new businesses, no doubt, but they're utilizing existing strip malls. You know, there's a lot of new 20 year leases on that sucker. What can go there is even bigger than this. And we're dealing with the car wash up on 38. That is that same zone district. Can you imagine? That's what that's it. But that sort of illustrates the disconnect when we're talking about zoning versus intent, because there's really great intent statements in the front of each chapter of the zoning code, but it doesn't tell you that on 38th Avenue you can if you have an MZ three, it's acceptable to have a single storey long one car, mean garage, mean tunnel carwash that's going to service 350 to 800 cars day. We're not talking about that here, but we are talking about entitlement that can capture what we've shown, probably can capture something bigger, probably can capture a lot of things smaller. Absolutely. But we don't have a project. And when you're interjecting this scale of development in an area of stability in this one, I didn't I spoke to on that map. Is the largest single contiguous area of stability in District one. My district is this is right smack in the middle of it, you know, and and it's what makes that area desirable. And so one of the concerns that we have when we're talking about character is your form base code might map the right sort of volume, but what everyone's distressed and it's part of why I'm sitting here today is because. Are you spy, right? I mean, what was allowed in the U.S. spy right in our zone districts is very, very different in material durability. And a lot of the things that Blueprint Denver talks about as desirable in our areas of stability. And so one way to capture that and we have it in our zoning code, we have the way to do it in our zoning code is any of the customized zoning. And I understand that the applicant was turned away when they requested that, and that's unfortunate. But to go to a blanket zone district of this size and scale a US-EU A is a 3000 square foot parcel. That is that is a fraction, a tiny fraction of the size of this parcel, even in the reduced form. And we won't know what planning board even says about this reduced form because because it didn't go back to planning board. That said, I've always maintained that there's probably a way to to to insert something of this scale, but it's got to be done right. You're right next to the most historic district in a blanket rezoning. As much as we'd love to say as members of council that mean as a as a city, that it's a lot easier for us to just give you a blanket rezoning. There are conditions. You've got the historic structure across the street that we know is a nonconforming mean a an allowance. Maybe we should be looking at a legislative zone, not unlike Saint Dominic's, which was a campus. And I believe there is an acreage requirement. You may know what the campus rezoning requirement was, but it was I think it was I mean, it was clearly bigger than this. But we look at doing the entire church and and we and we capture the spot across the street. And you know what, Neal, you know, you commented that if this doesn't go through tonight, that you guys are going to be blacked out and you can't do anything for a year. And that's true. But I want to work with you. And I don't have any I don't harbor any of the animus that you may feel that that's out there. And as a as a as the representative of that district, I can legislative resolve this and I would be happy to go that. So if this doesn't pass, I'll be the first one to say, let's talk about how we can make something work, work for you and work for me because you have been there for 109 years and the next hundred and nine years can be even better. But we have to start from a better place than we did this time. And I believe we can do it because that's what happened on Saint Dominic's. It was contentious at Planning Board and I went out in that corridor and it brought both sides together and said, I think we're closer than we are further apart. And while it seems like we're really far apart because I've observed this and I've gotten all the emails, I see a lot of of where we can overlap and mesh. And, and so I'm committed to doing that if it doesn't go through. But I also don't know where it's going to go. So thank you, guys. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to mention a couple of factors that I think are important in making my decision tonight. The first is I really do think that input is is important and can can help projects make make a better outcome. I do think the St Dominic's is an important comparison. However, the bigger the site, the more room there is to come up with new and creative ideas just for my colleagues on council. This site is 0.5 acres. The Dominic St Dominic site that was resolved in December was 1.7 acres is more than three times as large as the site. 25 acres is, to give you a sense, is the size of a single family residential lot in Douglas County. All right. So we are not talking about a gigantic parcel of land and it's one third. So when you think about how many scenarios could the neighborhood have come up with with this developer, it's significantly fewer than might have occurred on a site that was three times larger. So I just wanted to give that perspective. The second thing that I think is really important is regardless of, you know, the and and I and I will I asserted earlier, but in the question periods, I was cheating. But it is it is very clear that the Denver Bread Company was was erroneously zoned usou. It had been a commercial property. It should have been zoned commercial predecessors and CPD acknowledged it and, you know, put it on a list of errors. And so regardless of that error, every direction that you look from this property is commercial, left, forward, right, it's commercial. And so that is a significant context point to the criteria. The next thing that I think is really important is this criteria about when we had this discussion about sort of stability. This is, you know, my experience with West Highland is that there's an important respect for historic properties and for character. And I think one of the things that I have engaged with the community successfully on previously with this sort of properties is the idea that if you don't allow a historic property to evolve, you, sometimes you can kill it, right? So if Union Station, for example, if we had insisted that Union Station must only continue to be a train station. Right. That wouldn't have been an economically viable use. And so one of the things that I'm very proud of, this community, the city of Denver, is we acknowledge that to for the train station to live on, we had to allow it to evolve. I have seen so many churches lost in Denver. Right. I voted to preserve Beth Eden. Right. And that was the one that we've saved. But we have a rezoning with a church happening. And I believe it's the hilltop neighborhood. A changing circumstance your side didn't mention is declining church membership. That is a justifying circumstance in this city. If we do not allow some adaptation around these churches, they will die. They are dying. And that is something that I don't want to see happen. And so facing that idea and Tim, you said this, that sometimes allowing a small amount of change is actually necessary for maintaining the greater stability. Absolutely applies in this case. And I just don't think anyone can argue with me that this is a citywide phenomenon. And if I say no to any change around churches and then say I will be in, I know exactly the scripture in which is the church goes out of business. They put it on this, you know, historic status application for the church. The neighborhood will file an application for historic designation. Right. I mean, it's a script we've seen play out in this council. So that for me is an important criteria for the zoning justifying circumstance in addition to those that you stated. Lastly, and this is kind of just for us as a body. I have heard us many times, including the prior council, not just this council, but especially in the last six months, say that we want to hear more about projects when we see zoning. We don't want to just hear, Hey, here's the land use. We want to hear what a project is. We have an applicant before us who has a signed resolution telling us the maximum building size they're going to do. They've shared with us publicly their letter of intent and who it's with and what that Lutheran Medical Services does. Medical care. They have shared more with us than any other applicant. And these are the kinds of things I have heard my colleagues ask for week after week after week. So now we have an applicant who's sharing with us. And for me, the only premise to then vote against the project is the assumption that the church is lying to us, that in fact they will build a building bigger than 23,000 square feet in spite, or that they won't really do medical service, that they'll do some other thing. It stretches my credulity to believe that a church would lie in that way. Now does everything, you know, they have admitted they don't know about the shared parking and they've been honest about that. But I just we if we can't have it both ways, we cannot say, I don't like this generalized land use. I want to hear more about projects and then have applicants come in and tell us exactly the parameters of their project and say, not good enough. We don't like that. We can't trust that. We really, as a body need to decide either we are comfortable with generalized land use or if we ask about projects and people tell us about it, that that matters to us. And so I don't know how this vote will turn out today, but I hope that regardless, we will really ponder our expectations because I think we are sending mixed messages. If we penalize applicants who have shared very detailed parameters of what they want to do, and then we say that's not good enough because it's not binding, because there's not a PWD that guarantees that. I mean, to me, that is a real serious concern about the kind of expectations were placing on the people who come before us. With that, I want to thank everyone for their testimony, both sides. I hope that if you succeed, you will consult this neighborhood on design, as painful as it may be. And clearly some healing may need to occur. But I hope you will do that. And if this zoning fails, I hope that, you know that the collaboration that Councilman Espinosa believes is so possible will occur. I don't have any confidence in that. But but I, I think that regardless of how this turns out tonight, there's work to do. So I hope folks will keep doing it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each councilman, you have more? Yeah, actually, thanks for the vote of no confidence there. Now, I am. I'm committed because I've I've seen further parties, parties further apart than what I've seen here. And there's some weirdness here. But get come together and there's a real, real, real there's an undeniable good opportunity here. And and that was reflected in the Weiner vote, right. They had those four votes and it really didn't even come up here. But the overwhelming support was one that was a redevelopment proposal with input. That's what's missing here is this. And nothing illustrated it more than talking to two members of the of the team that's doing this not be able to answer what the what what the community wants most. You know somebody is not listening in this in this dialog and that's key. That's key. But I shouldn't be telling that to a church because you guys, you know, you know all about that. But it would the there is parallel to the St Dominic's and because this is a half acre, but it's a third of the site. So what happened at St Dominic's is we were doing a priory, a very, very small project on a portion of the property. But in order to justify the zoning, we had to capture a whole bunch of area that we didn't that weren't even part of the project. So we could do that here because then it forces us to think about the entirety of it. And so but the thing there is, again, where what's missing here is we have that what was the what was the tool that it's not a proclamation that the thing that your board voted on. The. Resolution we have the resolution that sets the resolution of your members. And there's a huge disconnect because it's not with your neighbors. And that's that's exactly the point where we were with Saint Dominic's. The opposition came from those people that were directly impacted by the development in the compromise was reached with those people that were directly impacted by the development. They didn't just get insular and say, we're going to focus on what we will agree to, but let's come up with a solution that we both agree to. And so so those two things matter, which is it was a smaller project in a bigger context. This is a small portion of. Things that we're talking about, different bits and pieces to move here, there and everywhere. But. And. So I mean, so that's I've sort of talk that way to death, but I want to acknowledge the community's effort to get the two to get to the protest twice. You know, getting there once is very difficult doing it twice. And this sort of speaks to the neighborliness, right? When people put their names down on a piece of paper. I don't want you challenging them for a dot. You know, these are people. They have. They have. This is impacting their livelihood for for a long time. And gestures like that don't help. You know, the choking symbol, I mean, if that's the tenor, we're never going to get there. And that's what I heard about. And where do I see it? I don't see it from the community. I see it from the developer. And so that and that was reflected in the legal challenge to those signatures. And that's just that's not how you treat your neighbors. Love thy neighbor. If you're going to pull out the biblical verses, I'll do it, too, and do unto others. I mean, this is you guys are the big, big property in the room. This is an activity, a redevelopment of a portion. This was all open area here and across the street for years. And now it's getting redeveloped. Why can't you make some have some dialog, make some concessions? What I heard at Planning Board, even among those that voted to move it on to council, were concerned about the lack of design guidelines and standards. And we're going to work on it as a community. But we have that. You can make the concessions. We can work on design guidelines and standards and adopt those for your project moving forward. So I just I'm saying all that because I want my colleagues to know that. That this is this does fail to provide consistency with adopted plans per the criteria because it is in an intense up zoning and in an area of stability that is not intended for this intensity. And you can sort of overlook the fact that the zone map doesn't comport with what's there. But what which is it? We are we doing this on a legal basis and what the context is or are we doing it sometimes? You know, we develop and we ignore the built environment. Now all we're doing is focusing on the built environment and going and ignoring the map, the context, the zone maps. You know, we're trying to to weigh it both ways so that we can just push push along development. And people have been fearful fearing that citywide and and to to ignore the efforts of of the the residents within the 200 feet gathering those signatures and making enforcing this vote would be a severe disservice to the democratic process in an effort to sort of expedite you the additional property rights that really should merit some compromise. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me just start out by thanking the folks that come to testify. Again, we have another late night. I'll just say right off the bat that I'm pretty conflicted here. And I'm also very turned off. In all my. I've seen some pretty bad public hearings. But I haven't been at a public hearing where there's been this much snickering back and forth and also on council. And it. You know, I think that when we look at an application, we got to look at look at it objectively as we can. And to really take a look at it on its merits. This has been in the queue since about September, since we knew about it. But coming up to the microphone and saying, oh, they're lying. They're lying. He she said she said it just. I feel like I'm channeling Councilman Brown here. It just it just feels like there's a lot of hair pulling going on. I don't like it. I don't like it in the chambers. I don't like it on the dais. And it's turning me off to the point where I don't know where I want to vote. I know that for a fact. This church isn't going to go away. Right? It's not going to go away. You can shrug your shoulders. I've seen this church my whole life. It's sat next to an empty lot. And it hasn't gone away. Develop or not. I believe the church is going to be there. This this hearing is not about whether the church is leaving or not. Right. The other thing is that I don't know if residential is the right fit here. I think you look at it. And all around U.S. commercial. On the strip. It's on 32nd Avenue in between a car wash across from a taco shop and across from a bread company. And down the way what used to be American Apparel, which was a little bit more of an industrial use before. So I don't know about that argument. The matter of fact, was in this room, a lot of the folks who testified in favor of it were not residents. Yes. They are congregation members. Not very many residents. So that that's that that's a that's a big one for me. Finally, I, you know, I, I know that there's been them going back and talk about developer this and developer that, but this, this applicant as a member of the community. It's not like some, you know, big corporation or LLC is coming in and saying, We want to do this in the middle of your pretty little neighborhood. Right. And, you know, I so I'm conflicted. And I could tell you what, you know, looking at the facts, there's a conflict here. But the one thing I could I could say is that and colleagues and forgive me, I'm not trying to point fingers or anything or suggesting it's just I don't like the snickering back and forth and I especially don't like it on the dais. That. You know, I think we have some work to do in terms of how we handle the quorum in our chambers, because this is a matter of respect. These walls have been here for a very long time. And you know, I'm not staying up till 230 at night to hear to hear that or to see hair pulling. So. Anyway. I am absolutely conflicted with this application. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to thank everyone for your emails and letters and those of you who have sat through the long evening now into the morning hours and sharing your input on all sides. I've looked at this very carefully and listened to the input from everyone. And. I think that the proposal that is on the table. For the building that has been identified and articulated by the applicant is a reasonable request. I understand the concern that neighbors would like to see residential there, but I think the scale of what you can get as residential on this site could be far more impactful to the adjacent residential property owners than would be what this this site would do. This is not a 24 seven operation where you're going to have traffic coming and going all night like some of the other commercial uses that do exist on 32nd Avenue. And I, I appreciate the fact that the church has struggled trying to figure out how to. You know how to do something that keeps the church in the presence there, that allows them to continue to serve the community in many different ways. But at the same time looks at something that could benefit the community and this type of use. We're seeing some of these these clinics in other parts of the city because of the need and the demand for addressing health care for for folks all over. And again, I think this is a reasonable request and I will be supporting it tonight. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, back up. Yeah, just as a point of clarification, I hope I didn't confuse any of my colleagues when I waived the residential stuff here that has that no one was talking about. I don't think residential use on the site. And in fact, the white vote was particularly towards a mixed use sort of development that did not preclude even the proposed use that is being discussed. I mean, mentioned even though so where the emphasis was was sort of having some guiding principles and in codifying as much as possible the sort of character how we're going to sort of maintain character. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right. You know the comments. 625. Seeing none. Councilmember is just a reminder that since a successful legal protest was submitted, signatures of the owners of at least 20% of the property within 200 feet of the site has been met with the petition signatures, therefore requiring ten affirmative votes instead of the standard seven to pass this bill. Madam Secretary, roll call 625. Espinosa. No. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Cashman. No. In each Lopez. I knew. No. Ortega, I. Black eye. Brooks. Clark. No. LOPEZ Oh, already hit it. ORTEGA Sir. Clarke. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please, first of any announced results. Eight eyes. Four days. Eight eyes. 26. 25 has been defeated. Seen of the business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4353 Fillmore Street in Elyria Swansea. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to U-TU-C (urban edge, single-unit to urban, two-unit), located at 4353 Fillmore Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-9-20.

DenverCityCouncil_07202020_20-0524

12 eyes. Council Bill 520 has passed. Councilman Herndon, would you please put Council Bill 524. On the floor? Yes, Madam President. I move that council bill 203524 be placed upon final iteration and two part. Thank you. It has been moved. May I get a second? I can. Councilwoman Sawyer. Thank you. The required public hearing for council bill 20 dash zero 5 to 4 is open. May we have the staff report? Yes. Good evening. Council President Gilmore, Scott Robbins with Community Planning and Development. Just give me a second here to get the presentation pulled up. All right. Sounds good. It's gone. It's not. There you. All right, Christina. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So, as you said, this is a request to rezone 4353 Fillmore Street from the SUV to you use. The property is located in Council District nine in the Elyria, Swansea neighborhood. It is just south of the intersection of Fillmore Street and 44th Avenue. The property is 6250 square feet and currently has a single unit house on it. Trust us to resign from the study which is urban edge context single unit with a 6000 square foot lot size to you to see which is urban edge context or urban context to unit with a 5500 square foot lot size and the applicant is requesting rezoning to allow for construction of a duplex. Property is surrounded by the same ESU zoning, except you can see just to the Northeast property that was recently resolved to the UTC that the applicant requested. Here you can see the existing land uses, mostly surrounded by single residential with a few to it and multi-unit scattered around . And then the property just to the west of the subject property is a church. Madam President, I'm sorry to interrupt, Scott. I apologize. I think your technology is working fine, but is very hard to hear you. Okay, then. Good for everyone else. So I don't know if maybe the mic can come a little closer. Maybe speak up. I know you have a soft voice, even on a irregular platform, so a little louder, please. Okay. I will try to speak louder. Sorry about that, Scott. So you can see the subject property in the bottom right photo there and then some of the surrounding properties as well. The you too, you see would allow a single unit and two unit residential uses in urban house duplex and tandem house building forms. As I said, the 5500 square foot lot size and then the two and a half storeys, 30 foot maximum height and the 37.5% maximum building coverage are the same between the two you see in the existing. This went to a planning board on June 30th, received a unanimous recommendation of approval went to Moody on in. A few weeks ago. You have in your packet three letters of opposition that are concerned about the impacts the size of a new building on the property. And that also raised some concerns about the public notice, which I addressed at Moody and then in a follow up email. So you have all that information in the packet as well. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three adopted plans that apply to this property. The first is Comprehensive Plan 2040, which is organized by Vision Element under the strong and authentic neighborhoods. Vision Element Status found the proposed rezoning consistent with these two strategies relating to offering a variety of housing types and providing appropriate infill development relating to the equitable, affordable and inclusive vision elements that has found the proposed rezoning consistent with the strategy about providing additional housing options in neighborhoods for individuals and families. And relating to the environmentally resilient provision element staff has found proposed rezoning consistent with this strategy relating to infill where services are already in place. So staff finds the recovery zone inconsistent with comprehensive plan 2040. The second plan is Blueprint Denver from 2019. Staff has found a boat or the property is designated urban never in context, which is consistent with the proposed U.S. zone district context. The future place designation for the property is low residential, which calls for predominantly single and two unit residential on smaller lots consistent with the proposed UTC. Fillmore Street is a local street which is again appropriate for the scale of the proposed development. Blueprint provides additional guidance on when it is appropriate to. Down to two units in a single unit saying that it is appropriate if the intent is to set a new pattern as expressed by an adopted small area plan, which is the case in the situation for the Illyria Swansea, a neighborhood plan which I'll get to in just a minute. And then also provides guidance on when to change or when it's appropriate to change the lot sizes saying when there is an established pattern in the surrounding blocks of smaller lots. So the proposed rezoning would reduce the minimum lot size from 6000 square feet to 5500 square feet. Staff has done an analysis of the lot sizes in the area and found that they range from much smaller than 5500 square feet to much larger than 6000 square feet with everything in between and a lot of them in that sort of 5500 square foot range so that the coast lot size of 2500 square feet would be appropriate. The growth area strategy for this property is all other areas of the city intended to accommodate 10% of new jobs and 20% of new housing in the city over the next 20 years. That's fine and consistent with Blueprint Denver. The third plan is the Elyria and Swansea Neighborhoods plans, as I mentioned. The this property is designated single family duplex in the land use map. And that plan, which calls for a mixture of housing types, including single family duplex rowhouses and small apartment buildings, intended to provide a broad range of housing types and increase the options of housing types in the neighborhood. So we proposed presenting two two units as appropriate. The plan also says explicitly that when properties are rezoning, they should be brought into the urban Denver context instead of the urban edge context. So that's why the U. T u is appropriate for this project, so that staff finds the proposed rezoning consistent with all of the plans and the first criterion that. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the UTC Zone District. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adaptive plans and promoting additional housing options within the established neighborhood. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances that France's proposed rezoning would be justified by changing changing conditions in the area, putting changes in the neighborhood. There's a fair amount of construction going on in the neighborhood that has resulted in loss of housing. So replacing some of those housing units by allowing this rezoning is appropriate. And then also the adoption of the new neighborhood plan, which again calls for allowing duplexes in the urban network context here. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. Stat finds the proposed rezoning would result in development consistent with the urban neighborhood context, district description and the purpose and intent of the UTC Zone District. With that stat finds all five criteria have been met and recommends approval of the app and answer any questions. All right. Thank you, Scott. Any questions from members of council? Councilman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. I got it. Just a clarification question. I think it came up in a recent win that you brought to Ludi as well. But when a proposed rezoning changes the Blueprint Denver guidance or isn't consistent with blueprint Brendan Denver guidance because it's supported by a small area plan. Is that what you were describing here? No. In this case, the both the blueprint and the small area plan are in alignment. Blueprint provides more general guidance, saying that a single unit and unit uses are appropriate. But for that urban neighborhood context, which is the same that the area and 20 neighborhoods plan calls for, which is the urban context and says two units are appropriate. So the plans are pretty much in line here. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Scott. In the staff report, in the presentation, you said the justifying circumstance was a new neighborhood plan and I didn't see the date of Illyria Swansea neighborhood plan. Is that that that's 2015 I think. I just want to make sure that it actually is new. 2015. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sade Abarca. Thank you, Madam President. Scott there were three letters of opposition that the applicant was planning to deal with between now and our presentation in committee. Can you or the applicant speak to those concerns that were being addressed? Yeah. I can have the African. I believe the African is here. Have her speak to conversations, if she's had any, with the neighbors. Part of their concern was about the public notice. So essentially that information about public notice and we're confident that the applicant and the city have met the public notice requirements for those. And then I can let the appearance speak to other issues. The applicant's name is and tell you if we can get her quoted. Okay. We'll work on getting her promoted here. And maybe as we're doing that, staff are working on that. Councilwoman Sandoval, do you want to go ahead with your question and Councilman CdeBaca will? Well, you know, we've got the the applicant in. And so we'll go ahead and let Ms.. Kerry speak. Hello? Uh huh. Hi. Hi. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. We can hear you, and we can see you on the video. So, yes, I am. My name is Anna. Last name? Prabhu, and I'm the owner. Of the property in question. And to answer the question of Councilwoman. Yes, I. Have tried to talk to my neighbors. Two of the. Neighboring houses are tenant occupied, so I was not. I left multiple messages with tenants and I was not able to get hold of the owners. I gave my contact information and I've talked to the tenants multiple times. So did. My husband. And then the owner occupied property. That's on the left. If you're facing the house, I did talk to the roommate who lives where the owner also left the message. And the owner never did back to me. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sandoval. Madam President. The fact that. The. Question for you. No. To be implemented kind of a form now where you can get online and you can email in your letter of support or letter of opposition instead of having to email it to the planner. When you receive that, I've asked a couple planners in the city when you are receiving that, are you emailing them back, letting them know that you've confirmed this letter? And then are you also letting them know that you will let the applicant know about their letter of support or opposition? Tell me about your process with this new form based inquiry that you guys have implemented. I think you're muted if you're talking. Is that the question for Scott? Yes, it's for this question for Scott. Yes. We're working on muting Scott here. All right. Can you hear me now? Mm hmm. Yep. Okay. Sorry about that. So I'm not totally familiar with all of the details of how the system works. I believe there is an automated response when somebody fills out that form that tells them what happens with their comment. And then we do pass that information along to the applicant when we receive those letters and then pass it along, obviously, to planning board and to city council. But I am not totally familiar with what is in the automated response because. It would be interesting for me if you could send that to my office. I would like to see what that automated form is because. A couple of. I've heard from a couple of my constituents that they're not quite sure what happens and in a couple of cases they had misinformation in there. So it's just nice if life is as automated as we try to do everything, we, we, the people and we use that. We're all servants of those people and we're all servants of tax dollars. So even though we're representing the applicant for CPD, we also have to be representing the neighborhood. Right. I think this dynamic would be really interesting for me to talk about that process. Can you tell me when you started implementing that process? Again, I don't know exactly. I believe it's been in the last few months. I think it happened earlier this year. But yeah, we can absolutely. You're absolutely right. You know, we represent the city and all the constituents and so that we can actually get to that information. And it is, as you said, a fairly new system. So we are open to improving it if improvements need to be made. Great. Yeah. So if you could just follow up and get me what the automated, automated reply is and talk to me about like offline, you can just email it to me about the process that it goes through to make sure that everyone's on the same, on the same wavelength when it comes to making comments to these rezoning applications. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. And for the public record, just want to make sure that folks knew that there were no people signed up to speak this evening. And so we were able to go straight into questions from members of council. Seen no other questions from my colleagues. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 dash 0524 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman set up. I think. Oh. Councilwoman. Councilman. There. You're unmuted. I think you're muted, Councilwoman. Councilwoman CdeBaca, did you have any comments on 052 for. Okay. Councilwoman CdeBaca, if you're having trouble with your audio belt. Got it. Okay. All right. We are good. Councilwoman didn't have any questions. Seen none other. No other questions by my colleagues. Madam Secretary, roll call. The tobacco. I. Clark. All right. When I. Herndon. I. I. Cashman. I. Me. High in the. I. Sawyer. I saw as I. Black eye. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12. 12 Eyes Council Bill 524 has passed. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 538 on the floor?

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3645, 3655, 3665, 3675, 3685, 3701, 3739, 3745, 3801, 3811, 3815 West 46th Avenue in Berkeley. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-B1 (allows for accessory dwelling units), located at 3645, 3655, 3665, 3675, 3685, 3701, 3739, 3745, 3801, 3811, and 3815 West 46th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-3-21.

DenverCityCouncil_09202021_21-0855

our young children of color that are affected the most, usually by gun violence. You know, it's important to me being a brown man myself, you know, a Latino son of immigrants growing up on it, have anybody to say, hey, photography is something that you could do. Photography is something that you can make a career out of. You know, it's something that you could use as a tool to inspire other people. I didn't have that with this camera and with what we're doing, I'm seeing the impact that we're able to make. And I just think it's important for the next generation of Latinos that are are coming up to be able to document their own stories in the future, because they have to be in a museum, too. They have to be in a fine art gallery to keep preserving our culture and keep telling these stories. You know, to me, it's it doesn't get any more important than that. For more stories, check out Denver's YouTube page or tune in to Denver eight Doc TV. Hey, Denver, here's what's happening in your city now. A day at Sun Valley Kitchen in a community center begins long before the doors open to the public at dawn. Donations arrive. Meals are prepped. Anticipation builds for another busy day for Glen Harper, founder of Sun Valley, the services provided by the community center. We're always meant to be well. I moved into Jefferson Park on the north side of the stadium in 1999. I had been in this space before. I was driving home from work one night and I came to the corner of 13th and Decatur and it was in a complete blizzard. And I said to myself out loud, You should make a left and go check out that building. And I did. And it appeared to be vacant. And that's how everything started. I don't think it was by chance. Actually, I think it was destined. Opening the restaurant was a was part of the plan. Having a commercial kitchen was also part of the plan. We have been doing concession work for the last 20 years and selling fresh cut fries at festivals. So Fries bought this building as we were doing improvements to the building and started to meet neighbors. Became really clear that there was a sense of ownership of this space by people in the neighborhood and that we had a real responsibility to do something that serve the community with this space. Vivi Lemus is programing operations manager. She moves about the building alongside Glenn meeting with the public, addressing needs and developing projects for the community. So Sun Valley Kitchen and Community Center was born out of the need to have that gathering. Space. And also food. For the youth. And the families and the kids that. Live in the Sun Valley area. I feel like we are. Situated in a community that. Is very diverse. It's a community filled with young families. We are. Surrounded by Denver Housing. Authority. Housing as well. So it's an area in the city that's. Like a little pocket that's kind of isolated from this major roads around. I started. As a cooking instructor in 2016, coming on Saturdays and teaching cooking classes for. Kids in the kitchen. And it was beautiful and. Controlled chaos and. Those we had up to 20 some kiddos when the pandemic hit. I've been here full. Time as the. Manager for operations. For about a. Year. At one time the facility was open to the public. It was a kitchen, grocery and community center. But then COVID. While the rest of the city shut down the doors to the Sun Valley Kitchen remained open. Health concerns closed the community center to the public, but the food pantry remained a bright source of salvation to the neighborhood. Now, with COVID, we have primarily been focusing on our food pantry. That has grown dramatically since COVID. We have had amazing support from our youth employees that help facilitate our low cost grocery program. Which we just to meet people where they are. And we not only. Provide groceries, but we also provide hot. Meals and healthy options for meals. We are not aware of it. And I think we set up a little bit of the pandemic a minute ago, yet they get in there that they don't have anything. Left in baby. And I think they have a friend who is keeping them. Coming from a homeless situation. Path Glenn has reached out to help many people in many ways. One of our sayings is Being your community is being like a family. We're all joined together. Creating this space has really been an incredible honor, and it's just an honor to be a part of this neighborhood. It is a incredibly connected neighborhood. Nearly everyone knows everyone. We have kids that run freely throughout the neighborhood and everyone is watching out for all of the kids that are here. And it's just been an amazing experience. By 2 p.m., it's 86 degrees outside, but the staff never slows down. None of the incredible kindness provided by Sun Valley Kitchen could be achieved without the charity of everyone involved. Neighbor helping neighbor is central to the success in providing care to the community. Our youth employees are an essential part of what we do here. They are used that. Have grown up in the Sun Valley. And most of them are high schoolers, you know, just 13, 16 and. Learning. How to just have your first official job. We are opening our space up to have more volunteers help with the North Coast grocery program and with our meal prep. We're kind of selective. We do require vaccination and still masks for to protect our youth employees as well as our community members. If there's one thing that I really would like for people to know about our community and our kitchen is how that sense of community has not wavered through the pandemic. I think it's something that a lot of people would love to be able to have an opportunity to have a space in a neighborhood that they are a part of. And it's been a magical. For more stories, check out Denver's YouTube page or tune in to Denver eight Doc TV. Explore your imagination and reconsider what's possible. After three years in the making, Meow Wolf is now open. This four story exhibition is home to 70 plus unique installations. Rooms and portals go to meow wolf dot com for information and tickets. Here's the event you've loved celebrating for 51 years now with an elevated experience. Denver Oktoberfest has improved music production, full bars, less lines and seamless payment for all food and drink. We can't wait to show off what we've done. The Mexican Cultural Center with the Colorado Symphony presents Latin beats. So Negros de las Americas a free concert which celebrates Hispanic Heritage Month. EDM fans get ready as Rowdy Town nine brings yet another mindblowing lineup to the stage as big, gigantic and Nightmare joined forces at Red Rocks Amphitheater. The nonprofit organizations are Lego Foundation proudly presents Triple Threat Comedy Night with Frank Caliendo, Sal Vulcano and David Spade. This is your last chance to immerse yourself in Van Gogh alive. A large scale COVID safe multisensory digital art experience. Hundreds of bulbs, perennials and plants grown at the gardens are offered, along with expert advice from our horticulturalists take home beautiful bulb bag designs and large custom seed mixes. The sale is located under the tent at the UAB bank Ampitheater. And that's a quick look at what's happening in Denver this week. Public hearings tonight for those participating in person when called upon, please come to the podium and 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 promoted to speaker. When you are promoted, your screen will flash and say Reconnecting to meeting. Please don't leave the meeting. You will be reconnected and will need to turn on your camera. If you have one and your microphone, you will see your time counting down at the bottom of your screen. Once you have finished speaking, you will change back to participant mode and see your screen flash one more time. All speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you have signed up to answer questions, only state your name and know you are available for questions of counsel. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time. If translation is needed, you will be given an additional 3 minutes for your comments to be interpreted. We will alternate between in-person and virtual for efficiency by calling in-person participants and then alternating to virtual participants. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must make their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech or comments to council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Teenage, would you please put Council Bill 822 on the floor for final passage? Yes, I move that council bill 20 1-8082 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 822 is open. May we have a staff report? Good evening, members of City Council. I'm an associate city planner with planning services. And tonight, we're going to be looking at the rezoning request for 1544 South Emerson. Emerson Street. The subject property is in Council District seven represented by Councilman Clark. In the Plat Park neighborhood. The property is located mid-block between Florida and Iowa Avenue along Emerson Street. The site is 4160 square feet and currently contains a single unit home. The applicant is requesting to resume to U.S. U A1 to allow for an 80 U in the rear of the property. All other forms and your standard will remain the same. The property is currently in the urban unit, urban single unit business district, which allows for a minimum of 4500 square feet. As mentioned before, the subject lot is only 4160 square feet, which means that to allow for the construction of a detached to you, it needs to be reason to us. You A1 that allows for a minimum of 3000 square feet. As you can see on the map, most of the surrounding properties are also zoned UCB with some UCB one to the West and some U.S. you see to the east. And so. The current land use for the site is single unit residential and in the immediate vicinity. The area's land use are mostly other residential uses. As shown on these photos. The character of the neighborhood is mostly residential. Subject property can be seen in the bottom left image of the slide. Throughout the rezoning process, application notifications have been provided according to Code Requirements. Planning Board recommended approval and not mislead. On July 21st, an a m No letters of support of opposition from the public have been received by staff. Moving on to the Denver zoning code review criteria, it must be found. The request map amendment is consistent with the five criteria. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans applicable to his rezoning. The first one is comprehensive plan 2040, and the second one is Blueprint Denver. Stated in the stat report. The rezoning is consistent with several goals in the comprehensive plan. The MAP Amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Now moving to the consistency with Denver the subject properties map is part of of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as low residential place type displaced types have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Emerson Street is designated as a local street, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. Blueprint. Denver also provides guidance on when it's appropriate to rezone to a second district, which with a smaller minimum lot size is appropriate when a pattern of smaller loads with similar uses is present in the surrounding blocks, while the block with a subject site only shows a few loads that are smaller than 4500 square feet, we can see to the west of Clarkson Street where the zoning is used to be one higher percentage of smaller lots in the single unit residential uses more consistent with the proposed US-EU A1. The growth area in Blueprint. Denver is all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Finally, blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy four focuses on diversifying housing choice through expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Study also finds that the requested signing meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of disregarded regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. Justified circumstance for this rezoning is a key part of the plan. Since the approval of the existing U.S. Sub Zone District, the city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver, a stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of those plans. Overall, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context. Residential districts and the U.S. view a one zone district. With that stuff recommends approval based on finding already criteria has been met. All right. Thank you, Fran. This evening, we have one individual signed up to speak and he's joining us online. Jesse Paris. Yes. Good evening. Member of the council. My camera's off for some reason. My name is just with Sampras. I'm representing the Black Sox. A more self defense positive to memories of the Chinese was the Unity Party of Colorado the frontline black north and I'll be the next my member in 2023. I just want to say I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. I need more. It's just a growing unit and we have a housing crisis. So the CSU darling units are most needed at this time. So any time this council is approving of accessory dwelling units, I'm all for it. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening for this hearing. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 822. Not seeing any questions. I was going to give it a second there, Councilmember Flynn. They ram presidents. It appears to take a few seconds after you hit the button to do that. Is there a. There's a minimum width for a lot in the zone district. And that is what. On which district? I'm sorry. Which one? For this rezoning to A1 in the urban context. I'm pretty sure we were just talking about that. We? Where is that? I think it's 37.5. She'll be. Great. I mean, she might need you to come up to the mic so you can introduce yourself. Oh, sorry. Okay. I just looked up here. It's 25 feet. Okay. And is there a minimum depth? I haven't seen a minimum lot depth on any of these other than in the suburban context for F1. That's correct. So this lot is about 125 feet deep. I am not sure. But okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Not seeing any other questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 822 Council member Clark. Thank you, Madam President. I'd say thank you to staff for putting this all together, and I think that this clearly meets the legal criteria for rezoning, and I'll be supporting it and encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Clark, and agree that the rezoning criteria have been met and happy to support it as well. Council Bill 21, Dash 822 is on the floor for final passage. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 8 to 2, please. Clark, i. Flynn. I. Herndon, I. Paint. All right. Cashmere. I can eat. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black. I. See tobacco, i. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 3913 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-822 has passed. Thank you, friend. Next up, Councilmember Kimmich, will you please put Council Bill 851 on the floor for final passage? Yes, council president. I move that council bill 20 1-0851 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 851 is open. May we have the staff report from. It's going to be very similar. Mm hmm. Good afternoon. Jump in, if you like, in planning services. The next case we're going to look is a rezoning request for 32, 36, 25 West 36th Street. Four 3625 West 46th Avenue. Subject property is in Council District one, represented by Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval. In the Berkeley neighborhood. The property is located between Loa Laurel Boulevard and Osceola Street along 46th Avenue, right at the corner of the alley . The site is 5090 square feet and currently contains a single unit house. The applicant is requesting to rezone from U.S. you c to us ub1 to allow for an 80 u in the rear of the property. All other forms and U standards will remain the same. The property is currently in the urban single unit season district, which allows for a minimum standard of 5500 square feet. As I mentioned before, the subject load is only 5090 feet, which means to allow for the construction of a detached you. It needs to be a reason to use you. Be one. That allows for a minimum. So a lot of 4500 square feet. As you can see on the map, most of the surrounding properties are also shown you, as you see with some others, you see one, two or so and a public park to east. The current land use for the site is single unit residential and in the immediate vicinity of the area. Land use are mostly other residential uses. Shown on these photos. The character of the neighborhood is mostly residential. The subject property can be seen in the bottom right image of the slide. Throughout the rezoning process, application notifications have been provided according to code requirements. Planning Board recommended approval on July 21st and a present. No letters have received from the public or a have received by stuff. Moving now to a Denver zoning code review criteria. It must be found that the request map amendment is consistent with the five criteria. The first criteria is consistency with adopted plans. There are two plans with rezoning. The first one is comprehensive plan 2040, and the second one is Blueprint Denver. As stated in the staff report, the rezoning is consistent with several goals and comprehensive plan. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services already in place. Now blueprint the subject properties mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as low residential place type. Display stops have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. 46 Avenue is designated as a residential collector. Street Street. Blueprint. Denver also provides guidance on when it's appropriate to rezone to us on districts with a similar minimum so lot size. It's appropriate when a pattern of similar loads with similar uses is present in the surrounding blocks. The block with the subject site shows a large proportion of properties that are under 5500 square feet, which would be consistent with the US be one district and a few lots that are larger than 5500, which would be consistent with the existing song district of us, you see. Therefore, Stuff.co.nz considers there is a pattern of smaller loads with similar uses and the applicant's proposal to respond to a district with a smaller load so lot size is consistent with the future places map and blueprint guidance for applying the no residential future place type. The growth area in Blueprint. Denver is all other areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Blueprint also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy four focuses on diversifying housing choice through expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Stuff 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 implementations of adopted plans. The justified circumstance for this rezoning is so severe that the plan, since the approval of the existing U.S., you see some district the city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and blueprint, Denver stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of this plan's. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential districts and the you as you be one zone district. That's a frequent approval based on finding already criteria has been met. All right. Thank you, Fran. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening joining us online. Jesse Paris. Yes. Good evening. Watching at home. Those in the council members. One name is just represent for blacks strong symbol for self defense positive action can work for social change as well as the unity party of Colorado and front black males and I will be there next November 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight for the reasons I stated on the previous rezoning. We have a housing crisis, so any time that this council's approving zoning increases, the housing stock, whether it's special units to granny flats, however you want to call that, I'm in full support, so please pass this to my good councilwoman, Amanda Sandoval , for leading the way with these accessory dwelling units. I would love to see these in all areas of the city, not just in District one or just that simple. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions for members of Council on Council Bill 851. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Friend. Our next hearing involves a lot of properties on the same block asking for the exact same thing. And this one is broken out separately. And I'm curious, why are we hearing this separately? Well, as you know, these are application driven applications. So this applicant had applied first. It just happened that they ended up in the same timeline. And also, they're a little bit different because this one has early access. The others don't. So we figured that. That makes a difference. So this applicant had the option of being bundled with the others, but chose not to because of different circumstance. Yes, I know he could, but also he had applied before, so he wasn't sure that the other group was going to be able to coordinate everything. He's in a hurry to get the rezoning, so it just happened that they ended up being together. But he had applied earlier in the process. Okay. And I think, Madam President, that was it. Except for. Let me. This is from C to B1 and ah, do you know what the minimum width and there is no minimum lot depth. No that's only an F1. Only F1. And there is no F1 in the urban context. No. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. The public hearing is closed. Comments from members of Council on Council Bill 851. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I believe that this application meets the criteria, and I ask my colleagues to offer support. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval and I agree that it does meet the rezoning criteria and we'll be voting in favor tonight. Council Bill 21, Dash 851 is on the floor for final passage. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 851, please. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black. I see the bucket. I cut. My. Friend. I. Herndon. Hines All right. Cashman. I'm Kenny Ortega. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-851 has passed. Thank you, Fran. Thank you. We're going to move on here. Council member, can we please put council bill 855 on the floor for final passage.

A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Argus Event Staffing, LLC to provide security services at the Coliseum and portions of National Western to support consolidated shelters in the City on a temporary basis during the COVID-19 health crisis. Amends a contract with Argus Event Staffing, LLC by adding $2,303,784 for a new total of $2,753,784 and 56 days for a new end date of 6-30-20 with additional possible extensions through 9-30-20 to provide security services at the Denver Coliseum and portions of National Western complex to support auxiliary shelters in the City in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (THTRS-202054284). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 5-4-20. Councilmember Flynn approved direct filing this item on 4-9-20.

DenverCityCouncil_04132020_20-0345

Thank you. Number one. Right, Madam Secretary, if you will, please put the next item out of our screens. Health care reform. Give me a quick second and then be ready to vote. Council. Vote three, four, five on the floor. Go ahead. Okay. Actually, this is Resolution 345 and this is one that was direct filed by me last week and in the interim over the weekend. This is a contract for security at the Western Center for the facility that we've opened up there. And the weekend. Before we get into it, promised just. Three or four departments. They moved the council resolution 345 we adopted. Here. It has been moved and seconded. Questioning and comments now a complete record. As I was saying before, I was properly interrupted. It was discovered after Argus got in and started doing forming under an initial issuance of the contract that this would amend to add value to. It was realized that their their expertize is not really a good fit for working in this sort of a situation. They do more event related activities like at the Colosseum, at Red Rocks, at the Arts Center, the theater, and and in fact, they also do Pepsi Center and maracas, I believe, under contracts with those entities. And it just wasn't a good fit. So what the administration has to do, I was told, and I'm sure this guy, Stuart or Evan will not agree one way or the other if I get this wrong, is that we will use an existing contract that has financial capacity with one of our security contractors, HFCS, to perform these functions in place of what Argus was going to do. So there is no need to to do this contract and to amend it to add value, in fact. So that's why I'm recommending that we now vote no, ask everybody to vote no on this so that it dies right here. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Council member. The Council never, ever said that you had a hand up or that it would look good. Right. Councilmember Ortega, hold on just a second. When you go over the you. All right, Councilmember Ortega, go ahead. Thank you. So what we did, what we did in some expenses. So how do we account for those that need to be paid to our guest for the work that they did do over the weekend? It's my understanding they work for three and a half days, so I'm assuming somehow we need to take care of that. And I don't know if we have an existing contract with them or we can just take care of it that way. Does anybody have an answer to that question? Like Councilmember Flynn you want to take out or do you want me to kick them over to the sky? Okay, hold on a sec. No. I can hear all of the great noise. I can get to it in the second year. Okay. Looks like you're good to go. Hi, Sky. Stuart. Mayor's office. So the way we move forward with several of these contracts, including the Argus contract, was in order to get people on site very, very quickly. We did a much smaller dollar, very short term agreement to get them paid and get them on site. So that agreement has been signed. It is in place. What we were considering tonight was an amendment to that contract to add capacity and time. So we just don't need to take that word. We have the original contract signed it in place to be able to pay for the 72 hours worth of service that our guest did provide on site. All right. Great, great. Thank you. I don't see anyone else with a hand up. So, Madam Secretary, hold on just a second. About to go to you, and then we'll do. And a reminder, the recommendation for this is a no vote or a no vote. On this one. I'm sorry. You are muted. Collect your. For Herndon. How can Sawyer. Dance? Tourists see tobacco. Gilmore. No kinds. Of things. Cashman. Ortega. We're clear. We didn't. It was. No. No. Sandoval. No. Council president. Now an electorate that is close to voting in its results. 13 nays. 13 nays. The resolution three four, they're not pleased with the next item on our screens and have been for as long as they're going to remember you for your. Question on.

Recommendation to request City Council to receive and file a presentation in recognition of Cambodian New Year.

LongBeachCC_04132021_21-0310

Thank you. We're going to go back now to items nine and ten. The author of the motion would like to take those together. Can you read those both together? Madam Clerk. Communication from Councilwoman Sorrell. Councilman Super Na recommendation to receive and file a presentation and recognition of Cambodian New Year and a recommendation to recognize April 17th as Cambodian Genocide Remembrance Day. Thank you. With that, I do have a motion by Councilwoman Sara when I have a second by Councilmember Supernormal. Why don't we turn this over to Councilwoman Ciro? Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. First, I want to thank Council member Slipknot for signing on to both items. As we both represent Cambodia Town, as some people might know, Long Beach is home to the largest Cambodian population in the United States, as well as the second largest outside of south outside of Cambodia. The Cambodian New Year Festival, which is also known as charity, is also celebrated by Lao, Thailand, Myanmar, Sri Lanka and some part of India. It's a three day celebration and this year begins tomorrow, April 14th, and ends on Friday, April 16. So Saturday night, my and happy new year. It's it's a again a three day activity where there are many activities and cultural ceremonies done for Cambodians. The New Year celebration is followed by a very tragic day, April 17th, when the Khmer Rouge seized control of Cambodia and the lives of Cambodians were changed forever that day. The community have commemorated April 17th as Cambodian Genocide Remembrance Day to honor the lives lost and the survivors and to celebrate the resiliency of the spirit. And I ask my colleagues to support on that item and this item. Usually we have many events and festivities to celebrate the New Year, as well as a commemoration event for Cambodian Genocide Remembrance Day. But due to COVID 19 restriction, we're going to honor both special events with a virtual event livestreaming this Friday, April six, 16th, called Remembrance and Renewal, honoring Cambodian New Year and Genocide Remembrance Day by celebrating Cambodian American stories. I want to deeply thank Kaylee. So who is the Long Beach, Cambodian filmmaker for agreeing to work on this project as well as in her hard work, as well as Tal Song of Asian Empowerment Association for your support and assistance with this project. This Remembrance and Renew is an interview series that shares the four spiritual stories of those who had inherited the trauma of war and how they how we continue to hope, dream, to build, thrive and celebrate as Cambodian Americans. You're going to hear this, the virtual event as it follows the story of one Cambodian student that attended Cal State University, Long Beach, in the 1960s to second generation business owners, to those serving our country in the U.S. military and many other. So I want to show a very short opening clip from this Remembrance, Remembrance and Renewal. So if we could please play that clip. Jim saw. Hello. I'm Councilwoman Sue Lee. Sorrow of Lombard City Council District six. I want to welcome you to this special day of remembrance and renewal, a celebration of Cambodian American stories and to wish you a very happy new year. During the annual Cambodian, Thai and Laos New Year, which begins on April 14 and ends on April 16th, Southeast Asian everywhere. Celebrate the arrival of spring for some. April 17th, 1975, marks the day in which the lives of Cambodians everywhere were tragically changed forever. When the Khmer Rouge marched into the capital combined and evacuated the entire population, they forced people into labor camps and murdered government officials, doctors, artists and scholars, among many others. It became known as year zero under the Khmer Rouge regime. It has been estimated that over 2 million lives were lost due to execution and starvation. Several hundred thousand Cambodians later fled their country and became refugees, resettling in countries all over the world in the hopes of rebuilding their lives. Long Beach, California, became a city that still have the largest Cambodian population in the United States of America. As daughters and sons of survivors. It is important that we never forget what happened and that we remember the lives lost during the genocide. But more importantly, we must honor and celebrate the resiliency of the spirit. We will always carry our history as we move forward to rebuild, restore and renew. To look towards a future made stronger by its past. And to take pride in a generation that can now flourish beyond its scars. A generation that now has its own path to forge its own stories to tell. Thank you for joining us and enjoy our program. Jim Lehrer. Thank you so much. So please remember to join us for a remembrance and renewal this Friday, April 16th, at 6 p.m. It will be livestream on my Facebook page and YouTube. I want to make sure we have an opportunity to see if there's any public comment and loved it and then open it up to my council colleagues if they have any comments. This is our flier for the event and the pictures of many of the stories celebrating the Cambodian American stories. Thank you. Let me go to that second of the motion councilmember. I'm sorry. Controversy for now. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to thank Councilwoman Sarah for bringing these two items forward and also for inviting me to sign on to them. It is an absolute honor for me to do so and to our Cambodian community. I'd like to say Happy New Year and Jimmy to a. Thank you. Why don't we go ahead and go to public comment, then we'll come back to the council. Madam Clerk. Our first speaker is Chan Hobson. Hello. Happy Cambodian New Year. My name is Mark Hobson, calling on behalf of Chan Hobson, executive director of my Parent Association. I am calling in support of Council Woman Dr. Susie Cheryl's agenda. Agenda Items nine and ten. April 17, 2021 marks the 46th anniversary of the Khmer Rouge and the beginning of the Cambodian genocide. That is the day that the evacuated people from the entire capital of Phnom Penh at gunpoint, including my family. They killed government officials, doctors, artists, educators and scholars. They disrobed monks and forced them to the labor camps and severely punished the ones that were too old to work. Millions became widows and orphans. My people were severely traumatized by their experiences. We should never forget what happened over 40 years ago under the communist Khmer Rouge regime that seized government. On April 17, 1975, we must remember the over 2 million Cambodian people who perished during the genocide. And we must remind the younger generation and the world what happened during that dark period. So we are not doomed to repeat that tragedy again and again. Therefore, the parents, students, youth and community leaders joined hands together to host the virtual 46th Cambodian Genocide Remembrance Day on Saturday, April 17, from 10 a.m. to 12 noon. And we invite Mayor Robert Garcia, our great city leader, to deliver the opening remarks to open the ceremony. All honorable city council members are invited to attend this Remembrance Day and to recognize the Cambodian Genocide Remembrance Week of April 17. To honor the lives lost. The survivors and their descendants for their courage and resiliency. To strive to thrive. And to build their American dream and to contribute to our city. Thank you. Thank your next speaker is Suzanne singing. She saw a lot about mayor and council members. My name is Susanna Singham, the executive director of United Kim Voting Committee. And I would like to wish you all on this first day of Cambodian New Year, a happy Cambodian New Year. So statement me. I urge you to support Councilwoman Dr. Sorrels recommendation. To recognize Cambodian New Year today and to recognize April 17th as the Cambodian. Genocide Remembrance Day. This week is bittersweet. Bittersweet for the Cambodian community as we celebrate rebirth and future health and prosperity of our community. On New Year's Day and also grieve the loss of loved ones and experienced trauma from the Cambodian genocide. By recognizing both. The city honors the Cambodian community, by valuing our. Vibrant culture, blessing our our future, and joining our. Community in healing from past trauma. We recognize today so that the Cambodian community can be seen and in being seen. The city will continue to advocate, support and ensure resources. Are allocated to the Cambodian. Community and Cambodia town. Thank you. Think that concludes public comment for the sun. Thank you. Let me go to the council councilman in Dallas. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank Profoundly Councilwoman Sorrell and Councilmember Superdog for bringing both of these items tonight. We cannot have the conversation about the contributions and the significance of immigrants to our city without recognizing and uplifting the voices, heritage and the importance of our Cambodian community. Here in the city of Long Beach, the thousands of families that escaped violence and genocide to build a home here in our city represents what the absolute best of us here in Long Beach and the absolute best of humanity. The sacrifices they made and the bravery it took for them to come to escape from over there were extraordinary. And it fills me with great, great, great pride to be able to represent a city that that helped them, that they helped build, and also said embrace them with open arms. And we continue to do so. I'm so grateful for the opportunity to reflect on the memory of those who who were lost. And I'm hoping them and their loved ones and my thoughts as we observe this day of remembrance and happy Cambodian New Year to you and to us here in the city of Long Beach. Thank you. Next up is Councilman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, want to thank Councilwoman Sorrow and Councilman Superdog for partnering together on this. I love the partnership, and I love how authentically Councilman Supernova takes his responsibility to represent that Cambodian community. And I love the fact that we have now a Cambodian council member who can introduce us and educate us about this culture in her own way. One of the things I love about our city is the diversity of our city, and I think that just makes us so much stronger, especially when we're introducing that diversity with with love and a lot of history, which I learned a lot today from the video and rather than in a divisive way . And I think you do that so well. And I want to thank you for that. So to our Cambodian community, happy new year. When we celebrate days of cultural significance to the very diverse communities in our city, I think we show those residents how much we appreciate them and how much they're a part of our fabric. And I'm really grateful to be part of this council, especially on nights like this, when the diversity is is bringing us together and reminding us of what makes us strong. Thank you very much and happy New Year to you council Dr. Sara and your family specifically. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just wanted to chime in. Offer my my support. Congratulations. And thanks to council members Thoreau and Council member super long on this record name recognition of Cambodian New Year today. You know, when I was a student and, you know, just moving to lobbies is one of the first things I learned was about the proud Cambodian community. I remember know, a long time ago I was introduced to the sixth district and some of the culture and some of the food and. And I learned a lot then. And I've built some, you know, lifelong relationships with members, members of the community. And and certainly, I think having you here on the city council will certainly bring a lot of pride recognition to to the Cambodian population. So I look forward to many more years of recognizing a Cambodian new year and the contributions of Cambodian community to us here in the city of Long Beach. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Councilmember Granger. Thank you. And I know I'm going to sound like a broken record, but one of the proudest moments that I have with the Catholic community is when I served as a representative for the Latino community, when we broke ground to create the UCC. And that was our way of saying, Welcome to Long Beach and welcome to America. And at the same time that we might be having a day of remembrance, we also have a day of celebration. So happy New Year. Good morning, Community. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Alan. I thank you, Mayor. I also want to thank council member Ciro and Supernova for bringing this forward. I, like Councilwoman Suzy Pryce said, I love the diversity of a city, but I also love the diversity of our city council. So and I also, you know, love. Growing up here. Going to poly and having so many friends. So. Just happy Cambodian New Year. I'm absolutely proud to support this item and. We should never forget what happened to our Cambodian. Community and uplift the heritage and perseverance of this vibrant culture. So thank you so much, both of my friends and council members for bringing this forward. Thank you. Council member Austin. Thank you and thank you councilmember sorrow as well as supernova for bringing this forward. I want to just salute and send my love and respect to my community here in the city of Long Beach. We have a growing community in the eighth District. And I want to recognize that we have a lot of you know, our community continues to diversify and embrace our wonderful diversity, which I think is is what makes you Long Beach so unique. I've been participating in the Cambodian New Year parade for, you know, at least 20 years or so. And I'm looking forward to participating in the Remembrance and New Year and Remembrance on Saturday the 16th, and celebrating with the community, as we always do. But also, I think this year is a special year because we've had our own challenges as a as a country, as a city. And it's very, very important that we embrace and I think exude love right. In our community more than anything right now. And today it's time to do that. And so I look forward to celebrating and happy to support this item. Well, thank you to everyone. Just to conclude, before we go to to the vote, I just want to add and wish, first of all, all my all my Cambodian friends a very, very happy new year. And I think we all look forward to be able to celebrate in person and to be able to just enjoy all the celebrations that we typically all participate in, the great food in person with friends all around each other. And so I know that we're all looking forward to that again. And thank you to both Councilwoman Saro and Councilmember Supernova for great representation for our Cambodian community. I mean, the heart of Cambodia town. I just want to just also just add one more thing, and that is that I've actually talked to you I've actually talked to some some folks from the media and our own city staff. And there's been a lot of conversation about diversity today, I think. And I of course, this is not been confirmed, but I'm pretty sure I did a quick scan of the city council might be the most diverse legislative body of any big city in the United States. When you look at not just the racial diversity, but the ability of people, of different abilities, of gender, of just the whole spectrum, I think I think you'd be hard pressed to find a more diverse body in the in the United States. And that's not confirmed. But I'm pretty sure it's we'll have to confirm it or get that get that looked at. But I just am very grateful to that. And I think with the with the council, in addition, I think that just strengthens that as well. And I want to oh, actually, Councilman Mungo cued up. I may have missed her. So, Councilwoman, go ahead. It's okay. I tried to queue up before. I just wanted to say congratulations. I know that it's going to be an amazing celebration. I know the presentation is fantastic and it is a lot of tribute to you and the hard work that you've already put in to representing your party. So thank you so much for everything that you've already done. Well, thank you. And with that, we will go ahead and take a vote. District one district by district to. By District three. I District four. I. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. And then with that, we have our final item on the agenda. Actually, I think we still have open public comment. Do we have open public comment? Madam Kirk, do you want to go through those, please?

Review and Discuss Charter Amendment Timeline and Issues Proposed by the Council Subcommittee. [Continued from March 19, 2019 to April 2, 2019]

AlamedaCC_03192019_2019-6627

Before a week. Okay. So thank you for that report. And then we have ten B, which is to review and discuss charter amendment timeline and issues proposed by the Council subcommittee. And there is an attachment on that one who's taken that. I think I'll start. And I want to start with that. These are these are in the opposite order I would have gone in. I just want to be clear that this list is mostly things that came out of my head. I don't want to say that it was I think our wires got cross. I had asked for it to be presented as kind of John's list plus where he thinks he remembers. Tony deleted the list that I had presented to Tony. Unfortunately for today, we wanted to get buy in off on any kind of proposed process for working through this. At the time that Tony and I met, we were really thinking we would be moving towards putting things on a march ballot. It turns out that depending on what we work on, there may be some things that can only go on a November ballot and that so but if we kind of start working towards a march, march date, that means those things that might be able to go a little later. We'll just have more time to discuss. If you I don't think yet, hopefully you had a chance to read this. But if you think about this, that this is that there's kind of three, three meetings, this first meeting to kind of see if there are general ideas within the charter that people do or do not want us to talk about. Now is a great time to to flag those. Tony and I will then take those to a workshop working with staff to to get input on kind of those general ideas, what the community is interested in doing. And then take the feedback we get, put it into some sort of kind of bullet pointed draft idea of how we might move forward and come back here for feedback. So the idea is that once rather than having a subcommittee that just goes off, write a bunch of stuff and comes back in December and says, We got , we've got it, we want to have a check in somewhere along the process pretty early on to make sure that everybody's agreeing that we're heading in the right direction and not heading off in someplace that the two of us think is awesome. But people don't. Once we have that, we would then probably go back to the after we get input from the council, we would go back out sometime in July to a second set of workshops for them for the for the issues to get further input. And we would be back to the Council between September and November, probably with a series of drafts with the idea of trying to get to December with a suite of it. Could be one thing, could be ten different issues. You know, this depends on what we decide to work on, but a potential suite of charter amendments that we would then put on the ballot for March and or November. Can I. Okay. Any questions? Comments? Anyone want to add? Anything? Yeah. Councilmember Avila So a couple questions for the workshop and workshop. Is it possible to just agenda as though so that members, other members of the council can attend? I appreciate the subcommittee working on it, but I also think that it would and I'm not saying that we would have to attend, but if it could at least be agenda, is it in accordance with our sunshine? That way we could. We could if other council members want to attend. I mean, I in particular would like to hear the input and everything else. So I think that's a question for both the city clerk and the city. Acting City Attorney Ken. Well, the the the rule is that you can it's not impermissible for a a member of the council to attend a subcommittee. You just can't participate in it. So if you're just there to listen, then we we wouldn't have to notice that as a council meeting per se. Right. But I wouldn't be able to like ask questions or anything. Right. Yeah. So if you if you want to participate in any respect, the safer course of action would be to notice it as a council meeting. And again, in order to do that, you know, there's certain timeline requirements that we would have to meet. So if you want to do it that way, then that's the city clerk know so we can get it agenda agendas properly. I'm sorry, Kirk. Did you want to add to that? We that rule require the seven days notice, and we could definitely just put out that to allow the whole council to attend and just to be cautious. And speak, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That agenda that we say is allowing the council to attend and gives you that. But we also notice that no minutes will be prepared and it's not a formal. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Comments. I mean. My comment is kind of similar to Malia's. I mean, in workshop, there's a lot of media items that. You know, I pretty specifically remember what the charge of the revision was, and that was to kind of clarify the do's and don'ts of council members and like ranked choice voting, campaign finance, how we elect the mayor. You know, district elections. I mean, those are meaty issues that I don't think any of us had had an opportunity to weigh in on. So I'd be hesitant to, you know. Just have like a workshop and then it comes back to us and you know, we don't have a lot of input on it before a lot of work gets done on it. I mean, that's my my concern on those because, I mean, there's a lot of scope creep here that I'm a little concerned about. I mean, if the group has the the time, I guess they can do it. But I wasn't expecting something so ambitious. I mean, I've just been pushed. Back by vice mayor vice. The charge, I was told was, look at the charter, everything is fair game. So I'm not sure where where the where the limited scope came from. I think I just want to say, yeah, I, you know, whatever we want to do, the goal of Tony and I bringing this here was literally to get input on areas of interest and to lay out a process whereby the council would be brought in before the media work was taken care of to make sure that there was that discussion. Okay. I threw the chair. Through the. Chair. Thank you. I guess my point is those issues are meeting in mid April is three weeks away. So to have something ready, I just don't know if there's enough time to to discuss it and vet it through the community because those are some meaty changes that, you know. Just changes. Yeah. And so I I'm going to just chime in. I and I do appreciate the the work that the subcommittee did. I but I also concur, I think in part with what Councilmember Odie is saying. Some of this, and I certainly did say go over the charter with a fine tooth comb and see what changes you think need to be done and triage it, because obviously you can't do everything at once and some things are more urgent than others. So the district election in ranked choice voting I think is a bit outside the scope of the charter. I mean, maybe that's arguable, but I, I do it. But, you know, some of these things like paid signature gatherer rules, I don't believe it's addressed in the charter now, but maybe it should be or maybe somewhere else. I do remember saying that at our swearing in that I think for a matter of public trust, something that came up in, you know, the last. Year. Is that so? What happens when a council member is found to be in violation of the charter, then, you know, what are what are the remedies? What are the actions? So I would say that's a. Little. Beyond clarify council interference language. So anyway, those are those are my thoughts. Councilmember Day So yeah, going into it, what I shared with um, Vice Mayor Knox White as well as the staff is my view that whatever issues that we pursued had to have some form of and I mean this in the classic sense, political legitimacy that is it had to arise out of some issue about which everyone understood to be an issue. But by the same token, I don't recall us having been told that limit ourselves to issues. So while I myself might have held a hat that said, okay, this is how I'm going to this is the lens through which I'm going to look at issues. You know, I was open to listening to what the public had to have the public had in mind or what fellow council members had in mind. Now, if tonight fellow council members are saying, okay, we want you to limit it. Okay, well, that's the point of tonight is to is to help us. Okay. So are you saying these items are all in the charter or should be? Is that what you're saying? Oh, well, if you're asking me what I'm interested in as a council member, what I'm interested in as a council member is addressing issues regarding council member. What was the issue it being involved in employment and and and and kind of. Yeah. And fleshing out the the remedies. If the remedies are appropriate for the charter. I'm not sure they are, by the way, but if they are fleshing it out, I'm also interested in what I believe is at the top of my head. I believe in section two, Dash four, which has to do with qualifications for council members. And I think the qualifications to dash for says that if you're a federal legislator, state legislator or county legislator, you cannot be involved in commissions or things like that. And I would expand to Dennis for four reasons that I am happy to go into later. But I think it's to dash four, by the way. So so I am interested in in dealing with, you know. Dealing with the issues that our community dealt with in 2018. And I think that's an appropriate place. But by the same token, I think our charge was to look at other issues. So. So just for clarification, the the title of this is Review and Discuss Charter Amendment Timelines. So you say you look to the charter and you thought perhaps it should be amended to address all of these things. No, no, no, no, no. I am not bought into all those things I am most interested in to. This is not a mutually drafted document. No. Okay. Okay. Is that Councilmember Vela. Not. Giving to the late hour? And the fact that I think this this conversation might better suit us to a different time. I think what I'm hearing is perhaps there needs to be a little more council discussion on what the topics specifically are. And I think that there, you know, perhaps we could continue this conversation to the next meeting and with the specific mindset of we are we now understand that we're trying to set up a couple of workshops, but we're also trying to narrow the scope of what those workshops will cover. And if we could at the next meeting, all come with kind of what we think should be covered. We can have that discussion and then we can actually approve or set out a timeline. How does that sound to the subcommittee and then others? Oh, what's that? What do I need to do? Oh, we have to just. You're fine. I just to give you guys a little more background since your thinking about coming back, just for your mindset, please. The distinction that Vice Mayor mentioned earlier is in election code section 14, dash 15, and I can shoot an email off to you tomorrow. But it basically prohibits an employment type of anything that's related to employees. And you all are considered employees from being on the March election. And one more thing about the March election and putting anything on that date would the city would then be paying for participating in that election, which be in addition to anything to consider for the March date as you're coming back just to open your head? No, that's helpful thing. Okay. Okay. And Councilor Brody, I just want. To clarify, because I was intimately involved in this. The impetus of this was that there was a charter provision that an investigator found was unclear and vague. So his recommendation was to look at that charter provision and kind of clarify the do's and don'ts, what's allowed, what's not allowed. And if you read the document, that was the impetus. You'll see that there is a process outlined to deal with that in statute. And I think that the city attorney could probably update anyone that's not familiar with that process. So I think we need to be careful and not overstep our boundaries and make sure that we abide by the statutes in that that the state as adopted in this area. Well, I am again, I think Councilmember Vella is correct that the hour is late and we will have a more productive discussion. But I think that anything should be able to be discussed. What we decide is something else. So, Madam Clerk, can we just continue this item? Do I need a vote. To do that or. Is that okay with everyone? Okay with you? Okay. All right. Okay. All right. So. So thank you. And then, Councilman Rudy, did you want to speak briefly on Tennessee? No. Let's just talk about it next time. Okay. So then we are at adjournment and I'm going to ask everybody if we could adjourn. We started the meeting on a happy note with the announcement of our new city attorney said they were going to end on a sad note because I want to adjourn the council meeting in memory of some people. Who. Who lost their lives in the last couple of weeks. One of them is Victor McElhaney. He was 21 years old, the son of my friend and Oakland City Councilmember Lynnette Gibson McElhaney. His mother attended our swearing in ceremony in in December. She was introduced, if you remember. And very tragically, he was a gifted musician studying at USC and just out on a Saturday night. And he and some friends were held up and he got shot and killed. And it's you know, there is nothing where you can say, but I want to do his memory, the honor of remembering him tonight. And at the same time, I want us to adjourn in honor of the I believe it's now 50 victims of the terrorist attacks on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. Last week, again, more a sense of gun violence, but maybe on a a little more positive note. I also want to announce that this Saturday, March 23rd at 6:30 p.m., I'm right here in front of City Hall. The Islamic Center of Alameda is presenting a solidarity vigil with Muslims. And so I hope that you all can attend and members of the public who might listen to this tape later, I hope you can attend, too . But if we could just rise and have a moment of silence and then this is adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Thank you all. Good night.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute any and all documents necessary, including an Agreement for Acquisition of Real Property and Escrow Instructions (Agreement), with Jasman Hospitality, Incorporated, a California corporation (Seller), for the purchase of certain real property located at 1725 Long Beach Boulevard, Assessor Parcel Number 7269-019-049 (Subject Property), in an amount not to exceed $21,720,000; Accept the Categorical Exemption SE-20-092; Increase appropriations in the Health Fund Group in the Health and Human Services Department by $15,337,400, offset by grant revenues; and Increase appropriations in the General Fund Group in the Economic Development Department by $21,720,000, offset by a transfer of grant revenues from the Health Fund Group and Community Development Grants Fund Group. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_11172020_20-1128

Okay. Thank you. We're going to go through we're going to quickly go through some other items that are that are faster. And we can just hear those really quick. Let's go ahead in here. Item 67, please. Report from Economic Development Recommendation to execute all documents necessary with jasmine hospitality for purchase of certain real property located at 1725 Long Beach Boulevard and an amount not to exceed 21,720,000 District one. I got a motion in a second place. Can I get a motion in a second? Kevin Most of it comes from us. And they ask second by Councilmember. Councilmember Austin. I do not. I have public comments on the public comment. Please. Our first speaker is Lianna Knobel. Liana Noble. Our next speaker is Jordan Wynn. Hi there. Before you start my time. We keep getting shifted back and forth between holding rooms, so there's like a minute delay. Are we an item 67 right now? Yes, 67. Great. Thank you very much. My name's stored in wind and everyone in Long Beach Feel director. And I'm just here to speak in strong support of approving the Project Homekey site at the best Western site, this addition of 100 more units takes us close to 270 new supportive housing units that will be coming online from Project Homekey alone next year, which is really exciting news. This is in addition to other sites like Link Housing Market, Midtown and some of the other Clifford Beard's sites that are going to be opening up for more supportive housing to help support people experiencing chronic homelessness. I want to thank the Council for doing this kind of work, and I also want to remind them that with the recent hotel conversion package and also the county passage of Measure J, there will become more funds available for projects like this in the near future. And I implore Council to continue pursuing the right methods of helping end homelessness within our communities and investing deeply in affordable and supportive housing. Thank you so much. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Great. I have a motion by Councilmember Austin and a second vote actually may make the motion by councilwoman. I think this is in the first district. Is that correct? I think the motion by Councilwoman Zendejas and second by Councilmember Austin. A roll call, please. District one. They? District by district three. I. District four. District five by district six. Five. District seven. District eight. II. District nine. Motion carries.

A bill for an ordinance amending the Building and Fire Code of the City and County of Denver. Amends Article II, Chapter 10 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to adopt the 2018 International Code Council (ICC) construction codes and Denver amendments to those codes as the 2019 Denver Building and Fire Code and adds an optional Denver Green Code. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-6-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-3-19.

DenverCityCouncil_12162019_19-1330

One nay 11 AIS Resolution 1291 has been adopted. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. And Councilman Hines, you had to comment on this one on 1330. Yes, Mr. President, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. President. And this is a comment in the in the. But the purpose is full transparency. So just for what it's worth, next week, unless I hear good reason. Otherwise, I will propose an amendment to 19 Dash 1330. Specifically, I intend to propose a narrow amendment requiring a one hour response time for elevator companies when someone has become trapped in an elevator due to a power or mechanical failure. This is a result of multiple complaints by constituents in districts nine and ten. And I did touch base with Councilman CdeBaca in advance to verify that this is the case. And these two districts of the two districts with the most elevators in the city. As we continue to grow, as the city will continue to need additional elevators that function correctly. And in case you already know, in case excuse me in case you don't already know, Denver fire reports needing to rescue eight people each day in Denver from trapped elevators. Denver Fire also reports that a common report is that the phones in those elevators that are stuck also do not work. Denver excuse me? Denver Airport reports that their minutes contract has a ten minute response time. And and certainly they pay for that response time. But the point is that elevator companies can respond. And, of course, you know, there's a there's a financial component there. But but there's a financial component in any maintenance contract, particularly, or as an example, the maintenance contract that that my HRA has with our elevator company is there's a financial component. So Denver Fire reports that this response time is in line with other industries. So this is not out of out of purpose. And and just part of the reason why I'm making this public today is because we reached out multiple times to the elevator companies. And after this went through Ludy, we reached out and the response was, quote, Due to vacation and travel schedule, I will not be available until January ten. Quote, It is impossible for us to have a dialog with an industry that that cannot be available until after this is passed. So so I'm putting it out here that I'm soliciting input from anyone who thinks that this this amendment is not prudent. The last thing I'd say is that I just I won't go back over this because I already mentioned it in Ludie and committee, but I shared several concerns about. Elevators. Elevator maintenance and the relationship between proper elevator maintenance and having to rescue people from broken elevators. So if you have any concerns or comments or input about elevators or elevator maintenance or any reason why we should not have a one hour response time in line with every other industry, please reach out to the District ten office. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Since you called this out, I'm just going to quickly say outside of elevators, there is a lot to be excited about in this code, especially when it comes to the environment and how our buildings are built and what kind of energy they use and what kind of emissions they release. And in addition to that, for the first time ever in Denver, we will have the Denver Green Code, which gets us even closer to where we need to be to be addressing climate change and meeting the science based standards that have been set forward that we need to be meeting as a city lot to be excited about in here, even if we have a few kinks to work out before we get it fully approved. But looking forward to that. All right. Next up, Madam Secretary, I believe we're now on to 1341. And Councilman Ortega, I am correct in remembering that you are the one called out for a vote.

A resolution approving a proposed First Amendment to Management Program Agreement by and between the City and County of Denver and Conduent State & Local Solutions, Inc. f/ka Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. to reflect the contractor’s name change and increase the contract maximum amount to provide expanded Photo Radar and Photo Red Light Services. Amends a contract with Conduent State and Local Solutions, Inc. by adding $1,177,460 for a new total of $7,807,421 for expanded photo radar and photo red light services including the relocation of one photo red light, the addition of two photo red light locations and one additional photo speed van. No change to contract duration (201627552). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-7-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-5-18. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Flynn called out this resolution at the Monday, December 17, 2018 Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Wednesday, January 2, 2019.

DenverCityCouncil_12172018_18-1437

11 days. Council Bill 1409 has been defeated. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. And, Councilman Flynn, go ahead with your question. Or is this the one that. Mr. President, I ask for under rule 3.7 for a one week postponement for this resolution, which is the amendment to the photo radar and photo red light contract. At Mayor Council last week, both I and Councilman Lopez asked for additional information. And at this point, we have not received any answers yet. And so failing that, give them one more week to answer the and provide the information we asked for about how the intersections were chosen for the new red light cameras, what the accident rates were, what the yellow change interval timing changes might have been, and what other countermeasures might have been taken before putting up cameras that photograph accidents rather than prevent them. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilman Lopez. And thank you, Mr. President. I also wanted to chime in with that. I do support the the the postponement to January 2nd for the same reasons. You know, when I was in committee, I asked the same questions that I asked in mayor council, and that is regarding the intersection at 14th and Federal Boulevard. It's still very unclear and I haven't got any kind of answer yet whether we whether CDOT indeed studied that intersection or not, and that they studied 14th and federal and said no formally. And the other question I have is whether the city even asked whether they to study the intersection. We still haven't I still haven't received adequate information or any kind of response as to whether that indeed took place. It is a very dangerous intersection. It's an intersection, I think, that would benefit from a tool like like our photo radar, especially when it comes to pedestrian and auto accidents. I know that typically photo radar is intended for folks that are running red lights and auto and reducing auto auto accidents. We all can agree that a lot of you know what would remedy the situation would be more officers. But since we do not have the budget and we've actually came down in the number of folks on patrol, these questions are important. And it's important to know, especially when as a city, we've signed on to a Vision Zero philosophy and goals. So I would love to have some kind of response to those two questions. Definitely. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Generally, I am supportive of photo radar in our community. Photo red light that helps us look at keeping our intersections safe. The one thing that I was surprised and if this was already mentioned, I apologize because I was out in the hall. But when we had the presentation to our committee and learned that the data that is collected on accidents does not include pedestrians that are struck by a vehicle or fatalities that involve pedestrians, that is not part of the data that Vision Zero looks at. It's only car accidents, cars against each other. And I think we need to be collecting that data because we already know, for example, Federal Boulevard is one of the most unsafe pedestrian corridors. We've had a number of fatalities in Councilman Flint's district by Loretta Heights. We've seen a number of serious injuries. I'm not sure the stats on fatalities at 14th and federal where we have a rail stop, but people cross that to catch a bus and they'll dart across traffic. I've seen that multiple times because I'm in that area on a regular basis. And it's not to say this is the only corridor and the only intersection in the city. But I think it is important that we begin to collect the data that helps us to be more accurate in targeting the resources where we need to address them. And we know that 14 in federal is, in fact, one of those intersections that has had a lot of challenges and problems. So I support the postponement so that we can have more discussion about this and be able to bring it back. And hopefully, I don't know what the the lever is to get us to start collecting the pedestrian data, but I think around the city that is really critical. I don't even know if it includes bikes, but if bikes are not included as well, that that should be in terms of the accidents and potential fatalities as well. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, adoption of Council Resolution 1437 will be postponed to Wednesday, January 2nd, 2019. No formal motion or vote is required. Madam Secretary, please, with the next item on our screens. 1407 Councilman Espinosa, do you want to go ahead with your comment?

AN ORDINANCE related to the cultural development authority; identifying responsibilities of the county council; amending Ordinance 14482, Section 34, and K.C.C. 2.46.180, Ordinance 8300, Section 3 as amended, and K.C.C. 2.48.030, Ordinance 14482, Section 38, and K.C.C. 2.48.065, Ordinance 14482, Section 39, and K.C.C. 2.48.075, Ordinance 14482, Section 40, and K.C.C. 2.48.085, Ordinance 14482, Section 5, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.49.020, Ordinance 14482, Section 7, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.49.060, Ordinance 14482, Section 9, and K.C.C. 2.49.080, Ordinance 14482, Section 11, and K.C.C. 2.49.110, Ordinance 14482, Section 17, and K.C.C. 2.49.160, Ordinance 14482, Section 18, as amended, and K.C.C. 2.49.170, Ordinance 14482, Section 19, and K.C.C. 2.49.180, Ordinance 14440, Section 3, and K.C.C. 2.49.200, Ordinance 14482, Section 58, as amended, and K.C.C. 4.40.015 and Ordinance 17527, Section 57, as amended, and K.C.C. 4.40.110, adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 2.49, decodifying K.C.C. 2.49.070 and repealing Ordinance 14482, Section 10, and K.C.C. 2.49.090.

KingCountyCC_02212018_2018-0086

It's been moved and is before us. Any comments or changes on the minutes seeing none. All those in favor please signify by saying I any opposed minutes are approved unanimously. Okay, this brings us to proposed ordinance number 2018 0086. This item would make some changes to the for Culture King County's for Culture Development Authority. And as I said earlier, we're going to ask this. Our staff, our King County Council staff to make their report first, then move on to the panel discussion and then we'll take public testimony after which the committee will have a chance to deliberate on everything that we have heard. Okay. So we have a striking amendment to consider today, as well as the original proposal. And with that, I will call on council staff Leah Greco Zoghbi and Wendy Sue, who thank you both for all your work on this topic. And please go ahead and give us your staff presentation. Good morning. Council members and audience members. I'm Leah crackles at the council staff. With me is Wendy Sidhu. The materials for this item begin on page nine of your packet. The ordinance for you is concerning county oversight of King County's cultural development authority known as for culture, and it would amend King County Code, the fourth for Culture Charter and for culture bylaws. I'll begin with some brief background and then Wendy and I will present the analysis of the legislation prior to the existence of our culture, King County Arts and Cultural Services were administered by the Office of the King County Office of Cultural Resources and within the Executive Office. In 2002, the King County Executive proposed and the County Council adopted an ordinance creating the Cultural Development Authority, later named for culture to assume their functions previously provided by the Office of Cultural Resources, as well as some additional functions under state law. Counties by ordinance may establish a public development authority defined and often called PTA defined as a special purpose quasi municipal corporation created by a local government to carry out a specific public purpose. The proposal to form the PDA was in response to changes in cultural funding at the time, including a reduction in lodging tax revenue available for up. Operations and a reduction in the County General Fund, which resulted in the elimination of General Fund support for cultural grants in 2002. In forming the For Culture PDA, King County wrote an adopted four cultures charter and bylaws and selected the acting executive director and members of the Nominating Committee to select the four culture. The initial for Culture Board currently the primary funding sources for for cultures ongoing operations are a special account which was formally called the Endowment Fund. And I'll get into that more in a little bit. And the 1% for art funding, which is which comes from capital budgets, from county construction projects, investment earnings and county general fund money for maintaining King County's art collection. So table one on page 11 of the staff report shows four cultures projected revenues for 2018. Historically, a portion of the lodging tax collected in King County has been dedicated to arts and culture. And then in 1995, the state legislature reduced that support requiring and also required that 40% of the arts and culture revenues received after January 20 or January 2001 be set aside into an an and a down endowment account, which was to begin supporting arts and cultural functions in 2013 in lieu of that lodging tax support. So in 28 and then in 2011, the state legislature once again established a permanent funding stream for arts and culture in King County by dedicating a portion of the lodging tax revenue to arts and culture beginning in 2021. And so currently for culture is living off that endowment. Table two on page 12 of your packet shows the uses for lodging, tax for arts and culture in King County over time. Moving to an overview of the proposed ordinance, pages 13 through 15 of your packet provide a section by section summary of the proposed ordinance. But in the interest of time, I'm just going to give a brief summary. So the proposed ordinance would require that the King that King County or the County Council accept a accept by Motion for Cultures Board adopted budget prior to transferring funding to forge for culture in the next fiscal year. It would modify the for Culture Board appointment process to include one boy board appointment each by county council members and six appointments by the county executive. The requirements for a specific balance of expertize on the board would be eliminated, and it would provide for the county executive to appoint and King the King County Council to confirm the for culture executive director and recommended for selection by the for Culture Board. And it would provide for the county to remove the executive director by ordinance and it would provide for the county to amend for culture bylaws to make them consistent with changes to the For Culture Charter. Table three on page 16 of your packet shows a comparison between the proposed ordinance and existing conditions. Now turning to the analysis of the proposed ordinance, the ordinance page 17 and 18 of your packet discuss comparisons of the proposed oversight of fort culture to oversight of other PDAs, public agencies and public art programs in the region. The full comparisons can be found in attachments six and seven, which begin on page 171 of your packet. The comparison shows that for culture, beginning in 2021 would receive more public funding than most of the other agencies in the comparison. It also shows that this proposal would make for culture one of only two PDAs where the founding government plays a role in confirming the agency's executive director. And it would make for culture the only PDA to have its operating and capital budget approved by its founding government. I'll now turn to Wendy, who will provide the analysis of the budget impacts. Thank you, Wendy Sidhu Council staff and Mr. Crackles IP pointed out earlier this proposed legislation would establish a process for the County Council to review and accept for cultures budget by motion. Specifically, the ordinance would require for culture to transmit its board approved budget for the following fiscal year to the Council by late September each year. Under the proposed legislation for culture would be required to transmit information. Similar to that which the Council receives when the executive transmits the county's biennial budget. Specifically, the elements that would be required in the proposed legislation would be budgeted operating expenditures and full time equivalent positions for the next year. Capital expenditures for the following six years. And then supporting data including but not limited to a financial plan for the preceding year current year in the next five years. And a description of significant changes from the current fiscal year budget to the next year's proposed budget. Under the proposal, if the Council were to not accept the budget by motion, which would mean either rejecting the motion or not taking action before the end of the year, then the county in the following year would begin to discontinue transfers of the county funds that go to 44 culture currently. And these funds include the hotel motel tax revenues that Ms.. Zaki described that will begin resuming in 2021, as well as 1% for art funding, the capital program funding that goes to for culture as well as general fund support. And the general fund support is the money that goes to culture to essentially take care of the county's art collection. Under the proposal, the transfers would not resume until after the council had accepted a four culture budget by motion and according to the sponsors of the proposed legislation, the rationale for this proposal is to provide greater public accountability over the public public dollars being expended by for culture. Council staff did talk with for culture to try to understand what the potential operational impacts would be according to for culture. Preparing and transmitting the budget to council on the timeline that's proposed would require some significant changes to the agency's budget process. Historically, they've adopted a budget or they've proposed a budget to the board in December once the county budget has been adopted and the amount of county expenditures are known, and then the board approves the budget in January. And so under this approach they would need to provide a budget to their board that was based on estimates of revenues and expenditures, which could mean that throughout the fiscal year they would need to make updates to their budget to reflect actuals as as they were learning more information about their financial condition. I would note that the legislation would not require that those budget updates come to the Council. Once the council had actually taken action on the motion, there would be no need under the legislation for for culture to make any updates subsequently. However, in the case that the Council didn't approve the motion by the end of the year or had rejected it in that case, it's possible or even likely that for culture would probably want to submit a revised budget to the council. Council staff asked for culture to provide information on the potential impacts to the actual programs. If the transfers of these funds were to discontinue for a period of time for a culture indicated that if the council rejected or didn't accept the budget by the end of the year, then they would have to announce that they would be postponing funding for all programs until the budget impasse was resolved. According to For Culture in 2019 and 2020. So before the lodging taxes resume, the primary impact would be to the 1% for art program. Public art projects have multi-year schedules, and the 1% funding from the county is typically transferred to for culture in the beginning of the biennial budget period. And so if the funds stopped being transferred, the public art program would have to be suspended, which could lead to layoffs as well as delays in implementing the public art projects. In addition to stewardship of the county's art collection, would also need to be suspended if general funds ceased to be transferred. And this could lead to temporary layoffs of employees. So turning to page 20 of the staff report, by 2024, culture does expect to have depleted most of its reserves. So the grant programs that are funded by the lodging, tax and special account funding would also be impacted most before cultures. Application deadlines are early in the calendar year, which would be problematic if the Council didn't accept the Fort Culture budget by the end of the preceding year. Without significant reserves, to be able to rely on the grant awards could be delayed, which would potentially delay projects or impact organizations or individual artists that receive funding. And then I would also note that for culture would potentially only be able to cover 1 to 2 months of their general operations. If transfers were discontinued before, they would have to consider layoffs. Council staff also worked with the Office of Performance Strategy and Budget and asked for input on the proposed budget review and acceptance process. They had a number of requests. Specifically, they requested that the Fort Culture Budget be transmitted. Via PSP so that it can provide a quality control review before the transmittal to the council. A PSP also suggested that the for culture budget transmittal include information on administrative expenses and estimated expenditures by program area, but limit the estimate of capital expenditures to only one year as per culture does not manage a significant capital program. PSP also expressed the executive's interest in specifying that the Council should act on the motion in order to accept the port culture budget at least 30 days prior to the end of the year. And then lastly, PSP requested that only the hotel motel tax revenues be withheld and pending council acceptance of the budget in order to prevent any delays or implementation issues with the public art programs and or the 1% for art programs or the stewardship of the county's art collection. I would note that the acceptance of the four culture budget that contemplated in the proposed legislation would be a separate action from the appropriation of county funds for transfer to fort culture. That's something that the Council does as part of its biennial budget process. It appropriates the hotel the the funding sources that the county transfers to for culture as part of the budget ordinance. And so that would continue to occur. And so the budget ordinance would remain a vehicle for potential expenditure restrictions and provisos on those funds. That concludes my remarks, and I will turn it back over to Julia. Thank you, Wendy. And so we're turning to page 20 of the packet for the impacts to the for culture board of the proposed changes to the report or to the board nomination or appointment and makeup. And so the proposed ordinance would change the board nominating process and board makeup such that new appointments and re appointments due to vacancies unexpired terms would be appointed six by the executive and one each by each county council member. The executive and Council member could make appointments from among those forwarded by the For Culture Board or other qualified candidates. According to the sponsors of the proposed ordinance. The rationale for the proposal is to increase communication between the for Culture Board and the County Council and to ensure diverse geographic representation on the For Culture Board. The proposed changes would not impact the current board members as the changes would take effect in the case of filling vacant or expired terms. Four Culture has expressed that while they welcome County Council input into the nomination of Fort Culture Board members, they are concerned about having board members not appointed by individual council members rather than as part of a whole, that that could decrease the overall diversity that they strive for on the board. And I think you will hear more about that when there are four culture board panel comes up. So I will move on the table beginning on page 21 of your packet shows a comparison of the makeup and nomination appointment and confirmation process for select county boards and commissions. And while the table shows that the nomination and appointment process is, ah, they vary quite a bit. One common thread is that the executive appoints most members and the council confirms appointments and that is the case even for boards and commissions that are required to have members residing in each council district or where the council plays a role in the nominating process. The proposed ordinance would make for a culture the only board in this comparison to have a member directly appointed by each council member turning to the Executive Director impacts on page 24 of your packet. The proposed ordinance would keep in place the provisions that allow the Fort Culture Board to manage the selection of four cultures, executive director, oversee the executive directors performance and remove the executive director. The proposed ordinance would add provisions requiring that the four Culture Board recommend to the recommended executive director candidate to the county executive for appointment and confirmation by the County Council. The proposal would also allow the county to remove the executive director by ordinance. According to the sponsors of the proposed ordinance. The rationale for the proposal is to increase the responsiveness of the for culture executive director to the County Council and Executive who directly represent the people of King County and for culture , has expressed concern about the proposal. And as they point out that the. Executive Director would be an employee for culture, and that hiring and firing by an outside entity would be a concern for that reason. And that they also noted that they believe the proposal would create confusion for the executive director reporting to multiple entities and would deviate from the governance structure typical of PDAs and nonprofit organizations. To compare this proposal with the management of other county departments and independent agencies generally, King County Department Heads and other appointees are appointed by the executive, confirmed by the Council, and can only be removed by the executive. There's further feedback from Fort Culture on the proposal on page 24 of the packet and in the attachments beginning on page 185 of your packet. You'll also hear from them during the panel discussion after the staff report. So turning to page 25 of your packet, there's a striking amendment that's been proposed by the sponsor of the proposed ordinance. So I will briefly describe that it would make the following changes to the proposed ordinance charter and for Culture Charter and for culture bylaws. It would eliminate the ability of the county and the county to remove the four culture executive director. It would stipulate that the four culture budget be transmitted to the executive rather than the council 125 days before the end of each fiscal year. And then to the executive would transmit to the council with the regular budget process. And it would require that the for culture budget review and executive acceptance process begin in 2020 rather than on the effective date of the proposed ordinance. It would allow fund transfers to continue in the next fiscal year if the county or the council did not act on the motion by November 30th. So transfers would only discontinue if the Council rejected the four culture budget by motion by November 30th, and it would provide for a process for notifying and get it and providing input from the for Culture Governance Nominating Committee on board vacancies. All other elements of the proposed ordinance would remain as previously described, and that concludes our staff report. Okay. Thank you. I have just been told that we can open up the balcony. I'm waiting for somebody to come along with a key. Apparently, it's been closed due to the as I said it, I heard the key in the lock. So we're going to be moving some chairs in upstairs that can help to accommodate a few more people. But I do want to take just a few minute recess at this point because it'll be noisy. So I'm going to call it into recess for about hopefully no more than 5 minutes. And we can accommodate a few more people in the chambers. There's at least 40 or 45 people up in the overflow and I see people standing outside. So I'm hoping we can get a few more people in here. So we'll be in recess for about 5 minutes. Is this on? We're going to continue in about 30 seconds so people could take their seat. If you have a seat. I'd appreciate it. The overflow room remains available for those who don't have chairs upstairs. Welcome for those who do that. So, of course. So. All right. We'll be back in session. Thank you all for your patience. I'm glad we were able to accommodate a few more people here in the chambers. And at this point in the agenda, we have three representatives from the Board of Four Culture.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute a Second Amendment to the Natural Gas Services Agreement with Shell Energy North America (SENA) providing administrative functions related to the delivery of natural gas to the City of Long Beach’s natural gas pipeline system for an additional three-year term with no other change in terms. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03102015_15-0201

Item 11. Item 11 is a report from Long Beach Gas and oil. Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute a Second Amendment to the Natural Gas Services Agreement with Shell Energy. North America. City. Mr. City Manager, do you have. You can have Mr. Gardner give a brief report. Thank you. A brief report. As you may know, we import quite a bit of our natural gas supply from out of state. And so we get it from Texas, New Mexico, from Colorado, and also from Canada, Wyoming. And so we have to coordinate those supplies coming into California on the interstate pipelines. And then from there, from the California border, it's put on to the Southern California gas company interstate pipeline. And then those volumes have to be transported to the city of Long Beach. So we have to match up our incoming supplies with our outgoing supplies. And so we hire Shell to manage that, those volume flows for us. Council member, Austin. Now. Okay. So we have a motion by Councilman Andrews, a second by Councilwoman Mongeau. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address the Council on item 11 saying none? Members cast your vote. Motion carries six zero. Item 12.

A bill for an ordinance approving a Framework Agreement and its exhibits among the City and County of Denver, Colorado State University, The Western Stock Show Association, and the National Western Center Authority; and exempting the public buildings on the National Western Center campus from the naming requirements of Section 2-275, D.R.M.C. Approves a framework agreement with Colorado State University, the Western Stock Show Association, and the National Western Center Authority for fifty years, with two possible 25 year extensions, to authorize formation of an authority to operate the new facilities and govern the roles and responsibilities of each party for the redevelopment of the existing National Western Complex into a year-round venue to preserve the National Western Stock Show in Denver for the next 100 years, provide room for new programming, provide connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods, and bring more visitors to Denver. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-2-17. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting

DenverCityCouncil_09112017_17-0939

Okay. We are convening today. I know you guys like talking to each other, but we are moving and convening. Thank you. Thank you. We have one public hearing tonight. Speakers should begin the remarks by telling council their names and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home address. If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, come to the podium. State your name and that you're available for questions of members of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There will be no yielding of time because this is a courtesy public hearing on the presentation monitor to your right and to your left . You will see your time counting down speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing. Must direct their comments to council members as a whole refrain from profane and obscene speech. Please direct your comments to us. And no personal or individual attacks. Not fun, not cool. All right, Councilman Cashman, will you please put 939 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move the council Bill 939 be ordered published. All right. It has been moved. President pro tem has been moved. And second it, the public hearing of council Bill 939 is open. May we have the staff report from Kelly? Okay. It says Jen Wilburn here. Kelly lead. Can we have the staff report? Yes, sir. Kelly Lead Executive Director, Mayor's office, the National Western Center. First and foremost, on behalf of the NWC Program Partners, we're excited to be here tonight to bring forward the National Western Center Framework Agreement. This agreement formally unlocks both our individual and collective abilities to fulfill the vision and mission of the campus in three broad categories our legal responsibilities, our financial and our operational relative to both building and ultimately operating this campus. Many of us have had the honor to work on this program in these and in these communities since 2013, among which included the signing of a nonbinding MRU, among the five founding partners of the National Western Center campus. And then subsequent to that, a term sheet, non-binding term sheet in 2015. And I think it was appropriate that we heard about Denver Union Station tonight and the success and on the heels of that. We hope to both learn and replicate many of their successes, successes. Tonight, we have our partners here who are the signers of this agreement, both Colorado State University, the Western Soccer Association, the city of ours, Tony Frank, the chancellor of the Sea Issue System, and Paul Andrews, the presidency of the National Western, to join me. They'll make a few remarks as well. And we've got team members here, both from the city's team. Amy Parsons is here from CSU, Crystal and Jen and Josh from our legal team, my deputy, Gretchen Holler. Who else we got here? We got Tim Santos and Chris Pacheco from the DCC. This has been a large group of folks that have helped make this happen, and we are all here to answer any questions of counsel, and we look forward to fully advancing the National Western Center in the coming weeks, months and years. In preparation for City Council, we held four sessions with our Citizens Advisory Committee, which started with handing out binders, briefing binders to those committee members on August 10th. And we heard and listened to a number of their questions, and those have been reflected. Some of the changes that we've heard have been reflected in the current agreement before Council. So let me highlight a few of those. One was there originally we called out for a voting member from what we called a local director. And based on what we heard from the community, a very strong support for changing local director to resident of Go Valerie Swansea. So that has been a change made. We've also heard about the desire to add additional representation to the committee or to the board. And so the Mayor will appoint now a non-voting director confirmed by City Council, who, as a resident of Gobblers, wants the neighborhoods. This change was made to allow for the neighborhoods to have a voice, even if the appointment is vacant, since the non-voting director would become the voting director from the neighborhoods if the voting director position was vacant for any reason. We've also emphasized, based on what we heard, the importance of starting off the authority appropriately and correctly, and so especially around the Community Investment Fund. And so we added language beyond just the round up idea to include a review of additional resources and to have the authority board review as part of their annual budget process. A discussion about how you could leverage and grow that fund beyond just the round up. And lastly, there was some additional again, language around additional resources and a commitment in a memo from the mayor that will direct the board to one have on their first agenda a discussion about the Community Investment Fund and how the authority board will partner with the community, among other things. And although we are here tonight to advance the framework agreement, we also know that the list of challenges is long and the goal volaris wants here communities, many of which originated well before any of us were born. This program won't resolve many of them. However, the campus is one of those rare, catalytic efforts that can shine a light on these historic communities and bring much needed resources in a variety of forms in helping solve some of the challenges that lie outside the campus boundaries for which we are responsible. And an example of that, which I'm sure we will answer questions about is the Community Investment Fund. So thank you again for the opportunity to come here before you tonight. And I would like to have Tony and or Paul, both of you come out and say a few words. Mr. President, members of the council, I'm here on behalf of the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System to thank you all for your consideration of this bill. Everything that we do as a university is founded under the principle that discovering new knowledge, passing it to the next generation, and applying it for the benefit of the society that we exist to serve are things that we do in every aspect of what we do. And you'll see that reflected in the programs here, whether they're research in water conservation and reuse at the Joint Center with Denver Water at the Water Resources Center, or the exhibitions that will push that knowledge out into the public or K-12 programs that will work on water literacy. If you're talking about our veterinary programs and improved local animal care or the support for the equine shows that will add economic benefit of the stock show connections to the Translational Medicine Institute back on our campus or programs that will tie two to some are scholarship programs for students interested in the biomedical sciences to come up to our campus. Or if you look at things like the CSU Center and the progress we can make around agricultural literacy for K-12 students, urban agriculture, support of a very large intellectual property aspect of the large industry that agriculture represents in Colorado. All of those things we're excited about doing through the facilities at the National Western Center. This is nothing, I think, less important than how we feed and educate the next generation on this planet. We're proud to be partners of it. Everything that we do, we can't always envision what these programs will look like because it's difficult to see how a program may need to address something as large as food, water, energy, the environment or human health. And that's the interface in which agriculture works. But rest assured, the Colorado State University will stand ready to use these facilities to address any issue as large as its big ones like that, or as smaller issues as timely as ethical officiating and sportsmanship for elected officials. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate that. That is a great sense of humor. So. Hey, that was wow. It was so beautifully woven in as. It was like silk. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President, and members of council. I'll be brief. I just want to remind everyone and those that might be watching on television that the National Western Center. Is a 250. Acre campus that's designed to keep alive our Western heritage for future generations and. To position. Colorado. To become the Silicon Valley of Agriculture. It puts Denver. Colorado, on the global stage as a leader in solving food. Production issues and fighting world hunger. Through. Education, entertainment and innovation. The forecast economic impact for this from several studies will be. $230 million per year. And that's from over 300 events that have been forecast in several studies. The new center will allow growth. Of the National Western Stock Show, the Super Bowl of livestock shows to numbers approaching 1 million people visiting in January alone. It puts the association in a sustainable business model. So that we can continue to support our mission of agricultural education. In order to do all this, leadership of the nation of Western has committed to put in $125 million of value, of which 50 million must be in cash. The first cash payment of $15 million in. The framework agreement. Is due by November 1st of 2008. That is basically. One year from today. This payment is doubly important. As it will release funds generated. By the Regional Tourism. Act at the same time. So by acting now in approving the framework agreement, we can begin our. Fundraising campaign and meet this very, very crucial deadline. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you, Mr. Andrews. All right. We are going to start the courtesy public hearing now. Before that, I just have a couple of announcements that I did not mention earlier. On September 14th, our own councilman, Kevin Flynn, will be turning 35 years of age and we are excited about that. So happy birthday, Councilman Flynn. Thank you. Mr. President, I'm the one who's supposed to be forgetful. Not you. You. You have a great birthday, actually. 65 years of age. So he'll be reaching that age. Okay, great. And then we we want to recognize former Speaker of the House Terrence Carroll, the first African-American speaker of the state of Colorado. Thank you for being here, sir. And we'll be calling you up soon. Okay. If you gentlemen can find a system, use this a first for first row. For the first five speakers, we have 14 speakers tonight. 12 are in favor. Two are against this. And for folks who are in favor, if you can think about your messaging and if you're on the end of that at not repeating the same thing over and over again, it's just helpful for the overall conversation of this hearing. Be helpful. All right. The Honorable Terrance, Carol, Nolan, Miguel, John MISBAH Sekou and Mercedes Gonzalez. For those using a translation interpretation, it will be a total of 6 minutes just letting you all know that again. Terrance Carroll. No, let me go. John Misbah. Sekou and Mercedes Gonzalez. Mr. Carroll, you're a first. Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the council. I'd just like to add one thing to some of the programing that will occur at the National Western Center. I'm personally funding a program for giving sight to PAC 12 officials during football games. You had to understand the game to understand that. But keep going. Just saying. I'm here in my role. As co facilitator of the National Western Citizen Advisory Committee, and I'm also treasurer of the Western Stock Show Association Board. And I just want to give you a brief overview of what the SEC's role has been over the last several years leading up to the framework agreement. And I can do that in 2 minutes and 21 seconds very quickly. And it's actually quite auspicious that you're taking this vote today, or at least in this month, because we're actually on the four year anniversary or thereabouts of the formation of the Citizen Advisory Committee by former Councilwoman Julie Monteiro. And we continue to enjoy support from the City Council, both with Council President Brooks and Councilwoman Ortega, who both regularly attend the CAC. Members of the CAC have worked tirelessly, meeting basically every month for four years and on some months we actually meeting several times during the course of the month to influence and to provide feedback and to provide guidance and the process that led to the formation of the National Western Center. Some of you were in the Council when we voted on the master plan, and that master plan had ample input from members of the community. In fact, many aspects of the master plan came directly from the mouths of the members of the CAC. And I'd also like to clarify that the CAC voting members are composed of the residents of the community and business and other community leaders, nonprofits in the community. The facilitators, myself and Maria Garcia Berry, do not vote. Neither do the partners. That would be the National Western CSU, the City History Colorado and the Museum of Nature and Science. None of them have votes. They're just there to be we're just there to be resources. But I did want you to understand the CAC process and how important it is to the ongoing success of the National Western Center. And to also let you know that as this goes forward, even after the first shovels turn dirt, the CAC will continue to function, to provide guidance, to provide input, to ensure that members of the community have a voice in this project over the long term. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Mr. Carroll. All right, Nola McGill. Thank you, Mr. President. Members of council. Nice to see you all. My name's Nolan. Miguel and I work for the Global Response Coalition Organizing for Health and Housing Justice. We just formed in July as a formal coalition. So if you haven't heard of us before, that's why you may have seen a recent study that we did around displacement that's happening in global areas once a. But I actually want to speak just for a moment. As many of you know, I worked for Councilwoman Monteiro previously and was a large part of helping the whole process happen. And I actually wanted to read from her letter that's in the National Western Master Plan. Center master plan, because there are some parts of it I feel like kind of just making the connection from what was happening then to what's happening now. So and this is in page three of the master plan. So if you pull it up, it'll be the first actual text that you see in the plan. And in the third paragraph, she's said, I feel the most important part of this master plan is the inclusion of the neighborhoods with the National Western Center. As there have long been connectivity and relational obstacles for local residents. It was really important to Councilman Monteiro to create the Citizens Accountability Committee. It was an advisory when it was in the first idea formation. And I, you know, following through with with the the the compromise sorry, I'm thinking in Spanish, the agreements that were made at that time is really important right now, because this is a moment when this is all getting formal. Right. And then in the very last part of that paragraph, she says, moving forward, I would like to see specific details and commitments outlined which would benefit the neighborhood, such as. And then she goes and different things like a community, community, commercial kitchen, connections with the schools, integrated markets for the community communication advocacy exchange. So in that note, I just wanted to advocate for an actual community benefits agreement, which is something that we don't have with the neighborhood between the neighborhood and then this forming authority. And the reason that we don't have it is because we didn't have the authority yet, but we are about to. So we would like to see that included. I'd actually like to see it as part of the framework agreement where it talks about the CAMI Investment Fund. It should also talk about a community benefits agreement just like this framework agreement will create trust and will create commitment and people know what they're getting into that would do that with the community as well. It would also bring intentionality, goals and commitments around local hire, around open space, around access to the university. Potentially, there were families just like Maria that were displaced from this campus. In order for this to happen, those families should have access to the university thinking about use of facilities, commercial kitchen use, thinking about affordable housing and you know, are we at time? Sorry. Your time is up. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Okay. You know what? I figured this out. We had a misspelling. A severe misspelling in here. John, on. You're up to speak. Come on up. Yeah. We. Yes. Right now because we we misspelled your name. I couldn't figure out what that last name was. Don't let that happen again. Yes, sir. Okay. Will never happen again. Mr. President, members of Council, I want to share a human side of this whole effort. Councilman. You asked me. Be careful what you wish. For a couple of years ago. You remember. That? And I haven't been wishing for a couple of years. I've been wishing for a hell of a long time. Longer than that. And what I want to say for you is for you to look at what you got before you. And who ever thought we'd have a college campus in the middle of. A stockyards area? My neighborhood of Globeville will benefit immensely from this effort. People that live in Swansea will as well. The idea of. This complex. Becoming a reality has taken a lot of time and a lot of work, and it started a long time ago, even before Mrs. Monteiro sat on this council. Years ago, people thought the stock show was just another rodeo. It's not just another rodeo. This is a benefits effort for business and residents alike and those that might not like or might not approve this idea. We embrace them because we know they're entitled to their opinion. But paramount, they're our friends and neighbors and we need to live together and see this project through which we will. There's a lot of work to be done yet, and I look forward to working with the people that may be not totally agreement with it, maybe even oppose it. But that's how we get things done. And it's time. It's been over 100 years. This thing is going to be a beautiful project for business and residents. We just isn't going to happen like flower springing up from the side of the Platte River. It takes a lot of work and people for and against it or we got to work together on it. And that's the main thing that is in front of us now. And I'm concerned that we will get it done even with those people that are not in agreement with us, but we embrace them and will lead them along so they can gain the kind of. Knowledge and feelings that. We all have about it. Thank you. And I expect a unanimous vote from everyone here tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. IP. Sorry about the name. All right, Sekou. Yes. Good evening. My name is Chairman Sekou. I am the. Founder organizer for the Black Star Action Movement for for Self-defense. Advocating for poor, working, poor, homeless and senior citizens. First of all, man. It's a little pretty. I'm talking about for real. That's outstanding homecoming for the Broncos. Beautiful, beautiful. And we want to thank you also President Brooks. For your leadership. And in supporting the. Residents of the dial, senior citizens of Operation. On 34th. And Elm. Street, where they're going to be celebrating their year end celebration. And everybody is so excited about the possibility of all city council and the mayor coming to share with folks who can't come out to events. They're kind of sick. So getting to the West End Stock Show, because this is going to. We stand diametrically opposed to this agreement. An audience. Many times the history. Of a society is written. To glorify the events. And circumstances. From which they exist. I just came from up at Carter Lake and the flat arts fishing and. You know, it broke my heart. I envisioned when Indigenous people was roaming that. Area before the Europeans came. And they had a wonderful environment and life. And all of that disappeared for them because they, in the tradition of how the West was run, was murdered. Men and women massacred their land seized illegally. With no consequence. And now the glorification of how the West is run. I refuse to let my children even look at that mess on Saturdays with the cowboys and Indians. It's an insult to those people. To have that glorified and looked at by the youth. And so as we go about doing this thing and acknowledging the white supremacy and the racism of this Western story. We need to really. Take a look at the 50 year. Agreement and what's going to be the educational process of that, because we've got to begin to tell the truth about the history of this nation and to begin to resolve the contradictions so those that are indigenous are not strangers in their own home. And I thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Mr. Sekou Mercedes Gonzalez. And you have a she has a translation, so we're going to set it at 6 minutes. Oh, like, almost us. Pull her mike down. Hello. Good evening. My name is. Sorry. Good evening. My name is Mercedes Gonzalez. Gonzalez, in which she has a better rapport more committee had an opportunity of Ester Gonzalez Baraka you're with they were that this soliloquy siento eran is the one time. Listen I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to share how I feel. Don't forget to circle the phone. I'm going to. Speak a. Little bit about the fund. They want the stake for your career. Okay. I'll give you a monitor that they talk almost every day. Cambio Everything. Sounds beautiful. The way. We talk. About the change, what the change will look. Like a mantra mutually narrow by your chromosome players. Para la comunidad. We're going to have lots of money. Coming in and perhaps even more jobs for the community. Better your perspective almost as it impacted us. But I believe we will be impacted the. Impact of those the in in Cuba where mas tropical mas mazrui those. Will be impacted by more traffic more. Noise must. Peligro para Bahrain Nuestros Ninos Madrid, Brussels, Parana Astros Trabalhos. Dangers for our children. We might be delayed even more. With our work. Entonces your crookedness as he doubles as a phone localized the también in law or not c'est almost pasando Rita Estamos Viviendo is still in la salta rain does a lot displacement those. So I believe we really need this fun just. To speak about what we're going. Through right now. We are going through displacement and. High rent. Mimicking A.M.E. study. Okay is was one of those what I'm fond of what apparently struck money that. I would really love it if that fund was used for our community. Paid or not so these are can no can can I started signing on whereas the a bitterly yeah at me what is the. Jacuzzi Iraqis are fond of. Paramus, Itamar Hummus. Rapido. What we know is what we hear is that that fun would not come into play. Until two years. And what I would like to see is for. That to come in a little bit. Quicker. All that being ketamine. Mr. Corbyn in Westeros need those monsters we need to stand behind. He uses the Necesitan Damian Bergkamp para para programas. I believe for our children. Our students are our grandchildren and great grandchildren. Could you really use that funding for programing? But our program, as they will see, they come more. But as to the end, those companies per capita we grandmas must make. Us so programs programs for them to be able to study more to to gain more. Scholarship money. Was stolen. It is no longer ICAC. Your hierarchy was to resist. They always are nostra and mistrust. Trabelsi Nostra. And this is either this the bossy para La Nostra Nostra Comunidad. And that is that I really hope you. Take into account the concerns. That we have and just really learn. About what our community is going through right now. Getting an address to look is a bit about an opportunity that I mean they ve been there nostra nuestros productos in Aztec in those the oportunidades in the la conejo. But I mean that nuestros productos no look is comi the he I mean my study is not yet and oportunidades is in Mr. Comunita. And I would really love it for women from our community. To have that opportunity to sell their products, food products in the in this space. I really would love it for women from the community to have that opportunity to sell in. Porto look at bazaar your character in those medicinals is able no parochial support is critical. And because of everything that we have been going through I think that we deserve we deserve. This bonus but I would love it in writing. A.C. I will not promise applecare+ palabras solution will be in can on this criticism. For it not just to be. Something verbal because sometimes words are just gone with the wind. Really have it in writing for. It to be a firm agreement. Which I want to. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Honest. Okay. I'm going to call the next five up to the bench. Nancy Grant Jones, Ray G. Angelina Torres and Pat Grant. That's for. And he's as well. Nancy Grant, is Jones your first? Good evening, council president and council members. My name is Nancy Grandiose Jones. I'm a business owner in Globeville own former meatpacking plant that dates back to the early 1900s. That's been repurposed. That business has been active. My business has been active since 1995, but my husband has been in the meat industry since 1975 in Globeville. So I have a long history there. I'm also an alternate on the WCC as a business person, not in my role in Globeville Civic Partners. I'm here to endorse the NWA, the agreement, and to speak to one of the community components the voting members, the directors on the board. We are very pleased that that there will be community representation. However, I'm asking that we had a vote on the NWA, CAC 14 to 3 to have two voting members. And the only way that would happen is if then the mayor used one of his one of his director appointees to come from the community. What I want to share is some context is when that there was the zoning text amendments that came before the planning board. Community members came to that meeting and we expressed some concerns. The planning board passed the text agreements then that then that moved forward the NWC plan and this is what they said that the City Council acknowledge and address the concerns expressed by the neighborhood stakeholders with regards to neighborhood involvement in governance and community equity. Two voting members would cover that under governance and community equity. The mayor did something bold with the N DCC and especially bold by putting a community component in there. I believe that this follows, along with the mayor's commitment to the community to for equity, to have two voting members. I'm asking that I know this cannot be amended. It's a contract. But as city council members, maybe you have some way of writing a letter to the mayor on behalf that you all would that you all would endorse having two community voting members, write a letter, whatever, if you do resolutions. We're very pleased that Councilman Brooks said that he would arrange a meeting with community members, with the mayor, but it would really have more effect that, you know what the issues have been in Globeville. The mayor uplifted geese for some reasons to right some wrongs. And truly, we've always tried to be partners with NWC. We've supported the two C, we reported to the RTA. We've supported everything that the National Western Senate has asked. Thank you very much. If you would act on our behalf also. Thank you, Mr. Dennis Jones. Okay. Well, good evening, everybody. I just. Want to really quick. Introduce yourself for the record Raging. I live in Globeville for a generation. Or Denver resident. Real quick, I. Just wanted to. Say. You know, just like John was saying earlier, this is going to. Provide a lot of opportunities for education for our community here in Globeville. I do agree with the. Framework in general. Overall. There's certain details like Nancy was saying, I believe there should be two voting members on the board in order for the. Community to have a bigger voice and a bigger. More involvement in what's going on, whether it be negotiations with business, whether. It be negotiations with other projects. But that would. Allow us as a community to have more of. A a bridge between. Us and. The Western Stock Show. You know, I'm sure you guys have heard. Represents no no representation without taxation is you know something that we need to be able to get involved in with with our community be able to have ownership of our community now, not only with these two members, be able to bring more opportunities to our neighborhoods, whether it be education , employment, like Mercedes was saying, we can have some of the ladies that are, you know, in our community struggling to pay bills, have them, you know, be able to be involved in some of the food vending, you know, just other aspects of the whole the whole project. The other thing that I want to say is that some of the criteria for some of. These members of the board, for the the resident members of the board. Should be that they have a equity. In the community. And by equity, I mean. We should have a measurable amount of time that they are given to the community, how they are involved in the community, maybe even have kids who attend the schools, have family that live in the area, have been living in the area and know what our neighbors and friends need. You know, because a lot of. Times we don't have a voice. In these communities. And this is part of the problem. That we've had with breakdowns of communication between the residents, city or other organizations, whether it be the Western Stock Show or or I-70, CDOT, all those all those is it's always been a breakdown in communication and not having that proper representation. In in the negotiation process. So being able to bring. Two more. Members on to this board would really help to, like I said, get the community more involved and back behind more of these projects and also give us more of a voice and more participation in anything that's going to be happening in the future, which is. Going to be a lot. So thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Go, Broncos. Thank you, Mr. Reggie. All right. Angelina Torres. And there will be translation. So you will have 6 minutes or less. Do you want to answer? My name is Lynette Torres and I live in Swansea. It's a discussion we will need to establish. Are they fond of monetary office? It sounds really nice to hear about monetary funds. But I guess they told us Podemos the planet is the universe in resolution. That is the problem as against them. But I think we can all talk about a base, a foundation to solve some of the problems that are already happening. For us to get involved cannot get noice de la B in San Jose, knock it out. Our academics case that as it is el proyecto and that is. Why we don't think that you should dwell on it too long or think about it too much too long, but really start on the. Project now. Right now. See, forget the mutual system since all we are planning almost because sometimes. You forget about what we. Plan. This place can be almost the ideas. And then we change our ideas and don't. So hasta la solutions or most others. The solution lies within all of us. You are your list below the power case. The case? Yeah. Yeah. I asked you for this favor to work on this now can nice. But it must be in this plant. The mysterious sister, this place handle. Yes. They're so friendly, LASCARIS. It cannot resist that long, long, medium or well. See, I know this whole story. So to not wait for people to continue to be displaced and to be out on the street, this is not fair. This dental health care solution that is legal under Leona Minerva. Those maneuvers sometimes we want this or no, not. Well, I said, I see. We want to solve this problem by giving them one coin or two coins. It can't be this way. Was good listening and player and the was in that is. We want you to give jobs to our neighborhood. See get emasculated in the LA mano you know they think in this dress amigo see those extensively in the last been us get get yours know not be the hero. We we want you to extend a hand to to these folks and and to help these people that are going through these sufferings that they didn't ask for. This one nosotros not mortify Chyna's interest in them which at that is this is they better so they are not get him also get them as Bartolo Alligator Press they handle. This mortified. This this this saddens us. We don't want to see this we want people to be celebrating. Trabalhando Haciendo algo can not go still. Working and doing something that we love. E presence the list below they have all they get them being is the know now that my sister is still unprecedented. And that is why I am also asking you as a favor to not only have one resident. Represent La Comunidad representing the. Community. Como, they say, is the last person as owner noise. Ninguna It's. Not just one. Person representing the community like people sometimes say one is. No one does get among those person us representing. We want two people to represent. Alamosa directives. On the board of directors. And on the lines of personas con person. For these two. People to be able to talk the thing and solutions para la comunidad. And to have solutions. For the community. You look at Yellow Square, those gathering adentro in La mesa activa. And these agreements that. They make within the board cannot. The hearing is to communicate a law that can communicate and also. Trust that these members. Can communicate it back to. Residents. But I said people it is the acid algo Perla la that to get access to. Be able to know and to be able to do something for the community. Thank you. Grasses Mr. Mysterious Pat Grant. The grant? No. Mr. President, members of Council. My name is Pat Grant. I am chairman of the Board of the Western Style Show Association. I am really pleased to be here, but mostly to express sincere gratitude to council for helping us bring this issue in this matter, in this agreement. To where it is tonight. It's huge. Your support of major to see some months ago was really, really important and critical to this process. I was here in 1990. Some years ago when you approved or your predecessors approved the first 50 year agreement. And we look forward to the next 50 years. And how exciting, how dramatic, how huge these steps will be undertaken. As you know. The National Wells turn overtime has grown its footprint through largely our own resources. We have been careful stewards. Of our resources so that we could acquire our land. We could grow our process, grow our stock show. Tonight through this agreement, we are prepared to convey and transfer. This land. 90 acres. Back to the city and county of Denver. This land has a value of some $75 million. But we are not only prepared to convey our land. Well, we've made a promise, we've made a commitment and are making a commitment through this agreement that we will raise $50 million. And transfer that 50 million to the city and county of Denver. Make no mistake. We've never done this before. We've never been in a position where we had to raise money and transfer the money to the city. But we will do that. We will fulfill her obligation. We view this as a very fair agreement, a very equitable agreement. It has been worked on for a long period of time. Let us now capture our collective vision for an exciting vision. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Grant and Hayes. Mr. President. Members of council. I am. And Hayes. I live in Capitol Hill, Denver. I work for Westfield Company. We own 14, actually 17 acres on Brighton Boulevard that we are getting ready to redevelop. It is in. Close. Proximity to the National Western and we hope for our project to be symbiotic with the National Western. And so we're very excited. About what's happening. In that part of town. And the possibilities for the enrichment of the community in that. Area and for all of the people, not only up in that area, but of all of Reno as. Well. I'm also very active on in Reno. I am on the National. Western Citizens Advisory Committee. I've been on it since almost the very beginning. I sought membership. Of that so that I could get. Involved. I've also learned. Time to be. A member of the Technical. Advisory Committee. When we did the agribusiness plan. Economic plan, and I also sat on the. Selection committee for the Placemaking Team that we're going to be starting to work with at the committee. I am here in 100% support of the framework document as submitted. I believe that the city has done a very good. Job of bringing to our committee the book. As Kelly explained, they actually brought notebooks for each one of us so that we could read them. We had four very comprehensive meetings to. Go over all of the details of that document, and I believe the city has responded to the community's. Comments adequately and has. In my opinion, really been fair with what they have come back and negotiated with the community. As far as having two voices on the the board, the authority board. And I think that that is fair. I think what needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that there are. Only 11 board members, that this is an enormous amount of money that is being managed. It's going to take. An incredible amount of. Expertize from many different disciplines. And I think we have to be careful going forward. With forward with. Creating the characteristics of all of those board members and what they bring to the table. I think it's important for the community to have two voices, but I'm not so. I was one of the three votes. That voted against the two voting members. I have to admit it took a little flack for it. But I believe that what we really need to focus on on our committee is to give the mayor at his request, the characteristics of the other board members so that this framework plan can be implemented in a way that's successful . There are many people, including the gentleman who just spoke, that are putting a lot on the line, and this has to be executed in a way that is disciplined and is successful. So that is my opinion. And I again, 100%, 100% support the agreement as submitted. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Hayes. All right. We have the last five speakers. David Wolski, one Vallas, Virginia Calderon. And. And Elizabeth. A E? David Lasky. You're up first, sir. I'm up first. Okay. First things first, ladies, congratulations on 85 years of voting. You know, I got to do that. But thank you, city council. My name is David Netsky and I live at. 4930 Logan in the Globeville. Neighborhood. And I want to thank City Council for letting. Me be here tonight and speak. I mean, my family's been Anglo Wilson since 1870. It's about 147 years old. Now, what I wanted to I don't know. I know I don't want to speak too much. I just want to thank everyone. City Council, Albus, Debbie, you guys been at our meetings? I want to thank the city attorneys for their hard work. You know, the M.O., you partners and Kelly lead and. Pat Grant and Paul Andrews. You know, they have treated us with respect and dignity, which we've never seen before. I mean, they're awesome. It's like if you ask them a question, they'll give you an answer. If you have a problem, they'll see if they can remedy it. You know, and and being in Globeville all these years and it being a neighborhood that's been neglected and abused, we haven't seen that out of a national westerner. This is an awesome. Ordeal we're going through. It's going to be, you know, world class. I'm I have my my faith in these guys and the women. That they're going to do the. Right thing, you know? And city council, you guys have been great. You know, you and Debi came to two meetings when. You could have been off. You know, and. We appreciate that you guys are constantly working in our mayor. You know, the way he laid out the DCC, you know, is amazing. But that shows you had experience because he put his internship in Globeville during the Asarco days. People don't know of that. And he's seen the abuse and neglect, but we've never seen, you know, in the end, he's trying to put it right. But the national western. They're not. They're just awesome, you know and the more you partners. And I just want to thank everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lasky. One Villas and Mr. Villas was all I have. TRANSLATION So you have 6 minutes. What I'm noticing of precedent. There was Brooke singular school and psychology school psychologist. Come in. Good evening, President Brooks. And Council men and women. Boy, I said, what is the. Juno was a set of cuatro, cuatro palabras. I'm going to be very brief. I just want to. Mention four words. Your point. El Proyecto and National Western. I support. The National Western Project. A. Personnel maintain the common leader community due to the lack of money that they Aliadiere is once again. Personally and also as a community leader of Illyria in Swansea. And under the La Comunidad de Lydia Swansea. Yet I also there is still a c estamos de acuerdo in proyecto a national western city. They then there is C is you lonely or c that. It on behalf of the Elyria Swansea a neighborhood. I want to let you know that we are in agreement with this. Partnership between the city and county of. Denver, between CSU and between National Western. And which has similarities very much. Thank you, Mr. Los. Virginia Calderon. We went to notice President Brooks. He they must be chemical then on your. Good evening, President Brooks. Brooks and other members of the city council. I mean, is he not going to let on people in an area this YMCA? My name is. Bettina Calderon and. I live in the Swanson neighborhood. Your story? I keep working a story on Occupy that poor kid and lost. I see. Then this. DeLaria This one see a globule? El-Erian. I am. Here because I am a tad bit concerned because the residents in the areas of Globeville, they're in Swansea are. Not anymore. Sophie Representantes and the committee want to say this is to represent thunder, don't. Have. Enough represent resident representatives on. This board that you are proposing. For Kennesaw resident to not receive more information to stay our land, sustainable land and ladylike diva. Because as residents we don't receive that information that is being presented at these meetings. Putting in place. So yes. QUESTION The order of the in an event Nostra Santos event or supporter annual they will call nosotros somos evermore if that affect that those directamente. Like I am hearing over 300 events that will come a year where residents will be directly impacted and affected. You know the name of and not being nosy and also the lack of money that nosotros tenemos on or not on. Not only on this couple of demos, they are listening for my noise. I see them on my MINUSMA, but I'm also Transavia. You are me seahorse. I'm in the capacity, Amazon is the area. And we don't receive that information. We don't know what's happening in these meetings and it would be good for us to have representation for places where that are ready meet like meetings that we have where we can rely that information to my children, to my my grandchildren and other members of. The community. Know certain systems more important, more into the cells and the nearest bank or the pier for customers to be in the right to know knowing the sign, you know. So some of our readers who will sit them, Paula Vasquez Encontramos Amelia Condors Minos doesn't know so of the safe animals either. Sign your guest on viviendo la carte. And and the other thing that we really are concerned about is looking at community land trust, not in two years, but now if you drive down I-70 and Vasquez, you will see a family living there. With a seven year old and. A two year old that are living out on the street. At Estrella hand. They'll stutter. On one hand they'll see, but not in the middle of by don't renter tampoco. Kevin Elsasser conjecture final status. CONAN Familia como. Esta? And we we have a people in this family. This mom is working and she is working. But but she doesn't have enough money to pay rent. What are we going to do with a family like this? What are you going to do with a family like this? Necessity Los Fondos Arrieta. Do you think the funding now? No. Podemos a estos does mean your system as Orlando sales guidance at Cinco MinutoS, Florida Connector callup. Yes, on orders and I see vandals. Sorry, we can't let these kids be out on the streets. Just you go out for 5 minutes and be in the scorching sun for 5 minutes. Imagine these kids that are out there for hours at a time. Is full of kids in bed. A stunning, stunning, stunning noise that accompany the necessity of proto hair loss. Our order. And if you want to see them, you can drive and you can go see them. They are living in our community right now. But I also if it's in Minnesota, Estamos, Ecuador and Casi status play, then are you there? No. See their net loss event or retirement sale, but up with that form, those apparently stress families. And so we. Would ask that if we could start having these events at the Coliseum to start fundraising for our community. It's just a little portable maintenance system. That is all for now. Thank you so much. Thank you, Miss Cordero. Leslie and Elizabeth. E e. I need 6 minutes because I'd like this to be translated into Spanish. Something to think about. President Brooks, District nine members of the City Council. I am here strongly to support. With some enthusiasm. That is profoundly complex. This starting block. By establishing this authority. When we started the We. The People to form a more perfect union ordained and that established our Constitution. There was a compromise reached wherein some states came. On with the agreement that there would be amendments immediately proposed. This was an act of faith. I have experienced the city. Act in good faith in. Two specific changes. That were initiated. By folks who perhaps don't understand. That. The public voice can have a concrete impact at. Any any point in the conversation. So I hope that as this authority. Is established, more people will step up and recognize that. Everything that is everyone's concern can still be discussed and become part of the National Western Center sensitivities and and accomplishments. I really believe that the the change in response to the desire to have a. Dual seat. On. The authority. That was brought. About by the staff which which established. A and a nonvoting voting alternate. Was a gesture on the. Part of the the Denver team and to provide a solution that was not. Going to. Compromise the advancement. Of this mechanism at a time that it needs to be advanced, and yet also keeps the conversation going so that the entire board can look at what the priorities have to be in the holistic sense for all of the equity partners in. Terms of. Equity. I want to put out a formula for folks to I mean, I'm skipping ahead here. I'm totally discombobulated. If you can't if you can't tell with all that's being said, that's a value and I'm trying to shorten. You're not doing that. I really believe that the number of hours that people have put in over decades, if. You if you. Attribute that as pro bono work among the neighborhoods and you calculate it at $15, $15 an hour, 15 hours a week, over 50 weeks, over 20 years, you probably. Have about. $1,000,000 equity right there. I would like. To count the partners to consider in their first meetings a possible equity. Advance, just like the partners are using to fund it for reimbursements. To create the community fund and get that community investment fund going and all of the. Elizabeth. Thank you very much. I appreciate a chance to ramble on. Hey, thank you so much. And I want to I want to thank everybody who came out and sat in this. Our benches went through security park, did all that stuff. Really appreciate all of your words. We are. This concludes the kind of the comment portion we're going to go into questions and I'm going to ask the first question to get things started, because I don't think we got a chance to outline this correctly. Kelly Lead and call. Jen will burn up and just ask you all to outline all of the changes that happened in those four meetings. Yeah. Come on. Yeah. Come on up here. In those. In those four meetings that we had, much similar to like we did the other night. Okay, very helpful. Just for so that all the is on the same. Absolutely. As a couple. Oh. Hi. I'm General Moore and I'm an assistant city attorney. And I actually if you want me to, we'll just go ahead. Just point out the actual language changes. Okay. So, as you know, I think all of you have been briefed and have had the agreement in your hands for a few weeks now . During the CAC meetings that we attended, what we heard was some concern about representation on the board for the neighborhood. And then also we we talked considerably about the use, utility and importance of the Community Investment Fund that was that was included in the original agreement. So we made a couple of changes to address some of the issues that we heard, and I'll just walk through those one by one. Kelly walked through the non-voting member, so you can skip that one. But the other the other pieces that you changed would be good to. Skip the non-voting member as I watched this. Yeah. Yeah. He already went over that. Okay. Okay. Sure. Yep. So we've added the non-voting director and we've talked. And Kelly also mentioned that that non-voting director will take the place of the voting director. So really the other substantive change since LUDI is that we've added a little bit of discussion about how the importance of the Community Investment Fund, and that's found significantly in two places on page 64 in the this is in a Section 12 about the Community Investment Fund. We added a sentence that says further, the authority shall explore and where appropriate, pursue other funding options and or partnerships annually to supplement funding that is generated from the round up and to increase the benefits of the Community Investment Fund to the neighborhood. So that's found there. And then the other place that that is mentioned is in. Sorry, give me just a second. I've got the wrong page here. It's in the first meeting of the board. Okay. And then on page 16 under, there's a there's a section that outlines what the what the board should do in its initial meeting. And we have added to to that section the idea that the the Chairperson shall convene the initial meeting of the board and the Board shall consider the initiation of the development of including consideration of funding sources for the Community Investment Fund, so that we make it really clear that the Community Investment Fund needs to be a priority of the board and that they have to address the creation of that fund and its funding at their very first meeting. Right. Any anything else? Any of substance. Okay. And just to point out, just to make it very clear to folks in the public, these four meetings were suggestions by the community to place in the contract. So the contract was actually amended from the Luti meeting till today. And so those are some amendments that were happening. Kelley. Kelley Lead Executive Director, Mayor's Office International. 11. that I would also add, you know, from the very origination of the original document when we started talking about the community investment fund is what's unique is a couple of things, but in particular is that one, the only role for the authority is to act as the fiscal agent, so they would collect the funds and then those would be held as a fiscal agent. We've been very clear and actually are looking forward to and Tim Santos, who's the executive director of the North Democrats from Collaborative, has agreed to help facilitate, among others, a discussion with the community about now how do we organize the global response to a community to prepare themselves for the receipt of these funds? And what's the right representation beyond just the Citizens Advisory Committee to talk about what programs, what projects? And we've heard a lot tonight among the speakers about different things that need to be funded. And this is truly a blank canvas for the community to determine how they want to use these funds, and it will evolve over time. So that's a point that has been with us from day one about this. And I think speaking on behalf of Paul Andrews and others, you know, we've talked about how could we accelerate this sooner? And I think that's the next round of discussions about how we move the community investment fund sooner well before the building start. Great. And just one quick question to I don't see Terrence Carroll, but I see Maria Garcia Berry. The ongoing meetings of the CAC, once this authority is formed, will the CAC continue to meet? Because there is a community person saying that, how will they continue to be informed? Right. So the CAC has been meeting once a month since August of 2013, September 2013. It is the intent and the mayor's agenda for the first authority meeting that the Citizens Advisory Committee should be considered as the permanent advisory committee to the authority. That's our intent. We've been talking to a lot after the last meeting that we had Terence and myself and Liz Adams, who also works with us. We've been talking to a lot of the committee members and on the meeting on the 28th, which is our September meeting, even though we've had four meetings, we still have one more meeting in September. That is the topic of discussion is how do we position ourselves, what do we need to do to better structure ourselves, to have better accountability, to make sure that everybody understands everything that the CAC is doing? We do a pretty robust mailing and notification to people who just sign up to get the information. And what's amazing is over two thirds of the committee has been meeting regularly for over four years. They show up every month and we get a lot of attendance, a good attendance. So we'll be talking about that on the 28th. Great. All right. Thank you, Miss Berry. All right. Rafael Espinosa. Councilman Espinosa. Okay. I guess for the two that are closest to the microphone, how many how many directors are coming from the state? I mean, are assigned by the state of Colorado. Zero. How many? But there but the state portion of this project is 100 and 117 to 120. Now, $120 million, correct? It's 121.5 million is what's coming from what you're referencing is the Regional Tourism Act application, which was adopted or approved by the State Economic Development Commission. So the cash portion for the National Western Stock Show is that is how much? So it's 50 million in cash and then 75 million inland. So $125 million. How many directors are they getting to? And then the University of Colorado also gets to direct. The University of Colorado is not represented at. Colorado State University. Sorry, Frank. Yes. Yes. Hey, notice how I stood up for you, Tony? He is not happy and not coming back. Is there a rebuttal from the Chancellor? So, CSU. So the state is so there in the agreement. There are dollars actually through the House bill 1344, there was 250 million approved by the state legislature. 50 million is for facilities supporting facilities in Fort Collins. 200 million are coming to this campus for three facilities and they have two seats on the board. So $120 million, zero seats, $50 million and 90 acres of land. Two seats, I mean, zero seat, 217. Two seats at $50 million and 90 acres and two seats for $16 million. Can you clarify that? Where are you coming up with the. So what was the what did you say, the current state house? Yeah, sure. So House Bill 1344, which was adopted in the state in early 15, was 250 million. 50 million goes up to Fort Collins for supporting facilities. 200 million comes to the campus for three facilities that will be built at the National Western Center, a state. Tax revenue. CLP Certificates of participation. We're going to sell those. Well, that's for the state. Determine how what they use as collateral for those. But ultimately through the Secretary of State, she will represent the state in the sale or use of those funds. I'm going to now suggest that that is $330 million of state money or $317 million of state money with with just the two representatives. So let me let me just clarify. So the RTA money don't count, the 121.5 million is paid over 36 years. So that's paid out of an increment that will be paid over drips and drabs over the course of 36 years. So what we need right now, though, is the construction is now and the actual value of that state money is substantially less. It will have to be pledged in a certain way and it will be worth a lot less than 121.5 million because we need it for construction today. My my point there my point that I'm trying to get at is we paid $168 million for Coors Field, divided over six counties. We paid $250 million for Mile High Stadium, divided over six counties. And every single one of those counties got equal representation with two state people on those that district. And now we're now Denver's portion. Just Denver's portion is $673 Million. $622,000,622. Million. So basically those two are portion more than our portion on those other two projects combined doubled or tripled. And the community here is asking for two seats. Why was that so difficult? Because I know that the mayor gets six appointments. I mean, have we gotten a commitment from the mayor's office that we're going to get actual neighborhood people as part of those six appointments that somehow justifies excluding them because. So a couple of points. One, you know, this is as far as I know, and I worked on the football stadium project. This is the first entertainment facility, public entertainment facility that actually has neighborhood representation as a voting member. I cannot I'm not aware of any other facility in the city in county of Denver that has a resident or residents that are impacted by a project as a voting member. That's one to is. You know, again, if you think about the original term at 50 years with the ability to extend for two additional 25 year terms for a 100 year deal, one of the things that the mayor wanted to make sure, because obviously mayors will change over that hundred years, is that there was always going to be an assurance in the framework or the makeup of this board that at least one community representative would be a voting member of the of that body based on conversations with the community. And this was actually a really one of many good conversations, was this idea of adding a non-voting member that would be also at these meetings so that if there was a vacancy of the neighborhood, that this non-voting member could step in and actually be a voting member. So there's always continuity of a vote among the members. And again, the last piece I would reference in Crystal or Jen can jump in here is the mayor has has six other appointments. But what was important here was being very clear that the neighborhoods always had a representative that could vote on behalf of the community. But that could have been one. Could have been two, could have been eight members of the community. That is up to you guys to make that determination. And while there would likely be sort of homogeneity or sense of mean consensus in in any of those agencies, the stock show people, the university system, there is no there there is more there's less homogeneity in our communities. We could have that appoint that single appointment could be somebody that has been a long term. Member of that community or a short term member. Of that community, rather than having representation from a cross-section. That just adding one additional member could add. So, you know, instead what we're doing is we're asking the mayor to just focus on that. Let's focus on the question. You can get to those comments in the comments portion, but just get to a question on them for this portion. Thank you. So is the then for you, Crystal? Has the mayor committed to one of his six, two of his six or some portion of his six appointments to being members of this community that live within the boundaries of global Elyria in Swansea. So good evening everyone. My name is Krystal Torres de Herrera. I am the deputy city attorney. It is my pleasure to be here today to answer these questions. Councilman Espinosa, I really appreciate the question, and it's obviously something that we've talked about at each of these meetings that we've had with our community members. I'm going to answer your question, but I also want to highlight some other information that was shared in these meetings, because I think it helps out to frame this discussion as well. One of those is that in addition to the document and the changes that we made, we also shared some additional documents with the Citizens Advisory Committee that we thought would be helpful. One of those was a letter that the mayor has drafted for the future board members of the authority, and that letter details his expectations for this authority board in terms of how they're going to interact with the community and how they are going to honor and be able to make sure that there is always that relationship and understanding and conversation with with the community. I think that was very important as we talked about with these discussions. Even for those folks who have concerns about this agreement, I think it was really helpful for them to see that that this is an expectation for all of the the board members that the mayor is appointing here. I would also point out that city council is also going to be approving each of the mayoral appointees. These are folks who will come back in front of all of you. Also, the mayor has asked the Citizens Advisory Committee to give him feedback on the attributes that they think are important in these and these appointments to say, hey, these are really important appointments. I want to hear directly from you what you think is important, what are the perspectives they should have? What are the qualities I need to be looking for? And President Burks, as you know, while you were at that meeting, President Brooks generously made the offer to the community members that he has a standing meeting with the mayor every Tuesday and that he was going to be bringing when the community was ready, a group of. Folks to meet with the mayor and to say at that end, to have that time to talk to him about, hey, we understand that you're going to be appointing a community member, but you also have these other appointments. Let's have that conversation. Let's talk about that. I really appreciated the dialog from the community that we had around that meeting and the fact that the community was very thoughtful about wanting to get their ducks in a row, wanting to spend some time together as a group and figuring out what those attributes are, what they really wanted . There was a lot of conversation about business owners versus residents and people who had a longstanding impact in the community. So all of that was also part of the discussions and I think really helpful to really frame what these conversations look like and the path forward. So understanding that that process is still unfolding. We anticipate that as that meeting happens, as the community comes forms with comes forward with the attributes that we will be having those conversations as we move forward together. Yeah, the real unfortunate thing in that response was, I mean, we had a proclamation tonight about DOCA. You know, the mayor's letter does not have the gravitas of having it in the authority agreement in this foundational document. If we had the difference between having a director a position assigned to the community versus a commitment that can change with any mayor. That can change with whoever the president is that there's no guarantee that District nine is represented. I mean, is the president of this council. So while right now I feel like we're in a good place, why wouldn't we just memorialize that for this community. Now and forever? So if I may, just for the. Next hundred years. Comments. Number one, there is a representative that's a voting director that is in the document. There is also a gas resident that is a non-voting director who will be at every single board meeting who will have access to executive session. The only other non-voting director is this city's then CFO at the time. That's really powerful because you then have two people who are there who have access to the same amount of information that not even voting director has. The exact same access to information will be able to have all that at the same exact time. I think it's helpful to then have those two people be out, be able to go back and talk to the community. I just wanted to make it clear that both the nonvoting director, they both have the same access to the meetings and the information. With the non-voting member have proxy if the voting member is not present. Exactly. And that was the thought behind it, because and I'd like to give a a shout out and credit for spotting that. That was something that was very important to us. Is that because this representative needs to be a community person, there's no one else on that board who can jump in and in at a moment of a vacancy. And so it really needed to be somebody from the community who understands the community to play that role. And it wouldn't be fair if somebody wasn't up to speed and aware of all the conversations and contacts that was happening. So that is why we did the non-voting member, because we absolutely wanted someone else from the community to be there to have that same info and be able to step in in the moment of vacancy to address the community's concerns. I'm going to jump in here and just clarify one thing. If we added a this is the question. If we added a voting member, you'd be at 12, correct? Correct. An even number. Okay. So there would have to be a whole shift in the in the makeup of this. But, Councilman, are you. One last question. It doesn't need necessarily to be in this agreement, but is there any discussion at all about a patent rights clause if we're talking about becoming the Silicon Valley of of of AG, you know, I imagine we would be generating some sort of great ideas that, you know, with this level of investment. I mean, the entirety of the infrastructure is ours. Is there some sort of discussion about patent rights clauses? Sure. I mean, there there's not in this specific agreement. And I think, you know, one of the things that we should references once the authority board is or the authority is activated and stood up, they then become a signatory to this agreement as well. And I think that will be a conversation among the CSA in particular. And, you know, we spent a lot of time and Gretchen in particular has led our next generation agribusiness work, along with the Office of Economic Development. So we need that authority in place. And my guess would be once the authority is up and running, we are moving forward on our next generation. AG We're working with cashew issue on programing that may include a whole range of things around innovation is that there will be a whole nother round of agreements that will emerge, but we really need that authority up and running in order to have those conversations. Yeah, I mean, it depends on a whole bunch of what happens in the future that we cannot predict. That's good. That might be a resource for to help stem any sort of future decline. Right. I mean, we don't expect this to decline. 100 years is a long time, though, and things change. So. Okay, great. Great. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Crystal, if you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone. For you, Councilman. Anything? Yeah. I don't have the document in front of me that you had passed out that highlighted the mayor's commitments or expectation from the board members. Can you can you remember what some of them are? I know one of them was a commitment to the Community Advisory Committee. Absolutely. And, you know, we were getting a copy just right now, and I'd be happy to have that in front of me while we speak. That would be awesome. I think it's important to just highlight what those expectations are. Perfect. And and just so everyone is clear, this is a letter that the mayor would submit to the end of it, to the authority chairperson and to the members of the board, which highlights several key things, which, as I alluded to earlier, but really at the forefront saying what is the purpose of this letter? This is to protect and to understand the valuable role that all three of these neighborhoods have played historically on this campus and will continue to play. And to that end, in an effort to having the authority integrate within these communities, he is proposing the following. So as part of the overall onboarding. All members of the NWC board and staff shall receive copies of the adopted neighborhood plans, including any amendments, and should be conversant as to the important relationship between the National Western Center campus, its operations and the adjoining neighborhoods. The authority and it originally said should and we're going to change it to well will cooperate with or initiate efforts to develop a local talent pipeline for jobs on or around the NWC campus with an emphasis on talent development for students in the girls neighborhoods. Such programs may include mentoring, internships, apprenticeships, work study or other similar programs. The board and again this said should and we're changing it to well, the board will actively engage the NWC Citizens Advisory Committee, which was established by the National Western Stock Show in the fall of 2013, or any successor organization to create a direct dialog between the future campus and the neighborhood representatives. I would also encourage the authority to engage the many community nonprofits, schools, arnault's and businesses in the region. Another one. To the extent possible, NWC board meetings should be held in the as neighborhoods to provide area residents, nonprofits and business owners direct access to members of the board. Board meetings should include an opportunity for public comment. And then finally and again, this is one more change. We are changing a will should to will. The board will provide easy access to public documents in both electronic and printed formats, as well as in English and Spanish. I would also point out, Councilwoman Ortega, as you know, because you were at the meeting along with Council President Brooks, but there was also discussion from the community, NOLA and others about a community benefits agreement and that I made a commitment that I would raise that issue with the mayor and I will see him later this week and we will discuss that as well. So when we come back next week, you may be able to give us an update of. Correct. Okay. All right. My next question is for Kelly Lead and Kelly. Can you tell us what the additional documents are that would come before this body for approval as part of the National Western Center? Absolutely. So the mayor's office of the National Western Center, which is a creation of the mayor and is housed actually in the Webb building right now, is charged on behalf of the city. We're acting as the city's owners rep, and that's a term of art for the design and construction business. But in essence, anything related to where there's an expenditure of city funds. The Mayor's Office of the Western Center, most likely in collaboration with public works, which would be our procurement arm, will put forward two two city council design and construction contracts that in terms of executing this agreement. So anything that hits the threshold, the 500,000 threshold would come before this body for review and approval. So the document that you've been referring to, I kept calling it some kind of book, which in my mind is the blue book, but I don't think that's what we call. Our baseline. Baseline. Book. Okay. Is that a document that's approved by council? It is not. But what it what it will do is so if you think about the course of the last four years, there's been a lot of documents generated about this project. And what the baseline book does is brings everything together and organizes it into three buckets schedule budget. And scope. So all those documents get pulled together into one document. That becomes the document by which our office and the partners now are now measured and schedule is probably the easiest. In fact, the framework agreement starts to lay out some some schedule dates that show, you know, we had always said this was going to be it'd take us at least ten years to get these early phases done. We're now showing a schedule that goes faster than those original ten years. But the document, the baseline book will be a document that we will certainly share with council. It will be publicly posted. The partners will obviously we'll all use it, but at the end of the day, it's the document by which were measured and we will be providing ongoing reporting to City Council through most likely the Luti Committee, Mary Beth Committee, land use, Transportation Infrastructure Committee around our progress against those targets, just like you've seen in better Denver. So, so just to be clear, it's primarily the construction contracts that will come to count design. Design and construction. Half a million. So any of. The and and we still have finance, you know, we've only issued the first tranche of finance, the first 200 million. So we have additional tranches of finance that will come before this body as well. Okay. And just to be clear about the ongoing existence of the community, but community a community advisory committee. Is so important because of the ongoing issues. So once the I-70 construction starts, we'll see some of the same activity begin to happen at National Western. So circulation and you know, which bus routes are going to be changed and which streets are going to be closed and all of that kind of stuff, the emergency access to the neighborhood. So that ongoing dialog with the community where those conversations both with National Western and the NBCC and obviously will see that contractor now that's been selected becomes a critical part. And I see the CAC kind of playing a vital role in all of that because it represents the three neighborhoods. And absolutely, in fact, it's a lesson. You know, Marie and I were talking about this not long ago. You know, we worked on the Mile High Stadium project together and we had a similar sort of group. But once we kind of finished our work, the group disbanded. Now, obviously, that's a single project with a single purpose. This has and you just highlighted the enormous complexity that's before us, not just around the National Western Center, but the surrounding projects. And I think the Citizens Advisory Committee plays a really, really important role in how do we connect and align those. And Tim Santos and his team in the NDDC will play an equally important role in kind of connecting all the dots. But you know, and then the last piece I would say is, you know, obviously once the authority board gets up and running, we're going to start the authority board's going to be talking about the operations of the campus and the programing and having that connection to the community about their interests of their own programing, talking about the impacts for various events. I mean, today most people don't even realize there's well over 200 plus events at the National Western complex today. Most of them are pretty small and are self-contained. We all we all know the impacts of the National Service talk show. So I was at one of those yesterday. Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, all those things are really referenced. Why it's important that we continue to nurture and involve the Citizens Advisory Committee going forward. Absolutely. Okay. I'm going to save the rest of your comments. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. And with that, I see no one, no other comments. The public hearing for 939 is now closed and we'll open up to comments by members of the council, and I'll start this being the district I represent. Wow. This has been a long time coming in. I was going to say this is kind of the culmination of the two C agreement making good on what the voters approved of. But it came way before that and even came before I came on council in 2011 when the stock show was talking about leaving the city. Joe Johns, that beyond just said for 100 years they've been thinking about this day. Velasquez has many generations of parents and family who've been living in the neighborhood with this incredible stock show in and also the hope to be included in its vision. And so it feels incredibly it feels awesome to be a part of a night like this. Now, is everything perfect? No. But we're doing something that no other communities has ever done. And at a macro sense, you heard the incredible president out of the wonderful CSU University who has been getting joked on today. He's a great guy to really talk about. Feeding the world is the vision, which I think is awesome. But I think for our country, the two regions that don't talk to each other are urban and rural. And we have an opportunity to bring to bridge the urban rural divide. And I think that's incredible. There's a lot that I can say tonight. Boy, we could be here all night. But seeing as this is a special night as well, I'm going to save my comments. I have been a part of two of the four meetings with the community. It's been incredible, really trying to see the city. We have equity partners. I know a lot of folks want to just say, hey, change this and change that. We have equity partners. When you have equity partners, you just don't change. You're in a a legal agreement. So this is very complex. But the equity partners see the value of the neighborhood. And the equity partners had to approve of the non-voting members, which on the face, everybody says, what is a non-voting member? But I think it was just explained very well that there's a lot of value. It's a proxy. It's someone who gets all of the executive information. It's someone who who sits at the table, someone who is allowed to report back. But still with that. I stand with the community and say, you want a second voting member? Okay, let's go meet with the mayor. He has six choices and I stand by that commitment and we are going to have a meeting with the mayor. But this is what it's going to call from the community is organization. And the other thing that I would say is. It's not just that one member I think you all shits. We should all come together, Councilwoman Ortega as well and say, what are the guidelines? We are asking the mayor to choose from. Not just a pick six. This is in Governor Swansea. This is in District nine. We should set up the guidelines of how we picked a six. But that's going to cause a lot of organization. So I completely support that. But I'm deeply moved by the number of residents, the most the eclectic amount of residents who've come to the table speaking in English and Spanish, representing hundreds of years, representing ten years, saying, you know what? This is the right direction. We have some concerns, but let's move forward. Let me tell you right now to have Globeville, Luria, Swansea, come to this podium right now and have general support for this is a miracle. I'm not joking. It is a miracle because I've been in the meetings we've talked to and it takes a little bit for us to come together. And so that's big for the community. That's big for the city. That's big for the equity partner issue in the stock show. And I just want to thank you all, because this has been one of the most inclusive billion dollar projects that I've seen come through the city. We were just having a conversation about DIA and not being able to really get the information. We wanted it. Sorry, DIA. But it was. It's correct. And you all gave books to everyone. Some of them not opened, but you gave books to everyone on the community saying this is it. What are your thoughts? So I want to thank you for that. And I think this is the biggest test for the community now because there is a lot of there's a huge opportunity at stake. And how are we going to use these resources for the betterment of not just now, but ten years, 20 years, 30 years and all over Elyria. Swansea. So I emphatically in supporting this. I'm so proud to. Councilman Monteiro. You worked hard. You didn't get to see this day, but you really worked hard to bring it to this fruition. And so I want to thank you for your leadership. One thing, Kelly, the team, the legal team, CSU, the Rams, such a great school and people in the National Western Stock Show effort for coming to the table and saying, you know what? We want to stay in Denver for the next 100 years. Thank you. All right, next, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Just to clarify, Councilwoman Monteiro did get to see this day, just not from the dais. There you go. Thanks. Want to scare anybody alive and well to say. Very good clarification. Thank you. Sir. I know I was a little bit shook. Yeah, this is really an exciting night. It's. It's a night of great opportunity as well as great challenge. I remember when I was still in the newspaper business and I heard that the National Western was was thinking of moving to Aurora. What do you what are you talking about? It's the stock show. It's Denver. It can't move to Aurora. And I was heartened when I heard discussions kicking up that maybe that that wouldn't happen. And when the deal started to formulate and the stock show was going to stay, and then and then in discussions, I hear there's there's going to be a festival park out there. And the city's been talking about a festival park and how much we need that got a little bit more excited. But it was and I had the opportunity to tell President Frank this a few minutes ago, that a couple of years ago I got the opportunity to attend a dinner on the eve of the stock show and and hear Tony Frank talk about the research that could take place on this campus, really going a long way to address hunger around the world and to change the way food production is handled and look at issues of of clean water in the environment. That's what really got me excited about this project. And yeah, the stock show will be spiffy and new and it'll be great for the next 5000 years, but we really have an opportunity to do some very special stuff there. That being said, 100% support what I hear coming from the community. I think a formal community benefit benefits agreement makes great sense. I think a second voting member is probably doable. I hope I hope that it is. And you know, excuse me, I forgot the neighbors name who who testified, but about having the opportunity for women in the community to to do a purvey their skills on the site. I'm thinking of something like komal out a taxi where where the Latino women came in, come in and not only prepare spectacular meals, but but learn how to get themselves into the restaurant business. So I just along with President Brooks, I talk all day about the opportunities it's spectacular project and I still share. A lot of concern that. This has to be done well, or this neighborhood could get beat up along the way more than it needs to. So Mr. Lane and his crew have a heck of a job ahead of them. And work hard, sir. Work hard. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. Crystal. Crystal, thanks for the answers and Kelly as well. And hey, I don't know how that whole conversation manifests itself, but that to me is I'm I'm grateful to know that some member of the community brought that up to your guys's attention and that not only did you respond, but you responded in a way that I would have been sitting there if I'd been sitting in that meeting begging for you guys to include. And so hopefully part of the reason why we have a community member and why we have a backup plan and a proxy for that is because, you know, well, Rafael's going to sit there and he's going to rail on us, do the so I great answers and thank you for including both you know I will be supporting this because this framework gets the gist right and is better than. Far better than it could have been. And I appreciate the work that you guys have been doing over these years and more recently since the vote. With regard to community dollars, though, now I think I get frustrated how we hide behind the legal lane that this consortium is operating in. I understand it, but the fact remains that this whole thing was in part borne out of a willingness by the stock show to leave. You know, bartering. One municipality versus us and essentially abandoning. They would have essentially abandoned Greece with land that was devalued by an elevated highway. And contamination in this city pumped millions into staff and consultants to benefit the stock show directly and the equity partners as well. And we've been pumping those millions through the MDC, the NWC for years, through the planners that we've hired to master planning process, the Globeville process. And yeah, there's a community component to all those things, but all of those are advisory. So that's why you keep me hearing me hammer about the community aspects on things that are legally binding. This is where we can actually give the results to the community in the same way we're giving them to the partners. And so I appreciate the fact when you do get those wins, because this is where they matter the most. We can document and we can put all these things on a piece of paper and a spreadsheet and talk about how we know what this community needs. But until we start delivering on them. One member said it best he didn't support. All in faith. So there is a ton of faith in this community in everything that has transpired over the last five years. This framework, though, is the one tool that you need to get going. So just be mindful that you know this this is that next piece and use it. All of you guys, the equity partners, CSU as well, to to to start moving forward on your on your on your initiatives, in your goals. But recognize that all those things you've memorialized. Do what you can to capture them, because this community is desperately wanting needing those issues addressed. Thanks. Thanks. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Lopez. Thank you. Council president. So I, you know, I've been paying attention to this for quite a while, I think since two C at its birth. And, you know, seeing folks go door to door in the community and hearing overwhelmingly that this is a project that that needs to happen. It's part of our history. It's part of our heritage. We can go on and on with the two key talking points. But the thing that we had to take away from it the most is every single precinct, this was supported. There's a lot of support citywide, and that also comes from the community to have some of the folks I recognize from the community since back in my organizing days and to see them here testifying in support really means a lot to me as well to. Let me let me just say this. I think this partnership with the National Western, with CSU, with Denver, I think this is something that only comes along when you have a lot of different people at the table and a lot of commitment. Right. And and I really appreciate the leadership and it's the willingness to be at the table from Colorado State University. I think it's it's absolutely necessary when we talk about the future of agriculture. Right. Like any other study. And this is the best university to do this, right? This is the very principle of CSU. The very roots of it is that in history and I think of the purpose of, you know, well, we all know the purpose of the public body of the government and to, you know, help accomplish the things that we cannot do individually. And then I think of the purpose of the university, and that's to be that beacon of knowledge, to provide that research, right, to do that research to teach, but not to keep it behind the ivory walls. Right. The ivory tower. But to bring it out into the community and share it with the public good. The knowledge that we have in whatever institution of higher learning that is the purpose that it serves. And to see that kind of mix together and take place in a community where we absolutely need it. Where for three decades, ladies and gentlemen, we've been wanting to see a grocery store. Access to fresh food. There are a lot of things that I think in my day organizing under the Cross Community Coalition with Lorraine Granado is my as one of my mentors and saying there's a lot of work that needs to happen in this community and we cannot do it alone and we are going to die not being able to finish it all. That's just how big of a movement this is and how big of an effort we have to have and. That was 15. 15 years ago. And that still has that still continues. This is one of those opportunities that we have an opportunity just to really bring these different folks together, these different organizations, different efforts together to really address this need, not just in the community but in our city. Right. In this partnership, that takes it to a completely different level. It's a lining of very important stars. And I think, like I said before, it would be a shame if we kept it behind the walls of government for the benefit of government, for the benefit of contractors or whatever our for the behind the ivory walls of the university just to sit on a shelf and say, this is the study we found with this, you know, our our our one institution. And I think. We all want. Our two confused, Dr. Frank said, are two. Are one. Ah, one. I'm sorry. Thank you. I keep mixing that up. The. The, ah, one institution. And I think. What I'm trying to say is. We have the right people at the table. And we have a challenge in front of us. We need to solve this challenge. And we need to start with the community that we are in. My ask and from day one. It's not my. My district, not the neighborhood I was born and raised in. But something that I know has been a big issue that we knocked on a lot of those doors is. Let's end that food desert. If it's about if this is what it's about and this is this alignment of the right folks at the table, let's put an end to the food desert out in Greece. And let's do it the right way. Let's do it as as this proud woman got up and said. Give us the opportunity to prove who we are to what we're capable of. Right. Those are the community benefits that we're talking about. Of course, you know, there are community benefits that you can write in any agreement and stuff like that. But we have to make a real commitment because if we can't change the community around us, then we have no business trying to change the world around us. Right. And I think that's going to be, you know, something pivotal. Those jobs. Right. The ability to actually put people in those scholarships, banning from from from the stock show. I think that's that's just a critical opportunity. The last thing I'm going to say is that and I and I heard what what someone somebody had said earlier about our culture and in the history of of Western culture. There's something that we don't talk about that we should be. And I think, of course, in silence this poem I am walking. And I think of the fact that the American cowboy and not Western culture comes from us. The people that they point and say, those are not Americans, us. The Aguero's. Americanos, the folks who live in these communities and call this home. We did reveal. That's why it's called Reveal. That vaquero, that culture comes from us, the adobe and our buildings, those bricks that we use that comes from us hundreds of years ago. That corn, that grain comes from our ancestors thousands of years ago. And what a shame. The hundreds of years later, we cannot benefit from it. And I think this is the opportunity for us to actually turn that around, to close that, to close that gap and to finally say, you know what? Your ancestors taught my ancestors a long time ago to survive in this rough Western climate. We are finally going to. We're going to we're going to turn it right back around. And I think that's one opportunity that we have. And I've been thinking about this for a while, Dr. Frank, and this has been brewing in my head for a while. I was like, Man, what a what, a what? What an opportunity that we have not just in front of us for the next hundred years, but in front of us for the past 300 for the next 300. And that's the way we should be thinking. So thank you so much. You know, it gives me a lot of proud, a lot of Pride Counseling Council president to to see something like this, an opportunity be created in in Globeville, Larry and Swansea out with the National Western Authority. National Western Center Authority. Thank you all for all of your hard work. Everybody in the room, including the community. And I think the Broncos are tied at seven seven. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, I think the CSU team will be looking forward to you taking them out, apologizing for this. Hey, man, he was the one that made the silly bet. That wasn't even just Councilman Ortega. Mr. Nice bookend. So I first want to. Extend my gratitude and appreciation to Kelly for the role that you've played in in guiding this project and this process to where we are here tonight. Your leadership has played an important role in bringing the community together and really making sure that all of these issues have been dealt with. I want to just list off the names of other people who have been key and active participants in the process. Jen There you are over there. Gretchen Crystal. Pat and Paul from National Western, Tony, Frank from CSU and your staff who have sat in on most of the CAC meetings, all of the residents from the community who have participated in the CEC meetings and whether you're a voting member or not, you know, residents from the community have come and made sure that their voice was heard. And I appreciate the discussion at the last three meetings that really moved this agreement. There was, you know, a document handed out to everybody and. You all listen to what the residents were saying and came back with some changes. It wasn't exactly what everybody wanted, but it was significant movement to show there was sincere listening and partnership in this process. Maria and Terence, thank you both for your role as co-chairs of this committee process. I just want to mention that part of the history with National Western in these neighborhoods goes back a long, a long way. And Pat played a very key role in working with the cross-community coalition in helping to raise funds to build the building that focus points is now in that was cross-community home in pat. You know I know the community and Lorraine was very grateful for your role in helping bring dollars to the table that they were not successful in attracting on their own. So this partnership continues and the neighbors have been full and active members of this process in ensuring, again, that their their voice was being heard. I also, Councilman Cashman, would like to see that community benefits agreement. It's something that we've talked about from from day one. It's been a part of the conversation with the neighborhood and in Kelly and the process as it's moved along. And there are some things that are in the works that will be part of that community benefits agreement, the roll up, you know, and the conversation about, well, gee, what is that going to generate? It's not going to really be enough for the community to offset the impact that they're going to be dealing with from construction to, you know, traffic to who knows what all those issues might be. But the the fact that the community is an active partner and those issues will be put on the table is part of the ongoing existence of the Community Advisory Committee, the fact that there will be representation and I'm committed to sitting in on the meeting with Councilman Brooks and the mayor to advocate for that second voting member, because I think that is important to ensure that that is part of the full participation. You know, we're not saying add another member to the 11 member board. We're saying one of those six members should be another voting member. So you have equal representation as the other two partners, because I see the community as the third leg of this stool. The the work that Tim Sanders will be doing as part of the index and helping to bring everybody together to look at standing up that infrastructure, if you will, for what would be the community investment fund beneficiary, if you will, is is really important because it it I see it also tying into part of the conversation with the mayor. But it also allows the opportunity for not just whatever could be generated by the complex itself, but there have been conversations about the fact that we still don't have enough money to do the improvements on the 300 homes left within the 500 footprint of the I-70 corridor. And, you know, that could be the vehicle to to put some of those dollars into you know, the community has been working on the community land trust to deal with an immediate and real issue these neighborhoods are dealing with today. And it's the displacement of families that cannot afford to stay in their own neighborhood. And if we could jump start getting some resources into that fund to try to buy some of those homes and save the houses so that, you know, people can stay in the neighborhood. We know some of those homes are in horrible condition and may be better off being raised than, you know. It'll cost more money to improve them than it will to build something new on those sites. But having control of that land in the community is is going to be really important to addressing so many of the issues that are kind of coming at these folks from all different directions, from the construction going on on Brighton Boulevard and what will be happening on the river and I-70 and National Western and how were they going to get in and out of their neighborhood when all of this construction is happening? And it's why all of these pieces need to interrelate with one another. It's why the index was created in the first place to ensure that these things aren't all happening in in silos, but they're all working together. I have been an active participant in this process, mostly through my staff person, Susan Aldouri, who has sat in on most of these meetings. But I attended the last, I think, three or four of the CCAC where, you know, the conversation has furthered along. And really it's in large part from the residents standing up and saying, this is what we need, this is what we want. And and again, that genuine listening that was part of this process. So I am happy to support this, to move it forward. But I'm committed to the ongoing efforts that need to happen to ensure that the community benefit agreement is in place and that we work towards trying to get that second voting member and making sure that this is the world class facility that we've all envisioned it to be. And, you know, I can remember one of my first council meetings in 2011. There were actually it was Councilman Brown and I were talking to colleagues saying we need a letter signed by all 13 council members because by golly, none of us are going to let National Western move out of Denver. And so that really was the beginning of the conversations of how do we then look at how we keep them here and what is needed to keep this critical asset that has been part of the history of Denver in the city of Denver and not in Aurora. Nothing, nothing against our friends in Aurora. But this is a Denver icon. And so it's important that this process move forward to keep this asset here and the relationships and the opportunities that will be afforded to the residents of this community and the broader community as a whole. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Last words, it's been moved in. Second amount of secretary roll call. Clark. Hi. Espinosa. Right. Flynn I friend in Cashman. Lopez Hi. Ortega. Sussman Hi, Mr. President. I please close the voting. And as a result. Nine eyes or see the grimace? Yes, nine eyes. Yes, you're right. Nine Eyes Council Bill 939 has passed. Congratulations on everybody's hard work. Seeing no other business before this body. We stand adjourned. Go, Broncos.

A bill for an ordinance renaming Northside Park located at 1400 53rd Avenue as “Carpio-Sanguinette Park” Renames Northside Park as the Carpio-Sanguinette Park located at 1400 53rd Avenue in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-12-17.

DenverCityCouncil_10022017_17-0984

So that's what that's what that was. All right, Councilman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 984 on the floor? I would be very happy to do this one council bill. I move that council bill 984 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right. It has been moved and seconded the public here for Council 984 is open. May we have the staff report? We have Laura morales from Parks and Rec and our very own Councilwoman Ortega during this proposal as well. So. Laura morales. Come on down. Good morning, Laura morales. Community relations with Pakistan creation. Just here to introduce the process that is community led. So we really just want to let you know that they've gone through all the steps necessary, which meant proud, which meant that happy. Haynes, our director, has recommended this and now it comes into the hands of the public and to the city council. So today you'll be hearing some stories that Councilwoman Ortega and her community have fled. So thank you. All right, Councilwoman Vega. So we're going to walk through the PowerPoint that you see on the wall. Some of the documents are also in your files on the grant office system. And I want to just first start by thanking Brian Spinner, who helped put this together. He's going to help run the PowerPoint and Jack Patterson for my office, who's also my appointee to the Parks and Rec Advisory Board, who assisted with this as well. So as you can see from this picture, this is part of the structure on the what has been called Northside Park and our proposal is to name it Carpio Singh Minetti Park. So let me just walk through these slides. This is a 13 acre parcel that has received some awards for its design that's located in the Globeville neighborhood. This replaced the old wastewater treatment plant site that sat vacant for approximately ten years and became a blighted eyesore for the neighborhood. The land was once vital, fertile farmland, and the park is adjacent to Heron Pond in the Heller Open Space property that is bordered by the South Platte River, Emerson Street and 53rd Avenue. This is part of a 100 acre master plan with those adjacent properties. This is a project that Parks and Recreation is that has underway right now. The global community wanted this park name before all the other changes in the neighborhood occur. That is a result of extensive development that is happening to the east and really kind of all around them. The North Side Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility was built in 1937, as I said, on farmland. That's along the South Platte River. And as you can see from these pictures, that was what the old wastewater plant looked like at the time after the facility closed and the property was built. In the global community. It was a blight on the global community for over a decade. The property was so blighted that was used it was used as a backdrop in a sci fi movie called Asteroids. Part of the facility's concrete barriers were incorporated into the park, and this factored into the cost of turning this site into a park. This created the park's unique design that won national awards and saved money on the construction. And if you have never been out there, this is a somewhat isolated site that doesn't feel like you're in the city. You could see the skyline of downtown. And for those of you who like to bike, it's along the bike trail that runs along the South Platte River. So the park today, it's a community park and a very well utilized neighborhood asset that residents from not only Globeville, from other areas utilize for picnics, soccer, games, walking, relaxing. As I said, the adjacent South Platte River bike path is along this same park. Currently it has no official name. CEL was the catalyst in getting this named and I was the counsel person as it was developed and I checked in with Councilwoman Monteiro to see if under her watch it was never officially named. I think it's just been called Northside because that's what the treatment plant was called. So this is really the official naming of this park. It's very unique in that the community was involved in working with the artists in etching different messages onto the concrete, onto the sidewalks. And if again, if you haven't been there, it's interesting to walk through and just read some of those messages that were created both by youth and adults from the global community. The changing demographics of the residents in the community are rapidly changing. And again, the community wanted to be involved in the naming of this park to show the legacy and the history and the contributions by the two names that will be placed on this park now. So the reasons to name this park, it carries forward a shared history of stewardship and protects the neighborhood's past and changing demographics that impact this area. So Carpio and Simonetti family were leaders in Globeville and Elyria. Swansea, a community in Denver. Their civic, commercial and cultural contribution contributions deserve preservation to inspire future leaders and are youth that live in the neighborhood. Community leaders should be recognized in the areas they helped build. The renaming recognizes the importance of Sel Carpio and the same Unity family in their community to the Denver Parks and Recreation System and to the city and county of Denver as a whole. Naming the park Carpio Sanguinary is suitable, appropriate, symbolic and historic. So a little history on the Simonetti family. They were a Globeville family. They lived in the global community. And you'll hear from one of the descendants that still lives in the global community. They were a pioneering family that settled in North Denver in the 1850s. A portion of the park was part of the community farm located on the South Platte River. The family operated a North Denver grocery store that sold produce in the area. They also led a fight to stop upstream slaughterhouses from dumping waste into the South Platte River. As I said, the salmon descendants still live in Globeville in these pictures that you see were provided to us by historic Denver. Now to move on to sell curfew. So Carpio was a member of this body. He was a Denver city councilman. He was a visionary leader. He also had roots in Globeville. And I didn't know when we started this process that when his family moved from the Greeley area to Denver as a small child, he lived in their family, lived in the Globeville neighborhood. He was a Denver public school teacher, a Metro State College professor of sociology. He served on the council from 1975 to 1987. And one of he was one of Denver's first Latino city council members, along with Sam Sanders. And I believe we're going to hear from his son. Also a former councilman, Zell served as the council president. He authored the registered neighborhood notification ordinance in 1976 that empowered neighborhood organizations and gave them voice to what was happening in their neighborhoods. He was also a catalyst for redevelopment of the Central Valley, which was at the time abandoned railroad land and is now home to DaVita Union Station, over 10,000 residents and much, much more. It's almost completely built out now. As a community leader. He also established numerous city parks. Commons park cornerback. A park confluence, which are all in the Central Valley, among others, was the North Side Park. As I said, he was the catalyst for moving the redevelopment of the old wastewater treatment plant park site into a park. He established nine community centers in his council district. He was also the executive director of the Denver Housing Authority from 1994 to 2007. He modernized several Denver housing developments, including Quick Newton Curtis Park in North Lincoln, and that involves securing the funding to make those developments happen. He was an efficient steward of federal housing funds, not only at DHS, but when he served on the council. And way back then, the community development funds were actually earmarked by appointees of each councilperson. It was called the Community Advisory Committee that basically earmarked where those funds would go. So it was also nationally recognized for his leadership at DHS and many of his DHS initiatives adopted by federal funds and. Included projects like and this wasn't a DHB project, but the Urban Development Action Grant, which is where the King Soopers is on 13th and Spirit. Many of you may not remember, but we used to have junkyards along the Speer Boulevard corridor where you see those high rise apartment buildings. Cell was the catalyst in securing that federal funding to turn that area into something more attractive to the community. The next slide shows you just a sample of the signatures. I passed the book down the dais for you to see all of the signatures that were collected. This part required, I believe, 3300 signatures and 650 were submitted to Parks and Recreation. And that was done intentionally because there was 20 acres purchased to the west of this site with wastewater funds during the same time that the city was doing the Justice Center project. And that's to look at including some additional storm drainage for the area. And because that master plan is still being done in that project is not entirely finished. We wanted to move forward with the acreage as it's currently defined, but anticipate that these 20 acres will eventually be added to the park and the boundaries can be expanded. The 600 signatures is what's needed for a larger what's considered kind of a regional park. The next slide shows you the community and civic support. As you saw from the book that was passed out. We had letters of support from many of the leaders in the community, as well as residents from the neighborhood and the global community played a vital part. We had many meetings in the community with residents from the neighborhood, mostly some of the key leaders from the neighborhood, to solicit their support for this. And again, as I said, they were pretty adamant about moving this forward before all the development in the neighborhood happens. I want to thank the global community for their efforts. Many residents helped circulate petitions. I want to thank Happy Haines, a former councilwoman that also served with Sal Carpio, for her efforts as the manager, Parks and Recreation for moving this forward and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee that voted to move this on to the manager in request of sending it forward to city council. And as I said, I mentioned my staff earlier. Susan called already and Joe Wood from my staff also assisted in this effort. And just the very last slide. You know, it's it's always an honor to ask city council to be able to recognize leaders of our community. And I just want to respectfully ask for your support in naming this as the Carpio Simonetti Park after former city councilman Sal Carpio and the segment that his family who were pioneers in this neighborhood. So at that, I'll leave it at that. I know we have some people here that are signed up to speak in support as well. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. We have 12 folks who are signed up to speak. I'm going to ask every name that I call. I'm going to call five names at a time. I'm going to ask you to come up to this front row here. So just get out your seat and come to the front row. And everybody has 3 minutes, by the way, and no one is speaking in opposition. So this will be a good a good public hearing for city council. Okay. So Marissa macias. Teresa Carpio. Karen Carpio. Thomas Florence Navarro, Mary Dirty. But let's see. What do you do? Yeah. That's five. So come on up here to the front and let's say you are first. You have 3 minutes. Go ahead. Good evening. My name is Mauricio Macias. I'm a resident of North Denver. So Carpio was my grandfather. Right now, I'm currently a student at CU Denver studying human development and family relations. And one of my classes in the past semester actually read about my grandfather and his name was mentioned with his thoughts and opinions around social justice issues that were happening. And it brought me a lot of pride to read about him along with my classmates. I can't help but feel hurt as well, not being able to ask him personally and learn from him directly, just like his perspective and his opinions on everything. I wish that when he was here I would have got more of his opinion and his thoughts on his personal on his professional life and his accomplishments. My life is so different without him. I remember he would always say to me, Hey, miss, if you need me, just call me. That was his thing. He would always say, Just call me and I'll be there. As I mentioned, he didn't talk a lot about his professional life with us because he was the man that I knew was a humble man who was all about his family. He was there to attend every soccer, basketball, football school play that his grandchildren had. Some of my favorite memories growing up was being at my grandpa's house. He always made it feel like it was our second home. He made us feel cared for. He made us feel safe. And he always made us laugh. For Christmas, his home was one of a kind with Elvis and Bronco decorations, something that we all miss dearly. He played a key role in teaching me the values that I still carry with me today, like family and education, hence my educational path that I chose. My grandfather left a lasting impact on my life, and I hope to continue his legacy of being a strong and caring voice for others and making a positive impact on those around me. I hope you choose to continue his legacy in an area of Denver he devoted his work to. My grandpa was not a perfect man, but he overcame every single struggle he faced in his life. He was hard working with a heart of gold. During this time of our city growing and changing, it's crucial to keep our roots grounded. For my generation and the generations to come, if my grandpa was still here, he would be so excited to welcome his first great grandchild. And we hope to teach him and show him the park one day when he's old enough to go play over there. I want to thank Councilwoman Debbie Ortega from the bottom of my heart. We could not have done this without you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Ms.. Macias. Torres Carpio. Hello. I'm Teresa Carpio. I live at 4730 Tennyson Street. Hello, Councilman? Yes. First of all, I would like to thank you all in particular, Councilman Brooks and Councilwoman Ortega and her staff for all their efforts on behalf of this proposal to rename the park to Carpio Singh Greenwich Park. I'm proud to be the sister of Sel Carpio. As you have heard, sell dedicated virtually his entire career to the service of his community. Whether that was as a teacher, his 12 years as District nine councilman. Or as director of Denver Housing Authority for 12 for 13 years. As Debbie mentioned earlier, the roots of my family are deep in Globeville. My grandfather, Nicholas Navarro, worked at a flour mill, then located at 32nd in Brighton. My mother was raised at a house across the street from that flour mill so that my grandfather could keep an eye on her and the kids. In the early 1940s, my family moved from Gill, Colorado, a farming community to Globeville, so that my dad could work at the flour mill with my grandfather. My brothers, Ed and Cel. Later attended Swann R Excuse me. Garden Place Elementary. Sal loved Denver. He loved it a lot, which is evidenced by his diligent work to be a champion for those whom he serviced. He was a visionary, and his efforts both in city council and while leading Denver Housing Authority, helped make Denver the fine city we all consider to be today. As a family, we are so proud of the man he was. He was funny, witty, loving, hardworking, and devoted to his family and friends. As former Mayor Federico Pena stated in his letter, Cel shaped today's Northside Park and it is appropriate and fitting that it now be named in His honor. Together with Celles family and mine. His daughters, his sons in law. And his dear friends and his grandchildren. We thank you for your consideration of this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Ms.. Carpio. Karen Carpio. Thomas. Hi. I'm Karen Carpio. Thomas. I'm a self-starter and. When you do it. Okay. Well, basically, I want to thank everybody. And I'm just honored that my dad's being considered. It's an evening with the family. They were both active in the community. My dad loved his time on council. I really do think about it every day. I was younger at the time and. As a teenager I wasn't always aware of. All the importance of the things he was doing. I appreciate Councilwoman. Ortega's support on this and all the. Help she's provided and her great respect for my father. I thank everybody for the letters they wrote, and he would truly love being named. After a park. He loved. To barbecue. He liked to play games. He played Wiffle ball all the time in the backyard volleyball games, family. The most important thing to him and I think it's very important to my nieces son and everyone who just knew him as dad or grandpa have something. To show their children. And and where he could be honored for everything he did. They loved him for grandpa, and I loved him as my father. But I really just think it would be a great honor for us and the sanguinary family to have this happen. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Carr. Bill Thomas. Florence Navarro. Good evening, everyone. Yes, Florence Navarro. I reside in North Denver. 2728 was 39th Avenue. And thank you very much for bringing this forward, Deb. Appreciate it. And just want to talk a little bit about the why. Why are we doing this? Why are we? Besides Wood Theresa has put out there, besides what Karen and Marissa eloquently stated, you know some of the why. I grew up around cell. Kim and my father, Richard, were first cousins and spent a lot of time with each other. So for me, the why is about cell as a role model, not only for myself, but for several others. For many of your predecessors on council. Learned from cell. Cell was a first in many, many different areas, as was stated before, professor. And just in the community, that community leader, that role model. And so for me, it's about our youth need more role models. Who else could we call upon to be the role model any more special than cell and the what was put forward with the sanctuary family as well? So between both of them inspired us, our family, the community. I think about Sal and what he did for being that public servant. Oh, my gosh. All of you know what? That's like 24 seven. So for me, it's what he contributed. The community leader thinking about, you know, his character, work ethic, taking great, great pride in everything that he did, the visionary that he all of Debbie spoke about, the visionary, the plans that he put forward. And now to see all of that come come to fruition. So it's about also the personal side, his family, his friends. I remember one of his favorite activities, bowling. They talk about his, you know, excitement around the Broncos. But bowling, let me tell you, very, very committed to bowling. But there was a place where he could interact with people, hear what's going on in the community, get to know what's, you know, others asking those ideas, finding out what was important. Relationships were important to sell. So again, those are just a few of the attributes that truly reflect the role models we need more of, especially in North Denver, especially in the global area. For our kids to look up to. As as the family has talked about what how how much pride we will take in sharing with the youth in that community. They say. Your time is. Up. Okay, thank you. I'll just. Say thank you very much and how much pride we would have in naming it. Carpio Spaghetti Park. Thank you. All right. Mary did it, Matt. I don't know if we may have your last name spelt wrong. Please correct me. How? My name is Mary Sanguinetti. During my my family's lived in Coalville for over 150 years. I'm the fifth generation to live there. And I just ask you all to vote. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Miss McDermott. Sanguinary. All right. I'm going to call the next five up right now. Thank you. Tim Sandals. John. Zambian gate Markkanen. Gate Markkanen. Debbie Gomez. Patricia. Patricia? Patricia Baker. And it looks like we don't have gates. He had to. Leave. Okay. So we'll call up a chairman and say, who has the fifth? Mr. Sanders. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council. My name is Tim Sandoz. I am the executive director of the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative and a former member at large of the Denver City Council. I wanted this opportunity to celebrate South life and support this park just a little bit more history. Sal came to the city council the same time my father did not. Technically, my dad's race wasn't as challenging as Sells was. So technically, my dad was the first Latino ever elected to the city council. But sale was a real close second. We'll let that go. For those of you who may not know, my grandparents did start in Globeville. They're buried right now at the cemetery there. And my family had a long history in Globeville as well. My brother and I even happened to be the plant manager of Nabisco before it became Purina. It smelled a whole lot better then. But along through those days, sell my dad. There were a group of council members who first came together and made some of the most significant changes to the Denver City Council at the time it was settled. Carpio, Sam Sandoz. Bill Roberts. Calvin Caldwell. Hiawatha Davis. Kathy Reynolds. Debbie Cathy Donohue. Excuse me. So as I think about these folks and some of the changes that they made to the council, that was when the council first moved from seven members to 13. Now, the other thing that happened of each of them had a commitment to making sure that they trained and developed another cadre of leaders behind them. So with Sal Carpio came Debbie Ortega, Sam Santos came Tim Santos, Bill Roberts came Happy Haines with Alvin Caldwell came Hiawatha Davis. And so many of us were trained by the leadership of this first cadre of people of color coming to the city council and working on behalf of their communities in ways that hadn't happened before. Now, back then, they did call them the Amigos, and that's because they did become such close friends in making sure that the people in their communities, people of color, were taken care of. I was blessed because of that. When my father died, it was Sal Carpio and Bill Roberts and Alvin Caldwell and Debbie and Ramona martinez, who brought me along and mentored me, and Sal Carpio, who helped me through public housing when I was actually working with HUD on a national basis and came back and got to work in Denver in developing some of the projects that Sal Carpio championed, both when he was on the city council and then the work that he did when he was the executive director of the Denver Housing Authority. Boy, I see that my time is up already. I certainly talked too much. I think it is only fitting in just five more seconds, Councilman, that this Saturday we are going to be having a picnic in the park at what will now be called Carpio Sanguinary Park. It will happen from 10:00 to 1:00. And I think Papa and Cell are in heaven right now celebrating because ironically, we will be dedicating the Sam Sanders Mel Sam Sanders Park at the same time so they can watch us celebrate our parks together. I hope everybody who has a chance can go and celebrate at the park. The new naming. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Santos. All right, John Zappia on the. John Zappia. Excuse me. My name is John Martinez up in. I live in Globeville. Mr. President, members of council, you're going to hear a lot about the sanguin that family and sell Cardinal's family. And I want to. Kind of expose you to some. Of the other sides of this. I have. The. Here before you. And I'm going to ask. You for an affirmative vote in the naming of that car bill, saying when that park. I'm pleased to be a part of this. And I'm. I have a mixture of of of pride and. Humility. In this whole effort. All the efforts that's gone into this. It's been a very. Very learning experience for me. I'm proud to have been associated with the people involved in this, with both families. And the whole process has been very humbling to me. And believe me, that takes some doing. The effort. It's not just another name in. The combined effort that went into this. It's an entry into the. Pages of history in the Globeville neighborhood. And it's a homage. The both the family names Carpio and Sang Minetti. And not just them. But also. The ancestors involved. Here, their ancestors and the ancestors of all the people. That they worked with and they lived with. And believe me. It has been humbling, but also an. Encouraging. Your vote tonight will be the first step in the redevelopment of that park area. We're involved presently. What the Heron Pond project and we will pursue the improvement. Ten, 15 years from now. It's going to be a beautiful, beautiful place. Hopefully sooner than that. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Upjohn. Debbie Gomez. Thank you, city council. My name is Debbie Gomez. I live at 4905 Clinton Street in the Sunset neighborhood. I'm here this evening representing the Sanguinary family, although I am not directly related to him. My first cousin is a descendant of the Sam Kennedy family. In fact, he's named after. One of the very first people that moved into that area in 1860. His name is Louis Sanguinetti. And so I urge you to please move this forward and change the name of this park to Sanguinetti. I'm sorry, Carpio Sanguinetti Park. And on behalf of the family, because they've been there so long and the park actually is a part of the original farm. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Gomez. Patricia Baca. Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Council. My name is Patricia Barker, and I reside at three, three, one Cook Street. I'm in Councilman News District, and I'm here to speak this evening on behalf of people of Denver who've lived here all their lives and who've lived in many parts. In fact, most parts of the city. When my parents. Lived here. We were renters. We rented in Globeville, we rented in Curtis Park. We rented in what is now the agrarian campus we rented in various parts of the city. The last one was in Westwood. My experience with this city has been that access to resources and specifically speaking about recreational resources in parks is not available to all members of our city. I believe that our city's residents all deserve access to a park. And beyond that, the symbolism connected with the naming of this park. Capo sound good? Natty speaks to me very deeply because of the importance of both of those families to this area historically. And I would expect that Councilman Flynn will refer to this in the future. The saying what any family being here in the 1800s and also historically. Sal Carpio being one of the first individuals that represented our Latino community on this city council, I had the opportunity to work with him as I was a part of Denver Public Schools when we put together the North Lincoln Project. And we did that because he cared. And we did that because it took hard work. And we did it because he loved Denver. I think this represents Denver loving him back. So I urge you to vote for this, this evening, and I appreciate your taking a look at it. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Baca. All right. I'm going to call the next five. The next two people. Actually, the next I don't see is Don Morris here. And you have to go. Okay. Last but not least, Chairman Seiko. 3 minutes this time. Yes. My name is. Tim as a crew organizer for the Black Star Action Movement. It takes a giant. To introduce the giant. And when we talk about the transition going from. One generation to another in terms of city council and leadership in the city. We can definitely say that. So Carpio was a giant when I was growing up here in the Five Points. And he was no stranger. To black people. And we had a barbershop called Bishop's Barbershop. And Sal used to be up in there with Mr. Pierre from Supper Club and. There would be a dis engagement in terms of political conversation with the jukebox playing in the front with some Ray Charles rolling around having all day. And as as a kid, I would just sit there and be a part of that because my father cut hair there for 35 years. And so I grew up sweeping the floors and whatnot in the barbershop, in the pool hall and just hanging out, you know, and running errands for Elvin Caldwell, folks. So. So was outstanding human being for real. And he had a wonderful sense of humor. And he had this way with youngsters where he would bring us in and he would say, Look. You're going to have to do this. You go ahead to do that and you're going to have to do the other because this is what we do, period. That's just it. And you keep it real simple. And then you could always count on Sal coming through it to make sure that he was doing what he said you were supposed to be doing. And there was awards for that. You know, and also there was a gentle nudge in terms of keeping your pushin, you know. And so. Debbie, thank you for doing this because you picked up the ball and you've carried that legacy forward. And for folks who don't know, Debbie is revered in the black community as the godmother of city council. You want something done, you go see Debbie. Debbie going to get it done it what I'm saying. And she's going to do it unapologetically and then she's going to do it gently. And I'm kind of learning that to now, you know, how to be a gentle person and got there yet. But I am working on it. But. You did it. You did it. And you've been doing it for a long time. Sal did it. He did it for a long time. And we've got 7 seconds left so that I'm going to do it and I'm going to get out of here on time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman. Say coup for getting out of here on top. No judgment. Thank you, sir. Good words, everyone. Everyone was very eloquent. Thank you. We now have questions for members of council. Any questions for members of council? All right. This concludes the hearing on Council Bill 984. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Ortega, you've made some comments, but I want to. Yeah, I'd like to add just a few more that were not in the presentation. There were a couple of people that were planning to be here tonight that could not. One was Sandra Roberts, who heard her late deceased husband. Councilman Bill Roberts and cell were bowling buddies. They used to go fishing together and. You know, as as you heard Chairman Sekou say, the fact that there was this coalition of them that would work together to try to get policy changed in the city. The other one was Kathy Reynolds. And I just want to read a note that she shared with me, and I hope she won't mind me doing this. But her note says, Do you remember Teddy and my son Bob work together? Teddy was Sal son. They work together at Carbone. One night, someone stole batteries from the patrons cars in the parking lot. He sent Bob her son, out with a wad of cash to buy replacement batteries. A 16 year old redhead kid. And in a 13 year old VW bug buying up all the batteries he could find in North Denver. Cell made it work. He always stepped up to the plate and tried to do the right thing. His civic accomplishments are awesome. The legacy he left in goodwill is even more extraordinary. And she says, We'll miss you and celebrate, you old friend. So that's from Kathy Reynolds. So I had an incredible sense of humor. His granddaughter, Marissa, and my oldest granddaughter, Gaby, went to school together and they played sports together. And every time I would see him, especially when when you were first born, Marissa, he would say, My granddaughter can beat up your granddaughter. Little did we know they'd be playing basketball and other sports together. Sal was an incredible advocate for affordable housing and for homeownership, and he was the catalyst that got Del Norte Neighborhood Development started . And I worked with him in his office and he urged me to serve on that board, and I still serve on that board to this day. His efforts transformed and changed many of our neighborhoods. You heard me talk about the Urban Development Action Grant along the Sphere Boulevard corridor. Had that project not happened. Who knows how long it would have taken to get rid of the junkyards along Speer Boulevard? I learned so much from SEL about what it means to be a servant leader, and he truly epitomized what what that means. He was an incredible leader that just went above and beyond to work with community, to help organize them, to help them learn how to do for themselves. And this started out as a project trying to name the park after Sal Carpio. But when I came to the neighborhood, John was one of the people that stepped up and said, Wait a minute, what about the legacy of people from this community? And again, at that time, I didn't know about sales history of having grown up in the neighborhood. And then John urged that we include the name Sanguinary. And so the next few meetings we had, we invited Mary and her family to come and join us. And, you know, the the family the Carpio family was like, well, should we, you know, look at another park. And, you know, it made sense for this all to come together because this is what we do. This is who Sal was, right? Always bringing people together and trying to find a positive solution. And so we did the research on the saying when any family included that in the application. And I think Debbie and her husband Louis for being here. And Mary, you and your daughter for your efforts in helping us to, you know, pass the word out to the entire community. So, again, I just want to thank you all for your efforts in bringing this forward and just urge my colleagues to vote in support of this park naming. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Wayne, New York. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilwoman Ortega for bringing this forward and for having Heinz for supporting the name of this park. And it's always so much fun for me to to hear about the history of Denver, and especially important tonight here about two important families to Denver and what contributions the families have made to Denver. And I love hearing it from the families, especially when it doesn't come from Councilman Flynn. So. So we. But I just do. I want to thank you so much for your families, for the contribution you have made for dinner and dinner and for a sound car for you and his his leadership of the city council on and seeing. We have these pictures on the wall back there and you see the old I want to say the old the most important the leaders of our city. Oh, city councilman listed there and pictured. And it's always fun to see those leaders and the importance they made to our city. So I just really want to thank you and all the families for their contribution. And I look forward to supporting this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. And Councilman new, um, councilman Paul Lopez. I don't know what they put in their coffee that they made in a good mood. The first person I want to thank is Councilman Ortega. Councilman Ortega has been steadfast in making sure that Sal has been honored in this city. Hmm. You began doing this a long time ago. And, you know, there were a lot of different things that we could have. We could have honored Sally with. But Councilman Carpio with Butt Park is amazing. Park is a place of peace. A place of unity. I. And it's a place of beauty. And that's the legacy that I believe Councilman Carpio left. I only got to know him when I was coming on board on council. And he. I was leaving. Council but I mean us going going to have. And he wrote me. This letter. And I all I know is that here's this dude with. I mean, he's older guy, but with his hair fully in there and still black and still had grassa like stabbed the grease. Right. And I thought to myself, I like this guy. I want to be him when I'm old. Right. And he once I met him once or twice, he shook my hand, you know. And then I got this letter, this random letter, and, you know, who writes letters to us anymore, like actually ran or written. We get a lot of emails and we get too many. But we don't get letters anymore like we used to. And I have this handwritten letter that he he gave me, and I saved it. And he's still around. I mean, this is 2011. He still around. But for some reason, I saved this letter and it was handwritten and hangs on my wall, hangs on my wall and counts like a big old corkboard. And it hangs there. I'm a reader because I think it's just it's just his words. Again, he's alive. Right. And and he says, Councilman Paul Lopez, I want to send you this note to thank you for your consideration and effort to have my name placed upon the Human Services Building in East Denver. That was one of the things that we were working on in the past year. What there's this humbles his humble part comes out and he says, I will understand the dynamics and pitfalls of such an effort. And although it was not successful this time, your sincere effort and consideration on our behalf is indeed an honor beyond words . And he says, thank you very much. I wish you continued success in your pursuit and improving. Knows we must improve the quality of life for the working people. The poor and the elderly. Thanks. Sincerely, Sal Carpio. And that's who I know he fought for. And that's who we still fight for. Because the city isn't successful and unless those folks are successful. No last minute. Only communication I really had with him was those words. And when you talk about this legacy that's passed on, it's compassion. It's not complex. It's to not leave each other behind. Right. And if I might get you more in detail, Councilman Santos. Is that you really don't become a council person until you take the oath? They took it together. And so I like to say that all their I may be elected one right after the other. They took them together. And you can't be what you cannot see. And when you fight so hard in our community. We've struggled, especially in the Chicano community. We've struggled to get our name, people, I mean, things named after our people. And unlike some times, it's easier. I hate to say this, but. There's a difference when you're trying to name something under a Chicano. You met with a lot of resistance. You have to struggle for it. You got to go through extra red tape. And we're always struggling to name things after our people. Not our struggle, but the resistance that we that we have. And I'm glad to see that there is no resistance. There you are. We are about to name this part of. Carpio Sanguinetti after great people that reflect who we are as a city. And so when, you know, we feel we get a lot of folks saying, you're changing the history of city, you're changing our city, our sisters, the cities disappearing. And they come here desperate at every rezoning, saying, Please save our city. What are you doing? Don't do that. They freak out, right? Because this is the history that we're trying to preserve. Right. These kind of things, these kind of people, these kind of efforts. And as Denver grows, it can not forget its history. And so these are the builders of the city, literally the builders of the city. And I just think it is long overdue. And I just wish one thing. I wish. Councilman sound out, Councilman Santos, too, because we did this a couple of years ago. I wish Councilman Carpio was here to hear this. I think we have an antiquated law colleagues. I think it's so antiquated that they can't be here to say to hear the thank you. We need a change in seven years. Some people make their legacy right off the bat. We don't got to wait seven years to tell somebody thank you in person. So if I might say this. Think about the names in our parks and I'll read this through. And this is just an effort in a community. Johnny Martinez. Some sandals, just a passport. Are buildings. Public spaces. Gonzalez. Castro. Flores. Chavez. Sanchez. Cisneros. Pena Sandoval. And now Carpio. So with that, I want to say thank you all. This is a good day, a good night for our community and a great night for our city. You, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn. Thanks for President. I really wasn't going to get into any history, but challenged by councilman knew. I'm going to have to now. I want to make note. It's really appropriate to to single out this piece of ground, not only for Sal, but also for the Sanguinary family, because the history down valley downriver is a history of agriculture and the history of production from the land. And to see this piece of land enter into an official city park with the joint names of Sanguinary Family and Sal Carpio is very, very fitting and it's very historical. It's not just to memorialize a a city councilman, but to memorialize part of the culture and fabric of what built this state. And in the beginning, that was agriculture. It later and possibly because of the sanguinary family and their campaign to clean up the river. The in this is my historical note for this remark during the New Deal, during the Depression in the mid thirties. The North Side treatment plant was built there precisely to clean up the river and after that plant opened, people all the way down through Greeley and Weld County. The mortality rates dropped from such things as enteritis and other diseases, from drinking dirty water. And and now to see the remnant of that plant become part of the fabric of the park really, really ties this land and its legacy in a very visual, practical, physical way. I think it's really fitting that, Tim, that you're here. And I meant to ask during questioning. I didn't ring in in time. But I don't know if you are the only son of a councilman. Son of a councilman to or daughter of a councilman or for that matter, ever to be elected to council. But I think I think you are. And when when I started here in 1981, your dad and Sal were on on the council. And I think it's fitting to recognize Salma for not only for a lot of his physical accomplishments that we can view on council and at DIA, at the housing authority, but also because of the cultural shift that the coalition that your dad and Sal and others built on the council really led to some fundamental changes in how this council, which is basically a weak council, relates to the administration. And we can thank we can thank them for what is now the mind numbing task of having to read all contracts, over half a million dollars, because that was a reform that came in because of the Group of Seven that eventually was formed. I had I had the opportunity to visit last week over at the home of Cathy Donahue. And we were talking some stories about Sal and your dad and and Bill Roberts and and all the other folks, Cathy Reynolds, who eventually formed the coalition that managed to get those charter reforms in place so that the council could be a little more a little bit more of a watchdog over the administration. And those are the accomplishments I remember. I won't remember such things as as Sal and not so much your dad, but mostly Bill Roberts making me very late on deadline, my metro deadline, while I was sitting over the press tables saying, come on, come on, come on, you know, let's cut it, Mr. President, please cut them off. Not me. You're cut off. Thank you. But. But you're right. They raised a generation of other leaders. Sal, I met I met Councilwoman Ortega in the early eighties when she was the aid for for Sal and I met Ramona martinez who followed your father in on in the West Denver seat. And I think your dad paid his aide out of his own pocket at first because there were no council aides in the seventies when Sam and Sal were elected together as the first Latino members of city council and. Just the reforms that they that they managed to push through really affect the way we operate today. And I think that's the legacy that I will think of when I vote I tonight on this bill. And congratulations on your dad also. I think that to have Sergeant Carpio, Sanguinetti Park and Mile Sam Santos Park dedicated in the same year is really a fitting tribute to those those two people going through this council. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn, I'm glad you chimed in to tell us the history that you did, because I got to have my mind blown a little bit that I now understand what it is that you're looking for. And it's a historical designation has absolutely no trace of anything other than a sewage plant. Now, all kidding aside, thank you, Councilman Lopez, for sharing the note. I know I've gotten something similar from different people, but I wish I had gotten that note. And I might ask you to, if you will please copy it and share it with me, because there's some wisdom, there's a lot of wisdom there that is born from obviously his time doing serving in those multiple roles on council and take that on. I'd be lucky if I ever sort of figure out who you can see. I struggle with that level of understanding of what it is that we're doing here. But anyway, the only reason I'm sitting at this dais in one of those seats that he occupied is is a direct result of that R.A. legislation that he moved forward. You know, I was just a resident in a neighborhood that had a problem with the way things that the city was doing. And me and other neighbors formed an R.A. as a way to fight in that. And we had a representative, Debbie Ortega, at the time where we knew that we had a fighting chance if we could make the case to her. And so that represented sort of the everything that was depicted here, which is the ability for the neighbors to have that power of that organization, have standing in the city and have a representative that comes from a place where people matter, people, individual constituents matter more than the special interests that are that are really driving this train . And, you know, so we won. We lost some, too. But we fought. And we we always felt like we had a skin in the game. And and that success in through different registered neighborhood organizations sort of put me as an individual on on people's map. Anyway back to how I even really I my relationship with the Carpio family. Sorry, did I say Sanders again? Sorry. My relationship with your family is. Is different than this council connection. But when you run in North Denver, there are a lot of old families there that have been multigenerational, involved in politics and in various sorts. And you do not run without hearing both those names actually, and becoming very familiar. And so we've been able to sort of connect the dots early. When I got here, when Councilwoman Ortega was talking about moving forward, this legislation, which is fraught with some of the concerns and difficulties and challenges that Councilman Lopez mentioned, you know, I was sympathetic and had a better understanding of how how everything sort of plays itself out. And I am so. But I just want to say that that, you know, you know that what's gone on in the last 40 years isn't the entire story of Globeville and that land is the part of the entire story of Globeville. And to have made that connection to the same genetic family was to me. The thing that that that I love most about this is to sort of for the future in perpetuity for us to have that acknowledgment that we had. We had this. This is this vast plains. That was then. Wrangled by people cultivated and turned into something that was bountiful. Man did its thing, sort of led it to decay. Different forces came in and we said, No, we're going to create change. And it all sort of just it's just the narrative of Denver from that 150 year history to the more recent sort of the history that we're talking about to what is now being discussed as the future, the next hundred years. To be able to point to to create this moment to to to honor both those families. At this point I'm sorry, Councilwoman Brooks, but now, unfortunately, I'm going to be able to go. You're doing this in the shadow of the Sanguinary Carpio Park. And that's going to mean something, because that's going to talk about the agricultural legacy, that's going to talk about the community activism and voice. And so I just I'm just blessed. I'm rambling and I get to ramble and I'm sorry. But I just wanted you guys to know that I am very, very happy to be in this position to vote yes on this particular naming application. And I'm so looking forward to it. Thank you very much. All right, Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I. It's such an exciting night. And I think the coolest thing about this is twofold for me. One, this is one of my favorite parks in all of Denver. And as a guy who spent 17 years working on parks, not saying a lot because I spent a lot more time in a lot of parks than most people. I can remember the first day that I stumbled upon this park working on the South Platte River and just, you know, you can't be in this space and not feel like it is it is just such a special place and such a space that the community has owned in a way that many parks don't have that ownership. And so this is the perfect thing to do. The naming process is one of the most community driven things that we do. I want to give, you know, a shout out and thanks to Councilwoman Ortega and Councilman Brooks, but really a shout out to all of you who who did the work and put in the time to bring this forward, to get the signatures, to do the work and to put these two families name on this park just really cements it as that much more of a special place. And so I want to say thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And congratulations. I'm very happy to support this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to chime in and add my congratulations to both the San Juan, Eddie and Carpio families. I was not pals with South Korea. I spoke with him once or twice early in my career as a news guy around the Neighborhood Notification Ordinance. I just remember him as being nice and direct and gave me the info that I needed. You know, I love that this is not South Carpio Park and it's not Sanguinary Park. I love that it's Carpio Sanguinary, as was said before. You know, not only does it reflect on the neighborhood and its history, but the fact that the capos didn't dig in their heels and say, Oh, no, it's got to be Carpio Park and Sanguine Ateez were were happy to join in this celebration. And the other thing I wanted to say to them, probably many, many people in this city who have never been to what will soon be named the Carpio sanguinary part. I truly think this may be the most unique park I've ever been to in Denver. I mean, with the remnants of the treatment facility there, it is a landscape unlike any other green space that I visited in our city. So if I were part of the families, I'd be real pleased with this choice. You know, this is this is not just a blank green lawn with a few trees and benches. This landscape is just evocative of our past. You walk along and you look at the walls and plazas and it's your mind just starts going, Well, we could do this here. Why don't we do that? I mean, it's a great space. So, again, congratulations and I will look forward to supporting this. Thank you, Councilman. Kathryn, Councilman are taking you back up. Yes. I just wanted to mention two very brief things. The first is that this park is not dedicated and it's not yet because it's part of the 100 acre master plan with Heron Pond and the Heller property. And also because as National Western is looking at doing, there are two roads that. Will connect to the river and eventually go straight over to Washington Street. There's a chance that. Part of the parking lot on the south end of this park may be. You know, it may be absorbed as part of the roadway as it comes to the other side of the river. And then the last thing I want to mention is that this information from this process tonight and maybe even a record of tonight's meeting can now be added to the archives that are at the Denver Public Library on Sal Carpio, which will also recognize the contributions of the Singularity family. And I think that will be awesome to have this information added to all the other information on the many projects and contributions that Councilman Sal Carpio made. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other comments, this being the district I represent, I just want to say a couple comments. Number one, councilwoman are take a valiant effort. You've been talking about this for a while. We've been meeting about this for a while. So thank you so much for getting this going. And the community did a great job and getting all the signatures to the single nati family. And congratulations. This is a way to to to really honor the history. I mean, fifth generation, fifth generation here in the Globeville neighborhood. It's just incredible. And the only thing I regret about the Sal Carpio is that he couldn't be here to see it. I mean, I've read about the legend of Sal Carpio, but the first time I met him was at a redistricting meeting. You remember this? We're at tradition. Redistricting. We are so excited to meet him. And he put his finger in my chest and said. You better support. Lopez, this map. And so we didn't get started off on the right foot. But he's. So. He's so passionate about his community. And it was this this map that we ended up supporting was taken a part of District nine, which he represented. And I always respected the fact that he didn't even know me, but still checked me very clearly. So. And in Councilwoman, as we look back on, you know, the Human Services building, you remember this? Oh, yes. And we and we talked to I wish that we could have done something with the Human Services Building that remains unnamed today right there on Bruce Randolph for for Mr. Carpio. This has been beautiful to hear from you all as a community. And I am excited. Though we're about to change the name to sing. When Erica Carpio sang. When Madam Secretary Rocco. ORTEGA Hi, Black. Clark Hi. Espinosa Hi. Flynn Hi. Gilmore I heard. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. I knew. Mr. President. I please close voting, announce the results. Lebanese 11 eyes. The park name passes. It is now Carpio saying. Excellent.

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

LongBeachCC_09232014_14-0779

Excellent. Next item, please. Item number 11. Item 11 is a report from the Office of Council Member Al Austin with a recommendation to request the city manager to prepare a report on the status of the Pedestrian Advisory Safety Committee and an overview of the school crossing guard program. Council Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And you know, in the agenda business item, we failed to realize that tonight is actually back to school night and Long Beach Unified. And there were a number of parents and PTA organizations and even students that wanted to come out and speak on this. And so I'm going to respectfully request to table this motion until the October 7th meeting. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, there's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item? CNN, please cast your vote. Council member has and that's to continue it to October 7th on that agenda. Thank you. Motion carries eight votes. Next item. Item 12 is a report from financial management with the recommendation order contract to ABM on site services for providing custodial services at various locations in an amount not to exceed $1.007 million.

Recommendation to approve the Uptown Property and Business Improvement District Annual Report and Assessment for the period of January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, automatically extending the current agreement with the Uptown Property and Community Association for a one-year period; and, authorize payment of $54,561 in City property assessments from the General Fund (GF) and $3,668 in City property assessments from the Successor Agency Fund (SA). (Districts 8,9)

LongBeachCC_12062016_16-1071

Thank you so much. So that concludes public comment. So we're still a little out of order. So we're going to we're going to take item 21. Madam Clerk, please queue up item number 21, please. And I'll make the motion on this item. Report from Economic and property development. Recommendation to improve the Uptown Property and Business Improvement District Annual Report and assessment for the period of January 1st, 2017 through December 31st, 2017. An authorized payment of $54,500 in see property assessments from the General Fund and $3,700 in city property assessments from the successor agency fund districts eight and nine. Thanks. Please have a staff report, please. Jim Fisk. Honorable Vice Mayor and City Council Members. This item is the annual approval. Of the Uptown Property and Business Improvement District. And report and ongoing assessment. The recommended action on this item continues the assessment for another year. There are no proposed changes to the basis of the assessment, nor any significant changes with the proposed activities or programs. Therefore, staff requests that City Council received the supporting documentation of record and approve the recommendation to continue the levy of the assessment and authorize the. City manager to extend the agreement for one additional year. And that concludes my report. Thank you. And what I'll do right now is we have a presentation from the Uptown Business District Manager, a brief presentation. So I want to just introduce Tasha Hunter. Great. Thank you. Good evening, Vice Mayor. Council members and city staff. Okay. Let's see if I can work this. Okay. This is our annual report. And this is our Uptown Business Improvement District right there in North Long Beach from Atlantic and Artesia, as far south as Atlantic and Market. And we go east on Artesia to Orange Street. So we encompass Council District, a portion and Council District eight and in council a larger portion in Council District nine. So here is our annual report. I'm very excited to say that so many wonderful things are happening in Uptown. We are having monthly security meetings where we bring together public safety stakeholders, private security teams of businesses and properties, as well as our own private security team. CSI, the Long Beach Police Department and Long Beach Police Department for Jordan High School, or I should say officer at Jordan High School and other businesses with security. And we take the recommendations of the businesses and the property owners, and one of them is increase security patrols. So that's one of the things that we've done. We've increased our bike patrol as well as added a mobile patrol during weekend hours. And our businesses and our property owners and our community, business community are engaged, bringing all of these security stakeholders, safety stakeholders together as key. Another thing we'd like to talk about is that our our police department is giving literature and information to our business owners about how to remain safe. We have also increased our cleanliness. When I came on board some months ago, we were utilizing the services of one porter to clean the entire business improvement district. We've since contracted with the Conservation Corps, and the Conservation Corps is doing a phenomenal job. It's been awesome having them there. So we're averaging about 5 to 10 young people. They are young adults in a program which is environmental preparedness, and they're helping us clean the area. And we're averaging about £3,000 of trash and debris monthly. So that's over a ton. That's incredible. We have increased our pressure washing instead of twice a year. We're pressure washing weekly so that the visibility and the and it's noticeable that it's being cleaned throughout the bill. The bid's, the business improvement district, we're reporting graffiti. We had about 128 reports of graffiti over the course of six months, averaging about 18 a month. And working with the city to get that cleaned is, is is very important also working with the businesses and the property owners to let them know that there are some where they can remove that themselves. And we're working on Fridays with the city prosecutor's office to have community service workers come and help us clean the bit. So we're really excited about the work that we're doing as far as the the security, the safety and the maintenance in Uptown, £3,000 of trash is is is a big number and we're excited. The Uptown Renaissance, we've heard these words and it's all happening. We are we have some great developments that are coming. We do have some that are here, I should say the Michelle Obama Neighborhood Library. We partnered with Council District nine and Long Beach First and our Foods, the Business Improvement District. We were able to create our learning garden at the Michelle Obama Neighborhood Library, and it is for the community to come and take some of the fruit and vegetables that are there. It's a nice garden. We have tomatoes and strawberries grown right now. We'll into strawberries. And the Conservation Corps has been trained on how to maintain this beautiful garden. Also, it's available to for classes. I'm moving along community. We have amazing developments that are happening throughout the business Uptown Business Improvement District. We have coffee shops coming. We have a financial institution coming, a neighborhood brewery, sit down, restaurants and much more. And we're going to be seeing a lot more of these grand openings happening. We have businesses that are coming to North Long Beach in the Uptown Business Improvement District. And when businesses come, we have an increase in jobs and that's always wonderful. At this time, I'd like to say thank you to Vice Mayor Rex Richardson and the city staff for the facade improvement funds which have been given. One of the developments that we've done is El Pollo Imperial, which is there. That's what it looked like before. And this is what it looks like now. Nice renovation to that that business improvement district. It's a major it gets a lot of traffic there. So this is one of the many improvements. We also have Robert Earl's Barbecue, which is our first sidewalk extension and patio dining in the Business Improvement District. So it's a little look of what it looked like before. That's the sidewalk extension. And this right here is the outside dining patio, which is right there is absolutely gorgeous. And we're about to enter our third phase where we're going to do a complete facade improvement for the majority of the block. So these are some of the things that we've been doing with the funds. There's a lot and there's Robert Earl right there, a lot of improvements throughout the Business Improvement District. With one time funds, we were able to bring on a creative consultant, Ryan Smoller, who helped secure a grant. He's been helping with programing and media exposure, social media exposure and developing ideas for the bid. One of the some of the funds also went towards our new office space. We had to move because our building that we're in, city property is in the process of being sold. So we were able to move and we had a nice event up there in the business district and we created the first co-working space in North Long Beach, which is it houses the bid and this is what it can look like, a shared office space for those individuals that may want to save some money and just have a space. Co-working space is the way to go. Very inexpensive. This is our grand opening. We had a lot of community members that came up to support us and take a peek. We have a couple of renters and we have more space available. Got some awards for that. That's the team. And once again, we're excited about what's happening in Uptown and excited about what's to come. If you're ever in North, the Long Beach, Uptown Long Beach, come and take a peek. Give us a call. Visit us at uptown Long Beach dot com and thank you all. And we're available for any questions. Thank you, Tasha. And so I'll be the first to say it's the Uptown Business District. Is has come a long way. I remember was just a twinkle in the eye of a few people. And and now it's it's clear that we can put our faith in you when we give you and partner with you and give the best business district support. You can turn that and transform that into real results. And so I want to just say thank you for coming back to the council and saying thank you and acknowledging that support the council has given you. So we're going to go ahead and have comments from the councils. We have Councilmember Turanga. Thank you very much, Mary. Wonderful job. This is a great presentation. Keep it up. It's looking wonderful up there. Thank you. Next. Councilwoman Mongo. I want you to know how much your success means to other business groups since your original inception. Another group in the city decided that they would come together and work on a business association. And we have two more coming as well. So I appreciate you making this presentation from the materials like this really help when we go out and meet with other businesses that are in a geographic area together, they're not necessarily a bid. They do theirs more as a5013. But the work that you're doing is really what's important. So thank you for that. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I want to echo the sentiments and just you have a certain energy that you bring to the work that you're doing there that is really infectious. In fact, hearing you do the presentation made me think how valuable it would be for us if we had a presentation like that from all of our business districts or business collaborations in the city, because we we don't get to see the work that is happening in the individual districts unless we have a presentation like this, even if we go to the district. I know I've had the opportunity to meet Vice Mayor Richardson in his district, and he has driven me around in the past. But just hearing you kind of summarize everything you're doing is really valuable for me, at least as a council member. So I appreciate you doing that. I love that you're using the Conservation Corps and that you're getting such great, you're getting such a great service that you're able to talk about. I share an office with them in East Long Beach, and I'm always trying to promote us, hiring them whenever we can, because they do excellent work and do it with a very great purpose and intent. So I'm glad to hear that feedback. The Learning Garden at the library. First of all, though, you know, a lot of times we talk about big projects in the city and sometimes the discussion gets to like, this is only for this district or that district, or just because we don't visit something daily doesn't mean it's not a city asset. The Michelle Obama Library is such a sense of pride and joy for all of us in the city, regardless of what district we live in. I mean, it's just phenomenal. Yes. Let's give it a round of applause. And they're open on Sundays, which I love. Yes. But I love that you incorporated a learning garden out there because we are trying to incorporate that more into the Long Beach Unified School District Education. And I think we just recently had a chance to go and see it. And I'm just so incredibly proud of the work that you guys have done. It's a tremendous source of pride for the city. I'm excited for all the changes that are coming. I want to thank my colleagues who represent North Long Beach for the excellent work that they've done individually and together to make it such a great source of pride for the city. And I look forward to you helping them get to that vision in the years to come. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you and thank you, Tasha, for the excellent presentation. Thank you for sharing it with the city. I've actually lived and breathed this and been a witness to the great work that the bid has done, as well as being an original author with the Cubs and starting the the bid. I'm really happy to see where it is today. In in your board, the development of your board. It's a very, very important that that chemistry stay engaged and strong today are our corridor along Atlantic and north. Part of our city is much more cleaner it's safer in the community is is far more engaged than it was just a few years ago and in the presence of a business improvement district has certainly paid dividends thus far. I want to just say that I have in the bid has my full confidence and you know, you always have had my full confidence as the manager there and will continue to enjoy that and look forward to working with you on projects even outside of the bid. And to Suzy's point, I really appreciate your energy, your commitment and professionalism. You've taken the bid to another level or just in the short time that you have been the manager. And it's important to note for the city and city council that the city, because of the former redevelopment agency, the successor agency Properties, is really a major stakeholder in that bid. And, you know, hopefully you in a very short period of time in the very near future, that won't be the case because the properties will be sold off and we'll have new stakeholders. But right now I think we are almost a third of the bid. And that's a that's a that's an important point to bring home. So keep up the great work and I look forward to working with you in the future. Thank you. Councilwoman Pearce. Well, everybody. Already said everything, so I have to have a faster finger, but just congratulations, everybody that's doing work in Uptown. It's great to be in downtown and know that we've got great work up there and everything about connecting us in between is really important. And just I know, Jim, you nerd out on these things. So also congrats to you. And I'll say lastly again, I mean, I thank you for coming in presenting. I think that I remember when they were looking to hire in your position and I just feel it fills the energy up and it's really exciting to be a part of that. And we have a lot of things to learn from what you guys are doing. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Tasha, congratulations. You do great work in uptown. I know we've talked about some policy items that have been very important for small businesses. And I think, you know, in downtown, I think you all have created such an amazing, unique place for uptown. And now we're kind of modeling what you're doing in downtown in some ways because we were like, okay, how do we get more creative? So I think you're doing a fantastic job. And someone who has been raised in North Long Beach when I was younger, I am so proud of all the work and all of the residents I know and Vice Mayor Richardson and Councilmember Awesome have a lot to be proud of too. So congratulations. Great job, Jim. Always. Thank you, Councilman Andrew. Yes. And Tasha, I don't think you need any more. Congratulations. What you really need is a consultant's job to come to all the districts and show us how this is done. Congratulations. And you're doing a great job. Keep up the good work. Fantastic. You know, you need to start getting paid. And that's a thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Super now. Okay. From the slowest finger on the dais. Thank you from all of us. And we have two bids and a business association in my district. So I'd like to echo what my colleagues said. We'd love to have you out to demonstrate what you're doing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So I'll just what we have public I'll say thank you again for coming down that presentation. I do want to acknowledge also, you know, Councilmember Gavlak has been a part of this as well. When she was when she was here, it started as a twinkle in the eye of Steve Neal and Ray goblets and happy to continue to support this moving forward. We haven't had anything like this in District nine and to see how far has come has been fantastic. So at this point, I just ask for any any public comment. Seeing nonmembers, please cast your vote. Oh, there was a comment. Okay. Come on for sir. Thank you, Tasha. Hello, Vice Mayor and council members. Hi. My name is Enjoyment of. I am a legislative intern for Lena Gonzalez. My question is actually directed to you, uh, Councilmember de Andrews. I do not live in Long Beach. I do live in Signal Hill, but I do frequent. The sixth District a lot. So is this related to the Uptown Business District presentation? Yes. Okay. I was just wondering, is there any type of development just like that happening in the sixth District, specifically on PCH? Not on PCH, but on Anaheim? Okay. We're working on as you as we speak. Okay. Thank you so much, PCH. I don't think so. Yeah. In our business. Well, okay. We'll talk about that and some of that. Thank you. Thank you. Members, please cast your vote. Toshi, we need to get with him. He wants to know some. Go ahead. You got it. And I mean yes obviously. On some an Andrews Councilman Andrews okay but here's. Thank you. Motion. Okay. Motion. Pass around. Good. Thank you. A little slow. Let's go ahead and have our number 15 clerk please read.

AN ORDINANCE authorizing the CEO/General Manager of Seattle Public Utilities to execute an amendment to the contract with Waste Management of Washington, Inc., for waste disposal and transportation services; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 Budget, changing appropriations for Seattle Public Utilities; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_04032017_CB 118932

No knock on doors. All right. Council Bill 11 8931 is the solid waste disposal contract amendment. It would discount the current solid waste disposal rate by $2 per ton in 2017 and 2019 and another $0.50 per ton in 2021 to 50 starting in 2021 based on the proposed discounts. This would result in savings of $8 million from 2017 to 2023. Santa Public Utilities proposes to use the contract savings to support cash financing of the Solid Waste Fund Capital Improvement Program. And importantly, the result would be a reduction in the projected three year average anticipated annual rate increase from 4.4% to 4.1% and a 3/10 of a percentage point difference. The amended contract itself delays by five years. The city's previously negotiated opportunity to end the waste management contract. There are two options available to Espoo as the 2019 opt out date approaches. Option one is to do what has has been done pursue, pursue savings in lieu of opting out of the contract or option to open the contract and develop a request for proposal for garbage disposal services. Espoo has done some market research and determined that Seattle's price and services are competitive or better than most other local agreements. In addition, a significant negotiated discount would put Seattle far ahead of other jurisdictions. The $8 million negotiated discount delivers near and mid-term savings, as mentioned earlier, and maintains essential service, reliability and social and environmentally performance. Social and environmental environmental performance that would not be delivered with a rushed RFP in a constrained market. Let's see what else are high points here, but a lot of speaking points. I don't think I need to go through all of them. The there are significant concerns with with moving forward with a an RFP at this time. I believe Councilmember Johnson has an amendment that would relate to having additional notice for in a situation similar to this. And I'll let him speak to that. Councilmember Johnson. Do we need to have the bill in front of us, sir, before I talk about my amendment? It's already in front of us. It came out of committee so it doesn't have to be moved on the dais. That sounds good. So Councilmember Herbold is correct. I brought an amendment with me that should be in front of all of you. We're going to call that, I guess, amendment one. There are three elements to this, as we were doing a little bit of research. The law department suggested that we add some language to one of the recitals that clarifies that the savings associated with the city service payments are related to the solid waste fund as opposed to other lines of business that you may be in. But the other two, whereas clauses here relate to the two. I think main issues that have come up in the course of our review of this particular contract, the first of which is the timeliness of getting the contract to us. So one recital effectively asks us to notify the chair of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee, or the appropriate committee should should the committee not have that name the next time around prior to a decision to amend or bid out the long haul waste disposal contract? Then the second recital effectively clarifies that the council would have a preference to an open public procurement process beginning in 2021 as a means of encouraging more competitive bids to benefit the ratepayers. So those two issues that we I think heard a lot about from folks during the process hopefully reiterates the council's intent to really make sure Aspo gets this to us the next time, a little bit more early. And then secondly, asks us for you to commit to a public procurement process in advance of the next contract. So that's my amendment that I brought forward. I'd happy answer any questions that folks might have and would ask for my colleague support. So procedural has been moved it's been council member Johnson's amending council bill 118932 by amending the second and third recital and by adding a fourth and fifth recital. Is there a second? Okay. Any more discussion just on the amendment piece? So on the amendment, all those in favor of Councilmember Johnson's amendment vote I. I oppose the ayes have it. So now we have an amended bill, and Councilmember Herbold is present at the majority opinion. Do you have any more comments on that? And we'll move back to if you'd like. Let's see here a couple of other things. The Seattle Public Utilities Market Review highlighted that significant service problems with other vendors would need to be addressed if service transitioned. Service reliability is fundamental for city garbage to operate effectively and meet regulatory requirements. Waste Management has maintained a record of highly reliable service, especially compared to other vendors and jurisdictions. For example, Seattle Public Utilities suffered no significant interruption and disposal continuity this winter, even during severe winter conditions and ice storms that wiped out rail and highways. However, Snohomish County has had ongoing periods during multiple months of major service gaps, with piles of garbage remaining at county transfer stations. One of the things that was mentioned was the state of the art methane capture system that a another service provider offers. Waste Management's landfill also has a similar system. The company uses the captured gas to generate close to 13 megawatts of green power, which is sold to Seattle City. Light Waste Management is expanding this facility, bringing the capacity to around 20 megawatts of green power. Thank you, Councilman Herbold. I'll present the minority opinion, I guess, since I raised it and likely to be zero for two on amendments today. But that's okay. You get three or four times at bat to get your average up. That was a joke, by the way. Okay. So I made the minority opinion sort of clear that I think one of the worst things that can happen to a legislative body is when a department comes to you, which is sort of like a fait accompli, that we really don't have much of an opportunity to weigh in on policy preferences. And I think you heard testimony that it would be really nice to look at what new technologies out there, what new competitors are out there, how we might be able to keep this this solid waste in the state in a union facility as an example, and produce the methane and look at how this can benefit our state as a whole. And I didn't think we were afforded that opportunity. I in fairness to the utility, I am positive that they negotiated well and in good faith to protect our city and our ratepayers and to accomplish the savings that obviously this legislation has within it. So I don't doubt that at all. However, it would seem to me that based on what I know about procurements, in fact, there's a a think tank, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, that in 2015 reviewed when cities and when municipal municipalities should use procurement process and clearly found that that price alone should not be a driving factor. And they talked about how just because a competitor may be able to to to provide a price that is attractive, there's so many other criteria that should be considered, such as what we just did with our keystone, looking at the values, looking at where what our vision of a city is. And so I just think that our job is to look at all of those possibilities, and I just don't think we were afforded that opportunity. I think Councilmember Johnson's amendment makes that point, and that's why I'm very supportive of that. And again, I just you know, it was sort of flagged to me listening, talking to labor advocates and environmental advocates that we might have missed an opportunity here. So for that reason, I won't be supporting the legislation and life goes on. And I know we're looking very stringently at the utility in its operations, working with the utility and I think we have a great utility, but I think we missed an opportunity here. And so for that reason, again, I will be voting against it. Councilmember So on. Thank you, President Harrell. I voted yes on this legislation in committee and since then, many members of the labor movement, including the leader of the labor movement in Seattle, King County, Nicole Grande, have brought it to our attention that there were some issues. Council President Harrell went over some of them, so I won't repeat it. But just to quote Larry Brown, the leader of the machinists who said the city, it'll be good for the city to examine other options for long haul waste disposal. And so I will be changing my vote to a no vote. Just one other point I would add is the Republic executives who have been here are vocal against this legislation. We hope that you will support the unionizing effort at your recycling plants. Thank you. Councilman Swanson. Any further comments from any of my colleagues? Customer Horrible. Do you have any closing remarks? Good, everybody. Okay, so we have a bill in front of us in a minute, Bill. So please call the roll on the passage of the amended Bill Herbold II. Johnson Suarez. O'Brien. Hi, Serrano. Burgess. Hi. Gonzalez. Hi, President. Harrell. No. Six in favor. Two opposed. Thank you. The bill passed and Cher will sign it. Okay. Is there any further business to come before the council? I'm sorry, Bearing. Then we stand adjourned and everyone have a great day.

On the message and ordinance, referred on May 5, 2021, Docket #0638, to create the Boston Commemoration Commission, the committee submitted a report recommending that the ordinance ought to pass in a new draft.

BostonCC_12152021_2021-0638

Madam Clerk, could you please read docket 0638 at this time? Thank you. Docket 0638 The Committee on Government Operations, to which was referred on May five, 2021. Docket number 0638. Ordinance to create the Boston Commemoration Commission submits a report recommending that the ordinance ought to pass in a new draft. Thank you so much. The chair recognizes Councilor Edward's counsel. Edward, you have the floor. Thank you very much. Docket 0368 again is the work of Councilor Kenzie Bach, who I think has been leading in general and the historic preservation and understanding of our history on the council. And I wanted to thank her for that and thank her for this commemoration commission. It would establish a commemoration commission with the purpose of developing a plan to celebrate upcoming historical anniversaries of significance to Boston and to make sure that that celebration is inclusive, it's accurate, and it actually includes everybody in the diverse history of Boston. The ordinance establishes the membership of the Commission, the creation of the subcommittees, and defines the responsibilities and authority of the commission. And I believe, as this commission will continue to grow and be diverse and make sure that we are always accurate and inclusive of all aspects of our history and how every single one of us in our backgrounds played a role in building this beautiful city. So I would like to turn it over with your permission to Councilor Bach, and I recommend that this order pass or excuse me that this ordinance passed and amended form. Thank you so much. The Chair recognizes Councilor Bach Council. Bach, you have the floor. Thank you so much, Madam President. As Councilor Edwards alluded to upcoming anniversaries, they provide us with an opportunity to both plan commemorative events and update our local and state laws concerning historic buildings and archives in ways that more fully preserve and honor a history that includes all Bostonians. And I think it's clear to us that there's a ton of opportunity here and not just originally for some folks on the council. Remember that I filed this thinking about this Hester Centennial, the 250th for 2026 of the country. But also, as we're on a path to the 2030 400th anniversary of the city of Boston, and we know that there's an opportunity to really tell our history in ways that include everyone in our interaction, as Councilor Edward says. But we also know that doesn't happen by accident or on autopilot. You have to be intentional about it. And so the purpose of the commission is really to pull the many pieces of our city that touch historical memory and the many stakeholders we have around of our neighborhoods, sort of into conversation together and coordinate and invest in inclusive and robust historical resources and preservation tools while telling the full range of our history, including the struggles and accomplishments of Boston's indigenous, black, immigrant, women's and LGBTQ plus communities who who have historically often been left out of our official narratives. Um, as it says in the ordinance, this ordinance affirms that our diverse and intertwined community histories are of great value to the city of Boston and its residents. The historical tourism should be a driver of true shared prosperity. That inclusive and honest historical memory is a crucial public good worthy of our attention and resources, and that communities all over the city should have the tools and resources to research, preserve, acknowledge and celebrate their history. And, you know, the aim here is to have everything from local history modules in in veeps to local people, library branches , having exhibits about that neighborhood's history, local trails. You know, as we talk about 2026, there is as much revolutionary history in Dorchester as there is downtown. We need to be really working together to tell that whole story and have everybody's voices. And so I'm just really thankful to the city departments that have participated in crafting this ordinance and all the advocates who have added their thoughts. And a lot of who's on the commission was informed by that, and also to the government operations staff and committee members and all the councilors who came along the way for their help in finalizing this ordinance and of course, for the Chair, a councilor, Senator elect Edwards. Um, and, and also the Vice Chair, Councilor Flaherty, for very helpfully chairing one of the sessions on this. So I'm grateful for the recommendation. And thank you so much, Madam President. Thank you so much. Councilor Edward seeks acceptance of the Committee Report and passage of Docket 0638 in a new draft. Madam Court, could you please call the roll? Certainly. Docket 0638. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Baker. Councilor Baker. Councilor Bach. Councilor Baka. Councilor Braden. Councilor. Councilor Campbell. Councilor Campbell. Yes. Councilor Edwards. Councilor Edwards. Yes. Councilor. Savvy George. Councilor Sabi George. Yes. Council Flaherty. Councilor Flaherty as Council. Flynn. Councilor for ten years. Councilor Jane. Yes. Councilor Janey. Council me here. Councilor me here. See? Councilor Murphy. Councilor Murphy. Yes. Councilor O'Malley. Yes, sir. Male Yes, Madam President, I voted 0638. Comedian Thank you so much. The committee report has been accepted in docket 20638 has passed in a new draft medical. We're going to take the next three dockets together. That's 12, 19, 12, 20 and 1221. Certainly. Dark at 1 to 1 nine, the Committee on Government Operations, to which is referred on December 1st, 2021, docket number 1219 Petition for a Special Law regarding an Act regarding the Disability Pension for Matthew Morris, and this report recommending that the home rule petition ought to pass in a new draft.

Recommendation to declare ordinance finding and determining that a credit is due against the Transportation Improvement Fee applicable to the Riverwalk Residential Development Project; and authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement regarding credit for transportation improvements made in connection with the Riverwalk Residential Development Project, read and adopted as read. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_11102015_15-1137

Next motion is to approve a visiting tentative track map and site plan review. Excuse me, Councilman Austin, is that motion you had mentioned earlier, the addition of. A larger perimeter wall, I think you said to eight feet in mature trees on the perimeter wall or. The exterior walls. If you. Want those two items, it would be appropriate to add. Them as conditions of approval. To the site plan. Review. And that was on motion number six. Motion seven, the one you just read. Okay, so you want to add the wall, the higher wall. And the mature. Trees. It would be appropriate to add. Them as conditions of approval. To. The site plan review. So moves. Okay. Cast your votes on that, please. Motion carries. Motion eight is to declare ordinance banning that a transportation improvement credit fee is due and authorizing city manager to execute an in agreement providing for the transportation improvement fee credit. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading. And Councilman Austin, I think this is the last time I'll interrupt. Does that also include the correction that Miss Bodak mentioned. To adjust the traffic improvement fee credit to reflect the. True amount, which is slightly higher than what's in the ordinance, and only bring it back for second reading next week, the correct figure will be in there. So move. I mean, second. Grade, the second place people plug in. Okay. And last one. No, this is number nine. Declare ordnance. Finding that a park and recreation facility fee credit is due and authorize city manager to execute an agreement providing for the park fee credit read for the first time and laid over to the next regular city council for final reading.

Recommendation to adopt resolution allowing for the initiation of a Consolidated Coastal Development Permit process pursuant to Section 30601.3 of the Public Resources Code (Coastal Act) in connection with the demolition of the Belmont Plaza Pool facility at 4000 East Olympic Plaza. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_09232014_14-0765

Okay. Moving on to consent, calendar item number five, Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I wanted to pull this item. We received a number of emails today from residents in the third district who were concerned about this particular item, specifically the planning of the demolition, the truck routes, the traffic related concerns that would arise as a result of the demolition. And I'd like to ask staff to address some of those concerns. I have forwarded several of the emails that I received today to members of our staff, and I'm hopeful that they can help address some of the concerns raised. Mr. WEST Mayor, council members, I'm going to turn this over to our development services director, Amy Bolduc, to respond to those issues. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council and Mr. Mays. Hello. Sorry for that. We. A couple of the issues that were we've addressed. Related to the truck routes. That is something that we are working on with our Department of Public Works Traffic Engineer. That truck route will be something that is. Responded to and dealt with through our traditional process. In general, when we deal with demolition of buildings, there are a number of protections. That are required of any demolition site or any construction. Site, and that does include things like haul routes, how. How the construction activity is staged. How the area is fenced off and protected. So that. Members of the public that do not access the construction area and how we protect the surrounding environment. We have a number of municipal code regulations that also dictate how those demolition. Activities also occur. Back in April, to a point that was raised in one of the emails that Ms.. Price is referring to, back in April, the City Council executed an adopted a statutory exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. So for all intents and purposes, CEQA has been done and and the. Project has complied with Sequoia. In order for us to proceed with the demolition phase only. I want to make it clear that we are only talking about the demolition of the existing pool. We are not discussing the new construction of the new pool because we don't yet have a program that has been approved by the City Council for us to move forward . Any discussion about the. Long term location. Or quantity or quality of vegetation, landscaping and the eventual construction of the pool, all of those issues get vetted through a separate, secure process for the new construction of the new pool. So related to the demolition, we have cleared the demolition project under Sequoia. And the item before you tonight is allowing us to issue a coastal development permit because this project is in the coastal zone and because it is in dual jurisdictions of both the city and the California Coastal Commission, there is a process that allows us to request that only one coastal development permit be issued, and we give our authority to the Coastal Commission that does streamline the process and it does make sure that the conditions of approval that are placed on a project are consistent. If we were to do this separately, we might put on one condition of approval and the Coastal Commission may have the ability to put on a separate, conflicting condition of approval . So by doing. A. Consolidated coastal development permit process, it does streamline that process and allows us to act as one agency. If you proceed with the adoption of the resolution tonight, we are hoping that we would go to the California Coastal Commission in October, and if they approve the coastal development permit, then we would initiate demolition activities by mid to late October. We have committed to the Coastal Commission that we would maintain protections above and beyond those required at this time for the vegetation surrounding the area, particularly related to trees and bird species. And we have done surveys on what birds are out there, whether they are nesting or roosting. And we have also had a certified biologist go out to the site as well. All of those issues have been cleared. We've shared all that information with the Coastal Commission in anticipation of of their reviewing this item in October. Hopefully that addressed the issues that were raised. And I'm here to answer any. Questions you may have, Councilwoman. In terms of the truck routes necessary for the demolition process, will there be obviously we want to make sure that we pick. Roots and a path that's least invasive to the residents there. So what kind of meetings or discussions are we going to have to make sure that we pick the route that's least invasive? So typically the traffic engineer looks at the existing truck routes within the city and we try to keep the all the trucks on those mapped existing truck routes. Clearly, there is not a direct truck route that goes to this facility. So the. Traffic engineer. Is tasked with coming up with options to get the trucks to the closest truck route possible. It will go through a couple of local streets, but that is the discretion of the traffic engineer to look at the various options and pick the route that is least invasive to the residential neighborhood. Thank you. I have nothing further. Thank you. Katherine Mongeau. I just wanted to comment on the path that's used in my district for another project that the city traffic engineer has been instrumental on, and that the residents have been very appreciative of the responsiveness and the penalties to contractors that do not abide by the guidelines and rules. I think the city has been very proactive to make sure that the neighbors are kept apprized of the situation and it seems like we've come to a great resolution. So when our area was destroyed, we're actually under construction now. Everything went very well and everyone was very responsive. So I look forward to that same thing with the blah blah. Thank you. Can we get a motion to approve some? There's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item? Very good. Clark has the address. So if I understand this correctly, what we're but what we're dealing with here is only only only that which is related to taking down the building and working out the traffic patterns. Is that correct? Of how the what is removed goes, which is which is central? We've been through that with the Terminal Avenue Storm Drain Project. And just in case I'm not here, when other items come up, the import of this is obviously it's going to take more than a fortnight to get this done. And history demonstrates, quite frankly. And some people may take it personally. Sometimes the staff can't be trusted. The majority of them can. So what we will end up with, what I want to try to avoid is a year from now, two years from now and down the pike, they have a permit for X, Y and for one , two, three, four components and then slip in six or seven. That might be contentious and people may try to slip that in underneath the radar. And that has happened. And we don't have to go too far back in history to see that. So as long as we're confident, as long as there's an understanding now that this just has to do with the removal. That's fine. The only other comment I would have made, I would hopefully deal with that. We take a look at maybe just putting that stuff on a barge and taking it whatever it is, and remove it from our area that way and obviously not dumping it in the water, but maybe instead of a truck, we use a barge. We've got a pier there. Run the truck out there. Thank you. And they won't have any traffic lights. Thank you. No other public comment on the item. Members does go and cash your boats. Motion carries eight votes. Keep moving on to item number nine in the regular agenda.

Recommendation to adopt ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 1.27.010 School Board Districts established; declaring the urgency thereof; and declaring that this ordinance shall take effect immediately, read and adopt as read. (Citywide) (Emergency Ordinance No. ORD-21-0041)

LongBeachCC_12072021_21-1303

Thank you. And our last item on the agenda is item 51. I will ask the clerk to give us a short or whoever, whoever I think has a short presentation on the item or once every ten years. Redistricting happens in this case, it was Long Beach Unified School District. I was hoping also that maybe the court can kind of explain what the city's council's role is in this process, because it does happen once every ten years or we adopt both the school districts and the city councils, I'm sorry, and the three year colleges maps. And so if we can, please have that. Thank you. So once every ten years we go through the redistricting process. This year was unique in that we had the Independent Redistricting Commission who created the Council district boundaries. However, in our charter, the Long Beach Unified School District does fall under us in the election process and we do approve their redistricting boundaries. And we did receive the boundary maps from the Long Beach Unified School District, and we will be passing those on to the county on their behalf. So that is this item. And does the charter speak to Long Beach City College or is it silent on Miami City College? The charter does not speak to language City College. They are independent of our charter and our municipal code. So they are sending their maps directly to the county and their board has designated their their areas and is responsible for communicating that to the county. However, we still do. Take care of the long unified school district in improving their boundaries and communicating that information to the county. Okay. Thank you. I think it's important that we've been asked a couple of questions and a couple of customers asked, like there's three different processes for all three redistricting levels. I know that both the school school district and committee college have been engaged heavily, obviously, in getting the maps forwarded. I mean, in the case of Washington. But of course, I wanted to utilize maps. So thank you for explaining that process. We have a motion in a second. I public comments only do that first and then I'll go to the motion. Is Mr. Egan's or evidence here? Please come. Forward. So legitimacy of the school board, approval of the boundaries that the parents and our first school board meeting is questionable, that it was not on their agenda at the time the discussion began. And he appeared on the agenda as discussion continued. Ask the board secretary for an explanation of this rather than explain, she simply denied the fact. Which creates further suspicion of wrongdoing. Brown Act provisions for the agenda. May have been violated. Approve of the boundaries should be postponed until these issues are can be investigated and resolved. That concludes public comment. Vice Mayor Richardson. So I understand this this process. And just one simple question for staff or the clerk, based on your analysis, is this what they present presenting? There's no red flags. Everything's been presented as it should in compliance with law. Anybody. We have no. Reason to doubt it hasn't been. I have no evidence of anything that's not compliance with the law. Well, given that our counsel didn't get to draw. Lines this time to at least participate in. Somebody's process. So. So I'm happy to make this motion, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Councilman Sorrell. I just support the motion. Thank you. Members disco and Castro votes. And as folks vote, I just want to just congratulate Long Beach Unified. They put in a lot of work into getting these maps through a public process. And so these now going forward to the county, I believe, then become the official maps for the next ten years. So that is the process on these maps. And I was not aware that the Long Beach City College maps go straight to the counties. That's interesting that it's that's the charter separates it to out that way. So that's good. That's good to know. Thank you so much. And motion very generously. With that, we have the second public comment period. If I can add, Mr. Shukla. Mr. Battams, I think it says and Leigh, maybe Ms. Leigh. Deborah Britton say it is Satori.

CB15-0553: Denver College Affordability Initiative 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) beginning 15 minutes prior to the Committee’s scheduled start time of 1:30 pm. Sign up ends at 1:15 pm. The order of speakers is determined by the Committee Chair. c) Discussion/Action. (FINANCE & SERVICES) Creates a fund to help young Denverites attend higher education and certificate programs. This bill must pass no later than August 31, 2015 to meet the deadlines for the November ballot. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-5-15.

DenverCityCouncil_08172015_15-0553

We need we have long police response times in my district that need to be brought down. There are a lot of other municipal needs in our core mission that I would put ahead of this, and I would encourage that perhaps DPS to look again at the funding this through through a mill levy, through DPS rather than through sales tax. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Sussman, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. I have the highest regard for the group that asked me to be a member to look at this, and particularly thought it was admirable that you invited me to come when you knew that I probably would have some disagreements with you. And I understand the serious need for our citizens to have real access to college. That's a very worthy goal. But City Council government is quite removed from education. Government in our state. City Council has no jurisdiction over any educational institution. It's a state's jurisdiction. Improvements in education are the responsibility of the state. They are the ones that should make reform. Like Councilman Flynn, I understand, too, the city has enormous obligations for roads, drainage, safety, housing, and I am uncomfortable asking taxpayers to support something that has never been in our purview and when we have so many other operational and infrastructure needs. But my most serious concern here is that in this initiative, the colleges have no responsibility nor accountability for the moneys they will receive from taxpayers. Even their responsibility for student support is going to be removed for those students and given to nonprofits. Colleges have no responsibility to account for why tuition is so high or to control them during the life of this initiative. The only other economic sector whose costs have risen way beyond inflation for unclear reasons is health care. And college tuition has risen faster and higher than health care. Additionally, our public colleges have poor retention and completion rates. I don't think any of our public Colorado colleges have better than a 50% retention rate. Many are lower. They are not required to improve these either in this initiative. And indeed, this initiative removes that responsibility from the college and again, gives it to the outside nonprofits. So are we just fueling the problem? When I have asked the proponents why there are no requirements or expectations for the colleges receiving these funds. The answer has been we have no jurisdiction over the colleges. Exactly. Retention and completion rates are affected by many things cost to the student, certainly lack of student support, a system that is difficult to access for the long term if you have a job, family or other responsibilities. Most people in higher ed today are 22 years and older. College colleges are organized best for the 18 to 21 year old, who has leisure time to attend classes on campus and who has a patron, their parent or the government. That's what colleges. Are organized to do the best. But this initiative cuts off students who are 25 years or older. We're just continuing the problem when most of the students in higher ed are over 20 or 22 and over. If. We pay tuition rates without any kind of bill. If we initiate the initiative, cut off students who are 25 years or older, if we pay tuition rates without any accountability on the part of the college for their performance and pay only for the younger student. We're tackling the wrong end of the problem with the wrong resources. So I will be voting no on referring this to the ballot. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Nu. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a question for Mr. Broadwell. Just wanted the action we're taking tonight, as is we're voting to move this issue to the ballot. Right. We're not we're not approving this. To become a bill that's being implemented is really an action to go to the ballot for the voters to decide on this. Is that correct? David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. Well, the specific vote tonight is to order it published. And then an. Action would be taken next week to do as you just described, to send it on to the ballot by adopting the ordinance. Okay, great. Thank you. I thought someone assessed was very, very articulate what she was saying. And I've talked to many of our constituents about this issue, and I hear the pros and cons are the cons that this is really a state responsibility and almost forcing us to do this to support funds for our students and when the state does not take their responsibility is something is very troubling to a lot of my constituents and residents. And we're 47th of 50 in the nation that supports higher education, which I think is is just ridiculous and a travesty. We should be a greater to support our workforce here in our state and not just rely on our own workforce, educated workforce. It comes from out of state. In terms of priority, I think, Councilman Flynn. Mitch Well, we've got a lot of needs in our city. And I'm not saying this isn't a need for our students. We need to make sure we have an educated workforce. And so we've got to balance this with other needs that we have when it comes to infrastructure in our city. And I'm not sure if we vote yes for this, whether this will pressure the state whole if if a yes vote does occur, I hope it will pressure the state to say to the state, you need to take responsibility for higher education. We need to do something about that. The pros that I hear from, I hear a lot about education is the key to success. There's no question about higher education being able to promote success as well as we need an a state workforce development program. So I really appreciate that so much and especially difficult for me because I have a children's hospital management background and I've promoted the welfare and and health care of children all my life. And so I see this as a program that will help our students as well as to develop a workforce that will be successful for our city. So I think in light of what the question I asked David Broadwell, probably I'm going to vote yes for this just because I think our citizens need to decide on this. We need our citizens need to vote whether this is a priority, whether this is an important issue for our students. And I'll be voting yes tonight. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilwoman Blake. Thank you, Mr. President. I think this is an innovative solution to a real problem. I'm supporting it. I share the same concerns that other people have voiced. But I'm an enthusiastic supporter of education because a college degree is the way out of poverty for many families. I just want to give our voters, like Councilman. Nugent. Said, the opportunity to have their voices heard. So I am voting yes. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Espinosa. And I can honestly say I still don't know how I'm going to vote on this. I wait to see how my colleagues do simply because I am tore whether to advances for a ballot measure and let everybody decide on something and the potential to tax everybody and only support a few. I mean, that's sort of what we do a lot in city government from time to time. But the portability is the issue. When we're investing tax dollars, I want it to go into infrastructure. I want that to go into things that can benefit a large cross-section of this city for a very long and permanent time. You know, we talk about I mean, I just shared this, too, yesterday. When we talk about Denver moves this this this tax would actually if we applied it to Denver moves and I don't know that we could if we structured a bill that way could pay for all that bike infrastructure that handles a cross section of the population here. This measure only touches about 6/10 of the population of Denver on a per annum, per annum, per annum basis. And and it's and it's not just, you know, it is needs based, but it actually then extends beyond where the federal programs already go. And so it sort of it doesn't comport with me very well that we tax everybody to then support a few that may or may not hit the federal government thresholds for need. So I don't know if I want to see this next week or not, but I'll I'll. I'll vote soon enough. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Like a lot of my colleagues, I've received some notes recently of concern about this proposal, that it's not the opinions being expressed, that it perhaps it's not the purview of city government, that education is a state responsibility. I agree that state must take the lead in funding education. But sadly, the efforts that have been coming from the Capitol leave us, as has been said, ranked 47th in higher ed. And I think we're somewhere the same way with K through 12. So the question is, do we stick to those guns that this is a state responsibility or do we act in some sort of measured way to try to make some difference? Denver has been a groundbreaker with the funding of the Denver Preschool Program. Should we act in a similar way here? There are no questions that we have many civic needs that cry out for funding our charge and our challenge is to prioritize those needs. We have roads and bridges and sewer lines and all manner of infrastructure in disrepair. We have a number of big dollar projects that are going to be coming before us, and we have a future generation that is being pushed farther and farther away from college education by continued skyrocketing costs. So I sit here tonight, like so many, trying to weigh those priorities and trying to weigh the questions on many minds. But one thing to me that is not in question is the fact that someone needs to educate our children where, as has been said, we're not voting tonight to pass a tax increase. We are voting to give Denver residents a chance to debate this critical issue, to engage our broad community in what I think is an invaluable dialog on our civic priorities. I think what we have here is a real moment in time opportunity that I hope we don't waste. I'm not near ready to say, bring on the tax, but I'm more than ready to say bring on the debate. So I will vote tonight to move this forward to the next step. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I do believe that action needs to be taken on that state level. I think universities and colleges public I if there was a way to do private a be all about it to lower steps need to be taken to lower tuition. Tuition is and the cost of tuition is the primary blockade for students being able to have a diploma on their wall to hang on their parents wall and for us to be able to move forward as a city. It's great if you're a valedictorian or if you had a 4.0 or throughout high school, got your scholarship full ride. That's awesome. I wasn't one of those students. I think I barely clung on to a31 dipped in maybe a2827. I barely made it in in college. It walked into a room bigger than this. 500 people don't look nothing like me. Don't understand where I come from. I felt completely alienated. I couldn't afford to go. I was an academic. Not academic. I'm sorry. It's clear the record on that one. Financial aid, probation almost every semester. I struggled. I had bills sent to my house all the time. I worked three jobs just so I can have that degree that hangs on this wall right across the way. Bachelor's degree from C.U. Denver. I struggled to make that happen. It took me five and a half years on my own to put that diploma on my wall. I'd like to think. That that diploma has helped not just me, but help my neighborhood. Taught me some lessons and how to give back. I think that's an added plus to the neighborhood. And whether you're a council person or a or a teacher or a psychologist or a philosopher or or a biochemist. Folks stay here. People just don't. People don't just leave Denver. Folks stay here when they're done. We have to make sure we're using every tool in the box to give these kids a shot. Let him earn it. And that's from what I understand. This isn't some handout. They have to earn this. Let them prove themselves worthy. And not just the 4.0 for 4.5 and 5.2 students, but those to name those three all and those 1.0 that if they if they had something if they had a beacon of light that they can look at and say, I can achieve that. I can do this. Just let me prove myself. Let me get. I just want a key to open this door. The right key. And we help them get that key. I think Denver is going to be a much better place. And if there's one thing I have known in the last eight years and was elected official, if there's something that we should be investing in, it's education. Because I'm tired of people calling my office thinking not not understanding what we do. Not understanding the role they play. And it's basic civics. I'm tired of watching stuff on the news and watching talking heads debate about basic civics. I don't even teach anymore. I'm tired of that. It gives us a bad name as public servants. It gives our constituencies in our communities such a bad name. I would be absolutely down. Councilman Flynn, you are talking. You were singing my song. Said we should raise a little tax here for sidewalks. I'd be all for that. Pitch out, brother. I would be the first vote on that. There's a lot of things that I would tack on to this, but let's. Let's do it one at a time. Education is the key. I know it's overused, but it is the key for a lot of folks. I look at a neighborhood like Valverde and less than less than 25% of the population at one point in that neighborhood had less than a high school diploma. That is not acceptable. And there are a lot of people out there that if they just had the opportunity, the cash, the money, the ability to get to cash in on that acceptance letter, they would. And not just the first year, but the third, fourth and maybe fifth. And beyond, and that's the little lever that we need to push it. We're not approving this tonight. We're asking that it gets published so that the voters can decide for themselves. And some of those voters are the very constituencies that we talk about, but they don't show up on the voting polls because they're only 17 and 16 years old. Right. So let's let's put this on the ballot and let's let Denver decide. I do support this all the way through, but let's at least give it a shot and ask our state to giddy up and start enacting some kind of reform on tuition here in this in this state. So I'm sorry, I'm getting more passionate about this. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega. You're up. Mr. President, when this came to committee, I requested a public hearing, and I don't see anything in our agenda that reflects that. We were either supposed to have it tonight or that we're having it on public on final. So. So, can you clarify if true, is anything to still happen. If a councilmember requests a courtesy public hearing? I don't imagine there's going to be any against it and we'll have it for second reading. Okay. Well, I requested it when it came to committee, so I was surprised that we're having this conversation without having had input from from folks on the issue. So I want to make that request again. I think it is important for us to hear from the public on this issue. I do believe this is an important issue for us to be talking about because we want to ensure that we have an educated workforce in this city, particularly as we attract more and more businesses. And the cost of living in the city is getting more and more expensive for especially our young people to be able to afford to live here. And if they're not educated, they're certainly not going to be able to stay here. So I appreciate the work that's been done by the folks who are part of the committee. I remember when this was talked about last year, my suggestion was you need to go back to the drawing board. You need to have a broader community conversation about this issue and ensure that other organizations are brought under the tent to be part of this overall effort. And that, in fact, happened. So I appreciate those efforts. I also think it's very important that Denver Public Schools hears the message that we want them to ensure that young people who want to go to college are ready. We have a lot of young people that go to college and have to take remedial classes. They should not have to be spending money on remedial classes when they're supposed to be getting that education in our public education system. And I've heard parents who've talked to me and other property owners say we shouldn't be educating them twice to take some of the same classes they should be taking, getting educated for in high school. So I think that's an important part of the conversation. I agree. This is giving the voters the opportunity to decide if this is something they want to agree to support financially through a tax increase. And so I always believe that it is important to give the voters that chance to make the decision. So I will be voting for this tonight and look forward to hearing from folks who have worked on this issue. I know we had a couple of very articulate young people that came to committee when we had the conversation in committee about this. And, you know, we got to hear how challenging it is and how important the scholarship funds that are out there were to them being able to go on to college and to stay in college. You know, some people may get a scholarship to assist them to, you know, go that first year, but it's that ongoing support that becomes really critical to ensuring that they're successful in reaching that goal of graduating and getting that degree. So I'll be supporting this tonight. Councilman Herman, Council President Herman, thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega and four members of council. If there are no objections, we will have a courtesy. When our public hearing on 553 and assuming this is ordered published Monday, August 24th. Councilwoman Gilmore, you're up. Thank you, President Herndon. I have spent almost 20 years in my professional capacity as the Executive Director prior to this honor of serving on city council with a local based nonprofit, making sure that our young people who are in elementary and middle school. Think about. College as a next step in life. And those students that I've worked with over the last almost 20 years, primarily African-American and Latino students and families, many of them the first generation, as I am a first generation Latina college graduate. And so I understand their fear and their issues and their despair sometimes around looking at college as a viable next option. Really, higher education is not accessible to every student for many different reasons. But to level the playing field where a student, when they go off to college and you're so excited that they one got into college , will one you're excited they graduated from. High school. Too, that they got into college, and three, that they're going to be expanding on this next grand and adventure in their life. And then come the holiday break in December and they come home and they tell you, I have to drop out, I've got to quit. And you're like, I've worked with you since you were in fifth grade. What are you talking about? This was your dream. I want to be there to support you. Well, I just got the bill, and I don't have scholarships. I have used up all of my other funding. I'm going to have to quit. And then you scramble and you work to find work, study for them. You try to find different avenues, any avenue possible for them to stay in school. And it's not a reality for so many of our students. And so really, the investment in the future of our great city is our people. And that investment, I think, is very important. And to allow the voters to have their true voice heard, having this, you know, on the ballot, that there can be that grand debate and that we really do hear the voice of our constituents and voters and what they're feeling on this and that education really becomes a freedom, freedom in life for so many people that cannot be taken away. And I will be supporting this measure and I look forward to a robust conversation about it. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilwoman Canete, Europe. Thank you, Mr. President. Before I get into my comments, I did just have a question. I don't. Mr. Bravo, do you have a copy of the ordinance in front of you? Can we get you one? The question I have is, you know. There's a question about whether this is enough to make a difference. Right. So it's a significant revenue stream. It's taking a resource that could be used for other priorities. And that's a global question. But then to do that, is it enough per student to actually make a difference? And so I have read and reread this bill, and I see repeatedly on pages nine, ten and 11 a reference to $4,000 per student. Nowhere in the language of the bill do I see per student per year. But the proponents continually tell me that it is a $4,000 a year commitment. And so I just want to clarify whether this bill is drafted accurately. And if so, what am I missing that allows it to be per year? Because I, I question the value of $1,000 a year to a student given what higher education costs. I would beg your indulgence on this one, because I haven't been that close to the drafting of the negotiation of the ordinance. Dan Slattery is the attorney in our office who has. So if we could defer that until next week, if assuming it's going to be ordered published, we can get you a definitive answer from him. He will be back next week and he can help with that kind of detailed question. I probably will need that answer. I will just go to the merits, though, real quickly, because I don't want to dodge them. I share many of the concerns that have been shared by my colleagues about the appropriateness of this as a not a priority, but as the priority right now from this revenue stream for the city. And I worry about the downstream impacts. In one hand, I hear my colleagues who say, go ahead and send it to the ballot, because if the voters decide they want to do it, then, hey, that's the will of the people. In my opinion, the way to do that would have been to petition to the ballot. They're here before us at council because they want a statement from us that this is the right thing to do. And here's my fear. The voters decide to do this. And then we have a yearlong transportation commission and we decide the only way that we can address the infrastructure that our residents are demanding is a sales tax. And they say, oh, but you just came to us last year for that other thing. And, you know, the proponents in this case are so well-intentioned and they have a very righteous cause. And I'm not here with any quibble with the value of education, the disparities we're trying to overcome economically. I was a kid who went to school on scholarships and three and five jobs. And so I get the value of of these kinds of resources. But no one can tell me that our voters are going to be okay with the next thing that we need to bring them. That may be an immediate and direct priority of the city. This is a priority, but it may not be the most immediate and direct. And I, I can't predict. So so I have concerns. I'm not sure that the answer to this question. I weigh those concerns against the merits of the bill, which I think is, you know, the most we can do in this job is try to to take our gut reaction and set it aside and then think more about the facts. So that's what I'm trying to do. So on that fact side, I want to understand better is this enough money to make a difference? And if it's per year or not, makes a difference? I have heartburn over the age. The fact that we're cutting off, you know, older adults, we know a lot of disconnected youth, take time to find their way to college and this bill leaves them behind. So, you know, if we're there on the merits, then I'm struggling with leaving those older, young adults behind. And third, I'm struggling with sending the money out of Denver. You know, the Chicago example that was shown to me was for Chicago universities. I really did appreciate the data. Thank you again to the to the to the community, folks who got me the stats that many of our, you know, Denver students go to colleges in other parts of the state and they come back but but not all of them. And so every you know, everything that makes this harder makes it a tougher case to say it's worth the investment, it's worth the risk that we are limiting a future revenue stream we may need for another purpose. So I can't unfortunately just weigh this on its merits of whether it's good or not. I have to weigh it on how it may affect future things, and I have to weigh in on whether it's a good enough, you know, outcome. And so those are the three areas I'm struggling with, and I'll wait to hear the response on the drafting till next week. And I'm sorry, I was texting with folks over the weekend trying to get resolved. And I apologize for not doing that in time for this vote, but I promise I'll make a commitment next week, not trying to dodge it. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. I won't go to Councilman Brooks because he has not had the opportunity to speak. Then we'll double back to the council members that are in Spokane. Catherine Brooks are. Up. Yeah, this is a this is for order for publication. Typically, I wouldn't make remarks, but unfortunately I'm not going to be here next week. And so I wanted to just share a couple remarks. You know, I was a Denver preschool program chair for reauthorization last year this time. And we had virtually no opposition and we had virtually no kind of attacks against the campaign. It was because of one reason it was data. The data that we showed from the previous ten years was enough to say this program is making an impact, because the conversation that we had was typical to this conversation in 2003, and for a matter of fact, this this deep failed twice before it made it. And so as I've been listening to the conversation and I've been taking in a ton of folks in my community questions, it's it's harkened me back to to Denver preschool program which is just an interesting correlation. I came to Colorado because I received a scholarship to the University of Colorado. I went to it from the University of Colorado. I can promise you, I'm from L.A. There's no reason I would be in Colorado unless I got a scholarship from the University of Colorado. Unfortunately, it was not because of academics. It was although my grades were okay. It was because of football. And when we were good and. In the nineties brothers. You know, I think about what that scholarship did for me. I think about my grade point average coming in school was about a33. My grade point average leaving school was about a38. I think about my career path. I think about my purpose in life. I think about the individual that I became. And it's not all because of that scholarship, but it set me on a certain trajectory. So that's just my kind of personal experience in this. I think the policy debate that you have before you it's hard to do with councilwoman can just take your heart out, put your mind over here you know, because it's hard to say. Sidewalks and streets. And then we don't mention Kalief. And and John and and Greg, all who live in northeast Denver who would not have a shot at going to school. And so that conversation for me is a little tougher because, yes, we need sidewalks. And I've seen people when we put in their sidewalks, especially Long Brighton folks who have lived there for years, they are in tears. They're so excited. But there are individuals in our city today who will not get a chance to experience the opportunities of Denver because they won't be educated. And that sticks with me. Iran is a center for urban leadership where we raised over $1,000,000 a year just for a small group of young people. And the question always from our funders was, is this enough? And so, too, the niche argument is, is this going to be a large enough investment? I actually think you I think you got to start smaller to prove that it's effective is actually my approach. Here's here's something else. You know, our charge, our authority here at the city in county Denver is to make sure that we are not outside the bounds of our charter rule and ensuring that this these funds will be used on local and municipal purposes. Well, here's a local and municipal purpose. Workforce development. Um. I have. I've been meeting with business owners, and I've been meeting with sector leaders. Health care, oil and gas, tech industry construction folks who say they cannot get skilled workers. I mean, to the point to where they're really nervous and that land values are high, wages are stagnant, and so folks aren't even coming to here. So we can't recruit them in. We have to start getting them homegrown grown. And so I'm nervous about our workforce development. I do not believe that we do a great job connecting the next generation to our high industry, next sector leaders. And so I'm concerned about that. But more than anything, whether I'm for this or against this, I feel like the. Making sure that this is in line with our charter responsibilities. Seeing that the city attorney's office and those who know David Braswell does not let anything get past him that will not to ensure that we are protected, that legally we are protected in this and this. Ensuring that this is a local or municipal purpose is a broad stroke. But I do believe because we've done it with a Denver preschool program and we've shown that it works, that we have some ground to stand on. So I will be supporting this, going to the ballot, and I'll be looking forward to kind of a healthy debate with a neighbors healthy debate with folks within our community and within my colleagues. Thank you, Mr. President. And Cameron Brooks. All right. Starting back at the top. Councilman Espinosa, you're up. I was really just going to remind people that there's an alternative. There is a petition process. This can be initiated by this ordinance can be initiated through through petition, which is pretty easier. I mean, much easier this time around because of the low turnout in the last mayoral election. So that threshold for petitioning on the onto the ballot is far easier to to capture. And so the nice thing about petitioning is that then, you know, you have some sort of popular support, at least among 6 to 8000 residents behind your bill rather than 13 of us up on the board. I mean, on the council. And so that's there's another avenue. This is not the end if it gets voted to not proceed. That said, because of the comments, I do want to point out the fact that this is largely a needs based proposal. However, if you look at where the needs these the nonprofits that are going to benefit from this program are already running need space proposals, which overwhelmingly those those scholarships go to the northeast, in northwest, in southwest quadrants of the city. So to sort of pull at my heartstrings and say these these these areas don't seat received benefit. Actually, those areas are the ones that precisely do receive benefit today. This program expands that network to actually go outside of those really intensely need based areas. And that needs to be part of the discussion going forward. The portability, like I said before, like my colleague's story here, speaks right to what my major concern, if this were a preschool issue, everyone knows that there's a huge benefit for early childhood education that pays huge dividends for every dollar spent and that those families will persist in Denver for some time with those programs for year after year after year. This is for college. I mean, high school kids to go anywhere in the state, get that degree and then not necessarily return that investment to Denver. There is. And so that's the concern. And that's why it's sort of a net outflow of cash. I mean, if there was some sort of requirement that they spend five years like the Army, four years working in Denver, earning a head tax, then we would have that assurance that this money wasn't just going to benefit a few people and going out of state indefinitely. So there's a there are mechanisms to move this forward outside of this this this council. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I'm going to drop down to Councilman Clark, who has not had the opportunity to speak yet. Councilman Clark, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I think I want to commend all my colleagues for having a great debate over this. And that's part of what I'm looking forward to as I look forward to supporting this, that we have this debate city wide. So many things have been said that I agree with. And I'm just going to so I'm going to try and be quick to go through a few and touch on a few other points. As has been said, we fund education in the state at the bottom of the list as state as across the country, not just higher education, but K-12 education. In my estimation, we are feeling our kids were failing. The kids that grow up here, we are one of the most highly educated cities in the country. And it's not because we're we're doing a good job with the kids who grow up here. It's because we're really good at importing people and highly educated people. And I think it's time to have a conversation about what we all want as a community for the kids that are are being raised here. The other thing that I'll point out is I do think that some other people have talked about other things that we could use additional funding for. And I think that there would be broad based support as as others have mentioned, for some of these other things. But we're not debating this or something else today. What we're debating is, is this a good idea? And there is no crystal ball that we can look at at what our future tax needs are going to be or what the people of Denver will decide they are willing and wanting to take on as a tax burden. A good idea should be a good idea or a bad idea based on its merit, not what we might need down the future that's not on the board. And I feel like so I feel strongly that we should look at this. Independent of what we might need in the future or what we think that tax base might be. I do believe that we're not doing enough at the other levels of government at the state to fund higher education. But if if no one will act outside of this body and there is something that we can do, then I think that it's time that we take that conversation to the voters, because I think there are a lot of people out there who are frustrated, who don't want to live in this great city that they love so much about and know that they're they're raising their kids where we we failed to fund education. And so if those leaders at those levels fail to act and we can't act, then I believe that we should and we should allow the voters really to be the ones who take that action or decide that that's not what we want. And I think that's really what this comes down to. For less than a penny on $10, we get to have a conversation about what kind of community do we want, not what kind of community do these 13 people want, but what kind of community do we want as citizens of Denver? And I believe that any investment in our kids, as others have said, will pay back multiple times. So I will be voting to move this on and support it. I also just want to take 1/2 to say one other thing. I did grow up in this town and I'm a DPS graduate and DPS prepared me in a way that I have never seen an obstacle that I couldn't overcome. And I think that often the Denver public schools, which are not truly a part of this debate but were brought in, are thrown under the bus. We fund the Denver public schools. We fund K-12 education, one of the worst, worst in the country. And then we expect them to do everything. And I think that I just want to stand up here and say, I believe in our public schools. I believe that we should be funding them better. And I believe that we need to stop saying, hey, you need to prepare kids, because I was completely prepared. My kids are excelling as children in the Denver public schools because they're ready to learn. And as a community, we have to choose to lift every kid up so that they're ready for what DPS can do for them and stop expecting DPS to solve every problem and get kids through all of that and get ready for college. That has to be a bigger conversation than just the Denver Public Schools, because I think that the Denver Public Schools are doing great things and are preparing kids who are ready. And as a community, we need to help the Denver Public Schools lift all kids up. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Lopez, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to bring some numbers forward. You look at the graduation rate and this mine, it is a few years old already, but I think the census numbers are persons age 25 plus with college degrees. Associates are better was hovering about 40% in this city. Let's talk about some of those communities where something like this would be a huge impact. And some of those numbers and and this is I did this I put these numbers together a while back. So the sum of the old council district lines. But in math, Moorpark, that's 12%. In Barnum, that's 8% in Barnum. Worse, that's 9% in Mali. That's 13% in a Westwood, that's only 6%. In Ruby Hill, it's 9%. In Valverde, that's 5%. And in Villa Park, it's only 7%. There is a huge gap. And you look at the poverty numbers and each one of those neighborhoods and it's drastically higher than any than than the city average. Right. It is definitely a huge gap that we have to make up. And these are our constituents. And we invest dollars public dollars in Headstart students preschool. Who's to say they're not going to leave Denver when they become of age? We're going to be investing all this, all this, all these resources in Headstart students. And then their found they can pick up whenever they want and leave Denver. We're not making them stay. We just believe in their future, no matter where it is. Right. And I think we have to offer the same respect to the ones that are already here and in college, going into college with the aspirations. To be educated. Think critically, because that's why we get paid and say ba, ba, ba or higher. Right. That's why they get make $1,000,000 more than someone with just a high school diploma in their career. And that's why that diploma means something, because it doesn't mean that you went to a university and spent all this cash and did your finals and all this other stuff. Didn't mean that you joined a frat or anything like that and had fun in college. It that diploma means that you can think critically that you know how to ask questions because that's what this is all about. Is that you think critically, you can ask questions, and that's what makes it so valuable. And that's what we want. It's not necessarily just about the workforce is it's it's that educated being those folks in our communities who can who who refuse to be fooled. And so those are the numbers that we have, the bridge. And I tell you what, you look at a map of where the sidewalks are missing, same communities. You look at a map of where there's the least amount of park space in the city, same communities. You look at a map pretty much of anything that we do as a as a as a municipal government. It's the same story. The kids in these communities are the most challenged. They have the they have the largest barriers against them. Whether it be sidewalks street paved. Dog bites in a neighborhood. Crime rates. It's the same story. And for eight years, I've studied these maps on the southwest side of Denver, on the east side of Denver, where these students are, where where they're struggling the most. They're struggling not just in education, but all across the board. Here's the one thing. Education makes the difference. Education is that tide that raises all those ships and asks all those questions and to hold all 13 of us accountable for where those sidewalks are going to go. That's why I'm joining for this tonight. I'd like to put it on the ballot. It's not perfect, but it is a start. And I appreciate what Councilman Clark said. It's not an either war. It's an end. This is an end, and we should be prepared to start asking. Those questions. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega. I just wanted to add some clarification when this issue came to committee. Councilwoman Canete stand, Slattery was there. He did indicate in the first year that the amount that is spelled out in the ordinance is what would be in place for that first year. But it is, in fact, subject to change. You know, if the body, the governance structure chooses to change it in subsequent years. So I just wanted to add that clarifying point. I will reserve the rest of my comments until after we have the public hearing. Next week, I think we're going to have another opportunity for each of us to make our comments and to weigh in further on this issue. But I think a couple of people have already said that education is the ultimate equalizer. And if we don't have educated young people in our community, they're some of the people that get left behind, and particularly when they do come from low income communities. And the money that would come from a tax, if the voters choose to approve it, would further leverage the money that is already raised by the scholarship organizations, meaning we'd have the opportunity to serve more young people in our community to be educated. So I think giving the voters that opportunity is important. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Rebecca. Thank you, Mr. President. Actually, Councilman Espinosa took the words out of my mouth earlier. I wanted folks to remember that these students already are receiving scholarships, that this program augments that and allows it to expand to serve additional students. It's not like there are no students who are receiving scholarship assistance already. I believe that we are hitching this to the wrong vehicle, however, for its funding. Just to bolster the point I made earlier, we are acting as a pass through for this tax to the nonprofit that would be organized, and I see no reason why. Denver Public Schools, again, if it's just a pass through, why why it couldn't be established through Denver public schools rather than the municipal government. And that's my only point on it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman, New Year. Thank you. I'm just troubled about this 4000, whether it's per year or what. I can't leave here without knowing a little bit. I wonder if Happy Hayes would come up and let us know what the intention of the committee was. Was this supposed to be 4000 per year or a fourth or 1000 per year? I'm just dying to know. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. It's very odd to be seen here, and so I'm. Relishing it if you bear with me for a moment. My name is Happy Haines. I co-chaired the task force, along with my colleague, Dr. Steve Jordan, who is here, and Barbara Grogan. So to the 4000. So the that number in the ordinance is a cap. So it is up to 4000 per year. Then to the point, Councilwoman Ortega, that you made about it could change. So so it's an up to 4000 for any student per year. But based on the number of students who might be served in any given year, the average number could change and the nonprofit would have the ability. So so for example, if the number of students that we serve in year three is dramatically higher than it was in year one, there might they might want to make an adjustment on the average award or scholarship reimbursement that is made. So that's the flexibility that the committee has. But the ordinance establishes and a a limit or a cap, which is the $4,000 per year. Thank you. So it is 4000 per year, not 1000 per year. And it sounds like the word is necessary that needs to be clarified. Yes, that's. Correct. Thank you so much. Thank you. And thank you, Councilman New. Any other comments on 553? As everyone else has spoken. I have not had the opportunity. Why not? I have an email in front of me that I got today. Forbes Forbes magazine ranks Denver number one place for business and careers. And what's interesting about that is that it's a it's a great thing to be proud of. And we differ on several different things on this dais. But I think most of us would agree that we are not producing the workforce for these careers. And so people talk about this from an education standpoint. I look at this, as Councilman Brooks mentioned, from an economic development and a workforce development perspective as well, because what we're doing is we are importing the talent to fill these jobs. And I don't believe that is, one, sustainable. And two, I think, frankly, it marginalizes those that are born and raised here. And so we have the opportunity to do something that's truly groundbreaking. And I can understand some hesitancy because nobody else is doing this. But I think we have put together a thoughtful group of leaders from different industries and sectors that met for months to figure out a ways to to crack this nut. And I think it's worth the discussion at a public hearing. I think that's worth a discussion for a vote. And I second so many different comments that people made. But I would just simply close it with you. You can make investments in roads and streets, but the greatest investment, I believe, with the greatest return is an investment in a person. And that ability. And when you can change a person's lifetime, these changes can sincerely be generational. If you have the opportunity to send somebody to get a quality education to fill those jobs, that changes the course of their lifetime in those moving forward, that resources should not be the reason that somebody does not go to college. It should be their ability. But right now, too many students. I do a leadership program every summer. And I talk to my students Northeast Demolition or what's your fear about higher education and the cost of it? And certainly we can say it is the role of the state. But I believe economic development is a municipal issue. We have a responsibility to deal with it. And even if you want to go with the education argument, construction defects is not our purview. Several municipalities right now are trying to correct the construction defects issue because the state is unwilling to to move forward with it. So you have local municipalities. So even though I don't agree with that argument, there's an example that proves if the state or higher level of government is unwilling to take a position on it and it negatively impacts our city. Absolutely. We should move forward. All right. So you know the comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. Black eye. Brooks Clark. Espinosa. Yes. Flynn. No. Gilmore. I. Cashman. I can. See. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Susman. Espinosa. Abstain. Mr. President, I. Madam Secretary, please positively announce the results. Nine eyes, two nays, two abstentions. 99 eyes to nays, two abstentions. Five 4553 is ordered published. All right. That's been two hour and a half later. All right. We're in next 536. Councilman Espinosa, what would you like for us to do with this?

AN ORDINANCE authorizing the CEO/General Manager of Seattle Public Utilities to execute an amendment to the contract with Waste Management of Washington, Inc., for waste disposal and transportation services; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 Budget, changing appropriations for Seattle Public Utilities; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_03272017_CB 118932

The report of the Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development and Arts Committee. And Item one Council. Vote 118 932 Authorizing CEO, General Manager and CEO of Public Utilities to execute an amendment to the Contract with Waste Management of Washington, Inc. for Waste Disposal and Transportation Services and many Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget, changing preparations for Seattle Public Utilities ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass with a divided report with councilmembers Herbold, Sawant and O'Brien in favor. And Councilmember Harrell opposed. Thank you. So at this point, I'm going to turn it to Councilmember O'Brien, who will substitute for Councilmember Herbert Herbold. Just to forewarn everybody is to be transparent. There's likely Councilmember O'Brien will move for at least a one week hold, and I'll I'll support that. But after he makes the motion and I will second it, we just have some discussion for the public to sort of know what we're doing here. So, Councilmember O'Brien, I'll give you the microphone. All right. So because Councilmember Herbold, who chairs this committee, is absent today and summit can't. Hear you back. So let's just take a let's just take that deep breath that Charles was telling us for a minute here. And. Well, I think it's getting a little quieter here. Get a little quieter. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I think I can hear you now. Great. So I don't think it's being closed is going to help much. I will speak as clearly and loudly as I can, because Councilmember Herbold, who chairs this committee, is absent today and some additional concerns were raised during public comment. I would like to move that. We hold council bill 118932 for one week until April 3rd and second. That I guess now would be the time. Just have a short discussion. But I'm just asking my colleagues, we heard some public comments. Just look closely at the divided reports. What I said earlier this morning during the briefing was that I had some concerns about how the utility was proceeding, sort of a fait accompli by the time it got to us. And if we believe that in RFP process as a way to to test the market, particularly our contract has been so long standing then has the utility demonstrated that now would be the time not to to to push the market? And in fairness to Councilmember Herbold, they're asking a lot of questions, but I think it would make sense to at least hold it off for a week. We heard some public comment and we could discuss it informally and then we'll see where we are on on a week's vote. So I do support the hold any further comments on the motion to hold? Councilmember Johnson. You know, I would just say I don't serve on the committee. So an opportunity for us to have another week of discussion about this would be helpful from my perspective. You know, when I read through the Divided report, the contract now being open for bids since 1990, I could tell you a joke about what I was doing in 1990, but it involved role playing games and other things that 12 year olds do. So from my perspective, you know, having a chance for us to work with us, for you to better understand the timing of when the next open bid process would look like if it wasn't in 2019 would be helpful. And also to better understand the financial implications, as we have dug into this a little bit, making this decision next week may forfeit some of the perceived savings here for the ratepayers and the $1.2 million identified in the report. And so I want to make sure that we have a good understanding about what that tradeoff would look like, too. So I don't object to holding it for another week, and I think that would give us a chance to get a little better handle the decision. Thank you. Councilman Johnson. Councilman Burgess. Thank you. I also will support the hold in talking to the department. We may lose a few days value of the reduction in costs, but we will not lose the entire amount. So that's important. The comment about, you know, it hasn't been. Negotiated for 30 plus years. Is an interesting one. To me. But when this contract. Was bid and the respondents to that RFP participated in that process, they knew they were bidding on a 30 plus year contract. So I think it's a bit misleading to imply that there's something wrong with this process or that we didn't follow the rules, or that this is an unusual length for a contract of this type. This was a 33 or 34 year bid with some options given to the city to get out of that contract if the city wanted to. And the reason this contract is so long is. Because hauling of garbage and arranging of infrastructure for that is extremely expensive and requires significant capital. Investment. Which requires a long term contract. So I don't I don't buy. Into that argument. About the fact that this is a. Long contract. It was designed to be. A long contract. And the companies that participated in that process originally. Knew that and competed fairly for that contract. Back when it was awarded and I think signed in the spring of 1991. So I wasn't going to get into the merits, but I strongly disagree that the option to renew a contract is both legally and practically quite distinct from a 30 year contract that in the course of 30 years, emerging technologies exist, competitors exist. Facts and circumstances exist. So when anyone responds to a contract that has a series of options, which is what that was, that is well within the city's rights to examine each option on its merits, decide whether it makes sense. And just because the successful bidder wanted a 30 year deal is quite distinct from saying it was a 30 year deal at the beginning. In fact, the utility made this point when they put out for bid the recycle contract that they wanted to test the market. So it seemed to me that whenever SPU made the decision to renegotiate with the successful bidder, they should have at least let the council know some time ago so we could look at what other competitors are out there. In fact, a more recent competitors recently come into the market again, offering new technology, new solutions. So it's not misleading to suggest that an option to revisit the original contract is somehow a you know, I'm not saying you're saying it's a bad thing. To me, it's a smart thing to do. In this case, we did not do that at all. It's going to come to. Okay customer back. Thank you very. Much. We're just we're just holding it for a week, by the way. I would probably have the same argument next next week, but go ahead. Thank you. Well, since I won't be here with you next week, I would like to ask the department to give us some information on four things. So I chaired the Seattle Public Utilities Committee two years ago, and at that point we went out for bid on recycling. And it was a big deal because we wanted to make sure we were getting the best rates, the best technology. And we also, during the time I was overseeing it, went out for bid for the composting contracts. And we really insisted that it be done in the state of Washington. I felt that was responsible. And also we got better deals for the ratepayers. So here's the questions that I would like for Seattle Public Utilities to come back and provide us with the information this week. First of all, if we are going to be looking at options in the next five years, what can we do between now and then to reduce the amount of garbage that we are creating here in our city? We've done well to promote recycling. I don't know what we have been doing to reduce the amount of garbage that we are sending out of our city. Secondly, I'm interested in the rail transportation contracts. We know that BNSF works for one of the companies and Union Pacific for another. I'd like to know what are our options to negotiate those kind of rail transportation contracts? Also, I would like to know more about the methane capture options both at the Oregon side and in the Golden Dale site, because we know even here in King County, we capture methane and then sell it back. To Puget Sound four for electricity and we get a credit for that. So I'd like to know what are the options? And then lastly, the reason I think that considering another evaluation and going out for bid is even if we don't do it right now, if we if we make the decision to proceed. But to do it as in a very reasonable length of time, because we know that any time we do that, we get the market bring the market to bear and our ratepayers benefit. I think right now the argument is that they've negotiated a 7 to $8 million reprieve over the next couple of years, but there may be more. And I would like to know either now or as they go forward, depending upon what the answers are in the next week, what that can look like, because we definitely want our rate payers to benefit. Thank you, Councilman Baxter. Yeah, thank you. So all those in favor of holding council bill 1189324 weeks say I oppose the EIS. Have to hold it for one week. Please read the next agenda item into the record. The Report of the Human Services and Public Health Committee. Agenda Item two Resolution 317 39 expressing the city's close commitment to being a more age friendly city under the criteria established by the World Health Organization and the AARP, Network of Age Friendly Communities Committee recommends that the full council adopt the resolution as amended.