Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 8

Recommendation to direct City Manager to work with Director of Economic Development to create an unsolicited proposal process for development of City owner real property.

LongBeachCC_02022021_21-0088

Thank you. Next up is item number 15. Communication from Councilwoman Price, Councilwoman Zendejas, Councilwoman Allen. Recommendation to direct City Manager to work with economic development. Create an unsolicited proposal process for development of city owned property. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I'm bringing this item forward because I know what happens to all of us, but every once in a while, I'll get a call from a developer who has driven by either an underutilized city property or a city property that may appear to be vacant. And they want to know what they can do to acquire it or to utilize it. And we currently have no formal process in place to make such a discussion, a fair discussion that provides access to anyone, access and information to anyone who might be interested in developing the same site. And so it seems sometimes like the process is a little bit of who, you know, instead of us publicly putting information out there that a specific property has been the subject of interest by a developer, and we are welcoming interest from other potential developers on that same property. And so I think this is a process that that really we should put into place. And we've talked to I've talked with John Keisler about this, and I don't know if John wants to speak further about it, but I imagine that Council District three is not the only district where this type of conversation happens. And so I think developing a formal process that provides access and opportunity for all potential interested developers in acquiring and or operating city owns land is a beneficial tool for the city to have. So I'd ask my colleagues to support this item, and I don't know if Mr. Heisler still here on the call, but if you wouldn't mind, maybe just talking a little bit more about why this is a positive development if we had a process like this. This is Tom Modica. I think John is it was not available right now, but he and I have spoken as as you and I have as well. We do believe that there is a benefit for creating a citywide structure for unsolicited proposals. We do get these on a regular basis and we do have a process for processing them and taking a look and analyzing them and getting those to the city council in closed session. I do think having a more of a structure and knowing kind of what to expect if you do want to do an unsolicited proposal. And also some of those key questions about how do you also give opportunity to those who you know, who are also interested in the part in the process and developing on that site. So we think this is a good thing and we'd be happy to bring back some ideas for the council to consider. Thank you. Councilman, president, anything else you want to continue? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Margot. Councilman Mongo. Okay. Let me move on. I'll come back. Councilman Zoro. Thank you. I'm sorry. I want to go ahead. Councilmember, you know, I've been having some microphone challenges this evening. Thank you. Councilman Price and the co-sponsors of the item. This is something that comes up so often. And we've talked to city staff about options. It often has to do with what city department is most involved in it. And so I would love to see a transparent process that both encourages the businesses and or ideas to come forward, but also has some transparency to it. Where proposals received are incubated for a certain period of time, where the address of interest is listed on a public website. So other individuals who might have ideas about that particular site could come forward with ideas without revealing the efforts of the original proposer. And so that ideas can really flourish in a competitive way without direct competition of losing the value of the ideas and the work brought forward by one. So I really appreciate this item. I would love to see this move forward. And if we do move to a committee structure, I would love to hear this item in economic development in finance, because I think it would be a powerful one. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Sara. Thank you, Mayor. So and I also think Councilmember Pryce and the other members for bringing this agenda forward. I do think that we should have a formal process to understand these, a process for unsolicited proposal and a clear process. But I also want to make sure that as we do develop a process, we take into consideration, you know, districts like mine who might have some properties available that developers might be interested to take in consideration of the concerns around community as far as how it might impact or change the makeup of the community as well. There's just been a lot of heightened concerns about displacement in in my district. So I just want to make sure, as we're developing it, that we also take that into consideration about how we're making sure there's a transparent process as well to residents that might be impacted. I know that the process is a proposal and it doesn't necessarily, you know, have a process yet for informing community members or residents of the area, but also making it so that we encourage those from the community maybe or create process where they're also able to possibly apply for this as well. And so thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Allen. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Am I also signed on to this item? And it's important because it creates a path for unsolicited proposals regarding the acquisition we sell or shared use of city owned property and Lumbee each has a good history of strong processes, and I'm proud of that. But we also need to make sure that we have a defined process for unsolicited proposals as well. And I am a firm believer that by creating a channel for unplanned projects not formally requested by the city is also a great opportunity to boost innovative development projects. And it's just good for the city. So I look forward to seeing this move forward. Councilwoman and councilman Sunday has. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to thank Councilmember Price for bringing this forward. I think that this is very, very fitting for us as a city as we continue to grow and as we continue to develop. I think that having a fair and just process will be beneficial to all involved. So very happy to support this item. Thank you. That concludes comments. Let's do a roll call vote, please. District one, i. District two. I District three. I. District four by district five, i. District six. At District seven. I District eight. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

Approves a Legislative Map Amendment to rezone property from C-CCN, PUD, or C-MU-10 with waivers to proposed zoned districts C-CCN-4, C-CCN-5, C-CCN-7, C-CCN-8, or C-CCN-12. (NEIGHBORHOODS & PLANNING) Approves a Legislative Map Amendment to rezone property from C-CCN, PUD, or C-MU-10 with waivers to proposed zoned districts C-CCN-4, C-CCN-5, C-CCN-7, C-CCN-8, or C-CCN-12. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-18-14.

DenverCityCouncil_10272014_14-0765

These include concerns about traffic and parking in the neighborhood, about the need for better transit, serving Cherry Creek. And we did want to note that in addition to the zoning that we've been working on in the past year and a half, there have been a lot of efforts underway to address a lot of the other implementation recommendations in the plan. Many of those by partners that are in the private sector, including groups such as the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District, the Cherry Creek Area Business Alliance, who have formed a parking task force to address some of the parking concerns in the area. We've also been working with other public partners like RTD, who conducted a study to look at improving transit on Speer and First Avenue. And some of the recommendations from that study are already being implemented this year, including more frequent bus service on that corridor. So we did just want to note that this the zoning is one piece of a much larger puzzle to realizing the vision in Cherry Creek. There were eight specific goals to guide our zoning effort in the Cherry Creek area plan. I will not read all of these to you, but I'll throw them up on the slide here for everyone to see on the screen. They include goals about retaining and enhancing the character of Cherry Creek, encouraging smaller lots to remain and redevelop and not reassembled into larger development sites wherever possible. Maintaining high transitions, especially between second and Third Avenue and to the adjacent neighborhoods that are about this district and really trying to promote that vibrant, pedestrian friendly atmosphere that Cherry Creek North is so well-known for. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Kyle. So with a clear plan direction to change the zoning in Cherry Creek. Several months after his adoption, we set forth on the process to do that and the process started just over 18 months ago. It was a three phase process that began in the summer or was finished in the summer of 2013 with the first phase. In the first phase, both the Cherry Creek Steering Committee and this technical task force that Sarah mentioned agreed to the process and use that first phase to identify how they would work together, what sort of rules they would have regarding communications, ground rules in the meetings, and really what would be on the menu to solve through the zoning process. Phase two followed through the rest of the summer of 2013, fall of 2013, and wrapped up in the spring of 2014 with the Technical Task Force actually doing the hard work of drafting the zoning after they had a complete draft. They put that draft out for public review and adoption, which is the third phase of the zoning process, which concludes here tonight and took place throughout the summer and is wrapping up here in the fall where the public and stakeholders provided input on that draft. The Technical Task Force. We reviewed the draft and then it went through the public approval process as all of our rezonings do. Wrapping up here tonight with City Council at the end of the first phase, agreeing to the process phase, the Cherry Creek Steering Committee and the Zoning Technical Task Force agreed to a framework document that set forth sort of the scope for the whole zoning project. So it identified the guiding documents, the rules for how folks would work together. It cemented in writing that the group's commitment to having a transparent, inclusive and accountable process and really set the roadmap for how they would all work together during the drafting phases and ultimately through the adoption phase. The process was designed from the beginning to be a collaborative process where everyone was listening to the voices of those who lived and worked in Cherry Creek. It was facilitated by a third party facilitator who we hired to set to set the ground rules, to work together with the task force and with the steering committee , and to be a neutral third party, to draw out all the voices and help them achieve consensus. And that third party facilitator, Mike Hughes, is here tonight and can address the body later. I should note that the staff took the the role here of of taking a back seat and serving as technical experts. This is not staff's code. This is the code of the technical task force, as reviewed and by the public and as changed by them and is facilitated by the third party facilitator. We attended all meetings and provided the technical expertize for the process. And then the technical task force was a 16 member task force of diverse stakeholders representing a wide variety of community groups, professionals, folks who were who represented neighborhood organizations, who represented business organizations, architects, landscape architects, planners, many of them wearing multiple hats, the majority of whom were residents in the district or in the neighborhoods immediately surrounding the district. And these are the folks who who set forth to draft the code throughout phase two, multiple meetings that were all open to the public in which they took comment from the public in every meeting. Each of these meetings was at least 3 hours, sometimes 4 hours long in the evenings, really diving into the technical details of the zoning code. During that process, they used four guiding documents to to guide their work, the Cherry Creek Area Plan, as Sarah mentioned, and its two appendices. They also look to certain aspects of the current zoning, recognizing that there were still some qualities worth keeping in the current zoning. That design sentencing guidelines for Cherry Creek North, which were updated in 2012, continue to be relevant and and guide and shape the kind of development that happens in Cherry Creek North. So they looked at how the new zoning would interact with those design standards and guidelines. And then finally the Denver zoning code adopted in 2010, they agreed from the beginning to use the context based and form based approach of the Denver zoning code in drafting the new zoning. Once they had a draft, it went through an extensive public review process throughout the month of June this year. The Cherry Creek Steering Committee weighed in and had presentations on the Technical Task Force draft. We invited all of the registered neighborhood organizations to review the draft, and Sarah and I went out and presented to many of them the red line draft and was posted on on the city's website and available for public comment as well as at the local Denver Public Library branch. It was distributed by email to all those who signed up. At the very beginning of the process. We sent postcards to every property owner in the statistical neighborhood and invited them to sign up on the email list. So folks have been getting emails throughout the process. We sent postcards to all of the property owners who are actually affected by the zoning. We had a public meeting in an open house with over 50 people attending. Are there in the district again at the library branch. We held office hours to meet with folks. One on. One and answer any questions you need to maybe their property or some curiosity they had about the draft code. And then we also presented at the Inter Neighborhood Cooperation Zoning and Planning Committee at following that review. And the task force reviewed the draft and put and put forth their final draft for the public adoption process. It was forwarded to the planning board. They had a public hearing on September 3rd and recommended approval of both the text amendment and the MAP Amendment unanimously. The draft was forward to the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee of City Council and moved out on September 17th. In your packets, there are two letters of support from two of the Rochester neighborhood organizations the Capitol Hill, United Neighbors and Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association. I'll also note that for both the text amendment and the map amendment, written notification of the hearings has been provided in advance in accordance with the code and for purposes of the MAP Amendment. We have posted signs throughout the Cherry Creek North District. So I'll turn it back to Sarah to go through the substance. Thanks, Kyle. So one of the primary goals of the new zoning is to implement the building height recommendations from the Cherry Creek Area Plan. This is a map from that plan showing the variety of building heights in the area, which range anywhere from 3 to 12 stories for a recommended height. The zoning does have a menu of zoned districts, as is common in our Denver zoning code, where you have options depending on a maximum building height. So can three, CCN, four, CCN, five, etc. as a way to implement these height recommendations. That does include a height transition that was very important in the plan as well as its appendix. The Urban Form Study, also known as the White Paper. The task force chose to follow the recommendations specifically from the Urban Inform study when it came to how to step down in height from third from Second Avenue to Third Avenue . So this image is showing you have Second Avenue on the right where building heights can reach up to eight storeys. And as you move north towards Third Avenue, you step down to a five story zone district with additional height limits that I'll discuss in a minute based on a bulk plane along Third Avenue. This is the proposed zoning map. The the stripes of color you see there, again, represent the height transitions that were recommended in the plan and how they're being implemented here. There are also some important transitions that are required where the zoning abuts adjacent residential neighborhoods or protected districts and the zoning code. So all of the protected district setbacks and upper storey setbacks that are required for most of our mixed use commercial zone districts do apply here. So that does include a ten foot minimum setback at the ground story and then upper story setbacks that are diagramed here, including a 40 foot setback once you're above 51 feet in height and a 25 foot setback when you're about 27 feet in height. As I mentioned a moment ago, there's additional sculpting and reduction in building height along the south side of Third Avenue. This is rooted in a planned goal to preserve the pedestrian oriented character of Third Avenue, which has traditionally been it's recognized again in the plan as an area that attracts kind of smaller scale, more voce grouped retailers, and really has that pedestrian oriented character. That is what drove the task force to recommend the Third Avenue Solar accessible clean, which as demonstrated in this image here, the build primary building that you see in the center, in left of the image is on the south side of Third Avenue. And this is showing kind of the darkest day at the darkest moment of the year, which is 12 p.m. on December 21st. The shadow that this building casts does not extend onto the sidewalk on the north side of Third Avenue, which is over here in any way. So the angle of the bulk plane was specifically designed so that shadows do not impact the north side of the streets. And that is what any future buildings developed under the zoning would have to follow. Another major component of the zoning is the requirement for an upper storey mass reduction. This is rooted in a lot of the plan goals about access to sunlight throughout the district, as well as the desire to allow for new development and higher density in the area, but making sure that it's appropriately scaled and not too bulky. So what this requirement is, is one chair above the second story of the building. You can essentially only use 75% of your zoned lot for your building footprint. So it reduces the amount of the building by 25%. One chair above the second story. And that does allow for flexibility in architecture. The example of showing here's where that that mass production is coming out actually allows for the building to curve because it's not a set setback, for example, from the street. Another important topic the task force discussed a lot relates to the form and character of buildings as you experience them along the streets. There was a clear consensus on retaining the five foot setbacks that are required along all streets in the current zoning that will remain in the proposed zoning. There's also a lot of requirements for transparency and pedestrian entrances along the ground floor of buildings to encourage that vibrant pedestrian atmosphere that Cherry Creek North is known for. And these requirements build upon the design standards and guidelines that Kyle mentioned earlier were just guiding document for the technical task force. I would note the task force did propose a few minor redlines to the design standards and guidelines to compliment the zoning, and those were presented and approved as part of the Planning Board, public hearings , planning board as part of the approval for those. So they all work together as a great package to ensure quality design in terms of uses. Another big component of our zoning, in large part the mix of uses, remains very similar to what the current zoning allows as a way to promote a very vibrant, mixed use district. There were some changes made by recommendation of the task force and these mostly focused on the desire to have the most active pedestrian environment as possible. So one of those changes is that surface parking lots are no longer allowed as a primary use. They can only be accessory use. So you have to have another use on the site. Another change is having more robust requirements for active ground floor uses where you have parking garages. Another change related to land use in the district is the allowance for lodging. In the current season, zoning only bed and breakfasts are allowed, and under the proposed zoning, all lodging uses will be permitted. And I'm going to turn it over to Kyle. Parking was a very important topic to the task force and to members of the public throughout the process. There were many conversations on various aspects of parking, many of which aren't addressed through zoning. And as Sarah mentioned, in many ways, this process was a springboard for other organizations to begin talking about parts of parking that aren't addressed through zoning, like wayfinding and pricing and and how to manage the on street supply. But zoning deals with the off street minimum parking requirements for private development, and the task force did agree to new ratios minimum of three parking ratios, which are shown in the red box on this table. They are higher than our typical urban center. And this is appropriate because Cherry Creek is a unique urban center in that it draws from the entire region and beyond, even out of state. And so there is justification for higher parking ratios than in urban and other urban centers. But I will note that most of the uses are substantially reduced from the current rates, which are the highest in the city. And so the technical task force landed on these rates as a compromise. Looking at development feasibility, some of the task force members did their own studies in terms of what rates would be appropriate, in terms of balancing the need for appropriate levels of parking and development, feasibility and of course, looking to the guiding documents we talked about earlier. So all in all, they did recommend some changes as shown on the slide. Another important topic to many of the task force members, and that was in the plan recommendations that Sarah mentioned earlier was to try to preserve small lots. One of the unique characteristics of Cherry Creek North remains that there are still several a few dozen small zone lots that remain, even though they're a small portion of the total land area. It's very important to keep this character of the small lot experienced. So the technical task force looked at ways to provide incentives for those lots to be able to to reinvest in what can be a difficult situation on a small lot and and and help them from from having to aggregate with their neighbors into larger lots. So the task force identifies three things to do in the new zoning. First, small lots do not have to do the upper story mass reduction that Sarah mentioned earlier. There's a parking reduction in the code. There has been a series of parking reductions in the code for small lots for many years in Cherry Creek North. And and the new zoning includes a parking reduction for small lots. And then they may also include encroach into the Third Avenue bulk plan that Sarah mentioned earlier. In some situations, another topic that was important to the task force members was to create an incentive for the kind of unique, privately held open spaces that are found in Cherry Creek North that provide a kind of interesting pedestrian experience. So the task force set forth to provide an incentive where for property owners that provide at their option private open space that those properties do not have to provide the upper storey mass reduction that Sarah mentioned earlier if they meet the rules defined in the new Denver zoning code and I'll make that mention that these private open spaces do have to comply with the design standards and guidelines to ensure that they're quality spaces. Now, that's the general rule. Small lots on the south side of third have a different kind of open space incentive because they already are excluded from the upper storey mass reduction that I mentioned earlier. They can encroach into the bulk plain on the south side of third in exchange for providing that private open space. So they get a little bit more height if they if they agree voluntarily to provide private open space on their properties. So that wraps up the content. The major content themes of the zoning code. Really quickly, I'll go through the review criteria. There are three review criteria in the zoning code for a text amendment. First is that they be consistent with the city's adopted plans and policies. Sarah did a good job earlier explaining how this zoning is intended to implement those plans, so I won't repeat that. There is also additional information in your staff reports about how the new zoning will further the public health, safety and general welfare through the implementation of the adopted plans. And each zone district will have regulations that are uniform. There are also three review criteria for a legislative map amendment, which is what this is, and they're essentially the same three criteria. First, that the MAP amendment be consistent with adopted plans. Second, that regulations be uniform throughout the districts. And then, third, that they further the public health, safety and welfare. And again, as we further detailed in our staff report, we find that the both the text and the map amendment are consistent with the codes review criteria. And therefore, having reviewed both the text and the MAP amendment against the review criteria, we recommend approval of both. Thank you. Thank you both. We have eight speakers for 764, 765. I'll call up the first five K Pride, Michael Hughes, David Steele, Bob Flynn and William DeMaio and Mr. Pride, you can go ahead and get started. Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Kay Pride. I live at 335 Cook Street in Cherry Creek North in Denver. And I appreciate the council hearing us tonight. You all know how important Cherry Creek North is to the economy and vitality of the city. It's a real draw for people, as Kyle pointed out from all across the region. So if we're going to increase density and height and make this more like downtown than it has been, it will be a major activity center that needs public transit to connect it to the larger transit grid. There was a mention of more frequent bus service. I hope we can think creatively beyond that. For instance, I would like to have a van or a small bus that would leave from the front of Neiman Marcus, go to the Golden Triangle and the cultural complex, go on to the DCP and on to Union Station. That would solve a lot of driving for a lot of people. I think it would also bring the downtown visitors out to Cherry Creek, which would also be very helpful. There's also something within Cherry Creek that would be helpful, and that is something like a mall shuttle maybe down second and up third or vice versa, so that people didn't have to move their cars every time they wanted to make another stop in Cherry Creek, because it's it's a long, narrow artery there. And we we know that not everybody can walk that far. So I would urge you, as members of the city council, to use your leadership skills to support better transit, connecting Cherry Creek to the rest of the metro area. And I think there would be a big payoff. Thank you. Thank you. Michael Hughes. Good evening. Thank you. Michael Hughes. I live at 40 South Miller Street in Hilltop, and I was the third party facilitator that you heard about. I just want to say two things. As you prepare to cast your vote, either for or against these texts and map changes. First, I just want to commend the work of the technical task force. They did an extraordinary job, really wrestling with the hard issues and balancing the interests of adjacent neighborhoods and business owners and landowners and trying to find something that fully implemented the Cherry Creek Area plan. And they did as good a job in consensus building as I've ever seen. Second, I want to commend the staff effort that was connected to this. They listened very carefully to the conversation among the task force members and really did an extraordinary job in presenting back to the task force the physical representations in the maps and the text changes that fully implemented the discussion of the task force. So I hope that you'll support this really extraordinary level of effort from both the task force and the staff. Thank you, David Steel. My name is David Steele. I live at 300 Lafayette Street in Denver. I'm here on behalf of the Cherry Creek Area Business Alliance and the vice chairman of that organization. And we've full and wholeheartedly support the adoption of these bills. Seven, 647, six, five, I believe. Thank you. Thank you. Bob Flynn. Yes. Thank you. I'm Bob Flynn and I live in Englewood, Colorado, but I'm here in my capacity this evening as board chair of the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District. The Business Improvement District Board supports this new zoning for the following reasons. Zoning is a matter of citywide interest and vibrant and regionally competitive. Cherry Creek North is absolutely vital to the economic health of this city. Modernizing the Cherry Creek, zoning the Cherry Creek North zoning is a necessary step to fully implement the Cherry Creek Area plan that was adopted by this body in July of 2012. The new zoning is consistent with the city's new form based zoning, and it customizes it to the unique character of Cherry Creek North. And lastly, the zoning with the Cherry Creek North Design Guidelines and the oversight of the Cherry Creek North Design Advisory Board will ensure high quality infill development for years to come. City Council members the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District Board urges you to pass these zoning measures. Thank you. Thank you. William DiMeo. And as he comes up, I want to call up the final speakers, Wayne New Robert Vogel and Brooks Waldman. Go right ahead. Thanks. My name is Bill DiMeo. I live as seventh and cook, and I'm here on behalf of Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods. We have discussed the Cherry Creek zoning in several meetings and after a presentation by the Community Planning and Development Capital Neighborhoods, supports the new zoning in Cherry Creek. Thank you. Thank you. When you. I knew. I live at 443 Adams Street, the A Cherry Creek North. I'm a member of the Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association, a member of the Cherry Creek Steering Committee, co-chair of the four year planning process and a member of the Tactical Task Force. So I just want to to commend Carl, our senior planning staff, for a wonderful collaborative process that we had with the Tactical Task Force. It was a very collaborative. We they ensured and encouraged good participation and input from all the tactical task force members and also from the general public, people who who attended developers or or residents who attended our tactical task force meeting, making sure they had the opportunity to input into the deliberations. You also the the the end product was a very strong collaboration of all of the parties that were involved. It was it was very encouraging to see the agreement and the consensus that was reached. And we're very pleased with the outcome of the process. One of the things that was really strong in the process was the use of analytics, use of data. It helped improve the quality of our decisions, but also it helped explanation to explain to residents the decisions that were made, eliminating a lot of anxiety and fear. It really improve the quality of the process as we move forward. And I hope that you will approve the zoning requirements tonight. I hope that we'll be able to work together closely with the Business Improvement District Planning, Public Works and all the neighborhoods to help address the ramifications of the development. We're going to have some traffic and parking issues we need to address. We just need to manage that and work together to do that. Also very important, too, is we've worked so hard nine months to develop these zoning requirements and I can't imagine any kind of justification to have a variance to these requirements coming up in the near future. I think all the property owners had the opportunity to opt in to the new zoning and they made a decision about that. So I feel that we we have a very strong zoning requirements that I feel that we should be able to use the zoning requirements for the next couple of years. Thank you for listening to and I hope you'll approve the zoning today. Thank you, Robert Vogel. Mr. President, members of the council. My name is Robert Vogel. I'm the president of the Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association. Thank you for hearing what we have to say from the neighborhood. On behalf of the board of CC and A, I'd like to support the changes that are proposed here. Our board has voted on that. Our family of our members have taken part in the process. I would like to thank the members of the Technical Task Force for their hard work in reaching a very collaborative agreement. I will stop at this point praising what has gone on, because I think that there are several reservations that I have about this. My neighbor Kay on Cook Street and others have said that this is a good start. Cherry Creek North is a robust neighborhood. It is also a fragile neighborhood. If you want to know how fragile it is, just go down there at the end of our stormwater management excavation project and see the impact that difficulties in traffic and parking and transportation have had on the community. If the Council does not recognize that as much progress as we've made in rezoning, if it is not continued in parking and traffic and transportation, we're going to have the same difficulties at the end of the renovation of Cherry Creek. And so I implore the Council to think beyond the zoning, to think about the difficulties that density and height will bring. You have to bring people into the neighborhood if you want to maintain it as a robust point of interest within Denver and within Colorado. So I want you to think about the next steps, because this is only a good start. This is not the end. It's a good start. And I implore you to vote about the new zoning through. But think about what we still have to do, which is to provide transportation, to collaborate with the bid, to provide parking as Boulder does much better than Denver does. To think about transportation for those who will not have cars in the future. I strongly support the transportation in the form of walking and biking, and all of this needs to be done collaboratively with the neighborhood to make and keep Cherry Creek, the robust neighborhood that we know it to be . So thank you for your efforts and for listening. Thank you. Brooks Waldman. Brooks Wallman, 66. South Garfield Street. Past President Cherry Creek East. Co-Chair of the Cherry Creek Steering Committee. A member of the task force. I'd like to see some of the things that Dr. Bob Vogel said, because I think moving forward is really very important. We worked really hard to strike a balance between business and residents. At this point in time, I think we're going to have nearly 1500 new units coming forward in Cherry Creek. It's going to put a lot of strain on our infrastructure. We spent two and a half years. On a plan. We spent 18. Months on a rezoning. We now have the tools we now need to implement that plan. And if any of you have been through Cherry Creek recently with all the construction, you can feel the electricity in the air. This zoning is already working. We've got the density and it's a change in scale of Cherry Creek that we've never seen before. So we're going to need support from the city for the infrastructure for this. The burden that's put on the new residents to be able to cross those streets. Connectivity. Connecting. Open spaces. All those things that make it a livable environment for the future. Appreciating this change in scale. And I don't think any of. Us speaking for myself, I didn't realize what a massive change this really is. Cherry Creek will not be the same Cherry Creek that those of us who grew up in this area and our children grew up in. It's going to be different. So we really have to make it a livable place and an exciting place and keep it vibrant and make it thrive. So we're going to need your help. We're probably going to be back. Thanks so much. Thank you. That concludes our speakers is now time for questions from members of Council on 764 765. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask Caio if you can come to the microphone, please. And I was trying to pull up the PowerPoint, not finding it so easily. Would you mind pulling up the slide that had the parking information? Let's see if I can. Get back to it. Okay. So in the highlighted section that's in red is that two for every thousand square feet. Okay. So on the restaurant or any of the commercial. So that's two and a half spaces for 3000 square feet. How how does that differ from other areas of the city? Sure. So regarding the restaurant minimum parking ratio, you'll see the 2.5 per thousand is the same as the current zoning and it's also the same as the urban center zoning throughout the rest of the city. So that particular ratio is not changed as compared to those. Okay. That answers my question. Thank you. That's why I'm an Ortega councilwoman each. Thank you, Mr. President. I was wondering if I could ask Mr. Vogel a question. Do you mind? I was really intrigued. Well, it's here. Up here. Mr. Vogel, I was really intrigued by your comparison to Boulder, and I was curious if you could share what you think they're doing better that we maybe should be learning from. I just. You really picked me. My daughter and three wonderful grandkids live in Boulder, so I'm up there fairly often. I think Boulder does a better job in constructing park parking structures that allow for affordable parking in the downtown area. And despite the fact that Boulder is what we know it to be very much pro biking and and pedestrians and all the things that are evolving in our society. They still realize that you have to be able to park. And I think that if we don't solve the parking problem in Cherry Creek, we will lose its vitality. And I know that there are reasons why the Business Improvement District has a vested interest in being able to park. But the sad story is that if we don't park adequately there, we spill into the neighborhoods and we lose the wonderful residential slash business collaboration that we have now. So I go to Boulder often. I am able to park cheaply and and easily downtown, something that I can't do in Cherry Creek. And our residents of Cherry Creek have the same feeling. There is more availability in the parking, in the high rise parking. There's reluctance to use it. But I think that if the city becomes involved in partnership with the business district, we're going to get the best of both worlds. Thank you, Councilman Canete. Catwoman Fat. Thank you, Mr. President. First for one of our staff members. I need to have you use your calculator. Tell me how much reduction parking we are approving if we approve this from current zoning. Well, let me take a shot at that. So this slide that's still on the screen shows the only rates that are changing. So every other use that's in the code isn't changing. So there are a lot of other uses. We're just kind of highlighting the main ones that people talked about the most and that are kind of critical and are typically the ones that are developed most in Cherry Creek. So there's the office, the retail and the residential I mentioned earlier the restaurant isn't changing, so the office is going down from three and a third parking spaces per thousand square feet today down to two per thousand square feet. The retail goes from 3.33 per thousand today down to 2.5 per 1000 square feet. And then the residential is cut in half as an incentive really to get out to remove one of the barriers to providing housing in the district. It's cut in half from two per unit to one per unit. I mean, so percentage wise, when you take a look at the total picture, how much less parking are we requiring? Or is that are you can you even tell? Yeah, it's a good question, but it's not possible for staff to say because it all depends on what uses ultimately get developed and what folks ultimately decide to build there. If they build more residential will have a different impact than if they build more office or more retail. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Sorry. I just gave one point that the the shared parking and other tools that are in our code apply, too, which complicates that. So, for example, one of the things the task force talked about that they really want to see continue to happen in Cherry Creek is renters recognizing that sometimes you have complimentary land users that can share parking. So there's that's a tool that's already allowed in the code and will continue to be allowed. So makes it challenging when you think about all those different factors to calculate exact percentage. If I could ask one other question along that same line with now saying that there will be no parking lots per say. I gather the idea is to build down or are you thinking they will use up parking? Or what is your vision of of this lesser parking requirement which deeply concerns me? I think we've certainly modeled the options and talked with the task force about both options for going below grade and or above grade. The because of water table issues and the cost of going below grade, we assume no more than two stories below grade in the modeling we were doing for all of the proposed zoning. So for a lot of larger developments, that did translate to some parking above grade, which is one of the reasons why there's very strong design standards for parking garages and the design standards and guidelines. I can't think. Thank you, Councilman Potts. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. Well, funny, but parking's on my list too, for questions. And I do want to address you can build parking at grade, but you have to wrap it with retail. So for instance, along Second Avenue, just east of film or Plaza where there's a new I'm trying to think, is that where the new Hallmark store is? And there's a restaurant there that is actually in front of a parking garage that is at grade level and then goes up. Okay. So my question on the parking and this is always dangerous when you don't know the exact answer to ask a question. But David Steel, since you have been developing office and residential, you're currently developing that. Could you talk about what the market is for office parking and for residential parking? Because I know, boy, before we even started this, we had we had lots of discussions on parking. Well, I think the the simple answer is, you know, there's code requirements and then there's market requirements and they're not necessarily in alignment with each other. But as far as Shore Creek North is concerned, at this point in time, a ratio of 2 to 1 is going to satisfy both of those requirements. So that's what we're providing. And that's not to say that as a developer, you can't provide more. I guess you can always provide more if you want. They're very expensive to build and really, depending on the size of your development, stuff like that, it gets very expensive going down. So I would assume that going forward, some of the people will like to try to go up a little bit, but then there's a ceiling on that as well too, in terms of height. And so in terms of the the residential, the proposed one per unit at this point in time, that seems to be okay. We are actually providing a little bit more than that for some of the residents because I think there's a husband and wife there living over there. Chances are that they probably have more than one car. We get back to Kay's point, and that is that we are desperately trying to figure out ways to have better transportation access , if you will, to the Cherry Creek north and provide, you know, connectivity, if you will, to into downtown and particularly down the Denver Union Station area. So all that plays together. But so there's no you know, that's what we're doing. And it seems to be working. And I got to tell you that so far it's been successful. Okay. Thank you. And then my second question on parking, I've been talking to some of my colleagues about the dilemma that all over the city on 60 to 50 square foot lots, no parking, I don't mean all over the city in commercial mixed use zones, of which Cherry Creek North is one. We already have no parking requirements on 60 to 50 lots. But when Sarah talked about a small lot parking reduction in order to and we very much did want to incentivize that. Could you talk, Sarah? One in Cherry Creek North Zoning, we define a small lot slightly differently. It's a little bit larger. And what that reduction is for the small lot, I think it's the same as in the current Cherry Creek North zoning. Sure. So the the definition of a smaller and Cherry Creek North is slightly larger. It's 9375 square feet. That was based on testing that we did with the technical task force, looking at actual lot sizes in Cherry Creek and putting development program on those lots to see what was feasible based on the zoning requirements. So the 60 to 50 small exemption that's citywide assumes a 50 foot wide lot with by the typical depth of 125 feet. But we found through the modeling that we did and that the testing that the Cherry Creek zoning was very difficult to accomplish on even a lot. That was 75 feet wide. And the task force felt that that was still qualified as a small enough parcel that they would want to incentivize development on those parcels, not see them be assembled. So therefore, the the incentives you see for small lots apply for those lots, which is where the 93, 75 comes from, 75 foot wide lot. And then the reduction that's available to those lots is a 67% or two thirds, which is indeed based on what's in the current zoning. The current zoning is a little more complicated. It actually has four tiers of parking reductions depending on your lot size. So it starts with lots that are 6200 square feet and then moves up in different tiers and depending on what tier and you get a certain reduction with the task force we worked on trying to simplify that, make it a little clearer and under just easier to understand and kind of went with for when you were in the range of 9375 square feet in the current code, it would be a 67% reduction. So we kept that same amount. So to summarize between 93, 75 square feet, in 6250, you get a 67% reduction. And after that no parking is below 6250, no parking is required. But the task force did discuss whether that was the ultimate and decided to wait for a citywide sort of approach. That's correct, because the exemption, the 6250 cutoff only exists due to the city wide requirement in Article ten. It's not tied to the zoning. Okay. And if folks can bear with me, Wayne knew I was just going to give you an opportunity because you did a lot of the modeling on the parking in the Cherry Creek North neighborhood, actually did a parking study. And I want to know if you wanted to add anything. Part of the data analysis that we did. We did a lot, took all the parking ratios and worked with Karl and Sarah, and we looked at all different sized of all the way up to a half a block, down to 60 to 50. And I just want to say, we the analysis that we did, we did like 41 different case studies. And they really conformed to what Sarah Sarah said, the 6250 lot you couldn't park. There's no question about that. As you get up to the 93, 75, you could park it and as you got it to the larger light , what any problem especially wasn't a problem if you go to one floor of parking above grade. So it added parking above grade, which we now really favor, but it does work for adequate parking. So we we think that these parking ratios will will suffice for Cherry Creek. And also other developers like David Steele are building more than one residential space per per unit. So I think that's going to work out in the future. So I hope that we work together and will again. The main thing is, like Bob Vogel said, because deal with the traffic and the congestion that we come up and I think we can do this successfully. Thank you. I'm good. Thank you, councilwoman. Councilman Brown. Thank you much. President Wayne, back to the podium, please. I have a question for you. I hope I misheard you. When you said that this plan was good for a couple more years, surely that's a typo? No. You don't spend two and a half years creating a plan and have it last for two years. We've spent a lot of time and money and effort in Cherry Creek, as you know. So. Come on. I'm sorry. I hope I heard misheard that I wasn't clear on that. The plan was to drill for 20 years. Okay. And we will support that. No problem with that at all. What I'm suggesting is there should be any significant changes to the zoning coming in the next couple of years. There may be there may be some kind of rezoning or PD or some kind of issue that comes up that must have extraordinary circumstances. But I can't see the way the zoning has been developed that there should be able to need a lot of changes, that one property owner would have to deviate from the zoning that we're proposing tonight. So. But the players. 20 years. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Brown, are there any other questions from members of council? Seen on the combined public hearing on seven, six, four and 765 is now closed. Comments from members of Council. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. I jotted down on a lot of things on comments, but first and foremost, like most of the people who commented said the technical task force was amazing when you heard three and four hour meetings and I know a lot of us have trouble sitting still that long. That's pretty awesome in that sense. Well, at least all of 2014 through August of 2014 and before that, we had a couple or another phase that took long meetings. So I'd like to ask, I know there are more people here than spoke. If you served on the technical task force, would you please stand so we can recognize you? Okay. And then I do also want to say that Sarah and Kyle, while they say, well, we're only technical, this is in our zoning, they are extremely technical. They are the dynamic duo of technical advice and guidance. And finally, but not least, I couldn't think of a great descriptor for you, Mike, if, you know, if we have the dynamic duo of Batman and Robin, I heard this superhero named Night King, you know, you flew in and when nothing else would do, you could save us from ourselves. So I really think it was an amazing effort. I haven't really in the whole time I've been on council seeing something that went that well where people really and we worked by consensus. If there wasn't consensus, it didn't happen. To comment on some of the other things that came up tonight. I had written down even before that the comments started, the testimony start started, the words move forward together. And I heard that in two or three or maybe even more of the comments, those words move forward. And, you know, it's it's not surprising because transportation is all about moving people. And certainly for the remainder of my term, I am committed to continue to working on this. I think we've started with the business alliance and with some other creative thinking transportation solutions. I think we have started to get a handle on it doesn't mean it's going to happen overnight. Secondly, on the parking, there's a lot that the private sector yet has to do in terms of wayfinding signage. I'm hoping even over the holidays we could maybe test some ideas on making parking in garages easier for people to come . I know when I go out to Park Meadows, I go, No, I'm sorry, Lone Tree or wherever Park Meadows is, but I go, I can't stand it out here. I don't know where I'm going. There's too much traffic. Which lane do I get in? But they want me out there, you know, and I only go occasionally, I confess. But I have a feeling that when people who don't live right in the Cherry Creek area come to Cherry Creek, they had that same reaction that I have when I'm in a place I'm not in all the time, and we have to make it easy for them to park once and then walk. I love the fact that someone said. I think it was Sarah that we worked very hard to have a transparent, inclusive and accountable process. And I heard that numerous times in other processes in Cherry Creek that we weren't getting there with those goals, and I think we did it this time. Finally, I'm going to go a little off script. I want you to know that the first in university construction will be done by this Saturday and that. If you are coming from point south like Lone Tree or you can't find what you need at Park Meadows, no problem. You can come right up university and get into Cherry Creek. You can get the Whole Foods, you can be part of the folks crowding that parking lot. And it's it's going to come back. Whole Foods, I promise you. But I also want to say in that regard, I think, Bob Vogel, you might have spoken about the small retailers. They have struggled. They are doing remarkable jobs of reaching out and trying to do special things, working longer hours. Some have laid off employees. That's not good for anyone. It means their bottom line is down. It means people are out of jobs. And it's really important, as important as parking and transportation. And Bob Vogel, you're right. They're related. We need to keep the small local retail in Cherry Creek alive. And I know even as we did some of the rezonings, people worried about that and we were zoned anyway. They're still marvelous. 73% of the shops in the bid area are still locally owned. So we really need to have that focus as a community. And that too is partially a private sector thing. Bringing the community and making it feel like a community, a place, events, the things that that you know of. People have told me I always go to show of hands in Cherry Creek when I go, there's no place like it. But get these people over there to do some activities so they'll drop in and shop. So that's sort of my soapbox for tonight. Come back to Cherry Creek and shop locally. We're making it easy for you now. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Shepherd. Thank you, Mr. President. Just want to thank my colleague, Councilwoman Grubb, for her wonderful words. But I do want to let everybody in the audience know that I never shop in Lone Tree. I often shop in Cherry Creek at the mall or either in North Cherry Creek. And I've been over there enough times now that I don't usually get lost, except for the last time I was going through there on my bicycle on that cherry. So I really want to know when that transition for the cyclists underneath underneath University Boulevard is going to be reopened again. So you don't have to navigate all that traffic on university. But I do want to make a couple of comments on some of the of the points that were brought up tonight. I mean, I know what a diverse group you all are. And it's just, you know, I highly, highly commend you all for, you know, being able to work so productively and effectively, you know, through these years to come up with something that sounds like you have tremendous consensus on. And so, you know, hats off to you and kudos for doing such a great job. I'm sure it wasn't all smooth along the way and I wasn't there for the blow by blow. But, you know. Fantastic. Hats off to you, too, Mr. Waldman. You know, Cherry Creek is an area that draws people from all over the city and the region. You know, and it is so obvious when you're going I live in northwest Denver and I represent that area. But when I'm when I go to Cherry Creek, it is shocking to even me, you know, and I do this for a living about how much it's changing. And so, you know, I hear I hear what you're saying about wanting to keep it to keep it livable and vibrant. And then secondly, to many of Mr. Vogel's points, during the regular part of your testimony, there was a lot of discussion among this whole body during our City Council budget hearings on this very issue. So Cherry Creek is experiencing a tremendous amount of urban infill development, but so are several other areas in our city, including my district and in several others of us who are on this body. And we talked very much about, you know, how our our planning and our engineering on our transportation side and our infrastructure side needs to keep pace or certainly try to catch up significantly to what's happened on the development side with all this increasing density, you know, and all this influx of new people. I am the chair of the Infrastructure and Culture Committee, so I wanted to communicate to you that, you know, there were there was a significant I think there was 11 folks on this council that agreed that these issues were of exceedingly exciting importance during our budget hearings. And as Councilwoman Sussman alluded to earlier, we were able to ask the mayor for a significant staffing increase in the transportation planning and engineering areas. That includes six new people in both of those areas to deal with intersection safety and pedestrian safety and traffic calming and parking because it is an issue that we're all experiencing, you know , the crunch very significantly. So, you know, thanks to the advocacy of this council, we were able to get six new people in addition to those that were already asked for in the 2015. Birgit. So I just want you to know that we hear you not just in Cherry Creek, but, you know, northwest Denver and downtown and all of the areas that are experiencing this kind of growth. And we know that we have to do a better job. So I just want to make sure that you knew that and I will be supporting this this package tonight. Thank you, Councilwoman Shephard. Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. I think it is very impressive that so many of you have come representing different interests and all coming to the same conclusion. And for that reason, I'll start with the punch line. If this is what you want, this is what I'll vote for. On the other hand, I think the parking reduction is a big, big mistake. And I know that my other colleagues on this council who have great faith that public transit will solve the problems, and I know that Councilwoman Sussman and Council and Rob are working on alternative methods such were mentioned our first speaker. I mean people are trying to be creative but I do not believe the kind of reduction that you have asked for and that you want will be solved in any way by public transit or creative transit. And so I would say it's with a heavy heart that I give you what you want. I will. Thank you. Councilwoman Fox McKinney. Hello. Thank you, Mr. President. I did not expect to be following that. I, I wanted to, first of all, thank my colleague, Councilwoman Robb, for a lot of her leadership, sometimes quiet and sometimes forceful. And, you know, this area of town is one that I think everyone has some nostalgic connection to. Right. And what I found fascinating when many of us were elected to office in 2011, was how we had to come to terms with our nostalgia about Cherry Creek versus what was really going on in the ground. And it took some of those tours from the bid and the forming the business alliance was just forming and getting itself organized at that time and just noticing how many really vacant spaces there were and the, you know, split levels. I don't know the technical term, but the split levels with the steps down and just realizing, you know, as a parent of a one and a half year old at the time, how I didn't use any of those because I had a stroller, much less, you know, someone with a mobility disorder, disability. And so I think that you all and I, you know, I credit the business community, I think, for starting that conversation with us and the council. And I think that was in some ways the start of this zoning, which is the idea that if you love it, how do you let it evolve and how do you let it grow and how do you come to terms with the fact that it has to change to survive? And I think that that was a really hard process. And I think there were fits and starts. But but I really do believe that what has been described and what you all shared, having gone through, was really a process of really coming to terms with the idea that this is the future and it may not be perfect , but that allowing it to grow and allowing to change the boundaries a little bit is the best hope for that Cherry Creek in its next iteration. It'll look different than our nostalgic memories, but it'll also have potential to really survive and grow. And I think that daytime population the other thing I want to say is I know that it was really hard for folks to see some of the individual zoning laws come forward. But the time that it took you to get through this process, I really I fear for what it would have happened if we had stopped all development during that time. You know, it's hard to get financing. It's hard to get these projects off the ground. And so I think that this is a pinnacle now, this area rezoning. But I also think that it was a really important catalyst to see those early projects go through as difficult as that was. So. So I think that there was a big team effort here on a lot of areas, some folks continuing to move forward with the market while this major process went forward. And and I think that that just deserves a lot of credit and a little reflection. And so congratulations. And to all of you who spoke tonight and to especially Councilwoman Robb for her leadership. Well done. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Kenney, do we have any other comments from members of council? All right. We're going to roll call on 764, the text amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call. Rob. I. Shepherd. I. Susman. Brown. I fight. I can eat. Lemon. Lopez. Monteiro. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Councilwoman can each. Madam Secretary, please both of you announced the results. To advice. To advise 764 has been placed upon final consideration and does pass. Councilman Fons, will you please put 765 on the floor? Certainly, Mr. President, under the council, Bill 765 is placed upon final consideration and do pass it. It has been moved and seconded. We're done with comments, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Rob Shepherd, Susman Brown Fats. I can eat lemon. Lopez All right. Monteiro Nevett I. Ortega. Mr. President. I. Kathryn Lopez. Madam Secretary, please close the vote and announce the results. 1212 By 765, the zoning map amendment has been placed upon final consideration and does pass. One Free Adjournment amounts announcement on Monday, November 3rd, 2014. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 708, approving a proposed First Amendment to the intergovernmental agreement between the

A resolution approving a proposed Master Purchase Order between the City and County of Denver and Stone Security, LLC for High Activity Location (HALO) camera maintenance and installation. Approves a Master Purchase Order with Stone Security for $1,440,000 and for three years with two possible annual renewals through 11-30-2026 for High Activity Location (HALO) camera maintenance and installation citywide (SC-00006334). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-6-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-26-22.

DenverCityCouncil_05162022_22-0120

Ten Eyes. Resolution 22, Dash 479 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Resolution 120 on the floor for adoption. Of the Resolution 20 20120 be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved. Thank you for the second comments by members of Council. Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you. I called this off to be in consistency with the community's Reimagining Policing Task Force. It was studied that there is little to no value to these investments on surveillance in our city, and it was part of the recommendations to decrease the amount of surveillance happening in our city. And so I will be a no on this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Council member State Abarca. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I had occasion to be at a luncheon over the weekend with one of our members of our prosecutor team over in the district attorney's office. And I brought this up. These are the Halo cameras, the high activity location cameras. And we are living at a time where recently our legislature mandated that body worn cameras on law enforcement officers be used be worn and used. So to be saying that we don't find video to be useful, I think is not it's not a in itself a useful statement. What what the prosecutor told me was that she had had cases where a halo camera was absolutely essential in a lot of cases where the Halo cameras pick up crimes. It provides evidence when witnesses are reluctant to come forward for one reason or another. It also allows Denver police to solve crimes in real time when when a crime in progress can be seen on a Halo camera and it can be tracked from one location to another. It's incredibly useful. And so for that reason, and generally for the reason that body worn cameras, halos and other cameras, even on private businesses, have proven very successful in in resolving crime and solving and providing evidence. I think it's essential that we pass this. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call on resolution 22, dash 120, please. Torres. I see tobacco. Clark, I. Flynn. All right. Hanes i. Cashman. I. Kenny Ortega Sawyer. I. Black I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results one day. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes Resolution 20 2-1 20 has passed. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Hines, will you please put Council Bill 401 on the floor for final passage.

Recommendation to request City Manager to enter discussions with LA County to partner on establishing a reward of no less than $25,000 for information leading to the arrest of Octavio Montano Islas.

LongBeachCC_03152022_22-0305

Motion is carried. Seven zero. Thank you. Item 21 with. Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson, Councilwoman Allen. Councilmember, your UNGA. Recommendation to request city manager to enter discussions with L.A. County to partner on establishing a reward of no less than 25,000 for information leading to the arrest of Octavio, Montano is less. Thank you. Take it from here. I'm introducing this motion. We had a tragic circumstance two weeks ago in my district. We lost two members of our community to a hit and run. 42 year old Jessie Palacios and three of Samantha Fields. It's a deeply heartbreaking circumstance. At the request of the community and the family, I am advancing this request for our city to formally request to partner with L.A. County on establishing a reward of no less than $25,000 for information leading to the arrest of several months of Huntley's list. And I'm happy to make this motion in your hand up for a second. Councilman Allen. Okay, Counsel. Now our second. Anything. Yeah. I just. I just wanted to say that I know how important it is as a former police officer to have these rewards, to get people to come forward that has any information. And I just appreciate you leading on this item. Thank you. Thank you. Any further council deliberation? Any public comment on this? If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on item 21, please line up at the podium. Or if you're attending, virtually, please use the raise hand feature. Seen. And that concludes public comment. Fantastic. Will cover. District one. My district to. I District three i. District four. I. District six i. District eight. I. District nine. I motion is carried seven zero.

Recommendation to receive and file a staff report on Equal Employment Opportunity Plan and 2017 Workforce Gender, Age, and Ethnic Diversity Report. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11142017_17-0974

Did you want to do 21 unfinished business? Yes. Item 21 Report from Human Resources Recommendations Receive and file a staff report on Equal Employment Opportunity Plan and 2017 Workforce, Gender, Age and Ethnic Diversity Report Citywide. Thank you, Mr. West. Ms.. Mr. Vice Mayor, council members on the city of Long Beach is greatest assets are our employees, and we take great pride in supporting the highly productive, innovative and caring and customer oriented workforce that we have. So I'm going to turn this over. To our human resources director, Alex Vasquez. Who's going to give us our EEO plan and diversity report. Alex. Good evening, City Council members. This report here is a report that was requested by the City Council on the city's Workforce Diversity. And tonight, we're also presenting the EEO plan report that details a comparison of the city's workforce against the standard relevant labor market benchmark and also similar agencies. These reports build on the city's commitment to EEO principles, and the objective of these reports is to evaluate the city's workforce data and maximize our diversity enhancing programs and activities. We'll do it. So as indicated tonight, we have two reports. The EEO plan covers full time employees, details the comparison of the city's workforce against the census data, specifically the relevant labor market. And one of the key findings is that the city's minority workforce exceeds this benchmark in all EEO categories except for sworn and crowd. The diversity report covers all city employees, including full time, part time and seasonal employees. It contains summary statistics based on gender, ethnicity, age and salary. It also includes a review of aggregate civil service applicant flow data. And the main key finding is that the city's gender and ethnic demographic compare favorably to other similar agencies. I'd like to introduce two of my staff members that assisted in putting putting these reports together. And they're also going to give a presentation. So Christina Keisling is our new human resources officer who's over our EEO program, yield training program. And she's going to cover the EEO plan. And Elizabeth Cagliostro put together the diversity report, and she's going to give her summary of that report. Good evening, Vice Mayor, members of the City Council for the EEO Plan. This was our report that provides an in-depth comparison of the city's workforce compared to the relevant labor market data. And it serves as a tool to identify possible barriers to the participation of women and minorities in all levels in the workforce. As a brief history of our EEO plan with City Council in 2008 in 2011, the Council reviewed the EEO plan report and adopted a resolution committing the city to a policy of nondiscrimination and equal employment in all hiring activities, and referred the proposal to the proposed EEO plan to the Human Resources and Civil Service for review. Some of our key findings, as stated by Alex for the plan, is that we've made significant improvement in minority representation in the civilian workforce. There are some areas that do require attention and improvement, such as our. Representation of minorities in fire and police and our. Female representation in traditionally male dominated fields such as maintenance, skill, craft and sworn protective services. To briefly take you through some of our accomplishments for our racial, ethnic minority workforce. And 2014, we were about 38% for our officials, administrators, and in 2016, we were able to exceed the relevant labor market benchmark by reaching 44% for all civilian positions. So these are areas that exclude sworn we were able to go from 56% in 2014 to 64% in 2016. Once again exceeding the relevant labor market. And looking at our female workforce. In 2014, we were 34% for our officials administrators, but we are now at 39.9%, exceeding the relevant labor market for all civilian positions. In 2014, we were at 33%, but we now are at 45%, which is just a 10th of a percentage point shy from reaching the relevant labor market. Comparing ourselves to other cities, we were able to determine that in terms of gender when compared to the city of Los Angeles, Sacramento in Oakland, the city of Long Beach ranks second in terms of our ethnic minorities. We ranked third in comparison to the other workforces. And so at this time, I would turn over into L.A., who will go over the diversity report. That I got a topic that ranks back in making it look like mayor. Vice mayor and members of the city council. At this time, I would present to you the key. Findings and highlights. Of the 2017 Diversity Report. This analysis is based on a snapshot in time of the Long Beach workforce as of December 31st, 2016. The diversity report. Provides summary data citywide. And by department, and it is broken down by gender, age and ethnicity. There are about 5600 employees in the city and the majority are in classified positions. The diversity. Report contains a comparison of salary. Between men and women. As well as in terms of age and ethnicity. The pay gap between men and women is similar to other public agency agencies, which is in part due to historically lower female. Representation. In higher paying occupations such as sworn. Officials and. Skilled craft. First we have here are gender. Demographics of the city wide workforce. Again, this includes full time and part time seasonal as well as classified and unclassified. Which is one. Of the key differences in this data versus the EEO. Report, which is specific. To full time permanent. Employees only. We found that 61% of our workforce. Is male and 38% is female. We also found that the highest. Representation of. Females is found in the 0 to $60000 income. Bracket, and the representation of females decreases for higher income brackets. In terms of age. We found that over 50% of our. Workforce is over the age of 40. Which is the age at which. Individuals become. Part. Of a protected age class. And we also found that. About 18% of our workforce is at or near retirement age. Which is important to. Keep in mind when we think about developing. Strategies for succession. Succession planning. We found that younger. Employees tend to fall within the lower income brackets, and more seasoned employees tend to fall within higher income brackets as a result of experience and education, for example. In terms of race and ethnicity. We found that about 41% of our workforce is white and. 59% of our workforce is comprised of a different ethnic minority. Latinos represent. 31% of. Our ethnic minority workforce and. They are followed. By Asian and blacks up 14%. We found that the largest. Representation of ethnic minorities is found in. The 0. To $60000 income bracket at about 67%. And that this number decreases as the income goes up. We also found that the largest. Ethnic minority representation in the highest income bracket is by Latinos at about 18%. Followed by blacks who. Represent about 18% of the highest income bracket. I talked to. Based on this analysis and our findings, we have identified. Preliminary. Areas in which we can improve with regard to gender, age and ethnicity. In terms of the wage, wage gap. We did an analysis of the city of the city, white average salaries by gender inclusive of all classifications. And that revealed that in terms of. Average salaries, women. Salaries are $0.81 on. The dollar, on the dollar compared. To white males. In order to address this pay gap. We can begin by. Increasing female representation in higher pay classifications. Including sworn positions and. Also in management. With regard to age. As previously mentioned, 18% of our workforce is at or near retirement age. As such. It is important to increase support of succession planning. And training programs for current and prospective employees. Lastly, with regard. To ethnic and. Racial diversity. It is critical for us as an agency to increase targeted support and recruitment. Of ethnic minorities for employment at all levels. So in summary, some of the EU strategies that we're taking to address underutilization is leveraging technology and social media to streamline the process and create innovative ways to reach and communicate with potential candidates. We're also increasing transparency in our recruitment efforts to make sure that our applicants have access to information, whether it be through social media, our social media presence, or our websites. And we've collaborated with civil service to have a unified place where all applicants can get information regarding job opportunities. We're also developing training opportunities and career career advancement programs that help retain and train our workforce. And we're also supporting initiatives, projects and groups that work to advance diversity in the workplace by fostering cooperation, acceptance and transparency. Some of our notable accomplishments to date include encouraging all city departments to utilize Internet based job boards, such as jobs available, indeed idealistic boards and so on, to post jobs for higher visibility. We're also utilizing a Fuze executive fellow to conduct a top bottom review of our selection and recruitment processes, including civil service and on civil service to assist us in developing some strategies to streamline our process and make it more available to a diverse candidate pool. We're also increasing our presence in social media such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram and other platforms again to increase our recruitment pool and market the city of Long Beach as an employer of choice. We've also implemented a free, free email subscription service link Albee that allows interested party parties to receive job alerts or alerts for job openings . We've also migrated to an online based application system that creates greater visibility, allows applicants to apply easily, and allows also the city to screen applicants in a more much more expedited fashion. And we're also streamlining the application process through the use of computerized testing systems. And this is being spearheaded by the civil service there, using items such as Wonderlic Montage and other systems to expedite our testing process. So these are some of the things that we're working on. And at this point, we'd like to take any questions, if you have any. Thank you, Councilmember Yolanda. Thank you, Mary. And I want to thank Alex for her report as well as her staff. So things are just tied up now. Real quick, the equity first initiated the request to do this report. It was to get a picture of where we're at as a city in terms of our diversity and our hiring practices. And this this report certainly points that out. I had a meeting with with Alex. We did discuss some of the concerns that I have about our diversity and our efforts in that area. One of the things that you'll notice on page, in that last page, that the database, the back and that that that page 12, you'll notice that a lot of the stuff that's there is what I call passive recruiting. It's put the onus on people who have access to the Internet to get an application, to get a job description, to apply and then get a notification as to whether they qualified or not. And then eventually, at the end of the road, they come in for an interview and either get selected or not. So one of the things that I brought up was the fact that this is a passive recruiting effort. Many of you, if you don't already know that I worked for the city for 28 years to 16 of those years were in the civil service department as the recruitment officer for the city. I want to say a flat out straight up. There's nothing that succeeds more in recruiting people than pressing the flesh, then being where they were. The recruiters or the applicants are you. We go to we visit classes, you go to colleges, you go to community based organizations. You go anywhere where there's a potential for hiring people or recruiting people. There's also made emphasis that I had at the time that I was there was police and fire recruits. Nothing was more successful than being able to go and visit a police academy somewhere. There's a few here locally. Real Handle is is a big recruiting recruiting station where people go there to get training and police efforts. Santana has another one. And we would visit those places. And they also got to go up and down the state because we weren't getting enough applicants to come in and join the police department. This era that we're in is providing special challenges because of the targeting that is happening out there with recruit and in response to public safety concerns, police and fire being under the gun and literally in regards to the job. And so there might be some apprehension, if you will, of people wanting to apply. So it's one of the things that I think is important, that when we are out there looking for people to apply for jobs, that they see people who are actually on the job and can ask them some questions in regards to how the job is working for them. What is the take questions related to what do they do on a daily basis, that type of thing? Well, when you have recruit pass a recruiting efforts like this that's on line and you don't talk to anybody, he's like, Well, I'd like to be a police officer, but they don't know what I mean. They have no clue as to what the job entails. And that's why I'm always I've always been a very strong proponent of having an actual recruiting team, if you will, that actually goes out and talks to people and and provides an opportunity for individuals to ask questions about the job itself. Now, I know I might be talking a lot right now about police and fire, but that's also true for vacancies in the professional ranks. It's also true for positions in in our professional ranks and our technical ranks, such as are engineers and and other professional in the trades and professions. So what I would like to see is, is a greater and stronger commitment towards recruiting. And I've said it before, if you don't get them at the front end when they apply, you're not going to get them in the back end when we do hiring. You saw that statistic up there at our page on page nine, if you could put it back to page nine where you see ethnicity and you'll see that whites, you Americans. Are the ones that are selected at the higher rate of any other ethnic group. I think that that American Indian statistic is got to be wrong. 30% Native American. I've never seen a number that I. Didn't know that number. That's got to be wrong. That's crazy. It's 30 people. 30 people. Okay. Well. Okay. So 30 people are in 0%. Okay. And I get it. Yeah. Thank you for the clarification. I read it wrong. If you start. But anyway, as it's really clear here is that, you know, still white Americans are higher at a higher rate than any other group. Now, why is that? There's something going on there. So we're still being challenged in in terms of what we're doing with recruiting and getting people to apply. And so I would like to see that, you know, we reinstitute a recruiting effort, a strong recruiting effort team, whether it's in civil service or H.R. or a combination of both, I think is a is is appropriate now in this day and age where we're being challenged to really meet our diversity needs. In addition to my discussion with with Alex. I just learned that there's a new way of identifying diversity in the RLM. For me, when I was back in the day, it was the SSA, the Service Metropolitan Service Area or something like that. But it's not changed to to RLM where it's, you know, that is great. So I'm looking at this document and I see it as a good first start of, of trying to identify where we're at as a city in our diversity. I would like to recommend that we get this report on a yearly basis to see how we're doing using this as a baseline at this point. I know there's there's been other reports in the past, but we haven't seen one in Barry in a very long time. So I'm going to start with this one because it's a new format. We've got a new staff. It's a it's a different way. And we've got a new way of determining our what's the the county's and the city's diversity and how we compare with with those areas. So I would like to see that come back every year. In terms of that, would I also like to see is there is no report here that includes our management team. How are we doing with our our city, our managers, our department heads, our ales and bureau managers, anything anyone who's in the EEO category, EEO being the management level of salaries. There's nothing here on that. So I would like to see that included as well and how we we how we rank in those in those regards. What I also would like to see is, is a some kind of plan. What's our plan for recruiting? What's our plan for improving diversity? What's our recruiting plan for when we recruit for managers, for department heads? I've never seen any any of those. So I think it's important for us to know what are our efforts that just a passive like we did right here, you put it out there in the air and put it in jobs available, put it in Incirlik or whatever those other platforms are. That's not enough. I think we need to have people out there pressing the flesh, talking to people and recruiting them here. And that's especially true when it comes to our recruitment teams. Now, another thing that I that I want to emphasize is, are the civil service departments very small? They have a few analysts to handle the whole city, 5000 employees, while maybe 3500, something like that of classified employees. And when we when we have this kind of we don't have a recruiting plan in how to change that, change our diversity. So I think it's important that city departments become part of the solution here. I would love to see. And your city manager, we could we could talk about this off line at another time. But I would like to see each department include a testing and recruiting plan in their departments budgets, because a big part of our departments is personnel. I mean, work when we talk about a city agency and what they do, it's all about people. It's people. It's people serving, serving people. We serve our residents by providing them with water. We provide we serve our residents by fixing their sewage. We. We provide we serve our residents by protect, by protecting them with police and fire. And we also protect our residents by making sure that there's adequate services and whatever they need streets, streetlights, sidewalks, you name it, they're all taken care of by people, people we recruit, people we test the people we hire. So it's extremely important that we look at how we reach out to the individuals to work for the city. And we're back in the day. Used to be the dream of people to get a city job because you got benefits, you got seniority, you get the pensions, you get dental, medical, all that. Thank you, CalPERS. I'm retired now. They get around to that, which is good for me and others. But the point is, is that when you can bring that back, bring that back again, we bring it back, bring pride back into being a city employee where you can get a good salary, a good job. And it's something that you that a person can point to, even if you wear a little emblem right here with its public works, water, gas, whatever, it's a sense of pride. And I know that many times residents, constituents might look at those individuals with a with a special or maybe with a jaundiced eye when they're taking a break lunch. You know, it's a fishbowl. Obviously, we are city employees are looked at differently when they're doing a job. When you see a working crew of gas department employees looking at fixing a pipe and you see five people there, why does it take five people to fix a pipe? Well, each one has a role. Same thing that I always get is like, why did it take ten police units to handle a pulling over a kid on a bike and you have ten police units there? Well, each one has a role. So and that's that's what's not understood. So I'm going to get off my soapbox at this point and just note that we need to improve our diversity. We need to change some of these numbers, especially in the professional ranks, as well as on our our public safety ranks. And if you take a closer look, you really look at it with a with a fine tooth comb. You're looking at the fact that many of our diversity are at the lower level salaries. Your refuge collectors are parking control checkers. They're not at the higher paying wages. And we need to change that. And the way to do that is making sure that we have a recruitment plan. And it's also that it comes from the top. It comes from the top getting our department heads to embrace diversity, to keep that in mind that there is a group of people out there that deserves a shot and a chance at getting a job with the city. So with that, I want to do it open. I see a couple of my colleagues when I make some comments, but this is a good start and I and I hope that we're able to continue this and maybe next time, this same time next year, we could get another report. And this time we might be able to include management as well and as well as some strategies on how we're going about recruiting more people of diverse of diverse backgrounds into the city. Thank you. Thank you, Professor. You mean Councilmember? You ran good. I'll say, Mr. City Attorney. Let's start right now. An ordinance about a noise budget for the city council will just take the model from the airport noise bucket. Well, I'm joking. I'm just. He's got to get a word. Bucket. That's not right. A comment bucket. Against the lawyers. It discriminates against the lawyers. I think we'll get a pat on the back, you. Know, but I'm an English major, so really words are my thing. Thank you, Councilmember Councilwoman Gonzalez. Good, because I'm a political science major. How about that? Councilmember Wodonga, thank you for bringing this forward. I know this was a great item and thanks to h.R. And Civil Service for putting this together and it it really refreshed, you know, my thinking about what we're doing here and I really appreciate the work that's been put into this and a few things that I picked out as I looked at this and things that I think we need to dig a little bit deeper on. My first question was, I believe the very the original item included veterans and individuals with disabilities. Is that correct? I thought it included that. And then I also I think at that meeting I included an option for us to explore individuals that are LGBTQ. Yes, the original motion did include those items and we reported in the. Right. To form for update that we don't presently collect data on disability and LGBT data for from our city workforce or job applicants so that that information was not included in. This report. Okay. That's right. And are there any ways so under the EEOC, their website actually states that there are some pre-employment inquiries in and this is specific to disabilities, but perhaps there could be some for other demographics. Basically, after making a conditional job offer, an employer may ask disability related questions as long as all individuals are asked the same questions. So I'm wondering if that could be included going forward so we can collect that data. So we can certainly look at that. One of the concerns we have, though, with the the definition of disability is so broad that it would include a large number of individuals. We'd also have to look into whether or not we could request that data and whether or not it would have to be on a volunteer basis for current city employees and just in my experience in H.R. over 26 years plus. I'm not I'm not aware of an agency that collects that type of data from their employees or job applicants. And I think there might be concerns that that data would be used to make employment related questions. So it's definitely something, I think that we would need to work with the city attorney's office with and maybe look at some best practices, but we can certainly take a look into that. Great. I think if we're able to get some best practices and maybe bring that back in A to from for at some point, you know, just to see if that's something we can do. And then I have seen there's two demographics that kind of struck me, and it was women, of course, and African-American employees. And for women, I see the pay gap. We have the report that contains a comparison of salary between men and women. And so it's great that we have that, you know, a dollar to $0.81 is the ratio. I'm wondering if we could dig a little deeper into, you know, what type of demographic of women. And I think we may be able to see that here. But are do we have any other explicit data that includes minority women or women of not just minority women, but white women, everyone, and what they are currently being paid relative to their male counterparts? So we don't have that currently is certainly the date now that we have this data, something certainly we can look into. I would add that the pay gap data is something that a number of agencies are looking at. We did look at the state of California and the city of L.A. as well to look at what their benchmarks are. One of the things I will note is that the city's workforce is heavily male dominated, and that's true of other municipalities as well. And it's largely because of the occupations that we have in the city workforce, such as police and fire sworn, also the blue collar and maybe engineering type positions that traditionally have been more populated by males. So again, that's certainly something that will be paying attention to and looking at. But that pay gap is, as I indicated, largely attributed to to the occupations that the city has, and then also the fact that some of those occupations are traditionally heavily male dominated. Great. Well, I would say two things and then thank you for that is absolutely as you mentioned, I know we're going to do a lot of work in trying to recruit more women in these positions, especially engineering and tech and innovation, which I see is male dominated, public works, zero out of 23 women are well, there's no women in public works management whatsoever out of 23. I see that. And so the representation, but also just the pay equity, I think we could find out some some demographics to see where we're at with women just in general relative to their male counterparts, parts there. And then lastly, with African-American employees, I see it seems like it's 0 to 1000. So either high, you know, management level or, you know, very low ranking or low pay. So I would like to see some some more diversity in that sense where, you know, we see representation all across the board in various in various departments. And and so that is what I'd like to see, too. And then I think lastly, I think that was those were all my questions, but I really appreciate the work. I hope to get in for more, more information back that digs a little deeper, as I mentioned. And hopefully we can get some more information to make us a little bit more innovative when it comes to hiring. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. Yes, thank you. I want to say how much I appreciate the report. I know that the more we can based off user numbers to base our hiring practices, the better off will be. I think there's a lot of numbers in here and I I'm sorry I didn't look beforehand. Did we do all of us in-house or did we hire somebody to work on this? Yes, we did it all in-house. Okay. So I appreciate all the numbers that have been included here and just a couple that I want to highlight for the public that I know are at home watching because you get the emails looking at the last ten years and our female representation of by job category really hasn't changed. And so in the last ten years, even though we've had these conversations at the federal level and the state level around equity and making sure that we have access for women to other positions, those numbers really kind of stayed the same. And the fact that we have office and clerical, 81% of women are in those positions where we have for skilled craft, 2.6%. And to your point, Ms.. Vasquez, I think, you know, saying that the reason why it is this way is because women traditionally don't get those jobs for council. It is our job, I think, to start creating some policies, to start shifting that dynamic instead of just saying, well, women don't traditionally take these jobs. So that's our excuse for not being able to have an equitable and equal workforce. And so down the road, and not necessarily today, but I would like us to start having a conversation around what other municipalities and what other organizations do to try to encourage women into nontraditional women's roles. I know the Building Trades has a big program LBC, Cal State, Long Beach. How are we really looking at the numbers and the population in our city and having a targeted plan to support education in our city to get a pipeline into our city? Because if we don't create those pipelines, we're not going to see this this change. We can get a report every year, but we've got to be able to do that as a council. So I think my colleagues, for bringing this forward, you know, and I hope that we continue to do work on this. I do want to raise one other presentation that was presented to me by our Office of Equity for King County, their Office of Equity and Social Justice Strategic Plan. They have a presentation that shows what their population is in King County and then how they've been able to shift their hiring demographics to almost mirror exactly what their demographics are. And so as we move forward for the next report, we'll hopefully give you guys some direction between now and then to work with the Office of Equity and possibly having some hiring practices and pipeline practices to get us to a more equitable city. So thank you guys again for all the work. There's a lot of awesome numbers in here and more to dig in on. Thank you. Thank you. And before we go to the next speaker, we're going to call for public comment on this items and any public comment now will be the time. Very briefly, it's a reference to this was about six months ago. When you take the beginning of this meeting we had earlier on, we spent considerable time dealing with hospitals, getting people to hospitals care. When you take your kid to the hospital. You could give a rat's rear end what color, what sex, what country that person is. What you want is the best available person, period. And that applies to any job. Whether it be in the city, the state or a hospital. Anything less than that is politicking. Looking out for votes again. When you take your kid to the hospital, you could care less what color, what sex, what gender the person is. And that's the same thing that should be applied. When hiring anybody in any company or any city. Thank you. No further public comment will bring it back behind the rail. Councilmember Ranga. Yeah. During my presentation, I failed to recognize that we have Candice Taylor, the director of civil service in the audience. And I wanted to give her an opportunity if she had anything to, to add to the report. I know that many years ago there was a budget for recruiting and that included advertising and ability to go to job fairs and schools and that kind of activity. So I'd like to give her an opportunity to also chime in on the report. Absolutely. You have the floor. Is this on? Yes. Yes, it is. Just a couple of things I wanted to highlight. I think in general, stepping back, big picture, one of the things we need to do as a city is is just to highlight and promote the trades in general. We over the past ten years have really kind of pushed to our youth and those coming up behind us, the importance of education, but at the expense of trade occupations. And I think education is great, but not at the expense of choosing certain kind of occupations. And so I think there needs to be a push toward highlighting the trades and in so doing, using. I agree and appreciate the comment that you made. About our small team. And I think that we need to really partner with the the with the departments. We provide a general recruitment strategies for across the city. It would be really nice to be able to partner in doing videos, maybe focus groups to meet with certain with certain people to see if we can tweak the recruiting message to attract a certain demographic, to highlight partnering with the departments, to highlight a certain type of culture that might be within their department. We have tried to augment the classification specifications with an inside view, interviewing employees about the work that they do. So I think if we can find creative ways to broaden that and partner with departments in highlighting stories and highlighting the employees that perform the work, that's definitely something that I'm interested in doing and in trying to engender support from other departments around that area. I think it would also be helpful to have training on implicit bias, our aios and those people who make the hiring decisions. That's something that could probably be a very good strategy for us to implement. And and then another thought I had is just maybe implementing and partnering with h.R. On some employee referrals, something that might have some incentives. Oftentimes, people know people who would be great to work for the city. So I think that. Would be a good strategy as well. We we have typically we have. A. We do have social media that we've used one of the areas where I think we could expand. We have a presence on on LinkedIn, but that's one of our weaker platforms. So one of the strategies I've thought of doing is expanding what we are. We use Facebook, we use Twitter, we do some stuff on Instagram. But definitely broadening that social platform and using LinkedIn more than we have in the past is another strategy that I've considered using. Alex mentioned that we're using more online, we're doing a proctor testing. I think anything we can do to streamline a process to make us easier and accessible is definitely something that is going to help. But then also making sure that we're resource for those people who may not have access and just knowing that people can come into our department, we have kiosks and we have computers and we can certainly provide elbow to elbow help for someone who may be a little bit more challenged with making an online application, I think that's something important for us to communicate and get out there, that there are resources within our department to help people who might be challenged with the technology. That's about it. Thanks. Thanks. Thank you, Candice, for your comments on that. One of the other one of the last things that that this brings up right now, you just reminded me of it, is that sometimes a process just takes too long. I mean, it went from a point of submitting an application to hire can take six months or more. Also when you get people on an analyst our you still have eligible this or bandit list but if you have that that takes even longer because it's the life of a list is three years or so so we might lose we lose people when we the longer we take in the selection process, the likelihood of somebody not being available for hire, the one that you want, that that top candidate will probably move on and take another job elsewhere. So we need to look at that as well in terms of trying to. Make the prices a little easier as we're trying with the with the online applications. But in terms of contacting people and making sure that they're still interested in working for the city and making that process a little quicker in terms of from up to the point of hire. So we need to to address that issue as well. And finally, it's it's always about the money. And I know that we've been challenged over the years. And in terms of where we stand with salaries across across the board, we're always looking at, you know, police and fire, trying to put them at the median in terms of where they are with salary compared in comparison to other jurisdictions. But I think some of our professional ranks are at the same in the same boat in terms of not being as competitively paying as maybe other cities are. So we also have to look at that. I know that we had the A salary study done a few years back. I don't know what happened to that and where we stand citywide with salaries, including management professionals. So that may be something that we want to visit as well in terms of where are we standing with salaries , in terms of our competitiveness, with our our other our neighborhood agencies and neighborhood municipalities. So with that base where I want to go ahead and move that, we receive a pilot report. All right. So it's been moved and seconded. Members, please cast your vote. And a yes. Martin KASTE, thank you. We're going to call an audible. It's getting late. These are great presentations and we want to make sure they all have the respect they deserve. We have a really important we still haven't done a public comment and we still have quite a few items. One big presentation tonight was is the technology item, this item 29. And I know that it's an important item. We want to sink our teeth in, but it's about 30 slides and a lot of conversation. So will the council entertain a motion to continue that, continue that?

Amends Article II of Chapter 33 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding short term rental properties and adds sections providing the Department of Excise and Licenses authority to license and regulate short term rentals (rentals under 30 days) in the City & County of Denver. Public Comment Period: a) Introduction of the legislation. b) 15 minutes of public comment. c) Discussion. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Amends Article II of Chapter 33 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code regarding short term rental properties and adds sections providing the Department of Excise and Licenses authority to license and regulate short term rentals (rentals under 30 days) in the City & County of Denver. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-13-16.

DenverCityCouncil_06132016_16-0262

Thank you. Councilman knew. And the questions for 1839 will go to the last 1 to 62. Councilwoman Sussman, what would you like for us to do with this? Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to postpone final consideration of this companion bill to the concluded the conclusion of the public hearing this evening that's scheduled for the recess on counts about 261. I'll explain it after that. Got it. All right. Let's first get on the floor. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put 262 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 262 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Has been moved. Council need a second? Thank you. Moved in second. Councilwoman, suspend your motion to postpone. Thank you. Mr. President, I move that the final consideration of Council Bill 262 be postponed at the conclusion of the public hearing this evening, scheduled after the recess on Council 261. Council 261. There are two. There is this is a companion bill to that. There's a zoning bill and then there's an excise and license bill. So I want to postpone the excise and license bill until after the public hearing as well, so that the speakers will be allowed to speak both to the zoning bill and to the excise and license bill. That's why I'm asking for the postponement. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. It has been moved. And secondly, we got your comments and your other comments on the motion to postpone. CNN now, Secretary Roll Call. SUSSMAN Hi. Black Hi. Brooks Clark. Hi. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I gillmor. I. Cashman. Hi. Lopez. I knew. Mr. President. High Clerk. Got them. Madam Secretary, please cause a very nasty result. 11 Eyes, 11 eyes. Final Consideration Accountability 62 has been postponed until after the public hearing on Council Bill 261. That was all the bills that are called out. So all of the bills for introduction are ordered published and we're ready for the block votes. Councilman Gilmore, would you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in a block? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted in a block. One moment after clear something. Mm hmm. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And they are 382 417 398 404 ten 390 3402404405 365 391 409 419 and that's it. Thank you. Has been moved and seconded. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Flynn I. Gilmore. I Cashman. Hi. Lopez. Hi. New assessment. Black Brooks. Clark. All right. Espinosa. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Now, Secretary, please go to the voting. And as a result, 11. ICE. Alumni. The resolutions have been adopted in a block. Councilman Gilmore, you please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for final passage in the block. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following bills be placed upon final consideration and do pass. 359 360. Three. 62. 363. 364. 313. 336. 374. 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. And three. 18. Yeah. You got them all. Thank you. Has been moved and seconded, seeing no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. Hi, Brooks. Hi, Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore, I Cashman. Hi, Lopez. Hi, new Susman. Hi. Mr. President. I my secretary please clothes very nice results. Lebanese 11 eyes. The bills placed on final consideration do pass in a block. Tonight we have a required public hearing on Council Bill 261, allowing short term rentals in the city and county of Denver and a one hour cursory public hearing on Council Bill 306 regarding sanitary sewage and storm drainage services charges. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must be must see the Council Secretary to receive a speaker card to fill out and return to her during the recess of Council. I once again remind the people in the stands we were not allowed to have people on the wall. So I please ask that you find a seat. And I also want to say we're going to have this front right for you, my right, your left reserved for our speaker. So that has to stay open. When I call speakers up, they can come up and sit there as we try to expedite the proceedings. All right, counsel, let's see if we take a we can get everybody signed up in 15 minutes. Oh.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Section 16.52.2360 relating to the designation of the property located at 141 and 143 East 10th Street as a historic landmark, read and adopted as read.

LongBeachCC_09082020_20-0842

Thank you. Next item, please. Communication from City Attorney. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to the designation of the property located at 141 and 143 East 10th Street as a historic landmark. Read and adopted as read. Okay. Can I get a motion, please? And a second. I have a motion and the second by comfort. You're in Pensacola by Councilmember Austin. Any public comment? No public comment on this item. Please cast your votes. Rural District one, High District two. District three. High District for. All. District five i. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

A bill for an ordinance designating certain property as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple, easement and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to properties as needed for the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Systems Project. Grants the authority to acquire through negotiated purchase or condemnation any property interest as needed for the construction of a detention area as part of the Platte to Park Hill 39th Avenue Greenway Stormwater Systems project including easement interests, access rights, improvements, buildings, fixtures, licenses, contract rights, permits, and other appurtenances located at 4141 East 35th Avenue in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-5-17.

DenverCityCouncil_01022018_17-1396

Okay. Now we're going back to 1396 city council members. Good evening, council members. I'm Jeff Steinberg. I'm director of real estate for the city in Kenya. Denver, good transition timing, Councilman Brooks. So the Land Acquisition. Ordinance. Is a common tool that the city uses for acquiring property and property interests to construct public projects. Recent scenarios where we've done this is for the National Western Center, for South Broadway, for federal and for the 39th Avenue Greenway portion of this project. It's the first step in allowing the city to work with the property owners to access land for the purpose of the detention project. The city intends to follow the Uniform Relocation Act as a guideline. There aren't federal moneys in this project, so we're not required to, but that's what we have been using and will continue to use . It includes a process to ensure that the property owners and leasehold interests are fairly compensated and that will all be part of the upcoming negotiation process. The process will consist of the property itself has one legal address, so the property will be noticed. The detention area that is anticipated will be required is somewhere between 25 and 35 acres for the permanent easement aspect and then an additional 55 to 65 acres for temporary easement. So provided that the ordinance is passed, we will send the notice of intent to the property owner, engage an appraiser to come up with the values of each of the respective easements that are required. The entire golf course is going to be closed down for the duration of the project, which is anticipated to commence January of 19 and last basically to the end of the year and then go on. We see March 2020 as the anticipated completion and that is also looking at the timing of the reconstruction of the project to bring it back to a playable golf course. So the benefits this is relocation benefits, and that's ultimately the benefits that are going to be paid to bring the property back to being a playable golf course , will engage a golf course architect, will obtain bids to reestablish it as a golf course, develop a timeline for construction, and then determine what the damages is to all interested owners of the project. That's what we had for you today. And we're available for questions. Okay. No other material. Okay. All right. We have 26 speakers today. I'm going to call if you guys can go find another place to sit. Great. I'm going to call the first five speakers to keep us running pretty quickly. We are going to just ask these five speakers to come up. And as soon as they're done, we're going to ask the next five. So thank you. All right. Maggie Price, Deborah Montoya, Trina Moyer, Justin Feeder. And Jeff Rome. Romeo. Believe that's five. All right, Miss Price, you're a first. My name is Maggie Price and I live at 1465 Fillmore Street. Thank you for this courtesy, hearing and the opportunity to speak. In April of 2017, the Inter Neighborhood Cooperation Delegates voted for a resolution to encourage the city to acquire Park IL Golf Course if it became available and called upon the public officials of the city and county of Denver, quote, to commit to the preservation of Park Hill golf course and thereby prevent all or any part of it from being developed other than for Parkland. In November of 2017, and after an announcement of acquisition of the course, the IMC delegation again approved a second resolution that in part called upon the public officials of the city and county of Denver, one, to amend the proposed contract between Denver and Clayton regarding the Park Hill golf course so as to remove Clayton from being the lead of the visioning master plan. Process and to delete from the proposed contract reimbursement to Clayton for any participation it may choose chose to undertake in the planning process and to to commit again to the preservation of Park Hill golf course property as parkland open space. If the opportunity arises again to purchase this property, I urge you to keep this land is open space park land as an investment in the health of our city and a rare gift to its citizens. Many people have commented that the land's close proximity to rapid transit make it an ideal for development. However, its closeness to transit also provides a speedy means for our citizens to enjoy a large urban open space without having to go to the mountains. Please allow this land to remain cement free and to do what it can do best to provide green space for people to recreate, to absorb and filter water, and to assist in the mitigation of flooding. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Price. And I wanted to point out to folks speaking, just make sure you specify what Bill you're speaking on. So 1395, 1396 to park or the 39th Avenue Channel. Okay. And if you're speaking on both, you can say both. Ms.. Deborah Montoya. Good evening, Community. My name is Deborah Montoya. I live at 3924 William Street. I'm a lifelong resident of Curtis Park Call Community. My home immediately borders the proposed 39th channel slash Greenway. I was able to have myself appointed to the Community Working Group for planning and design on this greenway. The infrastructure change in our neighborhood was necessary to avoid flooding during massive storms, of which I have experienced many times. On the north side of 39th Street in designing, my emphasis was to secure that construction would mitigate any toxicity in the earth left behind by industry. And to secure that, the channel would be a beautifying, natural and serene addition to our community. I believe wholeheartedly that our working group accomplished this and that this Greenway will enhance our community with a beautiful natural environment, active amenities for all age groups to enjoy and create an infrastructure that will protect the neighborhood from flooding in the future. I fully support the construction of this greenway. Although I may not be able to enjoy it. The process as expected. Over time, the return of the angel population to the inner city has been met with new city investment. For myself, since December of 2015, my home has been threatened with eminent domain blight, blight designation and height rezoning that now invites high power developers and realtors to manipulate the market and homeowners to their advantage. This leaves me and others like me not knowing what the future holds. Even if I could get the best market price, I could never afford another home in my community. If I stay, could I pay the taxes? If I don't sell at the most opportune moment, might I end up this small home surrounded by high rises that would overshadow me and swallow me up as if I have gone through the process of finding my bearings in all of this and observing how the city planning committees work. Denver City Planning has no human component. Our council members seem disinterested and even dismissive in providing any help to residents or even listening to our concerns. Yet they seem very concerned with what is in the best interest of business and development and not the residential community, especially those who are poor, elderly and of course, people of color. There is no city agency. Or Council on Homeowners Rights and Protections from Abuse. Denver Planning works with numerous private businesses to accomplish their goals. They all get a piece of the pie, either payment directly from the city contracts, incentives or other compensation. Yet Denver Planning sees no need to address this human factor. If the city of Denver can pay bazillions of dollars to uplift every business partner in their plans, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to pay for at least a central help line. Is that too much to ask? No, it's not. So let me ask for more. Give us tax breaks so we can stay in our homes and continue to be the upstanding, contributing residents of our lifelong communities. And or supplement us like you supplement businesses so that we don't end up displaced and in poverty. Be accountable, Denver. Be accountable. Denver Planning. Be accountable, Mayor Hancock. Be accountable. Council. People must never tell you. How will you help this man? We cannot stop progress, Ms.. Montague. We will. Your time is a guarantee that this movement. Thank you with dignity. Thank you, Ms.. Montoya. Keepers, preservers. Ms.. Montoya, of this community. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Montoya. All right, Mr. Niemeyer. My name is Trina Moya. I'm a resident of the whole neighborhood. I'm speaking on 1396, I think the 33/9 Avenue Ditch. I just want to clarify, although I'm a member of the Neighborhood Association Board, the following comments are my own opinions. Well, I've been a resident of the Denver metro area for 32 years. I've only lived in coal for six years. I recognize I'm a part of the gentrification of coal and surrounding areas, and I stand here today and what I see as taking responsibility for my indirect role in bringing the type of development to the area that has resulted in projects like Plat to Park Hill. I was one of the community. Members who spoke to you. On December 18th about our concerns with potential environmental. Hazards along 39th Avenue, which has brought us to this courtesy hearing. I subsequently met with my neighbors to discuss which of the many points we wanted to stress tonight in our allotted 3 minutes that might persuade you all to hear us and grant our request to delay the approval of the SEMA contract until a full environmental risk analysis can be completed. The city has thousands of paid employees and contractors to call upon to defend their decisions. People who spend 40 or more hours a week preparing reports full. Of specialized data to justify those decisions. People whom the city can. Call forward as experts because they're paid as experts. Meanwhile, we, the citizens, must. Use the few hours we have free. Each week to wade through and decipher the technical information from those reports to do research and to attend a myriad of related meetings just to figure out what exactly is planned for our neighborhoods and how we may be impacted. It really feels like a David and Goliath scenario, but as one of my neighbors rightfully pointed out, the burden should not be on us to prove to you why this project should be put on hold until a full analysis is completed. The burden should be on you, the city representatives, to prove to us that we will be safe. Not to assure. Us with platitudes of we'll deal with any. Hazards as they arise, but to be able to say confidently with documented proof there is no risk. The ditch runs through the middle of a former Superfund site, but because it was paved over at the time of earlier remediation of nearby properties, we don't know for certain what lies below. And it has been omitted from the EPA's operating unit, one that surrounds it. The Opinion Soil Investigation Report states the number of samples collected in their analysis is representative of a small proportion of the material that will be included in the Plat Park Hill project and is a potential data gap. I've been aware of this project since it was first presented to us at the Kohl Neighborhood. Association meeting. In November 2015. Even though discussions and planning began months earlier, since then we have raised numerous concerns about the project, including the excavation of the 39th Avenue Ditch. As a resident of Cole, I feel like an afterthought at best. Or that I'm seen as a senior hysterical conspiracy theorist at worst. Our concerns and protests are a byproduct of a process that is being literally bulldozed through by an administration that appears beholden to developers before any others. So I ask you once again to please listen to us, to actually hear us, and to fulfill your responsibility to keep us safe. Thank you. Agree. Would you please stand? All right, Justin. Peter. Hi. My name is Justin Fighter. I live at. 1777 East. 39th Avenue. You pull your mike up so he can better hear you. You hear me now? Yep. I'm a board member of the Rock Drill Lofts. And pending everything this more I just said. And that the design of the 39th channel happens per the design that's been shown thus far that we approve the park and think it would be a great amenity for Cole. Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. Jeff Ramil. I ask anyone who is for saving the Park Hill golf course to please stand right now? My name is Jeff Romey. I'm a resident of the Overlook at Park Hill and I currently sit on our board. My wife and I have led the mass migration to Denver some five years ago in search of greater opportunity. We are blessed to call Denver our home and couldn't be happier with their choice to buy our first house in the north end of Dexter Court overlooking the Port Hill Golf Course. While it's clear we will be directly affected by any development of the park golf course, including the water detention plan on the northeast end of the property. I'm not here to talk about me. I'm not here to tell you. I'd like to continue to see the Rocky Mountains from my house or how I've been involved in a car accident on the corner of 35th and Colorado. Like many before me, due to the awful traffic conditions that already sit there. I'm here, though, to address a bigger issue that affects not just my neighborhood, but the community and the nation that surrounds it. And that is the issue of our physical and our mental health and the lack of spaces that allow adults to play. We already know that exercise is scientifically proven to reduce anxiety, stress and depression. We also know that being in nature leads to many physical and mental benefits. I don't need to throw those statistics out, but what you don't hear often is how adults, especially those living in big cities, lack access to spaces that provide opportunity for play . With City Park Golf Course. Closing Denver is slowly eliminating spaces for play. Not everyone can afford skiing and biking in the mountain. This amazing city, known for its outdoor beauty and active lifestyle, is the valuing how significant spaces that provide joy, energy and competition for adults really are. Play is more than about having fun. The state of social play brings us sanity. Play allows us to problem, solve, decompress and unplug from the screens and the stresses of our daily lives. It leads to higher productivity, lower anxiety, and simply are having a happier life. It enhances creative thinking and innovation. The Denver metro area has plenty of space for development, but not for open space. The Park Hill golf course is a direct reflection of the wonderful, diverse community that is Park Hill. While the golf course and banquet centers certainly need a major facelift and to be pulling in more money each year , the potential to make it a thriving community space is huge. It is a priceless sanctuary where people come to relax, vent, celebrate, practice, compete with themselves and strive to be better. Take away that space and you're taking away something sacred. We're quickly losing our connection with the Earth, the community, and the importance of play spaces to calm or busy minds and to let go in the warm sun to enjoy stunning snow, peak mountain views, crisp, fresh air, year round spaces that teach vision, confidence, action and follow through and consistency. Currently, I have a signed petitions circulating along with a nonscientific survey gathering all nearby residents that are simply against the development of this space. I'm proud to say that we've already already nearing about a thousand people against the development, and this is just after a month of circulation. The people want to be heard and they don't feel they are. This is my small way of providing a platform for them to voice their opinion without opening a can of worms with 100 different ideas of what to turn that land into. I'm on the front lines. I'm talking with the neighbors directly. I see the relief from the community gets from being out in the fresh air on real grass, not artificial. Mr. Roland, please keep one last outdoor playgrounds alive, because in this crazy, stressful world we live in, so buried in our phones. Your time for your time as. Never before has been more important for serve. Your Time is. I thank you for your time. Hey. So. So, listen, we're going to extend the time to make sure everybody gets in, but you got to at least be within the time monitors, right? So 3 minutes, please. Okay. We want to respect everybody's time. I'm respecting your time. We're going to call the next five up. Charlotte Brantley. Janet Feder, Pastor Dale Phillips. Becca Tur, Tallow. Sorry if I mispronounce your name. And Garrett Sullivan. All right. Ms.. Brantley, you're up. Good evening. Council President Brooks and members of the council. I'm Charlotte Brantley, President and CEO of Clayton Early Learning and I'm here to speak on 1396. The nonprofit that I lead helps ensure quality and effective early learning and care experience for some of the most vulnerable children in Denver. We are also the trustee of the George W Clayton Trust. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight about the L.A. Four, a portion of the property currently occupied by the Park Hill Golf Course. As you are aware, this this land has been an asset of the Clayton Trust since Mr. Clayton's death in 1899, and its use was changed from agriculture to golf. The city as then trustee of the trust in about 1930. At that time, golf play was seen as the best use of the land to generate revenue in support of the young children who are the beneficiaries of Mr. Clayton's trust. We have partnered with the city for many years, both in providing services to vulnerable children through the Head Start program and in managing this property to ensure it contributes to to ensure it continues to be leveraged in support of the beneficiaries of the trust, as Mr. Clayton envisioned. His assets would be used after his death. For several years, we have been aware of the city's need for land to solve the flooding that occurs in the Park Hill Basin. We and some of the families we serve have witnessed this flooding firsthand. In addition, we are aware that the northeast corner of the property is a natural low spot and water pools there every time the summer rains come. Therefore, we support this land acquisition ordinance. As the city moves forward with design of the stormwater facility. We ask that you keep in mind that the purpose of this property is to support the beneficiaries of Mr. Clayton's trust. As you know, we have been and will continue to be engaged in a community visioning process for potential future uses of this property. While the exact timing of any potential future alternative uses of the property is not presently known, we hope that the stormwater planning process will be such that future considerations of the highest and best use of the property as a trust asset will be kept in mind. We'd also like to ask that you continue that we continue to be involved in the input process for the stormwater planning. Thank you very much and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms.. Brindley. Janet Feder. Good evening. My name is Janet. I am speaking on Bill 1396. I live on Gilman Street, about two feet away from the proposed 39th Avenue Open Channel. Since I last spoke to you two weeks ago, I discovered that old maps of my neighborhood at the Denver Public Library reveal the empty paved lot paved over a lot. Next to my home there once stood a duplex built sometime around the year of construction of my own home in the 1890s when digging for the 39th Avenue Greenway begins and the pavement comes up. The Stone Foundation to that duplex and whatever else was paved over will need to be excavated one block to the east of me . The lot at the end of Williams there stood as my neighbor, Mr. Ed Armijo has repeatedly said, a gasoline filling station. Absent any evidence of its removal, the pavement comes up there. We expect to find a leaky leaded holding tank. Please hear me. It's not the presence of these things that trouble me. It's the absence of curiosity, investigation and transparency on the part of the EPA and the attendant unwillingness to advocate for the well-being of the coal community. That has me so concerned. What would that advocacy look like? It would look like the EPA reclassifying these lots as part of the new one or creating a new force specifically for these parcels along 39th Avenue that previously went unclassified and need to be treated as the paved over industrial and residential lots. They are they need to be tested for contaminants. Now their designation has changed and that land is going to become the 39th Avenue Greenway. The EPA needs to treat them with the same care they showed to residential yards and parks, quite simply because, as we're told, 39th Avenue is going to become a park. There is a shell game happening here. We can see it and we're trying to stop it because we all know who wins at Shell games. So who are we? We are citizens with careers in a broad variety of fields. We are parents and retired folk. We are the self-employed and people who work for other people. We have both growing and aging families who need us first. It took us a while to get up to speed with the reams of data pertaining to soil and water and chemical contamination and the processes of city and federal government. We made our discoveries in fits and starts. We forged our acquaintances with each other as we shared and pondered the information spooned out to us at monthly meetings. We stayed in touch. We grew stronger and smarter. Many of us now communicate several times a day. The people in my community are being treated disrespectfully. We are not a sleepy, impoverished community, happy for handouts. We are a coalesced group of concerned citizens who have found each other. We found experts themselves concerned and also experienced to advise us. All of us spend hours upon hours to understand what is happening around us, not paying a penny while we face off against omnipotent acting planners and powerbrokers, representatives of government and a Goliath sized project. We've concluded that absent a full environmental risk analysis of this project as required by federal law, neither US nor SEMA nor anyone else can know what we're in for continuing to proceed as both fiscally and environmentally irresponsible, we are asking that you protect us and make decisions in our best interest. We've caught you not doing that. We are here to hold you accountable to the people who elected you to office, who pay your salaries, who you promised to serve this better. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Pastor Dale Phillips. Councilman Brooks and to all the council persons present. Pastor Dale Phillips. I am the chairman of the Colorado Black Leadership Caucus, an organization that comprises about 15 major community organizations that are part of the African-American community. In the brief 2 minutes and 42 seconds that I have, I want to try to review three important points that I want to make in regards to support for Bill 1396. The first is I do have an affinity and support for what the Clayton College Project is trying to do and harnessing the best resources from this property to continue their work with the constituents in that community, namely families from impoverished families that are given an opportunity for early childhood education. As much as I am in support of that, that venue, I have even a greater ideal that concerns me even about the conversation that's taking place today. Which leads to my second point, and that's the argument regarding open space versus residential space, very easy for people who have a home to make a decision for people who don't have homes, to not have the opportunity to find residents in that particular part of our community, to be able to talk about open space versus residential space, I think is a a great overlook of one of the greatest challenges we have in the Denver community, and that's providing housing for people who need it. We don't need more open space. We need residential space so that those who are having to live in open space because they don't have a home can potentially find residences. So I think that's important for the council to consider. One of the opportunities engaging with the project with Clayton gives us at least the possibility of creating residential affordable housing for people in that community. Which leads to my last point. There have been conversations or even concerns about whether or not Clayton should be engaged with the city and trying to create this kind of partnership, which would only lead the other alternative to bring in an outside developer to try to coordinate what's what would be best placed there in that area. I want to be on record saying that if we have to choose between a partnership from. An outside developer or. The city, I am on board for working with the city because I feel as we are doing here tonight, we can hold you accountable for what we want to see happen in that quadrant of our city, to be able to bring what's needed a balance of residential property, a balance of open space, a balance of business space in that community. And we thank you for your support. All right, thank you, Pastor Doug Phillips. All right, Becca TARULLO. Oh, I'm sorry if I misspoke. It's very close and everybody makes this look really easy. So I'm just going to own. That. This is terrifying to me. So my name is Becca Turlough and I live in the Clayton neighborhood. I'm the vice president of the Clayton Registered Neighborhood Association. I also serve on the Park Hill Citizens Advisory Committee. So I'm speaking about both issues. The first one being with 13, she's me 1396. Clayton has been actively involved in that process with sorry Clayton neighborhood has been actively involved with the Clayton early learning process for over a year. We are very much in support of the build the city utilizing approximately 25 acres for permanent detention with the remaining area needed for temporary construction purposes. I really want to take an opportunity to note that Clayton Neighborhood is excited about the opportunity to partner on the prospect for how this land will be used strategically. I'm confident that early she's being Clayton early learning is providing a much needed high quality service to families in our neighborhood, but also to families outside of it. Are we doing her? I do encourage and ask for yes and support on that. 1395 is trickier. It's two things. Oh, I am nervous. I am so sorry. But so we do. We. I do want to say that we have definitely been invited to be a part of the process and the planning process with that from the get go. And the Stormwater Systems team has presented at Clayton meetings on multiple occasions and included our feedback as far as the stakeholder working group goes and we've been able to share our priorities for the new space. We also know that there's been intentions to build relationships with the affected businesses in the community. That said, our neighbors have done. So much work. Put in so much time and energy in researching this piece around the EPA, the safety and the security and the fact that we have neighbors who go to work every day, come home and take care of their kids, and are spending hours advocating, seeking data, seeking information to make sure this is safe, is something that should be should be paid attention to. And so while we really appreciate the process that's happened so far, I definitely agree that we need more data and more evidence and a better analysis to say that what's about to happen in coal is safe for the families and for the children who live in that neighborhood. And that's it. Thank you. Everyone's all right. All right. Great job. And to allow. All right, Garrett Sullivan. Good evening, counsel. My name is Garrett Sullivan. I am a member of the Park Hill Overlook Overlook at Park Hill Ichi Association, and I am speaking regarding the preservation of open space, or at least the concept of open space in that area. If it's not returned to a golf course, I believe that we will be losing an important resource. Mr. Romero spoke to all the health benefits of open space. And I just want to second that, that the remainder of the property that is not used for water mitigation and storage of stormwater be returned as efficiently as possible to a golf course or an alternative use of open space, not to development. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Okay. Thank you all. I'm going to call the next five up. Kimberley Morse, Mike Matheson, Kevin Doyle and Rex Kandi. And Ed our Mehul. Miss Morse, Europe first. My name's Kimberly. Morse. I live in the coal neighborhood, and I have a question for you. Has there been a misuse of taxpayer dollars or possibly an environmental cover up? And what might this mean for other environmentally compromised areas of Denver? There are pre excavation testing at global reported. 1% of one sample contained asbestos. The project budget allocated $255,000 for an asbestos inspector to be on site and $2 million for the removal of regulated asbestos contaminated soil, a much more costly disposal designation than ordinary soil. Through October, more than 80,000 cubic yards of asbestos contaminated soil has been removed. So our taxpayer dollars being misused for the soil removal, whereas the asbestos label being used as a pretext for other nasty debris and contamination at the Globeville site. Now, what precedent might this set for the 39th Avenue segment of the project? An ambitious drainage project is set to get underway inside of an area in northeast Denver. That. Although designated a highly contaminated Superfund site in 1999, has yet to be fully studied nor cleaned up. My own multiple direct requests to representatives of the EPA and Denver starting in 2016 to press the pause button and conduct a full environmental study, particularly for the 39th Avenue segment of the Park Project, have been met with silence or no's. Some agency employees will dismiss my environmental concerns as unrealistic because Northeast Denver has been an urban area for more than a century. But Denver City Council, you should not accept this as our legacy or our heritage. And what about that Swansea smelter on the map I just gave to you? I found it on an 1880s map of Denver, but I haven't seen any environmental documentation on the impacts the smelter may have had on Swansea, a coal or other close by neighborhoods. So before you sign that $78 million contract to authorize work in an area full of unknowns, I urge you to exercise your fiscal responsibility for ensuring taxpayer dollars are wisely spent. Cost overruns are avoided, and that you ensure environmental protections for your constituents by requiring a full environmental study of the 39th Avenue Channel with only. I have something important. So there are three borings done. That's the extent of the testing that was done by your contractors in the coal segment. Three borings in coal. That's it. And as we learned, Janet's fence is going to be taken down. That's how close is going to be. So with only three borings, lots of unanswered questions by Denver and local agencies, significant discrepancies in Globeville. I don't feel comfortable nor safe knowing this project is about to get underway so close to my home and that of my neighbors. Taxpayers and residents alike are on the hook for this very expensive project, and some have more on the line than just our tax dollars. We have our health and our property values. So council members, if I if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you, Ms.. Morris. Mike Matheson. Hi City Council. My name is Mike Matheson. I did want to say I love the Western wear tonight. I, uh, I recall not too long ago the stock show was very close to go into Aurora. And I'm very proud that it's still here in Denver. It's within a mile or so of my house and that that took all of you to be able to do that. And I'm very appreciative of that. So I want to bring that up first. As far as as far as the Council Bill 1395 and 1396, I am in support of that. I live in the 80216 zip. Code and I own land. Over in this area as well. And I think you guys have read reports that it's one of the most contaminated zip codes in the country. And so I'm very happy that this area is going to be cleaned up. I view it as additional parkland that we're gaining in this area versus losing parkland. And plus, we're getting the golf course redone. So removing contamination from an area that I live in, an area I go to every day, and we'll have a park that I can ride my bike, go with my daughter, I think is a great benefit. In addition, I've had experience with contaminated sites and cleaning up contaminated sites and finding additional contamination and getting no further action letter from the state. It does create work, but you unless you dig that stuff up. It does leak down to the ground groundwater. It's very hard to remove. And this these types of projects is what cleans up zip codes like the one that I live in. And so I'm very happy to see that that occurring. I love the additional open space. The CEO for Clayton Trust supports this project. And it's I know because I've been involved with some of the neighborhood outreach and involvement that the city has been doing this for a couple of years, and I'm very appreciative to be involved and informed. And, you know, thank you for putting. This project together and helping clean up our city. All right. Thank you, Mr. Matheson. Kevin Doyle. Thanks for the opportunity. My name is Kevin Doyle. I bought an overlook at Park Hill in 2002 with my wife, and we started our family there. Kaufman and Broad Holmes. Katie Holmes bought that land from the Clayton Foundation at the time. And they did it because the conservation. And conservation. Easement was put in place without that easement that we're talking about dismantling. My neighborhood wouldn't even be there. And we're one of the most unique and best neighborhoods in Denver. We're an owner occupied neighborhood, so we don't have a deed restriction. But we do have a covenant put in place by Clayton, by the city of Denver and by Coffman of Road Homes. To make sure we were different. You have to sign a waiver that says you're going to be owner occupied when you move into my neighborhood. Our values are not the same. Kauffman and Rowe did that show that people earning 70 to 80% of the area. Median income could afford in my neighborhood. And they did. I did. And that's still today. Right now, average. Single family home in my neighborhood goes for 254 to $268 a square foot. If you jump on the other side of Martin Luther King, you're looking at 300 bucks, 350 bucks a square foot. We are affordable housing. That was what we had. To be put. In for. I want you guys to know that as people talk about the need for affordable housing. I want to reiterate the need for open space and remind everyone that. City of Kansas City, Denver, was involved in. This. And the last time that the city of Denver and Clayton were free to range. In the eighties, the attorney general had to get involved and stop this. I'm not sure Clayton should be involved. I'm not sure any development should happen whatsoever. And I'm not in favor of the land acquisition ordinance at all. I'm not in favor of our conservation easement going away. I just learned last month that our conservation easement is in serious jeopardy. That was not the case when I bought our entire neighborhood was. Sold based on that. Up. We've reached out and we've done our own surveys. As Geoff Romeo has told you, we have almost 2000 signatures that are opposed to the, you know, the development of Park. Hill golf course. My counterpart, David Martin, over at Parkhill Village, he represents three different ways. He couldn't be here today, but I'm sure he'd be saying the same thing if he could. They're going to close down the golf course. Where are you going? To put all the equipment behind my house. My easement that I paid for along with the rest of my residence. We have over. $430,000 into maintaining an easement that we put in place. I have been trying to find out what's going to happen to easement since day one. No one has been able to tell me that. No one. And I've. Got an email here that I sent to you guys. City of Denver. In 2015. Saying, We are deeply, gravely concerned about the future of our community. That's in. 2015. And we were the last to get involved in this. We were the last to be a part of Clayton's peak committee. That's fine. And we are, you know, blessed to have the opportunity to be involved in this. But you guys need to realize that we've been trying to get in front of this. And. Mr. Dawson on this, it it's disappointing. And I urge you. To vote both these measures down. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Okay. Rex Kennedy. I'm sorry. If you just cancel this. Rex Kennedy. Kennedy. And I'm very honored to speak to each one of you individuals here. I'm a long time resident of Denver and city of Denver. I've been here since 1972. I'm a licensed architect and a parent of two children at Clayton. And I'm also the chair of Clayton's Parent Policy Council. I represent hundreds of children and hundreds of parents. I would ask them to stand, but, you know, they're the city's working poor. They can't attend these type of events. But I am talking for them. We want to say that we do. We do support the city's land acquisition of the Park Hill Golf Course. It's a golf course. It's an area that's owned by by Clayton. And it's used to fund the mission of Clayton. And the mission of Clayton is, of course, as you know, to serve Denver's working families and Denver's zero to age children that can't afford proper daycare. It does a fantastic job. My child has been there since the age of nine months and now she is thriving and ready for kindergarten. I have a two year old foster to adopt son who's been there for for a year now and he has so far has fantastic has adjusted fantastically because of Clayton. So I would like you to know that the the family members and the children of Clayton would like to support you as you move forward with the purchase of your land acquisition at Park Hill for storm water planning. As long as you know that the area as long as special interests. Want to keep it. 100% open space. That type of development is probably not going to be able to support the true mission of Clayton, the trust of Clayton, and also the children of Clayton. If it's left open space and we have no, no, no resources to to to to raise funds to support Clayton, that mission that was that was created by Mr. Clayton in 1899, who will die. So I just wanted to let you know that is what's on our mind and what is our greatest concern. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Okay. Editorial. Good evening, Councilman. Councilwoman. My name's it. Ami Ho, 3647 High Street. Instead of me ranting and raving and I put my thoughts together because evidently the majority of you do not listen, please pay attention. It is all hand in hand. Good evening. I am very concerned about the 39th Avenue project. Both bills. There has been many poisonous chemicals released in the area for more than a century. I was poisoned in Vietnam with Agent Orange. Poisoned. Poisoned. I did not find out until 2006. I have a miserable lifestyle now in Danang, Vietnam. To this day, there are thousands of children that are so many from their families abandoned because they were poisoned. The air base in Danang has been covered with concrete to stop the spread of Agent Orange. It was in the water and it still is. And the food supply chain, it was too late to poison. Most of the Vietnam veterans were exposed. They carry the poison in their DNA. It is passed on to our children. My sons have DNA. I carry. My eldest son has a child that is affected. He is mentally slow. And his brain his brain is bigger than his skull to fit in. I have nothing. I have a non-biological grandson I raised since birth. He is 25 now. He's got the mentality of a seven year old and he's got medical issues. His real grandfather died of cancer due to Agent Orange poisoning. Pay attention. Poisoning. His grandson is also affected. That's the grandson I am raising. Think about the earth you are going to disturb. No telling what is going to be released. You have kids. You have grandkids. Some of you have probably have great grandkids. Put yourself in our shoes that are fighting this. Think. How would you feel if you knew your kids were exposed to poison and you knew you could have you knew you should have stopped it. Think with your heart, not with your pocket, not hanging around with all these developers, because I have seen a number of you after some of these meetings wouldn't talk to me. But George, buddy, buddy with the developers. Here is one resolution. Mr. Armijo. Thank you for your time. Let me read my resolution because this is very important to the audience or I'll just pass it on. I'm sorry. We got more folks right behind you. Thank you, sir. All right. The next five, Debi James, Jason Janz, Jay Morse, and Maria Flora. Lastly, Brad Cameron. Jason. Oh, Debbie Chance, you're up first. Deborah James. Ms.. James, you're first. Hi, I'm Debbie James. I live on the Sixth Avenue Parkway in Mayfair Park neighborhood, which is adjacent to Lowry. A few years ago, I looked out my front window and saw a man standing in my yard. I went outside and asked what they were doing. They said they were from Denver Wastewater Management, and they were looking at my property as a place to run through with a concrete ditch which would drain all of Mayfair parks. Large storm events. These large storms have been flooding my neighbors, my three neighbors homes to the south for years. Alarmed, I mentioned that Mayfair Park had never had a comprehensive stormwater plan. And why didn't we deserve storm drains, pipes and the rest of the infrastructure that most of the rest of the neighborhoods in Denver enjoyed? I was told that the concrete ditch was what wastewater was going to do to solve the problem of flooding in Mayfair Park. I told them to budget extra money to cover the lawsuit I intended to file. This is what I learned to do after working for nine years on the redevelopment of the Lowry Air Force Base. When the wealthy and developers colluded with the city to make lives of citizens in the adjacent affected neighborhoods miserable. We citizens of Mayfair Park fought back. And as a result, I was told by Jim Meadows, director of our Redevelopment Authority, that the LRA board thought you people in Mayfair Park were too poor and then educated to give us any trouble. A short time after the wastewater man's visit, my husband and our neighbors to the west and I were invited to a meeting where advisor the project was going forward. It would entail a ten foot wide, three foot deep, concrete ditch running window. Well, two window well between our two homes. My neighbor demanded to know what would happen when the ditch overflowed. He was rebuffed. My husband and I were advised that we would have to, at our own expense, cut down 50 year old trees and shrubs, tear at our redwood privacy fence, and demolish an art studio which all stood in the way of where the city would put its concrete ditch. Since we had dared place these amenities on our own property over an easement, despite improvements being done following Denver City Code, we were given site maps and later I noticed that the easement was for sanitary sewer, not waste water. My neighbor, who's an attorney, drafted a letter and so did my husband and I. The end of the story is that all of the sudden the city found money to install comprehensive wastewater infrastructure in Mayfair Park, which includes immense underground cisterns that hold big flood events until they can disperse onward. How this happened is still a mystery, but now an even worse plan for a ditch is being forced on other neighborhoods because we citizens are left in the dark until unwanted projects are about to unfold in our communities. And then we are traded for being too late to respond and further on told that our responses are inadequate. But tonight, members of City Council, you have a chance to set things right. We are the oppressed and trampled on. Citizens of Denver appealed to your hearts and compassion to do the right thing by calling a halt to the travesty of the 39th Avenue ditch. We citizens are being treated, can speak contemptuous of judges who handsome salaries we pay. I urge you to vote. No. Thank you, Miss James. Jason Janse. My name is Jason Jantz. I am a resident at 2938 Humboldt Street. I've lived in Northeast Denver for the past ten years and I'm the CEO of Cross Purpose, which is a career and community development program that helps 100 families, mainly in northeast Denver, move out of poverty and get a middle class income within 12 months. We also are one of the largest tenants on the current Clayton campus and I'm a member of the Peacock Park Advisory Council. Regarding 1396. My request is simply that the decision that is made in the land be used to further the mission of Clayton. For these children, Clayton must thrive. They educate hundreds of children. And early childhood, we know, is essential to the children in our city, especially those who are most vulnerable to get a great education. And I believe Clayton, after working with been on the campus for the last six years, that they invest serious effort and finances to do whatever it takes to get kids especially from vulnerable backgrounds, kindergarten ready. And so I my heart goes out to them and I just want to make sure that that mission goes forward. We are currently working with them to pilot a two generation approach to poverty, whereas even some of our adults that we are working with dropped their kids off at their learning center, and then the parents walk across the yard and they join a career development program. And we're seeing generational poverty being changed on that campus. Many. If not all of us in the neighborhood would like to preserve a good portion of the property for parks and open space. The extent of how much is probably the rub, and we look forward to a continued strong collaborative process to figure that out. And this is a complicated issue that many of us have a hard time keeping up with, as many of my neighbors have testified here to tonight. But I would just ask that in the decision you make that you really are at the forefront of the mission of Clayton as a serve the kids in the forefront of your mind. And by protecting their mission, you protect and provide for families that are vulnerable in our neighborhood. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chance. Jay Morse. Good evening, counsel. My name is Jay Morse, coal resident. And I just want to express my support for the Cole neighbors in requesting the council hold back its vote on the $78 million CMA contract until a thorough environmental study has been conducted. This is a Superfund site. EPA's EPA does not throw around Superfund site lightly, so please consider that when you start. Looking at these contracts. Three borings. As Kimberly said, that's it. Only three borings. There's a lot of poison out there. So I ask that you take that in consideration. And put a pause. On this vote until a full environmental impact study can be done. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Morse. Maria Flora. Good evening. My name's Mario Flora. I live at 26 Albion Street. I'm here just to oppose 17, 13, 96. I'm an open space advocate. I'm opposed because of my concern for the effect of this ordinance on that open space conservation easement that the city acquired in 1997 for $2 million. I don't believe that council has been adequately informed. As to the effect that this ordinance is going to potentially have on that conservation easement and the resulting loss of open space. Now, each of you council members received an email from Woody Guernsey on December 16 of this year or last year, rather, about the legal issues surrounding the conservation easement and the condemnation clause in the conservation easement itself. Mr. Guernsey warned of the Council's inadvertent termination of that conservation easement by exercising the right of eminent domain on that property and the concomitant loss of the $2 million investment that the city has made in that conservation easement and the loss of any opportunity potentially to preserve that as open space. By starting this condemnation process. I ask council to be advocates for the citizens of Denver in preserving this conservation easement, at least for the present time. Now, in the conservation easement itself, there is what we call a condemnation clause. And I don't know if you all have read the agency agreement, the conservation easement. All of these documents over the years that have come forward in this mess over the Park Hill golf course and the. Relationship with Clayton College in the city of Denver, it's an embarrassing mess, but there is a condemnation clause in the easement and it says that if there is a taking to the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the city. So that the golf course is no longer physically capable of being operated as a Regulation 18 hole golf course and driving range on that land. Then Clayton College has the right to terminate the conservation easement period. Now, this clause doesn't say, Well, it's okay if it's only for two years, it's okay if it's only a temporary easement on this part and a permanent easement on the rest. That's all left to interpretation. I was. Unsettled when I watched. The video of the. December 18. It's called the Finance and Government House floor. Does this floor five. As floor your time? I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Brad Cameron. I'm here to talk about Park Hill golf course, and I thank you for that opportunity. My name is Brad Cameron. I reside at 1200 Humboldt Street, which is immediately adjacent to Cheesman Park. I've lived there for over 20 years and during that time I have seen the public's use of Cheesman Park increased dramatically. And Cheesman Park is not the is is not alone in that regard. All of Denver's large regional parks have seen similar increases. I'm not complaining. It's wonderful to see so many people using and enjoying Denver's park system, and especially so many young people. But Denver continues to grow in population. We are on track to add 100,000 new residents this decade, with downtown alone expected to have 20,000 housing units added between 2010 and 2020. And this is an exaggeration, but sometimes it does feel like on a summer weekend they're all in Cheesman Park. Now, that's why preservation of open space, such as Park Hill golf course is so important to continue to be an attractive city for existing residents. It's imperative that Denver maintain and protect the open space that we already have. That certainly was the vision of Mayor Wellington Webb, who, with the help of city council back in 1997, led the city in its purchase of a conservation easement to protect in perpetuity the open space of park old golf course from development. That conservation easement cost the citizens of Denver 2 million, which at that time was its fair market value, and that was an arm's length transaction that Clayton knowingly entered into. Now, today, the benefits of that conservation easement are more important than ever. The Land Acquisition Ordinance before you today, most likely, in my opinion, will not in and of itself threaten the open space of the golf course. But there are few who think that this will be the final chapter of the story. A return to talk of developing Park Hill golf course is clearly in the wind. Now, finally, I want to echo the comments made by Councilwoman Kennish back in early December, when this matter was before the Finance and Governance Committee. Her request was that in the future, there be more transparency on the part of the Hancock administration when dealing with Park Hill golf course matters. Obviously, that is not entirely within the power of city council. But hopefully all of you will join Councilwoman Canete in requesting that from Mayor Hancock. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cameron. All right. We're going to call the next. Let's see here. Next five. All right. We'll call the next five people up. Kathleen Wells. Eris Shiner Shiner. Woody Guernsey. Georgia. Guernsey. Chairman say. And the last person I'm going to call up is Lois Dahl. These are our last six here. Ms.. Wells, you are first. Good evening. My name is Kathleen Wells. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm speaking tonight about the golf course. The Denver mayor is among the 388 U.S. mayors who have pledged to adopt the Paris climate accord. These mayors agreed in June of this past year they would refuse to endorse any executive order that rolled back policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because to enforce such policies would threaten every American community's health and safety. Now the city of Denver recognizes climate change as a defining issue of the 21st century. And the city is committed to facing the challenges of a changing climate through preparedness. These facts have everything to do with tonight's discussion of the preservation or demolition of the 155 acre Park Hill golf course. Why? Because trees, grass and natural vegetation absorb carbon dioxide and therefore reduce the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that contributes to global warming. The more open green space we have, the better able we are to mitigate and to adapt to climate change. Why should we care? Colorado will warm four degrees by 2050, causing loss of vegetation, reduced water quality, enhance ground level ozone concentrations and human health problems. If you think climate change is real but will occur some time in the very distant future. Talk to me after this hearing and I'll tell you about my sister who's moving from rural southern Arizona, a place she loathes due to the threat that increasingly severe heat, wildfire, smoke and dust pose not only to her way of life , but also to her ability to breathe. We have to meet the climate change challenge challenges seems simply incredible. A city that is landlocked would waste a golden opportunity to maintain a golf course or to create a regional park in light of the serious climate problems we face. A decision to develop rather than to preserve or expand greenspace would be an example of a seemingly innocuous or even positive public policy decision that in the end is at odds with our community's best interest in the most fundamental sense. Our growing population of young people, most of whom want more open greenspace, love the outdoors or committed to environmental, including climate related causes. Understand this issue better than any other demographic. Perhaps it's not there for us as well. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, artist Shiner. Uh, good evening. My name is Eric Shiner, and I'd like to lend my support to Council Resolution 1395. I've lived in central Denver for my entire life, and although I am a new resident of Cole. My wife Charlotte and I now own and live at 3846 Gilpin the house on the southeast corner of 39th and Gilpin directly. Adjacent to the planned Greenway. I believe that the Greenway and Open Channel is an excellent use of the land along 39th Avenue. While I do share some of the current concerns here expressed by some of my neighbors, especially concerning environmental hazards occurring during. And after the construction of what will eventually become the park space where people and families will gather. That said, especially having seen the planned steps presented earlier, I have full confidence in the city of Denver to proceed responsibly, knowing that it is accountable to its citizens. In the oversight of the project. And to mitigate any hazards as they may arise. I look forward to the construction of this. I look forward to the start of the construction and to a beautiful new greenway along the stretch of 39th Avenue in desperate need of renewal. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Woody Guernsey. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Mary Guernsey and 46 year Park Hill resident and a retired attorney. And I've had the pleasure of meeting with many of you over the past several months and I've sent emails to all of you. In November and December regarding. The issues that are in front of council tonight. Tonight I urge you to vote no, or at least to table the proposed Parkhill Golf Course Condemnation Ordinance until the city administration. Guarantees you. That a condemnation action will not jeopardize the open space conservation easement that was purchased by the city in 1997 for $2 million. Under the agency agreement between the Clayton Trust and the City, the Trust now holds title and. Quote as agent. Of the city to hold for the benefit of the citizens of the city and the general public. The trust under the existing agreement has the unilateral. Legal right to. Terminate the agency agreement and thereby reacquire full title to the property. But at that time, the termination of that would result in the conservation easement coming back into place immediately. It's critical to the council's decision tonight that it knows that the trust has the legal right to terminate the conservation easement in the event the land is taken through exercise of eminent domain. The Clayton Trust could arguably terminate the easement in connection with this. Proposed. Condemnation action by the city. The golf course operator AQIS has until June 30th to exercise its five year lease extension option. In the meantime, number one, the city Clayton and Arcus can hopefully resolve critical issues related to the city's plan to install the stormwater detention facility on this land and thereby eliminate the need for filing any condemnation action. And number two, there's no present need for the city to initiate a condemnation action that could jeopardize the conservation easement. Having never practiced condemnation. I recently consulted with a very experienced condemnation lawyer in Denver. She advised me that the city can easily secure an immediate. Possession. Order in no more, in no more than, and likely fewer than 120 days from the filing of an action. Therefore, the city can easily wait until after June 30th to file a condemnation action if necessary, and still begin construction of the stormwater detention facility after December 31st. The city created this problem when it decided to install the stormwater detention in the Park Hill Golf Course under the Park Hill, the Platt to Park Hill Project. Now it must do whatever is necessary to guarantee that that conservation easement does not go away as a result of that action. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Georgia Guernsey. Hello. My name is Stuart to Guernsey. I'm a Park Hill resident. I am a member of City Park Friends and Neighbors, a park advocacy group, and I am also serving on the park. I'm here to support the conservation of the Park Hill Golf Course as open land. I love the way this meeting started because you addressed what I love so much about Denver. It's history. When I came here 40 years ago, I fell in love with the light. First off, I'd never seen anything like it. And I knew I'd found my place. And I loved the sheer guts and vitality of this place. It's such a young city. It was founded in 1856. The history and the people that work so hard to shape it and lead it are so vivid and accessible to me. The city's early commitment to open space particularly has astonished me as I've studied Denver history. And you have to wonder when all of these traders and cowboys and farmers and whatnot came here, it was empty. It was sand and tumbleweed and jackrabbits and cottonwoods and not much of anything. And they came and invest their hopes and their dreams and their love of this area and to make something to shape something wonderful, which is what we're experiencing today. In 1882, May or so for us, this is 25 years after the founding of the city, led an effort to purchase 320 acres of land in a square city park. Besides today. And it was out in the boondocks. There was nothing out there. What inspired them? They they knew that they wanted Denver to be something special. The 320 acres was not incidental. It's half what Central Park is. And that was intentional. They saw Denver as being competing with New York City and San Francisco. It was to be the Paris of the of the plains in. 18. At the turn of the 20th century, Mayor Robert Speer came forward and he'd been inspired by the City Beautiful Movement. And he implemented, again, another vision for open space of parklands connected by beautiful boulevards and parkways. Currency. I hate to interrupt you because you're on a roll, but. Well, I hope I've inspired you as the next leaders of shaping this this beautiful city to think about the open space. Thank you. All right, Chairman Sekou. Yes, sir. Mosaku Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Representing poor, working, poor, homeless and senior citizens. You know, I don't want to be redundant. And repeat a lot of stuff that's. Been said. But I heard one. Thing that was very. Disturbing. The people don't trust government. They don't trust. Now for some of you that are new, that's a. Serious caveat that. You've got to carry because of. Previous decisions and experiences that people have had with previous administrations, the city council. And. I was talking to a former. Council member. And Paul, you know who I'm talking about. She said one of the issues that she had by serving 12 years on council was that she was very naive. And that she accepted things on face value. That was not true. And in the process, as she reviews her term, she made a decision to come down and lobby. City council members who were known to share with them. You need to do your homework. You need to see the context. And you need to pay attention as to what is being said within the historical context. Now we have a strong mayor position and a not so strong city council. In terms of how decisions are made. So many times decisions are weighed down and they're convoluted because people actually in city council and we've all seen it, both are things that they're not necessarily for. Just on the strength of. They want to get some stuff done. But now we've got a serious situation here. All right. And that is city council. And I beseech you, must restore the confidence that the everyday people have in this body. And in the process of doing that, you're going to have to vote for some things. That you don't care for. And yet, at the same time, I'm suggesting to you, if you don't build it, don't vote for it, don't vote for it. Don't vote for this. Don't do that. Because in the process, you will continue on the legacy of destroying the people's confidence in this very institution. And this institution means more to the people than the people who come and go as elected officials. I've seen many come and go. But the people are always still here. They still. Come. And I've never in my life or 65 years of living in this city, and I've lived all of my life on the east side from five points to park, you must say, never seen an administration that would pit neighborhoods against one another and have people arguing about stuff. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Cook. All right. Is Lois doll here? Okay. You are the last one. At least. No. Last but not least. Last but not least, Mr.. I am not going to try to speed, speed, torque or read or anything. I have some. Information that I could say, but everybody else has said it already. I'm talking about the 39th Avenue Ditch. I live four blocks from there. And so I'm here as a selfish person, but selfish for my whole community. My daughter and her husband and my two grandchildren live a block from the ditch proposal. I am very concerned that or not enough testing has been done, not enough EPA backing and interest in the situation of digging up a Superfund site and letting the stuff fly all over the place while is being done. We are told I started helping work on this in 2015. We're told I've been to many, many meetings, were told that, well, we're going to wet it down when we dig it up. I don't feel like that's going to be the solution. That might help. I just saw them wedding down the tram building as they were tearing it down on one end of it. The dust was flying everywhere, including in my house. My grandsons are six years old and almost four. I have an interest in keeping their lungs pink and healthy. And as I said, you don't know what's going to happen 20 years down the road when. Your. Children, your grandchildren and so forth are exposed to this kind of thing flying in the air when it's dug up and scattered around. You don't know 20 years from now if they're going to have lung cancer or what else. I think it's really important for people who have the opportunity to safeguard our neighborhood to do it. You can put a hold on this until this testing is really done. Right. And so that we know that when it's dug up, if it's dug up, I hope it isn't. But if it is, if it's going to be done right so that it is not polluting our neighborhood people have been living there for a lot longer than I have. They have children and grandchildren and stuff living in the neighborhood also. And we're very worried about this. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I want to thank everyone who stayed the entire time and spoke. We have we got to all of our speakers and thanks for paying for parking, coming through security, sitting on those hard benches. You did a great job. All right. We are now going into questions for 1396. And first up, we have Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Now, these are questions just on 1396. Yes, sir. Let me ask. Charlotte Brantley is still here. Correct. Thank you. And maybe Jeff also. Do we know if the forced shut down of golf for the 2019 season will trigger the right of Clayton to terminate the agency agreement? The way I've read it is similar to the way Woody Garnsey read it, which is that if golf cannot be conducted, that and I know the intention is to restore it at some point, I guess for the 2020 season perhaps. But if it's not played for that season. Hi, John. You're also going to backstop this. Would that trigger Charlotte? Would that trigger Clayton's right to terminate the agency agreement, in your view? So, Councilman, if I may. I also have my attorney here today. Yes. I believe James and I would really prefer that he answer that question, if that's all right with you. Oh, okay. That means we're really in trouble. Good evening, Bruce James, attorney for Clayton Trust. I think Brad Cameron really said it correctly. Okay. Which is it defers the question. It is a factual question whether or not following the condemnation, the course can be restored to an 18 hole regulation, golf course and driving range. The city staff today believes it can be. Clayton is neither agreed or disagreed with that assessment in part because what we recognize is if arcus, the operator, renews its lease. Clayton is perfectly happy. This whole process started was because Clayton was concerned about losing its income in at the end of the lease in 2019. And if in fact Arcus doesn't renew the lease, we will have a future community discussion around the future of the golf course, much like Clayton has already initiated in cooperation with the city. So it defers the question to a later day. And of course, if ultimately there was a decision by the community with many of these same people in the room to move forward, this council again would have the chance to look at it. So the council's not waiving any rights tonight if it proceeds with 96. Nor is Clayton. But we will defer it to a future community conversation if the golf course operator does not renew the lease. Thank you. And that leases that options for five years? Correct. They have two five year options to five year. And it was correct. It stated they have to July one to decide whether or not to renew. Right. And one more question, Mr. President, on 96, and that is remind me, and I guess any one of you out there might know the answer. How will the Clayton Trust replace the income from ARX from the golf concessionaire for the 2019 season? I ask. The golf concessionaire certainly isn't obligated to make payments if it's not permitted to conduct golf. No, that would be part of the compensation. It would be paid as part of the reason. Yeah, exactly. The easement and part of the relocation, which is the restoration during the restoration, they would be compensated for loss of income. Great. All right. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President, on this one. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. Sitting next to Councilman Flynn has clearly had an impact on the two of us. So I want to follow up on his same question. I'm going to ask it a little more narrowly, Bruce or Charlotte, which is not so much deferring the question of can the golf course be replaced? But the fear that's being communicated by the public is that even a temporary disruption in golf. You all could or might pursue action then. And so I'm asking if today you can clearly state that you would not. Proceed with any action, triggering that clause of the contract about condemnation based on a temporary loss of golf access. And I think this is less of a legal question and more of where is Clayton at morally? You've come forward today in support of this ordinance. You've taken a position and you've said this ordinance should pass. I would consider it incredible, bad faith that if you then said, oh, and by the way, now that you've passed it , I'm going to use this temporary disruption to trigger this clause. I mean, that would be extraordinary. So I think you've probably contemplated this question already. So I'm asking you just about your intentions with regard to temporary disruption of the golf course, if you can please answer on that and that point. I'm going to start until he pulls my coat and says, wait. So you've asked a really interesting question, and particularly when you you talk about morally and sort of where are we and what are we thinking? I guess the best answer I can give you to that at the moment is that we as the trustees of the trust, are legally bound to ensure that we are leveraging the assets of that trust on behalf of the beneficiaries of Mr. Clinton's trust. What he envisioned was that his assets upon his death would be used to ensure that vulnerable children in Denver primarily was what he was thinking at that time, that vulnerable children would be given a great start in life and would become his will, even speaks to becoming, you know, wonderful citizens based on the services that they were given. And so when you talk about where are we sort of morally speaking on this, I have to say that's where we are as the Clayton Trust in as the operator of the programing that we do. You know, what happens down the road here. We are intending to be a partner with the city in this transaction. That's been clear for a long time. We have been talking for, I would say six years now maybe about the fact that storm water naturally flows to that northeast corner. We've been talking about some way of using that as a as a way to mitigate storm water damage, flooding. So our you know, our position is that we intend to be a partner with the city in this transaction. And that's why we're here to support this this ordinance. I'm going to ask you may want to confer with Mr. James and I'll ask a different question, but you didn't really answer my question. So I and this is really important. My vote may depend on it. You have come forward supporting this ordinance. Would you possibly use this ordinance to trigger the condemnation clause that you're you're supporting this ordinance? Would you use that clause based on this ordinance, based on temporary disruption of golf? And if you if you know the answer to that question and again, if you guys want to confer, that's fair. But it's a really important question. Councilman if councilwoman, if I understand the question to make sure I get it correctly because I know how important it is to you is if the question is solely whether the temporary taking. The answer is I do not believe under the temporary taking that we would have the right to terminate the lease. Excuse me? Terminate the conservation easement. Right. If, on the other hand. We determine at Clayton if the golf course leases were not was not renewed, I actually believe we'll end up in the same collaborative process we started a long time ago. As Charlotte said, we've had these conversations for five, six years. But certainly Clayton's not waiving any rights regarding the permanent taking and whether or not it interferes with the ability to operate an 18 hole regulation golf course and driving range. And certainly we can't waive those rights, as Charlotte explained. We are here on behalf of the kids that Clayton represents and we can't give up those rights. But in terms of the temporary, the temporary itself know that that would not lead to the termination you've asked. Okay. I appreciate you putting that on the record. And I think the more we can separate out questions and to really distinct parts, it's going to be helpful for our debate here on the floor. So that's why I'm asking such narrow questions. So we heard a community concern. Could it be, you know, triggered based on the temporary loss we're hearing? No. And then the question about the permanent loss is one we can debate based on the many golf courses. So I would just like to pull up someone from the team. Can you confirm for me the number of golf courses you have researched that have included detention as part of a golf course design? Give me some sense of, you know, regionally what you've looked at just and really, you know, 2 minutes, don't give me don't give me 10 minutes. But just really quickly, there is a precedent for using a golf course for drainage. Yeah. Jason wrote with the PDP project team, you know, we're doing this in City Park Golf course right now. So there's one just adjacent to it where we've been able to do this. So it's not done yet though. So let's choose one that's done. One that's done. I mean, let me do this. There's there's a number in Arizona that we've researched. There's actually this is something that is done outside of Colorado quite a bit. Arizona is a place that has a climate, much like Denver, where they get large rainstorms and they use public assets like golf courses for detention. So this is something that we've seen in a number of locations and we've done research. We currently are in the process of looking at how that golf course would lay out with that detention, and there's ways to shape the detention to make the golf course work. Okay. Thank you for that. And this is my last question. Thanks, Mr.. I think. Oh, yes, happy, happy. Thank you, Councilwoman. Happy Haines, executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation. We did some research on this topic, and I don't have the paper in front of me, but we have seven golf courses in. At least five of those golf courses contain some amount of storm drainage. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. So one more question, if I may, and this one's for John, the attorney. The other question I heard from members of the the testimony was about development. And I think I understand where their confusion comes from because this conversation changed so quickly in the course of a month. We were talking about the potential development. I want to take us back to the ordinance that we're on tonight, which is about the purchase. And so I want to just ask you if you can read. Do you have that agreement in front of you? Which agreement is. The land acquisition ordinance? I don't have the ordinance. Okay. Well, can you refer to the limitations in the land acquisition ordinance? For what purposes are we authorizing, if this past May, for what purposes would we be authorizing any acquisition of any land on this golf course? Right. It's storm drainage, detention and conveyance. And when asked the question, I usually don't ask an open forum, but I'm going to ask you to answer it anyway. If the city acquired land under this ordinance and then used it for development, sold it to developer, did something, what were the potential consequences the city could face? And I'd have to research what the consequences would be. But the purposes for the acquisition would need to be tied to the detention and conveyance of storm water. Let's just say this if we acquired the land and conveyed it to a developer or conducted development on the land, would it be legal under the way this ordinance is drafted? I think not. It is not uncommon for an acquisition under a land. Acquisition ordinance to allow. For certain remnants of property to be conveyed to third parties. But by and large, that could not be done. Okay. So there would be legal risk to the city? Yes. If we were to proceed with this ordinance and then somehow sneakily give the land away at some point based on how it's written. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Can each. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman. I can appreciate the questions, but they sort of don't they sort of miss some intrinsic facts, but sort of they touch on them. And I think it's worth getting those facts out. Currently, the the agreement with Clayton and the golf course provider provides how much money per year to Clayton. So the legal lease contract between us and Orcas Gulf is as it pardon me, it's a flat 700,000 a year. And then if they do exercise their extension, does that amount change or remain the same? They have the right to re-up that lease under the exact same terms that are in it now. So we're looking at 700,000 times six is the sort of maximum amount of money that Clayton could have coming to it. They have they actually have the option to re up for two, five year periods so that we ten years. So a total of 11 years this year, the last remaining year plus the two five year extension. So 11 years. So $7.7 million is what is essentially. You know, already agreed to if they re-upped. Twice, only if they re-up. Yes. The question your attorney seemed to imply that, you know, you would defer that question of development to a later date. I believe that the question of development is already deferred to a very date specific in the future. When does the agency agreement, the conservation needs of the agency agreement and the conservation easement and that that would be in place if the agency agreement were in place. When does that terminate? There is no termination. It's a contract between the two parties that could be amended or changed. No, there's a date of October of 2099 is a 99 year conservation. He's not a 99 year conservation, but it goes until 2099. Is that correct? That is correct, yes. So if if all the terms of the agreement that you have with us and Clayton entered into for the $2 million that was paid in 20 in 1994, were met and honored. We would not be having a discussion about development on there until 2099. Is that correct? I'm sorry. I need to confer with my attorney. I don't quite even understand the question, so. I mean, there's an agreement in place if we honor all the terms of the agreement and we don't do anything to disrupt the actual resulting in any sort of termination or cancelation of the easement, that that easement would be I mean, the land would be subject to either golf use or open space. Until the year 2099? Not necessarily. Okay. So what are the other options? In part, the the term conservation easement is a little misleading to folks because normally they think of conservation easements, they think of agricultural conservation easements that have certain IRS tax benefits and those truly run in perpetuity and extremely difficult to unwind a conservation easement for which all parties obtain tax benefits. When people ask me what this agreement really is, I explain to them it's a use restriction. It's a use restriction between two parties, the city and Clayton. And so at any time between now and 2099, even if we didn't have the condemnation action, Clayton could come forward to the city and ask permission to have that easement released in order to sustain the goals of serving the children that it protects. And so it is a contract between the city and Clayton. Like any other contract that the city has that can be amended. It can only be amended, though. Importantly, assuming taking for your question, moving the condemnation question to the side, absent a condemnation, it can only be amended by an action by this city council. So that's why I was suggesting you are deferring this decision to another day, because not only would if there was never a condemnation action, it would take an action by this city council to to release it, and further another action by the City Council to approve whatever development plan might be proposed by Clayton. And so to me, no, the question would likely always come up because I think what people tend to forget is when this was put in place in 1999, the golf industry was far different. I don't think anyone on the sitting on the council at that time realized that the possibility that for the last ten years our golf course operator has lost money. This is not a sustainable economic operation. And so if this ordinance 1396 never came forward, we would still be coming to this council at some point to explain that the golf course, you know, the golf course operators always told us they don't intend to renew. And we've been told in the marketplace that that 700,000 will dwindle if we have to go out and find a new golf course operator. In 2019. That conservation easement came in consideration of $2 million for the city and county of Denver. Do you then intend, if you ever were to really, you know, to to negotiate terms to remove the conservation easement, would that come with money back to the city and county of Denver? And in exchange for the the read of the development rights that you're trying to reacquire. I think what you're talking about is a sliver of what a Kintyre community conversation would be. And we've started that community conversation and we have engaged the community. Have you and so have. You have you engaged the community in earnest because the land is currently zoned for West, is it not? Yes. And what development rights exist on OSA today? No. Present development rights exist on the property. So if you've been clear that there is conservation easement and protections that actually that are reflected in that current zone district, that so that you're limited in development rights today due to an agreement that you made with the city and county in Denver in consideration for money from the city and county of Denver. We have been very open with the community. We have shared copies of the agency agreement on the conservation easement. We've explained the right of the golf course operator to renew. We've explained their right of first refusal to match an offer we've given through all that with the community and the Peacock is the acronym they use has been very engaged in the process. And so to ask the question with the money come back from the conservation easement, I think is just the start of the question. The question really is what does this community want? What would a future development do to serve the needs of Clayton and the community? And that's a conversation that will come back before this council many times with. The real struggle I have with that answer is that it's not to the Councilwoman Canisius point, we're in a very different place than where this came to us back in September, where we were not talking at all in these terms. Well, we were talking about as a quitclaim transaction that basically granted the the development, the ability to remove this conservation easement and then buyback this land for considerably higher value without any discussion about the fact that there were all these other encumbrances and things that we were jumping over, we were doing all these things to sort of circumvent a lot of things. And so the concern that you hear here is legitimate, which is did we just find another way to get the same outcome? But using sort of legal parlance and nuance of rules in a way to sort of get the same outcome. And what I'm struggling with is that one document that I shouldn't have had, that appraisal that shows that the value of that land as golf course land is $3 million in that value of that land, his development rate is $24 million. And somewhere in there in the 7.7 that this developer might me and golf course operator might pay you over the course of 11 years is probably a number that makes them comfortable with leaving that operation. And then you having the excuse to basically say our our operator left. It is no longer functional as a as an 18 hole golf course. And now we want to exercise this right, because we lost the land. And so we will then by by voting this as is without the guarantees that were simply asked and we could ask it of the city, we could ask of Clayton right now, will you guarantee that this we will not alter and do anything that alters the conservation easement that we have in place until this project is done and we have a much more public negotiation and dialog about the future of that land and the real value of Clayton to this community and what we're going to invest in it as a community and that land is open space. Councilman, is that a question? So I or you guys are willing to make that commitment, the guarantee that was asked for by Mr. Guernsey. Well, we answered councilman conditions answer a question by saying that we would not assert that the temporary taking triggers a termination of the conservation easement on behalf of the kids that Clayton represents. No, it cannot stand here today and say that the permanent condemnation does not create that right, because to do that would really put in jeopardy everything that Mrs. Brantley described to you about the purpose of the trust, what they do in the community. We've heard lots of conversation about that tonight and that would be really a breach of the fiduciary duty of the board if they agreed to that tonight. To be honest, I actually wonder if I'm even concerned if I if I share these concerns. And the reason being is this, that the conservation easement actually isn't in place today. Is that correct? That's correct. It's only triggered if Clayton comes forward and asked to reacquire the property. Right. And so that step has to happen first. Right. I mean, so so is the even any concern about a conservation easement not being enforced? I mean, there's other actions that have to occur because of the conservation easement that we're talking about. Doesn't even apply to the land today as we know it. So I mean, correct Hitler. Okay. Is that. Are you done counseling? Um, I do have some questions for our own staff about contamination, but I'll wait. That's for third 39th Avenue. Yeah. Okay. That's at the next bill. This is 1396. I got Councilwoman Ortega up. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to shift the discussion a little bit and kind of hone in on the budget. And I'm looking at an old notification that I was cleaning out some boxes and dumping out files, and this was in my water bill. And, you know, sometimes you get your wastewater bill with your water bill. And this was in 2011. There was it went into effect in July. So the council that departed before some of us came on in 2011 made the decisions about a rate increase to the wastewater fees. So in 2011, it went up 20%. In 2012, it went up 2%. And in 2013, it went up 2%. And one of the projects on here was Park Hill. This project was initiated following the August 17, 2000 Drowning of Fireman Bob Crumb. Some of you may remember that he went through a culvert trying to save someone, a woman who had slipped into that culvert. And so, you know, it was important for the city to begin to address this. But what is not clear to me is exactly how much money was spent and what exactly did that cover. With this, as is today and this is again going back to 2011, 17 million of storm drainage improvements and retention pond have been installed in this area. And this was around 50th and Colorado generally. But there were some other improvements in that, that sort of quadrant of the city. So I'm not sure who's the right person that can answer my question about what did the 2011 rate increase that followed with the next three consecutive years, which was before the wastewater increase that was approved by some of the folks on this on this dais when we did the rate increase to the tune of $300 million. Bruce Janek with Denver Public Works Long Range Storm Planning. I'll try to answer your question first. Happy New Year. I don't think anyone said that yet. So you're right, Councilwoman. The Park Hill project has been on our radar since about 2000. With the tragedy at 50th. In Colorado. We build build these systems from downstream. Upstream. So we started with the Park Hill Pond, which is at the. Northernmost. Point. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think it was around 2 to $3 million back in the day. And then we started to build the pipe system upstream. I think there. Has been. Three or. Four phases. The third phase got us. To. About 40 and. Colorado. And now then the fourth phase was along. 40th from Colorado to Dahlia and that's where we are today. And the fifth phase, which we want to start. Construction now is going to take us in dollar. From 48. So the RTD tracks. So all. Told, between the Park Hill Pond and the pipes. That have got. Us up to about 48 then dollar, it's been about $20 million. So that was funds. That. Were even predated the 2011 rate increase. But the 2011 rate increase allowed us to do, I believe, the phase four construction. Okay. So as we look at the budget now for Park Hill golf course, it's it's a $78 million. That's what we have in our contract to make sure I'm not confusing the two bills here. Okay. So 95 has the $78 million, but that includes acquisition for both the 39th Avenue Channel as well as the Park Hill Golf Course. Correct that at least that's what I understood from a meeting I had today with city staff. The $78 million, which would be 1395. And we'll talk about that later in detail. But that's for the construction of the channel and the budget that we're talking about for the Park Hill golf course is contained within the real estate budget, which would cover the cost of the permanent easement, temporary easement, and reconstructing it back to a playable golf course. Okay. That's that's not consistent with what I thought I heard today. So, yes, I was told 60,500,000 was part of real estate. But I was also told that the. $78 million budget included part of the acquisition for Park Hill. And then I later asked tried to get clarification on separating out the acquisition for Park Hill versus what we were acquiring for the 39th Avenue Channel. And you shared with me that 21 million is what we're looking at for the construction for Park Hill. Correct. And then we're looking at 10.7 million for the real estate for Park Hill. Yeah. So so what we are talking about today is we have the 78 million, which is for the SEMA contract. Right. And that is purely for the construction and implementation of 39th Avenue Greenway as well as Park Hill Golf Course. So you remember the document that we were looking at. We had one on line, the one line item, and then at the bottom we had the the line item for the real estate. And that's what Jeff was referring to. So so the real estate budget is separate from that CMA contract, and that's been used for the acquisition and relocation of the properties along the 39th Avenue as well as Park Hill. So the total cost that's going to be spent on the golf course improvements, which is construction and then re restoration. Right. Is in excess of the 21 million because part of that is built into the 78 million. Is that correct? So the 21 million covers the portion of Park Hill, which isn't just the golf course. It's also the pipes that are connecting to the outfall and connecting the Holly Pond to the golf course detention. So there's that portion. So that's all included in the 21.6 million. So that's all. What Seymour will be constructing and with Jeff was saying is he has that separate budget, which is the 10.7 million, which covers the acquisition costs for the temporary easement, the permanent easement, as well as the restoration costs for the golf course. So we're acquiring both a temporary and permanent easement for the golf course. If that's correct. Okay. So so one of the things I'm looking at and the reason I wanted to look at the the entirety of the budget of the plot to Park Hill, which originally we were told was the Twin Basin Drainage Project with the name changed later, was to really just kind of do a comparison. So when you look at the total cost of what we're going to spend on City Park Golf course, that is basically $45 million. Correct. And I know that's a complete redo. What's not clear to me is how how much of a. Complete renovation we're doing of Park Hill golf course to return it back to Clayton in a usable format that continues to make it marketable to the current vendor or anybody else in the future. So so the intent would be it's much different than City Park Golf Course because you're correct, City Park Golf Course, we are redoing the entire golf course. So this would be the holes that would be impacted by the detention. And there may be some relocation of those holes, but it's not covering the entire golf course. It's really just in that detention area. Which is primarily that far northeast corner of the golf course. Okay. And so we have been told over and over, we're looking at anywhere from 20 to 25 acres, the language that is in the contract. And I'm not finding the page number that speaks to 90 acres. I just want to be clear that that is specific to the golf course and that doesn't include the 39th Avenue Channel as well. Yeah, that's correct. The amount that is proposed for the golf course is between 25 and 35 acres of permitted easement between 55 and 65 acres of temporary easement. And that comprises the 90 acres that you're referring to. Okay. I have one other question that I want to ask of the folks from Clayton and either one of you can come up. So in let me just find my note here for a minute. So in at the time that the easement was placed on that property, the conservation easement, that was a $2 million revenue to the Clayton Trust. Right. And was the land that was developed on where there's new housing at that far north end of the golf course. Was that done before or after that easement was put into place? Was that sold after? There's actually two areas of land that used to all be part of the golf course. You just spoke to the north. And if you're talking about what's at 40th in Colorado on up to Smith Road. Yes, that area was actually sold off by the city of Denver when the city was the trustee of the Clayton Trust. Before Clayton Early Learning was even incorporated as a501 C3 that we are today. The other area that was sold off by Clayton Early Learning after it was incorporated we were incorporated in the mid-eighties, became an institution in the mid-eighties in the nineties, the area that is now the overlook at Park Hill that was sold off to KB Homes by the institution that I currently run today as President. CEO okay. Does that answer your question? Yeah, it does. That's helpful. And at that time, are you are you able to share what that was was sold for at that point in time? I do not know. I would have to find that out for you. It was long before my time there, but I am sure we could find that. Was done in the nineties. Okay. At this point, I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, you back up two questions. One for Maria Flora and one for Mr. Armijo. Is Maria Flora still here? Yes, she is coming in the back here. Maria, what were your observations of 1218? That you. I'm sorry. Who's talking about? What were you thinking of on 1218. I'm sorry. Observations or your observations of think of the committee meeting of December 18th. Well, I was concerned. Let me take that out, because. Councilman Flynn. Asked. Uh, let's see, Mr. Feinberg, by saying that, Rick Steinberg, what the effect of the permanent easement part of this is a permanent easement, which is why I'm still concerned. Part of it's a temporary easing, as I understand the permanent easement is the part that the detention is going to be on. So that. So he was asked what effect that had on the conservation easement and the city said there's a provision in the conservation easement that says if there's something that's done that precludes us from being a regulation golf course, that the conservation easement can be terminated. As a result, we looked at it and said, okay, we need to bring this back to a playable golf course. So from the onset, we worked with public works and let them know that we have to do that. And that was what desire and intent is. And by virtue of bringing it back to being a playable golf course, the conservation easement. Councilman Flynn said stays in effect and the answer was yet yes. My concern remains that. I don't think we've nailed down Clayton College. And if it's a permanent easement, does what they said tonight still apply? And if you look at the letter of. The conservation easement, it can be terminated. And is at the committee meeting. Did you see even a schematic diagram of what was being proposed as far as the detention location? I can't remember if it was one presented. I don't know that it was a specific schematic. I think that there was the general area that was identified as the northeast portion where one already detains. And just as a reminder for for everyone. I don't I don't think it's confidential. I saw a schematic design layout. Very. Not even preliminary. Right. Because there's no design yet. That is part of the transaction that would have to occur in the contracts. But one thing that I can say comfortably is between the current depression in the golf course and the planned. I mean, where there's already a low spot. I am convinced that that, you know, the detention could be captured in an 18 hole golf course. And you confirmed that last at the last hearing. But could you confirm again that the the amount of storm water that that needs to be detained on on site can still be captured in an 18 hole golf course regulation golf course can still be maintained. I'm a real estate guy. I think that an engineer needs to answer that. Is there somebody. Yeah, we have an engineer. He's in the back or he's over there. If I can answer the part of your question, maybe what was said is that there would be 25 to 35 acres for the permanent construction easement. You might use. Your mike right here. I'm sorry. What was said was there would be 25 to 35 acres for the permanent construction easement for the detention, and then a 55 to 65 acres for the temporary construction easement. For the rest of the golf course. And this is this is. Maybe you can answer both of these, because I think the first question is, can you guys confirm that we can, in fact, design the required stormwater detention, capture the amount of acreage, I mean, water that we want to capture and still maintain an 18 hole regulation golf course. And then can you address the fact that I believe that even if there's a permanent easement, we can still make it so that it's playable? Correct. Yeah. So the so the first question on on the golf course being restored with the detention incorporated. Obviously, we're not to a point where we have 100% design, but we're confident that we can get to that point just based on what we were talking about earlier, that there's a lot of precedents around the country where where that's incorporated. And we're working with our partners at SEMA to make sure that the detention gets designed and incorporated into that golf course. The permanent easement. And just interrupt me if I'm wrong, but from the permanent easement standpoint, it would not interfere interfere with the golf course play now. And so I want people to sort of separate the project from this transaction because there there are to me, legitimate concerns about the sort of viability in this whole deal about the viability of the conservation easement. But what I am fairly certain been convinced of, and I think you guys have proven capable, is delivering an 18 hole golf course. Now, whether that's viable for the operator to sustain months or years without full play abilities. And you know, but that gets to my last question for Jeff is how do you determine the amount of compensation that is needed to sort of lost revenue? It'll be a combination of negotiations. I mean, what we first have to do is bring in an appraiser to come up with the valuation of what the value of of the permitted easement is on the 25 to 35 acres. And then the same thing on the temporary construction easement and then as we get to design. So there's a couple of aspects there. It'll be June or July 1st when when design of the detention in and of itself is, is put on the table and finalized. So there'll be a construction timeline associated with that. And at the same time, we'll be working with the golf course architect that will look at how we bring the golf course back to a playable golf course. So between the two, I think what we had in the presentation was from January of 19 until March of 20 would be the period of time that the golf course would be out of operation. I would imagine that with seeding and bringing it back to use, it would probably take it into a junior of 20 before it could be operated as a golf course. So that would be the period that would be looked at for replacement income. So then again, for my own understanding of the timeline. If you now know the approximate window that the course would be down and the duration, what is preventing you from doing an appraisal and coming up with that number so that we knew that going into it to sort of find out where the where the, you know, why why do we have to actually execute all this now? Is this because of some deliverable to see DOT on detention and the idea or not? No. I mean. As we sit today, we don't have the right to go negotiate or to do an appraisal on somebody else's property in the properties owned by the Clayton Trust. And what we would need to do, and that's what we're seeking for in the land acquisition ordinance, is the right to send a notice of intent letter saying that we plan on acquiring the easements. That we need to understand how we can be in negotiations with Clayton for six years under the pretense that they they might lose their operator and not be, you know, in such a collegial environment that we couldn't actually sort of work together on that and. So we haven't been in negotiations with them for six years. We've been in discussions with them because this has been a topic where we've looked at and again, as we had back in September, there was the potential where we could potentially have looked at buying a portion of the golf course. But we have to respect the contracts that are in place. And the contract that's in place is with the golf course operator. That goes to the end of this year, but it also goes until the end of June 30th or until June 30th, when they have to come up with the decision of whether or not they're going to extend their option. So we have to have all those things in place and can't take them out of order. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, what was your proclamation? Thank you. I'm hard of hearing. So could you please kind of speak up? And the hearing aids they gave me. What was your proclamation? DNA test, two citizens living within two miles radius of the 39th project. If any citizen tests positive for levels of benzo, a brain lead or spinsters, arsenic or eccentric because we know what's in that property 1/10 of a percent above normal EPA standards. The project will come to a complete halt and full EPA testing of the soil and clean up will begin and the 39th Avenue Project area every three months. After the clean up has been done, or if they said they were fine every three months or six months, don't eat or do a DNA test for the next ten years if they would have done DNA tests on us. I wouldn't be in the situation I am today. There would are number two. I'm concerned about all the kids because a majority of people have moved into that neighborhood that I've talked to. Even the ones living there, they moved there because they got tired of New York City. Live in San Francisco. They found their sweet little bungalows. Now they are barely finding out they're going to destroy all of northeast Denver in the name of the almighty dollar. Now, the reason I know about DNA testing, cause I was on a top secret island in the South Pacific. They didn't tell us what was on there, but I got everything from Vietnam to Johnson Atoll. These kids in their study said the Mexicans, which are Mexicanos from Mexico, were not intelligent enough to know English. At the same time, their kids were slower learners because of lead paint and whatever else the highway produces. If you do a DNA test based on the existing Campos, we as resident have either read about or know about. You would be able to have a chart for these families and have the families a to have the city of Denver. All the contractors like they did with Rocky Flats to pay for any medical issues. I've lived in that neighborhood since 1960. I lived in East Denver since the day I was born. Every time the city wants to do something, I help him clean it up in the nineties and 2000 and they promised hours. They're going to clean up the area. They're going to put us apart. None of that ever happened. But now all of a sudden they're saying, Oh, we need the land. And I've worked hard for the city for free as a volunteer from cleaning up the drugs, prostitution. I bought my mother's house for $18,000 with no intentions of ever moving out of there or having a monetary value on it all alone. Neighbors know me as either Grandpa Ed or the Mayor of coal where I live because I know so much about that neighborhood. I know. I've been on the Internet. I've been federal government, the EPA. Nobody can produce a physical record of Gardner Denver, which is the rock drill we take. Gardner Denver. Each one of them are parking facilities that all belong to Gardner. Denver. I used to work for Gardner Denver in the eighties. We use petroleum products to. Call the metal. That's poison now. I could not find documentation on 39th Avenue where Roman Church told me there's gas tanks buried there, etc.. So not to be rude, but you you are in fact opening up Pandora's box. My point is, and this box from my experiment with government, that I'm just anybody but you and you on that city council. Could you reason with people? Albert She's always trying to cut me off. But. But I'll just be. Be honest. There are we have verifiable, documented, all different. I don't believe that I worked at the refinery for 26 years because of my illness. I had to take a medical retirement. But they said the refinery was cleaned up, but we had a big old benzene taper in. Some of the guys already died. Exposures can happen so many different ways, and I don't deny that that is in fact, there is a definite history in certain parts of North Denver and East Denver, and populations long, prolonged, with long, prolonged exposures had definitely had health impacts and and generational health impacts over there. But Councilman, I got Ortega, okay. So I just wanted you to know. They offered the Yeah. Park heal that that it's not. You know, I'd be happy to talk to you. After we've shared if you talk to me, because I could tell you stuff. If you listen to reason. You would put this project on a screeching halt. I'm not dumb. I know a lot about chemicals in the refining naval nuclear industry with all my work. I work for Gardner, Denver in the Machine Shop, working at the refinery as an industrial mechanic. They even found this third. I mean. Nobody was there. Thank you. We're going to Mr. Mrs. Councilwoman Ortega. This is my neighbor, by the way. So I have heard all these stories, but. Councilwoman Ortega, thank you. I just have two more quick questions. So the first one is for is Happy Haines to hear. Have you would you mind coming forward? My question is, I know we went through this whole process when shortly after the first. I can't even think of the name of the Park Inn in far southeastern, but that drew attention to the fact that we had a number of on dedicated parks, and then we learned that there were certain parks we couldn't dedicate because we had conservation easement on there. So do you have a ballpark idea of how many parks or park land that we own that have conservation easements on them? No, I don't. Councilwoman Ortega not off the top of my head. And those those would be owned by someone else other than the city with a conservation easement but for for public access. So. Trying to think of. I know we have one up at it's next to Harry Potter and that little purchased with natural resource damage. So that's a great example. That's a state owned facility and there's a conservation easement on. So we're required to keep that as open space. It's part of our master planning. That's right. And it's not owned by it's owned by another government inside the city. Yeah. Okay. So it would be helpful at some point to just know that because we. Would be we do have that. I just don't have it in. Front of me. And I didn't expect you to answer that exact number tonight, but the fact that there are other easements on their owned by other entities means that we, the city, cannot turn around and try to dispose of that land that has an easement that we have no control of. I think every easement is different. So would yeah, I mean, generally that would be true, but every easement is different. So we would have to look at each one to determine what the conditions are. And I know you've been in northeast Denver for as long as you and I have known each other. But don't say please. Do you recall? And I'm going to ask Clayton to answer this question why the easement was put on the Park Hill golf course. It's my recollection I could be wrong about this, that it was because of the revenue that they were generating that they would have been taxed on. But by putting the conservation easement on there, it precluded them from being taxed for that revenue that was coming in from the private operators then. No, I, I, I don't recall. I mean, there were obviously I don't know if it was the conservation easement, the, uh, address, the tax issues or not. And, um, I, um. Yeah. Okay. Let me ask Clayton to just address that. Yeah. Because it's it's it's an easement that the city acquired, but it's not clear what that easement currently does. What? But access that gives. Us, if I may, council and that I'll start and then if I get in trouble, I'm going to have Bruce come back up here. So they're actually two different things at work here. One was the contract between the city and Clayton Moore. The $2 million was was exchanged. And at that point in time, as as Bruce had mentioned earlier, golf was a a good economic use of that property. And so it made a lot of sense to have it remain golf. That was 20 some odd years ago. Now that that was was looked at in that way. The agency agreement which is a separate it's a it's a contract between us and the city that came along a few years later. The agency agreement is what addresses the tax issue, the property tax issue. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Okay, Councilman. Council president. I have no further questions. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. See no other questions on 1396. We're now going to move into the comment portion and closed 1396. So comments by members accounts. So, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. You're going to do comments before questions on 95, correct? Thank you. The two weeks ago, when we had this on first reading, I offered an amendment to clarify the authority of this of the administration to go ahead and and acquire permanent and temporary easements and as necessary for random parcels around those easements to acquire by fiat. Simple because fee simple acquisition was included in there. And we understood that that's not the intent. But I was very concerned that by including the authority to acquire up to 90 acres for stormwater drainage, detention, etc. in fee simple that we were putting a foot in the door. Camel's nose in the tent. Whatever you want to call, whatever you want to call it without having to come back to the city council. If in fact the decision was to acquire by a fee simple rather than easement. And because of that, Mr. President, I can't vote. I can't vote yes on on. The Syrians have to vote now. The other reason is that I believe 90 acres is is much more than we talked about in the beginning. We were talking initially about a 25 acre detention area and whatever might be needed for temporary construction easements. 90 acres is just much, much too much for me to approve. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Herndon, would you like to go at the end or. No, Mr. President, I'm. I'm no comment. Okay, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I referenced in my my common question. We have good at mushing them together here. The fact that this has been a messy process. And I think I just think the city does actually have to take responsibility for, you know, entering into a legal negotiation without adequate information about the operator as well as Clayton . We should not have had an agreement on the verge of council adoption without that clarified much more definitively, and it has created so much confusion and fear. This would have been a totally different conversation had we not ended up there. So I think both parties bear responsibility for that. And I think part of what we all need to do in public service or in community service is take that responsibility. So that is unfortunate. And I really do understand why the community has the concerns it has, because that is the conversation we were having just a couple of months ago. And if that agreement were before me, I'm not sure that I would have been able to support it. But I am trying hard in spite of that mess and in spite of our failure to do our proper due diligence to really separate out just this particular proposal before me. And, you know, based on really a very clear ordinance that really limits the use of this land for the drainage purpose, that is the only thing we can acquire for. And and I respect in some way is Councilman Flynn's, you know, desire to not have this simple versus an easement. But the effect is the same, really, whether the city, for some legal quirk, has to acquire it in fee simple or for legal quirk has to do it as an easement. If in the end it's only for drainage and if the end it has to be put back as a golf course, that it's just a distinction without a difference. It's not something I hear from the community that you all care about. So. So I think I've tried to zero my questions in on the things that I have heard that people care about, because I think those things are really important. And so I appreciate Clayton being very firm about the fact that they are not using this agreement or I'm sorry, this ordinance as a as an excuse to to trigger, you know, a condemnation clause for a temporary loss of the golf course. I'm sure there will be all kinds of interesting and heated debates about how to protect the kids's interest in revenue and the value of land. But that's you know, that's all governed by a really strict process. So so I feel like I've done the due diligence that the community has asked me to do, that this land will be used for open space and only for open space. And so or I'm sorry, actions that we use for drainage. I'm sorry we use for drainage. It's late. I'm sorry. I'm getting a little muddled and so and that and that we have the protections in place for the next phase. It is incumbent upon the city to deliver land that can be used as a golf course. Right. And so and I feel like I have gotten enough, you know, and this is where, you know, Councilman Espinosa and I seem to be in agreement that there is ample evidence that this can be done. And so because of that ample evidence, there should never, ever be a triggering of the condemnation clause. If it can be built as a golf course, the condemnation clause never gets triggered. So the two are linked. And because there is ample evidence that it can. Be restored to a golf course. I feel confident moving this forward. And, you know, I appreciate the speaker who, you know. Echoed my words from committee, but I'll just do it in my own words tonight. Which is that. Let's not do this again with bad process. So if and when you hear from Argus or who you're if I'm saying the name properly of your of your golf course operator, we need really good communication with the community and with this council about how design is proceeding and how it's impacting decisions that you're making and things like that. I would ask that council get briefings on the confidential negotiations that are occurring. We seriously underuse executive sessions as this body. We should get a committee executive session to understand how negotiations are going on this discussion about this acquisition as it proceeds. It's highly public interest oriented and we it's just not appropriate for you to negotiate an entire agreement and then tell us about it at the end when there is so much confusion and challenge. So I would ask that you give us briefings. So with all of those, you know, kind of due diligence is and all of those requests to make sure that we stay a part of this conversation in an ongoing way. I appreciate that my questions have been answered and I will be voting to move this forward. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilwoman. Can each. Councilman Espinosa, you're up? Yeah, I. I wish I could go there because it's a good stormwater project and a good way to incorporate this at relatively minimal impact. The problem is, is that we have this history of sort of protracted discussion about developing land that is not developable by design. It is a fallacy to sort of sit here and opine that that, you know, we chose a golf course because that was a good sort of revenue generator back then, and no longer is it. And now we need to change because that decision to make a golf course was in part because of the outcry for the open space. And so that was the sort of compromise that we were going to. We will we will do this in exchange. We will use this open space like a revenue generator in exchange for not losing a complete development opportunity here. You know, it was sort of I mean, it wasn't that it was, but it was a negotiation with the community at that time that basically said, look, here's a good compromise, a way you guys can have open space or at least that that that natural element, and we could generate revenue. And to sort of say that we're going to use whatever mechanism now to sort of to to throw away those ideas, those agreements of the past. And no one's sort of saying that. But what we are doing is creating a clear, clear path for that because of what we talked about. There is no easement in place today. But what there is, is an agency agreement, and that agency agreement allows them to terminate that agreement in writing at any point in time, at any time. They could have done it two years ago. They could have done it five years ago. They could do it tomorrow. But they'll probably if they're smart, they'll wait. They'll wait until it's clear that there's going to be some sort of agreement with their operator. And so when you do, they'll file the termination. And then the next action is they have to put the conservation easement in place. That is a requirement of their agency agreement. So when they terminate, they have to put it in the agency agreement. I mean, the conservation easement. And now because their golf course operator says that we can't use it and the amount of money that the city not going to give us isn't enough for us to endure two years and go on. They have the conditions to, to, to, to get rid of the conservation easement. And now, lo and behold, the development rights are there. Well, the cities already they had made very clear by virtue of the action back in September that we've got a deal, we've got a way to sort of promise upwards of $24 million to purchase that land with development rights. It's not good for us to buy open space for the cheap. We want to buy land that is developable open space that city of Denver residents fought for, earned and got this agreement and paid for. His, you know, 20 years ago, 20 plus years ago. And so what I've always maintained, and I'll be transparent with you all, is I might be okay with that if we could sort of create a win win for Clayton and a win for open space and a win for community, because there's definite needs and desires for certain uses there. It's definite infrastructure investment that we've made as a as as people in the city and state over there. And so there might be opportunity, but if you're going to have that much open space and capture that much value, I want a commitment that that money that goes to redevelopment of open space goes back into purchase and acquisition of even more open space in the city. You know, this is in why that and that might disturb some people going well wait a sec you're going to sell Park Hill. That's at a time when we're going to build the 39th Avenue Channel next to our biggest park in the city. You know, we have a equity issue on open space. And I think there's a way to sort of to do it more thoughtfully. But that's not what's happening here. All to to to Councilwoman Canisius Point. This happens so opaquely. That Council does not know until it's time to go. Six years of negotiation. I don't know how many members of council knew that this was going on for six years. You know, this council is asked for real estate updates in an executive session, a master plan, some sort of knowledge about what it is that we have as assets, what we're playing with, what we're exploring, and why. But we don't. The only way to know that is is is is in a stronger government to have that seat on the third floor. And we the best we can do is is what you're seeing here. And fortunately, this is a situation where the community knew better. I, Nancy, came out with facts and people came out in droves and so took two German speakers comments. I've been on that site just two and a half years ago. Right. And I have been right on that side. And this is a situation where, once again, you guys know better than we do. And so I'm mindful of that. We have oversight authority. That is our job as our lone, strong power as counsel is to prove or deny these sorts of deals. There's stronger provisions that we could be making for the health and safety environment. And I'm sort of spilling into my 39th Avenue channel, things that they apply here because we're talking about open space and that is so critical to well-being and that is so much why we live in Denver is the quality of life. And to that community that that that low income in the affordable community that is restricted next to this asset. I mean, that is an incredible asset. Not many low income communities next to a golf course, you know. And so we did that. Clayton did that willfully, and now we're doing this sort of deal to get out of it, sort of, you know, leveraging people, getting people riled up for what the potential is when that potential doesn't exist unless we do a whole bunch of other machinations to make it happen. And so let's be transparent about that and say here's what it's going to take. Here's what we're asking you. City of Denver. Do you guys want your assets, your money, your fees in storm water, your tax dollars in general revenue funds to go to this level of investment to support one organization, which is very worthwhile. And if so, to what degree? And then what do you want to do with your open space? You know, that is that is that the city's doing that. But we're not doing that. That's Clayton doing that. And that's that's just disingenuous. And that is not how we should be operating. As far as I'm concerned. So because that is in fact the narrative that I'm throwing out and I could be totally wrong in three years time. Four years time. I'm willing to be that. But if I'm totally right, you've got this point to remember. I thanks. I'll be voting no. All right, Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be voting yes. This bill is not going to. And in the development of the golf course, it's actually a practical solution with an environmental benefit. One of the speakers talked about the importance of green space while the park, how a golf course will still be a green space. And under this bill. The green space will also be a green. Solution for a major flooding problem. And we've been talking about this for a year. And I know the common ground golf course is an example of drainage. The Lake World Golf Course is an example of drainage. We've asked about that in committee meetings is a green way to deal with drainage issues. So as Councilwoman Kennish brought up this bill is. Not going to result in all of the. Things that a lot of people are worried about. It's really. Just going to allow. For this drainage to be built and it will remain open space in the future. I'm confident that Charlotte Brantley and the Clinton Trust in partnership with the city and the community, will then work toward a community vision. I have the utmost confidence in Charlotte Brantley. I know she cares passionately about her community so I will be supporting this. All right. Thank you, Councilman Black, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Now, you can include me on the. A team that feels this is it's a little bit too muddled for my taste. Starting back with is, as Councilwoman Kenny pointed out, how how in the name of all that is holy and sacred, we get a contract that we're getting ready to vote on and nobody's talked to the golf course operator. It just feels like there's too much. I don't believe everything's on the table. I don't think council has been given the entire truth about what the plans are either by Clayton and I have great respect for the work that Clayton does for the kids in the community and the families. I have no problem with that, but I just don't believe either the administration or Clayton has presented the plans that already exist on their tables for our consideration. Another thing that that concerns me greatly well, I heard the most definite from all the speakers tonight was was from the attorney for Clayton, and that their responsibility is to their fiduciary responsibility to the Clayton trust and that that's fine. I understand that. But that's what I hear a lot more firmly than any commitment to preservation of open space. The another thing that bothers me is. I believe that the timeline for all of this is not driven by. Concerns for the community, but by the need to build this drainage project in agreement with dates that we've committed to, with, with the Department of Transportation to not hold up the I-70 project. And I think. I think that's affecting issues relating to both of the projects that we're considering tonight, that both could do with being cooked a little bit longer. So I will not be supporting this this evening. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, we know that we have some drainage problems in this area of town. And you've heard people, you know, in the audience talk about them. I've heard Councilman Brooks talk about, you know, his very neighborhood being flooded. But this has been a very messy process going back to when this body was asked to approve a proclamation. In support of the preferred alternative for I-70 way before the supplemental draft was even released. And I caution my colleagues to not vote for a preferred alternative before the actual supplemental draft of the EIC had been released, because we didn't know all the details of what was in that document. It was then later followed up with an idea that directly tied all the drainage in this area to the I-70 project. So much so that. We're. Responsible for maintaining the lid over the Hyde Highway, which is supposed to be the mitigation for the project. So I challenge why we we the city of Denver, number one, should have ever agreed to be on the hook for the maintenance of that lid. But then, number two, that you know, it it ended up in the idea. And then you look at the funny math that happened. We ended up swap swapping land that's underneath I-70. With see dot that became part of the budget of how we then fund part of the drainage they put their 40 million in and if it exceeded a certain threshold, which it already has, then they're on the hook for more money. But. The public process on the 39th Avenue Channel happened way after all of that approval processes had come before this body of city council. So when the neighborhood started coming to public meetings and learning about this 39th Avenue channel, and I remember being told we're either going to do City Park golf course or we're going to do 39th Avenue channel. But at no point was there a discussion that we would do both. But here we are. We're doing both, and we're doing the Park Hill Golf Course. So all of this and that's why I wanted to see the big picture budget of what was brought to us as one project, the Twin Basin Drainage Project, again now called the Platte to Park Hill. Project. And I guess one of my concerns is we're going to have a city park golf course, overland golf course, and now Park Hill Golf Course all down at the same time. Yes, we don't own Park Hill, but for people who golf and like to keep their revenue in our city and not go play in in neighboring jurisdictions. We're going to lose that revenue. Yes, will be compensated by the music festival for the lack of use, the lack of play, you know, at Oberlin. But we're going to have these three golf courses down at the same time. And, you know, that's on top of all the rest of the other construction that's going to be happening because of the geo on that past. We're going to have lots of projects underway at the same time all over the city. But I guess my just to get back to this particular bill here tonight, I want to first say that for those people who have raised concerns about the environmental impact, we just learned today that the materials management plan has been received by the city. They've got to review it. It'll probably be about three weeks before that document is public for everybody to see what the material management plan will be as they identify various materials or products that are in the soils that require action levels. You know, based on what what. What they have identified. And in the information that I received today, I was told that there were about 70 borings that took place on the 39th Avenue Channel. Somebody mentioned there were only three. So, Councilwoman, that's on the next bill. Okay. Yeah, sorry. We're still on part of alluding it all because in my mind I see it all as one project because that's how it was brought forward to us. Okay, so I'm sorry and I'll make my comments now and not make them on the next bill, but I'm just a little frustrated at how, unless we're asking the right questions and demanding information, that helps us understand the big picture of what we're dealing with. We see these things piecemeal and it's it's hard. It's hard enough for us to be able to keep it together. I can imagine how challenging and difficult it is for the community who's seen piecemeal as well. And and this is not to. Say anything disparaging against our folks in the city who have worked really hard to bring these projects forward, knowing full well we do have some challenges and issues that we're trying to address in this city. I'm just I'm just frustrated at our process in how we have roll this out to the community. And, you know, we've we've got a. A need that we're trying to address. But at the same time, it's not the what we're doing, it's how we've done it that hasn't felt so transparent and and upfront in in the information sharing that is is not only being shared with the public, but but oftentimes with us. And so I'm not sure how I'm going to vote tonight, but I'm just sharing some of my some of my concerns and frustrations with kind of where we've been with this. And, you know, some have had more history than others with this project from the very beginning, but I'm probably leaning more towards not supporting it in in in large part because, you know, we were told we only needed 20 acres initially. Now it's 25, but we're now up to 90 acres in Park Hill Golf Course. And and I'm not convinced that that is not in itself going to throw this budget completely on its head. So again, we went from $40 million with see not spending money to do drainage to the IGA that was later in excess of 150 . Then we were at 300 million when we did the wastewater rate increase. And I'm hoping that if we can. Do this without having to do 90 acres. We stay within that budget, but if we end up needing up to 90 acres, I'm concerned that there's going to be another ask to put more money into covering all of these costs for these four projects that make up this flat to Park Hill drainage project. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Herndon High. Cashman. Can each new. Ortega. No. Sussman. My black eye. Clark, I. Espinoza. Flynn Now. Mr. President. I. Please for the voting in US results. I think we're missing somebody, said Sandra. Ortega. Seven ice, four days. Seven ice, four days, 1396 has passed. All right, Councilwoman, can you please put 1395 on the floor?

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all documents necessary to amend Contract No. 33071 with Azteca Landscape, Inc., of Ontario, CA, and Contract No. 33259 with Merchants Landscape Services, Inc., of Santa Ana, CA, for grounds maintenance services, increasing the aggregate annual contract amount by $358,674, for a total annual amount of $3,513,938; authorize a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $351,394, for an aggregate annual amount not to exceed $3,865,332; and execute any necessary future amendments thereto, provided that the aggregate total amount of contract authority is not exceeded. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04052016_16-0297

Out a 14. Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine recommendation to amend contracts with Aztec Landscape and merchants. Landscape services for grounds maintenance services for an aggregate annual amount not to exceed 3.8 million citywide. Caleb Andrews. Okay. Say a council member. You, Ringo. You want to pronounce that company again? Azteca. Okay. Thank you. Very good. Councilman Mongo. Just as a point of clarification, I noticed in the documentation that this is our third and final extension. Could you talk a little bit about the RFP process or the bid process that's come in and what that timeline looks like? Marie Knight. Good evening, Honorable Mayor. Members of the City Council. The item before you tonight is to amend contracts with the city's two grounds maintenance service contractors as landscape and merchant landscape services. Specifically, the department is seeking approval to increase the contract authority for both of these firms in an amount not to exceed $710,068 to account for maintenance needs at newly added or improved street medians, parks, dog. Parks. And other open spaces that have been added since the contract was originally approved by the City Council in September of 2013. The Department is excited to have added or improve such facilities as Baker, Minnie Park, Chaddock Field, Jackson Street and El Dorado Dog Parks, South Street, Medians, Mother's Beach parking lot and around the Belmont temporary pool facility . Just to name a few. Additionally. As part of the increase in the contract authority, the Department is requesting a 10% contingency to address any future park or street medium projects that would require grounds maintenance services in the future. And finally, there are. Several locations. That are being removed. From the scope of the work. Where the contractors are no longer providing service. This is the last year of our contract, so we will begin the RFP process and I'm going to. Ask Steve to go through that. Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council. That is correct. The contract will be ending at the end of next year. So staff right now is already developing the bid specifications and service levels for the 190 plus locations that we have identified as part of this contract. So we expect to be doing that over the next few months with the kind of bid package development later this summer. So I just want to be mindful that while I appreciate there are adjustments that can be made to the scope of work, I, I really hear from the community members that are using our parks that we need to write into these contracts, incentives and penalties for the contractor when they don't behave. For example, the other day are and I know Steve's aware of this, we've it's actually a little bit further ago now, but before Christmas, we spent a considerable amount of money repairing some of our parks. And then it took a truck during maintenance, just drove right through it and caused some issues. And those workers and or the company need to take responsibility for those areas and or know what we're doing. And so if not with this scope of work, if possible, I would like them added immediately. If not, I will be very, very adamant that they need to be added to the new RFP process because if there are not incentives, then they're at least needs to be penalties. But I would prefer an even playing field to make sure that our parks maintain themselves as Premier Parks in the country. So thank you. Councilman Gonzales. I think Councilman Mungo brings up a good point. I think while our department does such an amazing job, I think we have had issues in the past with our maintenance. And so I would just kind of piggyback to what she's saying is to ensure that we're I'm sure we're being very clear with them as to the standards that we'd like to keep up. But just to ensure that that sentiment continues forward, especially with these new extensions. So thank you. Okay. Councilman Richardson. I actually want to echo Councilmember Gonzalez. I know that, you know, they have a lot of work to do. But I've seen instances where, you know, we go and we trim it and we trim, trim, trim and maintain so deeply that we ruin, you know, the landscaping in the medians. So I want to make sure that while we are expanding it, we're being reasonable in terms of what we're asking them to do so that we get quality public service, our residents get a quality service out of the deal. So I would just add that. Councilman Rango. Thank you. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. And I also wanted to put a formal thank you out there and a welcome to you for coming on board. We're excited to have you. Again, thank you to Steve Scott for all the work you've done and props to Hurley for all that you've done in the intermediary steps of ensuring that we have those good relationships not only with the contractor, but also in the places where volunteers were able to step up and work together to improve the parks program. Last year, I think you did a phenomenal job. The community and my staff just acclaim and say all of your praises. Thank you. Thank you. There is a motion and a second member. Please go ahead and cast. I'm sorry. What do we do? We didn't do a public comment on this. Public comment? Okay. Members Frisco and Castro votes. Motion carries.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 990 North King Street in Villa Park. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-D to E-TU-C (single- to two-unit), located at 990 King Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-13-21.

DenverCityCouncil_05242021_21-0407

No formal motion or vote is required this evening, and so we'll go ahead and move on then. 407 Council Member Sandoval We need a motion to take Council Bill 407 out of order, please. And move that council bill 20 10407 be taken out of order. You. All right. It's been moved. And we have the second by Councilmember Herndon. Questions or comments by members of council. Councilmember Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. We need to take this item out of order so that we can postpone final consideration and the public hearing date. All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Herndon. I. Hines. I. Cashman. I. Can each i. Ortega, i. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, i. Torres I. Black I. CdeBaca, I. Clark. All right. Flynn. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0407. May be taken out of order. Council Member Sandoval Will you please vote? Council Bill 20 1-0407 on the floor for final passage. And move that council bill 20 1-0407. Be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Right. It's been moved. And I believe we got the second from Councilmember Hines. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone. Yes, Madam President, I move that final consideration of Council Bill 20 10407 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, June 21st, 2021. Thank you. Has been moved. And we've got the second by Councilmember Hines questions or comments by members of council. Councilmember Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. This postponement has to come at the request of the applicant for more community outreach to be done. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Herndon. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement. Brendan. I. And I. Cashman. I. Can. Each. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear I saw as I look. I see tobacco. I. Clarke. I. Flynn. I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 Eyes. Final Consideration of Council Bill 20 10407 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, June 21st, and 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 I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Council Member Sandoval 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 and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do part passed in a block for the following items. 21 series 20 1059705450546052405250527052805440501053405350547031604580605028105120513050405170505. All right. Thank you. It has been moved. Okay. We've got a second by Councilmember Hines. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Black. I CdeBaca. I quote. I. When. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I. Oh. Can each. I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres, I. Madam President, I. And then, Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Our pre recess announcement tonight there will be a combined public hearing on Council Bill 21, dash 0083 Changing the zoning classification.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 2.01.380; and by repealing Section 2.01.390, all relating to officeholder accounts, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04112017_17-0269

Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code all relating to officeholder accounts read for the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. This was this was the EOC municipal could change recommendation from last time. There's a motion in a second. Is there any public comment? Please come down. It's going to be very good. You click as the address. I very face. This measure. Does not and could never pass the smell test period. Those who have proved it and those who approved bringing this forward now have and will forever more, as long as they are in office, have a target on their back. Place their. But the United States Department of Justice, period, it simply does not pass the smell test. And those who voted against this measure in committee are to be commended. Those who voted for it should find the nearest door and leave. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion and a second, please. Members, cast your votes. Motion carries.

Adopt resolution directing the Director of Development Services to submit a request to the California Coastal Commission to certify an amendment to the Certified Local Coastal Program. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03202018_18-0259

Those were the ones that were requested to move up. So those will be first and then we will go on with the regular agenda. Next up is hearing item number number three. Hearing item number two. Number two, correct. We did it. We did three. I'm sorry. First hearing item number two is a report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and adopt negative declaration and zero four Dash 17 Declare Ordinance amending various sections of Title 21 of the Lumbee. Tomorrow's more code relating to the regulation of tattoo parlors. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting. Adobe Resolution directing the Director of Development Services to submit a request to the California Coastal Commission to certify an amendment to the Certified Local Coastal Program City. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and begin by hearing the staff report, Mr. MODICA. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We'll have a staff report again from Kari Tai, our current planning officer. Thank you. Good evening again, Mayor Garcia. Members of the city council to know that before you tonight is an update to the city's zoning ordinance with regard to the regulation of tattoo parlors. Just a bit of background. In 2010, the U.S., the ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that tattooing is protected under the First Amendment. And then fast forward to March of 2017, where the city was involved in a lawsuit. And the court ruled, or at least had preliminary findings, that the existing zoning code unreasonably restricted the permitted locations of tattoo parlors in the city. And so therefore, in order to comply with the preliminary findings of the city attorney's office and city staff is proposing this update to the zoning code. Just to go through some existing regulations today, our zoning only permits new tattoo parlors with the with a conditional use permit in the following zones, just the H W zone and then also the downtown plan and the midtown specific plan areas. That's it for all the entire city. And so in addition to that, there are buffers, there's a separation requirement of 1000 feet from adult entertainment uses as well as tattoo parlors and bars. And there's also hours of operation regulations in terms of one of the reasons that the existing tattoo regulations seem to be pretty restrictive is that there there has been through time a sort of a negative stigma with regard to tattoo parlors. You know, and however that and basically today there are nine licensed tattoo parlors in the entire city of 50 square miles. Times have changed a bit. And not only that, but the with the court's new finding, there was the need to update the zoning code. The zoning code. So one of the first things that we did was study some of the more cutting edge tattoo ordinances throughout the state of California, many some of which like Oceanside and Hermosa Beach, also resulting from court challenges. So the proposed zoning code amendment would allow tattoo parlors by right, which means no conditional use permit that allows for certainty to be built in the process whereby an applicant can open up the zoning code, open up a zoning map, and determine for themselves in a clear and concise fashion whether a tattoo parlor would be allowed in a specific location. So tattoo parlors would be allowed by, right, as proposed in all of the commercial zones, with the exception of the sea ice zone. That's the one that's specifically reserved for self-storage and commercial storage facilities. But the rest of them would be a sizable for a tattoo parlor. Also, we would propose to allow tattoos in commercial zones in the in the plan development districts such as the downtown plan, such as the Midtown Plan, such as a PD one, which is the southeast area, up soon to be secret plan. And then we would also propose to retain a locational buffer, which is 500 feet away from existing tattoo parlors, as well as 500 feet away from schools in your pocket. We did include a map that looks like the one on the screen that details where tattoo parlors would be allowed based on those proposed criteria. And as you can see on the map, there's a peach color and that's generally throughout the city where tattoo parlors would be permitted and they run along the commercial corridors. The proposed zoning code amendment also has proposed performance standards. The reason is that these performance standards take the place of conditions of approval. Thereby, when the city permits a tattoo parlor, the up the the business owner or the applicant would have to agree to operate that tattoo parlor in accordance with these performance standards for the life of the business. And that includes hours of operation between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m.. Prohibition of service of alcohol and the like. And this is I would like to mention, in addition to existing health department requirements and other requirements that are outside of the zoning code. So so this would be in addition to the other requirements. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this item on February 1st and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council for approval. The in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed zoning code amendment was evaluated through an initial study and found to have no significant impacts to the environment. Therefore, a negative declaration was prepared. Public notices for this city council hearing were sent out. Staff received four phone calls of support and no comments in writing. And with that, the Planning Commission is forwarding a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the negative declaration and adopt the tattoo parlor ordinance as well as forward. This to the California Coastal Commission for a local Coastal Program amendment pertaining to areas in the coastal zone. That concludes staff's presentation and we can answer any questions you have. Thank you. Thank you. There that was. We're going to go ahead in the next part of the hearing and do public comment. So is your public comment on this hearing. Now would be the time to come forward? Seeing no public. Please come forward. I'm Eric Garcia, counsel. Well, my name is Joe Kasher, and I've been a tattoo artist for 27 years. I own Ace of Hearts Tattoo on Pine between seventh and eighth. And I have specific knowledge of this type of deal because I was helpful and instrumental in the legalization of tattooing in 1997 in New York. I was actually on the board that recommended that tattooing be legalized in New York and actually in that because of that. New York became a disaster as far as tattoo shops go. And by that, I mean the regulation that you guys are bringing down won't help tattooing. I'm not 100% against opening other zones of the city to tattooing, but this kind of 0 to 60 mentality that I feel is happening right now is very scary to me as a tattooer. And as far as keeping the tattooing, the quality of tattooing in Long Beach, which has that many shops, I guess eight or nine. We all know each other. We all kind of police each other. All of them are owned by tattoo artists. Opening the city up like this will have a negative effect in countless ways, but one of the main ways is people will see Long Beach, which is a great city and has a rich tattoo history as a cash cow. Non tattoo artists will open because there are no regulations saying a non tattoo artist can open a tattoo shop and they'll come in, drop their minimums down to negative. So there will be that part of it, which will be the financial for the other tattoo shops. There won't be any regulation on infection control because I've dealt with the health department very closely and Glen Fong and I worked very hard together to get everything and I went through a lot of jump through a lot of hoops, let's say, to make sure that everything was perfect in my shop. I just feel that it's very detrimental to the tattoo face of Long Beach to just immediately open up what seems to be so much more of the city to anybody who wants to open a tattoo shop. And I understand it's because of the lawsuit. And when I talked to people, the lawsuit was very instrumental in what happened. It's not good for tattooing and the industry in Long Beach, and I think Long Beach has had it's really the way it is right now is fantastic. And like I said, I'm not against opening up other zoning areas slowly, maybe letting a couple of other tattoo shops open every once in a while or every year or so. But just opening up the whole city, I think is a huge mistake. There will be if you go down, up and down Hollywood Boulevard and you see the way those tattoo shops are, there's no regulation. People get infections. There's a huge amount of people getting infection because no one's policing them. And health department, I don't think has the manpower to police every one of the tattoo shops, of which immediately there will be, you know, as many as you could possibly imagine. Thank you so much. Okay. Next week, replace him. Those of us who are of the intelligent design mindset that we have a creator, we are approaching an hour where we will be remembering, as Jesus asked us to, not his birth, but his death. Remember my death. I live every time I hear the statement. Original intent. I love those pretexts of statements. What was the original intent? Whether it is tattooing or same sex lovers or whether not medical or. We'd what we whatever we're going to call it the Orient, the original intention of God for a man and for a woman and the bodies that he put our spirits in. And if you're atheist or agnostic, this is not for you tonight. Council people. I want to make sure that we're sticking to the hearing. It's just to be here. Well, Mr.. Sorry, we have to speak on the tattoo parlor. You're going right. There. Thank you. I am going right there. We were all born with a body. And we get that body came out as God intended it to be. He made no mistakes for it. We have eyelashes and. Here where we need it curves where we need it. Now we're at an hour where we're saying, I want pain on me now. I want to write on me. And then the argument is not whether or not it should be authorized. I'm saying for those who have ears to hear, you're representing the city council. But God put you in your position. What's the original intention? People with no laws cast off restraint and they do anything. Your eight year old, your four year old? Well, they're going to be looking. How soon can I get my mark? And it's all leading to somewhere that mark. It's leading to somewhere. Tattoos now. Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Stephen Morrison, CEO, Second District. With regards to the proposed ordinance and the specific part of it that outlines as part restrictions on marijuana distribution to that Section 5.9 of the Long Beach Municipal Code already prohibits that. So I don't know why that should be included in this particular ordinance. Additionally, if the purpose of this ordinance is to try to make it so that you're not going to have this being challenged in court, I don't see any particular reason why you have the buffer zone for near K-through-12 schools, unlike, say, comparable comparably to another sensitive use like marijuana, where there is an existing federal law that requires a certain buffer zone for that. There are no such prohibitions for tattoo parlors. I mean, a sense they should be regulated for marijuana use perspective. Now, I guess to say a barbershop and with regards to the again, to the specific of what was being outlined in that proposed ordinance, I think the other speaker spoke to it really to articulate as well, despite the fact that we have land, that we have health and safety powers, there were no specific outline health requirements as part of the on that proposed ordinance from a you know, the you're dealing with the injection of subcutaneous inks. I think that, you know, basically an autoclave, for example, would be required for that or certain capital investments in order to make sure that a tattoo parlor is safe and regulated as part of the rest of the community. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and close public comment and move on to the council accounts and reports. Thank you. I want to thank staff for the presentation. I know this is something that you guys have been working on since I got into office nearly 19 months ago. And so I did have a couple of questions. I know that right now we have four parlors that have conditional use permits, and I know that we have in here proposed performance standards and that it includes operations, appearance and health and public safety. When we we're referring to the state and city health regulations to be enforced, are those regulations particular to parlors? Yes. Those are specific for any tattoo parlor that opens and that would apply both to any proposed new parlors as well as existing parlors. They are subject to the state regulations as well as the local city of Long Beach Health Department regulations which require training in how to handle Bloodborne. Let's see what it's called here. Bloodborne Pathogens. They generally just make sure that the the facilities and the equipment are safe and that the employees that are employed in the tattoo parlor have been trained appropriately. Okay. So in addition so we passed this today, will new parlors come in, be subject to a new conditional use permit or just by these guidelines? Only these guidelines. The whole point of this was to based upon the the lawsuit, it the basis of it was that the city was making it too restrictive for the type of use. So the whole intent in working with the city attorney was to craft language that allowed an appropriate amount of permissiveness and that did not discriminate against the use based upon any specific type of characteristics of the use. So no new tattoo parlors would require a conditional use permit. Okay. And then let me ask for the locational buffer requirements. We have 500 feet from an existing tattoo parlor and public or private schools. What was that number based off of? Was that the state recommendation or did we come up with that in-house? Okay. Thank you for your question. So staff. Studied. Of. Several. Aspects with regard to buffers. Number one, the the most recently adopted tattoo ordinance from the city of Oceanside was was an example, but also using existing buffers for other land uses. There are several other land uses that also use the 500 foot buffer from schools and namely alcohol as well as alcohol, beverage manufacturing. And so with the existing buffer being 1000, we wanted to make it less restrictive. And so we took the cues from Oceanside as well as other land use buffers. Okay. Thanks for answering those questions. I want to say, you know, I know that tattooing has come a long way as a form of art. My mother had slaves. I might have one or two. And I know that Long Beach is a city that embraces the arts. We have some folks in the Arts Council here today as well. And recognizing that the staff report includes kind of the pass view of the tattoo artists, which was. An interesting perspective. But I want to say, as a councilmember in the second District, I wholly support new artists coming in, making sure that we are doing this in a responsible way, that we're protecting the health and safety of our residents, and that we recognize this as an art form. I think we have a new parlor opening up in the second district. I believe his name is Carlos, who is well known in Los Angeles and really is going to bring some more attention to the city about being a world class art city. And I hope that, you know, I know we used to have on the Queen Mary, we had a big event around tattoos and trying to make sure that we're celebrating that, but doing that in a respectful way. And so I support the staff's items. I know you guys worked hard on this, and I appreciate all of that. I ask my colleagues to also support this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez. I just want to say that I'm appreciative of staff as well. And thank you to the owner of Ace of Hearts for being here. You're in my district and I really love the quality of your work. When I pass by there, you're open really late and we like North Pine to be open in a time where it looks active. And we really appreciate you being here. I, too, have a question, though, just related to the the 500 feet. I know we are trying to be less restrictive. I see other cities may push to 700. Would that be any would that be a big issue for us? I just I know in the downtown we're already dense, you know, so it just 500 is pretty narrow. That is certainly a reasonable request. And if we are so directed, staff would certainly go back and take a look at that and bring something back to council. That's not my understanding because it was not originally proposed that we could change on the floor tonight, but we could certainly bring it back if that is the direction of council. Yes, that would be great. I appreciate that. Thank you very much for your work. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I want to thank staff for their work as well, understanding that this was brought on as a result of a lawsuit. But in my opinion, we probably should have been ahead of this a long time ago. I did have just a follow up question regarding the the health and safety standards for the proposed tattoo shops. What is in place now? It says the ordinance reads that the applicant shall comply with all applicable state, county and city health human services regulations, including but not limited to the State Safe Body Art Act. I'm not really familiar with the State State Body Art Act, but I am curious to know what sort of local enforcements will we have and provisions do we have in place right now? I'll go into them very briefly because we didn't go into it in great detail here because it wasn't so much a land use issue. But in short, let me just quote from the staff report here. Any body art practitioners are required to annually register with the city. They have to obtain annual bloodborne pathogen training. They have to provide documentation of hepatitis B vaccine status. They have to obtain specific health information from their clients, including an informed consent for anyone who they perform body art on. So that's just a really brief summary of them. We can certainly, if you'd like more detail, we can get more detail and bring that back to you. But that's just a sampling of the kind of procedures that our health department requires for anyone who's actually performing body art. So they must be licensed. They must be trained, and they must take appropriate precautions. All right. Thank you very much. I think that's a very important element here and possibly something we need to look at further. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Yeah, I had one other question. Just to be clear for everybody. Those that are already. Open and have a conditional use permit, if we change the number of feet that another parlor can be, are they still grandfathered in? They are correct. They would be considered as legal nonconforming users. Great. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to say a comment in return of the city attorney. Just as a reminder, I think some people spoke to is that the impetus for this conversation, one has really been about this this case coming to federal court, and we were in federal court on this issue. And so it's important that we react and respond to the findings of a of the court as well as what's going on with case law across the country on this particular issue. The second thing is, I think it's pretty clear, regardless of the federal court issue, the stigma around tattoos and body art is at a completely different place than it was 20, 30 years ago. And the the businesses that opened today, the the art that's happening, the kind of commitment to quality operations, I think is really important. I also want to thank the gentleman that spoke today, and I just also want to be clear to those watching that regardless of whether we open up additional tattoo parlors, which are illegal conforming use, they have to follow very strict state and local health regulations. And so we would never allow one to open that didn't meet the highest standard of health and safety codes, of which are which are both local and state level law. And so those would have to be met regardless of changes to this to this ordinance that we have in front of us today. So I just wanted to clarify that. Mr. Park and Jeff, anything else? Thank you, Mayor. Yes. As mentioned by Councilmember Gonzales, I think what the council will be voting on tonight is to make the change to the buffer from 500 feet to 750 feet. We would need to take that back, make that and then bring it back to council for approval of the ordinance. So this evening, if I understand the amendment to the main motion would be not we can't approve it tonight, but we would update the ordinance to the buffer and then it would come back at a later date. Is that the. Yes, that's correct. And I said 700, but if seven. 5700, I thought it was seven. Okay. 7.7. Oh, sure. Okay. All right. There is a motion and a second, please. Members, go and cast your votes. We would need a date. Certain. So know. Date certain. Okay. Mr. said he tried to do a negotiation on that because I think we could if. We could select a date certain we would eliminate the need to re notice it. If we just take it back this evening and come back, we would have to re notice the hearing. To which we do have a recommendation on a date certain. 30. 45 days. After my first. My first. My first. Okay. We're okay with that because of the motion. Okay. So May 1st will be the date certain. So we have motion on the floor. Members, please go and cast your votes. Councilwoman Mango. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you very much. That concludes the three hearings. We're going to go on to the regular agenda. Can I just get a motion in a second quickly on the consent calendar before we go to the items, is a comment on consent calendar saying that please cast your votes.

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

LongBeachCC_08112020_20-0677

District one, district two by district three i. District four. By District five. By District six. By District seven. By District eight, by district nine. High motion carries. Thank you very much. Item 18 you please with the item. Communication from Councilwoman Price Chair. Public Safety Committee recommendation to request that the special order issued on January 16, 2020 become a permanent policy change for the Long Beach Police Department. Yes. Councilman Price, would you like to make any comment on this item? Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I'll be very brief. I think the entire council received our update from the last Public Safety Committee meeting where we outlined a four phased approach to look at a comprehensive approach in our police department, including the peer support and bystander programs, practical application policies and procedures for use of force training and hiring standards and post action review procedures. We're hoping that we can conduct these different phases in parallel with council so that we can incorporate anything we discuss in council at public safety and vice versa. Thank you. What if I become an insider? Sir, as we and I expect that the Public Safety Committee will bring forth certain recommendations, tonight's recommendations is. Susie, you're cutting out. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that I had reached my five minute time limit. Can you hear me? Oh, no, you just started. Go ahead. Okay. Oh, okay. Well, I was I was laying out that the public safety committee is going to have a four step approach to look at things from hiring practices, use of force practices, post action or incident review procedures, and bystander ship and peer support programs. And at the end of every one of those seven. Solutions will bring forth some recommendations to the. You can read our full council. So for their consideration, tonight's recommendation is silly. Once all the procedures that the city has to undertake. You cut it out. This is private. You cut it out. Hello. Mrs. Price. Are you there? Which is why I mean, there. Was. Someone else from the public safety committee that could report. I'll do my best. I really wish that the special order was actually attached to this document because it's pretty meaningful. In January 2016, Long Beach Police Department put forth a number of special orders that that I think should be publicized. And unfortunately, that document isn't what this is. This particular this item I would like for this moment to actually come back, because I think it needs to have the sunshine that it deserves from the public and so forth. I'm not sure Councilman Price is listening, but. I would love to to to to continue this item so that we could. Could actually share that document and make sure that the council had, as they can understand and the public understand what those special orders were, because it's, I think, very important to add that transparency and sunshine on the policy. So. So, Mr. Austin, if I can just. I guess. I'm. Yeah, I apologize. I'm back. Okay, fine. You like to continue? I don't know what Councilman Austin said, but I agree with him. He's on the committee. I just want to thank the the police department's been really open to allowing us to have this process. And as we're doing this process, we're realizing that there's a lot of things that they had already proactively put into place that are part of the national conversation now. So we have to bring those forth in and go through whatever process the city needs to go through to make them permanent order such that they appear in the training and policy manuals, because right now the special orders don't appear in the manuals. They haven't been formalized to that level. And we're hoping that by this recommendation they get formalized. Councilmember Price can can just give a report on what those what the special orders were. Sure. Yes. So I'll start. This is Tom and we can have the chief jump in as well. We're also going to cover this partly in the budget presentation next week as well as we talk about what those special orders were that were implemented both in January and then the ones later with the carotid. So we fully understand the item of of wanting to make those permanent. As Councilmember Price mentions, there is a process that you go through to have police practices and policies put in place in accordance with all labor laws and poobah and and state bargaining and all those things. And so that is the process we will be following. But there are special orders in place right now, and then they'll become permanent as we complete that. So if Chief for Wali want to comment on just the major topics that were included back in January, because that was some very substantial change that P.D. put in place back in January. Hi, everyone. Thank you, Mr. City Manager and Vice Mayor and Council Member. So his comments in the special order specific to tonight is really about use of force in the January 2020 special order that we put in place to implement a lot of changes to our prior policy, which included de-escalation, duty to intervene, sanctity for human life , and outlined those in a pretty lengthy document. So the special order actually affects the entire department and it's implemented when we find an immediate need or need to make an adjustment policy or procedure while we're going through the formalized policy implementation process. And through that process, we can have revisions and adjustments to the special order language. We do a consultation with the city attorney on the policy meeting, confer with labor unions, and then that goes into once we're done with that, it will go into our CPD policy manual. In the meantime, know that special order access policy and as Councilmember Austin mentioned, is very robust. And there there are a lot more components to it that we can discuss at a later time. Thank you. Thank you very much. Cosmos Consequentialist, do you still want to delay this or. No? I think it was explained here, so I don't think we need to delay it. But I would request that the staff provide a memo with all of those special orders to the entire council so that we know exactly what we're doing here tonight. I think the Public Safety Committee made a recommendation to bring it forward of the city council to support those those those special orders. Adding the weight of the city council behind these policy changes, I think is very, very important. So I would ask that you support what's before. Us this evening. Thank you very much. Contribution. Do you want to speak on the side? Yes. I'm just sorting through my book. I don't see any backup material, so I'm pretty sure these I think I have an idea of what we're talking about. What are we asking the council to do? I think you're talking about, you know, getting a report. On what? What changes city chief implemented? That's something we hear about. But what about what is what is this motion? I'm not clear what we're doing. I don't see any detail. So this is Tom. I'll jump in there. So this is a report coming back from public safety. In in in all fairness, we probably should have kind of, you know, put some of the staff reports behind it. I think this just kind of came as a report from Special Public Safety Committee. We can certainly provide a memo with the various reports of the various special orders. I liken this to kind of a resolution of support. You know, I wouldn't advise that the council change policy without knowing what it is and going through the all the bargaining process. But this is a sense of the council, essentially, that you'd like us to continue making those policies permanent so we can cover that next week. What those what those are in the budget presentation and then also give you actual copies of the policies that the police department is working to make permanent. Okay. I think it's not unfair to to know what I'm I'm sure they're positive, but I just don't have anything in front of me. So I'd like to see what we're endorsing or writing a resolution in support of. And I do remember I did get a memo from Public Safety Committee. I didn't I don't have it in front of me. Um, so is there an opportunity? We're doing a study session. What are we doing? A study session on what our PDAs are going to be working on? We're got a study session scheduled by way of the vote we just took on the reconciliation plan. Is that correct? Yes. It hasn't been scheduled yet. Honestly, our schedule is pretty full until we get through with the budget and then we can start looking at adding some additional study sessions in price. Is there some room to you know, I mean, I'm happy to support it because you have to look at it. But is there some room to do this next week when we deal with public safety? Was a question to Councilman Pryor. Yes can. You hear me? I think you were cutting out. I didn't hear what you said. Can you hear me now? I can hear you now. Okay. Yeah, that's fine with me to continue it till next week. The memo that I drafted for that council is an update of public safety. Did have an overview of some of the special orders, but I think that detailed overview would be fantastic. Okay, good. Thank you. I support that. Is that it in Richardson? Yes. Vice Mayor. Okay, Castle. Councilwoman Pierce. Thank you. Two questions for staff. One is I think that Councilmember Austin brought it up. But I just wanted to be clear, for community members that are engaging in this process, the Public Safety Committee is going through, as Councilmember Price also mentioned, a series of these reviews. What is the process for the city council and the city staff to change policy within the police department? So I'd have to ask the city attorney to help us with that. In general, you know, those types of policies and the operations of departments are delegated to the city manager who delegates them to the departments. We certainly listen to counsel and the council certainly sets overarching policy, but the implementation of specific practices of how things work in the city by charter, it tends to be, you know, under the city manager and under the department. So we can certainly have our city attorney weigh in more and give us a further understanding. I think I think specifically my question is it's not just the department, but the policies with our police officers. It's different from other departments. Right. Often some of these might require us to do a meet and confer. And I'm sure that there are lots of community members that are watching that don't know what a meet and confer is. So you could just talk about that briefly just as a transparency for community members. Yes. In general, under state labor law, any policy that affects the working conditions has to go through certain types of varying bargaining processes with the the labor unions, whether that's in fire police or anywhere else in police. There are additional standards related to state law and post and all of the different training requirements, you know, that they're governed by under the state as well as local policies. Thank you for that. And that can take anywhere from one meeting to 20 meetings some time. So I just want to be transparent with community members while we're doing the work right now and the public safety team is doing the work as well. It takes time to implement some of these because of that that process. The second question that I had. Was around the process for committees because I also just chaired two joint committees. And we just I just kind of assumed that the joint committee, the staff would put the detail in, but it's up to the chair to put those details into the agenda item if we're having a report back. Again, this is I'm assuming we're going to have a lot of key committee meetings through the end of the year with report backs. And just I think to council member Austin and Richardson's points want to make sure that those committee reports are included in the agenda item. So should that be on the council side or is that on the staff side? Now, in general, when the committee meets and has their discussion, when they make whatever motions they're going to make that all, we can't take direction from a committee. And appropriately so. The Chair put this on for the council to to take action. Where I think the breakdown was is normally it is the department's responsibility in the city to help, you know, put forward the the report that came out of the committee, which has been transmitted by the chair. So we will we will tighten that up and provide some more of that assistance. We've already had some of those discussions. Awesome. Thank you. And with that, I support moving this forward to next week. So we're voting today and having a fuller discussion next week during such a conversation. Yeah. Back. You comes home first. I do have any problem coming inside of. Yes. We have Dave Shukla. Time starts now. Hello? Very briefly. I'd like to see this come back in a couple of weeks as we've heard these processes. Are public processes that have pretty well-established norms. I. Don't want to impugn anyone's intentions here. I just I just don't think this is the appropriate way to kind of implement a lot of the changes that we've been talking about. We need to be a lot more careful and deliberate, especially when it comes to California labor laws. Yeah. I mean, I think that that that this work really is the meat of what a lot of the community members have been talking about. And it's really for them to tell me their process. Not from me, but. But just. One last point. I, I really think it's important that this committee, the agenda items that are brought forward by council members, that we will really be intentional about how this is actually supposed to work with the committee. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speakers and control. Good evening. Um, this is an Cantrell. And, uh. I'm glad that some of the council people were as confused as I was about this item, which says. It refers to a special order that was issued on January six, 2020, and that become permanent policy change for the police department. It sounds like tonight. You were saying that this is going to be discussed next week. Um. But the Council is being asked to. O prove this. Without seeing what the policy changes are going to be. I would think since January six, maybe there's been a change in what you were going to ask. The policies of the police department be changed to. So. I will look forward to a list of this in writing which was not included in the staff report and. Hope that when this comes back next week that it'll be more clear and it be things that. Everybody agrees needs to be changed. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Oh. Thank you. Councilwoman Fries, are you okay? I would like to just comment on that on that. Obviously, the Public Safety Committee meetings are open to the public. We actually have public comment at them. And what happened at the last public safety committee meeting was there was a report provided on the special orders. And so we did inquire as a council, I mean, as a committee to the city clerk, what the process for was to get the recommendation before council. So so we did what we were, we were told we were supposed to do, but obviously the special orders aren't included. However, they were discussed at the public meeting that is is preserved and can be viewed. But but I agree would be would have been very helpful to have the special orders. In front of us. I do want to ask the chief, is there somewhere that's publicly accessible where people can access the special orders and policies that's available on a public facing website? Yes, ma'am. Councilmember Price and the rest of the council members. I know a couple of times in different items that have come up. The question has come up about transparency for the police department. And I want everybody to know that's listening out there that all of our policies and the special orders that everybody's asking about are all available online for anybody and everybody to see. We're an open book so you can get on there. You can research with a topic you want and everything our officers are allowed to do or not allowed to do. Our is on our website. So please, when you get an opportunity, please read those. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. And I did do something that I've done as a practice for several years is I do provide a summary of every public safety meeting to the council, the city manager, the city prosecutor, the city attorney, the the public safety chiefs. Just so they understand what we covered in the Public Safety Committee meetings in case they didn't have an opportunity to watch those. And I did do that in the situation so that the council members, at least for tonight, would have that information. Because I knew that the the materials are available online. But if we could, Mr. City Manager, if we could please get a copy of the actual special orders for next week's meeting. That would be very helpful. And I think in the future, if we bring something forward from the Public Safety Committee, we would ask that city staff assist us in augmenting our recommendations so that we're not providing inaccurate information. Certainly so, yes. The way we we like to support our council commissions, we we have somebody assigned to each one in the case of public safety and the police department. And we will work a little bit closer with you to when those reports come out. They really should be the city staff that helps to write that and then work with you to have that formally transmitted as the chair to the committee so that there's a record that we we provide all the all the backup documentation. So we're already changing that process for this particular committee, and we'll provide more support. I appreciate that. And we'll take note of that process for the future. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. The original motion was by Mrs. Brice in the second. Oh, excuse me, Councilman Richardson. I'm sorry. Vice mayor. Okay. So I understand this was this was a business staff didn't presented and it completely understood that it's going to you know, I understand Tom's response. That's going to make sure that, you know, all the committees when it comes to council, there's, you know, the legal review staff review it. It comes back under the title of the chair, but it's been vetted through staff and all the documents are there so that I completely understand. And so what we're voting on tonight, to be clear, that's to continue with our week. Yes. That's what we're voting on. Correct? Right. Thank you. And so we have a first and second phase in the second by Austin Architecture Place Crawfordsville. District one. I. District two. I. District three. I. District four. I. District five. I District six. II. District seven I. District eight. II. District nine.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 18.78 relating to construction in the vicinity of abandoned oil wells, read and adopt as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06082021_21-0487

Thank you. Let's go ahead. And we have two more audiences to approve. Let's get these approved. First, item 14, please. Item 14 is reported from Development Services. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to construction in the vicinity of abandoned oil wells read and adopted as read citywide. Okay, I think I can get a motion, please. Councilmember Tharanga, can I get a second? Nothing about council comes from ringgit. Do you have any comments? No, I did that. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I don't know if everyone recognizes the significance of this item. There are properties throughout our community that really could be used for some amazing economic development opportunities. This item started years ago, and through the great work of our economic development department, they have really followed this through to fruition. So years of great work behind this and these are the kinds of things that often go unnoticed. It really can change the future. So we're really appreciative of this. Thank you, Councilwoman. It's really public comment on this. Yes. Our first speaker is Eliot Zimmer. Good evening, city council members. My battery's running low. I just wanted to say that I would like. To see that the City. Council ensures that the companies that have done this. Drilling and have made money from the wells. Are responsible. For closing up this well. And all. Of our wells and making sure that. They are free of. Benzene and any other. Toxins that may still be present on the site. Think your next speaker is Anna Christiansen. I don't 14 will. Okay. Construction on top of abandoned oil wells. Even if they are not shut down in conformance with state standards like building on a volcano. Sierra Club's lo Cerritos, Wetlands Task Force and Provisional Wetlands Protectors request a no vote or a postponement of this second reading. We propose the following changes. Adhere to Collegium Recommendation three Set back for construction year abandoned wells. No construction over abandoned wells, no impracticality or hardship exemptions allowed re approving abandoned wells as is no new construction allowed unless until all abandoned wells including orphaned wells on the project site meet current calcium standards. Regulations for construction on sites with detectable amounts of methane must be consistent. Meet Cal, Jim and L.A. County standards and not tailored to specific projects. The city and its various employees and agents will not be indemnified for issuing project permits or approvals on site with abandoned orphan wells that have not been shut down according to Chaldean standards . In effect, at the time of construction, no low cost or affordable housing projects may be constructed on top of abandoned wells, nor on properties with improperly abandoned orphan wells. This amendment promises equivalent regulations to those of Chaldean what is actually equivocating because it uses ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth. Equivalent means not differing the same words or significance, while claiming to provide, quote, better outcomes for public safety, resulting in a, quote, healthier, cleaner and more viable environment for a Long Beach. The proposed amendment actually eases state environmental protections to the benefit of developers. Constructing buildings over oiled oil wells. Capped or not is, quote, just not a smart thing, according to Chris McCullough, a former Carlton district deputy for Southern California. Quote, Because gases that were naturally venting into the air and dissipating are now potentially getting trapped. If that gas were to build up and ignite, you have a potential for catastrophic damage to structures and life. The Amendments product matic language Collegium recommends that this is your language. The proposed regulations allow construction over wells, including those that have not been safely abandoned or properly closed. Only construction projects involving caregiving facilities, hospitals or schools must continue to meet current standards. That should tell you something if you work. If you want to build a school on it, why build a home on it for wells and not abandon the current accounting standards to the current cultural standards? Claim of impracticality or hardship can be submitted and the development coordinator the authority to approve the well. And I don't know that I thought I'd be able to tell him, but I now I have more additional problematic language. Thank you. Your next speaker is in control. And Cantrell. Our next speaker is carelessly. Carelessly. Hi. This is carelessly broken through. Turns toward what I saw in the PowerPoint presentation. You're talking about reducing the requirement of the calcium program and replacing it with a Long Beach specific set of requirements. The presentation was a little loosey goosey. It basically sounds like we don't want to use Cal Gym requirements. We want something less comprehensive. But we haven't figured that all out yet. My concern is why are we abandoning existing controls before the new process is defined? Well, it doesn't happen often. Nothing. Explosions have occurred as reported in the news. The oil contaminated sites have long been considered unsuitable for development because of environmental and safety issues. However, as I understand it, new products are making it possible to build on these sites. The wording in the PowerPoint presentation made it sound like the new requirements and process that we will use in place of Belgium are not well defined as of yet. The presentation described existing controls where it talks about cement plugs and setbacks. So the idea was to keep humans further away from danger. The Long Beach proposed regulations, the equivalency standards talked about lift cement plugs and then it says or other approach subject to study. So that's a case where we haven't defined it yet. The presentation goes on to say that we should allow development of certain projects over abandoned wells, and that means no setbacks. And it says subject to certain safety provisions. And I didn't see those defined there. Certain process, create a process to locate and examine world conditions. That process should already be defined. Before you approve this, create a process to test and monitor. Well, that seems to be the most important control to have, but this process doesn't appear to have been designed yet. It seems that before you approve anything, those processes should be documented and they should have decision trees in them that go toward more stringent requirements in highly contaminated areas. The PowerPoint presentation said a learn and censor mitigation system can be required if the setbacks are reduced and humans are closer to the contaminated site. It would seem concerns for safety should result in the document saying they will be required. The decision process should be well documented, deciding when to test and monitor well who does it? How often? In a rush to build? Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. Call. Vote, please. Councilwoman Sandy has. I asked one, Alan. Why. Councilwoman Pryce? Councilman Sabino. I. Councilwoman Mongo. City Councilwoman Sara. I can't remember Tauranga. I can swim in Austin. All right. Vice Mayor Richardson? Yes. Bush and Kerry.

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 coordinated election of November 3, 2020, a proposed amendment to the Charter of the City and County of Denver granting the Denver City Council appointment power over the Independent Monitor and to remove an exception from Career Service for Monitor employees. Gives City Council the appointment power over the Independent Monitor and no longer excepts Monitor employees from Career Service. Councilmember CdeBaca approved direct filing this item on 8-13-20.

DenverCityCouncil_08172020_20-0837

Six nays, seven I's Council Bill 836 will be referred to committee. Moving on to. Our next item. Is Council Bill 837. Councilmember Clark, will you please put Council Bill 837 on the floor for publishing? Thank you, Madam President, and will be accountable. 837 The Order Books. It has been moved and I get a second second. Thank you. Comments by members of Council on Bill 837. Councilman Flynn. Here we go. Thank you, Madam Chair. Many of the same comments I would have on this one as well. This came to committee October over the November 28th. Last year was ten months ago. So it's November. October. And we haven't heard from it since. And it was scheduled for committee and it was pulled. And far from weaponizing process, what we have is weaponizing chaos again. The independent monitor isn't going anywhere anytime soon. There's no need for urgency or to rush something to the ballot that doesn't receive adequate vetting by committee and not here on the floor on a monday night. Several things that are problematic with this is that it's changed from when it was in committee in October. And I was there and I did read the bill. The at the time, there was a process to remove the independent monitor, and that's been changed. I had asked that the Screening Committee for Independent Monitor, which was then five individuals and is now seven, that we retain the list of qualifications because the people who are screening candidates for independent monitor should have some qualifications for choosing that person. They should have some life experience. They should have some background in how police brutality is investigated. But there is none of that in the bill. And this is, again, not something that needs to be rushed to the ballot. Nick Mitchell isn't going anywhere. There's one thing in here that I do like and that is and even that's not done the way I would prefer to see it. And that is putting the independent monitors, some of his 13 employees within the career service system because they are not right now. And although I don't believe that everyone should be other than the monitor, I think the monitors should have the freedom to appoint, as does the clerk, and the auditor should have the freedom to appoint deputies that will serve, especially policy director, so that if a new monitor comes in, that person has the freedom to choose policy direction without having to use the career service person that's been there the whole time. So there's many, many changes that need to happen at this before this would be even ready to consider for the ballot and doing it on a monday night, the week before we have to act on final is just not the place to do that . Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Herndon is up next and then we'll go to the queue. Madam President, I have no comment. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. So, Councilman CdeBaca, I guess this question is for you. The wording of the charter change in the in the actual charter versus what is. The ordinance that actually sort of sets out what is specifically the the wording that that sort of governs the monitor itself. Would you be willing to go back to committee, both through committee, to discuss the changes in ordinance? If we were to refer the charter changed tonight or published the charter to commission, I refer it next week. And if so, what is what would the specific charter change wording be versus the ordinance? So one this does it should have a companion ordinance. And the history of how the monitors offices started was started is important because it was first started by ordinance in the code and then it was moved into charter to make it permanent. This does not deal with any of the things that Council Member Flynn mentioned. This charter change changes the appointing authority to city council. It doesn't change the qualifications. It doesn't change any of those things. It bumps out the monitor from underneath the mayor to city council appointing. Nobody here wants to change who the monitor is. But it's important to understand the structure that we're working with in this current emergency that the mayor is the independent monitors boss and the chief of police, his boss and the sheriff's boss. And so we don't the Monitor is investigating two other people who are appointees of the mayor. There is no. Leeway. There is no independence that is embedded into the independent monitors office. And so we need this not to change who the monitor is, to change whether the monitors boss is. And that is critical right now. If we want just investigations, if we want just outcomes related to what's happening in our city right now. And so absolutely, I would happily go through if and when this passes, I would happily do the companion ordinance that I think does take a lot more time and it's multiple changes within that ordinance that do need to happen. And I think there's a lot of feedback that we can get from the monitor after these investigations are completed that could inform the ordinance change. But this is simply changing the charter to make sure that. The. The boss is different, the appointing authority is different. So just to clarify, because I want to make sure I've got this very, very clear. This is like a two sentence change. It moves the monitor out from underneath the mayor as the appointing authority. And moves the independent monitor to a city council is the appointing authority. And that's it? Correct. It looks like a lot of pages, because what it does when you change the charter, you move the section. When you change the appointing body in the charter, you move the whole section with that with the person. The only thing being changed in this are the strikethrough, the new added language, our underline. It is not a significant change. It's just that the appointing authority and pumping it all into our city council section. So if we were willing to support you in that change, in that one structural change, then would you be willing to agree to go to committee with the ordinance for the Independent Monitor before the vote this November to do the work on the discussions that need to happen around the structural other things with the independent monitors office in committee, and have the in-depth discussions that need to happen there as well. Of course, and we had a draft and I would love to take more of the Monitor's time to be able to build this out. But considering what he's dealing with and what size staffing has and funding he has, I have been reluctant to also add that on top of this, but I would happily do that. Okay. So give it. Thank you for that. I really appreciate it. So given the given everything that the Monitor is dealing with right now and given the importance of that focus, do you and given that there is another ballot in November of 2021. Do you think it makes more sense then for us to hold on this as well until the Monitor can really focus on this and give us his undivided attention in and back that and and ensure that the outcomes are there before we refer something like this to the ballot. You're frozen, and I can't tell if it's me or you. I don't. I don't know. Did I unfreeze? Can you hear me now? Okay. I don't know when I stop. Now I stop talking. You're good now. Okay. I absolutely think this is critical right now. We are not working with a similar timeline for an ordinance change that can happen at any point over the over any size period. And so I think this is critical because we have a duty right now to make sure that we are creating the independence that we need right now to get these investigations done appropriately. Okay. Thanks. I appreciate your thoughts on that. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So, Councilman CdeBaca, how did you come to the point where the Independent Monitor needs only career service employees? Don't you feel that it would be nice to have a hybrid similar to the auditor's office, similar to I think you and DIA has appointing power so that if a new auditor comes in, they can create their own team. Because sometimes you get left with a legacy team. It doesn't work necessarily very well. So what was his outcome and what was his suggestions? And who in his office and prior to working in his office have you talked to to discuss those points? I have worked directly with the Monitor on this proposal, and I believe the Monitor is on the call, able to have him answer any questions. This is a protection we what we're doing is offering his employees job security. And when you're a compliance officer or when you're doing investigations, it is critical to have that, because if you do something that you're if if right now, his employees do something that is not liked by higher ups, they have no career protection. And so they deserve that protection. And this removes the exemption from that. So they're not appointed by the monitor. They're appointed by the mayor? Yes, if you look so if you look down at the section that's stricken out, it says any employee appointed to serve at the pleasure of the mayor for the purpose of monitoring internal investigations and disciplinary actions in the Department of Safety and any employees appointed by the Monitor to serve at the pleasure of the Monitor. The appointment of any monitor by the Mayor pursuant to this or any other provision of this Charter, shall require confirmation by the City Council. It replaces that section to just say, the head of the Office of the Independent Monitor. So once again to the committee, did you feel like you didn't have the votes to bring this forward out of committee either? Is that why you didn't go to committees? Because you felt the similar to your other discussion. You didn't have even the votes just to move it forward. I really don't feel like this one should be a problem at all. What my what? My hesitation was on the other one is the blockage of the other two. I wanted these three to all come in a package and I kept getting resistance with them. Coming in a package. These things are designed to work together. So I understand the want, the need and desire to have things come as a package. I honestly I really do. Yet at the same time, I also feel like the need to have information given to me in a timely fashion, it's really challenging. Like you said in your own statement, given how many things City Council's working on and our caseload right now and everything to have things come last minute. And so if it would have worked as a package, if they all got on the ballot together so. That the fact. That this hasn't come to committee and I've got the language at the last minute and haven't been able to do the own outreach for my community that I represent is really challenging. I just need to say that again, and I know that it's challenging to go through the committee process and I hear that you feel weaponized and that's unfortunate really. It is super unfortunate that you feel that way because I think that that you would find that if you came through committee, there would be people who are there to support you, too, that see these changes needing to be made throughout Denver and throughout our structure and are just as anxious and wanting to work on these matters as important processes. But yet when you when they're not able to come through committee and we're not I'm not able to give the time that I is needed to for me to do outreach to the monitor and to other employees and how they feel. It's super challenging. So with that, that's all my question. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Councilman. On the call, would it be helpful for him to respond? I know that we brought him in. Councilman Sandoval, would you like to have the monitor respond? I'm good, thank you. Okay, great. Thank you. We do have him available. Here, though, Councilman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. So two questions. One, has H.R. given any input. On how years of service would be calculated for. Folks becoming new CSA employees who weren't before? What I believe would happen is depending on if they had already had been employed with the city, that it would just depend on what pay grade they were before. If they were not, then they would start over like anybody else. How is it dependent on pay grade? If their career service. Can you read your question? Yeah. So the staff of the Monitor's office becoming career service employees, if they've been there for five years or more, if there were regular CSA employees, they'd be. Vetted or bested. Excuse me. What happens for these folks once they. Convert to CSA? Did you want to bring the monitor on? Anybody who has an answer to that would be great. Go ahead, Nick. I don't see him there. We've got him unmuted. Nick, are you there? I'm here. My video does not appear to be worth it. Hang on. Sorry. Hello there. Hi, Nick. So the question I think had to do with if I understood properly a vesting and time of service and then maybe inappropriate question for the employment lawyers at the city attorney's office. I'm not sure if that was vesting. I think of it in a sort of pension context. So I'm not sure that I'm the right person to speak to vesting issues. I can't say that I am supportive of the idea of creating career service protection for subordinate employees of the Monitor, his office. They have very difficult jobs. I'm incredibly lucky to have a very talented staff who have a lot of responsibility on their shoulders. And almost every other category, almost every other type of city employee has career service protection. And I ask we ask a lot of my employees to to work on these investigations, to take sometimes very controversial positions on cases. And I think it would do a world of good to help build in sustainability into the office for those subordinate employees to have those protections. So if there's anything on that point that it would be helpful for me to speak to, I'm happy to speak to anything on that point. I appreciate that. Nick, some of the question has. Been around whether these. Folks, how many staff are in the Monitor's office? 13 right now. Are they do they serve at the pleasure of. You or the mayor? They. I hire them, and they serve at the pleasure of the monitor. Okay. Thank you so much. The second question that I have actually to that point, Councilwoman. Sandoval. Made a suggestion of a hybrid. Have you had you considered that already in terms of some that would be appointed in your shop and others like your deputies, for example, and others that would be career service protected or categorized. Yeah. I think that, um, I think it's certainly worth considering. I think there are reasons why it could make sense to have a small number of appointees. And, you know, given the size of the staff that we're talking about, probably to who would who would serve at the pleasure of the monitor? You know, I think that that's really something I would consider. I think the bill, you know, works as is or at least that, you know, that portion of the bill, from my perspective, works as is. But to the extent there's there's interest in, you know, having a select number of employees who remain at will, I think there's I think there's potential American idea. Okay. Thank you so much, Nick. Councilman CdeBaca, the other question that I have. The section that's stricken. Section eight. Of. Eight. Any employee appointed to serve at the. Pleasure of the mayor for the. Purpose of monitoring internal investigations and disciplinary actions in the Department of Safety. Why is that section stricken? Does it apply to anyone else other than staff in the Monitor's office? So this so Kirsten can help explain this. This is. Doing it because it's in the this is in the careers section of the charter, which is not necessarily under the department's or under city council. It's its own separate section in the employment. And so this is where there is an expansion. If you read at the top of this, it says Career service shall comprise all employees of the city and their positions except one. And so this is removing them from that. It's removing the exemption. It's not it's not necessarily removing the possibility for him to have a hybrid. Is here's some able on how that works. And I think to. Clarify it, whereas Chris Kirsten's coming on. My question isn't about because I would like actually. For a consideration of. A hybrid for Nick. I totally get what. Councilman Sandoval is. Saying in terms of the lack of flexibility sometimes when, if and when. Hopefully decades from now, Nick leaves the Monitor's office. That Legacy offices can be can be incredibly challenging. Particularly for those where. New. Leadership. Really needs to set. A tone. So I would like to consider a hybrid, even if it's offering language tonight. But this language seems to speak to. Individuals separate. From the monitors office to the Department. Of Safety. Are there any other people who would fall under this? Any employee appointed to serve at the pleasure of the mayor for the purpose of monitoring. Internal. Investigations and. Disciplinary actions. And I'm wondering if, you know, maybe the new Public Integrity Office. Or Public Integrity Division. Have mayoral appointees. This would then this then apply to them. Kirsten, can you explain if this was the if this was put in there intended for the monitor when they move the monitor to the charter? If she's on. She is. We'll get her unmuted. Okay. Go ahead. Kirsten, you should be. All right. So, Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Council. I actually would kick this to John first, since he's the primary drafter. And also because I dropped the call temporarily. So why don't we have you ask your question again, let John take a stab at it and then I can catch up with you all. John, my question is about the stricken Section eight. Any employee appointed to. Serve at the pleasure of the. Mayor for the purpose of monitoring internal investigations and disciplinary actions in the Department of Safety. Would that refer to anyone. Else other than the staff in the Monitor's office? For example, the Public Integrity Division, which was created after. This section was put into charter. I was under the impression this would only apply to the Monitor when I made the drafting decision. And certainly Kirsten's on the line. If there's other people that can speak to this, I'd like to know whether that was the intent. Yeah. That this would still make sure that the monitor was not under career service, but all of their all the employees of the Monitor word subject. Yeah. And I will just chime in now that I hear you repeat the question, Councilman, I do think it's a good point that, you know, there's some open ended language in the in the current language, not the reach that we have here that would allow for or maybe contemplate more than one particular individual. However, the current charter language, which appears earlier in the draft, does contemplate only one head of the office. So if you wanted to capture more than just the the current head of the office, then then you might need to make some changes. And to that. Point, if we. Were discussing any option of potentially two appointments that Nick could make. Or the Monitor could make. That remain. At serving at the pleasure of the monitor, would that be in this section? This is John I can speak to. I mean, if you look to the section right below it, there's a thing about the clerk of recorder I like. You can carve out a number of employees, as has happened in this section of the charter. Thank you both. Councilman Torres, we did have someone from H.R. to talk about the vesting piece. I think we might need to get Kala back up into the queue. But we'll try to do that. As well. And in that interim, trying to get Carla back up into the queue. If it's okay with you, Councilwoman Torres, I'm going to go to Councilwoman. Can each next step into the queue and we can come back. Councilwoman can meet. Thank you. Madam President, I think this is a really important discussion. And like many areas of monitoring, it gets to where you have actual issues, perceived issues, or the potential of mitigating future issues. Right. So we've had two pretty robust monitors under the process that we've had. But the concern about what that might look like in the future and the structural issues, so I take it really seriously. I too struggle with the timeline in terms of the ability to check in back with stakeholders. I don't know, for example, if we have anyone from the Citizen Oversight Board who is interested in talking about their perspective, have they had a chance to weigh the pros versus cons of career service for the entire department versus for having a few appointees in terms of their desire to ensure that the office is truly independent under whoever is appointed. So I would invite, if there is a member, I see someone's raising their hands and the attendees, if they've had time to vet and discuss this and take a position or whether they need more time, that's of interest to me. So I see it looks like the brand new chair, Al Gardner, is raising his hand. Would it be appropriate to promote him, Madam President? Yes, we will go ahead and get now promoted. And as he comes on the. The CLB worked in partnership with us to craft this. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Gardner. Okay. Hello. Thank you all tonight. Well, I don't I probably won't provide much context on a lot of the technical pieces to it. What I will to do is speak to the broader consideration of expanding the arms, sharing the independence of the independent monitor. I can tell you that the sea lobby is absolutely in support of creating a situation that would put the independent monitor in best position to be to have to have most independence as possible, especially when doing the performing of different investigations. The goal of independence is what we're looking for. And actually, as we go down the road of beginning to talk about police reform and the different ideas that will come to play as we look at these different options, although it doesn't seem like it's something urgent tonight we are entering new territory where that level of independence will be a lot different than potentially the what it looks like now. So we're definitely in support of the deal and providing more independence there. On the other piece, when it comes to the staffing, being able to move that under a situation where they will have excuse me, career appointment, that will seem like it will be more beneficial as well. As we head toward a more independent. Thank you. May I just ask a follow up question? Mr. Gardner, did you all take a position on both pieces of the bill then as a board? So as written both pieces the board supports, correct? Correct. As well as written both. We had a couple of changes in in wording. I mean, I've had it here. I don't have it in front of me, but most of it revolved around moving the IOM, the O&M and still be from Article two of the administration to Article three, which moves it under the city council. And that was one that we sent back to Calgary. And then you. Oh, but I'm. Hello. I think our legislative council there is. Okay. Hopefully they answered the question so those two minor changes. But for the most part, yes. Right. And so, you know, we're doing what's clearly committee work on the floor here. And so the next question I have is, is one about termination. So we have a I understand that there is a I understand that there is a intention to have a companion ordinance. But we have this interesting situation where we already have an ordinance that creates a very particular procedure for termination of the monitor. And I was wondering if either the sponsor or legislative counsel has done any analysis, because I have to refer this night without knowing whether or how the ordinance will change, which is part of the problem with this timeline in terms of ensuring that things work together. And so, you know, so so what analysis is there about how this charter change with and comport with the termination procedures that are outlined in the ordinance? And I wouldn't be able to speak to you tonight. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That wasn't for you, Mr. Cook. I didn't mean to make you feel like you're on the spot. Thank you very much for your participation, though. Thank you. That was probably for either the sponsor or the the. And you are probably looking for a legal response, but I don't personally believe that it interferes with that. So. Jonathan Griffin, deputy legislative counsel we I think his counsel would, like I said earlier, there would need to be a change. To. The code at some point if this went through regardless. So we haven't fully analyzed the effects of this change beyond the knowledge that we would, depending on what went through both tonight and if it went through and was approved by voters, what would need to change to conform to these changes that are inside of this charter amendment ? Yeah. I guess I will just speak to what I see in the ordinance, which is that it gives very specific procedures to the mayor, which would make no sense. So we would have a charter that has a council as the appointing authority, and then we have an ordinance that has the termination procedures and conditions being pointed towards the mayor. And so I do see a conflict. And again, these are not things that couldn't be surmounted. They're things that require time. And I guess, you know, with any charter referral I have, I have two concerns. Always one. Well, three. One is is what I'm doing legal and everything fits together. And I'm giving the voters something that they truthfully can vote up or down without fear of issues, or at least I know what those issues are. So that's one. The second is, you know, is it is it a policy that's consistent? You know, I can't vote against my values, even if, you know, I mean, that's just my personal philosophy. Others may feel differently, but I can't reverse something that, you know, I personally don't feel like represents the best that the city can do , because that's what I was elected to do, is to make that initial evaluation. And then the third issue is, am I setting up, you know, for success in terms of the ability to succeed with the voters and so on this point, I'm concerned. I, you know, I feel like the voters already are seeing that there are process concerns and timing concerns. I don't know if those are going to be seized by a no campaign. I don't know if a no campaign is going to seize on the conflicts that's in the ordinance. So I what I do not want to do is have this go to the voters and have it fail and have a set behind this goal that the S.O.B. has had and the community has had for a while. So so that does concern me in terms of the, you know, the intention of succeeding and having all of these questions not answered. And then I will just appreciate the conversation from my colleagues about the appointments as Nick, it's I'm glad you have such a great staff and I'm glad that you feel so comfortable with them. But I, I do not believe we can have a truly independent monitor without several deputies that you get to pick. These are folks who might go to very high level officer involved shootings in your dead. You have to feel 100% confident in them for this system to work. And so I would obviously need to see at least one, if not two appointees that come with this, because I think it's essential for your office to function independently, do not have to be relying on legacy positions for your left and right hands. So that change would be necessary as well. So so I'll just leave it there and listen to the rest of the debate. Thank you, Madam President. I think you. Respond to that. We've got four more council members up in the queue, Councilwoman. So if it's a very brief response, go ahead. Yes. The section. Of the board. That talks about the removal, it says that appointment, the monitor shall serve at the pleasure of the mayor prior to any remarks by the mayor, the. City council. And the board regarding his or her intention to remove the monitor. And so I think that if that's vague enough that it says if there were if there was an issue, they would still have to consult with council. And if this passes, then council is the appointing body. So if the mayor decided to fire the the monitor under that. Under that section. What would prevent us from re appointing the monitor ourselves? Thank you, Councilman. Go ahead. Go ahead, Councilwoman. I wasn't sure if that was kind of a rhetorical question or whether you were asking it back to me. Councilwoman, I'm sorry. It's not a question. I think the answer is there would be nothing preventing us from reappointing him ourselves once we have that appointment authority. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I thought. I thought there were others ahead of me. Is monitor Mitchell still here? Yes. Yes, yes. Yes. A monitor. I'd like to ask you just one question. You've been monitor for eight years, correct? Has there ever been an occasion when the mayor has reached out to you and tried to influence you on any of your investigations? No. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. I have questions for the monitor as well. Do you monitor? Do you support changing who appoints you? You know, so I was pretty clear in my in expressing my support for the career service portion of this bill. To some extent, I feel that it's a little bit of a conflict for me to opine on who should be, who should have the power to appoint, to monitor and remove the monitor, given that I'm the incumbent in that position. So I think my response is that I'll sort of let the two branches of government sort of hash that out, and we'll sort of reserve my comments regarding the second portion of the bill. Would you support having the Citizen Oversight Board have the authority to appoint the independent monitor? I you know, I can see lots of it. I think I would support. Sound public policy choices that will enshrine the independence of the office now and long into the future. What does it look like as it relates to the appointment and removal of the monitor? I don't think I'm going to opine on specific proposals at this point in time, but clearly we need to have strong faith in the system. Community members needs to need to feel that there is an independent voice in the process and changes that we can make as a city to ensure that that trust is there. I will be generally supportive of those kinds of changes. Well, I would agree. I my goal is also for maximum autonomy of the monitor. And so the monitor has the resources to perform its mission. So, I mean, I guess how about I ask the same question of Mr. Gardner and you, because that's your job here. So would you support the idea of having the Citizen Oversight Board appoint the monitor? Because then, I mean, the reason why it's like the question is then it's it's not a branch of government at all. It's, you know, that's one more layer of independence away from us, slightly politicians or whatever. I don't think it's slimy, but you get the generalization. First and might also be able to speak to this because Kirsten and John, we we discussed this as one of the options. And so they might be able to talk a little bit about the appointment power and who has appointment power so. That Mr. Gardner. Doesn't necessarily have to speak on that. Well, I am asking him, so I would like to hear his answer. Okay. Thank you. My answer is yes. The answer from the CLB is yes. It just in the short term. Absolutely. Because there again, just to reiterate that point of making sure that and I know the question was asked, had the mayor ever gotten involved in something like it, it's more of a broader question of ensuring that something like that never occurs. And from the community perspective, of which is the reason why each of us are on that board, that's really our only drivers to make sure that that type of independence is enshrined in that office. So, yes. And I mean, I would say you're right. You don't want to have that opportunity where someone might ask you for a favor and make you feel uncomfortable. Also, I don't want a position where the monitor even could potentially feel uncomfortable. I want I want there to be a total check and balance. And and so that's I mean, that's what I thought of the idea. But since Councilmember CdeBaca mentioned it, just Miss Crawford or I don't know, do you. And it probably be John. Go ahead, John. Jonathan Griffin, can you repeat the question? The question is so I ask that copy are that if they would support having authority to appoint the independent monitor instead of the mayor instead of city council, having a citizen oversight board appoints the independent monitor. I. I'm sorry. I don't. I don't understand how that applies to me. And we discussed this if the CLB would have appointment power to do that. For a. An appointee of the city. Is your. So I'm sorry. Here, I'm maybe struggling to understand. This is your question. Can the CEO be appoint the independent monitor. As does the CLP have the authority to appoint the independent monitor? I would not believe so for the same reasons that we've talked about before, about how the mayor in a strong mayor system is ultimately the person who makes all administrative appointments unless otherwise granted. The CLB. Would not. I mean, I think the way that we have it right now, where there's a nominating commission that gives the answer or, you know, that that is involved in that point. But I don't think that would be able to be a charter. But I, I think that would need to be in code and in a similar function to the way it is right now, since the copy itself, I don't believe is in Charter Club. I, I need to look more into the question as the easy answer. So more research monitor is also saying, I think certainly worth considering. I just. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Madam President. And Council and Hines, just to remind you that the c0b is appointed by the council and the mayor. We appoint some, he appoint some, and then we have some joint. Like the bill before this. I'm very open to the idea and I would love to talk about it more. I think it's great that the s.O.B. Worked with Councilman CdeBaca to draft the bill, but unfortunately we weren't given that same opportunity to talk about what was going to be in it. And that's what we're doing now. And so it's like right now we're having a committee meeting on the floor when we're deciding whether to put something very important on the charter for voters to vote for. And I just don't think this is the way we should do it. All of the questions demonstrate that the bill's not ready to move forward. We're talking about new ideas, and it's a great, robust conversation. But we really all need to sit down and talk about it at a committee meeting or at several committee meetings. So I just want to reiterate the importance of the council process as well as a public process. And moving forward. I am 100% on board for talking about this further. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilmember CdeBaca, for bringing this forward. I think that this one is really important, and I think that there's a lot a lot to like in here. But again, I think the conversations that we're having are also really important. And I think we're discussing some really important things that we want to get right. Referring something to the charter, then enshrines it in their only voters can change it. And I think that is incumbent upon us to make sure that we have fully vetted and worked all these questions out. As a couple of councilmembers have mentioned, you know, our independent monitor isn't going anywhere. We have another election next year. And I think that this is something that warrants that full conversation that we should be having in committee. And I look forward to that conversation and getting this right so that we can get it to voters. And that's right when we get it there. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Clerk. Councilwoman, can I have Councilman Cashman up? Is it okay if I pop over to him and then I'll get back to you back in the queue, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I just. Would. Echo what a few of my colleagues have already said. I think there's more than a nugget of good things to be gained from taking this proposal through the process. I mean, 100% fan of the structure that creates the independent monitor and enshrined it in the charter. And I happen to think we've got an excellent person in Mr. Mitchell filling that post, and anything we can do to strengthen the independence of that office is something that I look very forward to working on. But I do think that, as has been said, this needs more time to bake and I think we're going to come up with something truly excellent. And I thank the councilwoman for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Canete. Thank you. So, another one of these. Oh, sorry. My dogs are here. Another one of these committees on the floor questions. So I just am thinking about unintended consequences that I didn't have time to think through. So one of the things I feel like we've talked about before is our inability or our lack of ability to direct . And I want to be very clear. H.R. has been very supportive of the council in the search for our executive director and has always been accommodating. But I may I feel like there's some nagging thing in my brain about the question of running a search like this? And is there a difference in terms of our ability to say, sorry? You must help us with this search and conduct a national search? I just want to make sure there's no unintended consequences hiding in here in terms of our ability to fulfill our function. So if we take this on, as if, to my knowledge, the only employees that we appoint now are those that are under our direct control, unless I'm forgetting anybody. So if I'm forgetting anyone, please let me know. But I just want to clarify. There's a whole infrastructure for hiring that is accessible to the mayor because that's who does that. And so we've leveraged it for our own offices. But is there any issue or is there any limits on what they can do for us and or our ability to make, make, make sure that they are there to give us that infrastructure? This, for example, there's cost involved. So, for example, running a nationwide search for a position like this, I'm assuming you want a search firm of some sort. You know, there's some cost involved. So just talk me through anything about any unintended consequences we may be missing here. And I guess, again, for the sponsor or alleged counsel and if no one has an answer, that's okay. But I'm putting it out there because I just want to make sure that we're prepared for this passing. If it if it were to be referred. Perfect. Thank you. I think that H.R., I think, is also on the call. But if we if it's something that we take under our wing, I think it's something like anything else that we would plan for in our budget. And we had Carla Pearce who had called in. And I'm asking the staff if we have another representative from our. Carla Pearce is with the employment unit of the city attorney's office, which is a little different because they would handle problems. They wouldn't me I mean, maybe they wouldn't necessarily handle an administrative function like a search that would be an employee, not a city attorney's employee. Yeah. I don't believe we have anyone for an hour here. So. But to your point, again, those follow up nagging questions before we refer something. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. So I think with that's probably a great Segway. Clearly, there are questions that are left and based on the comments of a lot of my other council members. I would like to move to. We refer this to. All right. Okay. Thank you. All right. We have a motion on the floor. We have a second. Madam Secretary, or any conversation. Excuse me, Councilwoman. Can each is your hand? Thank you. I just. I want to be clear that I probably would be ready to vote in support of this tonight. But if it's referred to committee, I'm committed to continuing to support and help make sure that it gets so whichever path ends up happening. I am very committed to working with the community and the sponsor on ensuring that this continues to proceed. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. So just hearing all of the comments and concerns by council. You know, when we do something that we put in the charter. You know, this is serious and this is where details matter. And there's a lot of details that are not that still need some clarity and some answers. And so it's why I supported the motion of sending it back to committee so that we can do the appropriate work in the committee process and be able to thoroughly discuss what kinds of changes people would want to see made that allow us to be able to have a bill that we can all explain, that we all support, that we want to move forward to the voters. So that's that's where I'm at on this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam Chair. That's a better move than they're moving us forward tonight, obviously, because I agree with Councilwoman Kimmich's earlier remarks that to have. Imprecision and confusion and lack of clarity over the ordinance that would implement this. That, for me is highly problematic going to the voters and saying, we'd like to appoint this person, but we don't know yet how we're going to go about doing that or or how all this works that it would that if it were to lose at the ballot, that would be a much worse outcome. So I'll vote no on re referring to me because it's just as easy to file a new bill, the election as the other election as a year away. And as long as this comes to committee and stays on the agenda and has a robust discussion, I support the concept of us appointing the independent monitor completely. What I don't support is all is what was in the draft bill that implements all that. Remember when we changed the Citizen Oversight Board to have more city council appointments in the screening committee, etc. that I actually wanted to do an amendment that didn't have support to have the CEO be appointed entirely by council and not by the administration, to have each of the 13 of us appoint one member. And so I do support us appointing the independent monitor, but I don't think it's ready to go to the ballot, obviously, and referring it would would would would see to that. But it's just as easy to appoint or to to let it die tonight and then file a new bill as the process moves along at a much better pace. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. Just an interest. If this doesn't get re referred to committee, I'd be interested. In adding an amendment to allow for the monitor to have to appointed positions within that language. So I'll see where things go from here. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. See? No other questions. Madam Secretary, roll call on Bill 837 being referred to committee. Is there not a is is councilman Tory is not offering an amendment. We have a motion already on the floor to re refer it to committee. And counsel. Oh, go ahead. Thank. Sawyer. I. Torres? No. Black I. CdeBaca. Pass. CLARKE All right. Flynn Now. Herndon. At times. I. Cashman. I can each pass. Ortega, I. Sandoval. Sorry. No. Seelbach. Abstain. Can I? Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One abstention. Three names. Nine eyes. 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?

Recommendation to respectfully request the Mayor and City Council to join with cities across the nation in formally recognizing August as National Breastfeeding Awareness Month; and Request City Attorney to draft a resolution recognizing National Breastfeeding Awareness Month.

LongBeachCC_07072015_15-0615

Councilmember Richardson. Motion carry nine zero 16. Item six is communication from Vice Mayor Lowenthal, Councilwoman Gonzalez and Council Member Richardson. Recommendation to join with cities across the nation in formally recognizing August as National Breastfeeding Awareness Month and request editorially to drive a resolution recognizing National Breastfeeding Awareness Month. Vice Mayor Alonzo. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank our resident, Marcela de Vera, co-founder of Long Beach Breastfeeds. Marcella is home with sick children tonight. I think their entire family is has caught the bug but will be here on the 21st to help celebrate this resolution. Should it pass, this resolution will help raise awareness of all benefits associated with breastfeeding, highlight the need for increased education, and help make more connected the breastfeeding community in our city. I would also like to ask the city attorney, I think on the item we had mentioned that they have 900 members. It's actually up to 1100. It's not a material difference. But if that could be changed, great. If not, that's fine. Thank you. Thank you. The second of the motion was Councilman Gonzales. I just want to thank Vice Mayor Lowenthal for bringing this forward to have a five month old at home who certainly, you know, has has the nutritional value of breastfeeding and formula feeding. And so I really appreciate bringing this forward to the city council and that we will be able to support this. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Vice Mayor Lowenthal, for bringing this forward. Similar to Lina, I've been educated most recently on on a lot of the benefits to best breastfeeding and the cultural challenges there are to to that. And I just want to say that my Maricel is doing a great job at Long Beach Breastfeeds. She hosts a monthly support group at my field office in the ninth District. I try not to attend myself. I just my you know, my wife is a member, but I sort of leave it to them and my staff just because it's still a little uncomfortable for me. But I'm learning it. But but thanks a lot. And I'm in full support. Thank you. Any public comment on the item? Saying None. Please cast your votes. Councilman Andrews, Councilmember Ranka. Motion carries seven zero. Item 80.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 21.15.966, 21.15.2290, 21.15.2795, 21.15.2810, 21.15.2985, 21.15.3095, Table 31-1, Table 32-1, Table 33-2, and Table 34-1; by adding Sections 21.15.1475, 21.15.2382, 21.15.2793, 21.45.153, 21.45.163, 21.51.278, 21.52.238, and 21.52.269.1; and by repealing Section 21.15.2475, all relating to interim housing, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07142020_20-0585

Okay. So our last item of. Let's go to item number 26. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by relating to interim housing red and adopted as red citywide. And I get a motion to. See. The second. Sun house. They moved in second it. Is there anybody want to comment on this? There are none any public comment. Yes, we have. And control your time starts now. It. And Control again. And I question whether the title for this agenda item. Is in. Conformance with the Brown Act. Nevertheless, to make clear this is a change in zoning to allow homeless shelters to be built in residential neighborhoods where they're currently not allowed. Also to allow homeless to live in their cars, in sites not previously allowed. This will. Also. Increase the low barrier emergency shelter. Beds. And increase accessibility for populations that currently have limited shelter options, which includes couples, parents with children and people with pets so they can remain together. I have no problems. With these additions I do have problems with. The next group of. People, which are those with multiple diagnoses, especially those with mental illness. And substance abuse. I do not believe that these. Homeless individuals that have this kind of problems. Should be. In the same shelter with families. Also the safe parking sites. Require. Staffing. Safety measures. Health care, restrooms, clean up lighting, utilities, water, trash disposal. I'm wondering who is going to be paying? For all of these services. I have the feeling that. This will bring. People from outside of Long Beach and to our city. And so if you do. Pass this. Safe parking site. Part of the resolution. I hope that it'll be limited to Long Beach residents only. Lastly, I'm asking that you. I give more public outreach. Before you vote. So I would ask you to leave this over until the other. The public has had a chance to be informed. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have carelessly. Your time starts now. I call this district. I urge you to vote no on this. Not because I oppose interim housing, but because the way this proposal is structured, it throws out the work done on the land use plan. And the public deserves to be. Included and. Understand that they also should have outreach on the Everyone Home project, which is the foundation these days for the policy on the. I am most concerned with the changing definitions of commercial and institutional. I couldn't decide what to call this. This is either a Trojan horse or Pandora's Box. This allows the developer to take parcels with a commercial designation on the land use plan and turn it into multi-story affordable housing. A.B. 1763 The rezoning of the homeless provides large parcels, parcels of land under the designation of commercial. These changes override the land use plan as it was approved. If you pass this item without public knowledge, you are violating the public trust. All that work done on the Hill, you might as well be thrown away. The proposal to put low barrier meaning they are not required to be in a program or mentally ill and not on meds into a community where children play and everyday citizens are being exposed to them does not promote safe and healthy living for the general population. If you want to build something as zoning is an issue. You can do. What you've always. Been able to do, which is. A conditional use permit. Thank you. Thank you. Our last speaker for this item is Jordan. When your time starts now. Hi there. This is Jordan Winn from the second district. I signed up to this item very specifically to counteract the last two statements that you heard. Letters went out. And I just want to speak a little bit more frankly than I usually get to on items like this. It was kind of funny the way you heard the past to comment on this item as they lay out one vision versus another vision as to what is going to be the case with, you know , creating, you know, housing and shelter for people who are experiencing homelessness right now. One says that there's going to be temporary shelters that result. The other is saying that there's going to be affordable housing that result. And somehow that's the net negative overall versus the alternative, which is having people who are experiencing homelessness on your street unsafe and potentially vectors for a current coronavirus that is within our city. I think it's silly to be opposing plans that lay out and provide additional opportunities for us to aid people experiencing homelessness. I think that it is a scapegoat that people are using when they bring up the land use element on items like this. I think it makes a lot of sense and last week it was a unanimous vote by the council. I hope that you stick by your vote last week to approve this item. I think we need more now, more than ever, especially given the crisis that we have to look at our options as to how we can take care of people experiencing homelessness on the street today, and to open our hearts with kindness instead of trying to obstruct the ways in which we can actually get people to receive care. And off the street. There's a lot of stigmas around what people are experiencing on the street today. But I do want to impart three specific facts. Namely, number one, the majority of people who are experiencing homelessness on the street today are not experiencing what's called chronic homelessness with debilitating condition. They're experiencing temporary or episodic homelessness. These are families, students and kids who are on our streets that make up the majority of our population of people experiencing homelessness. Number two, 78% of people experiencing homelessness right now in the city of Long Beach are unsheltered. And number three, black homelessness has gone up by 30% in the past three years. We need to be taking a stand and continuing to build out our infrastructure of affordable housing, interim housing, bridge housing and other appropriate service resources to help aid people experiencing homelessness. I thank you for bringing this item forward and I hope you will approve it like you did last week. Thank you very much. Thank you. And that concludes public comment for this item. Okay. Thank you. Is there any other comment or any comment from the council? Councilmember Alston, I cued. Okay. Go for it. Thank you. I just want to reiterate that I've been combating false narratives and fake news in my district now for a week. So I just want to be clear and ask development services. Does an approval of this plan today allow a property owner to build low income housing in commercial zones? No council member. This item does not have to do with that. Thank you. I've literally had to say that 100 times in the last week. Additionally, at meetings, I think that there are individuals that even stated now that they want a conditional use permit and a lot of the properties identified, at least the ones that I've specifically worked on with specific people, have had specific questions. They all require conditional use permit to get to the next round of consideration. And furthermore, a lot of the facilities identified as potential allowable have been. Discussed and the possibility of them there in in our lifetime is is is limited because of the current uses and other barriers. And so that one of the things that continues to come up is why did we identify so many places. If we don't need as many as are identified on the map and I think that you've clearly stated before, that's because as a part of this plan, we are required to come up with options and that the market is really going to drive the results. Is that. Accurate? That's exactly accurate council members. So you have some very high land values and higher rents in your district, making it relatively less likely that these types of uses would populate in your district. But we do need to provide a wide range of available options. One, because we're required to do that by state law. But two, because the chance of any individual site developing for these types of uses is so low that we need to provide many, many options out there so that hopefully the market and the funding sources are able to deliver one or two of these types of uses across the entire city. So when you look at those maps, they do show broad areas. That's not to say that there's going to be anywhere near that amount of these types of uses. This is really just about the opportunity and this is just about changes to the zoning code as to what is allowed. And there is no project whatsoever contemplated at this time. And the last question that I received and addressed yesterday. Was related to. And thank you, Miss Tatum, because sometimes I go to these meetings and people are. Yelling information at me over and over again, and I start to doubt myself. And the briefings that you guys have provided and the questions that I've asked over time and I know this has been a two year project, but I think the main question was related to if there were any portion of a map that was colored. So let's say on a map that has a bunch of red coloring and a neighbor says, I want this one red coloring removed, that that's impossible to do because this is not a change of zoning. The zoning remains in place. It is the change to the definition of available uses for that particular zone and that we would not be able to exclude any one particular property. Thank you for the question. Councilmember Mongeau, this is Alexis, our appraiser. Yes, you are correct. We would not be able to change one particular parcel zone as that's considered spot zoning and is prohibited by state law. And we wouldn't even be able to remove a a, a, a section that has multiple parcels on it. If it's currently zoned a particular way, you couldn't exclude one or the other, all of them within that zone. Correct. I'm sorry. Wonderful. Thank you. I don't think there were any other questions that came up at the community discussions I've had over the last week or so. But I want to just thank Oscar, RC and Chris and the whole team and all the work that you guys have done. I actually do know one other question you guys answered. There was a question related to the amount of community input. On this process. Could you give a little bit of background on that? Certainly there were several meetings held, the first of which was beginning in October of 2019 and was actually a focus group with. External stakeholder holders consisting of a range of participants. From Long Beach City College, Cal State, Long Beach, Linc Housing a number of other nonprofits. And then we went and did our homework and research. And then eventually in early or late January of this year, we held two community open house meetings, one at the Long Beach Multi-Service Center. And the second one. At the Mark Twain Neighborhood Library. For both of the events, messages were sent out via link, LRB and other social media format. The noticing is about 1500 people total from those two, from those methods of notification. And we had about 20 to 25 participants from both of the meetings. And we also have posted the material on the Internet since January of this year, allowing people to who are unable to attend to review the information by that method as well. Wonderful. Thank you for all of your work on this. I have no further questions. Harry. Nothing else from the council. So we. Let's go to a vote. District one. I. District to district three. I. District four. I. District five. II. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and approve the hearing officer’s recommendation to deny the business license application submitted by Alsace Lorraine Fine Pastries, Inc., dba Alsace Lorraine Fine Pastries, located at 4334 Atlantic Avenue. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_11222016_16-0940

We're going to move that item up. And we're also item 14 has also been withdrawn. And there are also no presentations tonight. And so with that, we're going to go ahead and get right into the hearings. And Madam Clerk, if we can begin with hearing item number one. Report from financial management recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and approve the hearing officer's recommendation to deny the business license application submitted by all seats. Lorraine Fine Pastries located at 40 334 Atlantic Avenue. An oath is required. If we can do. The oath. Okay. Everyone is going to be speaking on this. Please raise your right hand. You and each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now in pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God. Thank you. With that, we're going to go ahead and turn this over to city staff for the report. Mayor. City Council members giving the presentation today will be Bret Jacobs from the Finance Management. Good evening, our mayor and members of the city council. Tonight you have before you a recommendation to uphold the hearing officer's decision to deny the business license application for Alsace-Lorraine Fine Pastries Inc doing business as RC salary and find pastries located at 4334 Atlantic Avenue in Council District eight. The hearing was continued at the October 18th, 2016, council meeting. The direction provided at that time was for the city to conduct outreach to the attorney representing the property owner, Mr. No. As a last good faith effort to see if a reasonable settlement offer would be forthcoming prior to tonight's hearing. Outreach was conducted by the City Attorney's Office, and it is my understanding that there have been no reasonable settlement offers submitted to the city. They will conclude my staff report and I stand ready to answer any questions council may have. Thank you. Thank you. With that, let me go ahead and turn this over. Is there any public comment on the hearing before we get into council comments? Please come forward. Good evening. My name is Ten West and I'm actually the attorney from the bar, the law firm for also sorry fine pastries. I'm to update the city council on this issue. There actually has been a settlement offer communicated to the city attorney, Mr. Zinger, dated November 17th. And just so you know, if we can just stop the clock because it's a hearing, you're going to have a reasonable amount of time. So 10 minutes under 10 minutes, if you can give you. Share, it will be less than five, hopefully. Okay. But just show up to the city council. A sort of make communication has been has been delivered to the city attorney's office. I don't know if the council has received that information. Hopefully, the city council can take that into consideration. But mainly I just wanted to discuss. This matter only in the sense that the denial of the business license to assist Lorraine was was due purely to the failure, I'm quoting. Failure of the property owner to comply with the global laws and regulations. It wasn't anything that the bakery did. It was what the landlord did. And such a license was denied to the bakery. I also want to point out that there was an article recently in the press telegram that stated that. The city expected the issue to issue a final denial and that the decision cannot be appealed again. The statement is actually not true. The appeal will take its course in the Superior Court, where it is now pending and thereafter. The bakery is ready and willing to take the matter to the Second District Court of Appeal if necessary. So. So. The City is aware and the City Council is aware. The matter does not end tonight. If needed, we can take the matter to court. And with that, I just wanted to update the city council on that information. Great. Thank you. Any other public speakers on the hearing? Seeing none. I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment for the hearing and go back to the council. So, Councilmember Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And and I want to thank the council and the rest of city staff for indulging us over the last several weeks. We did continue this matter in an effort to get a reasonable settlement agreement, as I understand it, and I've read some some news reports, press reports about this particular matter that I think we need to really work to to clarify this matter in terms of what's really at stake and what we're really dealing with here. And as I understand it, this case really boils down to the property owner does not have a business license to lease a commercial property because it was revoked doing due to his leasing space to an illegal marijuana dispensary. Because the property owner does not have a business license, the city cannot issue a business license for a business to operate at that location. Is that correct, Mr. City Attorney. That is correct. So I'd like to go over a few questions over the regarding the timeframe. And as I recall, the City Council enacted a ban on medical marijuana dispensaries in February 2012 after a court ruling. And before that time when the city was allowing a limited number of permitted dispensaries to operate. Was the medical marijuana dispensary operating at this location prior to the ban going into effect affected the city? Was it was it operating prior to the ban going into effect? Does anybody have knowledge of that? Councilmember Austin Yes, it was operating. However, it was not one of the lottery winners or one of the approved applicants under 5.7. So it was operating illegally. So it was an illegal operation, correct. Okay. And it was not one of the lottery winners permitted to operate under our order? That's correct. So even when the city had an ordinance in place allowing certain dispensaries, the dispensary at this property location was operating illegally in violation of our ordinance. Is that correct? That's correct. And was the property owner owner ever notified that he was leasing his property to an illegal business prior to the revocation of his business license to lease the property? Correct. We gave several warnings and then there were also 424 citations issued to the property owner, letting him know that he had an illegal business operating on his property. Did you how many citations did you say? 424. 424 citations. And what period of time was that? We issued citations from March 13, 2012 to August nine, 2014. Okay. Thank you. And according to the information in this agenda, item, ALSACE-LORRAINE applied for a business license in June 2014 to operate as a bakery . However, the bakery was in operations before 2014. Was there a previous business license issued to Alsace-Lorraine? No. So Mr. No had the bakery license under his personal name, and that license was suspended on April 30th, 2014. We then received an application from All Syrian Fine Pastries Inc on June 19, 2014. So. So is the same Mr. No. Is it the same Mr.. No. Who had the business license under also is lowering the bakery the same property owner? So the property owner was also the bakery owner at one point in time. And so since April 30th, 2014, there has not been a valid business license for a bakery at that property. Okay. And so less than two months after his license was suspended, a new license application was received by a new owner from all states. Lauren, is that correct? That's correct. But Mr. No is still the property owner. That's correct. Okay. I'm just trying to get some clarification. I want to make sure that we're clear on this. So the bakery has been going has been operating without a business license in the city since 2014. Well, it goes to the appeal process. Is that correct? That's correct. So there has been, in my opinion, some some leniency in that regard, because do we normally allow businesses to operate without a business license knowingly? No. We knowingly do not allow businesses to operate well without a license. And what does the property owner currently owe the city? And fines and penalties. Can you work? Currently the amount that's owed is over $1,000,000 with penalties and interest. Okay. Last month, I made a motion to continue this hearing for 30 days to give the property owner an opportunity to reach a settlement with the city. Can the city attorney provide an update on what, if any, communications have taken place over the past 30 days to reach that objective? Councilman. Yes, our office did reach out to the business owner, the applicant, through his attorney, and indicated the motion that was made last month and gave them an opportunity to make what we would have considered to be a meaningful offer. We did not receive anything substantial compared to the outstanding debt of over $1,000,000. Okay. In terms of what we define as substantial. Ken, is is that is it possible for us to share the find the amount that they offered was $25,000. Okay. And as I recall, this appeal was referred to an independent hearing officer prior to it coming to the city council 30 days ago. That's correct. And what was the recommendation of the independent hearing officer? The recommendation was to uphold the decision to revoke the business license. Okay. In this matter, I think the city has has expended a tremendous amount of resources with a a property owner that has really shown no contrition, no remorse, and no regard for the the law for that established by the city. I don't think we have any other choices as a city at this point. And so I'd like to move to receive the supporting documentation into the record and conclude the hearing and approve the hearing officer's recommendation to deny the business license application submitted by Alsace-Lorraine Front Pastries, Inc. Thanks. Vice Mayor Richardson. I support the motion. Okay, there is a motion any second. Is there any any council comment on this? There's a motion and a second on the floor. There's been public comment for the hearing. So at this time, we'll go and call a vote on the motion for the hearing.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending and restating PD-32, Douglas Park Planned Development District (PD-32 North and PD-32 South), read and adopted as read. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_10062020_20-0928

Motion carries. Thank you. Would you please? 43 Report from Development Services Recommendation to Declare Ordinance Amending and restating. PD 32 Douglas Park Plan Development District. Read in adopted as read District five. Public governance. There is no public comment on this item. As the only council coming. I hear none. Can we please have a motion? I moved. Back in. Richardson. And then secondly. Richardson was the second price was the mover. Behind the. District one. District one. I. District three. By District four, by district five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. Our District nine. I motion carries.

A resolution approving a proposed contract between the City and County of Denver and Interstate Highway Construction, Inc. concerning design and construction services for Peña Boulevard at Denver International Airport. Approves a contract with Interstate Highway Construction, Inc. for $93,479,841.20 and through 05-30-22 to perform design and construction services for Peña Boulevard Phase 1 including widening and reconstructing both inbound and outbound Peña Boulevard, and reconstructing portions of Jackson Gap Road and the Jackson Gap interchange at Denver International Airport (201628522). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 7-22-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-19-19. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Espinoza postponed this item at the 7-8-19 Council meeting for a one-week postponement to 7-15-19.

DenverCityCouncil_07152019_19-0586

Nothing has been called out under Bill's on final consideration, though, items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. And I miss anything. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the first items up on our screens. Councilman Hines, you've called out Resolution 586. What would you like us to do with this resolution? Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to call out 586 for a separate vote. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilwoman Black, would you please put Resolution 586 on the floor for adoption? I move that Resolution 586 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of council. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to I want to thank the airport. So we just as you may know, we just got inaugurated today and and then we had photos and then we had lunch and then we had more photos. And I want to thank the airport for all the work that you have done to educate us on this issue that we have to vote on right now. And and it's kind of a difficult, difficult position for the for the new folks to immediately be here and and and and guide policy. But I believe that the reason we're here tonight is because the voters asked us to lead. And and so we're we were elected to serve four years. So here we are. I think all my questions have already been answered in the back and in the back and forth of through email and in person communication. So I'm happy to make a statement. Or should I make. Should I wait until other people have questions that they may want to ask the airport? We're doing questions and comments, so you're free to do other. Let me do a quick check in. Councilman Flynn and Councilman Cashman. Do you have comments or questions? A question, if you don't mind, Councilman Hines, I'll go to Cashman first since he has some questions. Don't mind. Thank you very much, Councilman Cashman. Yes, thank you, Mr. President. And I do have a couple of questions, some of which we went over last week, but I think they're pertinent for our new members. So one thing new that came before me this week is concerns expressed that there are a lot of employees at the airport that are kind of hamstrung by no or very little help with transportation to the airport. They end up having to park and lodge far from from their job site and are looking for more help. Is the airport doing anything along those lines? Sure. So at the airport, in addition to the city employees at the airport, there are 44 employers that offer Igo passes to their employees. That being said, that's the cost of an eco pass is a large burden for either an employer or that individual to bear coming out to the airport. So we as a team have been working in partnership with Dr. COG on implementing their way to go program more comprehensively out at the airport. What their way to go program does is they have a partnership with Enterprise Rent, a car that provides large 15 person vans, pays for the insurance, pays for the gas. And all you have to do is have one dedicated driver that commits to driving the car for the team. And that program is about $20 a month that could either be paid by the employee themselves or subsidized by the employer. And we think doing an analysis, we've run the zip codes of every employee working at the airport. And we think that's one step that will help a lot of folks that are either not located near transit or have, you know, economic barriers to using for, for example, the airline. So that's that's one example of what we're working on. We're also working with RTD to see what we can do to reduce some of those costs for specifically employees who are trying to get out to the airport each day. Do you have any clue, Rachel, as to how many employees are taking advantage of these programs or on their own or taking mass transit as opposed to how many are driving their own vehicles? I don't have the exact data in terms of employees that are using these programs. There's sort of a mix. I have data on how many people are coming through, either on the airline or RTD or some of these Vanderpool programs. But we don't differentiate. I don't or I don't have the data on which are employees and which are travelers. That being said, one of the things we're working on, we've partnered with RTG and Dr. COG, and they're coming both to the all city employee picnic and the all airport employee picnic with a brief survey to try and understand those demographics a little better so that we can target transportation solutions specific by the type of work you're doing out at the airport, what shifts you may have when you're arriving, when you're leaving, and what mode of transportation you're using now, and why you might not be choosing some of the multi-modal alternatives that we offer. Okay. One more question, Mr. President. Last week, and we had a rather lengthy discussion on this bill. And one of the things that was talked about was the airport had made a commitment to start a structured conversation with the Denver Park Streets Partnership over one of our larger advocacy groups pushing for multimodal solutions and reduction of single person auto traffic. Has anything happened yet in that regard? Yes. So in addition to sending some follow up information to those folks, we were able to collect a little bit more data than we had at the ready Monday evening. So we sent along that information and we have scheduled an initial meeting with them for the first week of August with ten representatives, leadership and the Streets Partnership Organization. Okay. Thank you. That's for Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Oh, I see. Councilman Ortega, do you have questions or comments? It's a request. A request. Just. To do that before we get into comments here. Okay. Go ahead. So we also have the Northeast Denver Transportation Connection entity that works in Montello, the G.S. neighborhood. So those neighborhoods along that I-70 corridor. And I would just encourage that when you have that meeting that they be included as well, because they are the team for that corridor, that that quadrant of the city, so that we're making sure that we've got inclusiveness as part of the conversation, because they work very closely with these grassroots low income communities. Absolutely. That's very helpful to know. And like I said last week, we're always interested in the more intelligent people we have around the table, the more likely we are to come up with solutions to these complex issues. And I just want to acknowledge that we also have our TDI board member, Ingeborg Petit, who is in the audience, and she happens to be the director of ETSI. She's in the back row, so make sure you to get connected to exchange cards. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you, Councilwoman. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right, Councilman Hines, you go ahead with your comment. Thank you. So, again, thank you to the airport for all the work you've done and all the stakeholder engagement and and member engagement for us. It's my first day. It is. I believe it's our job in government to shape Denver's future. In this situation, we have an opportunity to shape the future of a region instead of just the city and county of Denver, because of the strength and importance that that the airport has. I'm really concerned about our planet. Climate change is real. And we need to make. We need to take steps. We need to take immediate, bold steps to to make sure that we take care of our planet. And actually, it's not our planet that's going away. It's our habitability on the planet that is at risk. And increasing lanes and allowing more single occupant vehicles, I don't believe is the right answer for us as we shape the future. The second thing, in addition to the planet, is multimodal transit. So I ran a lot. I'm one of my primary platform ideas was on the planet and climate change. The second was on multimodal transit. We're expecting an additional 200,000 people to move to Denver, the city of Denver by 2040. And while we might be able to extend lanes on Penna, we can't widen six or eight. And and we want I believe we should encourage people in the city of Denver and beyond, but in particular, District ten, to try to have alternatives to cars. And so I'm a little concerned about feeding the traffic monster and having more more lanes. I also have a concern about citizen engagement. And the airport was in our back and forth over the weekend. And today has helped allay some of those fears. And and as I understand, there was a robust conversation with Dr. COG. And but I also want to make sure that we have conversations. We have the northeast area plan that was just adopted. I didn't see Penny in it, but but thank you for sharing with me that that Penny was specifically called out in the Dr. COG plan. So I just want to make sure that if we have public funds, it should have public accountability. And I recognize that the airport is a little different than other areas of the city. I also recognize that the airport has a different kind of focus than than many areas of the city. As far as specific neighborhood engagement and. And that really puts me in a tough spot with having being inaugurated and then immediately having to make a decision. So. Should I tell you how I'm going to vote? That you are more than welcome to or not. So I will. I. I intend. Just as I. As I'm fighting for increased citizen engagement. I think it would be remiss of me to make a decision tonight with the short time frame. And and so I will likely abstain because it would be hypocritical of me to say we need to the airport needs to engage the community , but then me not have a meaningful engagement with the airport. So I will likely abstain. Thank you. Councilman Hines, Councilman Flynn, you were in here and then you disappeared, and I think I might have done that. Are you still in the queue for comments? You can make people disappear. I did. I didn't mean to. Can I. Can I give you a list? Councilman Flynn, the floor is yours. Thank you. I would respectfully ask my colleagues to support this. And I say this as someone who, as a journalist, wrote about the development of the plan to do the airline and the airport and then who worked at RTD as a project manager on that very project and as someone who, since the day the airline opened, has never driven to the airport. I've only ever used the train. But I recognize that it cannot be the only option because, as Councilman Hines pointed out, the unique nature of the destination and of the travelers there. I did a little math over the weekend, which is always dangerous, but I think it's correct that even if every airline trip in the course of a day, there are 144 trips of four car trains. And even if everyone was at Crush Load, as we used to call it, when I was at when I was a project manager for communications, they told me, don't call it Crush Load, but even if every car was packed to the gills, don't count luggage don't count, strollers don't count wheelchairs don't count bicycles. And we carry about 800 people. And over those trips over the course of a year, you would have to fill every trip from 315 in the morning when 800 people aren't going to catch planes yet until 130 in the next morning. When Service Day ends, you would have to fill every train to carry just the originating and destination passengers who are flying out of or flying into Denver if they were to use the train. So we have to keep up maintenance and expansion. Yes. Of the roadway. And I want to remind folks that the roadway also carries busses, shuttles, hotels, shuttles, mountain shuttles. So there's a lot of multimodal travel that has to use the Penn Boulevard as well. The whole idea of multimodal travel is to offer options that work for whatever reason. You need to choose whatever it is you're choosing. And if we don't keep up with that, we will have. Right now, Penn Boulevard concrete is turning 30 years old, some of it this year. So some of it needs to be replaced. And the the expansion of lanes, three new lanes, one of which is dedicated to the commercial traffic, which carries multiple passengers, carries the busses, the shuttles, the hotel busses, etc., to the commercial level five. So this is a project I think is needed in the overall integrated mobility network to serve the airport. And I urge people to vote. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn and Councilwoman Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to take a minute to thank the airport staff for really being very open to all of our questions, working on the weekend and going above and beyond to get us a lot of information so that we could educate ourselves and be able to make this vote if we felt comfortable doing it tonight. So thank you very much for all of your hard work on that. And I just wanted to comment that what Councilman Hines said is absolutely correct, right in the issue of induced demand is a major problem in widening roads and we need climate change action now. But that said, I think the airport is a very different place in that it is the number one revenue driver in the state of Colorado and that it is the number five largest airport in the country. And that means that unlike many of the other decisions that we make as a council, this doesn't just affect the city of Denver. This affects the region and the country and the world in some ways. And so while I absolutely agree that climate change is a concern and that we need to we need to do a better job of working on different all different modes of transportation and finding funding for that. In this case, I think, you know, when there are people coming from Wyoming, when there are people coming from the mountains, when there are even families coming from Denver, my family. You guys have. What we look like trying to get to the airport. It's ridiculous. So, you know, being able to provide different options, even if that means waiting the road, even if that's really not what we want to do, I think is valuable in this case. And and I also think that we need to remember that that really is only 6% of this part of the project, that there's so much more here, including bringing some economic I'm sorry, environmental benefits to the airport in terms of moving the parking lot for Lyft drivers, Uber drivers, taxi drivers, limo drivers closer to the terminal so that they won't have to drive as far. It gives them a better quality of life and shows that we respect the work that they do and that we want to be supportive of them as our first line of customer service coming for people coming out of the airport, because right now they sit idling in their cars in a lot and they use porta potties if they need to go to the restroom. And this provides them a place where they can have running water, where they can have, you know, heat or air conditioning lights where they can turn off their vehicle so they're not idling for an hour while they're waiting for a ride. And I just wanted to point those things out as well, that that this is a tough call because it is, you know, we need to to move on climate change. But at the same time, we've got these two other big issues where we are providing our workers a better quality of life. And we are recognizing that this is in some ways an international access issue. So thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Councilwoman Sawyer. Councilwoman CdeBaca. First of all, I would also like to thank the airport staff for making themselves available and for answering the questions throughout the weekend. I'd also like to thank the Honorable Councilman Espinosa for helping us to postpone this vote until now. I think it's really ironic that my first vote is very similar to Espinosa's first vote, when he had to vote on I-70, which deeply impacted my life as I lived three blocks away from the I-70 expansion and catalyzed my race. I do want to really stress the importance of understanding that we have to make we have to have priorities in this city. And Councilman Flynn noted that we, even if packed to the brim, are our trains would only transport 800 people per day. I think that's then an impetus for us to start talking about adding rail cars instead of continuing to incentivize bad behavior. We know our planet is on fire. We know what the risk is of induced demand, and so we know better. Why aren't we doing better? Councilman Flynn also mentioned expansion and maintenance in the same sentence, and I think those are two very different things. Maintenance is one thing and expansion is a very different thing. And so, yes, we absolutely have to continue to maintain our roads, the ones that currently exist, but we do have to curb our use of single occupant vehicles. And this is not the way to do that, especially to the airport. I live one block away also from the A-Train, and that is a system we are spending a lot of money on, continuing with lawsuits and everything. And I think that we have to understand and recognize that we have limited resources when it comes to multimodal transportation. And our multimodal transportation is suffering here in this city and not advancing in the way we need it to. And so we need to do better and understand the real impacts of how we spend every single dollar. And this 93 million is a significant amount of money to be making a decision on in my first evening. But I do think that there is a reason for me to encourage my colleagues to vote no on this, and that is how I will be voting. So thank you. And there are also other ways to integrate Lyft and shared ride services in a more streamlined fashion, in a in an efficient way. And all we have to do is look to other cities. We don't have to reconstruct what is available. There are other ways to integrate them into the shuttle services, the shuttle lines where people are picked up. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Clark. I very much appreciate the comments and the direction of my colleagues on council. I know that this is a difficult decision, especially given your first night. And I want to also thank the airport and the immense work that they've done. We just finished up 20 months of community engagement that was very robust, that was very intentional with the far northeast community, and that includes Montebello Park Field, High Point, Green Valley Ranch. I did that work in collaboration with Councilman Herndon as part of the Far Northeast Neighborhood Planning Initiative. And the community is very engaged. They have lived with this issue for over 25 years. Pena Boulevard, by default, is their only way into and out of the community. And, you know, the airport in 2016 did some revolutionary work in getting Congress and the Appropriations Committee to really allow us to treat Pena as. A city and county of Denver roadway versus only a Denver International Airport road. If we are not able to do improvements on this roadway, there was talk of it having to be a toll for folks to get out to the airport. Now, we know we never want to do that because that would stifle our growth. That would be hard for residents. That would be hard for other folks. And so with that work that George and his team did, they were able to negotiate with the Federal Aviation Administration to allow the airport to put funds on to airport, but then also look at phases two, three and four. And I want to be part of the conversations moving forward. I want to hear all of your new ideas. And how can we address this? Because I have constituents that can't get to work. And these are constituents that have food trucks, that work in construction, that own their own businesses. They have work vehicles that multi mobility isn't necessarily going to work for them. They have to drive on our roadways. And we, for over 25 years in the far northeast, have not had the investments nor appropriate expansion of our roadways, especially when you're talking about 56th Avenue and Penn Boulevard. Our life and safety is sometimes at risk because of bumper to bumper traffic that we have on these roadways. And so I look forward to the ongoing conversations. But respectfully, I do ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this. And a reminder that in 2019, we are going to see almost 70 million passengers coming through Denver International Airport, and we need to make sure that we can accommodate that. But then moving forward to making sure that we're getting those single occupancy vehicles off of our roadways all throughout the city and the region and allowing us also to grow in a responsible way in the far north northeast. Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I was pleased to join Councilman Espinosa and a number of votes against the I-70 project, and we don't need to go into the politics of that. But I felt its impact on the community, etc. made that a project that was ill conceived. I feel differently about this project for a number of reasons, as Councilwoman Gilmore alluded. The road was was built to handle a different volume of traffic. Then. Then it turns out our airport is generating in the numbers in the future keep going higher and higher. I believe the A-line was built. The stations were built to accommodate eight cars as opposed to four. So the airport, in trying to futureproof our station, built our station to allow for eight cars. We also built for an entire nother people mover to be built. And and at the airport, however, RTD built the rest of the stations to accommodate four cars. Right. Thank you. There's limitations on while the the airport, the A-line and the station was built to accommodate another people mover of a current landscape has no idea where that might come from. I believe FAA guidelines prevent the airport from constructing that. The plan as it exists is not just widening lanes. In addition to the the the ride share facility, it's going to make the those that need to circle back to the terminal quicker and safer and easier. I just think that this while when I first saw this bill come through and saw Lane widening, the remaining hairs rose on the back of my neck. And it was something that I started grumbling and cussing about under my breath. But after looking at it in more depth, I think it's something that is justified. And so I will be supporting it this even. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. At some point you have to tell me what that experience of feeling of having remaining hairs is like. I see no other comments. I will just add quickly, I will echo a lot of what's already been said. But you know, for me, first of all, it is so exciting to hear this new council. And when I say new council, I'm not saying new members because we are one council or 13 individuals, but we are one body. We get to make one decision. And so this new council, I'm so excited to hear how this new council is talking about climate change. And I hope that we will take big actions quickly because we don't. We might be elected to serve for four years, but we can't wait around four years to to make some big decisions when it comes to the climate. For me, with this, in addition to what's been said, I just want to point out a couple of things that I've been getting emails on. Only 6.4% of this contract is expansions when he mentioned that. Of that expanded lanes, there are three lanes. One is a bus shuttle lane and the two others are about safety moving in and out. Right now we have areas where it is chaos getting in and out. And so that expansion is really revolves around that. And there's a small portion of this contract. Also a lot of emails about rather spend this money on sidewalks and stuff like that. This is airport money. This is not your tax revenue. This money can't be spent on those things. It has to be spent at the airport. It's money that is generated at the airport and can only be spent on the airport. So just want to set that straight. So I will be voting to support this this evening. Madam Secretary. Raquel. Hines. Epstein. Black. I see tobacco. Nei Flynn. I Gillmor. I. Herndon, i. Cashman. Kasich, i. Ortega. By Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, i. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results. 11 eyes, one knee, one abstention. 11 eyes, one nay, one abstention. Resolution 586 has been adopted. That concludes the items that have been called out this evening. All bills for introduction are ordered, published and were now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration.

Recommendation to adopt Resolution of Intention declaring its intent to grant a limited Natural Gas Franchise with the Southern California Gas Company for the purpose of transmitting and distributing natural gas within the City of Long Beach; and, setting a public hearing for Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at 5:00 p.m., on the proposed extension. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05152018_18-0415

This is the sort of a Disney ification of of of reality. I remember somebody saying, I don't need to go to Paris because I went to Las Vegas and I saw the Eiffel Tower. But it's a very sanitized version of of reality. If this developer wants shorter, cuter, younger insects getting through trees, you know, I respect those old trees. And they are and the young ones will not be able to provide nesting sites for many, many years. So if we can get any support, you've all been, you know, sent some information and encourage our city planning department. We do want to thank the city of Public Works for putting us on the agenda. We hope we'll get some letters of support from the council when we are on the agenda in July to try to save these trees. And we do, you know, support with reservations, not unconditional support. I would say we hope that the issue questioning round up will continue to be an issue in the city and that we will stop using Roundup in our parks and in our wetlands. And, you know, we had a lot of young people out there. It was a really they made up a lot of beautiful songs. And we realized it's kind of fun to be a bird. It's more fun to be a bird like it. It's more fun to be a person, though, when you have a home, you know? Thank you. Well, thank you for your testimony. Members, please cast your vote on the consent calendar. And I'm a yes. Motion carries. Thank you. So I know that number 1617, we have been requested to continue. So let's just pull them up so we can make the motion to do that. Please read. I'm 16, please. Communication from Councilmember Pierce. Councilwoman Gonzales recommendation to direct City Manager to work with public works and report back in 60 days on current outreach efforts through the Clean Long Beach Initiative and request staff to implement a pilot DeKalb program applying informational decals on locked bins within the East Village.

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_03072022_22-0273

If folks would like to contribute or participate in any way. So thank you. All right. We're going to go ahead and move on. Madam Secretary, if you would, please put the next item up on our screens. Councilmember Herndon, would you please put Bill 273 on the floor for publication? Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 2-0273 be ordered published. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments and questions by members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 0273 Council members say to Barca. Thank you. This is first reading and so it will come up again in front of us. But I want to go on record at this meeting and I'll be a no next reading as not supporting this. As you may recall, I'm a staunch supporter of the auditor's request for subpoena power. I believe it's a critical component of his work and to the transparency our Denver residents have so frequently demanded from our government. If you're watching the news, members of the public, there are legal actions being pursued by the auditor for what he believes was an overreach of council's power. An amendment in an amendment that made it into this bill when it was passed last spring. There are three branches of government, of course. The mayors, the executive branch councils, the legislative branch and the courts are our third branch. There are three branches of government to serve as checks and balances to each other for a reason. Because this issue is in litigation, I feel that it is in fact an overreach for us to pull the ordinance out completely through a flat out repeal, rather than allowing the issue to be resolved either in court or by conducting a brand new process to find a better solution mutually. While this ordinance remains in effect. So for that, I'm a note tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I think if I recall last May's debate on this accurately. Most members of this body want the auditor to have subpoena power and would vote that way and in fact, did give him subpoena power. He has it. We put a few guardrails in for the in the interest of security of confidential and proprietary data. But this repeal is necessary now and to start over. I agree with Councilwoman CdeBaca. We will start over because we want the auditor to be able to do proper investigations. But this repeal is necessary to prevent the waste and abuse of taxpayer money that is triggered by the auditor's ill advised decision to file a meritless lawsuit. Repeal removes any basis for it. The auditor suit asks the judicial branch to usurp the role of city council and hand the auditor a version of the ordinance that could not have passed this body. That is an attack on the independence of the council and the separation of powers that we just heard about from Councilwoman CdeBaca. He did this in place of authentically engaging with us. So while the lawsuit is doomed to fail, the lawyers bills to the taxpayer would be all too real and a waste. This council last year was frustrated by the auditor's refusal to engage with us in the legislative process and address very real and serious concerns over how he would handle proprietary and confidential data. Because of this refusal, culminating in his absence from the council meeting where the vote was being taken, the final vote, his request for subpoena authority that night was headed for defeat. In order to give him that subpoena authority that most members want him to have. I proposed this amendment in order to save the bill. Without my amendment, his bill would have died on the floor with my amendment. The auditor would have the authority to subpoena any and all data, documents and information, including complete access to all confidential and proprietary information held by entities being audited. But it allowed those entities, if they chose to require that only, only proprietary or confidential data had to be examined on site instead of being copied and taken away to the auditor's office. Since then, the auditor has made many misleading and incorrect statements about this ordinance, most notably that the amendment allows outside parties being audited to withhold information. It does no such thing at all. His decision to refuse examining confidential or proprietary information on site is not the same as being denied access to it. Audit subjects had legitimate fears about sending their sensitive, proprietary and confidential data out the door on a flash drive, especially knowing that the auditor would extract that data and upload it into third party applications outside their oversight. So after the ordinance is replaced, is repealed. Rather, it is my intention to start outrage over a new bill to reestablish subpoena authority for the auditor in the area, especially of wage investigations and enforcement only at first, which we all want or most of us want, while inviting the auditor reengage on the use of subpoenas in performance and internal audits. And we hope, Madam President, for serious cooperation and authentic engagement this time around. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. I just wanted to reiterate points both my colleagues made. I do think it's incredibly important that the auditor have subpoena power. And so I hate to repeal this tonight, but at the end of the day, process matters. And the process that we went through is the governmental process of the city and county of Denver. And the judicial branch shouldn't be asked to settle that, especially when it's going to cost taxpayer money unnecessarily. I agree. If the auditor had been prepared a committee, if there had been if they the auditor's office had attended the final hearing, you know, maybe things would have been different. But that didn't happen. And process matters. So as much as I hate to do this tonight, I am going to agree and vote yes that we should repeal this ordinance and start the process over again. I'm not happy about it, but you know, this is the best choice in order to save taxpayer dollars, which I think is the most important right now. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Councilman Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I just this feels to me like a spat between friends. I couldn't have more respect for my colleagues on the dais. I couldn't have more respect for Auditor O'Brien. I think he's done a spectacular job in his time of service to the city, and the level of discourse has gotten heated and to me a bit extreme on both sides. But I do agree that rather than turn this matter over to the judiciary, I think the proper path. Forward is to bring this back through the committee structure and see if we can't come up with a policy that serves the the citizens of the city and county of Denver as best we can. And but I think it's time for the level of acrimony to come back down to earth again. I was here when this policy was debated. It was a city council doing its best to consider all the elements. There's nothing different from this discussion than any other that that we've put forward in my in my time on council. So I look forward to going through the process again and my best to two other O'Bryan. I hope he's having a good evening. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to iterate some of my comments that my colleagues made and just remind everyone that this is a public city council meeting and anyone is freely and openly willing to attend. And when you have a bill in front of city council as a sponsor, I hope that we make ourselves available for questions from this body. Anyone is able to participate. We have people who participate at all of our public hearings on Monday night and they don't need an invitation. This is a public meeting for everybody. And so I ask Ed O'Brien and his team to make sure that to understand that this is a very public process. And as we will note that other times, as bills get called out, whoever is bringing the bill forward, we are able to ask robust questions from the bill's sponsor. And this happened to be a bill sponsor from Ed O'Brien. And with that, I also admire the work that we he has done and the audits. I read his audit reports. I have learned a lot about his audit reports. I just ran a bill with Councilwoman Cranitch about the Board of Adjustment and I read his report on the Board of Adjustment when I was reading, when I was doing that bill. And it had a lot of information that actually I did not I was not aware of. So I do hope that we can bring this forward without costing the taxpayers money to have to go to court. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Sandoval. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 0273, please. See tobacco? No. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hi. Hi. Cashman. Can each. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres. I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. When Nate and I's. Ten I's counsel build 20 2-0273 has been ordered published. That concludes the items to be called out. All of their bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilmembers remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the 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 be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in the block for the following items. 211 2211 91 to 15 to 23 to 20 5 to 26 two 3231 to 30 2 to 24 to 16 to 19. 184. 202205. All right. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. CdeBaca I Flynn. High. Herndon, I. Hi, Cashman. How can each I. Ortega Sandoval. I swear i. Torres. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. 11 East. 11 I. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Council will not take a recess this evening. Our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, April 4th. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 22, dash 0147 Changing the zoning classification for 2875 North Albion Street in North Park

Rezones property located 270 South Madison Street from PUD 624 to G-RH-3 in Council District 10. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located 270 South Madison Street from PUD 624 to G-RH-3 (General Urban,Row House, 3 stories) in Council District 10. 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 6-24-15.

DenverCityCouncil_08102015_15-0410

Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become part of the record. The public hearing for Ford Counsel Bill Fortin is now open. May we have a staff report? Good evening, council president, members of city council. My name is Ryan Winter. Very glib with community planning and development to present a rezoning at 270 South Madison Street. That's application to 2015. i00033 from. 640 2grh3i sorry. 624. So what I'll do tonight first I will orient you to the subject site, will then walk through the existing context and an overview of the process that has led us to tonight's City Council. Public hearing will then go through the five rezoning criteria used to evaluate a rezoning that then determines the staff recommendation that you'll see before you. So here's the subject site. It is located in South Central Denver in Council District ten. It is within the Cherry Creek Statistical neighborhood. And to orient you to the site a bit, zooming in, you can see it's outlined here in yellow. It is one parcel north of the intersection of South Madison Street and East Alameda Avenue. Pulaski Park and the Gates Tennis Center are directly across the street. That's East Madison. And access to the Tree Cherry Creek Trail is available from Cherry Creek Drive. East Alameda Avenue directly to the south is served by four RTD bus routes. So the property is 6250 square feet and it is comprised of one assessor's parcel. It is currently occupied by a single family residential structure with a detached garage. The property owner is requesting a rezoning to redevelop the site under the RH three zone district standards and remove PDE 624. So the request before you today is to rezone from PD 624 to G RH three. And just a reminder that the approval of a rezoning is not the approval of a specific development proposal. And should the rezoning be approved tonight, development consistent with the grh3 zoned district would be allowed. Moving on to the request we are considering the grh3 zoned district tonight. It is within the general neighborhood context. It is a row house district and it permits buildings with a three storey maximum height. Of course, that is Article six in the Denver zoning code and will now walk through the existing context first to existing zoning. You can see our subject site is called out in yellow and it is surrounded by the g, rh3 zoned district. On two sides we see to the north and the east g are h three and various PDS throughout Cherry Creek East. We see the B four zone district to the south across Alameda. That is a former Chapter 59 zone district, as well as several flavors of the C Zone district. We see the OSA Zone District across East Alameda excuse me, East Madison at Pulaski Park. And the Cherry Creek Trail is zoned O.C.. So now moving on to the existing PDP 624. It was established in 2009 and permits to dwelling units includes a maximum height of two stories and that's 35 feet, as well as a maximum gross floor area of 5482 square feet. It also sets forth parking and setback standards, as well as a district plan and the district plan. There's an excerpt of it here. Included on this slide, I've outlined in Blue for you the permitted building footprint enabled by that PWD. And this is the building footprint that would have to be complied with for construction under par 624. PD 624 also includes detailed facade, facade elevations as well as materials, and it's really specific to very specific development contemplated under this Puddy dispute. 624 is an example as seen here as we've seen that many chapter former Chapter 59 Pdes are too restrictive often and too detailed, and are unable to adapt to the changing market and preference conditions that we see over time. Specifically, this PD was approved in 2009 and has not been developed under. And we also see specifically, I guess, the way to explain it is that for a development to want to build anything other than what is specified in this building footprint and these facade elevations, we must entertain a resounding like we are here tonight. So moving on to the Cranmer Park View plane, it applies to the subject site. Our site here is with the yellow star and view. Planes are intended to protect and preserve panoramic views of the mountains from various locations throughout the city. And of course, Cranmer Park originates in Cranmer Park specifies maximum view, maximum heights for all structures. And for this particular site, a maximum height of 146 to 148 feet would be permissible, of course, far exceeding the grade three maximum height of 30 feet. Now moving on to the existing land use, we can see our subject site is called out in light yellow, indicating that it is a single family residential structure to the north and the east we see rowhouse, duplex, multi-family as well as scattered single family sites. To the south, across Alameda, we see office and multifamily. And then to the west we see the open space at Pulaski Park. Moving on to the building form scale, this is a photo of the subject site. You can see that is a one storey single family structure. It features a curb and driveway access at the primary street and a narrow, attached sidewalk. So to orient you a bit to the building form and scale in the surrounding area. The photo that we see in the upper right hand corner is indicative of a three storey multi-unit structure on the same block face that would have been constructed under the former Chapter 59. In the lower right hand corner, we see the subject site just to the east. It is a row house development as well as some of the remaining single family residential in this sort of postwar context that we do see in Cherry Creek East, the photo in the lower left hand corner is a multi-family multi-story residential structure across Alameda Avenue. And then in the upper left hand corner, you can see Pulaski Park. And now to an overview of the process that's brought us here today. We notified RINO's and City Council members of receipt of application on April 7th. The notice of the Planning Board public hearing was sent to R.A. and City Council on May 19th, as well as notification signage posted on the property advertising of the Planning Board public hearing. On June 3rd, the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of the rezoning to City Council. And then on June 24th, the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee moved the bill to City Council for final consideration. Tonight, and notice of tonight's City Council public hearing has been sent to all R.A. and City Council on July 20th, as well as notification signage has been posted on the property. The following. Four registered neighborhood organizations have been notified throughout the process, and we have received communication from two of those registered neighborhood organizations. As of today, we received from the Denver Neighborhood Association R.A. position statement offering that the Denver Neighborhood Association did not take a vote on this particular issue. They generally don't involve themselves in such neighborhood specific matters, but did indicate support of the rezoning generally supporting rezonings of former Chapter 59 PDS into the Denver Zoning Code and I believe the G RH three was an appropriate sign district. Additionally, we received a letter of support from the Cherry Creek East Association stating that the R.A. did vote in support of the application. So now I will walk you through the five rezoning criteria used to evaluate a rezoning request, the first of which is consistency with adopted plans. And three adopted plans will apply to the subject site Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint Denver, which is our Integrated Land Use and transportation plan as well as the Cherry Creek Area Plan adopted in 2012. The first is comprehensive plan 2000 and KPD did find that the rezoning request is consistent with Comprehensive Plan 2000, and we look to a number of different strategies to inform that determination, including environmental sustainability through the promotion of infill development, as well as encouraging opportunities for people to live where they work. The land use strategy again encourages quality infill development that is consistent with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, as well as the neighborhood strategy that recommends invest investing in neighborhoods through a range of housing types. Moving on to Blueprint Denver. Our subject site is called Out in the Yellow Box, and it just indicated that it is within an urban residential concept land use category where the plan recommends higher intensity, primarily residential uses and a variety of housing types, including single family townhouses, small multifamily and sometimes residential. We do find that the RH three zone district implements these land use recommendations through that variety of housing types consistent with the existing character. And we also find that our subject site is located within an area of stability. You can see there is an area change located to the south at Alameda indicated by that hatch and of course blueprint. Denver recommends in areas of stability, maintaining character while allowing some new development. And we do find that the G RH three zone district is consistent with that recommendation. Blueprint. Denver also includes a number of street classifications that inform the appropriate mix of land uses. South Madison Street is called out as an undesignated local, where it is more appropriate for local access rather than regional access. And East Alameda is called out as a mixed use arterial, and such an arterial would have a greater importance on regional traffic and distribution. We do find that the G, r, h three zone district is appropriate at this particular location for this on designated local street by allowing residential uses that are consistent with the existing context. And East Alameda Avenue and Cherry Creek North Drive are also identified as enhanced transit corridors, and these are corridors within the city that blueprint Denver recommends increasing transit ridership, improving service and efficiency. And this would primarily be achieved through a supportive mix of land uses. And we do find that the residential development that would be enabled by this RH three zone district would be able to take advantage of that transit corridor. Now moving on to the small area plan. This is the Cherry Creek Area plan adopted in 2012. So this is after Pwds 624 is approval in 2009. The Cherry Creek Area Plan sets forth framework strategies that will apply to all of Cherry Creek, as well as sub area strategies that apply to specific geographies. So our subject site called Out Here in Red again is reinforced as an area of stability where the Cherry Creek Area plan recommends maintaining a mix of low scale residential building forms and where infill development should reinforce pedestrian friendly qualities. Additionally, the the plan recommends respecting the existing character of stable residential neighborhoods. And we do find that the grh3 zone district is consistent with the strategy through enabling development that is consistent with the existing context and character. Moving on to the sub area strategies. Our subject site is located within the Cherry Creek East Sub area. It is called Out here in Red. And again, we see the same reinforcement of the concept from Blueprint Denver that the site is located within an urban residential area. The Cherry Creek Area Plan recommends continuing supporting a variety of housing types in this particular area, including low and mid-rise multifamily rowhouses, duplexes, single family and accessory dwelling units. And we do find that the application of G, r, h three does provide for this appropriate mix of land uses. The Cherry Creek Area Plan also recommends respecting the existing existing excuse me in character and scale of low resident low scale residential development within these residential areas. So this area called out here in pink specifically does have a maximum recommended building height of three stories. And we do find that since the RH three recommends construction of no higher than three stories, the application of this Stone district at the site is appropriate. And within the Cherry Creek Area plan, sub area strategy. We also find that the plan recommends rezoning pods, that these aging undeveloped pods there are nearly 100 of them within Cherry Creek East are typically unable to adapt and provide the flexibility needed to react to changing real estate market conditions. And of course, the plan recognizes that the only way to remove this pool is through a rezoning process. So we do see the recommendation to rezone pods that as the opportunities arise with new development or property owner interests , that we should seek an appropriate zone district to rezone into the Denver zoning code a request you see before you tonight. So based upon CPD's analysis, we do find that the request is consistent with adopted plans. And moving on to the second criteria. Uniformity of district regulations. We find that the application of g, r, h three at the subject's site will result in the uniform application of the Zone District throughout the city. We do also find that the application of G, r, h three at the Zone District at the subject site furthers the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of adopted city plans. Moving on to the fourth criteria, that there be a justifying circumstance for the rezoning as stated in your application. The land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment of the area or to recognize the change character of the area. And as stated in your application, recent infill and redevelopment of the area is consistent with the grh3 zone district and also according to the application. 624 Site and facade design no longer reflects the property owners desired character. Additionally, CPD does fine to change conditions since the approval of PUD. 624 in 2009, including the approval of the Cherry Creek Area Plan in 2012. Setting forth a new vision for the area as well as the adoption of the Denver Zoning Code in 2010. Introducing G, r, h three as a zone district tool that would not have been available at the time of. 624 approval in 2009 to implement the Urban Residential Land Use recommendation. Now moving on to the fifth criteria consistency with neighborhood context. The general urban neighborhood context is described in the Denver zoning code as including a mix of residential uses and a variety of building forms embedded low scale residents, low scales, skinny commercial uses, as well as regular block patterns, a consistent street grid and detached sidewalks and the neighborhood context description in Article six actually calls out Cherry Creek East as an example of a prototypical general urban neighborhood context neighborhood. So we do find that it is appropriate to apply the grade three zone district to this prototypical general urban neighborhood context area. And finally moving on to his own district. Purpose and intent. The RH three zone district promotes and protects higher density residential neighborhoods within the general urban neighborhood context, and specifically the grh3 zone district is a multi-unit district, allowing urban house duplex and row house building forms and specifically row houses no taller than three stories. And we do find that the application of g r, s, r, h three at this subject site is consistent with these recommendations, as well as the recommendations that we have seen earlier in the presentation as represented by adopted plans. So based upon CPD's review of the criteria, we do find that the rezoning meets all five criteria and do recommend accordingly approval of application 2015 IE 00033 from PD 624 to grh3. And I'm available to answer any questions you may have as well as the applicant is here tonight. Thank you. We have one speaker today, Howard Kent. So, Mr. Kent, you can make your way up to the podium to begin your remarks. Hello. I'm Howard Canton. I represent the new owner of the property of an architect here in Denver. My office is located over Downing and 17th Street and I reside at 2463 South Primary Street here in Denver. The simplest way to explain what these pods are is they're a zoning married to a very specific design. The process was brought about because rezoning was so nebulous that designs were sold to communities. So that rezoning was allowed and then the person who did that would build something somewhat different and it made people very unhappy. So over time, particularly in the 1990 and early 2000s, the PDS and PBGC were developed with very specific design requirements . The exact look of the building materials, the height, the size of the windows, location of windows, all of that. How much coverage was completely mandated by that zoning, which was fine if that zoning was going to be enacted at that moment and that development happened. Remember, these pods were never built. And as market forces change, it changed or people's personal tastes changed. The PD might not have been what the person who owned the property wanted to build. In this case, a new owner has purchased the property, wants to build a townhouse similar in essence to the side by side townhouse that's in place, but with a different esthetic and different, different coverage. One of the good things about the Garage three is it's not allowing the lot fillers that you see around town. So we're actually going to end up with less coverage and less square footage in the new Grange three than would be allowed under the current PUD. The current PUD has about a 59% site coverage, whereas the grade three would allow a maximum of 50. The current PUD allows a 35 foot height, whereas the Grange three only allows 30 feet and the rear third of the lot can't be built in for habitable space. Whereas currently, as you could see from the original, the original PUD, there was a very small courtyard with the residents really pushing into the rear third of the lot. So any new development would allow for a backyard and less coverage. But there is an opportunity with a third story to do some roof deck, which allows you to have a nice view across Pulaski Park. So a lot of what this pud change to a Grange three is getting at is a different esthetic and a different opportunity for the new owner of the property. Are there any questions for me? We will. Do questions. After. Sorry, that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. All right, councilmembers. That concludes our speakers. Now it's time for questions. Any questions of members of the council? Councilwoman Ortega, you're up. Thank you. Mr. King, can you tell me how many units then that allows you to get on the site to. Just to and under the pad. Did that allow two? Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, you're up. And it should be noted that the two units might be restricted to maybe the 6250 that you have. However, this could be assembled with either of the two adjacent grade three properties and then fit what is called the garden court form. I actually have several questions for Ryan, if I could. It is still. So is the garden court form still allowed in the grade three? It is correct. Has that has the sort of garden court, the discrepancy between garden court form as shown and as permitted? Has that been cured yet. As shown as. Illustrated in the zoning code? There's a very specific graphic content of what a garden court form looks like, yet how it's manifested in the grade three today is very different than how it's portrayed. Okay. Has that been addressed? I'm afraid I'm not aware of that particular situation, but I can definitely follow up with you after seeing the. Reason why I bring this up is I listened to I watched the hearing, the committee hearing, and I'm actually going to pull this committee hearing and share it with my colleagues who weren't on council at the time. There was a very robust discussion about the fact that there's all these PDS, there's no project coming forward. This is just a straightforward rezoning. And I can tell you that the Cherry Creek that we know and love grew up in formed in that old zoning code, and all of these pods created what is desirable today. And to sort of blame the PDS as being the fault, I would argue, is what sort of preserved and created what is desirable today. The reason why I'm saying all that is you cited several plans, B 1.1, where it specifically said single family duplex and row homes. The graphics showed the row home, single family character. The The Cherry Creek adopted 2012 Cherry Creek adopted plan A again sited single family duplex and row homes. And then in your own slide note five talked about why grades three was appropriate because it allowed single family duplex and row homes, but you omitted garden court in the garden court form is a perpendicular townhome that is very different in character than a grade three. I mean, than a single family duplex or ten row home form, which all orient themselves towards the street. And so why this matters is an appropriate rezoning should have waived in order to respect the small area plans in place should have waived the garden court form from this proposal. I encourage CPD to look at an overlay that somehow addresses this discrepancy between what is desired and in the smaller plan versus what is allowed in the existing zoning. Why this all matters. Is. Page 14. The this is an area of stability. It is outside the area of change. And if you're going to justify modifying an area of stability by virtue of the fact that the area has changed around it. When by Design Blueprint Denver calls those areas of change, then you've opened up the area of stability to change because you're justifying it by the very change that the plan is desiring. So there's a big this there's there's sort of an incongruence between what the plans support, what the zoning allows, and what you guys are moving forward. I urge my colleagues to take tell this to vote no and to send this back to CPD for a modification that that modifies this and consistent with the smaller plans that are in place, because that grades three will in fact allow building forms a larger and in or in a different orientation and row house. Thank you. Great point. One of the get to the photos. Here we go. Images of the existing form and scale within the surrounding area here in the upper right hand corner. We do see a multi-family structure that was constructed under the former Chapter 59, and it does closely resemble the garden core concept. There are some units that do phase out towards the street, but there also are inward facing units on that courtyard. So we do believe that the G RH Three Zone District, with its inclusion of single family, duplex, garden court and indeed row house is consistent with this existing context. I do apologize. The exclusion of Garden Court was by no means intentional. But row houses wouldn't allow street facing garages. That is correct. You know, there's there's a character and an intent in the zone, in the small area plan, and there's a community input that drove that. And that's codified at least to whatever degree they can, because there's deliberate attempts to remove prescriptive language out of smaller plans. I think if we looked back at those discussions, we would find that the neighbors were actually calling for something far more prescriptive than what got written. And so I don't think that perpendicular townhomes and and curb cuts is probably the future that they all saw in there in that write up. We do see language also. I just was saying, Councilman, I want to I want to make sure that we say are these you kind of going in a comment period or any particular questions you want to ask? And I'll certainly afford after the question a little bit, definitely give you your your opportunity to comment on that. So does zero three the proposed zone district allow for forms other than some single family duplex in row homes that do not have to face? Well, it doesn't allow for other forms other than those three forms. It does. Correct. But I believe in the garden court form standard that a certain a number of units must indeed face onto the primary street. And does that allow occupied levels above three stories? Not not habitable space, but occupied levels above three stories. Occupied as in a rooftop space. I believe not occupy able space. I believe perhaps the applicant is more familiar with the zone district standards as he is designing the project. But I do not believe that third story does allow for Occupy able space. It does allow for the doghouse, you know, a limited square footage on the fourth story. That is. Not Occupy Wall space though. But the decks that they then that's why I said not habitable but occupy wall you can have mean occupy the rooftop. Yes. An individual could spend time on that rooftop. Correct. But it's not habitable space. All right. Thank you, Councilman. All right. Any other questions on 410? Scene. Nonpublic hearing is now closed. Time for comments. Councilman New, you're up. You know, I respect my esteemed colleague there on his wonderful zoning knowledge. I do want to support this rezoning. I'm very familiar with Cherry Creek, which is a booming residential growth area. And this proposal fits along very well with that street. It's just a wonderful location, though, right across from Pulaski Park. What a beautiful, gorgeous park it is. And and I'm so glad that some of the older pads are being converted to much more modern residential homes. And I'm so familiar with the neighborhood association there. Talk to many of them and they're very, very supportive. And and so I do want to support this this rezoning tonight. I also think that Councilman Espinosa has a good point that we ought to be considering in the future and talking about how how this should be discussed further. So. But I don't think they should delay that as the rezoning tonight. I support this rezoning. Thank you, Councilman. Do any other comments? Councilman Espinosa. I do have to respond in that my concern, Councilman new isn't there's a lot of very wonderful projects that can come about in this zoned district. And I have no doubt that this team is probably capable and ready to deliver that. However, I don't know that. I mean, I wish there was more public input on this process simply because this does allow something that is consequentially differing significantly, formally different than what was presented today as the way the by it I mean the existing fabric and the desirability. It actually allows far more intense development than what was portrayed. And that disconnect will always concern me. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. In the comments on 14. Scene nine. Madam Secretary. Roll Call. New Ortega Sussman. Black Clarke Espinosa. No. Flynn, I Gillmor. Cashman. Can each Lopez. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please. First of all, he announced the results. 11 eyes one night. 11 eyes one day for ten has been placed on fine consideration and does pass. All right. Our next one is for 24. Councilwoman, can we please put 424 on the floor? Mr. President, I move that council bill 424 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved to second. It has been moved in segment public hearing on 424 is now open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. My name is Tim Watkins with the Community Planning Development here to present the zoning application 2014 nine over 90 for property at 5975 South Jackson Street. Property is located in central Denver in the Council District ten Cherry Creek neighborhood. Specifically in the Cherry Creek neighborhood. And here's kind of a overview of the property from the Google Earth View. And you can see that it's situated along Bayard Avenue between Burns Park, within easy walking distance of Burns Park to the east and also beyond excuse me, Polaski Park along Bayard Avenue to the west. Colorado Boulevard has high capacity transit running north and south, and also within easy walking distance is Alameda Avenue, where there is also significant amount of transit service available. Property is just under 19,000 square feet. And it's on the corner of Jackson Street and Bayard Avenue.

On the message and order, referred on November 17, 2021 Docket #1167, authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of Thirteen Million Five Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($13,520,000.00) in the form of a grant for the Federal FY21 Urban Areas Security Initiative, awarded by the United States Department of Homeland Security, passed through the MA Executive Office of Public Safety & Security, to be administered by the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management. The fund will continue to support planning, exercises, trainings and operations that build regional capacities to help prevent, respond to and recover from threats or acts of terrorism, including Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive incidents, the committee submitted a report recommending the order ought to pass.

BostonCC_11172021_2021-1167

Docket number 1167 message in order authorizing the city of Boston to accept and expend the amount of $13,520,000 in the form of a grant for the federal fiscal year 21 Urban Areas Security Initiative awarded by the United States Department of Homeland Security, passed through the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security to be administered by the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management. The fund will continue to support planning exercises, trainings and operations that build regional capacities to help prevent, respond to and recover from threats or acts of terrorism, including chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive incidents. Thank you. Docket 1167. We will be referred to the Committee on Public Safety and Criminal Justice. Mr. Clark, would you now please read dockets 1168 through 1177 excuse me through 1171 together. Docket numbers. Docket number 1168. Message, you know, authorizing the city of Boston to accept and expend the amount of $2,070,000, $2,070,874 in the form of a grant for the fiscal year 22 Title three C awarded by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 753 South Downing Street in Washington Park West. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 753 South Downing Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-1-20.

DenverCityCouncil_02162021_20-1424

Yes, Council President. I move the Council bill 22 1424 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1424 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I believe we have, Fran. I think it's James. Is it James? Oh, sorry, James. My start up. I had you down wrong. Go ahead, James. Not a problem. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Fran. Members of Council. Are you able to hear me and see my presentation? Yes. Thank you. Before you today we have a requested rezoning at 753 South Downing Street. The request is to go from UCB to UCB one to allow for the detached edu building for. Property is located in Council District seven in the Washington Park West neighborhood. The site is approximately 55, 20 square feet or 0.12 acres and is a single unit residential use. The rezoning from UCB to UCB one would allow the Urban House and detached accessory dwelling unit building for the max building. Height for an ADU is 24 feet and the minimum lot size is 4500 square feet. Existing zoning is also being surrounded by other U.S. B properties as well as U.S. U.S. to the north and OSA in the form of Walsh Park to. The East. Existing ladies is single unit residential surrounded by other single unit residential as well as to multi-unit residential and park and open space. Some photos of the existing context. The photo in the top left is the existing house and some other homes in the area and the intersection of Exposition and Downing Street. Perhaps a slide. We've received an R.A. position statement of our position, as well as nine letters in our position and six letters in support of this proposed application. Council will need to find the application consistent with the five reset with the five criteria from the Denver zoning code to approve. This proposed rezoning will begin with criteria. One Consistency of the adopted plans for this site. We have Top Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the West Park Neighborhood Plan. This proposed rezoning is consistent with a number of planned 2040 goals, including equity goals and climate goals. Moving on to Blueprint Blueprint Denver This property is located in the urban neighborhood context. Urban. The urban context is characterized by a high degree of walkability and bike ability with good access to transit and less resilience, less reliance on cars. Typically, one and two unit residential areas with small multi-unit, residential and mixed use areas embedded like patterns are generally regular. There's a mix of alley uses in the urban context. This property does have alley accidents. Future place type is low residential, which is predominantly single and two unit uses. And so accessory dwelling units are appropriate in this context. Future Street type Downing Street is a residential arterial and there is a bus stop almost directly in front of this property. Blueprint, Denver Future Growth Strategy, all other areas. The city which anticipates seeing 10% of jobs and 20% of housing growth by 2040. Its application is also consistent with additional policies in Blueprint Denver specifically policy for diversify housing choice throughout the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. And consistency with the West Washington neighborhood plan. This is a plan that was adopted in 1991. It is silent on Haiti specifically. However, staff does find that the proposed data use consistent with residential land use. Recommendation number four includes including compatible setbacks. The detached data building form was developed specifically to take these types of concerns into consideration and provides for appropriate setbacks between structures. Review criteria at number two. Uniformity of district regulations and proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations. No waivers or variances are being sought here. Criteria for furthering the public health, safety and welfare staff finds this application consistent with this criteria, principally by implementation of adopted plans and by providing an additional housing unit in the neighborhood that is competitively integrated. Justifying circumstances. Again, we are looking at the specific implementation blueprint, Denver, which specifically recommends the city diversify housing choice through the access, the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. And that plan was adopted after the date, the date of the approval of the existing zone district and therefore is appropriate justifying circumstance for the proposed rezoning. And Criteria. Five Consistency with Neighborhood Contexts Zone District Purpose and intent. Again, going back to the urban neighborhood, context primary consists of single unit and two unit. Residential uses the residential districts that are intended to promote and protect residential neighborhoods within the character of the urban neighborhood. Context building form standards, design standards and uses work together to promote desirable residential areas. In the U.S., you be one single unit district allowing the urban homes and detached accessory dwelling units, a minimum zone wide area of 4500 square feet. And the setbacks in lot coverage standards accommodate front and side yards similar to us hub and allow while allowing the detached accessory dwelling unit in the rear yard. Staff recommends council approved the application based on the finding that all review criteria have been met. Thank you, James. Counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 20, Dash 1424, and this evening we have 13 individuals signed up to speak and we will go ahead and kick it off with our first speaker, Janet McIntyre. Might have to go ahead and unmute, Janet. You can go ahead. Thank you. Yes. My name is Janet MacIntyre and I live at 824 South Corona Street, which is one block south. Of. 753 Downing. And I've read the opposition letter by. West Rush Park Neighborhood Association. And Mr. Torres's rebuttal to that. And I thank the council. For hearing me tonight. I do want to point. Out that. This is relatively unknown in our neighborhood, although there was some canvasing done. This was a tough year to canvass and talk with people, I'll say. Mr. RACI talks about the benefits. To the community. But my view is it's 90 plus. Percent beneficial to him. And second. Point is, I believe. There's strong opposition in the neighborhood. I'm familiar with a few folks in the 700 block. Of South. Corona Street that are right behind Mr. Powell racist property. And I walked that alley. I would not like a second storey building looking down into my backyard as. This setup. Entails. I do believe it really. Disrupts the privacy of. The surrounding neighbors and. I think that is a significant concern. Let's see. He also makes points about. Having the community flourish. And I'm. Well aware of our housing shortage and. Homelessness. I'm quite. Involved with the S.O.S. site at the First Baptist Church that Cole Chandler was talking. About. Earlier. And this sort. Of housing I. Just don't think. Helps low. Income people find a place to live. And in my block. 800 South Carolina Street. I can name 14 or 15. People strongly opposed to this. Set up and. This approval. And. Concern about proliferation of this type of thing in the neighborhood. And I guess that's all I have to say. Thank you for your time. All right. Thank you, Janet. Our next speaker is Kirsten Michele. Hi everyone. My name is Kirsten. Mitchell and apologies to. Not sure quite how my camera on your computer. But anyway, I'm a resident of the Sphere neighborhood and a member of the West Park Neighborhood Association. I am here to support the application for rezoning of 753 South Downing and ask that the City Council vote yes on build 20 Dash 1424. I am here for two reasons. First, I believe City Council's role must be to support and part of a path for the future of this city, which includes planning for the growth of the Danvers residents and housing needs. Please do not subvert plans that the city has made in favor of its use based on faulty assumptions that a neighborhood must never change. Its use are another tool in the housing supply toolbox and affirmed in Blueprint Denver. I've heard comments in opposition to this particular rezoning because of how the aid may or may not be used. But the reality is that's not relevant. The property could be sold as soon as the ADU is ready and the new owners may have a different use for it. That's the whole point. This is flexible housing that has many potential uses for different people. Now, before my husband and I bought our home, we looked for a rental where we had some control over the heat and a little outdoor space for our dog. It was really hard, if not impossible, to find rentals that allowed pets that weren't in large buildings. But we were hoping to find a new place to live that was in a converted house or some other multi-unit structure and where we were fortunate and at the time we were fortunate to be working with a comfortable budget in 80. You would have been perfect for us. Perfect. They are smaller and we don't need a ton of space. But we couldn't. We couldn't find we couldn't find one, not a single one. Instead, we found a half duplex for nearly $3,000 a month four years ago. The point of this story is not to make you feel bad for. Me, but instead. I'm trying to convey a clear example of the need for different housing types across all neighborhoods in this city. Had we not been able to battle this ridiculous housing market? Who knows where we would have ended up? My final point is just that there are 380 youths in the alley behind my house. None of these have any measurable impact in my life. And to the contrary, having more folks around means more eyes on the street, which I consider a safety benefit. Someone who's always out walking my two huskies. It's 380. Use a perfectly fine on the block in which I lived, and they are perfectly fine in other parts of the city, too. We have to stop this approach of limiting housing type to limit who our neighbors are. Thank you. Q Our next speaker is Chris Miller. Thank you. My name is Chris Miller. I live in the Sphere neighborhood for disclosure. I'm a member of the West Park Neighborhood Association, the zoning board who abstained from voting on this item. And tonight, I am speaking only on my personal behalf. And I'm here to speak towards approval, not because of the merits of this specific project, but because they feel it important to speak up on behalf of the rule of law. Any just order really society. Blueprint Denver unambiguously states that any use should be approved in residential districts, and the city zoning code lays out how to incorporate plans newer than the code itself. This is a residential district. All other 20 plus previously submitted 80 applications since Blueprint and Rules passed in 2019 except for one withdrawn, have been approved as well, all with generally similar justifying rationale in reports from city staff because the same zoning code and comprehensive plan and broad balance of evidence apply to all of them. City Council passed a blueprint over after extensive public outreach. And we should respect and give way to the comments that led to Blueprint Denver. Being a nation of laws is worth little if we do not hew to them. And after January 6th, I believe that understanding and defending the rule of law and justice is more important than ever, both on the big things and the little things. I will concede that not all laws or enforcements are just. But there has been no indication that approval of this project would be an injustice. I additionally urge that City Council move towards amending the zoning code to implement and recognize the reality of Blueprint Denver which is that ideas are encouraged in all residential zoning districts. Given the zoning code criteria and our comprehensive plan, I do not foresee a circumstance where a conforming to you would be disallowed in a residential area according to our criteria. This will provide additional clarity for all residents about what changes will happen and give all of us time back to focus on matters that actually require substantive discussion and are not foregone conclusions under a city code, city code and comprehensive plan. And I would like to note that this same comment also applies to the next hearing about nine 2925 South End as well. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is John Ferguson. Hi. My name is John Ferguson. Thank you for letting me speak tonight. I'm speaking in favor of the EU being allowed. I think that that having an avenue in our neighborhood. I live a block and a half away, by the way. I live at 901 South Downing Street. I think having a great EU gives us to sort of a moderate, very moderate increase in density. And by the fact that the ideas are smaller, it may force has to be a lower cost housing and so that'll lead to some economic diversity in the people who are living in our neighborhood. So it's a positive thing, I think, for our neighborhood to have it. I decided to speak tonight when I saw the weapon it was was opposing. It was sending a letter to oppose it. And I had I had seen pretty much the same letter sent to the planning board and planning board pretty much shot it down . One of the things that that keeps coming up in their opposition to ideas is this idea of having people looking down into your backyard and not allowing that to happen. Well, they don't have any problem with writing. People know three storey pop ups and mine in my neighborhood, in my block, looking down into my backyard. And somehow there's a bias towards people who are living in single family houses, who have a lot of money. So I decided because of that that I just had to speak tonight. So thank you very much for letting me buy. Thank you. Our next speaker is Roy Penny. I. Hopefully I made it. Hi, everyone. It's Roy Penney. And I'm. I live one block to the south of where this is. So I'm on Corona Street. And this is actually the first time I've ever participated in one of these. I've lived here since 1989. And the thing that struck me about the presentation from the person from the. Zoning board. I guess, was that it really didn't seem to capture what's really going on here. What we're talking about here, if you've ever walk by it, is an alley house. So there's there was it was mentioned set back. There was no setback whatsoever. This property abuts right on the property line. It showed a picture from the front, but it didn't show from the back. So what's going to happen here? This is going to be a. An Airbnb is what this is going to be used for. So if you I'm sure everyone here has alleys in their neighborhood. We have them here obviously in our neighborhood and our alley. If you just drive up, go across the street, you're in the alley where this is. So it's exactly the same for that block is for our block. So what you have is there's probably only. Maybe two or three places in the alley where two cars can pass. And all of these Airbnb people are going to come up the alley and park by their Airbnb. And there, you know, the alleys are already hugely crowded as it is. It mentions that there's a bus stop somewhere nearby. Nobody from out of town coming in and going to go to a Bronco game or whatever. They're not going to use public transit. They're going to take their car and they're going to park it in the alley, or they're going to call Uber to come down the alley and pick them up. So forcing all of this traffic down the alley is completely unrealistic. And it's, you know, kids can't can't even play in the street anymore. So the kids that are within two blocks of us, they play in the alley, Jack and Kate, and they shoot hoops. If you're going to route all this traffic through the alley, it's going to completely change the character of the neighborhood. So I and I understand what people say about, well, it's going to be you know, there's going to be more housing and stuff for people. But these are Airbnb people. And so, you know, really, you're not you're not providing housing for anybody. You're just taking from a motel or a hotel and putting them in the alley. If everybody did this, what this guy's trying to do, it would completely change the character of the neighborhood. So I understand 20 of these have come up and 20 have been passed. This one should not be. This is this is a really bad idea. Thank you. Our next speaker is Carolyn Diana. Go ahead. Hi. So, yes, I'm Carolyn. Diana and I live in West West Park. I am. So this is my neighborhood. I live on South Penn at the corner of Virginia. I have read the letter from the neighborhood association. I have so I'm I have. Familiarized. Myself with this this whole thing. And. Basically. I wanted to say that. If anything, COVID has brought up the reason we need. More flexibility. In our in our housing arrangements. So I want to speak in favor of approving this. Everybody else will bring up the. Details of. Arguing one point or the other. But I wanted to keep it simple and just say if it was my neighbor, I would be for it. If it was my neighbor across the alley, I would be for it. This is my neighborhood. I am for it. So I would encourage you to approve. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Gary Grant. Go to, you're probably going to have to unmute yourself. Sara. My name is Grady Grant and I thank you council members for the chance to speak. I live at 242 South Lincoln Street, Denver in Council District seven, and I'm here on behalf of the West Park Neighborhood Association Board who voted to oppose this rezoning. Wapner opposes this rezoning for several reasons. The neighbors who responded to a flier opposed it. We distributed fliers door to door to three blocks on Downing in Corona last June, asking for email feedback. Because COVID prevented our usual neighbor in-person meeting of the ten responses to the zoning committee, two supported it and eight opposed it, including the two neighbors on Corona, right across the alley from this existing uphill two story garage studio. This structure is a garage expanded in the 1980s and is taller than anything else on that alley. It peers over the single storey garages of the downhill neighbors across the alley. Most of the houses on this part of the block are on. Both Downing and Corona are one and a half stories tall. Then a neighbor led an almost successful effort to get enough signatures for a protest. Made more challenging here because Washington Park takes up almost half of the area from which to approach signatures. The petition wasn't sent in the end to avoid putting neighbors at risk who would sign thinking it would change the required number of votes to pass. There is also a feeling of hopelessness because the certainty that the zoning code was supposed to provide is no longer there. The code doesn't protect neighbors from short term rentals. The concern about strangers peering into their backyards and unpredictable noises at night, night from partying vacationers in the EU. Furthermore, the new design standards provide some privacy protection to neighbors, but would be improved by imposing on the property owner the loss of privacy burden created by the ADA, requiring windows on the property facing side and skylights or clear story windows on the lot sides and alley facing sides of the adu. What else? The neighborhood does not fit the description of neighborhoods vulnerable to displacement, where blueprints vision encourages ADA use. Unlike many Denver neighborhoods, the housing stock is built in. This part of the neighborhood already is far from homogenous. Even within areas zoned single family, there are duplexes and more dense housing on corners. Wapner values this existing diversity. We already have gentle density in our neighborhood and use uses. Short term rentals do not necessarily provide affordable housing. There is as there is a zone because there is no zoned district allowing ADA use for prohibiting short term rentals. I urge you to vote no on this rezoning, but in the next ADA you were zoning before you tonight. Wapner supports the rezoning. Thank you very much. Thank you, Gertie. Next up, we have Greg home. Evening. My name is Greg Home. I've lived on a 30 hour block in South Vietnam for 32 years, and I fully support this rezoning and urge city council to approve it. Use our most effective tool for immediately adding to the supply of affordable housing 80 user consistent with Blueprint Denver and Comprehensive Plan 2040. It is essential that West Wash Park offer more cost housing options and also increase the diversity of our neighborhood, allowing avenues to contribute to reducing segregation. West Wash Park is 88% white and reducing economic inequality. As a member of Live Now, I'd like to offer an alternative view on the points raised in the letter in response to Section one. City Council's decision on this application should be based solely on whether the application is consistent with the zoning code in the city's planning documents, not on whether the zoning code is supported by other residents. It's not a popularity contest. In response to Section two, page 83 of Blueprint Denver states in 04a that the city should quote study and implement its use in all neighborhood contexts and residential zoned districts unquote and states for be that the city should quote identify strategies to prevent involuntary displacement in conjunction with expanding the allowance for free to use, unquote, unquote, in all neighborhoods in zone districts. It does not say that you should be encouraged only in areas vulnerable to displacement. In response to section three, aid use do not impinge on neighbors privacy more than other housing types. All housing types in the neighborhood are within 8 to 15 feet of one another and have windows that look into neighboring yards as well as in the houses. And you should not be treated differently from any other housing category in this regard. In response to section four, rejected using other innovating housing types because they are different is not a legitimate rationale for rejecting housing that would increase affordability and foster a more inclusive neighborhood, particularly considering the exclusionary and racist history of single family zoning. In response to Section five, short term rental is a concern for all housing types, not just abuse. It is a completely separate discussion and should have no bearing on this application. Thank you very much for. Allowing me. To speak tonight. Thank you, Greg. Our next speaker is Jim Hartman. Hello members of council and thank you for allowing me to speak. I am. Speaking in support of. The EDU. Just wanted to point out a couple of things because most people are touching on the same issues. One blueprint Denver supports this, and I think we should. We should get behind it and. Support it as well. In response to the letter that the West West Park Neighborhood Association has written. One of the things that there are two of the things that jumped out to me is one is the privacy issue that was brought up. And it's been brought up several times. There is in in. In my opinion, there is no clear definition of privacy in this area and my house is extremely close to the house next to it, which I'm sorry to state this. But I live. In the 600 block of South Pennsylvania in the neighborhood. But my there is no clear cut definition of privacy. And it can be interpreted whether it's a house that's next to me that's. Been on that same. Lot for over 120 years. Or if it's a new multi-story house built next to me, it seems pretty arbitrary to bring up privacy in these issues. And then lastly. The uses of is of a great concern. But the if you're talking about a short term rental really that can apply to any one of the houses in the neighborhood. In fact, the front of the house could be a short term rental and the owners could live in the 80. You it seems kind of arbitrary to bring that issue up. Lastly, I think that there really is only one way that we can take pressure off of the housing stock in our in our neighborhood. And that's by Audi adding more housing. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Jim. Our next speaker is David Hagan. Hi. Good evening. Thank you for letting me speak tonight. I wanted to talk about a V in support of this. I think. That. Housing is a good thing and I appreciate the gentleman. Actually, the last couple of gentlemen talked about. The. The racism that has kept people out of these neighborhoods. And I think that people should be able to move into the neighborhoods. And I if I pull up Airbnb right now, I could probably find 20 to 50 Airbnbs in the front out in front of folks houses just right now. And as far as the privacy goes, I don't think anybody wants to be looking into their windows. I mean, they've got their own stuff going on. It's not going to really I don't know. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The, uh, let's see here o and the gentleman who spoke. About the kids playing in the alley. I'm pretty sure this is across the street from what park is it not. So I think the kids should probably in was part of the alley so that that doesn't really work for me either. My only thing when it comes to zoning is I'm just going to for example, is when you block line of sight, like, for instance, one of the little houses you. Put out because of COVID. I got into. A car accident the other night and followed my car because it was blocking my line of sight. This is not blocking my safety, so I'm good for it. That's all I have to say. Thank you. All right. Thank you, David. Next up, we have Jesse Paris. Yes. Good evening. Member of council. I was at home when I was just in Washington, Paris, and I'm representing or I was represented for Denver homicide loud no longer. I represent for Black Star Action more for Self-defense, Positive Action Committee for Social Change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile High News. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. We have a housing crisis. Just in case you forgot, we have a housing crisis. We had a housing crisis before COVID. We still have a housing crisis now during COVID sources for 80 used as food dwelling units all over the state. And as David already alluded to, this area was red line. It was not accessible to black people or so-called people of color for a number of years. So what is on display tonight is complete NIMBYism, not in my backyard. And unfortunately, it is going to be in your backyard because this housing crisis isn't going to solve itself. So any opportunity that council gets to increase more housing for people throughout this city, I approve it, just like I approved that when I ran for city council at large in 2019 and I plan to continue supporting it in 2023. So I am in favor of this rezoning. We need accessory dwelling units all over the city and every single district, just like we need safe outdoor camps and tiny home villages in every single district in this town. Thank you. Thank you, Jesse. Next up is Steven Tabrizi. Good evening. Can you hear me? Go ahead. My name is Steve Tracy. I am the owner at 75 three South Downing Street. The property in question for the reason. Thank you, councilmembers, for letting me speak tonight and thank you to everybody who spoke in support of this. I really appreciate it. I was not expecting actually so many people to come out in support. So I thank you. With this reason, I intend to finish an existing space, open my garage and turn it into an apartment. This structure was built in 1984, in the same styling as the existing 1909 Tudor style primary house. The space already exists, but in its current state its unfinished and unusable as housing. There has been a number of people who spoke out in opposition. That's the reason. The way I see it, it's not really about the reason. It's more about not wanting the short term rental off the really. Personally, I don't know if I'm going to use this as a short term rental or long term rental. But to those who don't want it, it really doesn't matter. Basic concerns like privacy, alley traffic. By the way, there is a dedicated spot for this apartment out of this flow of traffic. Property value, preservation of neighborhood character, etc.. Most of these arguments, though, are rooted in fear of not fact. I've got a friend in the in West Warwick Park who has an adult and uses that as short term rental number or a short roster of their tenants over the last few months. A family in town to visit their sister in the new baby that stayed at an Airbnb so they wouldn't stress out the new family. A mom helping her daughter move into her new college home in the neighborhood, wanting to help out with without encroaching on her daughter's newfound freedom. A family with a baby that wanted to experience snow for the first time, a couple on their honeymoon, a single mom and her family on a very tight budget who wanted to take a vacation that wouldn't break the bank and allowed her to buy locally while on a vacation to cook a beer. And Airbnb. There's a number of them. I don't think I need to go on. There are safeguards in place, though, rules and regulations and screens to make sure that the neighborhood and your house is safe with short term rentals. I also see what's happening to Denver in the bigger picture. Lack of housing has caused real estate prices, deaths and rents to skyrocket. Homebuilding can't keep up in the few houses that are being built are being built in the ever expanding sprawl of the front range. Denver's affordability has plummeted over the last ten years and as a result, its desirability as a lifestyle destination in decline. There's no silver silver bullet to the solution to the problem, in my view, certainly won't solve the issue. It's a drop in the bucket. But my property is two and a half miles from downtown Denver. If we can't allow a milder form of density in existing families, single family neighborhoods directly adjacent to the city, I believe we're in for more of the same. Especially in this instance where the space already exists. As I close, I urge council members to keep the bigger picture in mind. This reason is in tune with the city a comprehensive comprehensive plan blueprint 2019 and having an inclusive government. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Our next speaker is test. Hi there. My name's Tess Sturdy and I am in Council District nine and I am in support of this rezoning. I just have a couple curiosities. Aren't y'all adjacent to watch Park so. And can't kids play there? I am hearing a comment that kids can't play in the streets anymore. It just it makes me I just have to think that, you know, the gentleman was more concerned about kids being able to play in the streets. But I haven't really seen him advocating for the streets availability to those experiencing homelessness who maybe need somewhere to survive, let alone play. And then the comment is going to change the character of the neighborhood. Comments like these are coded racist sentiments and rooted in Jim Crow era racial segregation in housing policies. I heard in the city planners report that integration is key and opposition to changes in your single family zone neighborhood is racist in classes. And your comments support just that. David and I were displaced from our home this year because of an asbestos spill and fiberglass getting into our HVAC unit. And we thought we were going to be out of our house for no more than a month, and it's been since September of 2019. We've lived in 15 different places, and one of the longest standing places we were in was an Airbnb during the time that we were in that Airbnb, which by the way, was literally I mean, it was a godsend for us. It allowed us to not have to move from hotel to hotel anymore. It allowed us some stability and some sanity. And so, you know, the comments of like people coming in town to party and, you know, really mucking up the neighborhood are just not based. In fact, as the homeowner presented previously, in that time that we were there, it was in a duplex and there were family members who came for a funeral. There were family members who came for for college, which is either their daughters, and that was in college. So I think that the idea that that is going to bring that sort of thing to the neighborhood is just really not rooted in fact. And and also, I think that the the the determined or, you know, leaving the determination to the renos in the neighborhood when it was mentioned that they gathered ten responses from members through email, which is in and of itself exclusionary because not everyone has access to the Internet. And and so I think that leaning on R.A. is, is the sole source of public opinion is dangerous and and not representative of the true, you know, opinion of of the of the public. So I just would caution any reliability on that. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank. Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council. Councilman Clark. And you, Madam President. It is gurdy, Grant. Um, is there. I think it's. She's still in the attendees of Could We Get Ready, Grant? And then the owner, Steven Teresi, back in. Hi, Judy. Can you hear me? Are you back in? Yes, I can. Mr. Karp. First of all, good to see you. And thank you so much for your years and years and years of service to our community. I really appreciate that you're still at this and still, you know, so involved. You had mentioned briefly and I just wanted to ask, there are two areas in West Park boundaries tonight. This one and then the next one is also in West Wash. Marks boundaries. You had mentioned that this one you guys voted to oppose and the next one you voted to support. I think I did not catch that before. Can you just clarify if I'm catching that right and then give me, you know, the brief, what is different for you? You know, from a zoning perspective on this one versus the second one. Councilman Clark and council representatives. The difference from my perspective, and I think from West Wash Park's perspective, is twofold. Number one, the neighbors oppose this in this one. But they support it in the subsequent one. And secondly, this 80. You. Pierce down into the backyards of the neighbors across the alley. The one on South Pennsylvania does not the it fits in much more compatibly with the architecture and character of that neighborhood. But it's primarily the fact that in this one, the neighbors opposed it and gave what I consider valid reasons. Great. Thank you so much, Gary. I really appreciate it. And again, thank you for your service and all your work with your association. Stephen, can you tell. Me. This is an existing structure permitted originally in the eighties that was before you owned this property. You did not build this structure. You purchased this property with the structure already built, is that correct? That's correct. Yeah. I purchased this property in 2019 and the structure was built in 1984 as an addition to an existing single car garage . And as far as I've been able to tell, was it was it properly permitted at that time for what was built or is that unclear? Yes, I actually don't know that. Gary, you've done more research on the structure than I have, actually. Yes, Councilman Clark, it was properly permitted. It was it at the time before those of you, maybe only Paul Cashman remembers this. It was before quick wins, too, when two storey dwellings could extend all the way back to the alley. Got it. Okay. Okay. Those were my questions. Thank you both very much. And thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilman Clark. Not seen in the other hands raised for questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1424 is closed. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilman Cashman. I did a quick look and didn't see the hand raise. We'll go ahead and pause. Go ahead and ask your question, please. Councilman Flynn has the question. Oh. Excuse me, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Could James, could you answer a couple of questions for me in the in this urban edge context, what are the setbacks and what are the things for addus detached to use in the rear of the property? Thank you for the question, Councilman Flynn. So it's actually the urban context, not this is urban. Urban? Yes, sir. Not urban. So what are the setbacks? Because I notice in this, Ali, I wasn't here for a while because of COVID and everything staying close to home. But I just did the Wall Street view and the camera goes down the alley and all of the it looks like all the garages are just up to the zero setback basically is that are the rules for detached to use any different do they require setbacks from the alley? They generally do. Let me I'm pulling up my code right now so that I can speak intelligently and not. Always a good thing. Yeah. Thank you. I think it was stated in the in the application also that that this is already a non-conforming structure. And in what ways is it non-conforming in in the 2010 code and I guess it was non-conforming in old chapter 59 as well. I don't know if the owner could respond to that. Why you're looking at up, James. Stevens was this non-conforming in the old code as well as 2010? You know, I'm not I'm not as familiar with the old code. What I what I can say, though, is that. As a group, as a garage. I believe this would be conforming because the back edge of the building does sit directly on the property line. Right. But there's studio space above it that that makes it non-conforming because it's habitable or. Well, it was never it was never habitable. There's no I mean, if I if I if this reason goes through, I'm going to have to go through the permitting process. And we're going to we're going to add power, water, sewer, electrical. Well, that. I think as far as the nonconference goes, I believe that the ability on the north edge of the building, on the property line and it may be outside of the the back 35% building envelope. Okay. So, you know, I still have to get through the zoning or the permitting process in order for that. Would you need a. Would you need a variance then. It's. Rob James, do you have the answer yet as to. Five foot rear setbacks or is. And in the rear 35% of the property, correct? Yes. Correct. Okay. So would this if this were a brand new if this were brand new construction, it would not conform because of the rear setback. But it is in the rear 35%. That is my understanding at this time. However, as Mr. Tracy alluded, he will have to go through all of the whole permitting process and and determine those those factors. You know, in the rezoning stage, we really you know, we're not looking at specific buildings. Right. It's you know, we could demo and build a totally new area and we would want to be comfortable that that meets the criteria as well. So, of course, we know in this case he's not going to do that because I read the application. So I don't know if that means he would need a variance from the zoning board or what. So. All right. That's why I have. Madam President. Thank you. Mr. Casey, did you have. Yeah, that's my clear clarification. Sure. The building does sit five feet off of the alley line or does. Yes. And and then it has a small apron in front of it, just as with the other garage structures in the alley, you know, there is my for example, my neighbor's fence protrudes five feet beyond the structure of the garage. And so the alley is already blocked there. Where I believe the noncompliance would be is simply the property line. And then any any potential building envelope, which I have not corrected. And those primarily stem from the fact that the building sits on the property line. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And we'll take another pause here. Scene. No hands raised live. We're going to close the public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1424 Comments by members of Council Councilman Clark. Thank you, Madam President. And I just want to thank all of the folks from the neighborhood, from District seven who came out for this a lot. There's a lot of speakers for an 80, you and I, and I appreciate everyone coming out and and spending time and again. I want to thank Gurdy for being here and represent the Neighborhood Association's position. You know, we've had a lot of use this, the first one in this particular neighborhood. And I think that we're going to continue to grapple as these come forward in communities that, you know, have some historically we heard about, you know, some not far away, but haven't gone through this process as far as people acclimate to, you know, the new plan, support from blueprint and plan on how to use and not every community is set up the same. We had one, you know, the other day that we're talking about areas that don't have an alley. And again, this is a community that's not gone through this process before. And I think we're going to continue to hear and grapple with the issues around short term versus long term rental and about privacy in the same ways that we continue to grapple with that in communities that are historically like this community, single family bungalows where , you know, a movement started a couple decades ago to tear down and build bigger and bigger houses. And now we're getting three story houses and we continue to grapple with with those things that are currently allowed in the zoning code. But that, you know, we're trying to some some work imagined and were allowed and some were. And and there are a variety of opinions on that. And I appreciate all the folks who came out to share those opinions with that. And again, I think as we continue to look at. Short term rentals. And not license and how that's going overall, that lives in a different place and a conversation that needs to continue. At the end of the day, here, we're tasked with does this meet the legal criteria for a rezoning for, you know, for this type of use? And I believe that, as demonstrated in the staff report, it does, you know, as as we see as we'll see with the one coming next, you know, this is not the only one coming forward in this neighborhood. And one of the distinguishing features, you know, both of them are going to be existing structures and we'll look at that one coming up. So there are some some factors with that versus a new build, but a lot of it comes down to, you know, the neighborhood sentiment of what's going on in there. And that is, you know, something? I think that we're going to continue to have to discuss and work through that, relate to all of those other ancillary issues. But at the end of the day, I think that this does meet the legal criteria for zoning for a change in zoning. And so I will be supporting this tonight, and I would encourage my colleagues to do so as well. And again, with with that asked that we continue those other conversations in the appropriate places about the potential impacts, the design guidelines. And I don't think it's just the ones that were raised here tonight. But we have a lot of areas that are. In my in in in. My neighborhood in Plat Park right next door that are already zoned for a to you. But you can't do an 80 over a garage because of both plane setback rules on the sides with the smaller lot sizes make it impossible to actually do. And so we have places where it's allowed and it has been allowed since the 2010 zoning code, and you can't do it because of the building requirements. And we have other places where you know it know fits, but there are there are, you know, evolving neighborhood concerns. And so I think we need to continue all of that. This isn't just a one size a use came through with and we're getting used to them and having so many of them that go through consent in committee, there are real, you know, construction issues and short term rental issues that we need to continue to grapple with . As we look at the, you know, the recommendations in these planning documents to make a to use a building form that is more universally implemented citywide. So but again, with that, I will be voting yes tonight because it doesn't meet the legal criteria. Thank you. Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. And now we have you up, Councilman Cashman. Go ahead. Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, this is one of those interesting situations where I have dear old friends and not just friends. People I respect a great deal on both sides of this debate. But, you know, I learned a while ago that I need to vote my conscience and my understanding of the legal criteria that we're charged to evaluate here. And so I will be supporting this application tonight. But there's a couple of things that have come up, some of which. Councilman Clark went into a little bit that I think really do merit more than just a drive by. I think we really need to be evaluating on an ongoing basis the effect of short term rentals on our community. You know, so many people I talked to expressed concerns about the effect of short term rentals on the housing stock in the community. And then in the next breath say, as I do when I travel, I use short term rentals frequently. You know, so there's that evaluation. But the whole subject of privacy. I think really merits a deeper dove from from this council and from CPD. As far as you know, we're building these big houses. And we're building three story houses and then we're putting rooftop jacks. On the top of three story homes. Now, I realize, especially in our inner city neighborhoods, that we gave up what some would think of privacy when we started with with five foot setbacks. Some of our older homes are even closer than that. But I still don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think we need to take a closer look if we are going to be building regularly, one and a half or two story structures along the back alleys. Are there design techniques that we can use to minimize the intrusion? So I just wanted to bring that up a little bit. And as this discussion moves forward, I do think we need to keep those tangential topics top of mind. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And I'll go ahead and weigh in here saying no other hands raise that. This looks like it meets all of the criteria. And I will be voting in favor of it tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines. Cashmere. I can eat. I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. Sawyer. I. Black. I. CdeBaca, I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. Can I ask? Ten I's Council Bill 20 Dash 1424 has passed. Councilmember Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 20 1561 on the floor for passage? Oh, you're muted.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Long Beach Municipal Code (Streets and Sidewalks) to streamline the permitting process for temporary installations related to sidewalk dining and parklets within the City's right-of-way. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11132018_18-1016

Thank you. Moving on to item 40, please. Report from Public Works Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Long Beach Municipal Code to streamline the permitting process for temporary installations related as sidewalk dining and parklets within the city's right of way citywide. Thank you. Let me turn this over to Mr. West. Mr. Mayor, council members. One of the real cool things about our city is the opportunity to have outdoor dining. More and more and more restaurants. And cafes want to do that. In addition to that, we're one of the few cities in California that does parklets out on our streets, and those are getting more and more popular. So to smooth that so people know exactly the path to get a parklet, the path to get outdoor dining. Mr. Beck and his team in public works have put together a booklet so that there's a clear path to follow to get those permissions. And I'll turn it over to Craig. Thank you, Mr. Manager. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the Council. Let's see here. We have a presentation that we wanted to share with you just to kind of detail some of the work that's been done and what's being proposed tonight. So we're talking about both parklets and sidewalk dining. And essentially the city has been operating under a pilot program to allow these to go into our public right of way. As the city manager indicated, it really does provide a nice sense of neighborhood and community and has been a game changer for many of our business and entertainment corridors. Interestingly enough, we were here talking about fore street business corridor earlier. Our first parklet in the city actually happened on Fourth Street in front of Lola's in 2011. And you've seen kind of a number of them go in since. And we've really treated these as a case by case basis. So an applicant would come in, they would meet with city staff, they would have a conversation about what their goals were, what the sizing of the parklet would be. We worked with them to ensure that they were putting the right materials in the public right of way, and then all that would kind of culminate to come to council for action and direction on how to move forward. So it was a very labor intensive process and we wanted to take a look at how could we streamline that and make it easier for the applicants and honestly for the community to engage in the process. So our goals were really to standardize and simplify the approval process and also to develop a technical handbook, as the manager mentioned, to guide people along the way of of really what are elements that we would accept and what are elements that we wouldn't accept in? So those are our goals. This is there is a really robust document and I really would like to recognize the hard work by our planning team. So development services planners were very involved in putting together our guidebook. And I think from the images that I'm sharing here, these are just some excerpts from the actual guidebook itself. But it's very user oriented. It's, it's, it's put together in a very cohesive way. And I think it really helps people understand what the goals are of our particular program. So part of what we're here to propose this evening are a couple of things. One have to do with the uses and I'm sorry, I just want to see if there's another page here. No. One has to do with the uses and when. You may recall that we had an item before council, I don't know, about eight or nine months ago to have a use on Pine Avenue that was outside of typical dining uses that we've approved in the past, and that was to provide for fitness activity out in the right of way. And at that time, the council directed staff to really evaluate what are the best uses for parklets and where would we land on recommendations and how should we utilize our public right of way, not only for parklets but also for sidewalk dining or other uses? And so we're really back to make a recommendation for you this evening that we keep that relatively narrow, that we would continue to support dining activities both in our sidewalk right of way and as a parklet that we would allow planting to occur. So if there was a desire to add some landscaping that complemented the business area, that those would be things that were supported. Certainly bicycle parking or maybe e-scooter parking would be one of those items if the council adopts a permanent E-SCOOTER program. And also we believe that it's important to support public art and there may be opportunities where public art would be appropriate in a public right of way or parklet. That doesn't mean that we want to preclude those other uses. We just believe that it's important that Council has an opportunity to weigh in on what those might be. So what we're essentially proposing tonight is that if something falls within, what we're saying would be a permitted use, that it would be a streamline permitting process. And that streamlined, permanent permitting process would be provided at the staff level. So the value of this is that it can happen much quicker, A and B, that it would cost the applicants less money. So as you know, we base our fees on cost recovery. And if we were able to eliminate some steps in the process, the amount of staff time involved could also reduce the cost to the applicants. So part of what's being proposed tonight is just that. And it would allow folks to utilize the guidebook, bring forward their application in a streamline application process. It could be handled at the staff level and approved. If there was a desire to go with a non typical use, then we would go through a traditional process, evaluate that, bring that forward to council for consideration. There is another discussion as we went out to the different business improvement districts about the impacts to parking. And as you know, with this council, there are some community groups that are very concerned about parking, rightfully so. And as we kind of evolve as a community where parking is in great demand now, that may become less demand in the future. And we just want to strike the right tone. So what we're recommending this evening is that we would cap the amount of parklets in a parking area at 20%. So we would believe it's appropriate, again, at a staff permitting level to allow up to 20% of the parking used to be converted into a parklet. If an application came in that went beyond that 20%, that would be an item that we would bring to Council for Council's full consideration. So again, we wouldn't preclude those parklets, but we want to have this body have an opportunity to weigh in. So that is essentially what we're proposing. So the benefits of these changes are that it strengthens the current program by being more informative, by utilizing the guidebook where we're much more transparent into what would be allowed in the right of way. It simplifies the process, as I mentioned, it does reduce costs to the applicants. It does address the design standards that we've collaboratively worked with, with our planning team. And I think it's ultimately a more efficient and effective collaborative process with the business community. So that concludes my staff report, and I'm certainly available to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes, thank you so much, Craig. I think this has been a policy many, many years in the making. And I just want to I'm just glad that we've gotten to this point. Thank you for your work in this. And I know Bill Pittman has also been behind the scenes, working very closely with a lot of our businesses to make sure they come to fruition and streamline the process. So it's wonderful to see that. I guess you sort of answered my question because this has been in the works. But I know this sort of came about because of Joe Ferrara from Groundwork Fitness that wanted to do a gym parklet, which is going very, very well. And I know along Pine Avenue we're even looking at like a bar for small dogs. We've looked at how we're looking at a kid's parklet just different uses that could be a mix of something really creative along Pine Avenue. And so from what I'm understanding here is that aside from what we have there, like the bicycle, the art, it will have to come to council for review, which is great. At least there's a process there. Have we explored any have there been any other request in the meantime for Parklets that are sort of out of that scope at all? Not currently. The applications that we have are typically dining and so those there are a couple of dining permits that are pending, but I don't have any to my knowledge that are outside of what we're presenting tonight. And I think, Councilmember, that you did bring up a number of different uses and we recognize those. And actually at the staff level, I think we would support them. I think we found it challenging to try to list them all and it became this kind of exhaustive list. And so we thought that for the sake of simplification, it was easier to just designate a few uses in the guidebook and then tailor the guidebook to those uses and but yet still allow and certainly provide and support a path forward and just bring those kind of outside the normal use or whatever is normal, but outside kind of the standardized use to council and allow council to support that. And I agree that GEO Jim Parklet is fantastic and it really does a lot to activate the street. It really is great. And one last question. What is the fee? What what type of sort of permitting fee is associated with this parklet? So currently the fee is 40 $800. We believe that will ultimately cut in half. I don't have that for you this evening, but I think that's where it will land. 24, 20 $500, most likely. We haven't actually gone through the streamlined process yet, so we're not 100% sure how much staff time is is involved. But that's our our current belief is that it should cut in half. Okay, great. Well, thank you so much for. And thank you for getting us here. Q Council member Pier. Yes. I also want to thank you for the work. I know that going through the Parklet process, each one is very different. Each one has a different staff, different ideas, different point people. So having had the socialists go through their experience with trying to add the parklet on the side, it gave me an appreciation for the work that you guys do and trying to get folks to follow a guideline. So I really am very excited about this. And when we unfortunately we used to have the toy shop on Broadway and one of the ideas we had was when we finished the Broadway project that we would have a like a toy corner that was a parklet there. But we will find another use for that parklet. Just want to thank you guys, the team and really appreciate this. Thank you. Councilman Austin. Thank you. Had a couple of just quick questions. I think there's a lot of great work that's going on going into this the staff report and the the. I like the idea of streamlining the process for particularly those business owners and business districts that want to activate the corridors. But in improving this, will we be basically approving giving up 20% parking in any business corridor? That's the recommendation before council is that we would allow at a staff level for PARKLETS to be approved up to 20%. If there was a desire or an application came in beyond that, then those would come to council for review. So the item before us does more than just parklets though, right? I mean, it's for outdoor dining. So beyond parklets, I mean, if a business wanted to just create an outdoor patio. Yeah. So thinking of Bixby Knolls, I think an example is we do have a couple sidewalk dining permits and Bixby knows that certainly isn't currently impacting any parking. I consider a parklet is something that's happening in the street right of way versus sidewalk dining, which is happening in the sidewalk right of way. And we talk a lot about local control. I'm really the the blanket giving up 20% parking potentially is a concerning to me because not every business district not every corridor is created equally. And I'd like to at least have the discretion to to to work with my community to determine whether or not that is something that that would work. I mean, that I think that is a pretty big leap. And so I would ask for for an amendment, friendly amendment. And I don't know who I propose that to be, possibly the the maker of the motion here to to exempt that that particular piece of that or to give discretion to to to various communities on that. I'm just going to say that a bit. Councilman Gonzales. Well, it's a staff led item. So what? What would you suggest, Greg? Maybe I could just comment on that. I think, Councilmember, the staff struggled with that as well and trying to find what is that right balance. One of the things that we are requiring is support from the bid. If it is in a business district to move the parklet forward. So I'll give you an example. Right now, there are currently no Parklets in Belmont. Sure, there have been folks that have brought forward a desire to place a part parklet in Belmont Shore, but so far the bid and the parking commission have not been supportive. So that is a different control point potentially. I'm certainly open if the council wants to lower that recommendation. Again, we were thinking about Fourth Street as an example where roughly a hundred parking spaces were created tonight. That will be part of the parking district. And when you think about those spaces, what would be the appropriate number for Parklets? And we felt that 20 of those hundred would roughly be the right number. But again, I'm open to the council's direction. So I'll have them in my motion and show some flexibility here. I would be be I think 10% would be good. But then beyond that, it would require a process that will come before the council. I will just just note that our our business improvement district do a great job. None of our business improvement directors are elected by the residents that surround those business districts. And so when we talk about parking impacts, we're not quite there yet in some of my areas. But I can tell you the Long Beach Boulevard, you know, we want to do some things up in Virginia, Bay Village, Bixby Knolls. I know there's some some request and ideas for for Parklets there as well. And I'm certainly open to that. But I want to I want to be be cautious that I don't jump ahead of myself and give away parking, that that is so preciously needed for all of our businesses. So so I wouldn't make a friendly amendment to the 10%. Councilman Gonzales. Sure. We can do that? Or would would the language be relaxed to be able to say like contingent upon community? Input. I mean, what can you give us some direction here on? I mean, I'm. So currently the proposal in front of council to consider is 20% of the available parking spaces. I think the better thing to do would be for council to come up with what that discretionary number would be. Because you remember we're essentially talking about a two step process. There's going to be one that can happen at the staff level. So if you're telling me tonight that 10% is a more appropriate number, then I would be able to, at the staff level, approve permits up to 10% if a parklet came in. That took more than that 10%, then that's coming to council. So again, I think it's really where council feels comfortable at having a more streamlined and discretionary process with staff versus the items that you want us to bring forward. And I'm completely open to, to where this council lands. But. That may also impact the the fee structure that we ultimately end up with. Thank you, Councilwoman. Yep, it's fine. I just wanted to get some input from our director, so thank you. Okay, so we're going to amend that to be 10% as a motion. I want to also give you a public comment here in just a minute. But what I just said, Mr. Beck, how many parklets do we have total across the city? Mayor, I knew you were going to ask me that question, and I wish I had the number I tried to to if you had the number don't have I believe it is 12, but I didn't get that number verified before then. Okay. No, thank you then. They're fantastic. So the one thing I will say, I mentioned this before to Mr. West, and it's just something I think we just need to do a better job of is we have these 12 parklets all amazing, all different, all different. They look great. The architecture is fantastic. I think where we're behind is none of them are true public Parklets I believe all 12 of our parklets are essential extensions of a sidewalk experience, which is which is great, and we encourage those and we want more of those. But I think if you go to most cities that are really progressive on on these types of uses and you are seeing public parklets that are open to the public where you don't have to actually purchase something. And so I would just encourage us that as we move forward, that we really look at locations where we could put in like, like councilwoman, like you mentioned, the public, the Parklet or a an area for for families to to relax or just pedestrian space so that people can enjoy the parklet. Because I do, I'm a little concerned. I every time we add a parklet. And don't add the public component. We are removing space and not adding to public space. And so I just my concern not I support this item, but I just don't want us to continue to approve or give more leeway to keep approving this these these these expansions while not. Giving the space back to the public in any bigger way. So if we can just make that note and I'd love to see us address this, I also how would and looking at this proposal, it certainly is geared towards a business or a restaurant wanting to come forward and propose a parklet. What about a public parklet? If an organization wanted to do that, it sounds like they can do that through this process as well. Yeah. In May, I should point out something else which I didn't mention in my staff report. There is an annual renewal process that currently required under our PARKLET program, and we are recommending that that continues. We are going to streamline the annual renewal so we wouldn't require a full RESA medal, but there is a renewal process. So if we do get to kind of a critical point and we feel that we need to take back some public space, we have that opportunity to cancel the actual permit and have the parklet removed. So that's try to address part of your first question. The other part of your question, we have seen for the first time multiple business applications for a parklet that happened for Pine Avenue. So our last parklet that was put in was actually is actually there to support multiple and not just one business. So I think we are moving in that direction. I think that you've experienced and I agree you'll look when you look through the guidebook, there is some imagery from other cities where it's more of a public space with seating, etc. in in this permit process that we're proposing this evening, for example, in the downtown, the debate could be an applicant on their own. It doesn't have to be for a business. They could propose a public space or a Berkeley or something like that. So it could come forward from a community organization and not necessarily just a business. Thank you. And I just want to reiterate, I know means I'm interested in removing anyone's permits or taking back all of these fantastic parklets as I love them and use them. I just think we have to. If the city does not make a focus effort on actually converting these into public spaces and not private spaces, I think we're doing ourselves in the public a disservice. And so I'd like to see an effort from public works in in getting public parklets built across the city. So any public comment? Seeing none. Rock roll call vote. Councilman Gonzalez. Councilmember Pierce. Councilwoman Price. Councilmember Suber not. Hi, Councilwoman Mongo I. Vice Mayor Andres. Councilmember. Your Honor. I. Councilman Austin. Council Member Richardson. Motion carries.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to withdraw the protest filed with Alcohol Beverage Control by the City in accordance with the direction of the City Council on October 23, 2018, against Brite Spot Restaurant located at 412 West Pacific Coast Highway in the First Council District.

LongBeachCC_03102020_20-0201

All right, please. Now we move to item number 26, please. Item 26, Communication from Councilwoman Zendejas. Recommendation to withdraw the protest filed with Alcohol Beverage Control against Bright Spot Restaurant located at 412 West Pacific Coast Highway. Yes, Miss. Councilwoman, in that. Thank you. I strongly believe that the continuing. To pass this local business from obtaining its ABC license is not in the best interest of our city and our residents. The ability to sell alcohol is absolutely a privilege, but it's also a key component to many successful establishments. And I really believe that the bright spot is once again worthy of this public trust in in this regard. Yes. Okay. Thank. I do have any. See, I have a first year secondary product coming in is fine. Okay. Would you please cast your vote inside of. Councilman Andrews motion carries. I think we're asking to move number 39 up. So these individuals, I think, are waiting on that. Can we move that 39, please? Item 39.

Recommendation to receive and file a report on the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and provide input and policy direction to staff on next-step strategies for the City’s emergency response to COVID-19. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05052020_20-0386

Thank you. That concludes the hearing. We're going to go ahead and transition now to item 25/1, which is our COVID report worked. And I'm going to give staff an opportunity to get set up here just a few just a minute. And as they do that, before we begin, just note for the council that this is a very large presentation. It's one of the longer presentations that staff probably has made to the the council in a while and has a lot of important information. So I'm going to let staff just give them a minute. I know they're getting set up and then we'll start this in just 30 seconds. So and I'll and I'll open it up and then I'll pass it along over to Mr. Modica. And then I want to make sure council that you can see the, the summary on your screens so you have the report in front of you. So thank you. Text message. Okay. I think the team is ready for the presentation. So I'm going to do some opening remarks and we'll go right into this into this report and an opportunity, I think, for a lot of questions and comments and input from from the council. I want to just begin by just noting that we are in a certainly this city's largest health crisis that we have seen in decades and likely our largest economic challenge as a city since the Great Depression. Long Beach has always been a city that has led that has had a great team of employees and and and really in managers and community. And so this is certainly testing that in in the weeks that have gone past and in the weeks ahead of us. I want to thank our incredible, incredible team for their amazing work on this. They have been amazing to watch. And as we know, first and foremost, this is a health crisis. And the men and women at the Long Beach Health Department, along with their partners in in the fire service at the police department and across the city, have been really great to see how this effort has really been a city led effort, but really one that's been in partnership with the entire medical community or hospitals of the work that's happening in. And the retailers are providing access to food. And of course, our partnerships that we have with the County of Los Angeles and and the CDC at the federal level. And so it's really been an entire group of folks that have worked on this as a as a city and as a community. One thing that I've been proud of is that our effort has really been around health and around ensuring that we listen to experts and that we're being guided by the science and by the data. We've forged partnerships because we're listening to what to our internal experts, and that includes the team at the Health Department, but especially Dr. Davis and her team of just these specialists and others. And we have the city through our through our management team is not rush a process, but really gone through the process in a way that I think has been great to see, which has been focused on looking at data. And we're going to see a lot of data tonight. This council has also worked really hard to encourage input from the community because we know at the end of the day we want to have a lot of input and a lot of information. And so you have seen and you're going to hear tonight about the the economic recovery group that Mayor Foster has been involved with. You're going to hear about a survey that has that has over 15,000 responses from the community. You're also going to hear about all the things that are being discussed. We had our economic development committee, of which three of our members are a part of. They had a great committee meeting. I'm bringing in experts and talking about how we grow the economy. And many of the council offices have also hosted their own roundtables and conversations with businesses and surveys, with businesses to hear from them, which I know I'm sure we'll hear about from council members tonight as well. And so all of that information, everything we're hearing, all of that data really informs the work of the Lombard Health Department and the city. And but we know that at the end of the day, the calls that are being made and the final decision decisions must rest with the health experts and the medical advice. I think that is what's guiding us as we move forward and as we reopen our community. We strongly believe that's what should center us. We know that. And I think it's important to remember that our safer at home order and health order is through currently through May 15th. Of course, we're going to hear tonight that the governor has placed reopening plans and that some some municipalities and some counties will begin moving at their own pace. And certainly that's going to begin to happen. And we're going to hear tonight, I think, from our team about looking at what the data actually speaks to and which is very impressive. But it's still chair shows the challenges we have ahead of us. And so I want to thank Mr. Modica for your leadership. And we look forward to this presentation that you're about to give with the team. And so with that, I'll turn this over to our city manager, Tom. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think that was a very well put introduction. Like you, I'm just constantly impressed with the team that comes to work every single day to help keep the community safe. Their efforts have been unbelievably impressive and also very, very proud of our community as well. We'll talk a little bit about what has happened over the last couple weeks and months. It has been really impressive to see the Long Beach community come out in force and by and large really do the right thing in order to help keep COVID 19 from spreading. And the results really are palpable. And we're going to see that today. And we're definitely headed in the right direction. We still have a ways to go, but things are looking good, and we're going to show that to you with data. So it is going to be a long presentation, as the mayor said. We're actually doing something we I don't recall us ever doing, which is we had so many things to tell you and so many slides. We actually created a slide appendix because there wasn't enough room to put it in this slide show presentation and still be somewhat concise. So we have additional detail. We thought those were important things the council can see and those are attached as well. But the overview we're going to be going over are really cover the following things. We'd like to talk to you a little bit about our emergency operations and how they work and how we're set up and how we are delivering and accomplishing all the things that you're going to see. We're going to have a review of our COVID 19 data. So we have a data team that does nothing but really look and parse out data, and you're going to see the results of that work. You're going to talk a little bit about the governance framework and then also line up how Long Beach data compares to the various framework components that he has laid out. We're going to talk about the community input that we received. And so the council has that. We're going to go through some of the financials. We're going to talk about next steps. And really, today is a chance for us to hear additional input from the city council. The city council has been very involved. I talk to them regularly all the time. It seems about every single day of answering questions, getting input and getting feedback, but we have not had a chance to do that as a body. And so today also we we know you are hearing things from your constituents that you want to be able to make sure are being considered. And so that is what part of today is as well to give guidance and thoughts to the EOC, to our health officer, to city management as we navigate this together. So I'll talk a little bit about the timeline. So it would take several screens to be able to show all the things that have happened. But these kind of eight points talk about the major parts that have happened. So we declared our local health emergency. We were one of the earlier ones to do that on March 4th, and then we had our first three positive cases on March nine. So we actually had a whole week to plan before we got our first positive cases. On March 10th, the Council took the action to ratify the emergency declaration, and then March 14th is when we first saw what we called community spread, where it was no longer travel based, but it was spreading in the community . On the 18th, the Council took some very bold action on approving 25 different ways to or it was a request to really look at our resiliency program and it was 25 different items. And then the city instituted our Safer at home order on March 19th. We had our first fatality on March 23rd. And that brings us to today, where we put in a number of things to safeguard the community and to respond. We are in what's called an emergency management structure or the incident command structure. It is a federally NASH or a federally recognized system on how to deal with emergencies. And under the charter there is a position called the Director of Emergency Services. It actually is the city manager, and below the city manager is the team that does all the work. That is our emergency operations center. We are stood up at a level two and they have been working around the clock. The emergency operations center is guided by what we call our agency administrators, and those are really your major department directors and executive management who are providing some of that guidance on a daily basis as we implement the emergency actions. And you hear a lot about a GIC, a joint information center, and that really works for the EOC and is what provides all of the information to the community in the media. And they work seven days a week every single day. We have had a maximum 102 city employees actually assigned to the EOC. Our response to the emergency is actually several thousand employees who are all working either at home or in their assignments. But actually at the EOC, it's 102 covering 40 job classifications and covering 16 different departments. And the amount of resources departments have volunteered to stop doing what they were doing. To go help out has been really impressive. Some of the accomplishments, these are actually broken into the sections that we have set up our emergency structure and there's a logistics section, planning operation and finance. And so we've distributed 1.5 million PPE. We've given out 31,000 N95 masks, 16,000 gowns, 9000 cloth and sewn masks, 860 deliveries across the city. In our planning area, they've developed a really robust hospital bed availability dashboard that allows us to really monitor how our hospitals are doing. We analyze every day what our workforce is doing and whether we need to pull them from one area to reassign them to the emergency. In another area, we created a data group with digital dashboards and data summaries and predictive analysis. We have our operations section has stood up seven testing sites over the past couple of weeks. We are now testing 1000 people a day and you're going to hear that later today. Why that's so important. We've managed four shelter sites. We have a number of different contingency plans, all in operation and development. And we have done multiple food distribution sites. We have a whole section set up on finance to make sure that we can get reimbursement. And we actually have received $3.6 million in FEMA reimbursements to date. That team really makes sure that every dollar is accounted for every hour and all the paperwork is in place to be able to get that 75% FEMA reimbursement. And so one of the things that we have all realized during this time is just how unique we are as a city where just about every other city in the state of California at this point really is relying on their health to partner on the county health department to make those health decisions and doesn't have the same sort of resources that Long Beach does. We are one of only three operated, city operated local health jurisdictions in California. Our health department is actually quite large. We have 340 staff in the health department. They do over 40 programs in nine sites throughout the country or city. And we provide on a yearly basis our public health services that 350,000 people a year. So what do they do? They implement local health orders. We have a doctor on staff, Dr. Anissa Davis, who is our local health official. We have a lot of this is informed by our federal, state, county and local effort experts. We look at data, we look at case investigations, and we do things called contact tracing that you hear about tonight. We are a leading supporter of our skilled nursing facilities. They are under state regulation, but they are supported by our health department and we help them and provide PPE and testing for the residents in the staff. We actually have our own warehouse where we do distribution of PPE and supplies for Long Beach medical institutions. We have a rapid assessment clinic providing free health care. We have mobile hospitals that we have actually distributed to three of our local hospitals. We now have COVID 19 drive up testing centers with walk up access a thousand tests a day. We have our own public health lab that allows for 24 hour turnaround results, the fastest results anywhere. And we're testing symptomatic first responders as well as nuns, as well as medical providers and long term care staff. We have done pop up homeless shelters and project roomkey housing and isolation sites. We support older adult information lines and support systems and education of our businesses. And we're also creating business recovery playbooks and and working on things like hospitality recovery. And of course, we also look at some of our disadvantaged populations and we really use an equity lens, and we'll talk about that later today. We have a joint information center, which is really the public information arm of our EOC. And so they're responsible for the media relations, the press conferences, releases, advisories. There is something going out every single day, even on Saturday and Sunday, three press conferences a week that the mayor and Dr. Davis do. And those are very well seen. I believe the latest one had I believe the number was 45,000 views, which is which is very robust. Engagement. These are not impressions. I want to make the distinction. These are actually engagements. We've had 751,000 people engage on Facebook. So not just view, but actually make a comment, make a share. That's an incredible amount of activity that's happening, 188,000 on Twitter and 63,000 on Instagram. And Instagram has really exploded in terms of our following. We also have been tracking website and we'd encourage everyone to go to Long Beach Dot Gov, COVID 19 and it's working. We've had 750,000 page views and 608,000 of those are unique. And so we find and we track where people are going so that we know exactly what type of information they're looking for. And that helps us customize our response. We have set up call centers, a seven day a week call centers, our 570 info line and 5704 biz line. And so 200 or 2800 calls into our info line and 681 calls into our business line. What do people ask us about exposure? And testing is by far the biggest at 78%. They ask about our city services, businesses, employment, and they want to know things about what are happening at our parks or beaches. How do I get help? How do I access resources? How do I get masks? All of those things are answered by our city staff seven days a week. We also do it in multiple languages in English, Spanish, Canadian, Tagalog. We translate documents so that press releases are translated into those, into those languages and sent out. We have staff that actually answer the phone and and call in, can call you back. We have multilingual website pages. We have multilingual trends, location staff that are dedicated to the GIC. And we have a lot of community partnerships with our African American community, Cambodian and our Latino leaders. We also realize that we need to be looking at some of this response through an equity lens. And that's something that the council, as has indicated, is important to them. And so while everyone is impacted by COVID 19, we know that individuals who are already disadvantaged and underserved are affected and even higher proportions. And so, you know, COVID 19 is a burden on everybody, but it comes on top of some of those existing racial, economic, health, education and gender inequalities. And so that actually multiplies that disadvantage. And so we presented the equity toolkit to the EEOC and really done some training. The Office of Equity is embedded into the EEOC structure, and that was something that the Council wanted us to follow up on. And so I want to turn it over now to Kelli Colby, who's going to really walk us through the data and talk to us about, you know, what is it that we're monitoring and seeing out there? And then also, how does that line up with the governor? And then you're going to hear from John Keisler to talk a little bit about the community input. So with this, I will turn it over to Kelli Collopy, our director of Health and Human Services. Good evening, honorable mayor and council members. So we're going to take some time to walk you through the data that we've been tracking very closely throughout throughout this pandemic. So the first slide, this is our most up to date slide in terms of number of confirmed cases. We have 789 confirmed cases, 48 people currently hospitalized, 38 deaths, and 494 folks who have recovered. Of those who are positive cases, 53% are female, 47% are male. 15% are under the age of 30. And then sort of for all the other age groups, it's sort of a range between 16 and 18%. So really, the the positives, the positive cases are pretty evenly distributed across all of our community when it comes to age groups. You can see when you look at the zip code maps, 90803 and 90807. Those are the locations that tend to have the greatest number of long term care facilities. And we do have increased populations in some of those long term care facilities. So that is demonstrated through these maps. Our citywide case per 100,000 is 160. When you look at the when you look at our trends in positive cases and our deaths, what you'll see is that we continue to track below L.A. County for both the positive cases and for our deaths per 100,000 population. So we are higher than the state of California, but below both. The city of Los Angeles and the county of Los Angeles for our cases and need to be quite a bit below Los Angeles County in our deaths per 100,000. Now, when you look at the total hospitalizations, we started at a much deeper curve in terms of our deaths per hundred thousand. But we've started to flatten while L.A. County is increasing. The slide, you'll see we sort of passed out the difference between our community. The COVID positives within our community compared to long term care facilities. So the way this works is, is that we report on a specific date, the number of cases that we get in. But those cases may reflect testing up to five days prior. And so what happens through here is that we go back and redistribute these to the days when they actually had the test or when their symptoms occurred, whichever the date are that we have. And so you'll see that in terms of our positive cases for long term care facilities, none showed up through through the last three days , no new cases but the that they were distributed prior to that. And when you look at those in the community, we had very low numbers so far reported in the community. When we look at the community versus long term, long term care facilities, what you'll see is that for the among those that are positive cases, you'll see that 72% of those folks are in the community and 24% are in long term care facilities and 4% are in other, which is sort of Borden cares and other institutional settings are group homes for hospitalization. You'll see that 63% of those who are being hospitalized come from community, 32% from our long term care facilities, and about four and a half percent in our other board, in cares and in long term care. Sorry, Borden cares. And then among deaths, you'll find that 81% of our deaths are from long term care facilities and 19% are from the community. So you'll see that our long term care facilities are are overrepresented in a significant amount in the in the deaths from COVID. The slide here. So for those who are positive in the community, 20% have been hospitalized. For those who are positive in long term care facilities, 32% have been hospitalized. And for those who are positive in the other group homes, 33% have been hospitalized. When we look at the deaths of those who are positive in the community, 1% of them have died in long term care facilities. For those who are positive for COVID, 6% have passed away. And no, there have been no deaths in Born Cares and other group facilities and group homes. We're also breaking out our data by race, ethnicity. And what you'll see is that we see African-American and Pacific Islanders are overrepresented in the total number of in the total number of cases. And I'm sorry, that says percentage hospitalizations, but it's actually the number of cases. And you'll also see that the same as within within hospitalizations. When we start to look at our deaths, you'll see that African-American whites are also overrepresented in the number of deaths, and partially because what we find is that for African-Americans, they're more susceptible to the underlying health conditions such as lung disease, heart disease and diabetes, which most are most impacted by COVID. For our white population, our white population, or among older adults in the long term are more overrepresented in our long term care facilities. And so that is where you're seeing the information, the overrepresentation for deaths among the white population in the city. This is a trend line. And so what you'll see here, this is the number of cases within the city they are based on when it was an episode date, so not when the tests were reported to us. The orange line is a seven day moving average and this is what the state is looking at and others to determine whether your case rate is in decline. And so what you'll see there is that orange line shows that we are since sort of the middle of April, we have been in an overall decline moving forward in the cases. When we look at this, we look at the transmission rate. So anything over a one means that your cases are growing and anything under one means that your cases are declining. So you hear often about the doubling rate and how many days is the doubling rate, or given that we are no longer above one as this thing where we are in a decline and there is no doubling rate. So you'll see that in mid-March. So March 19th was was when we put in the safer at home orders. And you'll see from there the numbers started to decline and have been declining essentially since that time. So that is the number that we'd like to see. So those are the data. And I'd like to go into the governors services key strategies to reopen. The governor has six key indicators focusing on the ability to protect our communities through testing, contact tracing and isolating for those who are positive or exposed the ability to prevent infection and people who are at risk for severe COVID 19. The ability of hospitals and search and health systems to handle the surges. The ability to develop therapeutics. To meet the demand that is held. And that is not something that we are doing within the city. Will leave that to our federal to our federal partners and private labs. So that is that's an area that we're not tracking on. Number five is the ability for businesses, schools and childcare facilities to support physical distancing. And number six is the ability to determine when to reinstate certain measures. So if, for instance, we start to see large increases as we start to loosen orders, what measures would we look at to start to tighten back down again? You also laid out a roadmap which has stages. So right now we are in the current stage of stage one, which is a place of safety and preparedness. And so that is the safer at home order. And during this time, they're sort of calling it stage one. A is all the preparation that it takes to begin to move to stage two, stage two, as lower risk workplaces gradually opening up with adaptations. The governor, as you heard, discussed the sort of the opening of retail with drive up. That is sort of what they're calling the soft opening of stage two. There are a lot more areas of stage two to be focusing on, but that would be the starting point. Stage three is your higher risk workplaces. That would also be open with adaptation, and stage four is the end of the stay as the statewide stay at home order. And that is something that would not really come into play until we have a vaccine or other sort of medications that can treat and treat COVID. And it is something that they see as something much further out. So our progress on the indicators, first of all, our ability to monitor and protect our communities through the testing, contact tracing and isolating. What you'll see here is our trend, our growth trend and the ability to test. So we started out with our public health lab with ten tests in early you know, in early March. And since that time, we now have the capacity to test nearly 1000 people per day through all of our drive up sites. So we do have we have a small site at the health department that is prioritized for health care workers, first responders and long term care facility staff to make sure we get the quickest turnaround possible to ensure they don't go back to work. And then we've got these sites that the Long Beach City College, the PCC campus, the real high school, Jordan High School, St Mary's, the New Jordan Plus site, and the new Long Beach City College Veterans Stadium. So once again, we can test up to a thousand per day to date through those drive ups. We've tested 7263 people. And then if you include all of our hospitals and private labs, we've tested over 12,500 folks. So it's a it's we've actually tested more than 13,000, but we're pulling out those who are not from Long Beach. So it's the 12,500 numbers, those that are from from the city of Long Beach. When you look at our contact tracing capacity, it really is crucial that you have contact tracing to slow the chain of transmission. So those staff work with COVID 19 patients to identify their contacts during the timeframe when they're infectious. And then they work very closely to contact all those folks and work with them to quarantine. They call every day now to determine whether people have symptoms and follow up. And if people are in quarantine and don't have capacity for food or access to resources, then we support by we support in any way we can to help people continue to quarantine and to isolate. And they estimate that you need somewhere between two times and three times the number of new cases each day for contact tracing capacity. So if we had 40 new cases in one day, we would need a capacity of 80 to 120 people to respond. And so we have developed a surge plan. We are working very closely with the EOC and deploying our city staff as disaster services workers to be able to participate and support the contact tracing capacity as we can't open the city any broader until this is in place. We're also looking at potential state resources. It's just being brought up within the last couple of days that they may be able to supply some resources and we'll be working with them to see what shows up. The state is also providing a contact tracing app to all jurisdictions throughout the state. They plan to pilot in early May, which is right now we're waiting for the pilot to roll out and then are hoping for full implementation by either late May or early June. In terms of quarantine and isolation capacity. Generally, we people quarantine and isolate safely at home. But there are people who don't have a place to live, people who are experiencing homelessness or those who live in locations that are overcrowded and it's not safe for them to quarantine or not possible for them to quarantine or isolate at home. We have 124 bed site through Project Roomkey that can be utilized for both people who are experiencing homelessness or for those who cannot safely quarantine at home. We are in ongoing negotiations with additional motels to make sure that we have just to ensure that if we need surge capacity, will we be able to turn those on? And there is a the state has an agreement with a local hotel to support first responder responders and medical staff who can't isolate safely at home. So the next indicator is the ability to prevent infection in people who are at risk for more severe COVID 19. The first is looking for people who are experiencing homelessness. So we currently we currently have about 1200 people who are unsheltered. And our last point in time count that that do not have places that do not have shelter. And so what we have been able to do so far as the city, we were awarded $1.1 million from the state. And those dollars are being utilized to leverage the project roomkey access and other sheltering capacities as a as a match for FEMA. We opened on our first shelter. In addition to the winter shelter was the Silverado Shelter. The winter shelter then moved from the old to the old North Library. We opened King Park, then our first project, our project Roomkey. That first project, Roomkey, is approximately 135 beds and it is currently filled to 120 beds. That space is very specific to people, to people who are older, older adults, and those who are have underlying health conditions that make them more susceptible to more severe COVID. We also have the isolation and quarantine site that I shared earlier. As of last night, we had 71% of our total total occupancy for all the beds. So our maximum capacity right now is 294 and our occupancy last night was 208. Older adults are also a focus. We have 51,000 over 51,500 people over 60 over the age of 65 in Long Beach. 18% of those folks live in poverty. 52% live alone. So we've been asking people to stay at home and to self-quarantine. And there's a lot of needs of support. The Healthy Aging Center continues to provide our Senior Link's case management to older adults who have multiple health issues and social needs. We go out and we do a home visits and other things working to really provide the services they need. The Healthy Aging Program manager is also working really closely with the non-medical senior residential facilities. So we have a lot of senior living apartments in the city of our Mitch and our program managers working very closely with them to answer questions, provide guidance and support, support safety and health in those facilities. And then we're also that program manager is also the liaison between the senior residential managers and the Our Communicable Disease Program, so that they have so we can really provide the building, manage their direct contact for their questions. Our EOC is working closely with nonprofit organizations who are engaged in food distribution. Now. We implemented an older adult resource resource line for those who are self-quarantining, so that if they need supports with food or medication or other things, we can help link them to the various services. Our long term care facility cases. We currently have 236 cases in our total in our long term care facilities and 31 deaths. The long term care facility cases are 30% of our total cases across the city. So far we've had 19 facilities total. We've had at least one case. Eight of those have not had any additional cases in the last 14 days. So we see that as an area of no transmission. So at this time, we have 11 facilities that have one or more cases. When we compare our sort of long term, long term care facility to Pasadena and the county, where you'll notice is that our case rate for positives is low per 100,000 is lower than both the county or Pasadena. Pasadena is having a lot of issues within their long term care facilities. The state of California, there is a much lower rate. When we look at our death rate. We're similar to L.A. County overall and far below Pasadena. Moving forward. So with our long term care facilities, we do outreach and education regarding all the protocols for safety. We have spent a lot of time over a number of years working closely with our long term care facilities to ensure that they are safe. We have re over 93 long term care facilities in the city. And so we just want people to understand that, you know, you're seeing different you're seeing different and skilled nursing facilities in others with cases. But as a proportion of the overall long term care facilities in the city, it's really, you know, approximately 20% of those facilities. We are testing all staff and residents and sites where there are cases. So we want to make sure that that we're capturing all that we're capturing everybody and that we can effectively quarantine and isolate within those sites. Um, we do, if, if, if there is a facility that has positive cases, we make sure that we sort of, we set aside areas for people who are positive. We set aside area for people who are have been exposed but are not currently positive. And then we set aside area for people who have not been exposed or are not positive staff do not cross the lines between those three. So they are assigned to one location so they cannot carry it from one place to another. We are providing PPE to those long term care facilities when they are low. We're prioritizing lab results of the residents and staff. All those are being run through our our health lab to make sure that the turnaround time is quick. Um, and we, we implemented a health officer order specific to long term care facilities that limits entry, requires face coverings and temperature screenings for those who are entering, as well as a lot of these other protocols. We're also spending time really focusing on more vulnerable populations overall. You know, we've you've heard earlier about the overrepresentation among our African-American population, also among our Pacific Islander population. And so we have a group we have an African-American outreach group that is focusing on there where there will be a city hall or Spanish city hall or. Sorry. Yeah, city hall. That is coming. I'm sorry. Town hall meeting coming up. And then we'll also be meeting with our native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders on Friday. The key focus for all of these is how do we really get out the message around safety and prevention, the importance of it, and how to do it? How can we increase access to testing and health care for populations that may not have access otherwise? How do we effectively isolate and quarantine? How do we create those spaces to prevent spread? Priority is given to older adults and those with underlying health conditions. And then how do we really start to focus as things turn back on for the economy, for our in our economic recovery? How are we making sure that we have representation and leadership from all these populations with an equity lens to really ensure that that everybody is represented in our economic recovery strategies? We look at our ability of the hospital and health systems to handle surges all of our area. If you add all of our capacity together across all the area hospitals, we have about 1500 patient beds available daily. This does fluctuate based on daily staffing, current needs and projected situations. The bed usage is as average less than 50% of that of those beds. So there is capacity there. And the area hospitals have averaged between 50 and 55 COVID positive patients daily. And then that does not include the VA is not included in those numbers. We have surge capacity of an additional 400 beds on top of that, 1500 at the hospitals, as well as 100 beds at the convention center as an alternative care site. Over there are 225 ventilators available at our Long Beach area hospitals. And they've been averaging about 30% of use in the month of April. We look at our hospitalizations. That civilization reporting rate is similar to that for cases so they the dark bar is sorry the the light bar is when hospitalizations are reported to us. So we will you know, we will say today we have 40 hospitalizations, but we often find out sometimes that people have left already or that there's new hospitalizations and it takes time for the data to capture, to catch up. So the the dark bar actually shows the most accurate and current data moving forward. So we again, we continue to be sharing with you what we hear each day and the most current data for that day. And then also we go back and sort of fill back in where we understand what the data look like to help us for policy making and decisions. Kelly, this is this is Robert, the mayor. Garcia, just want to just can you go back once like this one, to make sure that we just highlight this for think it's really important? And Kelly, correct me if I get any of this wrong, but I think I think this slide is really, really important for for obviously not just the council but for the community to take a look at. And I know this slide and this data point really guides a lot of the questions on how you kind of transition back into the economy. If you look at the hospitalization rate in Long Beach and you particularly look at the last two weeks, last 20 days or so. It's really I mean, you're going to have you have ups and downs, but it's really generally a flat in flattening of hospitalizations. And I think that particularly the last few days, we obviously hope that trend continues. There's not enough data yet, but we hope that trend continues. And I think that when when you hear the governor often talk about what he and what he views as the amount of time that's appropriate to look at hospitalizations and not see a spike, he typically says that a minimum of 14 days, which you really want to look at. And so I just wanted to provide that context. If I got any of that incorrect. Kelly, let me know. But I think you see here, obviously more than 14 days and you do see a pretty steady R rate that it's going to go up and down on depending on the date. But but fairly steady, is that right? KELLY Yes, MAYOR, That is true. And we haven't we really haven't had a lot of spikes. We were we were at 61 at one point in earlier, you know, like about a month ago. But, you know, since then we've been right in sort of the mid 50 and high 40 range for some time. So we have been able to we haven't had anything that you see like in New York or other places where it's just overwhelmed the system. We've been in pretty good shape in terms of capacity. And this is a chart that I know that that I that I really look at often. I think that everyone should be looking at this this this data often because obviously other data points like the positive rate obviously will always continue to go up. And there's certain there's certain charts that are more difficult to to gain valuable insight as to how you're doing within that moment. And I think this really speaks to how we are doing today, but also how we've been doing for the last two, three, four weeks. And so I just want to thank you for the work here. And and I do appreciate the the difference in the hospitalization as reported and the updated number, because I think we know that sometimes there's a lag time. Hospitals might change their data. And so I appreciate that. Not only are you are we reporting what's reported to us on a daily basis, but then as as those numbers change and as hospitals make those changes, you can see those, too. And so I really appreciate that Kelly and your team are doing a great job with that. So I'll turn it back over to you. Thank you, Mayor. So the next into the next indicators, the ability for businesses, schools and childcare facilities to support physical distancing. We have a lot of different groups working on this, so certainly our health officer, through the emergency health orders, has been focusing on outlining what, you know, what the practices are. Um, through the EOC, we have a resilience and recovery group focused also on early childhood and youth services capacity. And then, you know, we've been in contact with the school system and will be working with them as well. There's a human resources group that is looking at city staff returning to work, an economic recovery advisory group that John will be sharing more about for the really looking at the local economy and business practices there. Our environmental health team is also working on a business playbook for reopening in connection with the advisory group. And the hospitality task force is looking at opportunities there. We are hosting City Council community forums for Community Input and EDI and our committee is looking at economic and financial impact. So there there are a lot of different areas where we're looking at how we, how we ensure the physical distancing and all the different needs to keep people safe when when businesses are opening. The next is the ability to determine when to re-institute certain measures of the stay at home order. This is really an area that we while we've been working on the indicators about when to turn on. We have we're still working on what those indicators look like. So if we start to if we start to see growth in, you know, higher growth in cases or higher growth in hospitalization rates or deaths, like at what point do we say, okay, we need to we need to like we need to tighten back down a little bit. So we do have a team that's getting ready to start working on that moving forward. So then the, um, the State Department of Public Health has been working to identify what measures we need to be looking at to be able to sort of accelerate into phase two. So we've got this opportunity of sort of a soft opening and then they're providing, you know, when the numbers start to look right within different communities, then they're talking about this ability to accelerate into phase two, to open things a little more quickly. They're really focused on some of the rural communities that may have had one case and other places that, you know, that are that are ready to go. But we've been looking at those indicators. And as of this morning, these are the indicators that they're looking at. And the indicators I've been meeting have been moving a little bit. But right now, the the trend is so the trends we have look at in terms of a new case goal would be no more than one case per 1000 people in 14 days. And so we are already at that. We've met we've met that goal. And then the next one is no more than one death in 14 days. We are not at that goal. And so that is something that we'll be working with and really has a lot to do with the long term care facilities. But when you have community spread, even if our deaths are low in that community, many of those those workers who who are in long term care facilities need to be protected. And we need to make sure that we're focusing we continue to focus on our community to make sure that they are safe when they're walking into our long term care care facilities. In terms of the testing goal, it's 1.5 tests per thousand testing capacity. We have far exceeded that goal. The other one there is that you have to be within 30 minutes and urban I'm sorry, 50, 30 minutes within an urban environment to a testing site. And we've certainly got that covered across the city. The containment goal is that you have contact tracing, staff capacity of 2 to 3 times the number of new cases. We are not at that, but we are working on that as I've shared earlier, and that you have sheltering capacity for about 15% of your people experiencing homelessness for the city of Longreach, that's approximately 300 people. We are at 290 something, so we're very close to that. And when the year round shelter opens in June, we will meet that goal. The isolation goal is the ability to quarantine and isolate people within 24 hours of a test result. That relies a whole lot on your contact tracing as well as safe, safe locations for quarantine and isolation. So we're working on building the capacity to be able to quarantine and isolate. We do have the quarantine and isolation site and then the hospital capacity goal is that that you have the physical and workforce capacity to handle a 35% surge based on current numbers. We have those. We have that capacity and that is met. So Kelly, before, can you go back one slide? Again, this I think it's important. I just want to make sure that the public, particularly business owners that are asking this question, understand this indicator, what you're talking about. Exactly. So you want to add a little a little a little more color to it. So what what the governor has essentially said is that, you know, the state limit orders. Cities cannot go beyond the statewide orders, obviously. I mean, the governor has a baseline and city must follow those. And so a lot of a lot of folks, for example, ask us, you know, can you please open restaurants up tomorrow? Well, we legally can't because the statewide order says that that is later in phase two. And the earliest any of phase two can begin. Of course, we know is is later this week as a as an early point and that only a limited amount of businesses would pick up drive thru manufacturing. The second part of what he has said is exactly what you're talking about. He has said, however, if counties or cities want to accelerate their reopenings and I've heard this question, well, you know, the governor said some place some some locations can maybe go faster than what the governor has said. Is that possible? The answer to that is it is possible. But, A, with all of these indicators and a minimum have to be met. And so I just want to share that because there's been some confusion about us being able to automatically move ahead of the state order. And that is not that is not possible. And you have to, at a minimum, meet all the indicators. And then once indicators are met, you have to submit those to the state for for state partnership and approval to move forward. And so it's a complex process, but I want to make sure that we understand exactly what these indicators are speaking to. They're really speaking to a speeding up of the state mandate. Did I get any of that wrong? KELLY No, that is correct. So at each local level, people will have to complete complete a plan to indicate how they meet all the different criteria. And they have to attest that they can meet these criteria and post it and then work with all of the businesses to make sure that they can meet the safety protocols and others that we'll be moving forward. So that, you know, really what they're looking at is they're providing an opportunity for areas that have very low cases, particularly in rural areas that have had, you know, only one or two cases to be able to demonstrate that they have met all of these criteria and maybe to be able to move forward more quickly. The urban environments, the story it's going to take longer is the is basically where we're standing right now. Right. Thank you. Appreciate that. Let's keep going. Okay with that, I'm going to turn over to John Keisler and he's going to share about reopen language. Good evening, the mayor and city council. I'm going to talk a little bit about this reopen L.B. survey that was conducted over the past week, which has been an effort, among many other efforts, to collect public input about the reopening process and so on. On April 28th, we actually opened the survey. There was an announcement through a press release and through a number of our different news outlets, as well as social media and many of the city council newsletters. We were able to garner 15,000 responses in just a few days. And so we have a number of different insights to share with you today. But we wanted you to know that the survey just closed yesterday at 5 p.m., and so there will be an effort to dove deeper. That is happening right now in some extensive data sets which require a lot of disaggregation. So in short, 15,258 total survey responses were received and 63% of the survey participants identified as female. Many of them also over 60% identified as workers. We tried to break down the survey so that we could collect information about zip code, about gender and about race, so that we understood more about the priorities of different communities throughout the city of Long Beach. That data, as I mentioned, will be available in the coming days. What was interesting also is that people identified in terms of their age and that we had over 60% of the response coming from people under the age of 49, and that could have been attributed to many different factors. We're trying to understand that better. But in in short, the fact that this was distributed in just a seven day period online meant that people who were responding to the survey had to have Internet access, of course, and that if we had a chance to open the survey for a longer period of time, one of the recommendations that we've seen, first and foremost, is that we would be able to print that and deliver it in hardcopy to every household in the city of Long Beach. The survey was also translated into Spanish, Kulmiye and Tagalog. We are still seeking responses in those additional languages because of the translation occurring about 24 hours after the the initial survey was opened. We are going to keep the survey open for a little bit longer. For Spanish, come on in. Tagalog. And so if you've received recently either a press release or an email that shows that the survey is open for certain languages, that was an intent to to broaden our diversity and include more survey respondents. And so the survey really targeted three different groups workers, residents that may not be employed currently or business owners. And the reason for that is that we wanted to make sure that we asked different questions. For instance, if you are a worker, did you feel do you feel safe in returning to work at this time? Or if you're a business owner, do you feel safe reopening your business and what the city might do to assist you in making you feel more safe? We also included residents who were currently working with a different set of questions because they have obviously a different set of concerns. And so if you received the update from the city manager this afternoon, you can find this survey posted on our website. Now, most of the city council with the summary as well as the list, the full list of questions and the full list of of answers that were provided by these three different groups of workers, business owners and residents who are not currently employed. And so some of the interesting takeaways about the survey response of of the 15,000 plus participants was that outdoor recreation was number one. By far, over 60% of the respondents selected outdoor recreation as the number one activity that they felt could be reopened and not risk in additional transmission so long as certain certain precautions were taken. Beaches, parks, small scale retail and office work followed. Those all had more than 7000 responses in favor. And then from there, there were 23 total options that residents had to choose from public events. Large public gatherings, concerts, movies. And senior centers ranked the very lowest as things that the residents felt were ready for reopening. Something else that I think is that stood out and that's important is that we received a tremendous amount of written comment as well. And so as an example. Of those 15,000 plus responses, over 114,000 different activities were selected and rated. 21,300 plus. Comments were also received through an open ended question, which asked them, What do you feel that you can do or residents can do to to be safe? And what can the city do to help that? And what was interesting about that, and the slide that you're looking at is what's called word meaning. Obviously, there are hundreds of thousands of words in the responses that we received in just these past seven days. And so our data scientist took a crack at just trying to surface the words that were most used. And so on the left, what you're seeing is steps that residents felt that they could take. And in an open ended response, the word that popped up the most was home, stay home and wear masks. And so they felt that as individuals, these were the things that they could do most. You see washing hands. You see other very familiar numbers, like six, six feet perhaps. And then the second one on the right is steps that workers, business owners and residents felt the city could take to create a safe reopening environment. And of course, these are different words because this focuses on city efforts. So the words testing as an example, really jump out at you because that's the role that the residents really felt that the city could take in making them feel more safe. So we're going to do additional mining of this data. We're also going to be diving deeper into zip code based responses. We're going to disaggregate some of of the specific responses about the open ended suggestions that they provided, and we'll be able to publish that data later, just as it is an example, to try and download this much information in a quick time period. We weren't able to then provide it in a format that would be useful or make sense for the public. So that will be posted in the coming days. And then in addition to the the reopen lab survey, we've had actually a number of recent opportunities for input, including our Hospitality Recovery Task Force. We've had economic development and Finance Committee meetings to talk about and give a chance for public input from various business owners and stakeholders in the community. One such group, the Economic Recovery Advisory Group, is an informal advisory group that was actually identified by our city manager in partnership with former Mayor Bob Foster. And the purpose of this group is really to provide ideas and approaches about how we can restart the local economy in the safest way possible. Now, it's important to recognize the committee has been very clear that there's nothing we can do that's ahead of the governor's order or the health orders that are established at the local level by our own health officer and Lisa Davis. But the members that were assembled because they had an expertize in a broad range of activities, industries, sectors, and so we had doctors, we have small business owners, labor representatives, education leaders, among many others who have expertize and experience to really advise the city manager and city staff in what is possible with regard to a safe reopening of many of these different activities. So so over this past weekend. And we were able to distribute this initial report from the advisory group there. The initial report covers some of the major conclusions about what we should start first. And so if you're working at home, you know, one of the recommendations is to stay working at home. You saw that actually come out in the residents response from reopened lab is that that's something we can we can continue to do if you know you know staying home does not get in the way of making money or providing for essential needs. Also, to begin with, sectors are least likely to start a second wave of transmission. I think that popped up pretty strongly in the reopen L.B. survey, providing protective equipment and protocols, and that's for businesses and and event or venue operators. Robust testing was another major recommendation which came out in both reopen L.B. as well as from the Economic Recovery Advisory Group and then making sure that form follows function that every economic sector needs their own unique and specific protocols. It's not a broad brush here. Each size and space and type of activity needs its own protocols to make sure that we're able to comply with the recommendations from the public health officials. And then finally and Kelly just covered a lot of this is the real time data on hospital and ongoing medical infrastructure to both monitor, test , trace and to keep reporting on the trends that that have emerged. And so the the recovery group restart Long Beach recommended four different stages. You'll see that they align with the health officer and the state recommendations and guidelines. And that report is also now available through the city manager's web page for reports to the mayor and city council available to any member of the public to read and follow up with with the with the group. And so in terms of the four stages that are recommended by the state, by the governor's office, in terms of stage one, two, three and four, they're really about moving from lower risk activities to higher risk activities. You can see that many of these recommendations actually were corroborated or reinforced by the survey data that we received back from businesses and residents. And so the good news is, is that it seems like the community is moving forward collaboratively and collectively with a very common understanding of the challenges, but also the opportunities to reopen aspects in in a staged and phased way. And so with that, I'm actually going to turn it over to city manager Tom Merkel to talk about financial impacts. Thank you very much, Shaun. So, Mayor and Council, I know we've gone quite a while. There is a lot to unpack and give you information on, so I'm going to wrap it up. I want to talk a little bit about the financial impacts. As we know, this is an incredible time for finances for every single organization and Long Beach is not immune. And then we'll talk a little bit about next steps. And then again, we're really here tonight to present you information, to give you a report on everything we've been doing on on your behalf, but also then to really listen to the council. So for financial impacts, we had put out a memo about a month ago about our FY 20 shortfall and future shortfalls, trying to predict, you know, what we thought the impact was going to be. We do have some updated numbers now. And as we had suspected back then, that was an initial first blush. I think we had estimated around 14 to 21 million in that range in the general fund for this year. We do believe that's going to be higher in the 25 million to $41 million range. I know that's a large range, but there's a lot of unknowns. And so we believe there's been more severe impacts to sales tax. Our top our our hotels are 5% full rather than 80% full measure is taken some reductions as well because it's sales tax based. We've seen a large reduction in parking citations in our parking garages where people are no longer going to park. Oil actually went negative for a little while, and so now it's hovering around the $15 a barrel rather than the 55 that we budgeted and the 65 we were experiencing $65 a barrel. And then, of course, there's unreimbursed pandemic cost. We have we have not updated our shortfall for 21. But I did want to remind you that was already pegged at about 9 to 16 in the last memo. And we believe that's going to get worse. There are going to be out year impacts as well. And that we will come back to you on. And it's still very uncertain what's going on out there. We are watching a number of other cities. We're in a slightly different financial position because we're in a federal fiscal year where they are in a state fiscal year. So their fiscal year starts in July, our start starts in October. And we do believe that the economic situation could make it more likely that shortfalls will be worse than projected rather than better. We have also provided you some information on what this response has cost. So our financial section tracks every hour that is spent and every dollar that is allocated for this. Some of those are within existing budget, so we have a total of $13.9 million tracked so far. Some of that you'll see the Labor 10.5 million are budgeted positions, but they are no longer doing what they were doing before. They're now COVID related. So we account for that. We have $3.4 million in non-Labor expenses. And so there's a memo, if anyone's interested in the details on this, we have that out, but we're expecting about a 75% reimbursement of eligible cost from the from FEMA. But we are expecting about 3 to 6 million in our financial projection that it would be un not reimbursed. Language has been aggressive in asking for large city funding from the Federal Government. We don't quite qualify from a population standpoint, but we certainly qualify from an effort standpoint. We have 470,000 people rather than 500,000. And we are asking aggressively and our mayor is leading that charge at the federal, state and local level to get funding that could help us offset some of those unreimbursed cost. So as your city manager, I'm required to put in place things to balance the budget. Once the Council adopts a budget, it is our job to manage it and we have seen a huge drop in the last two months. And so we are putting in place plans and we will be coming back and revisiting the steps we are taking with the Council before the end of May. But that includes a hard hiring freeze and cutback in non-essential expenses. We are going to be creating list recommendations to defer non-critical capital projects. We also think we need to reconsider those summer activities. We may not be allowed by the governor's order to do those and the programs impacted by the pandemic. We were about to hire additional police and fire and we are going to recommend deferring those for the short term so that we can get a better sense of that and also build some of those savings to close the financial year. We are looking at emphasizing full time staffing over part time staffing. We also need to restart our 21 budget process, which was supposed to start May 3rd or March 3rd, and we had to suspend due to COVID and then we're continue to project these updates. I also need to tell the council that this has impacted our entire organization. COVID 19 and saving lives is by far our number one highest priority. And so we've been reassigning staff in very significant numbers. We have large numbers of staff who are not physically in the building, who are working remotely. And so as a result, non-critical functions have been delayed and stopped. The council has been incredibly patient and understanding with that, and we want to make sure the community knows that too, that some of the traditional things that we do as a city have been impacted. We've had to stop. Our whole FY 21 budget development process, and now we need to restart it, which is going to result in a different type of process. And of course, we have initiatives that the Council gives us, and we've had to slow those or suspend some of those as just because of workload. And so these are our last two slides I want to kind of talk about next steps. Really, tonight we presented you with a lot of information and now we want to start listening and get input on our emergency response where you think we may need additional focus, the things you are feeling that we're doing well. And then of course, what you're hearing and your thoughts on the restart efforts. We will continue to work with L.A. County on the health order. That work is happening over the weekend and this week. We have not put anything in place about what reopens, at what time that work is ongoing. And we do expect some changes to the order before May four on or before May 15th. So May 15th is really the date that we have targeted is when our order goes through. Until that changes, it will be May 15th. We may make some slight changes related to recreational opportunities. We may make some changes regarding retail. And so those have not been decided yet. But May 15th is is the date that the current health order runs out. And our philosophy, when we do make some of those changes is to do what we've done with essential businesses, which is providing businesses with direction on how to effectively be safe and then allow them to put those measures into place that are appropriate for their business and sit in space. And so communication is going to be critical in all of this. We know we need to talk to everybody who has questions. We also need to make decisions based on data and medical expertize. And we also need to make sure that we're in alignment with the county as much as possible for regional consistency. And our goal in all of this is, of course, to keep the mayor and city council informed, like what you're doing tonight. And so with that, I know that was a lot. And we appreciate your time and your patience and we're available for questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Modica, and just a great presentation, just a lot of information to just thank you to you and the entire team. I do have council members that are queued up, so I'm going to just begin going through the queue. And if you're if you want to speak, please queue up on the messaging system. And I'm going to I'll begin with Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank staff for that very comprehensive presentation. I think there's a lot there for us to absorb and obviously some of the stats and the data we've seen. But we didn't see this presentation too far in advance. So there's just a lot of information to digest. And I know staff knows that and appreciate that. So I want to thank our health department director, our city manager and his entire team, including all the department heads in helping put together this presentation. I know that it was a collective effort and I appreciate the update and I want to thank our mayor for really advocating for the city when it comes to large city assistance. I think it's it's it's quite a shame that we are just shy of that large city threshold. And looking at the group that the mayor has put together who are advocating for assistance from the federal government. Our city is obviously the largest of that group and clearly has a lot of the same demographics and dynamics that many large cities of 500 that meet that 500,000 threshold have. So I really do want to thank the mayor for his advocacy, because if he's successful in that effort, I think that can be huge for us in terms of the deficit that we have ahead of us and how we're going to be able to deal with a lot of these impacts. I appreciate the mayor's comments regarding the city's ability to accelerate a little bit what the governor is doing. I know that a few weeks ago we had our council, our regular council briefing with the city manager. And through that process, we talked a lot about council members, every single one of us wanting to be involved in this discussion. Every single one of us wanting to have a seat at the table and wanting to make sure that our residents and business leaders and their needs are represented in the discussion. And the city manager really did encourage us to not not wait for this council meeting, but to go out and seek input in whatever way we could. We wanted to we saw fit from our residents and business owners. So I know that several of my colleagues took advantage of that opportunity, and I'm grateful that they did. We also did in the third District. We had five focus group meetings via Zoom, and then we we published a survey that we received over 1000 responses to within 24 hours. So I was really pleased with the with the interest. But what all of that told me is that people are very interested in having a voice. People are at the point now where they want to have a meaningful discussion about what the next steps look like. They're there. They're ready for that. And and I really do think it's important and I'm not trying to say that we haven't been, but I think we're at the point now where the city needs to be a little bit more aggressive in terms of our discussions about what reopening looks like. And to the extent that we can get to a place where we're able to meet the indicators and move forward. That's obviously. Should be our goal, and I know that. That is our goal. So I guess my first question would be for Miss Colby in regards to the indicators, what indicator and or indicators are we missing before we can move forward and submit an accelerated plan to the governor's office regarding the stages? Councilman the the indicators primarily. But the first is that you can only have one of the indicators is one death in 14 days. At this time, we haven't met that. And so that is something that we'd be tracking on. The next is the capacity to contact Trace. So to really actively be able to trace and they estimate that each person who is positive at least has ten contacts. And it requires a team, you know, to to follow up and to try to follow up with all of those contacts. And then if it's a close contact, that's the quarantine and the default, which is those quarantines as well as the person who's isolated. It is a significant responsibility, and that's an area that we're working to build our capacity right now. And then I think the I'm trying to remember, I don't have any more than one check. I'm finding the rest of the indicators. So those are the two the two primary. And then the the ability to quarantine within 14, within 24 hours of a positive test also is based on the need for that contact tracing. We have met our capacity in terms of the the the housing for people who are experiencing homelessness. And then so those are the those are the primary ones. Now, these are indicators that were announced today and then so they may change some, but that is really the focus area. So I think those are the two key areas. This one is continuing to focus on the deaths. I think we have a lot of other capacity and and the ability to really build up our contact tracing and making sure that we are quarantining and isolating effectively so they don't have further outbreaks across the city. So what I'm hearing you say is that there are two critical indicators that if we can meet those. Obviously the ability to quarantine would be the ability of the individual and those identified through contact tracing to have been impacted. They would need to self-quarantine, correct? That is true. So there are two pieces. One is that we can identify them quickly and then work with them to make sure that they are quarantining and then the ability to follow up if they do not have a safe place to quarantine. So for instance, if you are in a household where you like, let's say you have a large family and not that many bedrooms, it might be difficult for someone to quarantine. So in that case, we would we would determine whether we could move them off site and provide a place for them to safely quarantine or isolate to ensure that they were not exposing and infecting the remaining members of their household. Muted. Okay. So in regards to the death, the death indicator, the one in 14 days, how are we seeing any trends and how far do you think we're. I know you're speculating and a little bit of tele reading here, but how far away from that are we? Well, we had a death reported last night, so we're still 14 days out if we had no more deaths over the next 14 days. And I think that there is a lot of conversation about what that looks like with our long term care facilities. And so really, our focus is continuing to work very closely with our long term care facilities to support people there in their safety and in their health, but also working very closely with the employees of those facilities to ensure that they're not being exposed in their communities and walking in there. And those facilities, they are you know, they're taking temperatures, their tests, they're doing all those kinds of things and following all the right rules. But we want to make sure that that we're making sure that everyone who is involved in those communities is healthy and is not exposing not exposing people. So there is more work to do there moving forward. Okay. So in regard to that indicator and this this question's really coming out of me not knowing. So it could be a very simple question. But in regards to that indicator, no more than one death in 14 days, is there any subcategory of whether the death occurred in a long term facility or in an area where it couldn't be contained or could be contained any any sort of further definition on the breakdown of either the category of individual who passed in terms of vulnerability or the conditions that may have led to the spread of that particular individual's situation. It's interesting, I asked the very same question this morning, too, on our state call, and at this time there is no subcategory. So there that is that is the that is the number that they're holding with it there. You know, each of these conversations, they change a little bit over time. So the indicators may change a little bit as well. But at this time they are holding that there is no sub category. That is the indicator. Okay, I got it. All right. So that's a key indicator. And until we're able to get to that two week period, we couldn't really ask to accelerate anything. But it's quite possible that the governor may himself advanced two additional stages, even without us meeting that indicator. That is correct. Those indicators are specific to accelerating more quickly than the governor's orders. Okay. And with a lot of those indicators and I think I know the answer to this question, but do those indicators are the city indicators or county indicators? Are they steady because we have our own health department? Yes. Their health their local health jurisdiction indicators. So because you have a city health department, it's city focus, not county. Okay, got it. The second indicator regarding contact tracing are the contact tracers. Are those folks who work would be working within the health department and are these paid physicians? Are they volunteer kind of internship positions? And how how are we going about recruiting? Is that even an issue? They can be any of those. And so what we're doing right now is we are looking. There are about I think it's approximately 200 folks across the city who have been identified, who could be who could move to support various efforts, be reassigned based on the disaster recovery or disaster service worker criteria. So all city staff are considered disaster services workers. So in this where we have capacity to be able to to reassign people, we are looking at those folks as as a population. We would also, you know, volunteers are also possible as well as the possibility of hiring. When you are looking at a pipe, you know, when you're looking at a workforce of 80 to 120, there will need to be some folks hired to be able to manage and lead the smaller groups moving forward. So it really is a mix. And we are you know, we do have a proposal in and we're working closely to be able to assign people so that we can at least, you know, get the first group started early next week. Councilwoman. Anything else? And myself muted. So I was talking to myself. How far do you think we are from meeting that contact tracing indicator? As a city. We need. We're looking at the need to bring on some between 60 and 80 people to be able to start to meet that indicator. It also depends on how many new cases we have. So if we continue and the number of cases declines and we have ten cases, then we would need 30 folks. If you have 20 cases, you need you know, you need 60 folks. So it really it just it all depends on what the number is. And we realize it's going to be up and down. So we're focusing on trying to get in somewhere around 60 right now as we've been seeing approximately 20 cases per day being reported . If we have any increases, then we would have to increase that capacity. So in regards to that issue, do you are we these are going to be temporary positions through the city, I'm assuming, and are we advertising for them? Is there something the city council members can do to help disseminate information, to recruit these individuals? At this time. We've been focusing on internal staff, but we can certainly create a job description or a, you know, a request for support for folks to be trained and others and be able to move forward. That is something that we can work on. And Councilmember, this is Tom. This would actually be an area, you know, also, given the budget that we're going to have, you know, huge amounts of of of staff that are going to be impacted. And so we want to be able to also see that this is rather than adding on staff and trying to pay people that we don't currently have on payroll, we would be reassigning folk, looking at less critical areas and basically saying you're now a contact tracer rather than what you were doing before. You for that. Okay. Thank you. I really appreciate those answers from the health department because I've had the same same questions. I will tell you, I think from a mental health perspective, our residents really, really are anxious to have some recreational opportunities open back up with specific social distancing measures in place. What I've heard repeatedly from people is that the bike path on the beach being closed has really eliminated the desire for many people, especially with young kids or folks in the older population to ride bikes. Because even though we do have a lot of great bike paths, bike lanes throughout the city, not every road has a bike lane. And a lot of people don't want to share a traffic lane with a vehicle or have a vehicle with in such close proximity. So the bike lanes, I mean, to me, it seems like bikes are a very natural social distancing mechanism because, you know, there's a limitation of how close you can get to another individual and for how long of a period of time when you're on a bike. So I think what we heard loud and clear from our residents is that the beach path, the bike path needs to be opened back up. I will say I did notice that there one of the questions I get a lot is how come the neighboring county is doing things that we're not doing? And of course, you know, the governor has weighed in on that. But just yesterday and today, we saw that several speech cities were able to present plans to be able to accelerate openings based on plans that they have provided. And I wonder, you know, have we done that? Have we submitted plans for golf courses, tennis courts, the beaches? And if other cities can do that or could we not do the same thing? Because I. I don't know what their indicators are. Perhaps I can't believe that. This would be true, but. Perhaps Orange County, for example, has met all the indicators and has sufficient contact tracing in place. And that's why they're able to submit plans to to reopen some things in advance of the governor's orders. But I guess the question I would have for I guess it's not the final question for our health department is why can't we do that? Why can't we submit plans, even though we haven't met all these indicators to at least open up some recreational opportunities? So the the way that at least what we're hearing from the state is that people are submitting plans, but the state isn't in itself right now. I mean, these criteria that just came out came out this morning. They're they're new. So whatever the plans are that they're submitting, they're not related necessarily to to these pieces. There are, you know, some other things people are looking at in terms of PPA and others. But, you know, there is concern in this city about the opening of a lot of the beaches and other things. You've seen a lot of crowds and others. And so, you know, there's there is a lot of pressure to open. People want to be outside and we want to make sure that we are that, you know, that we're making sure that we're not creating opportunity for for for large scale increases. So we are moving in what we feel fits within our data, fits within our capacities moving forward. And we're holding pretty tight to that. So I'm not I don't know exactly what the other plans are necessarily, except that they're putting forward some strategies for how they believe distancing can work. But but if you know, the there isn't a place right now under the governor's strategy for a plan that exceeds what is out there in terms of the orders. And can't remember this is Tom. So recreation is one of the areas that the governor had started to say that you could take some some changes in. And so that work is happening this week. We are looking at some meaningful changes to recreation. We totally agree that, you know, people are looking to be places that are safe and be able to be outdoors. So we've heard that for a while. We do not have exactly what that will look like yet. That is work that is continuing this week. But we have heard that very consistently. And so our goal is to is to have that plan and really work on it this week about what can meaning what kind of meaningful change to recreation can happen and how soon it can happen. Great. Thank you. I think, you know, I'd like to to say that overwhelmingly the residents that we've talked to in our survey would like tennis courts, golf courses and the bike path opened back up. So to the extent that we can consider those. I'd appreciate it. And then the final kind, I want to let my colleagues weigh in. So I'm going to I'm going to end it here. But in regards to the the deficit that we're looking at, I'm just. Just this fiscal year, the 25 to 41 million. And I'm trying to pull up our the document here that Mr. Modica referred to the FY 20 shortfall. You know, I think I like some of the priorities that the city manager has already identified. I imagine we'll have a lot more conversations about this in the weeks and months ahead, especially at the below sea level led by Councilwoman Mungo. But I think that really having the city manager identify what projects we can defer, infrastructure projects, capital improvement projects we can defer would be critical at this stage because I think that would allow us to see kind of where we're eliminating what is not necessary and really being able to focus on the basics. For me, the priority for the entire city would be what are the basic core services that every resident in this city is entitled to? And I know we're all going to have different opinions about that. Some of us may think art is a core service, and I'm a huge fan of art, so I'm just using that as an example. Or maybe libraries are a core service. You know, we're all going to have our different opinions about what a core service says, but at the end of the day, we're going to need to be able to have quick response times when residents call 911, because that's a matter of life or death. We're going to be able we're going to have to be able to address infrastructure needs throughout the city. And I'm sure there are a number other core basic services, you know, trash and street sweeping and things that we identify as core services that the residents should be entitled to by virtue of their tax dollars that provide the revenue to the city and the return on for their tax dollars. So I look forward to those discussions. I know there's going to be a lot of difficult conversations to be had. And I want to thank city staff and I want to thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak first and take out take up as much time as I did. I apologize for that. It's a very, very dense topic. So I tried my very best to be efficient. And I want to thank staff again for giving us this information tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. I want to just add two things that I think you brought up that I think are important, that the commissioner you mentioned contract tracing, which is really important. I just want to also add that the state is developing an app and a technology that will allow the idea of tracing and contact tracing hopefully happen in a very efficient way and in a way that will also take less actual bodies, hopefully in the future. And so that's just more of a FOIA for the council. So hopefully will be developing. Some of the top tech firms are working on this. Our contact tracing app and and system and then in. Mayor if I can can I add to that. So Long Beach Health Department has been really pushing the state to say we want to be one of those pilot sites and we expect to be one of those by the end of this week. So to really be a model, to be able to test that out. That's that's exactly right. And we're working with the governor to be one of the first groups to do that. And it's going to be you know, it's going to be hopefully a great way of doing this work. And it will really get people that are infected to be able to contact, you know, who they've been in contact with. It'd be a great way to trace everything through technology, and it could really make a dent into positive cases if it's done, if if it does what we think it's going to do. So we're very hopeful about that. And so I just wanted to mention that. And then the second thing is for for for the public as well, because Councilman Price is right. Two cities petition the governor on beach openings and they did so because beach beaches is a is something that that's in the current stage that's at it's allowable and the petition them after the governor closed them down and so I think Kelly, I think you clarified that pretty well. And I just wanted to add that as well. But we are excited about the contact tracing. And so I'm thank you for that. And the next up is Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mayor. This was an incredible presentation, so I have a lot of thoughts and comments here. First, I'm glad that we're at the place where we can have a full conversation about reopening the economy. No one wanted to be in this place where the economy's closed. We want our schools back open. We want our economy back in operation. And we understand the importance of public health. This is a great presentation, and I have to say most of the communications that have come out of the SEC, most of the communication that's come out of sitting members of the European agenda have been have been great. You know, I see the link language accents are coming out in four different languages. I know that that takes you know, that's that's incredible. But I want to make sure, you know, I want to I want to just recognize that. Thanks for highlighting that we're a local public health jurisdiction. You know, we typically have to when we're not a public health emergency, it isn't the first thing we think of. And I hope that moving forward, we can, you know, understand the value of having a public health jurisdiction here locally. We've got I'd say we have we have the best local public health response in the state of California with who we have in leadership with our city manager, but also Kelly Cosby and Dr. Davis. They're doing an incredible job. And that's why here across the region, council members, at least six or seven council members from other cities and six Southern California counties have called me about different pieces of our response, and it makes me proud that we have that. But also, we have a responsibility to maintain this. I think what we've done around testing has been great. Thank you for raising that up and it moves really, really quickly. We saw that we had a problem and it was disproportionately impacting certain communities moved really, really quickly to get sites set up. I think that we see, you know, that builds a lot of trust and confidence with our with our community. So I'm very grateful for both the Jordan the Jordan high drive thru as well as the Jordan Plus site. And I think the way we've been able to rally and the way the EOC has been able to rally around some of the other things to help secure community like the food distributions, the food with the other partnerships with different food agencies, the nonprofits. The way that the COVID relief fund has supported a lot of nonprofits has been tremendous. And where we're doing the food distribution. Jordan High Park just on Saturday, where we can feed up to 2000 people with a box of groceries for the week. So all of this, I understand how much of it was fiscal challenges then, but I think, you know, folks are really rising to the occasion. I want to take a minute and just say, you know, I don't say this enough, but I made our mayors doing an incredible job in the way that he's been out there consistently , three times a week on video, his social media. He's been a tremendous leader for the city. And I just want to make sure that, you know, while we're having this conversation, you know, I get an opportunity to say thank you to Robert. The city council is doing their thing. I see that some councilmembers invited me to, you know, have different conversations. And our city council committees is our dinner committee had a really good meeting or another meeting soon. The first meeting we heard from John Keisler, we heard from Health Department, we heard from the nonprofit sector, we heard from the hospitality sector and we heard from restaurants. And we had some really good feedback, particularly about some pieces that the city maybe has talked about, but we haven't done anything on. For example, you know, a lot of restaurants are dependent on delivery fees. And, you know, it was highlighted that the delivery fee issue, you know, sometimes given 30% of their sale, which is their profit margin away to delivery companies. And, you know, originally the marketing plan for the delivery companies were this is an addition to your business. Therefore, give us a piece of this additional business. But now it's it's core to their business. And we need to think about what we can do to either incentivize or regulate how how these programs engage with our small businesses. And we also have to think about, you know, another things come up is, you know, technology to help people queue from home due to when barbershops get open. You shouldn't have to spend 2 hours waiting on a haircut or whatever their cue system is. We can look at that. We should have our I.T. department, our Technology Innovation Department, take a look at how we expand into some of these these platforms. Our next meeting is Macy's, May 15th at 3:00. We're going to hear an update. We have a finance report on the city. We're going to have we're going to hear from the manufacturing sector, which has reached out to the committee for us to engage them. We're going to hear from the Arts Council and Arts community about their specific impacts. You know, I think they're going to have an opinion on whether or not, you know, arts. Are essential or core and then labor. We're going to hear from Labor LA County voters and Labor is going to speak to both the concerns of essential workers as well as laid off workers because they have opinions as well. And so this is really just serve as an opportunity for people to engage in this time where it's really difficult to engage with leaders. And so thanks to the committee members and city staff for the support that that work. I also want to lift up I thought I did a credible job introducing this presentation and all the staff brought their pieces together. But I think Tom really said that it set the tone with it with, you know, how sophisticated and how much work it's going to take to get into this. And I think this is a you know, I really appreciated the way that he referenced equity and the issues from a standpoint that are taking place in our city and and that it would be to 29% of the deaths in the city are African-American, but African-Americans make up 12% of the population. That's that should get our local government attention. And I should say that we should place an equity lens in all our decisions. And thanks to I want to thank the entire city council for helping reinforce that this is the direction as we sort of get into rebuilding our economy, rebuilding our city. These are core competencies that our city is going to need and core competency that we have to sort of reflect for others. Now, I know that, and I'm going to get into some questions. I know that when we reopen or start the process of reopening, some people are not going to come outside still. You know, we're talking about seniors. We're talking about people who live in who are in vulnerable circumstances. From a health standpoint. They're going to be confined for a long time. And we want to make sure that we're making plans and take into consideration, you know, what we're doing to help support these people. So that's going to be my first question. So I'm telling you again, when we open, fingers are going to be your fingers are going to stay in for a while until we see, you know, a change in the virus or until we see a vaccine or different therapies for the vaccine. Can you speak to how we're going to help support our vulnerable populations, our seniors and those individuals as we get into this reopening process? Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I am sorry. That was from way back when. Thank you, Councilmember. So one of the things that we weren't able to get to, we talked about how there is lots that we just couldn't put in the presentation. Are some of the efforts at our EOC to really coordinate a lot of the volunteer efforts that are happening out in the community? Our nonprofits have really stepped up to serve. And so we have, you know, hundreds of volunteers and groups that are out there that are supporting seniors. A lot of them have gotten funding from our disaster relief fund, from the coronavirus relief fund. And so that has raised over $1,000,000. We have over 60 groups who have been funded and seniors support. And bringing food to those who need it is a big part of that. We are coordinating that through our EOC. And so we actually have dedicated phone lines in our GIC where seniors can call and ask those types of questions. We also have Global World Kitchen, who is delivering to these major kind of senior facilities. And then the governor has announced a new program last week. It's not quite set up yet, but the ability to purchase restaurant quality meals from local restaurants and connect those to the seniors who are living by themselves and get most of that federally reimbursed. And so we are very cognizant and we're not encouraging seniors in if they're able to stay at home. We're not saying you should be coming out now. We still want them to be, you know, kind of limiting their movement for sure. And so we we realize that they're going to need support to be able to do that. Okay. Yeah. I just want to make sure that, you know, we think we do what we can from a quality of life standpoint from them and from a public health standpoint. So the programs that we're seeing that are coming together around food support and food delivery for seniors, I think as we think about reopening, we think about figuring out how to leverage CDBG or other things to make those programs who just came together. We need to make them more sustainable because this is going to happen. We may need that program for a year. So let's just make sure that we think about what it takes to make that happen. Also, quality of life means some people are going to be, you know, we got to exercise bike. I don't get it on it as much as I as I should. Our girls, you know, they like watching yoga on YouTube. The reality is our Parks and rec folks, if folks are in the house and may not have it, frankly, they may not have bike paths in the neighborhood or tennis courts in the neighborhood, and they need to do what they have to do. So let's figure out how, you know, just because we're locked in the house or some people are going to be confined for a long time, we don't forget them. We can't do concerts in the park. But you know, you know, these are nice Instagram concert or verses, right? We can make sure that we have entertainment happening online or whatever it is that our Parks and Rec team does. Well, let's figure out how we adapt it, because some people are going to be in house for a long time. We have Zumba classes that we have. Let's just think about how we can make sure we manage at a very low cost, the quality of life of what happens. And it really doesn't cost a lot of money. We're talking about just giving opportunities for folks to our own channels and to engage with people. And I also would say I love the idea of the business playbook reopening playbook. I love that idea. I think and I think about we have different when you go to the planning desk, you'll have different handbooks for every different industry. I think we if we're going to do one, I think we definitely need one for childcare in private and private schools. You know, the public schools are a big organization. They're going to do their own thing. But a lot of the childcare providers who receive no public funding and we're going to need to give some guidance to them because they don't know how to plan for the future. And a lot of these childcare providers are who are essential workers and our workforce is going to depend on as we open up and I know that childcare providers are included in stage two of the reopening. So I would hope that we have, you know, some some guidance in the playbook for them. Additionally, another thing that I'll recommendation would be we've learned a lot about and we work with, we're going to have to change some behaviors. What I don't want is if people don't wear a mask, we're slapping them with $1,000 fines when we need to really be focused on education and trust. And so, you know, we've talked with our city prosecutor about programs. We did the past program where we treated young adults differently than than, you know, people over 26. Those are the types of practices that we've done in the city that we need to lean on right now. What I don't want to see a bunch of people when we come out, we're going to have a requirement, masks and social distancing. And some people are not going to follow the rule. And we have to just be mindful that we don't want to create an additional problem for that individual, which, you know, I don't want to get into all the context around it. But we know how to do this in the sense. In terms of the reopening timeline, I think there's been a lot of conversation there. That's all good. I think as we relate to contract tracing, the conversational contract contact tracing, we need to make sure that we are figuring out ways to contract with community based organizations and individuals who, you know, who are trusted messengers already in the community. Because, again, it's going to be about trust and confidence with the community. So if we need to track down ten contacts or someone we know or someone who knows, our community is tracking down our neighbors. I think that's incredibly important. And then we should think about, you know, whether we can leverage CDBG or other things that are tied to, you know, geographic areas to see if we can tie this to some sort of CDBG program. Great. And then I would also say, finally, we should probably figure out this is a good long presentation. I know it's overdue, but we got to get back to some sense of normal. We have I know we get different too from boards and memos. The manager does a good job briefing individual council members. For the sake of the public, I think we need to have a more regular cadence on how we receive these comprehensive updates. Now, I don't know that they mean for the time that we spent in the city council meeting, but I but I'd like to understand some milestones in time. Maybe you can speak to some milestones that you think we can expect more comprehensive updates. So can you speak to that a little bit? Sure. So, yes, we definitely want to have the opportunity to keep the council involved. Things change so rapidly. By the time we write something down, it seems like it changes the next day. So we do like to look at things. You know, we're going to be continuing to do our daily press releases that we get to everybody. Our GIC operates seven days a week. But we do think it would be wise to take some time to put together larger reports backs. I'd like to make those kind of benchmark focused. I don't have those yet what those would be. But we do expect in the next week or so for the county and and the governor to kind of lay out when they think the other stages are going to happen. So I think some appropriate times to report back is if we see a major change in our indicators. If we are getting close to where we're able to accelerate through a phase or if we believe that there is going to be in a short period of time a major change and going through a phase, I think we also need to prepare for the fact that we may have to go the other direction. We hope not. But if we need to see and we start to see a resurgence to really get in front of the council and make sure we're educating everyone on what those data look like. So I'd ask you to let us do a little bit more thought about what those look like. And and we can be doing more regular memos. We publish our data every day on on the data dashboard, but we can assemble some of these other indicators and do those through some memos as well, and then get in front of the council if we're going to be doing any kind of major changes in the data or, you know, going either, you know, forward or hopefully not backward. Okay. And so I'll close with this and then I'll make a motion to receive a file because I know we need that. So I know that there's a lot of conversation that needs to take place. And I know we have to understand what reopening looks like. I, I, I think we should want to reopen. Right? This is, this is what we should want to do. I also understand that, you know, we're going to have a tough time in terms of the budget. I would say to a director, city staff would be be really mindful and thoughtful about how we consider, you know, what's important and what's core and what is. You know, if we if we get the police and value one on one aspect over the other without a real conversation about context, like saying reopening certain things, but, you know, closing down other things and limited to 911 services. I think that sort of exacerbates the behavior that kind of got some large news in a position where right now, if you don't have parks and libraries and tennis courts and beach, that you don't have those things. So to say, you know, let's limit infrastructure investment or whatever it is during this crisis, but maintain this essential core service. I don't think that's the city that we are today. Maybe that's who we were in the past, but that's not the city we are today, the city of the future. So I would hope that, you know, we're going to take all you know, all of these things in the context, especially since our districts are just so diverse and so different. Every district has different needs and we're really, really diverse. And so we should embrace that diversity and make sure we make plans that are really respected, what the needs of all of our communities. And so I'm I'm I'm glad that we received filed this report. And. Okay. Thank you. I have Stacy's queued up next. But Roberto, I know, just seconded the motion. And Councilman Mangano, so you want to second it in your comments? Councilwoman with the mood. On the mood, yes. I moved in, seconded it in the text thread and the beginning. So happy to do it right. Councilwoman, got your next. Great. Thank you. A couple of quick things. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson, I appreciate the comments you made regarding watching yoga and all of those things and how little money it can take. It could actually take no money. There are so many current city assets, whether they are nonprofit partners or local businesses that are doing this. And they would love to be elevated on our platform through our social media that it wouldn't cost us anything to kind of get them and their name out there during this time to feature a fitness of the week or whatever. But I'm really cognizant that the staff of these departments really need to maintain working in the EOC and working on the contact tracing. To that end, I'll also say that there are lots of community members who would be happy to do the contact tracing as volunteers, so I'm not sure how we would facilitate that, but I'm open to exploring a few of them. I've started to text people that I thought could help us kind of navigate through, and if I get some answers back, maybe I can recue at the end. And we kind of talked about the 14 days since a death tracking context and that there's no secondary category. Ms.. COPLEY Are you able to tell me you mentioned that there was a death on May 4th. Was there a death on May 3rd as well? No. There was no reported deaths the day before, so there was one. My second was that we had one report. I don't have the dates in my head, but we reported one overnight and then we had two days prior to that with that one. Right. So if there's not more than one in 14 days, you wouldn't actually need I don't know what staff member said. We need 14 days from yesterday. That's not actually factually correct. We need 14 days from the second death, which if it was two days ago, that means we are 12 days away if we don't have another death. Is that accurate? I believe that is accurate. Okay. I just wanted to clarify, because I know people it is not 14 days without a death. It's a 14 day period with only one death. And I would strongly encourage our health officer and our EOC to potentially make a proposition to our state health officials or our plan to kind of be guided by community. So I guess I have another question around the deaths. If an individual is a Long Beach resident but is staying with a family member in Riverside. And taking care of them or what have you. And they pass. Whose numbers are they counted under? Encountered in the location in which they're living, in which they're the residents. And I think that that's huge right now. I have four people that live on my street that are currently staying at other locations, and I don't know what that percentage looks like, but I think it's really important that the death had the context where it was contracted or where is it suspected to have been contracted and where were they at the time? If there are Long Beach resident who passes away in Palm Springs or San Diego or Riverside, I think that that needs to kind of be added. And I know that you're not the one who makes these rules up, but I think that we as a city need to continue to advocate for that . The data needs to tie directly. When looking at your slides and I don't know which side number, I think it was maybe 23. It talked about the long term care facilities and the number of cases. And one of the things that it didn't differentiate here, but I think you've differentiated for us in the past is the number of patients that have it versus the number of staff that have it. And I think that that's also very different because the patients are homebound versus the staff who are circulating back out into the community. So just something to think about that. Yeah. Yep. And then in the slide related to the positive test case results, you'd mentioned the days delay in reporting. And while I appreciate that the Health Department has a 24 hour return on tests, we do use some testing sites and agency. There are test result dates. Did you explain what those are so that people can have a little bit more context to that slide? Yeah. So the so the health department turnaround is 24 hours. Our sites that are the drive thru sites at this time are approximately 48 to 72 hours in turnaround time. The Jordan Plus site is utilizing a private lab. So I believe the turnaround time might be a little bit longer there. The sites that are so our hospitals and medical providers and others are using some private labs. Some of those turnaround times might be five or six days. So it depends on on where it's coming through. So we might say that we learned today that we had 20 new, you know, 20 new positive results, but that could those 20 could be spread across five different days of when they were actually tested or when they were they their initial symptoms came came on. Okay. So that's really important, too. So when you showed the chart the last two days, it showed zero. But the health department only gives ten tests a day still. Or is that increased? Now, the health department right now is we're up to around 50 to 60 because of our long term care facilities. Another so we are doing much more testing at the health department specifically for the high risk individuals. So that just let everyone know that of the 1000 tests a day, only 50 to 60 are getting results within 24 hours. So when you look at that chart that shows in the last 48 hours, there's zero new cases. That's zero new cases of the 120 tests, not of the 2000 tests. And I think that that's also really important because I, I hear a lot of hope in people when they talk about our tests are coming back so negative and all of those things. And when I subtract the number of total cases versus the number recovered, the number of cases among which is low. And that is true. And. But I think that the context of when these reports are coming back is really, really important. I want to thank you and your staff for all the hard work you've been doing. It is just another reminder that everyone needs to take their census. We are 30,000 people who probably lived here and were undercounted away from being able to have a possible full cost recovery of this epidemic. And. And so if you have not taken your census, please take your census. If you're a member of the media and you're watching or listening today, please do an additional reminder to take the census. 30,000 people. That is a fraction of a council district. That makes a difference in in potentially $85 million that would have come to Long Beach, if that's the number I heard Tom mention a few days ago. I also think it's really important that the death rate you mentioned, Ms.. Be, is among those tested. And there are thousands of people in Long Beach and elsewhere that may have COVID or have COVID and have not been tested. They shelter in place and they decide not to go to a testing site. And so when you say that our our death rate is 1.2%, I think it's important to have an asterisk there that says 1.2% of those testers. We actually are still are we getting every single report from all the private testing that's going on back into our data yet? I know we were working on that. Are we are we there yet? We are. So the the the private labs are all reporting into cal ready. And those data come to us. And for quite a while we were not getting the negative reports. We're getting the positive reports and not the negative reports. We now have a better idea for how many people are actually being tested across all the different protocols. So we're currently so far, we've we find that we've tested, you know, over 13,000 people across the city. So and then the number of positives is that 790 number of that 13,000. And over what duration have we actually gotten the negative results back? Because the amount of time that we did not get the negative results back would have in fact skewed that data as well. Did we get the back data on negatives as well or was it on a go forward basis? You know, I'm not sure about that. I'll have to look. And if an L.A. County city resident goes to a Lakewood testing site or a Fort Carson testing site or any of those that's coming back to us in the in the data from the state. Yes. There's the positive. The data going to car ready. So anyone with a Long Beach address would come would be counted as a Long Beach resident. Perfect. And then. Let me just mark off some of the things I have here. So our numbers, even without the total number of cases being known because of not everyone wanting to get tested, are below the city of Los Angeles, below the county of Los Angeles, including our hospitalization rates. And so I would just encourage you the reason that this city chose to invest a considerable amount of money, arguably not enough over the past 15 years in having our own health department is so that in times like this, we can stand apart and use our data and make our own decisions. So thank you for the work that you've been doing. I feel like you've really stepped up to the occasion and we just need to now see that same leadership in moving forward with our protocols. I know that social distancing is the best word used across our country, but to kind of speak to what Councilman Price said about the mental health of our residents, we really need to talk about physical distancing and not really social distancing. We really need to bring people together socially through other means and technology. And so I appreciate that we're working hard on that. I also want to say that and to Councilman Price's point, we kind of talked about golf courses and beach paths and all of those things. And the barrier to getting all communities in the city access to those is really the fact that our parking lots are closed and that is a decision that the city has made and I am not in support of that. I have one of the largest parks in my district and I have the city's largest park and the gates have been closed. And that is not fair to residents across the city who use that service. We as a city have made the choice to close that parking lot. It's come for us to open it. I also think it's time for us to encourage those who do not act appropriately, physical distance, to be told they cannot participate in the park and to be asked to leave, and that there can be a methodology for which we similarly monitor the bike path. And I feel like in my communities the residents are really monitoring each other and I think that that's been very helpful. So. Mr. MODICA We talked a little bit about that. The city is the one in judgment of outdoor recreation and that a plan would be coming. But what what context can you give us? Are we talking about the Billie Jean King tennis courts over in central Long Beach? Are we talking about opening up our fields where kids could again run and play soccer as long as they don't touch the ball and they're playing with a smaller group of people where they're not getting close together, like, what are we talking about that can really get people out of the house? Because right now what I'm seeing is the parking lots of Long Beach Unified schools are asphalt and kids are playing soccer and other things far apart at their parents guidance and under supervision. But but that's not the play areas that we've really invested in and should be available to our residents. Yes. So thank you, Councilmember. So we are looking very acutely at this type of question of recreation. So that work is happening right now. And the governor has provided some guidance about the types of activities that cities can decide could be turned back on. But he's also asking us to make that decision based on kind of the data and the medical decisions. So that is a role that our doctor plays for us and helps guide us on those things. I don't want to get into a specific list, but the things you mentioned are all being reviewed. We are going to be looking at our park parking lots. When is the appropriate time to kind of to lift that? And again, we are hoping by the end of this week to have some some good answers for you on what recreation could look like in the city again. I think we are going to be cautious. I don't think you'll see the city staff propose that we just open everything all at once, that we do want to make sure that our residents are doing any activities that we do on a recreational basis safely. And as you mentioned, that they would need to be spread out and that if we do see resurgences where people are coming together, we're going to have to take action. So there is a long list of governor kind of approved recreation. I think anything related to balls that are being touched and shared, those are going to be a lot more difficult than sports or activities where people stand far apart from each other. And again, we've never closed our parks for walking and and being able to actively kind of pass through. That is something that we always kept open. But we did restrict the parking lots for a while to really encourage people to not drive because that was part of the governor's stay at home order. So I think those times have to have changed somewhat. Again, we are sitting down and really looking at the data this week and we hope to have some meaningful answers and changes at the end of the week. Well, I appreciate that. I guess I would only say that it would be great if we could open up a forum. And I know I've stayed in contact with a lot of the leagues that are in our district. Related to what? Social distancing, I'm sorry, physical distancing and other measures they can put in place to protect the youth to play. It's also important to look at the fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percentage of any youth that are contracting it. I don't know. I can trust the news media that's on television anymore because I hear conflicting things depending on which channel that I'm clicking through. There was some discussion about something that's in the the lungs of youth that really make them almost. Just so resilient against COVID that perhaps if you had baseball and they wore gloves and after each inning they threw them in the trash or whatever you have as an option. I don't know that. I think that the use providers really need to bring to us what that looks like, even if it's soccer and the rule changes that the kids can touch the ball with their hands any more. They can't throw the ball in, they can only kick it in, etc., etc. And the goalies wear gloves, which they already do. And those things are something that that our our youth are really missing out on. And to get what our neighbor calls, they do an evening walk every night where they say they're getting their crazies out because the kids are trapped in the house all day doing homework and schoolwork and they just need to get out and about. So the sooner that you open that, the better. I don't think I can encourage enough that we really need those facilities open. I know you've heard that from me at least three times a week since this has started. And if opening the parking lots is a component of our concern because of the distance. I appreciate that the the Fifth District has a lot of parks that people can walk to, but I just don't think that that's fair and equitable city wide. And perhaps we talk about coning off every other parking space to give people the space to get in and out of their cars and things like that. But and we just need to give people that access to our parks again. And I don't know what else I can say, but also within I talked a little about baseball. Within tennis, there are often people in the same household that want to play tennis together and they're already in the same household. And if those two people have the same ball, that wouldn't make that big of a difference. And so it wouldn't make any difference. It's the same situation. So just to keep those in consideration and then to again, if our numbers are great and our real hold back is the long term care facilities, then maybe we need to submit our own plan to the governor to be rejected or reviewed. We need to take a lead in moving forward and protecting the jobs of our neighbors. And people without jobs for a long time is another form of health crisis. People who can't pay their bills. That's another form of health crisis that's on its way. And we just need to work harder. And I really appreciate you discussing the restarting of the budget. As you know, many of my budget oversight committee meetings were canceled due to lack of staffing available from the city side to really support the reports that were necessary for us to move forward. The longer we wait, the tougher the decisions are going to be. And so we really need to get behind that and get behind it quickly. With regard to the governor's phase two, I look forward to as many businesses being open as possible. And for us really to tack down on the businesses that are not enforcing the social distancing, the physical distancing, I'm going to use physical distancing over and over again because I really feel like the social isolation of our our neighbors is just too high right now. But that physical distancing, then, then individually, let's let's take on those businesses. And then also, as we do open, I just want to add one context. We had a business in the district that was allowed to be open. It was an essential business. And they did have a rep, an employee that got COVID. And I think that those procedures that need to be in place when a member tests positive are really, really important. That particular business decided to close down and but every single staff member, regardless of if they were on that shift in their home for 14 days and then they went through and did some testing and evaluation of symptoms of all of their employees before they reopened. And they they kept the entire business closed for 14 days. They are a business that at multiple locations, they chose not to bring in people from another location. They really took it seriously. And I appreciate that. And I think that we need those kind of guidelines on a go forward basis to know and understand where we can go from here. So thank you again to my colleagues and all of the things that we've each contributed to listening to our community. And thank you to the mayor for the consistent reports. The only thing that I'll oh, I'll just say is once again an ending. We pay for our own health department because we have our own data and we are our own unique organization. So let's not be in a rush to follow the county or what they're doing. Let's stand on our own with our own data and our own circumstances and situations. Let's use the data and make good decisions. And in closing, I'm just thank you to all of the workers that have been working for weeks upon end while others are staying at home. And to all the moms and dads that are parenting right now and the teachers that are going into the community, I just can't say enough of how proud we are of everyone and how grateful we are to have you as neighbors and that everyone's really come together. So and thank you again and I look forward to the budget meetings so we can have some idea of a future. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. I'm going to turn this now over to Councilmember Pearce. Thank you, Mayor. I had some assumption that I would. Everybody else would have gotten before I came down. I want to first start by just thinking city staff, thinking you, mayor, for your leadership. Council member Richardson said it right. It's moments like this. I think you really shine. Making sure that Long Beach is a city of the future. Making sure that we have great representation regionally, even at the state level and at the federal level. So I really appreciate the time that you guys are taking, and I appreciate every staff that's out there working every day . You guys are the front line workers that so often we don't talk about. So we know about our grocery workers, our nurses, our firefighters, our police officers. But I know that our city staff is also key in that first responding. So I really wanted to just say how much we appreciate you. I know it's an easy times. I know there's been cities that have had to take drastic measures. And so being a city employee at this time can't be easy, but really appreciate that the approach that our new city manager has taken and really trying to reallocate staff to do things like the testing and the tracking. And I want to just say that in the beginning. I also wanted to say that Long Beach isn't like other cities. We're not Orange County. And Saturday I, I take food to some older adults in Costa mesa, and I took the coast this time and it was packed and nobody was wearing a mask. Probably 1%, if even that. And it was packed. And I looked at their numbers because I was curious, why would a population not be worried? Well, they don't have numbers like we have. Their density population is not like ours. They don't have an urban core. And so their numbers are going to be different. And so there are expectations of how they live. Every day is going to be different than we do in a city of nearly half a million people in the space that we have. And so I think it's really important, and I think that that can be taken, you know, to understand that Long Beach is very different. The Fifth District is very different from North Long Beach. But we are our whole system and really thinking about how we approach coming back online in a systematic way where we are all part of the same system. And that really brings me to the conversation that the Health Department had today. And so I know every week we ask for a lot of numbers. We ask for those numbers to come in differently. And I really appreciate the fact that we have been laid out in front of us today. I want to ask you to reiterate some of those, but I do have a couple questions and I have some thoughts I'd like to share. First, this question is really for our health department. I had spoken with our health department director previously this week and talked about our long term care facilities and a lot of requests for people asking us to shut those down. And I know you talked about it, but if you could elaborate about what the state's thoughts are on these long term care facilities and how we are trying to flatten the curve inside those facilities when they I've been in many of the ones in my district, I've been in the one that has the highest numbers many times , and I know that it's a very different space. And so I'm wondering if the state has any other thoughts on how we're going to address those facilities at the state level. If staff could elaborate. So right now we have state consultants that come in and are working with us and working specifically with some of the long term care facilities. And the key focus is really the UN is really the focus on the practices internally about how, how we're working with those facilities. Um, there are some folks who, and we've seen them in some other jurisdictions where they are moving some folks out and trying to create some space. But the people in our long term care facilities are incredibly frail. So, um, you know, we, we're sort of like that. We're not, as we look at the population that we're serving, we're not sure that that is the right step to take. And so what we're doing instead is creating the safe spaces internal to long term care facilities. So, you know, as I mentioned before, there are there are a set of rooms that are very specific to those who have been tested positive. There are set of rooms that are very specific to those who are who have been exposed but have not yet developed symptoms and then etc.. And for those who have not been exposed and those are very they're very discrete areas within the long term care facilities, the staff do not go back and forth. So if you are if you are working with those who are COVID positive, who have been exposed, um, then you are not going across to, you know, to any of the other rooms and really doing everything we can to tighten down any sort of other exposures. We are doing screenings as folks are coming in to make sure that, you know, that that the people are not coming in ill, they're not coming in with fever, fevers and other sort of things. And and then when we hear of of a case, we are testing as quickly as possible to be able to turn around. We also want to make sure that there is sufficient capacity for for PPE. One of the other things the state is looking at is the ability that long term care facilities have two weeks worth of PPE available to them were they to have to have a positive case or any sort of outbreak. So it's it's also working to make sure that they have all the things, just like our hospitals and other health care facilities to be able that they can be safe and respond as well. Great. Thank you and thanks for walking through the different spaces that have been designed inside those facilities. I know one of the things we talked about that I'll say publicly just I think as we talk about separating out, we've had a lot of conversations about isolating. And this is a population that that remains in the same building. And so how could the state help us have these people more self isolate without being in the same building? And I know that we have spaces and we've really tried to get some of these hotels to step up to allow us to have quarantine space. But even if it's taking the healthiest people out, I know that this population, though, is struggling the most with the underlying causes that are really respiratory and so many of the other causes that the CDC has talked about. And so I just wanted to say that for my constituents that are also concerned with these facilities, that we are working very closely with the state. And I think that you're having those conversations every day. So really appreciate trying to address that. I'm going to dove into I'm going to talk a little bit about this being a case study, and then I have some questions about the reopening, and I'll try to be as brief as I can. But, you know, these are this is a unique moment in time. So for a very long time, we've had conversations around people that haven't had access, people that live a different life, life expectancy differences. In my district there is in between a six and a seven year life expectancy difference from my constituents that live on Ocean Boulevard in downtown and those that live on 10th Street. And they are that life expectancy difference is what we talk about when we talk about equity. And so in the health department, our health department comes forward and shares with us a data that says that African-Americans and Pacific Islanders and people are older adults, are the ones that are most impacted and then says it is because they have the underlying conditions. The CDC has said that individuals with chronic medical conditions like heart disease, diabetes and lung disease, the same diseases listed as premature deaths by air pollution. So when the CDC is telling us that COVID is something that that happened, but that there are cases where we could have done better to stop the spread and it's not necessarily washing our hands. It has to do with what's in our air. And we know that what's in our air impacts those that live along the 710 that live along the four of five. These are areas where you can look to and see higher cases of asthma, higher cases of cancer, and that these are the very people that are dying at a higher rate are being impacted, a higher rate than the rest of our city. And so my my plea today with my council colleagues, our mayor and our city staff is that as we come back online, when we talk about public safety, we really challenge ourselves to say public safety is about making sure that we're saving a life. Public safety is making sure that people live as long as they can without negative impacts. And for me, that means that we have a health department, which it's great to hear council members support for our health department and making sure that that stays funded. But it also to me means that we have to rethink some of the things that we do, not only in this area have we tried to ask individuals to step up, but for the city to really be aggressive about our efforts around public safety and around climate change. And I know that's not something that a lot of us have been talking about, but I bring it up because the CDC, I've done a lot of research in the last couple of weeks. The CDC draws a direct correlation. Harvard just released a study that says that in Manhattan alone, just up until the beginning of April, 400 people died in addition to what would have because of the particulates in the air. And so I see that whenever we talk about coming back online or we talk about bikes, when we talk about parking spaces, reducing the number of parking spaces. I hope that we can be thoughtful about how we come back. And then as we were talking about where to spend our resources, you know, I had a great conversation this week and I won't name names someone in the city that talked about a joint purchase agreement that we have for 11 solar projects in the city. And what was great about that is we went into a purchase agreement and that the city now is locked into a 2% increase every year for our energy at those facilities as opposed to a six or 8%, which is what is projected. And so how can we really have a holistic, systematic look and say, these are some things that we can do differently as we come back online? It is a difficult task, but I think the team that Thomas put together, the fact that everybody is working across departments and departments, that they haven't worked together before. I have hope for that. I also want to say, I think that there's when we talk about public safety, my office was already starting to talk about reimagining public safety again with this idea around how do we extend life and how do we make sure that people have access to the resources that they really need? And so I appreciate that you guys have listed a long list of things to possibly be cut and that some of those are police academies and fire academies. I would like to have an understanding, and I'm sure you guys plan on doing this, but of how many officers we have, how many firefighters we have, how many people that are working with our homeless, do we have an understanding that if we cut some of those areas, does that mean that we're going to lose out on grants? So we know our health department historically has been funded by grants. I know our fire department has some grants that that they depend on. And so I'd like to understand that when whenever heard this item, when you guys come back to us is really making sure that we're not just taking a quick approach. I think Councilmember Richardson said it well, you know, we need to make sure that we're being holistic and thoughtful about where we cut and how that impacts those communities that have suffered the most over the long term. And really what's happening right now is when African-Americans, Pacific Islanders and our seniors are being more affected. It's not the districts that they live in that are paying for it. It's all of us. It is on all of our shoulders. So how do we make sure that we have a systematic approach that is thoughtful and forward thinking in that? So that's my soapbox. I'll get off my soapbox now. I'm not done, though. So on the reopening, I think it's important to talk about what it looks like cost May 15 and being mindful about how we communicate that. Tom We've had conversations about communication, and I expect that we'll see great things in that area. I have some concerns about what it will mean for some of the workers and the renters whenever they get offered their job back at 10 hours a week or 15 hours a week. What does that mean for them with their benefits? I mean, I've. People aren't getting a phone call back in two weeks. People still haven't received checks that have applied for unemployment. And so I want to have an understanding of that. I don't know if that means that we have a rep from EDV kind of share with us what that means so we can ensure that the safety net isn't pulled out from underneath people. I have a family member that that is a singer and she has been doing songs for churches over a video like this and she lives in Texas. So May one, they lifted the order and then the church said, Well, you have to come in and we're not going to pay you. Well, she has an underlying health condition. And so how are we going to make sure that when things reopen that we're not putting people back at risk? These are questions that I think have to be answered before we send off any reopening plan. Well, I love the idea of having a plan and understanding of what it means for each business. We have to really think through those impacts and what's going to happen three and four steps after we reopen. I also have questions around office buildings. I know in downtown we've really struggled to try to get at capacity. And if we're coming back and we're having people work from home more, I think there needs to be a good balance in that. And what I would advocate for from somebody whose my ex-husband transitioned to work at home several years ago, and it had an impact. It has an impact on people's mental health. It has an impact on how many hours they work. I know many of us are working longer hours because there's no break to get up and go get your kid or do something else. And you're constantly trying to to get everything done and then you get in a groove. So recommending that people go back to work, maybe in the office two days a week, and that that's how we social distance, but that people still have a community connection. I would look forward to seeing some of those conversations to be had. I love the idea and I'm sure we'll talk about later about outside spaces and dining. I think that's fantastic. And then I will. One question on finance. Let's make sure I get them all. The other question I would say is I've, as I've talked to others, is as we're talking about our budgeting, understanding that oil is something that is fluctuates, that it went -$40 a barrel, and now our our budget is dependent on that. How do we have a five and ten year plan that coincides with our climate adaptation action plan so that we are not reliant on those funds in the same way? And if we are that those funds are being used in a way to neutralize the impacts of those funds. And I think. Office buildings stay at home. Libraries. I love libraries. I'm anxious about how porous books are. It makes me anxious. I think that that's so I really guess I don't have many more questions. I really appreciate staff. I look forward to a lot of hard work that we have in front of us. I know it won't be easy, but I'm very, very proud of the entire team that's worked on this, from economic development to our health department , to everybody that goes out and does a little things every day. So thank you guys very much. Thank you, Councilmember. Thank you for your I think you raised a lot of great points. Appreciate that. Let me turn this over to 1/2. That the Q I think it's council members. COOPER Not 1/2. Council member, supra. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate the mayor's work and the presentation. I'm just going to cover some issues that haven't been covered and I'll be very specific and hopefully very brief. So the first item I'm going to go back to John Chrysler's presentation and it happened to be slide number 56. If you guys recall, it had the words steps residents can take and steps the city can take. And on the right hand side, it was under steps the city can take. And the largest word on that graph was testing. So I would like to look at that word from a business or through a business or economy lens right now, and that is for businesses reopening. I think we're going to have a real need for there to be a testing that's available for asymptomatic and non essential workers. So, for instance, if you want to reopen your restaurant or let's say a hair salon, you might want to get your crew tested. And so that would be critical that we step up and provide that to the non-essential workers and asymptomatic workers. And also the turnaround time, I think the last quote I got was 72 hours. So, you know, within California labor laws, this is not something the employer would do. Is it wrong? You would be on the clock to do this. So I think it's imperative that we do this efficiently and get the results back right away. The second point was on page 63 or slide 63, and I think Councilmember Pearce just touched on it and these are, you know, actions in response to financial budgetary situations. And I think we can all look at these the hiring freeze, you know, and. Reconsider summer activities and. Programs. But the one that was mentioned that I think I'd kind of take a hard line on was defer summer police and fire academies. I think that this would kind of be off limits for me. And I'll just speak to the fire academy that training centers in the fourth District. So if, in fact, we do this, this is the epitome of kicking the can down the road or planning to a future generation of council members. I think the impacts of this will be felt for a long time and it's very difficult to recover from and a missing academy. The other part that bothers me a great deal is these are first responders. This is a population that is susceptible to COVID 19. And heaven forbid if you ever had an outbreak within our first responders, you certainly wouldn't want, you know, reduced academies or reduced replacement forces overall. So those are just two drilling down, just kind of getting to particular isolated items. I noticed in the presentation they really weren't mentioned in detail before. I certainly have interest and everything else that was mentioned, but I just wanted to cover those two points for now. So that's what I have. Thank you. Thank you councilmember super now appreciate that and councilmember you know. A man. Well, the maps. You're on, you're on. Okay. I couldn't access a roundabout in person. You know, as we all were listening to the presentation and we all made our list of topics that we want to touch upon. And I want to thank all my colleagues ahead of me. I had to cross out a lot of my little asterix and point all the time. So I'm not going to take a very long time because only the questions that I had were asked and there was response to. But one thing that did come up very much at the high point and they circled it, underlined it in all that it is our health department. What a wonderful department we have in the city of Albany. And I remember a few years ago we were actually making some drastic cuts. Because we need to work. We need to balance the budget. I wasn't on the panel, obviously, but I was working for the health department at the time. And it was it was horrible that we were looking at having to make something drastic cuts the Iraqi it. What a valuable lesson we have now that we're doing this in this stage here. And so I of that when I first got elected and I said, you now we need to institutionalize our health department. They're 95% crap funded. So they rely a lot on outside sources to do their work. Epidemiology, which is what we're dealing with now, is huge. And I think our department has been basically almost, almost eliminated. We need to bring it back. So when it comes down to it, it's all about. Everything that we are talking about tonight, everything that we're considering for the future. Has to do with test. And the amount of testing that we do will determine where we will how we're going to roll out in stages one, two, three and four, because it's all determined, tested, and it is simply not enough of that going on right now. I asked the city manager the other day. About how we do the testing and the testing available for for everybody. And, of course, there's not at the present time, the testing that is only taking place is for essential employees. And workers and. Myself or my kids or anybody else who feels that they want to take a test, they will have they have to go either to a company facility or the city has opened up their testing to everybody, but not alone. So the questions that were asked earlier about, you know, getting getting the statistics in terms of testing results, whether you're here or Riverside or where else, whoever, does it really matter to me, what matters is we need to get through our testing, our testing capacity. That's the only way we're going to be able to determine whether we're operating to a stage one, two or three or four or three reopening. And that's what it relies on. And until we get a vaccine, that will make it possible for people to go in large settings like. All games and parts. Well, there are conventions and a lot of big events. I think that we're basically looking at a time bomb here without having enough tests around and determining what the extent of the damage is for communities with this virus. So those are the only two things that I have thought that will be covered pretty much. But I do believe that we need to applaud our healthy with the work that they've done. And it's going to be a very tough budget year. And I certainly hope that when we look at the budget for our health department that we institutionalize important parts of that department so that we are assured that they are thriving, that they have the tools and the equipment they need to do their jobs and keep us safe. And now get off that dinosaur. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember Let me go ahead and go to Councilwoman Zendejas. Thank you. I was trying to get on. Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to congratulate and thank Tom and city staff for this awesome presentation that you guys put together. I think that, you know, it's very important for us to share this information with all of our residents. I know that you've been wonderful in keeping as the council updated, you know, throughout every process of this of COVID 19. But it really it's really important to also include and share all of this information with our residents. And you've been doing such a great job at this. This presentation was able to answer a lot of questions that my constituents have been asking and stuff. So I'm. And if my constituents have been asking that, that means a lot of other people had the same kind of questions. I also want to give a huge congratulations to our health department. Like Councilmember Oranga said, our our health department has really stepped up for us right now in this crisis that nobody nobody imagined we could be in. But actually, you know, we're here and they have stepped up and, you know, they have done a remarkable job and are continuing to do a remarkable job. And the the only reason that we have a really phenomenal health department that's able to have the resources to actually help us through this is because of the great people that we have working in our health department. So starting with you, Kelly, thank you very much for that, for your leadership in this, for your strength through all of this. And you really, really have are taking this city to a new level in that respects and and making us so very proud of having our own health department here in Long Beach. I was also going to address the issues regarding the nursing homes, but thank you to Councilmember Pearce, who has already addressed those issues and has actually answered most of my questions from there. I also wanted to say a big thank you to Jake for the language access. I think that it's very important in a city like ours where we have so much uniqueness and so much diversity that we actually provide resources so that everyone who lives in our city can have access to what is going on and in the language that they feel most more comfortable in. So thank you. Thank you very much for that. I feel that we also need to continue looking at this issue through our equity lens because it is very important to know that. And I think we all already know this, you know, but I just want to say and again, that, you know, this really, really is going to impact and is having a greater impact on those with less resources at their disposal. And those are the ones that are being affected the most. So we need to continuously look at it and look at everything actually through an equity lens. So thank you for for doing that. And I also want to say that I am in total agreeance with Councilmember Super Na in regards to our fire department. I know that there's been a proposal, you know, consideration of making cuts here and there, and there are some that we are going to have to do, and there are a lot of them that will be hurting us. But I think that that right now we cannot afford to to do cuts to our fire, especially because we need new people. We need more people in this. And this outbreak has just showed us the importance of public safety and fire being fire being very essential, I think is very, very critical. We could look, if we want to make cuts, maybe we should look at other ways within the fire department that we can make cuts. But I think having our academy and having people come in and new people and come in into our fire department is going to be very important. I also want to give a huge congratulations to John and Sergio from our Economic Development Department for just being so open to the community and being so eager to restart Long Beach. But we. In Long Beach the right way. I myself am also very eager to get Long Beach reopened again. But I really, really want to make sure that we open it in the correct way so we can remain open and not have a relapse and not have to come to this again and have to repeat this because once in a lifetime, it's way too many times to do this. So thank you. Thank you, John, in the Economic Economics Department for helping us through this. I know we've been working really close on trying to see how we can help our small businesses, our businesses and everything reopen here in Long Beach. And it's it works so much better when we all work as a team. So, you know, I think I think that this is really good. So with that, I know that we've all been talking a lot. So I just want to make sure that, you know, I say thank you. And I've never been prouder to be a resident of Long Beach than I am today. And having all this all of us work together on that. So thank you very much for this. Thank you. Vice Mayor. The Andrews. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. You know, first of all, I want to thank Tom in the health department and most of the staff, because the things that we're reviewing tonight, I think each of us realize the situation that we're in. And I heard the mayor and I felt the same way about this as well. After this is over, you guys, we're going to reduce the influx of homelessness. We really don't get this right. And that's one thing I don't think we need to really go through a repeat of. We've got the fact that the crisis is bad enough, but our homeless is in that same situation. So I really hope that we really take a serious look at that. And I truly want to thank Eimear for that update every day because everyone is busy to listen on their reading. And I think that's a great job. Now what you're doing with that update every day with reports, right, without consequence, an uproar. I don't think we can afford to realistically talk about messing with the academy, especially on first responders, because these are the individuals, like I say, whether we have this crisis or not, they're going to be there and we tend not to talk about that in the last that we did the. But this cannot be one. We're going to need this more than anything. Not about individual talk and interview services. We need that academy more than anything now. I really hope in the current situation we really kind of take a hard look at overlooked situation and move on to something that I think we will be willing to tighten our belts, but not, you know, academy. And that's all I can say. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a couple of people that have queued up that have already gone. But I do have an Austin queued up that has not gone. So I'm going to take them and then go up to the folks that have already talked. Councilman Austin. Councilman Austin. Councilman Austin Rokita. Are you on mute? Hello. Okay. I'm going to move on and we'll come back to. I will come back to Councilman Austin, Councilwoman Mongo. Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to reach you to two things that were brought up by Council colleagues that I know that the data isn't out yet, but we're working on seeing and understanding more. I spoke with someone pretty high up in L.A. County testing the chain of command today, and they're spending over $1,000,000 a day on testing related to individuals who don't have symptoms. And as you might imagine. A majority of those tests are projected to come back that they don't have it. However, they could, in fact, have it a day or two later. And so. That's one of those. Challenges with the discussion. I'm very interested in our city pursuing the antibody testing. I know that there's different levels of antibody testing in terms of what medical directors feel is reliable, but I think that's really the direction that we need to go so that people can know that they've had it and therefore in the past, then they can kind of reengage. The other thing I do want to echo is we need to somehow project what our requirements are going to be, because if we get into a position where we don't run these academies and we don't have any people, I mean, we're going to be in a tough situation should another medical. Emergency come. Or a second wave. And so I want. To. Kind of repeat and give emphasis to the comments of my colleague, Councilmember Super. And I am comfortable that those academies are critical. I've looked at some of our fire agencies throughout the region that didn't do hiring for years and years, and they are now really hurting. And my concern is right now, after a pandemic where people are better understanding. The importance. Of and the ability and being one of these first responders, we might have individuals who lost their job but may consider a career change. And it might be a perfect time for them to enter the market. And if we don't seize the opportunity and running the academy at this time, we may miss that. They might go back to a different career line and then get back into it and not consider transitioning over 911 with a time where my husband with a college degree said, Now's the time I need to serve, and went to the Army recruiter's office and signed up. There are going to be individuals like that. That would be amazing. First responders, firefighters, police officers, nurses and for our city. And we need to be able to take those on. So we do need to look at ways to say, I'm the first to say let's not spend money we don't have. But I also am one who says. If you have a small hole in the roof, if you don't hatch it and spend that money to invest, you're going to be in a lot more of a world of hurt when that flood or that that rain comes in the water again. And now you have mold and all these other issues. So let's make sure that when we get these recommendations from the city manager, that we begin with the end in mind of what the residents need, not just today and tomorrow, but two years, four years, five years from now. And I know it's unusual that anyone wants to announce when they're going to be retiring, but perhaps there could be some kind of partnership with our unions to get some real good at retirement data from our first responders that we could use to do some better projections. And I would also say that I've worked with our finance office on some potential bring back retiree re hires for our reserve programs. And there's even some pension savings that could be had had we done it. How we do it. Right. Those numbers worked well when I worked on with John GROSS. But to make it a possibility, we really need to talk about a state legislative opportunity in the CalPERS system. And so I know I've been trying to connect with Kevin Jackson now for probably a week or two on what that looks like and if it's possible . But then we also need to connect with our state senators and our Assemblymember Patrick. O'Donnell and our. Other state senators and Assembly members to see if they can rally behind something that could really be a savior to our budget and to the number of first responders that we are able to retain on a go forward basis. Thank you. Thank you. I have Councilman Richardson cued up, but I had gone to Councilman Austin. Are you able to you there, Councilman? I don't know. It's looking like maybe he. Is he muted by the clerk on this call? Should it be? Not an option. Can you? We're not getting Councilman Austin. City clerk. Can you check in with the council member to see what's going on there? I'll go to Councilman Richardson. Councilman Richardson. You're on mute. Right. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Well, I just wanted to conclude, I thought I heard some common themes tonight from a number of the council members. One in particular was, you know, we certainly want to want to keep, you know, be mindful of the health data. But as soon as we want to sort of prioritize the recreational use, then I heard a number of council members mention that. And I want to make sure that, you know, I left that up. And, you know, when they hear that the city manager understand that received that some of that either is reflected within the motion or if need be, the motion, or I just want to say that very clearly, you know, some direction for the council would be to make sure that that recreational you heard of a number of people that recreational opportunities are sort of prioritized when the time comes. I think that's something we control. I think it's easy for us to track and it's a good test of sort of other things that we don't have direct control over. I heard a lot of concern about about public safety with a number of different definitions on that. And I think we're just going to have to be we're going to have to communicate with our employee groups and, you know, about about, you know, all of these different decisions. And I know that we know that we typically do that, but it's incredibly important. And no one wants to see, you know, our first responders, our firefighters and our police officers taking cuts in this moment, particularly when, you know, it's a health emergency. And our firefighters, for example, you know, a lot of them were infected right out the gate because they're our first responders. So to those who think that that lifted up that, I want to make sure we we sort of refocus on that. We have a good game plan as it relates to public safety and that we prioritize recreation first. Thanks. What? Okay. And then I'm going to go to counseling, right? Yes. Hello. Okay. We can hear you again. So, yeah, I think everything has been pretty much dead that I wanted to say. But I did want to just outline the fact that that did a great job with this presentation. And and the the city, I think, is handling this this this crisis in the best way we possibly can. Great leadership from our mayor, our city manager, our city coming together and responding in crisis in innovative ways. And so I congratulate everybody involved, including the council. Everybody is stepping up and doing what they need to do for our communities. Obviously, this is a health crisis. But listening to the the financial outlook for our city, this is also an economic calamity facing our city. And we are going to have to make some very tough, careful decisions moving forward. When it comes to our budget, a budget is going to be very difficult. There's going to be some impossible choices in front of us. I already hear my colleagues kind of drawing lines, and that's fine because we all have priorities that are important to us and we all have a vision for what a great city is supposed to be run like. The in my my estimation, based on what I've heard here today, I mean, it's very clear that there's this COVID 19 pandemic, and the effects of that has really set our budget and our local economy back probably ten years or more. Right. And so that's very, very important. I mean, I think we need to understand what that means. And yes, there will be cuts in the future in front of us. And I think we all need to absorb those those cuts as city council members as well into our own budget. The I think we have engaged residents to work with over the last week in terms of getting input from residents is something that I'm very proud of, proud to see the responses that came back. So, so much so that it seems that we did a good job of communicating that. And I think that should be almost standard operating procedures for when we have big issues in front of the city today. Our residents are more captive than they normally are more expensive and what's happening with local government. And so it's an opportunity for to to educate. And I think the decisions before us need to be data driven decisions when we talk about reopening. And there's a lot of good information in front of us that can help guide that. And I expect that. And we've heard that that those will be markers that will help make those decisions. But also what are lovely and and looking at creative options for continuing the service provide the service the level of services that we currently do in the city. I'll just tell you, my priority and the way I've always approached governing is that health and safety of our of our residents should be the priority. And that will be how I proceed forward with my decision making and keeping the safety as a priority for for for the residents of the city and everything that supports health and safety of our residents moving forward. You know, much has been said about the the value of having the health department. And I do recognize that value. And I do believe that we should be very proud of the fact that we have our standalone health department. But at the same time, with that, that comes great responsibility within our health department, an opportunity to I mean, because we think Councilmember Moore mentioned that we we can make decisions independent of L.A. County. We can make decisions independent of Los Angeles County. Orange County certainly is is taking another approach. And they are very close and will be concerned, you know, I guess regional partners in some respects. So I think we need to look at our data and make decisions based off of the data. Not not. And look, Ludlum have said and I don't know, Councilmember Longoria also mentioned recreation and youth sports. But let's keep in mind that, you know, we are now approaching the summer months. I mean, today the requirement is I think it was over 90 degrees. People are at home becoming more and more restless. I think it's very important that we at least establish some guidelines for for youth sports, and we don't have anybody on that. The task force representing most of those those organizations, I think it would be really good to do that as well because that is a major part of our way of life here in the city of Long Beach as well, just like arts and culture is, I would say youth sports is a very, very much important part of what keeps families going, but also keeps our kids motivated. And so we talk about recreational activities. Again, understanding the data, being as courses and careful as we possibly can, we need to make sure that our our young people are physically healthy and and inspired as well. And so and then lastly, I'll just make a point to say that when we put our stay at home orders into effect, I saw a remarkable response from our residents throughout the city when we when we said stay at home. I would say most people complied. I don't know. I would I would be I would say the. Vast majority of people comply when we ask people to practice dietary practices and use facial coverings when in public. When we go out, I would say most people in Long Beach are adhering to that. And so as we reopen in our our city, our local economy, in a phased in approach, I would say that we should trust our small businesses to do the right thing. We should trust the people in our city to do the right thing as well, because they've already showed that they understand the impacts and the importance of this. And so I think social distancing will obviously be a practice that will be with us for for some time, possibly facial coverings. And I think people are going to be a lot more cognizant of how they think they govern themselves with the right type of guidance and education from the city. So those are my comments. I appreciate every one else's comments. Obviously, we're in this together and we are going to this council is going to have to make some some tough decisions moving forward. But we have made tough decisions, you know, over the last eight years since I've been on the council and I can. Thank you, Councilmember. I think Councilman Sun has, I think, your cue to back up. Thank you, ma'am. First of all, I just wanted to agree with Councilmember Austin about our residents that they have been doing an enormous job of respecting the stay at home order. And I think that's why our numbers are the way we our numbers are. So thank you to all the residents of Long Beach who have been doing a great job in helping, preventing the spread. Another thing that I wanted to touch on that I forgot to mention earlier was. Site. Our response to two. Are our people experiencing homelessness? I'd like to hear more on that. I know that. I want to hear more about what we're doing right now and what we plan to do in the future. I understand that we are working with the state to help shelter people in in vacant hotels and and motel rooms. I'm happy that we have the Project Roomkey program extended to offer to our people experiencing homelessness. We still keep getting, though, a lot of calls into our office about people experiencing homelessness, and the constituents that are calling in to the office are more concerned for for them not be not knowing that there is options for them. Right. So that's one of the things that I know why I wanted to bring this up. From what I understand, the project Project Roomkey is for those individuals over 65 with underlying health conditions. I'd like to know if we have any plans to scale up this project to meet the needs of all our neighbors experiencing homelessness and other resources that may be available and other funding that may be available as well, including from FEMA. The thought of everyone in our city without a place to shelter in really concerns me. I'm. You know, it just makes me nervous to think that there's people out there that are not able to to get shelter, whether they are , you know, under 65 or, you know, in any circumstances. Because, as you know, there's also a lot of younger youth that are homeless in our city and that may not qualify for that. But that could also. Contribute to spreading COVID 19. So I'd like to see if maybe there might be a ways that the city could work with hotels to kind of bring together incentives that would help those hotel owners to help get some of these some of our neighbors experiencing homelessness off of the streets and into shelter where they can be protected. Councilmember. So there are a number of different steps that are being taken right now for all ages. People are experiencing homelessness. So excuse me. So Project Roomkey is very specific. So yeah, so Project Roomkey is very specific in that it is either for people who are COVID positive or quarantining for COVID. Or for people who do you know who have not been exposed or, you know, have not tested positive, but that those who are older adults and have underlying health health conditions. So those are the two spaces where FEMA has agreed to do the 75% match and we are utilizing our state dollars to draw down those resources. Now, in addition to that, we also have the the Silverado site. The Silverado site is a congregate site. And we are making sure that before people go in, we screen every day before they're placed at the site as well as every day. We do have nurses onsite and others, and so there is space at Silverado that if someone is ill, whether you know that they may not have, that may just be, you know, sick, but not COVID related, that there is a space for them to stay. And then if someone is tested positive, then we move them to the isolation site. So that allows for places to that allows for people to have a place to sleep that is safe. And we're following all the distancing practices. So normally at the Silverado, we would be able to put it, I believe, our original one. We're just looking at basics like emergency sheltering, the capacity there would be 196 beds because we are doing all the distancing protocols and all the other things that are required to have the right space and safety protocols. We have 70. So we are as we are looking at sort of some of the congregate options, doing everything we can to make sure that we are providing the safest options possible. But so the the project roomkey in terms of the ability to, you know, cost recovery and those sorts of things is very specific in who it covers. And then for all else, we do have capacity. So the Silverado right now is not operating at full capacity. We do have the capacity to bring on another facility when those are full. And then we are also the winter shelter is now a 24 hour shelter. So that is going and then the year round shelter will be opening. It is still scheduled to open in June, which to bring another 125 beds online. So we're doing you know, we have capacity to expand. We have been reaching out to many of our hotels and motels. And we have someone on our team in EOC who has dedicated her time to calling and following up and spending a lot of time engaging with hotels and motels who that, you know, may have interest. So we continue down that pathway to engage and we could look at, you know, other mechanisms for payment. But to date, the Project Roomkey and the FEMA reimbursement is is has been our strongest partner moving forward. But we do have those capacities to be able to congregate settings that that allow for the safe distancing and safe practices. Okay, great. Thank you, Kelly. Thank you. That that concludes our our our list. I'm going to just do some close some some closing thoughts and then we'll I will go ahead and take a vote on the motion. I just want to just uplift some of the items that were brought up and just kind of highlight them because they're really some of the key, I think, pieces of information that got listed today. Just as a summary, I want to thank the staff. I mean, the fact that the city of Long Beach has moved 1.5 million people, 31,000 of the N-95 masks. And we've gotten those to nonprofits, we've gotten those to hospitals, we've gotten those to our nursing care facilities is really amazing. I just want to thank our entire team. I saw this team move really early on this issue and there's a lot of foresight and I just want to thank them for doing that. The wrapping up, too, over 1000 tests a day. Again, I don't know if Meredith is on this call somewhere, but I also want to thank Meredith Reynolds, who's part of our team and is doing a lot of this work behind the scenes as well. And I want to thank her and Diana Tang from from my staff as well. Early on when we weren't getting those tests, we had to go out and get those tests ourselves. And I think that Diana and Meredith and a lot of other folks in the city system got aggressive and started calling companies and getting those test kits. And I just want to thank both of them. It was highlighted by a couple of council members that we are tracking below L.A. County, both on the positive cases as well as as deaths. And of course, every single one of those deaths matters. And it's obviously not just a number, it's families. It's a there's loved ones attached. But I do want to just note that the city is trending a little better than the county, and the county is doing as best they can as well. But we were the number to look at also noted that of our 38 fatalities, 30 have been from our long term care facilities. It's where a majority, I want to say 80% of our fatalities are, and which is why there's so much effort there going on right now. Want to uplift the fact that our hospitality I'm sorry, our hospitalization rate has remained generally flat for the last 25 days, 20 to 25 days. And that's a really good indicator. I believe the state's indicator is 14 days to be flattened. So I'm proud of that, that the team has done such a great job in the hospitals. On that rate and a couple of other keynotes we have right now, our hospitals are at 50% capacity. And so when you hear a lot about other US possible reaching capacity, we have created that room within the capacity. We've got 225 ventilators that are available for for use and we've created an additional 500 beds to add that to the capacity of our hospital bed system. And so what all of that tells us, I think, is that within this stage one that the governor laid out, the city is meeting that challenge. And this stage has, has and is being met. And we're doing a great job because of all the teamwork and our employees to meet it. And so that's the information in the data that we need to have as we now transition into stage two. And and I want to note just again, that from what I have heard tonight from Tom in the team and in other conversations, it's really over the course of the next couple of days that we're going to hear a lot more about what our local process is like, of course, driven by our health officer and our medical teams. But we are looking forward to those meaningful adjustments to outdoor recreation. I think you heard that a few times tonight, and we're really looking forward to having those announced and and on our way as we go into this weekend as because people are really ready to to enjoy our community and our outdoors in a way that is. And so I just want to reiterate what we've mentioned multiple times and many council members that there seems to be some consensus and the data really speaks to there being consensus around that being something that we are moving into. And then of course, we know that our safer at home order, a ghost goes up until May 15th and I'm looking forward to hearing from our team on their best recommendations in the days ahead. And so thank you all for that great report. There's a motion and a second. And please, if I can have the clerk do a roll call on the motion district one. District one. Yes, a district two. I. District three. I. District for. High. District five. Thai District six. District six. Hi. District seven. District seven. I do. District eight. I. District nine. I. Ocean carries. Okay. Thank you. That concludes the first item on the agenda. So an and an important one. So thank you all. Let's we're going to take a couple of items now. The next one's going to be item 27.

A bill for an ordinance correcting the legal description of a specifically described area, generally located at 1400 and 1436 South Irving Street in Mar Lee. Corrects the legal description for the property described in Ordinance No. 20170729, Series of 2017, located at 1400 and 1436 South Irving Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 2-6-18.

DenverCityCouncil_02262018_18-0117

I'm going to do a quick re recap. We have no resolutions. Got out under bills for introduction. Nothing is called out under bills for final consideration. Dr. Sussman has called out Council Bill 117, correcting the legal description of 1414 36 South Irving Street in Mali, underpinning no items have been caught out. Madam Secretary, can you please pull out 117 for Dr. Sussman? Oh. It's great for me to go. Thank you, Mr. President. The way the city's attorney's office has determined that this bill does not does require a public hearing, after all, with a four week notice. So I'll be offering a motion to postpone final consideration. Great. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill 117 on the floor? I move that council bill 18 dash 0117 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Sussman, we offer your motion to postpone. Or I move that final consideration of Council Bill 117 series of 18 with a public hearing be postponed to Tuesday, March 21st, 2018. All right. March 27. What? I said. March 27th, 2018. There you go. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Seeing no questions comes from members of council. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Sussan. Susan Black. Clerk Espinosa. Hi Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Herndon. Hi. Cashman. Lopez. Hi, New. Ortega Hi Mr. President. I police close voting announce US results. For vice. 12 eyes 117 has been postponed. Okay, this concludes all the items I need to be called out. All of the bills for introductions are published. We are now ready for the black votes on resolutions and bills in front of consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or bloc vote and will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Black, will you please put the resolutions for adoption of bills for final consideration of final passage on the floor? Yes, I will. I move that council resolution and council bills all series 18 014201460148. 0063006400650066006700680140012501410147011601360107. All be adopted and be placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right, Madam Secretary, do you concur? Yes, Mr. President. It has been moved and seconded. My secretary, Raquel Black. Clerk Espinosa Flynn Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman Lopez. I knew Ortega Susman. Mr. President. I Palacios. Voting announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills of inflation for finance, adoration and do pass. Seeing no other business before this body. We do stand adjourned.

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_11122019_19-1132

Thank you. We're going to go ahead and go to the the last item, which is this which is the ordinance. And we do have significant public comment on this. And so let me. I think we have over 20. And so I want to make sure that we first go back and start with Councilwoman Price and then we'll go from there. And then I want to make sure I'll so I'm going to I'm going to we're also going to reduce public public comment, obviously, because of the length. But Councilman. Price. Sure. And the reason I wanted to speak first is because there are a number of changes that I'm going to be requesting that be made and maybe that will eliminate the need for some of the public comment. But if not, that's fine, too. So first of all, I want to thank the city attorney for coming back to us with this ordinance so quickly. And I want to thank our health department for the great research that they did and the very informative, too, from Ford Memo that they produced for council members that is available to the public. If anyone is interested, you can reach out to our office. We brought this item as an urgency item on the supplemental agenda because we wanted to get the conversation started. And I'm glad that we're here now having this conversation. And of course, we all know that there's a lot of uncertainty out there right now in terms of what the public health epidemic is, what's causing it, and where we're headed as a country in regards to some of the regulations. I want to focus tonight's item really on vaping products in particular, because that that appears to be the area where there is significant uncertainty about what's leading to injuries and death cited in our own health department report, where CDC conclusions and statements explaining that flavorings in particular have been shown to cause serious lung injuries when inhaled. Additionally, there are serious concerns that chemical flavor flavorings, when heated, can be causing respiratory damage when inhaled. The goal of proposing this measure for me was literally to mitigate the amount of youth consumption that we see and potentially to save lives and prevent any additional lung injuries to residents of this city. Youth addiction, as we know, is a huge, huge concern as nicotine addiction in youth has been growing in recent years after decades of falling addiction numbers. A temporary ban works to make it harder for youth to get highly addictive products that are targeted to them with sweet candy flavors. A temporary ban also helps us gather more information on this health concern and monitor what the federal government and others are doing to research the current public health epidemic that we are seeing. Finally, a temporary ban is meant to be an accommodation to our local businesses. To say that we are looking to put a pause on this until federal legislation is more defined and we have finalized data on what this health emergency really is about. Many cities, in fact, almost all cities that have enacted a ban have enacted a permanent ban. But here in Long Beach, I want to be thoughtful and not reactionary. And I want to make sure that we have a temporary ban in place, but that we can continue to work with our health department and our businesses to figure out how we shape a policy moving forward that allows our businesses to stay in existence in a manner that is safe and protects the public from addiction and the harmful effects of vaping products. With that, the following changes are the changes that I'm requesting be implemented as part of the ordinance, which will have to come back for first reading because of these substantive changes. First, the intent of this ordinance is to ban flavored vapor products. Second, I'd like us to remove the tobacco products from the ban, including cigars, little cigars, chewing tobacco, hookah, tobacco, pipe, tobacco and snuff. I'd like us to exclude cigar lounges and hookah bars from the ban. I'd like to include language in the recitals to express that to the extent that this ordinance applies to minors, diversion and education are preferred alternatives to the imposition of criminal penalties. I'd like to expressly prohibit employees of a tobacco retailer from selling, offering for sale, or distributing any tobacco products containing a flavor. I'd like to increase the minimum civil penalty in a civil action from $250 to $500. And I'd like to request that the city attorney make the proposed changes and return the revised ordinance to the City Council for further consideration and a first reading. Sorry. Okay. Before I go behind the rail, I want to do a public comment because we have a significant amount of public speakers. Like the first caller, Mr. Larry Good. Hugh James Nino. Travis Anthony. Here. H. Sanjeev Kumar. Those are the first five. And we're going to do one minute public comment without objection from the council hearing on one minute. All right. Nice to see everybody again. Thanks for having me. Talk and hopefully we can continue this education. And we've done a really good job so far. I know a lot of you met with us, more or less. Everybody on this side. And we try to meet with you guys. And I know Councilmember Durango, we have a meeting on Thursday. A lot of new information came out on Friday and they said 29 out of 29 cases for the lung that they actually tested the lungs was vitamin E acetate. Nothing to do with our industry. Everything we sell is registered with the FDA. So if anything happens like this before they can pull it, we need to get a policy. If you can do this either. Locally or state that there's a punishment to a child or a 14 year old that has a vape. Right now, there is no punishment at all. Zero. So either them or their parents, someone should have some kind of a punishment. And I appreciate Councilmember Price meeting with us and talking with us and we can continue working together. And that takes a lot. Council. Jasmine. Jade, I work for 7-Eleven. I'm the market manager for stores between SEAL Beach and El Segundo. I support my local franchisees and small business owners, including 27 elevens in the Long Beach area. 7-Eleven is a responsible retailer and as a former market manager in the Bay Area and also dealing with Santa Cruz, I've seen where some of these bands have failed, and I appreciate that you guys are looking at it in terms of the focus on Vape because as a father of a daughter who was in high school when she started to vape, I see where that's coming from. A 7-Eleven, a responsible retailer, just want to really quickly highlight some of the things that we do that maybe you should ask all retailers to do. We have employee training for all age restricted products we make available to our franchisees. We have a limited and restricted tobacco space. We have ID scanning on every single day product. You cannot buy vape without an ID in a 7-Eleven without the associate scanning it, and we actually participate in third party voluntary mystery shops. If everyone did this, maybe the product would be out of kid's hands. Thank you. Hello. My name is Anti-Venom. Me? I live here. I'm a 7-Eleven franchisee in the city of Long Beach. You know. Thank you, Councilman, for, you know, bringing up the whole issues. I just want to clarify one thing, which you probably when you said having, um. The changes you're making, are we changing the rules on cigarets to those menthol cigarets. Because that should be included in there, you know, be examined because they have been there for 100 years and. When you mention that, I think you overlook, you know, mentioning those that because we should be focusing on developing, we don't want the kids to be, you know. Doing that. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Next up, Stacy Brock. He meets Jaime Rojas, Shane Patel, Madeline Baron and Emily Baron. Hi. Good. Good evening. I have been in business here for almost 20 years. I'm proud to be in Long Beach. I have generated a lot of tax dollars for Long Beach and I've created a lot of cities, a lot of jobs for the citizens in Long Beach. Most of all, I built a rapport with my customers, the residents of Long Beach and many travelers that came through Long Beach each year. I have many customers that live in Long Beach for most of their lives and have been smoking flavored cigars and cigarets. They came to my shop out of convenience and they loved to shop the local stores and support our local businesses. I've always complied with the laws ensuring that the products are not sold to minors. I understand that Long Beach is also in 100 compliant year to date for not selling to minors also. Now you're asking your citizens to go to an unfamiliar city, give them their tax dollars, and then come back home to Long Beach and be able to smoke in front of my shop. I'm not sure how that benefits Long Beach. I'm asking you not to them asking you not to be on the sales of traditional flavored cigars and cigarets, such as menthol, wintergreen and chewing tobacco. Thank you. Good evening, council members. My name is Hamish Robertson. With the National Association of Tobacco Outlets. We represent tobacco retailers who are past the quarter century. As well here in the city of Long Beach. Councilman Price, I commend you for adding those changes. We also want to include. In there menthol men and Wintergreen Cigarets, which have been around for over a hundred years. I stated earlier. We also want to ask in. The process, this is the first major city that has not included a workshop with. Retailers to get their input in the process. So we want to include that as well. We're in full. Support of what the councilwoman has mentioned and adding them in making those changes. And we hope to keep focus. On what the issue is. It's THC, illegal, THC and illegal bootleg vaping. The FDA in the past. Three years here in the city of Long Beach have shown that code enforcement. 97% success rate of retailers in the city of Long Beach. The issue has, according to the state, the FDA and local is not the retailers but online sales and adult and parents who buy and purchase for their kids. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have Madeleine Baron? Chin Patel. Emily Baron. Brian Lee. Eva carbonara carbonara. Victor Sandoval. Thank you. Okay. Good evening. I would first like to commend everyone here that is involved with this proposal and personally thank you for showing interest in the subject and showing dedication in the use of language. I work with languages, youth leaders for tobacco control, a group of high schoolers who are invested and dedicated in tobacco education and restrictions surrounding the rise of vaping products among youth. Personally, this subject is very important to me, as it not only affects my life directly, but also the lives of my peers. I may not know all the statistics surrounding tobacco and vaping among youth, but I do know that I should not have to avoid my school's restrooms and fear of inhaling e-cigarette aerosols. I should not be able to purchase jewels or other flavored nicotine products as a minor, whether that be through schools or tobacco retailers. I should not have to watch my friends and peers grow dependent on toxic chemicals in my school because of the horrible withdrawal symptoms. Thank you. And please state your name. Good evening, city council members. My name is Brian Lee and I'm the advocacy manager at the American Lung Association of California. I'm also a resident of Long Beach District one. Our mission is to save lives by improving lung health and preventing lung disease. And our organization supports strong local regulations that protect the public from harmful effects of tobacco and secondhand smoke as well. There are two different e-cigarette crises occurring right now. The first is the ongoing high prevalence of youth use of e-cigarettes. The second is the outbreak of pulmonary illnesses. I also want to mention what the recommendations and changes. We want to permanently restrict the sale of tobacco without any exemptions. This we urge that this does not exempt hookah cigar lounges or menthol products. And we want to also clarify that there should be that the penalties are restricted only to retail sellers, not minors. Thank you for your time. It's tough work. Salutations. My name is Victor Sandoval, live in District nine and I go to Jordan Davis star Jordan High School. And I would just like to explicate my position. I want to talk about how what happens. When students smoke from vaping products. What happens is it at the brain stops developing at 25? Thus when they take these supplements into their body, when into happening, is that their their focus, their learning and their recollection faculties are impeded thus to generating. Thirst, perpetuating it to generate behavior that will destroy them. I prefer this baby pass for them. Thank you. In the midst of the long. Mohammed Abdullah, Ahmed, Ishmael and Cantrell and Primo Castro. Very. All right. Moving on. Dr. Gina. Okay. Johnny. William. Aldinga and Amanda Staples. That those will be our final speakers. Good evening. As a doctor of public health, I rely on the. CDC. And they have said that vaping is hazardous. I want you to imagine that the CDC determined that a toy being sold in Long Beach is a choking hazard for babies. Do you side with the store owners who want to sell the toy or do you protect the babies? The answer's easy. We side with consumer safety over profits. We don't wait for babies to die. We don't claim that something else is causing the choking. This is the same situation with vaping products. The CDC has determined that they pose a risk of acute and potentially potentially chronic lung injury. Let's get them off the shelves. Just like that potentially hazardous toy. It's simple to see the motivation of this vape shop owners and seeking a carve out of this ban for flavored products. They want to protect their own right to sell a hazardous product while restricting the sale by others. Thank you so much. Evening, members of the City Council. My name is Primo Castro with the American Cancer. Society Cancer Action Network. Looking forward, Councilmember. Thank you very much for your amendments. Looking forward to, you know, to see and read the new revised. Edition of the ordinance. Thank you. Good evening. William Baldinger Coalition for Smoke Free Long Beach. I know there's been a lot of speakers I haven't been able to come. That's because we brought many high school students, those who are directly affected by them, by this ordinance, who need to be heard. So I applaud that. You have listened to the vape shop industry. Now I'd like you to talk to high school principals and pediatric pulmonologists and the people who see the effects of this epidemic on a daily basis. Those are the people who are affected by this this ordinance and who need to also be heard. Some arguments that we've heard in the past is that vaping is a way to end tobacco addiction. Vaping is tobacco addiction and that buyers will go elsewhere for their product. That's great. Let them go elsewhere. The incidence of. Of of vaping among high school students. Will go down as we push these products out of Long Beach, which is the only way we can protect our youth. Thank you, sir. Good evening, Amanda Staples with the American Heart Association. We are encouraged by this council's leadership, especially on this urgent and public health crisis regarding our youth tobacco epidemic. We're excited about some of the changes that the council has proposed, specifically around penalties that could be interpreted penalizing youth, specifically youth of color. I wanted to share that. We just hosted the Long Beach Stroke and Heart Walk just last month at El Dorado Regional Park. We had almost 4000 walkers. An overwhelmingly majority wanted to see a flavored tobacco ordinance here in Long Beach. A comprehensive ordinance that address all flavors and all tobacco products. And these are for Mercer. These are survivors. These are folks that prioritize health here in Long Beach, in their city. And so I just want to encourage you all that you do have a strong support here in Long Beach that wants to prioritize public health and address this youth tobacco epidemic. Thank you. It's a man staples here that wasn't made of Staples. Councilman Price. And I want to thank all the speakers that came out just just as a reminder. I brought this item as an urgency item to get the discussion going. And we have been listening to everyone. I've met with anyone who's reached out. I will continue to meet with everyone. The goal of this item was to act immediately to stop any additional incentive or access for. Youth. To vaping products. There are a number of issues associated with this topic and last time we had a discussion on this topic, it started to go in many different directions. I want to make sure that the purpose of this agenda item and why it was a supplemental item is clear. And that is as a result of the increase in incidents that we have seen related specifically to flavored vaping products and the mechanism of vaping. We brought this item to put forth as quickly as possible a temporary ban on the sale of those products in the city of Long Beach. As it's written, it will last for one year. Retailers will have 180 days to remove the items from the shelves. Just like many other cities have done, that seems to be the standard. They should not be buying additional product because they'll have 180 days to get rid of the product that they have. But this specific item is not about all tobacco products. It's about vaping products. We can have a discussion about all tobacco products. On another item, I'm happy to have that discussion and probably support it. This item, though, is an urgency item related to vape products specifically. There are a lot of uncertainties regarding the vape products and what which of the flavors or what aspect of the mixes is or the mechanism is causing the pulmonary injuries. There is actively research taking place and studies that are taking place that hopefully over the course of the next year will reveal to us whether it's the vaping mechanism as a whole, whether it's the additives to the flavors, whether it's the specific flavors, what it is that's causing the pulmonary injuries. And we'll have that period of time to be able to put forth a policy that will be inclusive of all of those factors. At this juncture, however, I think it's important for the city to act and to act. Quickly to put. Forth a ban that limits flavored vaping products. I do want to ask our health department director one question because it keeps coming up. Flavored cigarets. Cigaret flavors are have were banned I think in 2009. Is that. Correct? As flavored cigarets were banned. Menthol is still there and the original motion was to include menthol tobacco as it is a way that youth are engaging in tobacco and nicotine addiction. Okay. So and I know that that was an item that was an amendment that Councilman Austin made when we were last here. And it was in regards to menthol tobacco products. So I don't know if we want to include that in this and expand it beyond just the vaping products. But I think. What I'd like to do is limit this ban to vaping products at this time and give us some opportunity to evaluate. But I'm open to hearing the discussion of my colleagues and, you know, to the comments that were made in regards to, you know, listening to the vape shops. We're listening to everyone. And yes, we're going to take a measured approach as a city, but we're going to have an immediate ban once this council votes on it. And we'll have some time to study what the what the permanent ban is going to look like. And I think that's fair. And I think that's prudent. And I think it accomplishes the mission, which is to mitigate access of youth to these products. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I was happy to second this motion. Obviously, the health of our youth and discouraging them from picking up on that habits is really, I think, laudable. And I want to appreciate our councilmember, Susie Price, for for her leadership and her vigilance on this particular issue. I want to, I guess, ask the city attorney, how did we get flavored tobacco in the the original intent of what we put forth two weeks ago when we brought this matter forward, since it was sounds like the intent was specifically to vape items and we we somehow ended up with flavored tobacco. Can you can you help us recollect? Yes, Councilmember, when this item was brought last week, there were, as I recall, two friendlies, one by Councilmember Richardson, that added tobacco flavored products. And then your motion to make sure that that also included menthol tobacco cigarets so that they were both accepted as friendlies to the original motion of vape products. And with that, it greatly expanded to include all of those tobacco products. That maybe wasn't the intent of the council last week. I hear that. But also, with all due respect, they were accepted as friendlies two weeks ago. Are they not friendly now? What I want to do is limit it to vaping products. I specifically want to exclude hookah lounges and cigar lounges at this point. Well, while we're doing the temporary ban. I'm going to going to hold to two menthol cigarets. Again, I think it is a challenge. It's also you've heard from our health department director. Is is. I a Andre and you know, it entices you to get involved in smoking. And so I want to hold that. If somebody wants to amend emotion to to do something else, then the council is free to do that. No, I'm okay accepting that as a friendly. That currently as as I understand the amended motion direction menthol cigarets are included included not exclude. So we would need a motion to tell us or direct me to exclude it right now. No, no. We want to keep it as as. And so I encourage you support the counsel. The motion in a second as presented. Let me go to Councilwoman Mongo. So I just I missed a smidge of the conversation when I was trying to prepare and pumping in the back, but just. Is there any? So in my understanding there are other kinds of non flavored vape that are currently sold with THC that are not flavored, that are not covered in this ban. THC and cannabis are not included in this current direction to prepare this ordinance. That is correct. If our health director could tell me in the press releases that I read, those were specifically noted as potentially causing. The pulmonary issues, the lung issues. The data around the vaping disease indicates that much of it comes from cannabis. There's also a percentage that come from nicotine. Yes. And so I guess is there. Do we not think that the THC ones are getting in the hands of youth or. Why are we limiting it or is that open to an addition? Certainly open to discussion. That's not something I've done any my I myself have not done any outreach on it. My goal was to ban flavored vapes, which is the national trend that's going on to address youth use. But I will say that the CDC recently stated that although THC was connected with some of those deaths, they still do not know whether it's the mechanism, the heating source, the extracts, what it is that's causing it. So I'm not comfortable going down. Of broadening this particular statute. Proposed statute, as it's worded, until we've done additional research and gotten more data on that, that's just not an area that I mean, if someone here has some data that the definitive data that they want to share and make up amended motion, that's fine. But that's not part of my motion right now. So I don't hear support from the whole council on this. But I will say that in what I've read, what's been provided to me and when I lived in Europe. Back. More than ten years ago, vaping was around and flavored vaping was around and there weren't these injuries. And a lot of the things that I've read have not stated that flavored vape is the issue, but it's more the jewel and all these other things. And I don't know that we're targeting those devices as well as I would hope we would. Because when I go to a gas station to get gas and I see these products there. That scares me. I also had a. It's actually a Lakewood resident who was at a Long Beach location discussing with me that they because of the discussion we had here at the dais and how dangerous vaping is and how they're currently a smoker. They picked up an e-cigarette. And so I said, Well, there's a whole nother set of criteria and concerns related with e-cigarettes and. Especially an unregulated non FDA approved. All of these other things and so I have a serious concern about. The ban, as it says today, because of what I have read, it doesn't sound like the council has the desire to limit. All vape. Products except for those that are sold in vape specific stores, which and again the vape store in my district when they came into the district, I was nervous. I thought they were too close to a high school. I had all of these concerns, but they've never created an environment for our teens where they were welcome. They've never invited them into the store. We've not had any impact of that. So my research is different, but I'm hesitant to make an amendment at this time because it doesn't sound like the council was supportive of that last time. And so. I'll just again state my opinion and hope for a day when a bigger picture is available. Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. I want to applaud Councilmember Price for kind of focusing in on the areas that she originally intended. I support keeping menthol in there and not to make it more complicated, but as a 12 year old, I recall clove cigarets were the thing. Are those things legal still? Clove cigarets. Would you be opposed to including clove cigarets? I know it. Just as I remember all of us. 12 and 14 year old smoking cloves before we smoked cigarets. They were called betis days. So hip. I wasn't that hip. I'm not opposed to that. I just I defer to the city attorney whether. If the direction is to ban clove cigarets, we could add that language. I'm I'm not familiar with clove cigarets. So we're quite just talking to the health department about it. They are definitely a flavor. Very intense flavor. If Councilmember Price's okay with that. Sure. Thank you. And I don't mean to piecemeal this. I think that we I applaud doing this in an urgency way. I think I would still like to down the road hear a full presentation from the health department. The cannabis industry has not been included, I think, in these discussions, and I do know that I've seen some of the numbers around THC and vape products, but I don't feel the urgency to do that today. So I support the item as is and hope that we can have a full council presentation from the Health Department and possibly include cannabis industry in that conversation when that time is here. So. Thank you. Mr. City. Attorney, do you have anything else to add? No, the. Just to clarify, it's the motion made by councilmember price adding clove cigarets. And this will include the ban of menthol cigarets. That sounds good. And then if I could, just one more question. I know we touched upon it. The health department did do a really thorough tff on this. I wonder I don't know if they're prepared to do a report on it. Are you okay if the health department's if you could do a brief report? I think that would be fantastic, because I think it's much of the items that were listed in the health department report are actually incomplete contradiction to some of the statements that were made by some of my colleagues in regards to flavored products. So I want to make sure that we talk about that so that at any time, any council member who wants to bring an item back to add THC, we could start they could certainly do that. But I think it's important for the health department to report back on what you found regarding flavored vape products, not including THC , just flavored products. No, we didn't have a presentation yet. There is a motion in a second. And a request for a. Presentation. And the presentation request. Yeah, I'm ready. I can. We can speak to the to the items. So. So first. Of all, e-cigarettes and other vape devices provide nicotine levels. Ranging from zero mg to over 50 milligrams per milliliter in a cartridge or a pod standard CIGARETS average 8 to 10 milligrams of nicotine and the strength is reduced when burned. So many of the bait products offer much higher levels of nicotine than you would find in a regular cigaret. According to the Centers for Disease Control, e-cigarettes are considered highly. Efficient, efficient. Delivery systems for. Nicotine and for. Cannabis. Pod methods, which are utilized by Joule and other companies, utilize nicotine salts that offer a much higher level of. Nicotine. To be consumed. These high. Levels are leading to increased levels of. Dependency. More frequent use. And addiction among youth and adults. Ages 18 to 24. There's a lot of focus on youth under the age of 21, 18, up to. Age 30 really are the areas where you're seeing. Really increased youth and Nationwide's e-cigarette utilization has increased nearly 20 fold in less than ten years, and currently 29% of youth are utilizing e-cigarettes. Both the FDA and U.S. Surgeon General have declared youth e-cigarettes as an epidemic. Flavored tobacco products are driving the current. The current youth vaping epidemic. Over 70% of vapers are using the flavored e-cigarettes. Flavors match the. Taste of tobacco in both vape and all to end all flavored tobacco. Products and make it easier for new users. To initiate tobacco use. As of. 2017, there are more than 15,500 different e-cigarette flavors available online, including cotton candy, gummy bears. Juice boxes and many others. Flavors that appeal. To youth. And there actually federal law prohibits conventional cigarets. The 2016 Surgeon General's report on e-cigarettes concluded that flavors are among the most commonly cited reasons. That using e-cigarettes among youth and young adults, the draw is very concerning. As a levels of nicotine damage have damaging effects on the developing brain. Brain development continues until at least the age of 25 or older. Nicotine changes, brain cell activity and parts of the brain responsible for attention, learning memory and can interfere with emotion and impulse control. The younger a. Person is when they start using nicotine, the more likely they are to become addicted. And the more difficult it is for them to quit. Flavorings in e-cigarettes can pose your health risk for adults as well. E-cigarettes expose the lung to a variety. Of chemicals over 40. And at least. Ten of these around the California's Proposition 65 list of. Carcinogens and. Reproductive toxin toxins. While much is still unknown about the long term health effects of e-cigarette, aerosol studies show short term use of e-cigarettes increases. Respiratory resistance. Impairs, impairs, lend function. And daily use that. Have double the risk of heart attack. E-cigarettes are not regulated by the FDA. None of them are regulated by the FDA and they are not subject to any manufacturing standards. There's a lot of variability in the types of products and mislabeling. In 2018, studies found that 91% of e-liquids marketed as. Nicotine free contain various levels of nicotine. Overall, nicotine levels in e-cigarettes are highly variable and with many of them exceeding the levels of combustible cigarets. Many see vaping as a smoking cessation tool. However, what we're finding is. That they don't reduce nicotine consumption. And in fact, 80% of those who utilize e-cigarette. Devices as the cessation techniques continue to. Utilize e-cigarettes. For continued nicotine addiction. No e-cigarette product. Has been FDA approved for smoking cessation, though there are a number of others FDA approved on the market. Currently there are licensed. There are 13 licensed vape. Only shops in Long Beach and 490 outlets licensed to sell tobacco and other nicotine products. This includes duals and other things that we're talking about here that fit within this ban. The Environmental Health Division currently administers the retail the tobacco retail enforcement program. Which would which would fall under this work would fall under the program. The Health Department's tobacco education program is leading vape education across the city, partnering closely with the school district to provide information to principals, school nurses, parents and student groups and conducting community presentations. In addition, it. Facilitates a seven week long summer program for. Youth. 23 graduated. You heard from one or two. Of them tonight and they are developing messages to work in them in their communities. As of October 9th. There were 44 local flavor bans ordinances in California. In terms of the in terms of cannabis, the baby has essentially found that we've had three cases here. Nearly 80% of those. Cases were under the age of 35. The median age is 24. What they're really finding is a highly suspected link to the most pressing. Concerns include cannabis. Include the attractiveness of the use and method for young people. So basically the vaping of cannabis is highly attractive to young people. The same study found that 22 in 2016 found that participants top reason for vaping cannabis was convenience, and to screen it. For use in public places or for young people to screen is for use in homes. And in schools. So they've done a lot of different research. They don't know what it is that is causing. The Vitamin. E is one of those aspects, but it has. Not been clarified. Both for the vaping disease, but also the long term understanding. And research behind what we find. Being sold in any shop in vaping also has not been determined to understand the long term impacts. With that I open for for comment. Thank you very much for that report. If I can just make a clarification of an amendment. So Clove Cigarets were actually banned in 2009, but the new version of of that trend is the cigarillos or the little cigaret, little cigars or cigarillos sig a r i elo. So I'd like to include those in addition to the menthol cigarets as the bans. Received quite the education this evening myself. Okay. So, Harry, no further comment. Are we clear, Mr. City Attorney, on the ordinance and the amendments? Yes, we are. See no other comments from the Council. Let's take a vote.

Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the appointment and terms of compensation for the City Clerk. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08112015_15-0768

Thank you. With that, we're going to go ahead and begin with the first item we're going to be taking up tonight, which is the appointment of our new city clerk. If I can have the clerk, please read item. I believe it's 23 items. Item 3131 I'm sorry about that. Yes. 31. Please report from Human Resources recommendation to adopt a resolution approving the appointment and terms of compensation for the city clerk said. Okay. There's been a a motion. Can I get a second? Okay, there's a motion, a second. And we'll have an opportunity for, ah, the City Hall Department to come and say a few words after the vote. But is there any public comment on the motion in front of us? Casey. Nonmembers, please go and cast your votes. Motion carries nine zero. Great. Well, first of all, everyone just give a round of applause and welcome. I want to welcome our new city clerk, Maria de la Luce Garcia. No relation, by the way. Please come forward and I'm going to say a few opening comments and then turn this over to a few of the council members. And then finally we'll end with with our new clerk. Begin by saying that, as most people know, we've had an incredible city clerk in the city of Long Beach. For many, many years, those that new Leroy Herrera Cabrera have been impressed with his leadership. But most importantly, he also left behind an incredible staff of skilled that love Long Beach. And we're very proud and honored to have that entire team as part of our city family in conducting our search. I think the council was looking for a lot of qualities in our new clerk and in Maria Garcia, we certainly found those . And so our new clerk comes to us with a lot of experience from the city of Los Angeles working in the elections office there. And before that did a lot of work with voter engagement for a national elected official organization, as well as was very involved in election reform, engagement in the city of Los Angeles, as well as she is a masters master's degree student currently at USC. So right on and did her undergrad at Vassar, I believe, and came with a lot of really great recommendations. And so we want to welcome you to the Long Beach family. In many ways, she is part of the family cause she's a Long Beach resident and has been, I know, for some time. And so we want to we want to thank you for your new commitment to Long Beach. We'll be seeing you here week after week and day after day in the interactions that you have with our office and and the offices of the council members. And it's not often that you get to select a new city clerk for your city. It's a rare occasion. Usually they they're around for a while because they love the job and we love having them. But it is a special moment, I know, for you and for your family and certainly is for the city of Long Beach. And so, Clark Garcia, we want to we want to welcome you officially to the city of Long Beach and elect like to have the council say a few words and then if you wouldn't mind saying a few words as well. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. I am particularly proud that we at the Council came to the decision to hire you. There are very few positions in the city that the council has direct control over and we took this process very seriously, and you and your family should be very proud of what you've accomplished to date. And we expect many, many more things from you. I know that I'm first at reading your resume. I was very impressed. And as we got to meet you along the way and throughout the process, you just continued to dazzle us. And I know that what was most important to me is how, through getting to know you and your resume and your cover letter and all the interviews you went through, I believe that you believe in transparency and fairness and encouraging every single person to exercise their right to vote. And I know that through the engagement processes that you've already been a part of across the country, bringing that to Long Beach, we have a very bright future ahead. So from the very active voters of the fifth District, we welcome you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. I, too, want to welcome you. The the pool of applicants that we reviewed and those we interviewed were all extremely qualified. Every single one of them would have made an amazing clerk. And we believe that of you. We believe that you're going to do a great job and that you fit with our city. And you're a resident of our city, I believe. Are you in the third? I'm in the seventh. Okay. By the seventh, yeah. Councilman Super. And I just asked me if I want to change my vote. Well, we welcome you, and I look forward to working with you for many years. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman. Congratulations, Madam Clerk. It's very exciting. I know just speaking with you during your interview was very impressed. And I look forward to working with you as the chair of the Elections Oversight Committee. It's exciting to be able to talk about how to engage our voters and our residents a little bit more. So thank you very much and congratulations. Thank you. Councilman Turanga. I knew you were in a sense when I read your address. I just. One simple word. Bienvenido. Looking forward to working with you. Good. Councilmember Richardson. I think the council all said it best. Welcome to the Long Beach family. I think voter engagement is certainly an art as much as it is a science, and I think you have a knack for it. And so we're really excited to see that see you of our our team in helping us lead and lead our effort to engage more engage more people in government. So thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, want to extend my congratulations and welcome to our city family. Your joining this family at a time when the entire council is interested in innovation. You are coming to a city that's put a new innovation team together. And every effort you make to engage voters in as. Interesting away as possible, unsuspecting way as possible is something that we're all looking forward to. Thank you. Thank you. And I have Council Member Andrews. Yes, thank you. First of all, I'd like to congratulate you. And I hope you can work for your colleagues, like, you know, our former, you know, city character. But the biggest part about you will be seeing me more often. You will see the other individuals, because I like to come down and just surprise people and see what they know, who I am. Thank you. Council embarrassed them. Thank you very much and welcome to this. Garcia, you want a very competitive process. There were a lot of very good candidates and you stood out among the crowd and it was unanimous on this council that you were the obvious choice to be our next city clerk. And so I wanted to take this opportunity to welcome you, congratulate you, and just say how great it is to have a Long Beach resident, somebody who who has a real stake in the game as our next city clerk. I look forward to working with you. Thank you so much. Councilmember Super. Thank you. Well, I've already congratulated you privately before the meeting, so I just like to say welcome, welcome aboard. And just give you a lot of assurance that you have a great staff here. And if you ever need my help, I'm the newest guy up here, but I'll be glad to assist. Thank you. Thank you. And now I'll turn this over to our new city clerk, Maria Garcia. Well, first of all, I'd like to thank all of you, council mayor, for entrusting. Me with this great responsibility. It's a responsibility that I don't take lightly, and I will do my best to represent this city and my department in the best way possible. More importantly, I am going to work really hard to make voter engagement a top priority for our department. Making sure that all of our residents, especially those that are hardest. To reach. Because of language, access or access, physical accessibility. I will be paying attention to the to those issues. As well as bringing more innovation to our department. And making sure that. We are walking hand-in-hand into the digital age with the rest of America. Moving forward, it will be all about the residents of Long Beach and. Providing them with municipal services that are inclusive. Transparent, accessible and. Reflective of the diversity of this great. City. Earlier today, I had a chance to meet my new city family. The staff of the city clerk department. And I got to say, I'm really excited. I'm excited to be working among such a hard working, talented staff. And I can't wait for August. 31st to come. It can't come fast enough. So thank you. I want to acknowledge some special people in the audience here today to accompany me on this special occasion. Family. My mom. If I could ask her to please stand. Christina. My father. Javier. My uncle Filiberto. My brother Ramon. And his wife, Nancy. I don't know if my sister's here as. Well, but. She didn't tend to come. Assemblymember Garcia and I, I know that she would have loved to be here if she's not in the audience right now. So I want to also acknowledge her. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you all very much again. And congratulations. And with that, the your boss, I'm sure, to celebrate with your family and friends. And we'll continue the meeting. Thank you. Okay. Next, we're going move on to our commission appointments. And we have items 24 and 25. We're going to do item 24/1.

Recommendation to find that excavations are immediately required for the general health, safety, and welfare of the City and cannot be delayed; that alternatives to excavating, such as alternative routing, or construction methods, such as boring or excavation of the parkway, are not possible; approve a discretionary permit to excavate nine City streets, which have been resurfaced within the previous 60 months, in accordance with Section 14.08.060 of the Long Beach Municipal Code. (Districts 7,8,9)

LongBeachCC_10042016_16-0907

I don't think there's bills here. Okay, so why don't we go to the item from content calendar that was pulled, which was item 11? Was that right? Yes. Okay. Report from Public Works recommendation to find that excavations are immediately required for the general health, safety and welfare of the city and cannot be delayed and approve a discretionary permit to excavate nine city streets. District seven, eight and nine. Johnson V Ringo. Thank you, Mayor. You know, many of our residents have waited years to have their street improvements. And here we have an opportunity for Tesoro to tear up the street within the the moratorium period of the moratorium. So I just want to include or amend the motion that we include a that we have Tesoro, maybe in partnership with our public works department to notify those residents of the pending street improvements. Well, the pending excavation that's going to be taking place. So that's for District 17, right? Okay. That's an addition to the motion. Councilman Austin, do anything. You know, like you speak in support of the motion. I want to thank council member for your Urunga for bringing it forth and removing it from the consent calendar. I did have a question for our Public Works Director in terms of the scope of the work, because particularly on one of the these streets that is actually being proposed to have the survey done. It's a street that we just spent a considerable amount of money actually resurfacing. And so what is the scope of work that will be done there? And, um, can we, can we be assured that, that the street will be repaired to the level that it's supposed to be? Yes, Councilman Austin, this is really exploratory work that De SA is doing to ensure that their pipeline cathartic protection system is working. Cathartic protection keeps a metal pipe that's in the ground from degrading as quickly as it would without it. So these are very small holes that are being drilled so they can put a probe into the ground. The holes are about three quarters of an inch. So somewhere in the in the neighborhood of a size of a of a quarter. This type of work isn't going to do anything to degrade the streets. If they do find that their pipelines need to be replaced, they'll have to come in and do trenching. And that is a whole different topic that will we'll need to address and discuss with them should that be required. But the work and the scope before Council on this item is merely a monitoring of those pipes, and there's going to be no degradation occurring in the streets as a result. And how often does do those pipes need to be monitored? Different pipeline widths and capacities have different monitoring requirements. So it really just depends on the type and size of the pipe that they're looking at. Okay. I know we just passed Measure A and we have an aggressive infrastructure repair plan in place. I would just hope that we are coordinating our efforts to make sure that, you know, we're not. Repairing streets and then going digging back into them to to repair pipes. All of that is kind of synchronized. So thank you. Can I talk to. I'm sorry. Vice Mayor Richardson? Yes, you can talk to the vice mayor of Richardson. So. So I'm typically supportive of these for a number of reasons. One, we normally like to Soros being particularly great at doing outreach and reaching out to our office and to the local community. But we were notified about this when it showed up on the city council agenda. We didn't get any notice about it. And the and we've encountered these drilled holes before in the past, and that's one of the reasons we put the moratorium in place. It's not real excavation. But it still damages the street. It still damages the street. And you can actually see it when these holes get drilled in. So my concern is, like I'm looking at a number of these. Some of them are like just a few inches ice and ice in an isolated spot, but some of these run an entire length of a street. So the first question is how like how far in between are these holes drilled? Tesoro is telling us that they are approximately 10 to 15 feet apart. And how big, how large are the holes themselves? Three quarters of an inch. Okay. And and have you know, if. So for example, some of these are brand new. We're going to what like patch the top of the hole with like a slurry seal stuff. We're gonna like paint over it. Like, What do we do to this whole. So they would put some kind of mix in the hole. Most likely a concrete patch mix and then top it with with some asphalt. Okay. So I would just say, you know, I'm not going to make a huge issue out of this because it's you know, it's late. But I would you know, I would have preferred, frankly, that we get some get some heads up and get out and get to wrap our minds around this stuff. Because if it's a length of street, you know, I just get questions like, is there an opportunity just to if, you know, if it's along the perimeter of the street, just slurry and a straight line. So it all looks looks kind of consistent. So in the future, I would just like to have just more notice and more conversation about these because, you know, some of these streets have waited a long time to be repaved. Linden Avenue was one of the worst streets in North Long Beach. And, you know, and I really don't want to see it drilled into, but I'll move forward with these things. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? CNN, please cast your votes.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending and restating Sections 5.81.010 and 5.81.070; and by repealing Chapter 5.94, all relating to the sale of flavored tobacco products, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04062021_21-0291

Thank you. I think we have one more item here. Item 29, please. Item 29 is communication from City Attorney. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to 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 Citywide. Thank you. Moved by Councilmember Price and second by Councilman Ranga. Councilmember Price is. You want to speak to this? Yes. Thank you. Our office has been working with the city attorney's office on amending some of the language. So if I can please have the city attorney's office share with us the latest update on the proposed language change. Good evening, council members. This is Taylor with the city attorney's office. It was brought to our attention that some other jurisdictions have faced legal challenges regarding some of the language that had been included in the ordinance. So to avoid similar legal challenges. Our office is recommending the following changes and to adopt the ordinance as amended on the floor in section 5.81.010.8 on page six, lines 21 through 22. Strike characterizing flavor includes flavor in any form mixed with or otherwise added to any tobacco product comma, including electronic cigaret. In Section 5.81. 010s on page ten at lines 15 through 17. Strike Tobacco Product Flavor Enhancer means a product designed, manufactured, produced, marketed or sold to produce a characterizing flavor when added to a tobacco product in section 5.81. 070f on page 11 at line 22, amend the phrase to offer for sale, to read, to sell in section 5.81. 070f on page 11 at lines 23 through 24 strike or a tobacco product flavor enhancer in section 5.81. 070f3 on page 13 at line five, strike or Tobacco Product Flavor Enhancer. And finally in section 5.8, 1.07.4 on page 13 at line eight, strike comma, including tobacco, product flavor enhancers and were available for any other questions that you may have. Thank you. Councilman Ringa. No comment other than I know that our Department of Health and Human Services is very much on top of this as well. So I'm looking forward to that. There are monitoring this is monitoring our our response. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. I support. I signed on to the motion, but I'm full support of this with the better enough. Thank you. Was there any public comment on this item? Yes. Our first speaker is Isabella Carroll. Hello and good evening, Honorable Mayor and mayors of the City Council. My name is Othello Carol. I live in District five. I'm also a volunteer ambassador for American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. I applaud the city for taking steps to protect our youth from the dangers of flavored tobacco products. As a mother and a grandmother, I am deeply concerned about the dramatic increase of e-cigarette using usage among our youth. And it is unconscionable that tobacco products are the number one cause of premature death in the United States because it's so preventable. I strongly believe that protecting our youth from tobacco initiation and addiction is one of the most important public health actions policymakers can take. Flavored tobacco products are driving this unprecedented increase in the usage. So in closing, I respectfully urge you to pass a strong ordinance to permanently end the sale of all flavored tobacco products without exemptions. Exemptions for any product will weaken the ordinance, creating loopholes for young people to access flavored tobacco products that can lead to a lifetime of tobacco addiction. Thank you, everyone, for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Annie Hagan. Hello. This is Annie Pagan with Tobacco-Free Kids. Good evening, mayor and city council members. We are in strong support of ending the sale of flavored e-cigarettes and all flavored tobacco products. These sweet and minty products are aimed to lure kids with candy flavors and hook them for the long term. Ending their sale is a critical step that will protect Long Beach kids from the unrelenting efforts of the tobacco industry. Took them to a deadly addiction, and the tobacco industry would like nothing more than to scare the city council into believing this is a more more complicated than it is. This is a commonsense solution. The policy simply removes the flavored products that are most attractive to kids while leaving unflavored products on the shelves. It's a fair solution that will protect our kids and vulnerable populations. By passing this ordinance, Long Beach would join over 60 and maybe 70 now cities in California that have passed similar ordinances. So I thank you, each of you, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart for sticking up for Long Beach kids, even in the face of industry pressure. Thank you so much. Think your next speaker is Alexa warming. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and council members. My name is Alexa Warman. I'm with the American Heart Association. I'm here tonight to support a strong policy to protect Long Beach kids from tobacco addiction, disease and death. Ending the sale of all flavored tobacco products is key to reducing youth tobacco access and youth sweet kid friendly flavors like mango , mint, menthol and cotton candy mask. The harshness of tobacco products make them seem safer and are highly appealing to youth. In fact, over 80% of kids who use tobacco started with a flavored product. The tobacco industry knows this and uses this information to target children. The industry has even called high school students their, quote, replacement customer customers. This is unacceptable and cannot continue. All flavored tobacco products, including flavored e-cigarettes, menthol cigarets, flavored hookah, cigars and smokeless tobacco are hooking kids into nicotine addiction. We need your help to reduce access to these deadly products at the retail level with your commitment to a strong flavored tobacco policy. Long Beach can better support our youth and overall community well-being. Please put our kids health over tobacco profits. Inc. Your next speaker is David Ross. Very. Good evening there, Garcia and city council members. My name is David Ross. I've been a Long Beach resident for about 40 years. I'm also a volunteer for the American Heart Association and was the chair of their board of directors. The American Heart Association supports ending the sale of all flavored tobacco products as an evidence based policy to reduce youth tobacco use. It's clear that the tobacco industry is actively and aggressively working to addict new customers, using flavors to target youth, people of color and the LGBTQ community into a lifetime of nicotine addiction. So e-cigarettes are the most common tobacco product used by middle and high school students. Kids are also using flavored cigars, cigarets hookahs and chewing tobacco at alarming rates. All flavored tobacco products are appealing to kids. They're highly addictive and they are deadly. Both of my parents started smoking in high school. Both my parents were killed by tobacco. My mother at age 61 and my father when he was only 47. We need bold action to prevent a new generation of nicotine addiction, disease and death. I urge the Council the health of our kids and families first by ending the sale of flavored tobacco products here in Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ed Sanders. If evening council members know that. My name is Ed Sanders with the Coalition of Los Angeles Families Fighting Flavor and Tobacco. I would like to urge you to enact this ordinance that ends the sale of flavored tobacco, including menthol flavored cigarets as well. I think you've heard from other speakers the obvious threat to young people is clear. I know you will hear from opposition that ask you to look at how this impacts businesses. But I think it's important to point out how we as a community need businesses that could products that benefit the health of a community. And when we're looking at flavored tobacco, this is a product that is high in nicotine. It's addictive and it leads to poor health. It is, you know, still the number one cause of preventable death in the United States. Flavored tobacco is used to entice new customers to this product. And then when you start looking at menthol in a more insidious way, it's targeted at vulnerable communities, particularly the African-American community. I think you, as a legislative body can take strong action. I think you've heard how over 60 to 70 municipalities throughout California have already acted. This is a growing movement, but it is a growing movement that says that. Thank you. Our next speakers, Eric Bache. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and city council members. Again, my name is Eric Batts from the vice president of advocacy for the American Heart Association. And I you know, I really just wanted to call in tonight and applaud you all for considering taking this action. You know, the national dialog right now has focused on holding those accountable who abuse and harm our communities, and that includes big tobacco. I had a chance to read the article that was in the Press Telegram today by the Circle K owner. And I got to say, I couldn't believe that the author would say that this policy would make it difficult for businesses to survive. I mean, what about Long Beach residents? I mean, should we not consider measures that will help Long Beach residents survive and really thrive for that matter? Selling flavored tobacco. It's not an honorable endeavor, and it certainly doesn't contribute to the health of Long Beach. The bottom line is that flavored tobacco products attract youth, nicotine addicts them. And when you put flavored tobacco together with nicotine, you know you're setting our youth up for a lifetime of addiction and health problems. Tobacco use contributes to more deaths and disease than any other product. And menthol is the deadliest of all tobacco products. So during a time when we're all being asked to do what we can to protect the health of our communities from COVID, you know, we can also keep our community safe and healthy by restricting the sale of all flavored tobacco products. You know, every day that goes by without this policy, another Long Beach child can start a lifetime of nicotine addiction. So making it harder for Long Beach youth to get their hands on these products the right thing to do. And I respectfully ask. Thank. Think your next speaker is Jakarta Robinson. Our next speaker is John Kindred. Keep up the. Good evening. Mayor and city council members. My name is John Kendrick. I live on the borderline of District One into an area that is most populated by the damage. Health wise, environmental wise, on this on these products, as you heard to everybody else. And the tobacco company has never showed any data to back up their claims. Well, while the Long Beach Health Department. And I keeping. The CDC and the World Health Organization has shown countless times and data how dangerous these new tobacco products are and the damage it does to communities of color of our children. And it also goes against the city's. Mission and vision when it comes to addressing the community's health as best. If anybody reads your mission statement, what it says also to what nobody says when he said that is it's also a health problem, environmental problem. When you look at the cities cap the city's climate action and that action plan, when it comes to climate change and air pollution, this is one of the deadliest things we talk about planting trees all the time. I think your next speaker is Laurie Bremner. Good evening. My name is Laurie Bremner and I work with peers, which is parents against vaping e-cigarettes. PAVE has found and run and powered by volunteers. I'm the grassroots coordinator, but I'm speaking to you tonight. Also from my heart as a parent and a cancer survivor and a daughter who lost her dad to tobacco related illness. He was grateful that the city council is focusing on this urgent piece of legislation. YouTube are 5 to 7 times more likely to develop COVID. Than those who. Do not vape flavored tobacco is now more than ever a deadly hook. The use of Long Beach simply cannot wait for the state or the federal government to take action to protect them. The California State Bill 783, has been delayed by a big tobacco funded referendum for a year or two. And that's why we urge you to immediately end the sale of all flavored tobacco products with no exemptions. SB 793 provides a floor but not a ceiling for a local ordinance. You can and. Should go. Further. Please remove the exemptions. Parents and kids are counting on you, their local elected. Officials, to. Step in and halt the epidemic of youth tobacco use. The need is urgent for you to place the health of kids lungs. Above some. Small portion of a retailer's profit that comes from flavored tobacco. We urge you to take decisive action to do for the kids of Long Beach. Please remove the exemptions. Pass a comprehensive ordinance. Thank you. Our next speaker is Primo Castro. Dear Mayor Garcia and City Council. My name is Premal Castro, government relations director for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, and also committed to protecting the health and well-being of residents in the city of Long Beach, use evidence based policy and legislative solutions designed to eliminate cancer as a major health problem. As such, we're here tonight to urge this council to pass this ordinance to end the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol cigarets. Tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable death in our country, and sadly, sadly, greater than, you know, greater than 90% of adult smokers began smoking before the age of 21. Actions taken now at the local level can help to encourage a generation of Tobacco-Free Kids, potentially saving them from a lifetime of addiction and the deadly consequences of tobacco use and in the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol, is not only a health issue, it is also a social justice issue. Targeting marketing to communities of color, low income communities and the LGBT communities adds to the health disparities in populations already impacted by social inequities. Atheist Kent urges this council to pass this order and the ordinance as amended, prohibiting the sale of bob flavored tobacco products without exemptions removes so much of the allure of these products and is a key component of a comprehensive strategy to effectively help reduce tobacco. Thank you. Our next speaker is Gina Rodriguez. Good evening. Mayor Garcia and city council members. My name is Jeanette Rodriguez and I work at the University of Southern California Institute of Prevention Research at the Keck School of Medicine. I would like to share some research findings from the U.S. Tobacco Center of Regulatory Science. Our center has been following student cohorts for many years, and the trends in tobacco use over time have shown that youth with no history of cigaret use and those who are unlikely to have smoked cigarets are starting with e-cigarettes. And the most common reason for starting is the availability of a wide variety of flavors. This includes mint and menthol. The majority of youth reported that they would no longer use e-cigarettes if flavors were not available. It main research point I would like to highlight is that we found that a strong, comprehensive ordinance to regulate e-cigarettes flavored and mental tobacco products has a tremendous potential to substantially reduce youth use of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes. Our research study shows that a strong, comprehensive tobacco retail license preventing sales to minors was associated with lower rates of youth and adult initiation of combustible tobacco and e-cigarette use. Our current research suggests that it is important to consider the overall impact of e-cigarettes and tobacco use on all segments of the population. However, the weight of the evidence points to a far more detrimental effect on youth. We hope that this research can educate and inform your decision. Please let me know if you have any questions our team may be able to answer. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you, members, please. Let's go ahead and have a roll call vote. Thanks. Councilwoman Sandy has. I'm Councilwoman Allen. I can tell I'm in Price Pryce. I. Councilman. So, Boehner. I can swim in Mongo. I can swim in sorrow. I Council member Oranga. I. Councilman Austin. I. Vice Mayor Richardson. All right. Bush and Kerry.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to purchase excess workers’ compensation insurance with Safety National Casualty Corporation for the period of July 1, 2014 through July 1, 2015, through the City’s casualty broker Aon, for a total premium not to exceed $385,000. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06172014_14-0449

Item 11 Report from Human Resources Recommendation to authorize City Manager to purchase excess workers compensation insurance for the period of July 2014 through July 2015, through the city's casual broker Aon for a total premium not to exceed 3380 5000 citywide. Second. Moved and seconded any member of the Public Watch Press Council on item 11. CASA membership. In Samarra. I just had a question for the city attorney. My understanding that you are going to be looking at worker's comp and how it's handled in the city of Long Beach and possibly hopefully maybe remove it from the city attorney's office. I had not heard that. No, I thought you talked about that. You know, we talked about. We are doing a audit of our best practices, not of moving the department from the city attorney's office. We have retained outside folks to begin that audit. We're doing the scope. And so we will be coming back with proposed changes and findings from that audit. And that they will entertain. Also, looking at the current structure of it being the claims handling, being in the city attorney's office. That is not part of it. Okay. I would strongly recommend we look at that because it's kind of well known in the worker's comp community that that's part of the problem about the cost is that it's litigated instead of handled as a a case management. Thank you. Mr. Austin. Here's some I'm was a little perplexed on this one and apologized for not speaking with the city manager earlier about this. But why exactly are we we're doing this. I'll give it over to our risk manager. Mike Aleo, a council councilmember and members of the council may have the access worker's comp. Insurance is basically catastrophic insurance for large events. For example, a large warehouse fire where we would have several fire, firefighters injured, a large earthquake. Those type examples is what the insurance is for. So it kicks in at a very large amount where the city self insures the basic amounts under the 4 million. So does this one move or was this forecast that. In our FY14 budget? Yes, it's in our budget. Okay. Thank you. All right. Members cast your votes on animal heaven. Well. Motion carries eight zero. Thank you. Item 12 clerk will summarize.

Rezones 100 N. St. Paul Street and 149 N. Steele Street from PUD 630 to C-CCN-12 in Council District 10. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones 100 N. St. Paul Street and 149 N. Steele Street from PUD 630 to C-CCN-12 (Cherry Creek North, 12 stories) in Council District 10. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-15-15.

DenverCityCouncil_06012015_15-0207

Thank you, Madam President. Members of City Council. My name is Ryan Winterberg with Community Planning and Development. Here to present an application to rezone from pod 630 to C, C, C and 12 at 100 North St Paul Street and 149 North Steele Street. So the subject site is located within southeast central Denver in Council District ten and in the Cherry Creek Statistical neighborhood. To orient you a bit to the site here, we see it is bound by North Steele Street on the East First Avenue on the South and North St Paul Street on the west. It is within the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District and the Cherry Creek Shopping Center is directly across the street across First Avenue. The Cherry Creek Greenway and Pulaski Park are about a quarter of a mile to the south and the East First Avenue and North Steel Street corridor is served by six RTD bus routes. So the property is roughly 1.8 acres and it is comprised of two assessor's parcels. A Currently there is an eight story mixed use structure under construction at the site as well as a one story bank. The property owners are requesting a rezoning to facilitate the second phase of redevelopment, generally to increase the maximum permitted building heights. And it should be noted that PUD 630 always anticipated two phases of redevelopment, but the applicant's desired second phase is not permitted by PDE 630. So the request before you today is to rezone from PD 630 to C, C, C and 12. And consent has been received by both property owners within the PUD. So C CC and 12 stands for the Urban Center Neighborhood Context within Cherry Creek North and a 12 story maximum permitted building height. And as a refresher, the Cherry Creek North Zone districts were approved by city council in October of 2014 after a nearly two year process to draft customized zoning for Cherry Creek North, a direct recommendation of the Cherry Creek Area plan. And this application is the first owner initiated rezoning since the approval in the fall of 2014. So to orient you to the site a bit, if you've been here lately, you'll notice that it is a rapidly evolving context. The first phase of redevelopment, generally located at the 100 North Saint Paul Street site, is outlined in pink. It is the eight storey mixed use structure. It features ground floor retail and upper storey office. It also includes three levels of underground parking and a small surface parking lot access from North Steel. And it was reviewed and permitted under the entitlement of PDE 633. And the applicant has undergone a pretty substantial analysis of the development that's ongoing at that phase one compared against the proposed six and 12 zone districts, and has found that it substantially conforms with Section 12. So the area highlighted in green, this is the generally intended second phase of redevelopment at 149 North Steel Street. It features a temporary one story bank building there in the northeast corner, basically where that little red arrow is pointing you to. And upon completion of the first phase of redevelopment, that bank facility will move into the new building. And this green area is the proposed phase two redevelopment area, and the applicant intends to redevelop the site under the C 12 zone district should it be approved tonight. So before I dove into the standards a bit, I want to explain why the entirety of Pad 630 is before you tonight for rezoning. In December of 2014, we received a rezoning application to rezone generally the phase one area as outlined in blue and you see in this map out of 630 and into 1612. So whenever we receive a rezoning that involves a pad, CPD staff does a very thorough analysis of any remainder of the PD to see how the development would comply with the standards of that PD. And we did find that rezoning a portion of PD 630 and leaving a remainder would leave the remaining portion of 5630 non-conforming. And we do have a CPD policy not to support a rezoning that would leave a nonconforming PDS. And so we don't want to create any nonconformity. So based upon that analysis, the rezoning application was revised to rezone the entirety of 630. And we do find that it is a more logical application of zoning and avoids administrative challenges that could occur over time with the creation of a non-conforming party. To orient you to the existing zoning context in the area we see at the intersection of First and Steele several 12 storey zoned districts. We see some existing C CC and 12 zoning as well as TMX 12. We see the new mapping of the c ccn districts to the north moving into the business improvement district, generally decreasing in height, the further storey increasing in height. The further south you go towards the first steel corridor. We also see several pods along First Avenue, both within the Denver zoning code and the former Chapter 59. We see B three zoning to the south at the Cherry Creek Shopping Center and several C zone districts to the east along First Avenue, generally decreasing in height. The further east, you go away from the Business Improvement District. So to move you to the existing zoning, this is Bud 630 that currently applies to the subject site. It is a former Chapter 59. It was established in 2009 and always anticipated two phases of redevelopment. It permits a maximum height of ten storeys that's 145 feet and a maximum far across the entire site of 3.62 to 1. It also specifies parking and set back standards as well as some other design standards in the putty. I'd offer two options for a mix of permitted uses. The first option includes a retail service office and multiple dwelling units. The second option is retail service and office. So without that, the multi dwelling unit component and we can see here on the right this is the district plan excerpt from the PWD. It sets forth access standards as well as maximum building footprints. And I've highlighted for you in pink the phase one that's currently undergoing redevelopment. This is just really for your reference, it's not included within the putty. So the Cranmer curfew plan also applies to the subject site view plans protect and preserve panoramic views of the mountains from key locations throughout the city. And in this particular case, the Cranmer Park View Plan originates in Cranmer Park where you see the red dot are subject site is located at the Yellow Star and the view plan will specify maximum building heights for all structures, generally increasing in height. The farther you move away from the origin point of the view plane and at our particular site, the maximum building heights will be 158 to 161 feet across the site. The Design Standards and guidelines for Cherry Creek North also applied to the subject site. They guide site design, building design signs and streetscapes and the design standards and guidelines also specify a review by the Cherry Creek North Design Advisory Board who would make a recommendation to the zoning administrator for final approval. And these design standards and guidelines would apply regardless of the rezoning tonight. So moving on to existing land use, was there a subject site outlined in yellow? It is commercial retail. Then moving north, we see the Cherry Creek Shopping District mixture of mixed uses, retail and office. And to the south we see the Cherry Creek Shopping Center and you'll also notice multi-family and single family development in the northeast portion of your map moving farther away from the Business Improvement District into Cherry Creek East. So the existing context. So the building form and scale of our subject site, if you've been to the subject site, you'll notice that it is nearing completion. The photo that's in the upper right hand corner is taken from the northeast portion of the PD looking south. You can see in the foreground that said one story, temporary bank building that upon completion of the new building, that bank facility will move into the new eight story building and that will be the subject site of the phase two redevelopment. You can see the photo in the bottom is taken from the southern portion of the PD looking north. So you see the eight story building that is substantially complete. And in the lower right hand corner of that photo, you notice a small Wells Fargo structure. It is not included in today's rezoning. It is already zoned C 12. Moving into building foreman scale in the surrounding area. You see the photo in the upper right hand corner is very indicative of the Cherry Creek North Shopping District. We see pedestrian oriented buildings, high transparency. Then the photo in the lower right hand corner is the evolving context that we see at the first and steel intersection with the construction of 212 storey mixed use structures. Then moving to the south, we see the Cherry Creek Shopping Center with a surface parking lot located in between the building in the street and then in the northeast corner we see an eight storey office building that features ground story retail. Generally, we see higher intensity both in height and uses located at the first in steel corridor. There's a mixture of building heights within the shopping district, but generally heights will decrease the farther you move away from first and steel. So in terms of public process, we notified the following nine registered neighborhood organizations of completed application and then at every public hearing along the way. And for the communication that we have received today, we received a letter of support from the Cherry Creek East Association. We received a letter of support and an R.A. position statement from the Cherry Creek Area Business Alliance. Cherry Creek North submitted an email indicating that the R.A. voted in non opposition in response to an applicant statement of intent. And that statement of intent is included in your application package. Country Club Historic Neighborhood Association also submitted a letter indicating there are no vote of non opposition. And just today we received an email from Polley reads, a resident of Cherry Creek North. So it's not included in your staff packet. But she did write in opposition to the rezoning request, generally citing concerns over impacts from construction and loss of character in Cherry Creek. So in terms of process, since we did receive two applications at the site, we notified R.A. and City Council on December 26 and February 3rd. On April 1st, planning board recommended unanimous approval of the rezoning. On April 15, the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee unanimously move the bill out of committee. On May 11th, we notified R.A. and City Council of today's public hearing and signage has been properly posted on the property and June 4th at first. Sidney, of course, we are here today at the city council public hearing for ultimate approval. So now moving into the five criteria in the Denver zoning code that CPD uses to evaluate a rezoning, the first of which is consistency with adopted plans. And there are three adopted plans that apply to the subject site. The first is comprehensive plan, and CPD found that the rezoning request is consistent comprehensive plan 2000. And we look to a number of strategies to inform that determination, including the promotion of mixed use development at key and appropriate locations. Moving on to Blueprint Denver, we see our subject site is located in this purple area, which is indicated as a regional center concept land use, which is intended to include a balance of retail, employment and residential. Blueprint Denver also recognizes that many regional centers began as a regional shopping center, but does acknowledge that a synergistic mix of uses is important to support that regional center. And the hatch indicates that the subject site is also located within an area of change. And these are areas that blueprint Denver recommends channeling the most growth and redevelopment to. Blueprint. Denver also sets out a number of street classifications that inform land use. The first in steel corridor is a mixed use arterial intended for high intensity mix of uses. First in Steel Corridor is also called out as an enhanced transit corridor, and these are areas that blueprint. Denver recommends increasing ridership, improving efficiency and improving service. And primarily we would accomplish this through a mix of supportive uses, intensities and densities. Moving on to the Cherry Creek Area plan adopted in 2002. The plan includes framework strategies that would apply to the entire Cherry Creek area, as well as sub area strategies that apply to specific geographies . You can see our subject site outlined in red. It is located within an area of change and the Cherry Creek Area Plan acknowledges that for Cherry Creek to continue to grow and to be prosperous, it must be it must redevelop. And the bulk of this growth and redevelopment should occur within these areas of change, while protecting the largely residential areas of stability that you see outside of that hatched area. The Cherry Creek Area Plan also includes framework recommendations to concentrate higher intensity, mixed use buildings along multimodal streets and key intersections like first in steel. And the site is also called out as a key development opportunity within the plan. So moving on to sub area strategies. Our subject site is located within a regional center concept land use, where a mix of uses and compact development is desirable. The Cherry Creek Area Plan also recommends that building heights should range from 4 to 12 stories within the shopping district. And the subject site outlined in red is recommended for a 12 storey maximum building height at the node, a first in steel where we see a permitted higher building height. The Cherry Creek Area plan also makes recommendations for improving multimodal connectivity, including a couple that are actually going to be coming up for implementation quite soon, including the Spear Lead Sail Mobility Study and the redesign of the first in steel intersection. And these upcoming improvements support the rezoning to see CCN 12 through acknowledging the evolving transportation context on this particular corridor. So based upon the review of these adopted plans, CPD does find that the rezoning request is consistent. We also find that the rezoning will resorts result in the uniform application of the Zone District, and the rezoning furthers the public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans and policies. Moving onto the fourth criteria that there be a justifying circumstance for the rezoning. As the application points out, the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage the redevelopment of the area or to recognize the change character of the area. And CBD did find a number of change conditions that justify this particular rezoning. As stated in the application, the 12 storey redevelopment that is occurring at the first and still intersection is the realization of the Cherry Creek Area plans recommendations for a higher intensity node at that particular location. Additionally, to change conditions since the approval of PDE 630 and 2009 are the adoption of the Cherry Creek Area Plan in 2012, setting forth a new vision for the Cherry Creek area as well as the customized Cherry Creek North zoning that was adopted in 2014, a direct recommendation of the Cherry Creek Area Plan. Additionally, the upcoming East First Avenue and Steele intersection redesign that should be beginning later in 2015. And the Spirit lead style mobility study that the RFQ has just been released this week does recognize an evolving transportation context in the area and justifies the rezoning to seek. 12. So now moving on to neighborhood context, we find that the subject site is located within a prototypical urban center. So we do find it appropriate to rezone to his own district within the urban center context. And finally, zoned district purpose and intent. We find that the Cherry Creek North Zone districts are intended to promote and enhance pedestrian oriented environment. And they are designed for specific application in the Cherry Creek North Mixed Use Shopping District. Specifically, the Section 12 Zone District applies to Cherry Creek North mixed use shopping districts to areas or intersections served primarily by major arterial streets or a building scale of 1 to 12 stories as desire desired, which we do see reinforced in the Cherry Creek Area plan. So based upon CPD's review of the five criteria, we recommend approval of rezoning PD 632 C and 12. And the applicants are here this evening, if you have any questions for them, and I'd be happy to answer any questions as well. Thank you. Thank you. We have three speakers signed up to speak this evening. The first one is Randall Phelps. Second one is Paul Powers. And the third is that. Jessica, if you could, please. The up. Madam President. Council members. I'm Paul Powers. I have nothing to add to a very complete report, but I'm available for your questions as the applicant. Thank you, Mr. Powers. Mr. Phelps. Paul Powers. Randall Phelps can my horn. Same as Paul Bowers. Just available to answer questions. Thank you. Okay. That Tasker. Thad, Texas 4535. Julian Street. Denver. As I was riding my bike through Cherry Creek past this location today, I noticed. An overabundance. Of coffee shops, high end restaurants and clothiers to serve the rich. But of course, I saw no facilities for our least advantaged citizens. Often I've heard this council talk about the benefits of promoting diversity and promoting diversity in neighborhoods. I've heard the president pro tem talk about the concentration of homeless shelters in her district. This zoning change does. Nothing to promote. Diversity. In fact, it inhibits it. As we've heard throughout the evening tonight, this council isn't. Supposed. To giving tax dollars, lots of tax dollars. To rich people. In fact, tonight, among other things, you're giving money to people who want to build a hotel for the wealthy. I would simply suggest that you use the zoning code in a few of those dollars to incentivize. Developers like these. To build a similar hotel for those who have no housing in the Cherry Creek area. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Ortega. Thank you. Madam President, I would like to ask the applicant if you can come to the microphone. So as we saw in the presentation that was done by Ryan, whenever. There are two options for the site. Either office with residential or retail office without residential. So have you determined what the specific use is going to be for the site? Yes, Councilmember. We plan to build for sale residential homes and will will build the retail as required under the zoning along Steel Street. So it'll be a small amount of retail, approximately 6000 square feet. But everything else on the steel street part of this project will be. Our intent is to build homes. Okay. So we're talking about high rise as opposed to single family homes, condos. Okay. And then your 6000 square feet of retail. I guess part of what I'm trying to get at is some of the parking needs that will serve and accommodate your tenants in the building. We know that this area is already very parking challenged. And so I'd like you to just address the parking issues in general. Yes. This development. We intend to exceed the. If the property is zoned to c cc and 12, we plan to exceed the parking requirement, which under that zoning is one per home. We will achieve in the neighborhood of 1.7. And we will have a per unit. Promise and we will accommodate the zoning requirement for the retail as well. Okay. Let me just see if I have any other questions. I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. While the attendance tonight might belie it, there's still a good deal of angst and concern about the amount of construction and the intensity of development in Cherry Creek. So I do have a number of questions if people can just bear with me. In Ryan's presentation, she pointed out that the PUD, which was created at two in 2009 and actually, Ryan, this may be more of a question for Mr. Powers, but the maximum height in the PUD is 145 feet. Assuming that you go ahead and do the condo construction that you're contemplating, how high a building would that be? According to our research, the criminal park ordinance will be the governing ordinance, not the zoning, because it will be more restrictive than the zoning and. According to the staff report, I believe that it's somewhere around 158 feet. So you're planning to build to 158 feet so the condos would be taller than eight stories of office. Or maybe you didn't build all eight stories. I'm trying to work well. In a residential building, Councilwoman. They may be about equal. But the I would say that if if this property is re zoned, we would build both within the premier park ordinance and within the zoning and. Ms.. WINTERBERG could correct me if I'm wrong in stating this, but I believe the. Existing pod allows 145 feet plus an amount of ten or 12 feet for the. For ancillary equipment on top of the building. So do you know how tall the office building is? Yes, I do. What is it. With the mechanical equipment? Approximately 146 feet. Okay. So it's my hope that you don't see the office building because if you did 12 stories of office, it would be a good deal taller. But we're hoping for residential here. Yes. Okay. How many units are you contemplating? Oh, between. 55 and 65. Okay. And could you talk a little bit about your time period or projected time period for construction? We believe construction won't start for a year to 18 months. Okay. And so given that sort of time period that it takes to get under construction, are you still pretty sure you'll be doing condos? Because a lot of the neighborhood letters reference. That is why I'm asking the. Well, we don't have a perfect crystal ball, councilwoman, but today we have sufficient commitments to finance condos and to insure them. And. You know all about the construction defects statute in Colorado. We believe that. Both the financing and the insurance will be there such that we're willing to. Risk the money to immediately design and engineer a condo building. Great. That's very helpful. And then on the outreach, you do have letters from neighborhood boards. Can you sort of talk about presentations? Did you where you presented this to get the input? Yes. I personally have presented to the Capital Hill United Neighborhood, Turkic East Turkic North, the Turkic Business Alliance Country Club neighborhood. And I hope I haven't missed some. But I think you presented to the steering committee. Yes, I did. Thank you. So so one of my particular questions is in all of those situations, because I was there for quite a few of your presentations, you were presenting either to a board or a zoning committee of the organization. Did you happen to present to the general population meeting of the Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association? No. They didn't ask you to do that. I wasn't invited to speak only to the Chair Creek North Board. Okay. I'm almost done. Dave, my last question relates to Mr. Teske is testimony. If you do two condos, you will be expecting to meet the requirements of our inclusive inclusionary housing ordinance. Is that correct? Yes, we understand that. Yeah. And it may be off site. Yes. Okay. Thank you so. Much. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Robb. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Robb asked my question about the commitment to affordable units, which we haven't or any of our for sale projects that move forward. But I wanted to ask the question about the corner of First and Steel in terms of improvements. We've seen a lot of new development that has happened at that corner. So I don't know what contribution those developments were expected to play in in this role of trying to improve that corner, which anybody who drives through it knows that it's gridlock at all times. And when you talk about pedestrian friendly or pedestrian safety issues, I know that's a concern, especially for some of the seniors who live just on the east side of Steele Street in I can't remember the I think it's called the covered housing that has three high rise buildings. But can you just identify what is being proposed to happen at that corner and how not only this developer, but any of the others who were allowed to build were somehow contributing towards that? Thank you. The councilwoman. So, as I mentioned before, the first and still intersection redesign will begin later this year in 2015. In 2013 and 2014, our colleagues in Public Works undertook an evaluation study to look at that particular intersection, knowing that it was called out in the Cherry Creek Area Plan as a very key intersection both to connecting people to Cherry Creek and then localized mobility and understanding that it's also very challenged to your point. So the study did identify, I believe, 3 to 4 different alternatives and selected a preferred alternative. I believe the focus of that particular study was understanding that a lot of the turning movements of that particular intersection are underutilized. So how to make the best use of that existing right away to serve pedestrians as well as bicyclists and autos? So a preferred alternative was selected and will be beginning design services later in 2015 and then probably approach implementation through the Capital Improvements program. So that is a city initiated way that that particular intersection can be improved from a multi-modal perspective. And then as individual properties redevelopment redevelop excuse me, along this intersection and anywhere within Cherry Creek North, they would be held to the streets keeping and sidewalk standards of the business improvement district, which is generally going to be heightened and have a broader sidewalk as well as a tree lawn. So we do expect to see design and hopefully implementation very soon of that intersection improvement. Though, given that this started in 2012 and 2013, what expectations did the city have in asking the different property owners who were developing on those various corners to contribute towards either through right of way or financially or whatever towards those improvements? Fred, I can't speak to the design process, so I wasn't involved in it, unfortunately. But I know that the selection of the preferred alternatives, as well as the vetting of all of the alternatives in that study, was a very collaborative process with the adjacent property owners knowing that there could be some changes in access as well as right of way acquisition or redesign. So I know that the preferred alternative was selected very collaboratively. I'm afraid I can't speak to any future right of way dedications, though that may be required. I believe it will utilize the existing right of way though, so I don't believe any existing dedication. I would like to ask Paul if you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone if you have been asked to contribute any right of way to address part of the configuration of whatever proposed changes are to this intersection or financially, if you've been asked to contribute towards that. With respect to the Steel Strait development that we contemplate. Our property isn't on the corner of First and Steel. It's mid-block. Okay. So the answer is no. Okay. So the question would then be for any of those property owners who are on that corner, because it seems like we let that development go forward and now we're going to go change the reconfiguration of that intersection. And we should have been more thoughtful in looking at that upfront in terms of whether or not right away was needed to address, you know, the improvements that we're going to want to be doing. And it just sort of seems kind of backwards to be, you know, asking that we do that sort of after most of that major development has taken place where most of those buildings are now really right on the you know, on the lot line, if you will. Thank you. I did actually just pull up the image of the preferred alternative. It's it's known as alternative to a in that first in steel evaluation study. And it does appear that it utilizes the majority of the existing right of way, but that it may include some existing dedications of some pedestrian islands, as well as a wider sidewalk on the east side of the the intersection of steel. And first, so I know that will be a conversation when it comes to the upcoming design of that particular improvement. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilman Rob, did you have. Thank you. I did have a few in. I really want to thank Councilwoman Ortega for her line of questioning on that. But just a few pieces. There was no desire on the part of the community to widen First Avenue or steel because it's hard enough for pedestrians to cross the developer on the south. East. Corner that's Steel Creek. The building complete when people are moving in was asked to build. I don't know if I'd call it a pedestrian median, but a median and East First Avenue so that cars couldn't cross out of the alley between Adams and Steel. So he did make an investment in the street. And I'm not wishing bad news for Mr. Powers, but when this project is designed and goes through all this site planning, I know one of the features of the Steel Street intersection extends the island at Saint Paul, which is very in First Avenue, which has very minimal. Waiting space. If someone is crossing there with a stroller, for instance, and can't get all the way, we couldn't lengthen the time at that intersection as we could at other intersections in Cherry Creek and have done recently. So that's the one intersection where we need more resting space. As far back as Bill Bill, I was out there looking at that. And finally, one of the things that I do like and I guess these are sort of comments, but they're in response to questions. I believe that Paul's core has an extra set back so that there can be a little more space from First Avenue for the pedestrian along the property that's already built. Actually, this sits down the block, not exactly on First Avenue. So with that said, that's all I. Know. Thank you. Councilman Rob, are there any other comments from council members? The public hearing is closed. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 207. We do. In comments. Comment. Oh, we are. Councilman Rob? Well, actually, I probably could have gone without comments, but I just feel that duty. I hope there's one down there. The neighborhoods have basically taken a position of non opposition to this, but I do not think and this is no fault of the police corp, but the outreach wasn't quite as extensive, possibly because of plans in place . And most people know what the plan says now and the 12 stories are allowed. I think some of my some of my constituents will be happy to know that there's not more construction tomorrow in Cherry Creek because we're pretty construction exhausted, though. There will be things coming up in a year, year and a half as well. Probably in my way. And there really. This really pretty much meets the plan, which is why I think we see this the I think some of the support came because the plan, even though it's not mandated in the zoning, is for the condos , which generates less traffic, fewer parking problems in the area. And so those were important to people. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. It's a thank you, Madam President. It's our custom when we have someone who served in office to say hello. So the Honorable Paul Powers, we welcome you into these chambers after we ask you some questions, but is one to welcome you. Thank you for being here. Okay. A few comments. Okay. The public hearing is closed. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 207. Can each i layman i. Nevett i. Ortega I. Rob I. Sheppard, i. Susman, i. Brooks. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Please. Ten Eyes. Ten Eyes. Counselor Bill 207 has passed. Councilwoman, can you please put Council Bill 212 on the floor? Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I move that council bill 212 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. They need a second. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council 212 is open. May we have the staff report? Yes. Thank you. Councilwoman or President Pro Tem Monteiro. Good evening. It's been a long evening. My name is Steven Chester, senior city planner with CPD here to present the staff report on 1292 1292 King Street PD 5732 JIMMU five.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amend the Long Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 5.54 relating to hotel worker safety precautions, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11132018_18-0962

Thank you. With that, we're moving on to the next item, which is 42. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance. Amend the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to hotel worker safety precautions read and adopted as read citywide. Okay. There's a motion in a second. Councilman Price. Thank you. If I could just have clarification from the city attorney on what the passage of WW will have on this ordinance, or vice versa. Yes, Mayor. Members of the Council. With the passage of measure WW. That measure is more restrictive and applies by its definition to hotels or as they define hotels in that initiative of 50 rooms or more. So all of the provisions of that initiative will go into effect pursuant to the election code after the county certifies and it comes to the city council and it's certified by the City Council ten days after that certification. WW will go into effect. So the impact on this ordinance that's before you this evening then would be this ordinance would apply in essence to hotels as defined in this ordinance of 49 rooms or less. And it will also be changed. This ordinance has a an application period or it applies to rooms of 50 or more. Immediately that will be trumped and overruled by measure. WW. So in essence, this would apply to the 49 rooms or less, and they would have up to one year to come into compliance with this ordinance. Great. So as for the public safety piece, only the public safety provisions of WW would then apply to hotels of 49 rooms or less. It meaning panic buttons. I maybe misunderstood that. I think they would apply to 50 rooms or more. The panic buttons the panic buttons that are required by this ordinance would apply to 49 rooms or less. Right? That's what I mean. So this ordinance would augment that public safety piece and apply to a broader group. In essence all hotels and would be required to have the panic button. WWE of their. Size, regardless of their. Size. Got it. Great. Okay, well, I'm glad to be passing an ordinance tonight that takes care of the public safety piece and leaves no one vulnerable regardless of the size of hotel they work with. And I urge my colleagues to support this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Austin. I second the motion and hope we can put this issue to rest for a while. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. That'll be so easy. I want to thank at this moment, I want to thank all the workers and the community members that made Measure WW possible passing with 62% of the vote. I know that we've had a lot of discussion here. I hope that we don't have to have a long part of a discussion. But I did want to highlight that there were three different things that were really important to me someone who values writing good policy, who's been a director at a public policy organization for a decade. And these three things were that it did not include contract employees, that the issue that's in front of us tonight does not include a retaliation clause as it is read in measure. WW And that the retaliation part as well as the notification parts are not included. And it's my understanding that if we included those tonight that there would need to be a would have to start the clock over again. Is that correct? That is correct. If we amended it with those provisions, as you've just outlined, it would come back. We would need to rewrite it and it would come back for first reading. Okay. And I do I think that, you know, there's a lot of conversation around all of the items and. WW And so I feel confident that constituents and myself feel that these are really important. I know that my colleague, Councilmember Price, and I have had a couple of conversations. I wanted to ask you if we passed this tonight and came back and I believe it's 31 days with amendments, including all of these. Is that something that you're okay with? I, I would be more than happy to consider any amendments. And I think having a no retaliation clause and applying it to all employees, whether they're contract or not, is totally reasonable. So I'd be I'd look forward to seeing the language of any proposed amendment. But I really do want to close the chapter on this ordinance tonight. And as with any of our ordinances and our muni codes, we can amend them at any time to make them better, more robust, whatever we'd like to do. Okay. I know. You know, for me, this has been an emotional process. And there have been a couple of things that we said were really important to us. One was not doing this before the election, and two was that it included these items that I feel like really do protect hotel workers and make sure that if you have a panic button, you're not scared to use it for fear of retaliation. So it's great to hear you say that you support those two items which are near and dear to me. I want to hear from my council colleagues before I take a vote on this item. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So two things. One, we just had a conversation about a motel ordinance that we're going to be crafting, and I'm sure there's going to be some outreach. And then this this ordinance going to pass tonight. Are there any opportunities to save some money and just have one outreach process that goes to, you know, all because we're talking, frankly, to all the motels about safety, really, that's the common denominator of safety. So can we have one? Is it possible to have one safety conversation as we go out and do outreach with city manager or development services? We just make a mayor councilmember. We can certainly do that, although these are kind of two separate items. So one would definitely be the ordinance that we just passed or that that you're dealing with right now. But I think we'd like to make sure they're on parallel passed, but we can certainly talk to folks at the same time when we're talking to them . I don't know what's going to be first when we get out there and talk to the the motels. But we can certainly do that. But I think ultimately we're going to probably do parallel paths to get the message across on both items. Okay. Because I think there's value. There's value if we're going to engage because some of them are difficult to track down and find some of these these motel owners, these operators, the small folks. I think it makes sense while we're there and we have their captive audience, if the city is going to require panic buttons for them while we're additionally requiring lighting or whatever is going to happen this new ordinance, I just think it makes sense for them to understand that all of these are important to the city, not, you know, one and then the other, and especially if we're talking each other the same way. That makes sense. Okay. Just wanted to make sure this wasn't way out of left field here and then and then the second part is just picking up the conversation. Councilwoman Pryce and Councilwoman Pearce, I'm you know, frankly, with the election behind us, I am looking forward to moving forward with one ordinance that makes sense. And I think it does make sense. I understand that folks want to move forward tonight. I get that. But what I'm unclear on those three things that you mentioned. And so one of them was, you know, if you're an employee, clean the housekeeper. If you're a housekeeper cleaning the room, whether you're, you know, paid for directly as an employee or you're a contractor brought in, the truth is just the same. You're going into a room with the same scenario. And so it sounded like there was consensus in your motion to ask staff to come back with these amendments. And 30 days we look at that when I understand that I would like to there is a there is a way here to adopt the ordinance and give staff direction to come back with it written out so we can evaluate it. No, I actually don't believe legally that that's an option. I, I agree. I think that tonight either your action tonight is either approve the second reading or tell me to change it however you'd like to change it. And we would come back and would come back for first reading. I think what I heard the councilmember from the second district say is, which I think is correct, is that this ordinance within 31 days after it's approved by the mayor would become effective at any point thereafter. You could amend it that day or bring back direct city attorney to amend with A, B and C or D, whatever it is you'd like to change. And we could do it at that time. So the 31 days was after it signed, after it's voted on. Tonight, it goes into effect after. You could amend it any time after it goes into effect. So any day after 31 days. So I guess my question would be, can we just give some direction and say bring that, you know, adopt the ordinance and then a separate motion in addition that says no, now we're post WW, right? We're post WW. There's an interest here in seeing some of those clarifications come back after it's fully implemented. So is there is there a way we can give directions? They make sure that this comes back after a month. I think that kind of brings people together saying both. I think the answer to that is no. I think you what? You either are going to approve an ordinance or are you going to tell me to amend it tonight? You can't do both. Okay. Good to see you, Tony. Thanks. Now some our. Councilmember Price. So I just wanted to say, I think once we approve it tonight and I know you know this, Councilman Richardson, so I'm not trying to like preach or anything. I'm just saying procedurally, I think what will happen is if we want to have an amendment, we'd bring a separate agenda item asking the city attorney to change the ordinance to include this or that. We've done it for a couple of our existing ordinances already that maybe needed some fine tuning in the language so we can make it better or broaden it or whatever we want to do after it's approved. And then we can give them direction at that point through a separate agenda item. And if I may, Councilmember Richardson brought up the point of the employee on the contract. I think in our ordinance, we do cover both the employee and a contract employee who's cleaning. I think where we have a difference with WW is how we define a hotel employer, and that's not including the contract. And so I if I understood the councilman from the second District correctly, that is something she would like to add to include that. Councilmember Pearce. So to be just to clarify on timeline, I think we all want to kind of put the heartache and the pain of this behind us. I really would like to to be able to to vote to support this. And I think to trust that the council is there and that so that's kind of the process part. So. We have 31 days after the mayor signs it, then we can bring back the ordinance. We can't bring it back sooner than the mayor signs it. Well, I think you could bring back an action agenda. Is it at the next meeting or whenever after the mayor signs it? We would probably bring it back after the effective date to amend that ordinance. We don't have an effective ordinance to amend until that time, but you could next week put something on to say we want to change it or in the next council meeting or whatever period time. And then the next question is on the timing. So the way that the ordinance is written is it's a 12 month implementation plan. So while it would be 31 days and maybe three months until we finally have a final change with the amendments, that's not to say that in those next three months, you guys are already going to have. This rolled out. That's a great question. I think what we would do is if. If it's approved this evening. The ordinance allows these hotels that will fall under this ordinance up to 12 months to come into compliance if there's something that's placed on the agenda immediately or shortly hereafter. We would wait because we don't know what the council's going to do if you're going to be changing or before we start sending out some sort of notices to the employer, we don't want send mixed messages to the hotels. So we would probably wait. And something else you could consider if you are going to amend it is to extend that period out. And it would you would start the 12 month clock again or you could change that, you know, period of time. That was part of the original motion to allow these hotels to have up to 12 months to come into compliance so that they can, if it's a burden on them to purchase or how they're going to do it. And then my my next question is for city manager. Have you guys. Thought about how your outreach as. I know that no outreach has been done yet to the 12 motels are boutique hotels on my district yet. There's been no plan yet. So given that it's a long time that they have 12 months to be able to actually implement it. We looked to basically do business licensing, reach out to those. The latest I don't have a number of how many are 50. And below, but just for. Scale, the. Number of. Properties that. Have 100 or below is 40. So we're looking at a relatively small population that we would reach out to each one of them, and we could do that in writing and say, here's what the the ordinance was passed, give them a copy of a. Of a summary letter, and then, of course. Provide the ordinance so we could do that whenever you're ready. And I would I would also just recommend if there is going to be changes beyond if the if the ordinance is adopted tonight and if there's going to be changes, then those should be submitted as soon as possible, I would say. And so I think that you don't have to wait for a signature. You can submit that agenda item. That's what I was looking for. I think, you know, as soon as possible so that we know what the final product is. I would think so. Any other public comment or I'm sorry, public comment on this item is seeing none. Let me go back let me go back to the council on the other council. Then let's go ahead and do the roll call vote by. I'm sorry, is there is there a comment, by the way, that a comment from Councilor Mongo or. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Sorry to interject myself here. You know, one of the biggest issues that we had with his ordinance right from the beginning was that it was our belief. My belief that it was for the structure, poorly written. They're not really as comprehensive as WWF. From what I'm hearing now is that if we were to adopt this ordinance, it would take us that much longer to reach a middle ground that would be acceptable to everybody. I don't see that happening. I think that this ordinance still has issues we still need to work on. Any of that is in fact what we want to do with the passage of WW. I think we have a good ordinance there that we can abide by. While it might be a good thing for the this this ordinance to pass to deal with the hotel, hoteliers that are 49 rooms and under is still not it's not as comprehensive as we had been arguing for for the last year. So just to let you know that I'm not supportive of it and that's where I want to. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Councilwoman Price. Thank you. And I appreciate Councilman Randy's comments. I do want to take a moment to thank and appreciate the work of Linda Vu, the attorney who helped draft this ordinance. I completely disagree with Councilman Arango regarding whether it was poorly or properly drafted. I think it was drafted very well. And ironically, much of the language was exactly the same as WW. So a big thanks to the city attorney's office for ensuring that there was consistency and synergy on the public policy piece. I want to make sure that our city staff gets the recognition they deserve for doing the work that we've asked them to do, even if we don't agree with the premise of what they were asked to do. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I do have a broader question, Mr. City Attorney. Maybe this is to the city manager. It's just more of a compliance question. I know that, you know, regardless of the outcome tonight and if this passes and then the broader question about all the hotels, including the smaller ones, is do we have a strategy on the compliance side? I think there is some compliance language in the law in the broader WW language. And can you just speak to that? I've had some questions about that. Yes. Maybe the WWE does have a self help, basically section and enforcement mechanism. This would be fall under city staff through code enforcement and business license to enforce the provisions of this if there are violations by the hotels. And we can do that through administrative lines, through citations. And so that's how this ordinance would be affected. But as far as WWE is concerned, though, isn't there also a compliance piece that the the city is responsible for in the larger measure, or am I wrong? Currently there is is not. It does allow the city to consider adopting rules and regulations to if necessary. That's one thing after the implementation. If if, you know, we get down the road and have some experience with this and we believe that there's additional measures that the city needs to take to make sure that the hotels are complying with it. The city has the council has that ability to do so. Okay. Well, thank you. Let me go back, Councilwoman Gonzales. Thank you. So I just want to be clear as well that we will move this if this should pass and move forward, then if there is interest in create. So we. So basically we would have to create another agenda item versus just making the amendment tonight, but yet we would still be on the same timeline. The timeline would slip a little bit, right. Because if if it passes this evening, the process of it becoming effective begins in the 31 days. Clock would begin probably tomorrow. The if there's another agenda item to now modify what is adopted this evening, we would make those changes. It would come back for a first reading, a second reading on the amendment, and then the 31 days would start. So I don't have a calendar in front of me, but if we depending on when this proposed amendments come, if there's a three identified, they'd be pretty quick too for us to be able to return that back to council. And I know I can't predict the future. On what would happen if we move forward with another agenda item. But I just think that to have amendments now seems like it would be a little bit more expedient versus waiting for an agenda item. Hopefully it passes and then waiting some more time to get that implementation done. So I just wanted to be clear on that. Okay. Thank you very much. I too think that although we had a city staff member who generously provided language for this item, we appreciate that certainly very much. I do also think that there were components missing relative to the W.W. item, and I, too, am glad that voters certainly decided overwhelmingly about that item. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Councilmember Richardson. Just just one additional thing. So I think and I liked that the conversation got really narrowed to just what's the difference between, you know, this and WW and what I'd like to see. So we move forward with this ordinance tonight. But what I actually see is just a very brief to form for that just outlines the differently the to to help support the crafting of what the amendments are. Because really we're talking about two or three very narrow changes that make that aligns it with. WW The differences between this ordinance and WW. I think pertaining. To the public safety. If you're only talking about. Yes, there is the other provision of the work search. Yes, yeah. Without talking about that piece, just talking about the safety side, I'm really interested in how they're like seeing the language or how they're different. So can we have just the two front four come back just talking about the differences in those two. Yes. Okay, Councilwoman, you go with that. The memo. Okay. So you set that friendly. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. See no other comments and no other comments from the outside. Location. Madam Clerk, please call the room. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilmember Pierce. Councilwoman Price. Councilmember. Super Now. Councilwoman Mongo. Vice Mayor. Andre. Councilmember. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Did we hear from. I think that was everyone but Councilman Mongo. Councilwoman Mongo. I. Oh, there she goes. I better say that. Okay. Thank you very much. Motion carries. Moving on to the next item, 32.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute all necessary documents to receive and expend grant funding from the California Board of State and Community Corrections for the Gang Reduction, Intervention, and Prevention Program for an amount up to $1,500,000 over a three-year period beginning January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2017; Authorize a required in-kind match of $330,000 per year; and Increase appropriations in the Community Development Grants Fund (SR 150) in the Department of Development Services (DV) by $500,000. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01062015_15-0023

I'm 28. Is a report from the Development Services Department with the recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an agreement with California Board of State and Community Corrections for the Gang Reduction and Intervention Program in amount up to $1.5 million and to authorize an in-kind match of $330,000 per year. I got a motion by Councilman Richardson, a second second by Ringa. Is there any public comment on the item seen then? Please cast your votes. Oh, there is. Please come forward. Thank you. Thank you. Members of the council, my name is Rene Castro and I'm the chair for the Long Beach Group program. And along with me, I have this young lady who's been my mentor over the years since I've been in Long Beach. When? Introduce yourself. Lena is my councilperson. Ginetta McAlpin. Lena is my. Councilperson. And Susie Price is my councilperson, proud resident of the third district. I spend most of my time in the sixth, though. So I just wanted to really congratulate staff on this city, staff that worked on this. Angela Reynolds and Teresa Gomez are the kind of staff who don't often ask for recognition. So Jeanette and I as as the chairs for the group program, we wanted to come out tonight and congratulate them. This time of fiscal constraint. They have a $1.5 million grant going to gang reduction, and specifically youth at risk. Girls at risk tend to young women at risk. 10 to 24 years of age is just an enormous value for our community and know that Jeanette and I are going to do our best to make sure that these funds are implemented and to maximize the benefit for our community. And I just also want to thank you all for your leadership and commitment to addressing this very, very touching issue in our community. And there's a lot we can do in Long Beach, and our rallying cry and our in our group meetings is zero homicides. That's really our vision and including shootings. So thank you again for your leadership. And congratulations again to city staff. Thank you. Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I, too, want to thank staff for pursuing opportunities like this. I am involved in my district attorney's office grip program. I've been involved for many years now, and every Friday, when GRIP is in session, I go to an elementary school with at risk youth in Costa mesa, and I work with the fourth, fifth and sixth graders, and I take on a mentor as often as I can. I'm proud to say a couple of years ago, my mentor went from being an at risk, or sometimes we call it an opportunity youth to becoming student body president of his sixth grade, which I was very proud of. But I think it's a very worthwhile effort because if you can make a difference, even in the life of one child, you're making a huge difference in society. I do love the aspect of this grant that focuses on girls. The focus on on girls. Because so often when we're doing gang education and we're talking to them about the jumping in process and the clothing and all of that, so much of it is focused on the male students and the female students get a lot of the same pressures and they have a lot of the same risks associated with getting involved in drugs and violence. And so I think it's it's great to have a grant that focuses specifically on that population. And I commend our staff for always looking at ways to enhance the opportunities that we can provide for our residents in terms of outreach through the use of grant funding. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Gonzales. Thank you both, Jeanette and Rene. I know the work that you do is is just so tremendous for our communities and for our city, especially in the First District. I know that firsthand. I did actually do a small stint at Orange County probation, mentoring and tutoring youth. So the at risk element and I'm certainly aware of on that aspect, but also just in the district. I know tomorrow will be doing a really robust program with many of our city officials and our city staff for Washington Middle School, which a lot of those those children are are susceptible to gangs. And so this work that we're putting in now, I know, will lead to great results in the future. So thank you very much. I. Councilmember Andrews. Yes. Thank you. Motion carries eight votes. Yes. The next item is the report from Development Services and Financial Management, with the recommendation to authorize city manager to execute agreements with five companies for plan, review and inspection services in an amount not to exceed $450,000 per year with renewal options.

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Colorado Village Collaborative to fund two Safe Outdoor Space sites with amenities and services that provide outdoor accommodation for up to 100 households. Approves a contract with Colorado Village Collaborative for $899,569 and through 12-31-21 to fund two Safe Outdoor Space (SOS) sites, with amenities and services that provide outdoor accommodation for up to 100 households (HOST-202157407). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-8-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-3-21.

DenverCityCouncil_02162021_21-0090

Ten I's Council Resolution 20 1-008 has been adopted. The next item up is Council Resolution 20 1-0090. Council Member Cashman, will you please put Council Resolution 20 1-0090 on the floor for adoption? Yes, Council President. I move that council resolution 20 1-0090 be adopted. Second. It's been moved and seconded by Councilman Herndon. Second, questions or comments by members of Council. Council Member Sawyer, you're up. Thanks, Madam President. I call this out for a vote because I would like to be a no on this. That's something I've struggled with and gone back and forth on for months. And I want to just be really clear. Everyone deserves a home, especially one that's safe during COVID. But more than 80% of our voters in May 2019 said they don't want urban camping. And I don't understand why we are spending our time and money defending urban camping ban in courts on the one hand, and then funding urban camping in direct contradiction to the will of our voters on the other. To me, that doesn't make any sense. So the lack of a cohesive plan, I think, is a failure of our leadership. I think we're sending mixed messages and breaking the trust of our voters while all the while causing confusion for our most vulnerable citizens. Our population of residents experiencing homelessness deserve better. To start with, they deserve heat and a roof and a door. We think we have around 2000 people sleeping on our streets every night. In addition to those who are using our shelters. And in addition to those who are couch surfing, this contract is a Band-Aid that covers about 5% of the need at a huge cost and pays a private provider for services that we as a city already provide when it comes to social services. That money can be spent on so many other things that could help stop the cycle of homelessness upstream before it starts, like eviction protection or drug rehabilitation or mental health services. Once again, we councilmembers are being put in a no win situation over which we have very little input. This contract fronts 100 tents with for almost $900,000, where 60% of the budget is directed at a site that has yet to be determined where residents have not been engaged or even know that this might be coming to their neighborhood. And the two pilot SS sites were private sites with private funding. And that makes sense. But this is very different from what we're talking about here. This is taxpayer money. And that requires a process that I don't see has happened in this case in the same way. I saw this last week, and I find it ironic that I'm saying it again tonight, a week later. This is not the only solution to this problem. This is the only solution that we're being presented. And once again, councilmembers are left to be the voice of our residents, asking for a rational explanation that isn't coming. I don't believe that this is a responsible use of our tax or our city tax dollars. So I'm going to be a no on this one tonight. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Sawyer. Councilwoman Connie. Thank you, Madam President. I appreciate that. You know, colleagues can respectfully disagree about different approaches, and I respect anybody's right to vote against, you know, any contractor approach that they are not comfortable with. But I do want to just clarify some of the facts on the record, because I think some of the concerns that have been shared might be confusing to members of our community who may be watching this meeting. And I think it's important if we're going to debate these things, that we get all those facts out there. So I would like to ask if Cole Chandler could please be promoted as one of the individuals receiving this contract. And then I see Angie Nelson is here. So I'd like to start maybe with a question, a couple of questions for Angie, if I may, Madam President. Mm hmm. Go ahead. Angie, can you clarify, please, how much private funding was being leveraged along with the city dollars involved in this contract? And you should introduce yourself as well, please. Hi, everyone. My name's Angie Nelson. I'm the acting. Deputy director. For Homelessness Resolution and Housing Stability within the Department of Housing Stability. And your question about how much private funding is leveraged, I am going to have to get back to you with that. Well, why don't we have Callie answer it, then, perhaps. There you go. Thank you. Thank you. And please introduce yourself. Call. I am Cole Chandler, executive director of Color Village Collaborative. I live in District nine. So the answer to that question for 2021 is that this contract would provide 86% of the funding that would fund both of these programs through the entirety of 2021. Now that being said, we have been operating one of these sites since December 15, 2020, and we did that as well as opened a site at First Baptist Church of Denver, utilizing about $300,000 worth of private funds. And so those are not coming into that figure that I'm sharing with you. But 86% of the funds to operate this through the end of the year would be provided by this contract. Okay. So $300,000 for a first site and then about 16% of this contract, private funding. Kim Kohl, can you please describe several of the differences between the safe outdoor spaces and encampments that are subject to the urban camping ban that has been raised? Can you just describe those differences? Absolutely. So I think it's really important that we state that safe outdoor spaces are not what was on the ballot when Initiative 300 came forward. Those are two entirely different things. Initiative 300 would have given people the right to sleep in public space, essentially wherever they choose. That is absolutely not what this is. This is a resource rich service rich encampment model that's fully managed by staff 24 hours a day and intends to do three things. First and foremost, to prevent the spread of COVID 19, which we have done to date, 0% of folks that have been tested have tested positive. Second, it intends to connect people to long term housing resources and case management. So we have connected five people to the beloved community, tiny home village. To date, we've had two people connect to vouchers. We've had five people entered into the one home system. Eight people in our program are currently receiving ongoing case management. So you've seen those kinds of things as well. Third, it intends to reduce the impact on neighborhoods of existing unsanctioned camps. So if you're a council member that is getting calls about unsanctioned camps, if you're getting calls saying, hey, I call 311 all the time and nothing ever happens if you're getting those kinds of complaints. This is intended to be a solution to that precise issue. So I want to create that differentiation. This is not the same issue that was voted on in 2019. Thanks. And then, Angie, I just want to ask, is there a supportive housing home available for every individual? Well, first of all, let me ask. There was a claim made that there are 2000 people sleeping on the streets right now. We have imprecise data to count things, but we had both a point in time study as well as some community studies. So do you do you have an estimate or what? What's your thought? Is that the right ballpark figure to be using today? You know, the ballpark figure, just like. You said, there are a few different data points. One being the point in time, but in the other, there was. A community led. Point in time count that happened over the summer, which inflated that number tenfold. And so we are still getting our hands around what that ballpark figure looks like right now. And I think we need to to get back to you on what the the best precise estimation is right now through our street outreach teams. And some of. Their understanding. We probably won't get a great number for this, and it's part of the challenge, and we'll have even less data in the coming year than we have now, unfortunately. But let's just go with 1000 from the point in time or 2000. Do we have a supportive housing unit available in Denver for each of those individuals today? No, we don't. We are absolutely working to build that pipeline. And in interventions like safe outdoor space, help give people a platform of stability. That. Meets them where they're at so that they can work towards those longer. Term. Solutions that Coleman spoke to. But, you know, unfortunately, the availability. Of a. Permanent housing is the thing that we're we're driving towards but don't have enough of for everyone in need today. And then call can I just ask for the folks who are staying in the safe outdoor spaces now? Do you have data or anecdotal information about where they were sleeping before and whether or not they were? You know, I would I, too, would like everyone to sleep in a heated building with a bed and a door. But I'm not sure that's where the people you're serving were sleeping prior to this. Thanks, Councilwoman. 100% of the people that were serving were sleeping outdoors in tents or worse prior to move in. When we opened our site. 32 of the people that originally moved in were in an unsanctioned camp directly across the street. That camp is now gone because of this solution coming in place. And so people that are coming in are coming from outdoors. When they come into our site, they have a tent that's rated for subzero temperatures that's on a platform that keeps them out of the snow. And they have electricity to every single unit, as well as warming tents available on site as well. So. Well, I appreciate that additional background. I'm just going to add a comment, Madam President, before I turn it back to you, which is that, you know, I think full disclosure, I was one of the folks who worked with the community to help to bring this idea and develop it and bring it to the city. And I think that in that process, I both heard from numerous neighborhoods, including, you know, not just folks that experienced camps every day, but I you know, Councilman Cashman and I were at a Westwood Park neighborhood meeting where I was asked, why can't the city find a safer, more orderly place for people who are not going inside to be more safely and to get the help they need? These ideas, they didn't use this language safe outdoor space. Right. That's language that we invented. But they talked about this concept. You know, we did massive outreach around to be an overwhelmingly you know, more than 50% of folks were supportive of this in scientific surveys as well as informal surveys. There is really strong support for this model. And I will just say I heard a lot of mixed feelings. You know, I have a 10,000 plus person email list. And when I sent an email out specifically about this model, I heard lots of questions, consternation, some, you know, some concerns. But I did not hear widespread disapproval. But I will tell you that when I shared that, it was then open and folks were seeing the news coverage and seeing the sites. I have had no complaints from folks saying we should close this, we should stop doing this. So I just you know, I knew that we all have different constituencies and districts and we hear from different people. But I would just say I've got none of the to see that the community does not support this model and does not want to see it. And therefore, you know, to vote against it, I think is just misstating the massive, you know, you know, again, polling, surveys and others that show that a majority of residents think this idea is worth trying. It is an interim measure. This if this is our destination, we're in big trouble, but it's not our destination. We just doubled down on our supportive housing pipeline to accelerate it and to generate more homes. And so if anyone thinks we're going to address this crisis only with long term solutions and no emergency solutions, then the lives that will be lost in the interim, whether it's to hypothermia or hopelessness or what other ways that people die when they're on the streets unprotected, I'm not willing to make that sacrifice. So I will continue to advocate for doors and roofs and individual keys to homes for everybody. I'll continue to be an advocate for supportive housing, but I will be strongly supporting this contract tonight, not just because I believe it is the more humane harm reduction alternative to sleeping on the streets without the heated tent and without the service provider and without the food that these sites provide. But also because I have heard from massive numbers of my constituents that they think this is the direction that would be better to go than what we've had with unregulated camps. So for those reasons, I'll be supporting it tonight, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Councilwoman. So I see your your back up. I'm going to go ahead if it's okay to go to Councilwoman Ortega and then we'll circle back with you. Councilwoman Ortega, go ahead, please. Madam President, I just wanted to ask Cole or Angie a question about some of the data that we were provided. There was some information that showed that some people had secured vouchers. And I'm just trying to understand if those are going through the one home process with MDA, try to get people into the pipeline to secure those vouchers. And if they've been successful in finding housing, because we've heard in the past that just because somebody has a voucher doesn't mean it automatically provides them a unit. Yeah. Thank you, Councilman. I'll take that one. And Angie, if you want to jump in, feel free. So those are our data points from CBC Internal Data. Just so you know, every single person that's enrolled in the safe outdoor space has been enrolled in the HMS Homeless Management Information System. That's all that's also really important because that means people that weren't previously connected with services are now connected to this greater system. So an outreach worker working for St Francis Center, working for an urban peak, can find literally where this person that they used to have to go try to meet in a different encampment, find where they're staying every single night and see where they are. So the two people that have now, as I stated, been connected to housing vouchers. It's because they previously had come up on a list, but their outreach worker had not been able to connect with them. And they were able to do that because they found that they were within our space and they were able to let them know that they have come up and that their name is up for a voucher. Now, they have not yet connected to your housing unit, but that work is ongoing through the process with the outreach workers . So can you tell me if any of the client population that have ended up in any of these locations have come from areas other than downtown Denver? So, for example, as you know, we've got a lot of people that live outside along. I think it's Sanderson Gulch near the MDH facility on Florida and Federal Boulevard. I know that we've had people living along same creek in Council District 11. The Santa Fe Corridor is another area. And so just wanted to ask about how people are getting plugged into that pipeline because I know a lot of the homeless outreach tends to be right in the downtown, but we have chronic homeless people who have been, you know, living along the South Platte River and other areas of the city that don't seem to have the same entree, if you will, into the MDH pipeline, because it's based on the street outreach workers helping get them connected to that resource and get them into the system so that, you know, when their name comes up and a unit comes up, they get priority over, you know, people who are not in that system. So can you speak to that? Yeah. So our strategy for filling this site and I'll speak specifically for the CBC operated site at Denver Community Church was to identify people that were camping within a four block radius of the site and help bring them in. And the reason for doing that was in order to deliver on that third goal that I shared, which was to reduce the impact of unsanctioned homelessness in the neighborhood. So our specific outreach efforts are for people that are in that Capitol Hill area. And what I would say is that the points that you're making are reasons to be advocating for this to exist in other areas of town. We need these kinds of solutions to pop up all around the city so that people that are in unsanctioned camps can come in to a resource and service rich environment. And it shouldn't just be located within the downtown core. But right now, those are the only options that are available to us. Yeah. And I think the Street outreach piece is a critical part of being able to ensure that people across the city are being able to get plugged into the same pipeline, because that's that's been sort of a a missing link, if you will, where, you know, unfortunately, we've got more people on our streets than than what we would like to see. And, you know, through lots of different mechanisms. I mean, people don't realize who who come here every Monday night that we've spent, you know, upwards of $50 million on providing overnight sheltering for people in our motels and at the Coliseum and National Western, as well as the shelters that are owned by the city of Denver and run by other folks. But at the same time that we've had more shelter beds than ever, we also have more people on our streets. And so I am supportive of this tonight. I just wanted to make sure that and this really is a conversation for Britta as well, because, you know, that's where our our homeless services are. And we always want to make sure that we're not just concentrating everything downtown, which is important, but we also want to be addressing the needs of people in other areas of our city at the same time. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilwoman Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. Just wanted to point out that I attended committee and don't need to do committee work on the floor. Our job is to approve contracts or not approve contracts based on what we think is appropriate for tax expenditures, based on our constituencies. And I have made my point and I don't need to continue the conversation any more. I'm ready to vote. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman Sawyer. Madam Secretary. Roll call. Sawyer. No, black I. CDEBACA Yes, of course. Clark. All right. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I. Kenny. I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. Yes, absolutely. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results. One eight and I's. Ten I's Council Resolution 20 1-0090 has been adopted. 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 I. 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? Yes, Council President, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in the block for the following items. All series of 2020 10051005200750077006900990121012200 30 700 60 700 70 300 70 40000 80 500 90 500 90 700980 100 zero zero 50 400 80 600 80 900 92 and 0059 second. It has been moved and I heard Herndon first councilman oh. In a way. You've got three more hearings in their. Calendar. The second. Can we vote on that? Let's go to the tape. Got to keep eye on it. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark. I. When? I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I can eat. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 20, Dash 1424, changing the zoning classification for 753 South Downing Street. A required public hearing on Council Bill 20, Dash 1561, changing the zoning classification for 925 South Pennsylvania Street and a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0006 Changing the Zoning Classification for 2112 South Emmerson Street. Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must go online to sign up during the recess of council.

Recommendation to respectfully request City Manager to present a report to City Council within 30 days on the status of summer youth activities citywide, including Be S.A.F.E, summer youth jobs, summer programming, summer school, and violence prevention strategies. In addition, as part of public outreach and engagement, host a series of pre-summer community briefings in North, East, Central, and West Long Beach by the end of June to educate the public on the city's coordinated summer efforts.

LongBeachCC_05192015_15-0461

Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Council Member Suber nor Councilman Andrews and Councilmember Urunga. Recommendation two Respectfully request the city manager to present a report within 30 days on the status of summer youth activities citywide. In addition, host a series of pre summer community briefings to educate the public on the city's coordinated summer efforts. Council Member Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Brought this item forward tonight in the same spirit as the after school item last week by a council member, Councilmember Price, as well as the senior staff. I mean, we have a real focus on on on programs right now, but we're heading into summertime. So that said, I want to make sure that we that the public understands the city's coordinated efforts that we have in place to ensure a safe and engaging summer for our youth. These efforts don't just include various department activities and summer jobs, but also a number of public safety strategies that our North Commander briefs me on regularly . Our city has an outstanding reputation for youth programing, particularly in our Parks and recreation department and our libraries, and essential that our public not only knows about these opportunities, but utilizes them. And I understand that my request is on a tight timeline, and I understand that. So I'm open to having some of these pre summer community briefings as a part of larger events that might already be planned through the month of June. So so that would be my motion. Yeah. There's been a motion in a second. Councilor Marie Ranga. I want to thank you for bringing this up. It's important that the community know what's going on this summer, because I think it's one of those situations where we have to keep our youth busy. Thank you. Councilor Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. I also would like to thank our contribution to bringing this item forward, because it's important that we do have a variety of summer activities for our youth. And my greatest concern is that we don't have enough activities going on, you know, in each park. And I say it, I've said it several times before, and I will continue to say it. Like you say, I'm a busy child. It's a good challenge. And I'll keep that theme, you know, out the trouble. Okay. Thank you. We like that. Councilman manga. I think I'd like to add a small friendly to have them also provide something that we as council members can put into our newsletters and a Twitter and the such. Because each and every one of us has a constituency and a following, thousands of community members that could could really take advantage. And while a report is important for all of us to know, I think that short picture oriented links to where kids can go in the community. And then I'll also use this as a quick forum. I'm a supporter of people making a living. It's just also important to know that the city of Los Angeles and the. The decision that they made today to increase up to $15 an hour without minimum wage for minimum wage, without an exclusion for our youth programs, actually dilutes the number of youth jobs available because the feds don't take that into consideration. So if we're going to have this dialog locally about minimum wage, we need to be advocating at the federal level that cities that have a higher minimum wage would receive an apportionment of funding that would be equivalent to the work hours of the summer youth and or an exemption for summer youth programs. Because these entry level jobs for youth that are coming out of mixed shop workforce development are critical to their ability to hold a job long term. So just looking into how the summer youth jobs fit into all of this and finding a way that those aren't depleted dramatically with the the future of wages in our community. Councilman Gonzales. It's great that we're looking. We just looked at after school programs and we're looking at summer programs. And I'll tell you, you know, our city staff is amazing in the sense that, you know, when we especially with communities that certainly need it, like Washington neighborhood, I'm hitting it pretty hard and I know that we have be safe there. We have be safe at Drake Park and it's really working collaboratively with our departments as well. Health Department, we're going to be doing a canvass out in Washington neighborhood to make sure that people know about the summer program. So I would even encourage my council colleagues to do that as well. And I think our development services, our health department, Pacific Gateway for collaborating with us on that, because otherwise, you're right, sometimes these folks would not know about these summer programs. And I think every effort that we can take to do that at the council offices and just as a city is is great. So thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you. Any public comment on the item? CNN. Please cast your vote. Councilwoman Pryce. Motion carries unanimously. And finally, 25. Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Council member, Super Nine Council member, your UNGA recommendation to request a resolution in support of the James Zadroga 911 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act.

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_09182017_17-0939

11 I. One abstention. 973 passes. Okay, please bring up 939. Great Councilwoman. 99 is up. Councilman Ortega. This is just for comment. Yup. So, first of all, I want to thank Krystal de Herrera, deputy city attorney, for getting over an updated letter. It's actually a memo that was written by Mayor Hancock and addressed to the National Western Center Authority. Chairperson So this will go to the board when they are seated. But what it does is spell out the mayor's expectations of the board. And initially, when this was shared with the members of the Community Advisory Committee, it had the verbiage the authority should, and it was changed to will in several of these bullet points. And so I just wanted to thank her for this change that has been made. I'm talking about you as you walk in the door. And I think this is really important because it's it's not leaving it up to chance. It's it's pretty definitive that these things will be done. And that's an expectation from the mayor of the advisory board. The last thing I mean, advisory board, but the authority board members, I so when we had this discussion last week and we had the public hearing on this, we didn't know that the executive director of the National Western Center, Kelly Lead, was going to be stepping down and moving on to other things. So I just want to reiterate my appreciation to you, Kelly, for the work you've done moving not only this project, but all the projects that you've started with the DCC. So, you know, you've got big shoes to fill. And Gretchen, you've been there every step of the way as well. So you'll be stepping into Kelly's role and the fact that you've been there means that you won't miss a beat. And so I wish you well and looking forward to the next meeting on the 28th and just appreciate all of the efforts. So thank you, Kelly, and Godspeed with you in your next chapter of your life. That. Thank you, Councilwoman. Or your client for his. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, I think I think those words are just right in. And I want to say a couple words as well. That one, this isn't the end of the conversation, I think for the community piece that there's ongoing conversations. I've offered up my time as president to continue letting the mayor hear the feedback from the community. Specify criteria of the chosen selections on this board. So I still stand by that and look forward to meeting with the community on that. And thank you, Councilwoman, for for being there and walking with us through this whole issue. And then, Kelly is it's been a fun ride. Many of us came in with Kelly Councilwoman to take in each council, Councilwoman Sussman and also oh yeah, earned it. We all came in 2011 when you were the development services director, then on to NBCC and now you know, the National Western Center and on to what you're gonna be doing privately. And so thank you for your service. Thank you for always improving systems, for being factual, for being consistent, for being transparent. I think you've done a great job. And so we we, you know, excited for the next step. We bitterly say bye, but thank you for all your hard work. And Gretchen, you're going to do a great job. Excited for you to take over the reins here. So with with no further questions, no one call the software vote. So we're going to we're going to fold this into the package. This concludes all of the items that need to be called out. All other bills for introductions are not or to publish. We're now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills in front of consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call on on our supper vote count someone Khamenei can each where you please put a resolution for adoption on 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. 348 986 987 988 989 979 nine 8983 985 344 1038 938 972 nine 3931 937 960. All series of 2017. Great. You've got them all. It's been moved and seconded. My secretary, Raquel Flynn. I Gillmor I Cashman Kinney I Lopez High New Ortega Sussman, I Black Clerk. Espinosa Hi, Mr. President. I police was very nice. Results. 1212 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted in the bills have been placed on final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 841 changes on the classification for 385395405 and 415 South Cherokee and Baker.

A proclamation honoring the University of Denver Pioneers Hockey team for their 9th National Championship Victory.

DenverCityCouncil_04182022_22-0440

. You can compost it and so appreciate the work on the proclamation and we're going to go ahead and move on then in the agenda. Councilmember Cashman, would you please read Proclamation 20 to Dash 440 for us? Thank you, Madam President. I'm really excited to read Proclamation 22 does zero for 40, honoring the University of Denver Pioneers hockey team for their ninth national championship victory. And my proclamation won't be as long as Councilman Black will be equally as important and heartfelt. And before I read that, we're going to play a short video from the recent chapters. Thank you. Thank you. That. And here we go. The final college hockey game of the season is underway. It's so important for both of these teams. They can score. They can defend. On the borderline here. They come back strong on the pocket to keep that up. He carried behind the net. Lucky, though, that big step Father Jerry got to get. Fire in front of the fire. They're tough game. Denver's got their swagger at this time. He takes the lead. What made Rizzo Mazur Rizzo, Minnesota state his absolute stop. Next year will break their tie with North Dakota tied Michigan. 39. That's going to turn the countdown is on question time while the staff. Graduation from two University of Denver camp demonstrates the drill. I'm. All right. Good luck. All right. If you missed that game, it was definitely one for the ages. So let me read the proclamation again honoring the University of Denver Pioneers hockey team for their ninth national championship victory. Whereas the University of Denver was founded in 1864 as Colorado's seminary and is the oldest independent private university in the Rocky Mountain region. The school changed its name. The University of Denver in 1880 moved from its original downtown location to its familiar 125 acre campus at Evans Avenue and South University Boulevard shortly thereafter. And. Whereas, in 1949, the Du Arena, a former World War Two surplus drill hall from Idaho, was reassembled in Denver with the addition of an ice plant giving the university the ability to properly field an ice hockey team for the first time. The team hit the ice for their first game in December of that year, losing to the University of Saskatchewan. Wait for it 17 to nothing. Denver would lose its first nine games before recording the school's first victory against Wyoming on January 27 of 1950. And. Whereas, over the past 72 years under coaches Vern Turner, Neill, Sally Murray Armstrong, Marshall Johnston, Ralph Backstrom, Frank Sheraton, George Gwozdecky, Jim Montgomery and David Carle. The Mighty Dew Pioneers have developed a nationally renowned hockey program, assembling a combined record of 1499 wins 988 losses and 170 ties, winning 15 regular season conference championships and 17 conference playoff championships. And. Whereas, about 75 pioneers have gone on to play in the National Hockey League, including such well-known names as Keith Magnuson, Kevin Dineen, Matt Karl , who was the 2006 HOBEY Baker winner as NCAA Player of the Year, Paul Stastny and Will Butcher 2017 HOBEY Baker Award winner and where as going into this year's NCAA tournament, the players had won Frozen four national championship titles in 1958, 1960, 1961, 1968, 1969, 2004, 2005 and 2017, leaving them one behind University of Michigan, who led with nine titles. And. Whereas, the 2000 to number four ranked pioneers won tournament games against University of Mass, Lowell 3 to 2 and Minnesota Duluth 221 before defeating the previously no. I will repeat the previously number one ranked University of Michigan 322 in overtime to advance to the championship final. And. Whereas, The Pioneers made a strong Minnesota State team who led one zero through two periods until D2 exploded in the third, with five players scoring five unanswered goals for an historic 5 to 1 victory, giving the PIOs their ninth title, putting them in a tie with Michigan for most NCAA championship wins, and making coach David Karl the fourth youngest coach to win a Frozen four title. And. Whereas, the University of Denver has sent yet another player into the NHL as forward Bobby Brink, a 2022 Hubie Baker finalist who led the nation this year in points and assists, signed with the Philadelphia Fliers just a few days after the Frozen four victory. Now, therefore, let it be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City of Denver City and County of Denver congratulates the University of Denver Pioneers hockey team on their ninth national championship and declares today, April 18, 2022, to be University of Denver Pioneers Hockey Day in the city and county of Denver in section two that the clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest and affixed to seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and copies be transmitted to David Carr. David Karl, coach of the Mighty, Mighty University of Denver Pioneers. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. And I'd like to also welcome Councilman Herndon to the meeting this evening. Councilmember Cashman, your motion to adopt? Yes, ma'am. I move that proclamation. $22 0440 be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilmember Cashman. Yeah, thank you again, Madam President. It is truly an honor to represent the University of Denver on Denver City Council. You know, in my my years as a journalist, I not only followed the university, but their hockey program. And while with any long established program, there have been some ups and downs along the way. This is truly year after year after year. Top of the Heap nationally recognized program. And you know, where people spend so much time paying attention to our professional sports teams, to those that do carry on muscle. But, you know, to look at athletes that are there for the love of the sport, I'm sure some hope to advance to the pros along the way. None none of the guys that you saw on the ice in the picture earlier are making $27 million a year. If they are, I think you're violating some NCAA rules, aren't you? And so I think the level of hockey that they put forth year after year is it's worth the price of admission if you haven't been to a do you game. I advise you to get over to the campus. You will feel that your money is well spent. So I just want to congratulate I know we have a couple of players here and the entire do you team, the coaching staff, the athletic department for once again bringing home the trophy to Denver and giving us just one more reason to be proud that the university holds the the name of the city and county of Denver in its name. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Cashman. And I don't think you're going to have any problem with this proclamation passing unanimously. Madam Secretary, Roll Call Cashman. I. I. Ortega. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black. I. CdeBaca. I. Clark. I. I. Herndon. I hate. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announced the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Proclamation 20 2-440 has been adopted. Councilman Cashman, we've got 5 minutes for the proclamation, acceptance. And so we'll let you invite up who's going to do that? Thank you, Madam President. I'd just like to note that that proclamation would be a shut out you. Very nice. I know we have a contingent from due. I hope someone will come up and make a few comments. Just come up to the mic, guys, and introduce yourself, if you would. We have a couple of jacks here. I'm Jack Caruso. I'm detective on first and foremost. We obviously thank you guys for having us today. It's been a pretty crazy week or so and obviously filled with excitement and a lot of fun. We're just more than pleased to be here and thank you, guys. Yeah. I just wish you were honored and grateful for your guys's proclamation for us. And it's been a great week, and we're super excited to celebrate if you guys. Thank you very much. And I hope you never underestimate how much it means to us as individuals and to the city as a whole. That level of accomplishment, it shines a light on everybody and it means a whole lot. Thanks for your hard work. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You betcha. Thank you. Yeah. Well, thank you so much and congratulations again. And to note proclamation 20 2-441 has been placed on consent this evening, as Councilmember Sawyer had mentioned in the announcements. Madam Secretary, would you please read the bills for introduction?

Recommendation to respectfully request City Council approval of the 2021 Federal Legislative Agenda as recommended by the Federal Legislation Committee.

LongBeachCC_03232021_21-0211

Thank you. We will go back now up to item number 11, please. Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson, chair of the Federal Legislation Committee, recommendation to approve the 2021 federal legislative agenda as recommended by the Federal Legislation Committee. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you. I just have a few comments, but I want to ask our staff if we're able to take all three of these on one vote. They're all related. Vice mayor, this is Charlie Parker. And I think, yes, if the clerk. Reads all three of the items and then. If there's any public. Comment on all. Three items. If that's heard before. The action is taken. Yes, you can take them to. Great, great, fantastic. Can we read the other two? Item number 12. Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson, Chair of the Federal Legislation Committee. Recommendation Requests Request City Attorney to draft a resolution in support of Medicare for All, as recommended by the Federal Legislation Committee. And a communication from the Federal Legislation Committee. Again, Vice Mayor Richardson, Chair recommendation to approve the recommendation of the Federal Legislation Committee to support federal legislative proposals. Thank you. So proud to bring these recommendations from the committee forward. They were supported unanimously in the committee level. These are obviously some changes to the agenda, all consistent with our goals around economic development, public safety, public health, sustainable and livable cities. COVID 19 response. And it also is consistent with our Racial Equity Reconciliation Initiative. Initial report. I look forward to continue to work with the committee to identify more resources for Long Beach. We're pretty proud to see the results of the Long Beach Recovery Act. Next, Congress is going to focus on a large infrastructure bill. I've spoken with Lowenthal Waters, Bass, Norma Torres and others. This bill will be much bigger than infrastructure. It will have housing, CDBG support. Large projects like Metrolink and high speed rail. Also green infrastructure projects consistent with cleaning our air. So that will be the next significant order of business. I will expect Congress to pick up on that very soon, expect action in May or June. So that said, I'm happy to make this vote, this recommendation to approve these three items. Kate. There is a motion to approve the items on the floor. And I have a have a second to my councilman's in Davos. Councilman Van de Haas. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to show my support for all three items, but especially for Medicare for All. The COVID pandemic has further exposed just how poorly we can't just how any, you know, art our care health care system has been. Because it seems that insurance nowadays is a luxury when there's actually millions of people that cannot even afford to go see a doctor when they're sick. So I'm very excited that the federal Federal Legislation Committee has proposed a resolution in support of Medicare for All. I think it's the right thing to do. And I think the whole committee for bringing this forward. Thank you. Thank you. And next up is Councilwoman Price. Mr. Mayor, I did have a question for perhaps city staff can help me with this and I can't switch back to my PDF notes from the agenda item, so I don't know what page it is, but I want to talk a little bit about gun control and I am very interested in seeing what legislative proposals are out there. Federal legislative proposals are out there that the city can support or even possibly suggest that address the loophole in the universal background check proposal, because right now that background check proposal applies to retailers and not private sales. And I was recently listening to a piece in NPR about some of the violence that we're seeing in South America and in Mexico with the guns flowing south and these private sales of of a really large amount of arms and. Very dangerous weapons between private parties is not really regulated at all in terms of universal background checks. So are we aware of anything like that? And I know that our Fed large agenda has a very general comment about supporting legislation to control access to guns. And I think maybe it's Dr. Curley on the. On the line. Yes, I am. Okay, great. What do you want to give her an overview of? I know that some of that's in the agenda currently, but you wanted me probably speak to councilwoman prices questions, please. Yes, absolutely. So some of the things that we are recommending in partnership with Long Beach PD is new items around ghost guns regulations and also just more interoperable databases around ammunition cases, things like that. But there are existing items in the legislative agenda related to strengthening gun control laws and requiring background checks on ammunition purchases. You know, I think that we could potentially, if there was an amendment or a friendly to include something more specific around universal background checks that would give us more direction around just how far we'd like to go on that specific item. I would like to offer a friendly that if there is legislation proposed on universal background checks that the city advocate in favor of it and also. Evaluate whether it can apply to private sales as well. Accepted. Thank you. And then the other question I have is, what is there any legislation pending right now regarding assault weapons ban on assault weapons? I mean, it's just that the mass shootings don't seem to be stopping. And I'm just wondering if there's anything pending in the legislation right now on that. I would have to double check exactly what proposals are out there right now. But yes, those are often introduced and then would likely pass the house right now. But I don't know if they would be successful in the Senate currently, but that is definitely something that we could check back on for the details. Yeah, and it could just be either a two from four or if you just send me an email. I'm just curious what current legislation there is regarding banning assault, large scale assault weapons and whether that discussion is is is ripe right now or not. So thank you. And with that, I'm happy to support all the items. Thank you. Thank you, councilwoman. I also have next up is Councilwoman Sara. Well, actually, I think that was just a part of the motion. I do have a just a couple broad, broad comments and as well. First is, I think this is a great agenda for federal agenda. And I want to thank the committee Vice Mayor Richardson for their work on this. I think it's going to be a couple of very big years in Washington, D.C.. I want to also speak to Councilman Price's comments around additional gun control or, you know, gun safety legislation. I think that's really important for us. That debate, obviously, we have supported those issues in the past. There will be additional bills in front of the Congress or ones that will be reintroduced. And so the more that we can be involved in and engage in that conversation, we should be. And I also just want to also just touch on something that Vice Mayor Richardson said as it relates to infrastructure that is going to be a massive recovery bill as well that is now being negotiated and discussed. And so we look forward to being very engaged in that at the federal and local level as that bill is developed. And with that, I think that has answered all the questions. Are there any public comment on this item? Yes. We have Steve Shukla. Good evening again. I urge you support for all three items and would like to thank the Federal and State Legislation Committee of the Council for bringing them forward, particularly H.R. one, the for the People Act, the Medicare for All Act, and in the federal legislative agenda, the focus on implementing the city's Climate Action Adaptation Plan, particularly as we look, as a major said, towards the infrastructure portions of the American recovery plan. You committed the city of Long Beach needs to turn the corner from being a state laggard, state leaders in emissions reduction and particularly achieving net negative emissions by 2030, 2045, 2040, 2050. We're simply too late looking forward to seeing not only these measures, passion, but also seeing how this year how we develop achieving these needed targets. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. And with that, we will go and take the the one vote on items 11, 12 and 13. Localities. District one. I. District two. I. District three. I. District four. All right. District five. District five. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. By. District nine. I motion carries.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification of 30-50 South Colorado Boulevard in Hilltop. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 30-50 South Colorado Boulevard from E-SU-D to PUD G-17 (urban edge to planned unit development) in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-30-18.

DenverCityCouncil_03122018_18-0094

Please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman, can each where you please put Council Bill 94 on the floor. Yes, I move that council build 18 dash 0094 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right, it has. Give me a second. Yes, it has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council 94 is open. May we have the staff report? Teresa Lucero. Good evening. As well as a walk by. With community planning and development. This is a map amendment located at 3350 South Colorado Boulevard. The request is to rezone from urban edge single unit D to AP D. The PWD is based on the G RH three zone district. This property is located in Council District five in the Hilltop neighborhood. Property is about over. Just a little over an acre. 45,900 square feet. It is a vacant church. I think if this property might be familiar to a lot of people. Again, the request is to rezone from urban edge single unit to poverty g 17 in order to redevelop the property. So existing zoning surrounding on the north and east is ESU. D on the south is always a burns park to the West. RH three and Pudi in the Cherry Creek neighborhood. So again, the subject property is a vacant church to the north is a vacant property to the south. A city park. To the east. Single family residential. To the west. Single unit and multi-unit. Residential. And some commercial. This gives you an idea of the property and its location. The other thing that the property is subject to is a view plane from Cranmer Park, and that would allow buildings up to about 100 feet tall, which doesn't affect the property as with the proposed development redevelopment. So this gives you an idea of the building form and scale in the area lower density, single family homes to the east and across the boulevard, a commercial structure that's just one story tall. The park and the vacant property park to the south, a vacant property to the north, and the church itself, which is about two stories . So, again, this is based on the grade three zoned district, and it is a multi-unit zoned district. That's a pretty much a low scale, low intensity zoned district and mainly residential. So as far as the public process, initial notification of a complete application went out in August of last year and we did have a planning board hearing on January 17th of this year where unanimously they recommended approval. And then we were at Ludie on January 30th where the committee recommended that we move on to the floor of council. So here we are for our public hearing and the proper notification has been made for this hearing. So the registered neighborhood organizations Cherry Creek, East Cranmer Park, Hilltop, Hilltop Heritage, Denver Association of Neighbors and I.N.S.. And we have a letter of support from the Cranmer Park Hilltop Organization and no other letters. So you know our criteria, so I won't read them. There are additional criteria when we are approving, approved. Those are consistency with the beauty, purpose and intent and consistency with the beauty district. Standards and criteria develop that the development is not feasible and enter any other zone district that the development establishes. Permitted use is compatible with adjacent properties and land uses and that the building forms are compatible. So the plans that apply our current plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver and the Boulevard Plan, which is a quite old plan, but it still applies. So plan 2000 staff believes that this conforms with and promoting infill development at sites where services and infrastructure are already in place, encouraging quality infill development consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and where increased density and amenities can be can be accomplished, and identifying areas where increased density and new uses are desirable and can be accommodated and preserving and moderate modernizing our housing stock. So a blueprint. Denver The property is within an area of change. It is single family duplex, which is moderate density, primarily residential. The building forms allowed our single family duplex townhome and small apartments street classifications. Colorado Boulevard is a mixed use arterial and enhanced transit corridor to dale is a residential arterial bayard avenue and designated local. The Boulevard plan again is quite old. It was really written mostly for the commercial uses on Colorado Boulevard but does speak to development on the boulevard. They do talk about no wholesale increase in development but then later on speaks to specific sites might be okay for a development. So it somewhat contradicts itself and basically says it seeks to retain the diversity of the land uses on the corridor on in basing our PD on a standard zoned district, we believe that we are furthering the uniformity of district regulations by sticking with the standards that are consistent with our code, because we're using those code standards and varying just a few things in the PD, and that by implementing our plans and allowing reinvestment in a rundown site, we believe that we're furthering the public health, safety and welfare change or changing conditions. The property itself has been deteriorating for years. Properties on Colorado Boulevard don't address the Boulevard anymore. They turn their back on the boulevard. And we're seeing a lot of change in the Cherry Creek East Area. So staff believes that there are a lot of changed conditions in the area and that this is an appropriate justifying circumstance. And then we talked a little bit about the grade three being that moderately scaled. Standards that that are consistent with the and with the adjacent properties. So we believe that it is consistent with the both the context, sorry, the context and the adjacent single unit standards for height and density. So the additional criteria for PUDs that this site be unique and extraordinary. There is compromised access to this property because of the location on two major arterials and one substandard local street with a private alley in the back. It is very challenging to take access to this property and with the just location between a low density residential neighborhood and a very major arterial in the city, we think that is also a unique and extraordinary circumstance and the public benefit will be some of the things that we are writing into the property. No garden court building form. The entry feature requirement will apply to the only the structures in the on the street. And as long as those structures conform to the entry feature requirement, the rear structures will not have to apply. And it is, as I said before, are compatible in building form and scale. In the low intensity residential uses. There will be a restoration of the parkway with some landscaping and actual sidewalks that are suitable for people to walk on on Colorado Boulevard, which is kind of unheard of in this portion of Colorado Boulevard, and it does conform with our objectives and our plans. So we do think that this property is consistent with the standards and criteria with those changes precluding the garden court, allowing the entry feature requirement to be exempted from those buildings behind and allowing allowing multiple duplexes on the zone lot. Those are unique things to this property that are not available in other any other zoned district. And it is, as I said before, compatible in density and height with the adjacent properties. And so staff believes that the additional criteria are met as well. And with that, staff recommends approval. All right. Thank you, Miss Lucero. We have three speakers this evening. I'm going to call them to the front here. And please give us a little room for these speakers to sit down. Douglas macKinnon. Tom Hart. And Wendy Rehak. Please come to the front. Douglas macKinnon, you were first. Good evening, Councilman. Good evening, counsel. My name is Doug McKinnon. Address 730 17th Street, Suite 220 here in Denver, where we were last before this body, on this property. It was about 20 months ago to the day. So we left that evening with a very clear message from all of you. And that was to reach out to the neighborhood and see if we could find agreement. We worked first. We absorbed our our concept thought through what was appropriate in the neighborhood and then began an outreach process. And over the last 20 months, with significant involvement from many community volunteers, which which really should be respected, the the the effort that Hilltop has shown in committing to a dialog with us has not gone unnoticed. And from our partners and myself, we really feel like this is the way logical, reasonable new development can happen in challenging situations. So what we have tonight is a request for a new rezoning. That rezoning reflects the neighborhood agreement that we've reached. That neighborhood agreement has been committed in a covenant that runs with the land. That covenant runs in perpetuity. So as a good faith gesture on our side, we made an agreement with the neighborhood. And it's the neighborhood's request that we actually put those words in writing in a very meaningful way. We've done that in terms of a covenant on the property. The main points which both Tom and Wendy can speak to is an agreement on the total density on the site to no more than 22 units. We waive the garden court form, which was a troublesome shape for many people. So we've we've held two only duplex townhomes, rowhouses or single family homes. We have a concept plan that has 11 buildings. Each of them are duplexes. So 22 units in total. We've limited the heights on the property to no more than 35 feet, which is exactly the height that exists in existing zoning around the neighborhood. We have limited any access off Colorado Boulevard to provide for a safer environment, which would reduce sound transmission into the neighborhood. We've agreed on the private alley to expand and improve the private alley between the properties on arc on our Nicole to make sure that that works in perpetuity. So we have a project that we are very happy to begin to commence with your approval. I think the neighbors also feel satisfied and feel vindicated in their approach and input to us. And we look we request your approval tonight. Thank you, Mr. McKinnon. All right, Tom Hart, you're up. Good evening. My name is Tom Harkin live at 4530 Cedar Avenue. I am the zoning committee chair for the Park Hilltop Civic Association. And we're here. We were here almost two years ago and we opposed the rezoning. Since then, it's not mentioned. They came to us with a plan that we agree with. It provides for 11 duplex units and we've negotiated the covenants and we're here to support this rezoning. Thank you, Mr. Hart. Wendy Rehak. Hi, Wendy Rehak. I live at 666 Birch Street, and I am the president of the Cranmer Park Hilltop Civic Association here on behalf of the association to speak in support of the zoning, the rezoning application. Excuse me. After working with the property owner and neighbors near this proposed development and within the community, within the Association, we are supportive of revising the zoning based on the current concept submitted and an agreement to a set of points within the restrictive covenant negotiated between our association and the property owner. Developer. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Rehak. All right. This concludes our speakers. Any questions from members of council? All right. Seeing no questions. This public hearing is now closed. 95 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Dr. Sussman. Um. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you all for being here. Do. Your speaker's not on. Yeah. For this. Just I just want to thank everybody that showed up tonight. I want to thank the developer for listening to the neighborhood, for going back to the neighborhood, for taking all the things in consideration. And I want to thank the neighborhood folks here who really worked hard on this to try to get something that everybody felt comfortable with. And I know it was not easy. 20 months, my goodness gracious. And thanks to Teresa for the work that she's done with both groups, sort of going back and forth. You'll recall that one of the reasons that I asked you all to not support this last time was because of the very strange character of this particular corner, the Bayard Street. That's not quite a street that leads Stale Street that comes screaming excuse me, screaming down to Colorado Boulevard. And the funny kind of turns there, the access on Ellsworth to the alley. It was a very kind of unsettling kind of arrangement. And I know we don't often do parties. And of course, when that one came through, I called up Theresa right away and go, What are we doing with the party? And certainly, as she explained, much of that, of the uniqueness of the property has to do with its access and its egress and ingress. And where where do you how do you position the buildings? And and so happy that they found that planning found a solution for that to a party that really, you know, after getting the egress and ingress established, it really mimics what the what's happening in the neighborhood behind it. Do you have the same kind of height? You have single family homes, not detached, but attached, and they're not slot homes. I know that I have council council friends who would be happy to hear that because they were making these decisions as that was going through. So I do want to thank everybody for your hard work and for your coming together and making such a good plan. That church was in and is in terrible shape. But it certainly is an example of lots of places in Denver that have churches on corners, on busy corners like this. And I know that blueprint Denver is addressing this situation. We recently found that there were about 60 churches in town that have or have been for sale or were sold. It's a it's a phenomenon of church attendance is declining. And so we do need to think about this, not just for this neighborhood, but for others. The fact that we are. Putting back sidewalks, even though it's a small space on Colorado Boulevard and that we have houses that will face Colorado Boulevard. I don't know if people know this, but Colorado Boulevard actually is a parkway that has setback requirements and all kinds of things like require detached sidewalks and tree lines. But as the years have gone by, the city has sort of let folks take back the right away and put fences, very high fences. I don't know how we're going to be able to fix that, too. So would you look into how we can fix it so that we can begin to have some sort of walkable street? I mean, when they say enhanced transit corridor, I need to ask you what's enhanced about it? Colorado Boulevard is our if you live it around where I live, we don't go there kind of like Quebec. You don't, you know, don't go there. You try and find other ways around. So really, I'm pleased with the way this has turned out and I urge all my council members to please vote yes on this rezoning. Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Councilman Espinosa? Yeah, I. I actually chimed in. Too late for a question, because I. But I hope it didn't take the full 20 months to negotiate these terms, or it shows you how far off we were the last time it came for us. You know, I. I just the. The only thing I wanted to say is that these churches and hopefully Blueprint Denver goes there and hopefully count this council. I mean, I think we've done a good job thus far to sort of recognize and working with CPD that there are unique opportunities and sort of anomalies and wherever they sort of exist because they're usually under zoned for the scale of the, of the, of the structures that are there. But. But without rambling too much. This one is a situation where. You could, you know, the growth. Well, when we try to say the growth problems in Denver right now are in part due to sort of very generous zoning that we've done citywide and very generous base zoning. And part of the conversation with Blueprint Denver is to sort of say, okay, what do we how do we how do we support growth and change it, but do it in a sort of more thoughtful manner? And what sort of recommendations will come about from that that sort of take what we've done, which is a very good step in form based zoning and and and layer on to it other sorts of conditions and constraints and considerations as we go forward, when unfortunately for a long period of time we have done a lot of rezonings to that very base zoning that is of concern. And this represented one situation where it was it didn't comport with underlying plans on unit densities, which we don't address specifically, and conditions, physical conditions that need to be considered. And and yes, they can be considered in the development process, but they also it doesn't mean that every zoned district will by itself automatically address those considerations. And and it is important that we be able to recognize that in real time. I think all the things, Mr. McKinnon, that you brought up that are being addressed are important, crucial, fundamental pieces that we don't know what you're going to build. You have a lot of latitude even now. But it gets to the the the very important aspects that were missing that are important to address the full gamut of the criteria. And and so that's why I'm very comfortable moving forward, because you do address those things, not just because the community wants it, because I've got a lot of communities that want things and want considerations made in. But the zoning largely captures those things, but not every time and not in every situation. And and so thank you for for doing that. Thank you, CPD, for recognizing that we do have the tool and the mechanism where we can steer developers into that situation to address the uniqueness of a particular area. I know we love to have plan uniformity and in create you know just going map to condition mean districts that we already have but there are situations where there are plausible redevelopment schemes that aren't part of our base zoning that can be captured. But where our base zoning doesn't it doesn't necessarily capture all the conditions that need to be addressed. And that's where these ads and dpu ads and waivers and conditions really play an important role to sort of address those things to the degree they can. So I'm sorry it took so long to get here. Sorry that I rambled, but these are important things that I've articulated many times from this dais, particularly because I'm in an area that's largely been impacted by slot homes. And and that was you know, that wasn't a condition here. But there you know, it is important that we get back to this idea that, you know, communities and developers can collaborate and create really wonderful outcomes with just a little bit of conversation and capturing those ideas in a way that respect both ideas, because that's what we're trying to do when we're city building, is being mindful of what we've done and where we're going. And and there are a lot of solutions that there's a lot of capacity for compromise in there. And so thank you for structuring this enduring. And I'm looking forward to whatever comes about here. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other comments. Thank you, guys. For everyone's hard work community coming together. I do remember 20 months ago it was a very tense conversation, but it's beautiful when this kind of outcome comes together. So thank you for all involved. Congratulations, Madam Secretary. Raquel Sussman. Clark Espinosa. Flynn. AI Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Canete. Lopez. All right, new Ortega. Mr. President. I please close the voting results concerns. Making sure. 12 eyes. All right, 12 eyes. 94 has passed. Congratulations. Okay. Um, Councilwoman Kinch, will you please put 129 on the floor?

A resolution approving a proposed First Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Brothers Redevelopment, Inc. to revise the scope of services and budget, increase the maximum contract amount, and extend the term for the administration of the Temporary Rental and Utility Assistance (TRUA) Program. Amends a contract with Brothers Redevelopment, Inc. by adding $1,262,255 for a new total of $2,795,855 and one year for a new end date of 12-31-22 for administration of the Temporary Rental and Utility Assistance (TRUA) program (HOST 202161105-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-3-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-1-21. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Hinds called this item out at the 12-13-21 meeting for a one-week postponement to 12-20-21.

DenverCityCouncil_12202021_21-1438

Thank you, Councilmember Hines. See, no one else in the queue will go ahead and move on. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screen? All right. It looks like we've got it there. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put Council Resolution 1438 on the floor for adoption? I believe that council resolution 21, dash 1438 be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on the Council Resolution 1438. Councilmember Hines. All right. Thank you, Council President. Here I am again. I want to thank my colleagues for giving me a little bit extra time to to reach out to brothers. I did have a conversation with them last week. They said that they would follow up. I did not get that follow up. So I will be in a vote. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Hines. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution 1438, please. See Nevada. I. HINES No. CASHMAN All right. ORTEGA Hi. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black. I. Clark. All right. Flynn. Hi. Herndon Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One May 11. 911 IES Council Resolution 1438 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Herndon, will you please put Council Bill 1475 on the floor for final passage?

Recommendation to approve renaming the community center at Houghton Park the "Doris Topsy-Elvord Community Center".

LongBeachCC_04062021_21-0284

Thank you. Number 20. Item 28 Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson, Councilwoman Sara, Council Member Oranga and Councilman Austin. Recommendation two referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Government Personnel and Elections Committee to consider naming of the newly renovated Halton Community Center complex. The doors topsy over community center and recommend city manager to identify additional sites of significance to the African-American community for the purposes of historic preservation. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Today, I'm proud to present to you a proposal for naming the newly built and renovated community center complex after mother doorstops. Before I begin my comments and share short video and acknowledge a few people, first six Bishop Council members who we sorrow. Seventh District Council Member Roberto Ranga. And Eighth District Council member Al Alston also acknowledge the steering committee members former ninth District Councilman Steve Miele. Steve and Jackie Topsy. Cecily Harris Walters. Sharon Biggs. Jackson. Marcus Tyson, Anita Dempsey, Michelle Dobson, Joanie Riggs, Odie and Wayne Chaney. Also want to thank the more than 70 community members who have signed on in support of this effort, including community community leaders like Mayor Beverly O'Neal, amid Sophia Fear, Bixby Smith, Carl Kemp and others, faith leaders including Pastor Gregory Sanders, Bishop Todd Irvin and Dr. Lee. Our word in our families neighborhood associate neighborhood leaders, including former ninth District Council member Val Lerche and press birds and the presidents of many of our ninth District neighborhood associations. I also want to thank the elected officials who took time to send in letter support today. Congressman Alan Lowenthal. Representative Annette Barragan. Senator Lena Gonzalez. Assembly Member Mike Gibson. Supervisor Janice Hahn. Thank you so much for those letters of support. And finally, thanks to the Long Beach TV team who helped put together the video we're about to see. Dennis Hunter, Nadia and Ed did a great job. And so to introduce this Mayor Topsy over mother doorstops, Joubert served as the first African-American woman on a Long Beach City Council. She was our first African-American harbor commissioner and a two time vice mayor right here in the city of Long Beach. And she's a mentor to many of us and said paved the way for many of us here in leadership. The name of the new community center housing park after this living legend is a true honor for our community. And it recognizes her legacy, her contributions and 35 years of public service to the entire city of Long Beach. She's recognized and affectionately called mother for many great reasons, the new community center complex. The site is designed to be a park that embodies the very things that she valued by community and youth and equity and improving the quality of life to residents. It also provides programing which are core tenets of her legacy programing for our communities, youth, seniors and social needs. I will continue. There's much more than I can say, but we put together a great video to share. And to be clear with this, we need to do a better job citywide and these conversations come up. We need to do a better job ensuring that our assets and our our public facilities reflect the cultural diversity of our of our community. And so this does not preclude Mother Doris from being recognized even for in other areas of town and or anyone else. And I think the second part of this motion really speaks to us being intentional about updating our our citywide historical context statement and going through a process of identifying all communities that are underrepresented through these processes to make sure that they can also be reflected in our naming process, the city wide. So that's it. I'd like to go ahead and share the view. Hi, I'm Long Beach Vice Mayor Rex Richardson, and welcome to a very special edition of Go Long Beach. We are here at the Houghton Park Community Center, right in the heart of uptown Long Beach. It's a great regional park that offers services and amenities to teens and seniors for our entire community. And I'm here to share with you a great proposal to name our new center after living legend and trailblazer Doris Topsy over mother Doris . His legacy is that of community, of public service and of equity, all things that we value right here in the city of Long Beach. And for that reason, she's deserving of this distinction and honor. But you don't have to take my word for it. Let's hear from some. Folks who are closest to Mother Doris on what. Makes her so special to the city of Long Beach. Vice Mayor Doris Topsail Ward is an amazing woman who gave generously of her time and talents. Doris is truly one of the most wonderful, caring, civic minded people that I have ever met in my entire life. Doris is a community person at heart. She's been my best friend, my teacher, my mentor. Doris is warm, she's generous, she's loving, and she's my mom. Anybody that says has anything to say about it and there's nothing but kind words because that's the way she is. Even before I met her in person, I met her in the pages of this book that I'm holding in my hand, which is the 1949 Saint Anthony yearbook. You will see that not only were you a leader, you were a scholar. You were an athlete. There's a picture in here of Dorothy leaving a social group of students that were providing food and supplies and clothes to people who are in need in Yugoslavia. Doris was the first African-American student at seniors in high school. You opened the door for so many other people of color that followed you and emulated you and all that you were able to do. You're in the city of Long Beach. The 1992. She won her bid for becoming the first African-American woman to the Lombard City Council. And then she was elected as the vice mayor. So to know her is to know a woman of integrity and a woman that kept her promises. She saw the need within several underserved communities, the children in the community like the midnight basketball games. That was one of them, to keep the kids off the streets at night from getting in trouble. She was the founder of the King Parade. She also helped to put a cover on the pool at the Kings Park, too. She went to Washington to look for that money, for that project. So she was she was made the vice mayor. And after that, she left the city and went to the poor. I think her addition to the Harbor Commission back then was a new day in that we had a true person who really had a good perspective of community engagement to really have credibility in terms of addressing the very legitimate environmental issues that we had to address by back then. When that became known as the Greenport policy, Doris was very supportive in that obviously there was a commitment to address the environmental questions that we had to address, but it was more than that. It was also a commitment to engage with the community. You know, today in the year 2021, we're still talking about equity and inclusion. She was a great contributor to making sure that we're also going to lead in terms of diversity, in terms of the workforce and what our commitment was. For me, I can't wait to visit and see the community center with the name Doris Top Children. You deserve a Doris. I can't think of another person who's more deserving to have a community center named after them than you are. You truly have been at the center of the heart of this community your entire life. We thank you for loving us and embracing us as family. We want all of the community to know of your generosity to the city of Long Beach. You are so I love you. And I would not be where I'm at today if it wasn't for you. And that goes for everybody that has worked with her and helped her. Always been proud of you. You know you are everything you deserve. Whatever you got, come on. Because you've always been there for me. I hope that everyone in Long Beach will learn something of you as we go on through time, especially the young people in our communities. She's truly deserving of this honor. And now I want to share with you more about the future of Highland Park right here at Highland Park. We are reimagining the way we deliver services to our broader community. We are integrating a workforce center, a health care clinic, a new signature playground, and plans to restore the original building and build a brand new indoor gym to serve the youth of our community. So that's what's happening at Highland Park. I'm Vice Mayor Rex Richardson. I want to thank you for watching. Go Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. I'm happy to make the motion and. Yeah, thank. You. Thank you. There's a motion on the floor and I have a second by Councilman Ringo. Contrary. Ringo Thank you, Mary. And I want to thank Vice Mayor Richards for bringing this forward. Before Doris was my friend and collaborator, she was my opponent. We ran against each other in 1988. That's how far I go back with her. 32 years, 33. We ran for school board. We neither of us won, but we became close friends almost, almost immediately from then on. And she became very close in my career. As I move forward to see you all meet, she became a commissioner in the Civil Service Commission who for whom I worked and I was actually under her leadership. I became the recruitment officer, which I always talk about in the city. It was through her leadership that I got there, and of course the rest is history as city council vice mayor or commissioner. And I was glad to see Ralph in that very nice mayor because I haven't seen Ralph in a long time. And we are stories with that. So more than happy, very pleased to support this item and looking forward like everybody else to the naming of the community center for Vice Mayor Gore stops. He retired. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I am excited and honored to sign on in support of this item. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Richardson, for bringing it forward as well as the my other colleagues for signing on. This is a real honor for a true trailblazer and somebody who is well deserving of a name. I want to just say this is a special proposal for a very special person. She's a civic leader who is truly an icon in our city and particularly the black community. She was the first black woman to serve on the city council. She did so honorably. She represented our district in a in a strong manner. She was the first person to really introduce the idea and the concept of equity. If you know Mother Dorothy and you know that lives she impacted the city employees through the careers that she has has helped foster through her leadership. It is amazing. It's an amazing story. And, you know, I don't think I have time to die within my time, so to speak, on all of those accomplishments. But there are countless number of individuals who can step forward and tell you of the influence that she's had on their lives, their careers and families throughout the city of Long Beach. Our contributions in our city are broad and deep, and they go well beyond her service on the city council as an elected leader. They go beyond her service as the harbor commissioner and vice mayor. She she is somebody who has given, as we mentioned, the student at Saint Anthony. She was engaged, involved. She was a young leader and has been a public servant really all of her time in the city of Long Beach. And so I'm I'm honored to sign on to this. There's a bit about Doris that was left out here, too. I just want to just commend her for her constant. Commitment to celebrating and preserving history. She was the founder of the African American Heritage Society, along with the late Indira Hale Tucker that is currently in existence still at BURNETT Library. And there still is an organization that is very active and relevant in our city today. And personally, Dorothy has always been a great sounding board, a mentor, someone who cares deeply about this city and shares the history I have. I consider she is a neighbor who lived within walking distance. I was watching March Madness a couple of weeks ago with her on Saturday at her home, watching basketball games and chatting it up and always getting nuggets of advice, but also understanding of the rich history in our city. I think that's very, very important for all of us as leaders to have somebody like that to bounce ideas off of, but also to get advice from as well. And I just appreciate the relationship that I've personally been able to have with her and her family. I'm glad to call her one of my favorite eighth District constituents and neighbors, and I'm proud to sign on in support of this this wonderful item. Congratulations, and thank you for bringing it forward, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Councilwoman Sara. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank Vice Mayor Richardson for his leadership on this item, as well as all those who submitted letters of support and supporting this item, as well as by council member Yarrawonga and Austin. And I enthusiastically support the naming of Doris Topsy Alvord Community Center while she was a former Long Beach Council District Council member. Ultimately, she's a city of Long Beach civic leader and an important figure for many young women of color that looks up to her, such as myself. So she's more than deserving of this honor. And just as the first Cambodian woman council member, I look up to her as a trailblazer in setting the foundation and pathway for our many leaders. And I truly believe that the naming of our building should be reflective of leaders and people in our city. And so I'm certainly supportive of identifying additional sites of civic significance to the African-American community and all other underrepresented community for the purpose of historic preservation and landmarking and inclusion in our updated citywide historic context statement. So for that, I again just I'm so glad to see this moving forward, and I'm just really happy to help in any way I can. Thank you so much. Thank you. We'll go ahead and take a roll call vote on this, Madam Clerk. And as we do so, I just want to also just congratulate everyone, then Vice Mayor Richardson and everyone that signed on to do this effort. Of course, Vice. As we know, our mother, Doris, but Vice Mayor, Doorstop Silver is a legend really in our history and in really in present time as well. I think the one thing that was said that I just want to add to is, ah, her influence and really leadership within the African-American community is something that's very lasting and that our our black community, our black leadership for African-American, our history has so much in her work. And so I'm grateful to be supportive. But also just want to thank all of you for bringing this forward as well. So real. COLBERT This. Councilwoman Cindy has. I. Councilwoman Allen. I. Councilman Price. I. Councilman Sabrina. All right. Councilwoman Mango. I can swim in Zara. I council member Tauranga. I can swim in Austin. Vice Mayor Richardson. All right. Bush and Kerry's.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to accept an easement deed from Long Beach Unified School District, the owner of the property located at 4840 Lemon Avenue, for the installation of public utilities; and accept Long Beach Unified School District’s Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for a new early childhood learning center at Barton Elementary School. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_01232018_18-0057

Motion carries. Okay. Councilmember. Can we please. Actually. Madam Secretary, why don't we read the item first? Item ten is a report from Public Works recommendation to authorize city manager to accept an easement deed from Lomita Unified School District. The owner of property located at 4840 Lemmon Avenue for the installation of public utilities and except Long Beach Unified School District's initial study and mitigated negative declarations for a newly early childhood learning center at Barton Elementary School. District eight. Councilmember. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, counsel, for the reconsideration. I'd like to move that we continue this item. I had some questions about the project's initial study and mitigated negative declaration that I've discussed with the public work staff, and they've indicated that they'd like some time to look at it. And so the given the matter given that the matter is not time critical, I'd like to hold this over until we can get some more information. I'll just say I'm generally very supportive of the the project. It's a great project for early childhood. Education is going to be one that will bring a lot of focus on our city and particularly in the eighth District, and do a lot of good things, more importantly for for working families in the community. But there are some some concerns with the traffic impacts in and I just have some questions for public works to look into a little bit further. And so I'd like some time to study that issue. Okay. So Helder, for the next meeting of the city council, which would be February six, is the final few weeks. I would defer to the director of Public Works. Mr. BECK. Yes, Mayor. Members of the Council. I think that should be sufficient. We have started to review what was prepared by the school district, and we believe we'll have some information to share with the council by that time. If not, we'll continue that that continue the item again. Okay, sounds good. Then there's a motion in a second on the floor. Please cast your votes back. February six. Note in case. Think you can count has been approved. Is Brian Matheson here? Please come forward, sir.

Communication, referred on September 29, 2021, Docket #1023 received from Susan L. Sullivan Executive Director, Newmarket Business Association regarding the proposed petition for a Newmarket Business Improvement District, the committee submitted a report recommending the communication ought to pass.

BostonCC_09292021_2021-1023

Thank you. Docket 1023 Communication was received from Susan El Sullivan, executive director of the Newmarket Business Association, regarding the proposed petition for the New Market Business Improvement District. Thank you. And dock at 1023 will be referred to the Committee on Planning, Development and Transportation. I'm sorry. Oh, I do apologize. Of course, before I remand that to the committee, I will acknowledge the district councilor from Dorchester. Apologies. I did not see your light. But, Councilor Baker, the floor is yours. I apologize. It's. You know, that season where the phone is constantly ringing, the ones that we need to get. I know you understand. I apologize again. And we're on the bid here, correct? We are 1023. So ten years ago, we went through the redistricting process. You were there with me. I ended up with a precinct that had two jails, one jail, two methadone clinics, and all the all the services for pretty much the entire city in at mass in cash. We're all familiar with it. And I one of the things that I noticed was the need for services we had. We as the city will never be able to give the services down there that are needed. And this was eight years ago. It's far worse now. The Business Improvement District is is a program that I've been working on for at least seven years. It's a program in which property and business owners elect to make contributions and add supplemental services to the area for maintenance, development and promotion of the commercial district. There are currently bids in almost a thousand towns and cities in the US and we actually just had it been a little while ago. I don't know if people remember, if they're familiar. For a number of years, new market has been negatively impacted by many issues that make it difficult to conduct business, live or work in the district. That there will be supplemental resources on top of what the city of Boston already has for funds and services in the area. Services like an augmented Newmark Newmarket shuttle services that will run 24 hours a day so people can be able to get to their jobs without being harassed down there. Basically what's happening, we're using the be you in the South Bay BMC shuttles. They're all going to come in under one one shuttle system now. Comprehensive traffic plan, safety and security, clean streets. This is one of the best parts of it. One of the things that I saw when I went to San Francisco. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Mr.. Excuse me, Mr. President. I'm a little bit out of breath. All right. Quite all right. Take your time. Concentrate on one of the things that I thought they did right in San Francisco was they started to set up a series of bids all around the city, especially in the Tenderloin. Look at this. Look at the Tenderloin. People that aren't familiar with it, they have ambassadors on the street. The bid downtown might point you to Paul Revere or another landmark, Fenway Park. Fenway Park. These ambassadors will be there to help clean up needles. They'll be there to direct people to services. So almost be cross trained in eyes and ears of our public health people, our business people, but be able to have resources available to them to direct people into services. I think that's the best one of the best parts of it. And the bid is also financed by annual fees collected from property owners based on their assessed values. I have to really thank Sue Sullivan and all the rest of the businesses down there. First of all, to agree to do this. We've been talking about it for so long, but Sue actually got the plan together and went around and got everybody's signature. You need a percentage of property owners to buy in to be able to agree to do this. And then it has to come through city council because the city acts as a fiscal agent. Our assessing department assesses what the business will, will pay and will pay, and then we disperse the funds to the bid. They all work pretty much the same in Manhattan, Times Square. That's a bit down there. You can model a bid. In whatever way is going to help that area. And this area, like people know, is really different. And. I think that we'll be able to do some will be able to help the situation down. As we saw as I was coming in here today, Doris Wong from the Higher Food Package Express 120 Southampton Street was literally in a stand off with people at her loading dock. The police came, they cleaned it, they moved it to the side so her loading dock could accept a £50,000 trailer truck of flour. That's a big part of her business. £50,000. She couldn't accept she couldn't accept the delivery. So there was a standoff down there today. Police involved people that were on the street involved Doris losing her mind. Rightfully so, I think so. We'll have a hearing. We'll have a hearing on this bid. I know I've had some feedback, but people are horrified by the bid. They should go walk down an Atkinson Street if they really want to be horrified. So thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry for the mix up there. Not at all. Thank you, Councilor Baker. Any further discussion on Docket 1023? Seeing none. Docket 1023 will be referred to the Committee on Planning, Development and Transportation Matters recently heard for possible action. Docket number 0860 Counsel Arroyo are for the following order for hearing to discuss redistricting process in the city of Boston.

A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Christina Fogg, to the King County gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion task force, as the King County council representative.

KingCountyCC_07202022_2022-0211

And we also have with us Christina Fogg, who has been appointed as well and is the new member of the council staff or council member. DEMBOSKY has just joined us. Good morning. Good morning. Morning. So, Christine, Christina, would you please go ahead and speak on your behalf and then we'll hear from Council member Tomasky, I believe, as well. And if you could let us know what motivated you to be appointed to the task force and what you hope to work on? Sure. Thanks for having me this morning. Yeah. I recently joined Council member Dombroski staff in April. Prior to that, I was a lawyer for 16 years, the last nine of which was at the U.S. Attorney's Office here in Seattle representing the Western District of Washington. And my role there was as the coordinator for their civil civil rights program. And I mostly dealt with responding to complaints in the community about various forms of discrimination and violations of federal civil rights statutes. So this particular task force appealed to me because a lot of what I saw in my prior work was, you know, what happens when organizations don't have an inclusive culture or policies and procedures and norms and all the things that contribute to a culture of making a welcoming, inclusive place. So I was really excited to be part of something that is addressing those issues in a proactive and systemic way. And so I jumped at the opportunity to be that council representative. Well, I'm so pleased that you did. You have a terrific background and I know will being bring a great amount to the task force council members to be asking, do you have anything you'd like to say? Well, I don't want to kill the nomination. Here by messing it. Up. But thank you for your willingness to serve, Christina. And I think your background, as you've articulated here with your civil rights experience at the United States Justice Department, will be super helpful. But Christina also has a long history of other service charcoal wells, including a board member and mentor with the Joint Minority Bar Association Association Mentorship Program Service with the YWCA as a cooperating lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington here in Seattle, and also with the King County Housing Justice Project. So I think her significant experience and her expertize in civil rights will do well. I wanted to take this moment to thank you and your office, particularly Jonathan Fowler, who was the prior council representative to the task force. And he's gotten busy with commitments and other obligations. And so his service has been exemplary. And Christina is going to be, if approved here today, following in his footsteps to have that council rep there. So that's the background on on why we're having this nomination here. But I would appreciate colleagues support for Christina and the other nominees today. Terrific. Thank you very much. Councilmember Jim Baskin. It appears that Christina has another virtue of being very modest, but although sometimes one should be very forthright about all of their accomplishments and attributes. Christina, you seem to have a whole lot of them. So I think this is an excellent appointment that's been made. I congratulate you on that and I look forward to hearing from you as you report back to the council on what is going on with this task force. I do think. That. You're welcome. Does anybody have any questions of Christina on? I don't see anyone. Okay with that we will go. And we, the other two have not arrived. So we will go ahead and let's let's both take up all four names. People are busy and we get very busy too. So I'd like to have a motion. Councilmember Dombroski, would you like to make the motion? Yeah, sure. Thank you so much for all. There are four motions you're actually. I move that we give a do pass recommendation to motions 2020 2010013014. And I think is 012. This note say here to ten so. It's 210 and 0 to 1 zero 0 to 1 10213 in 0 to 1 fourth. Okay not to 12 to 11. To 10 to 11 to 13 to 14. That's weird. Or as the agenda reflects. If we've got that wrong. Okay. Are there any questions or comments? I think we will find it before us. Councilmember McDermott. Thank you, Chair Wells. I didn't have any questions for any for Sam and Kristina, but I want to express my appreciation to both of them and all four of the nominees for considering today and to acknowledge the role of the importance of the task force to represent the LGBTQ, the queer community in King County, and ensure that that voice is present within county government that we're aware of impacts that intentional and unintentional that we may be having in the community and how important it is that King County, our agencies benefit from a established resource for us to be informed and benefit from the conversations and information and experiences of the queer community as we legislate and do our work. Thank you very much, Councilman McDermott, for that very well stated comment. I couldn't agree with you more. And it's it's tremendous when I look over the whole roster, too, of this task force, very, very impressive individuals, the ones I know, and then the ones that I don't know, but that I have read about. And of course, we had them all before us earlier. So with that, if there are no checklist. Yes. Thank you. Oh, it's Councilmember Perry. I can't remember. I'm still getting used to looking off at the wall for Zoom when being in the chamber. And I somehow missed you. Go right ahead. Thank you. I just also want to share on Echo what Councilmember McDermott expressed and that how important it is that people are stepping forward and participating and and and keeping everything. Keeping people aware and asking folks to. To pay attention to the civil liberties of all. Recently, in the last six months, we have looked at non gendered language and are working hard on council to refrain from Madam Chair, Mr. Chair and Madam Speaker, Mr. Speaker, and things like this, and instead simply refer to people by their title. And it creates more of an egalitarian or not egalitarian, but but a respectful space of inclusion is the intention. So I look forward to hearing the task force's assessment of how we're doing on that and any recommendations for how we might improve as the Council. Our reflection of inclusion in the language that we choose to to use on the dais and in public view as well as private. So I just really appreciate all the work and potential work and and folks willing to step forward in this task force. Thank you. Thank you very much, Kay. With that, our Kirk will please call the roll.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1245 Quince Street in East Colfax. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allows an accessory dwelling unit), located at 1245 Quince Street in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-14-19. Community Planning and Development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest (signatures by the owners of 20 percent or more either of the area of the lots included in the proposed change or of the total land area within 200 feet from the perimeter of the area proposed for change) has been met (petition signatures represent 0% and 21.6%, respectively).

DenverCityCouncil_07082019_19-0447

Nice 11 nice. Comfortable 494 has passed. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please for accountable 447 on the floor? Yes, President Clarke, I move the council bill 447 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded and the public hearing for Constable four, four, seven is open. May we have the staff report? Just cleaning it up. All right. I'm Alice, Stevie. And this is a proposed rezoning for 1245 Queen Street. We are in Council District five in the East Colfax neighborhood. The subject property is a little over 7000 square feet, and the proposed rezoning is from the current Eastside X to Eastside one x. So the difference being that the proposed district allows an accessory dwelling unit, including the detached accessory dwelling unit building form, the subject property and surrounding properties in all directions are Eastside X transitioning to Main Street zoning along Colfax to the north, and similarly the site and surrounding properties are single unit residential land use with a few public , quasi public and higher intensity residential uses in the area. So the subject properties on the bottom left and some surrounding residential buildings are shown on the right. So Planning Board recommended approval of this rezoning. On May 1st, KPD received a statement of support from the East Colfax Neighborhood Association. As of the time of the staff report, we also received 18 letters or emails and support two in our position and one comment that was neither in support or opposition. The support letters included 14 forms circulated by the applicant, returned by neighbors to indicate their support. And then we. A protest petition was submitted for this case with valid signatures of the owners of just over 20% of the area within 200 feet of the subject property. So for the rezoning criteria, we have four plans to consider in this area. The proposed rezoning is consistent with comprehensive plan 2040 and that it will enable increased development at a location where infrastructure, where infrastructure, including transit service, is already in place. Blueprint Denver mapped this area as the urban edge context. The requested ESU D1 X is consistent with the planned direction of predominantly residential areas that are generally single unit and two unit uses. The requested ESU D1 X is consistent with the future places mapping of this area of low residential, which is single into unit and accessory dwelling dwelling units are appropriate. So under the blueprint growth strategy areas including the subject property are expected to see 10% of job growth and 20% of housing growth by 2040. The additional accessory dwelling unit permitted by the proposed rezoning is consistent with that and additionally, blueprint includes a policy to diversify housing choice with the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. One strategy that specifically references how this policy applies to rezoning is, quote, a citywide approach to enable it to use as preferred until a holistic approach is in place. Individual rezonings to enable adus in all residential areas, especially where proximate to transit are appropriate. Unless there is a neighborhood plan supporting a to use rezoning should be small an area in order to minimize impacts to the surrounding residential area. Housing and inclusive. Denver was adopted in 2018 and contains recommendations that are directly relevant to this rezoning. The plan recommends expanding the development of accessory dwelling units as they are as they incentivize affordable and mixed use housing. It also promotes development as a of aid to as a wealth building tool for low and moderate income homeowners. So the proposed MAP amendment to ESG one X is consistent with these recommendations. Finally, the East Montclair East Colfax Neighborhood Plan was adopted in 1994. This plan proposed rezoning. I'm sorry, this proposed rezoning is consistent with that plan, including vision statements around protecting residential character and promoting a mix of income levels in rental single family homes, and in policies like encouraging homeowners to add on additions and modernize single family homes. So staff found this rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. The proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations, and it will further public health, safety and welfare through implementing adopted plans and facilitating increased housing density near a mix of uses and transit. Staff found that the proposed rezoning is justified through changed and changing conditions. The staff report details development and redevelopment to provide services and retail near the subject property and would be accessible from the additional residential unit that would be allowed by this rezoning. And additionally, the adoption of the blueprint update and housing an inclusive Denver include policies that specifically support this rezoning request. And finally, the context zoned district purpose and intent of Eastside one X are all appropriate for this particular location given the surrounding area and adopted plan guidance. So given the defining that all review criteria have been met, staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We have 16 individuals signed up to speak this evening. So I'm going to call the first five speakers if you could make your way to the front bench. And please remember to state your name for the record, your city of residence. And if you're comfortable, your address. And so first up, the first five, we have Steve Elkins, Allison Tawfik, Alan West, Dimitri Cervantes Ski and Amy Mattern. So Steve Elkins. Good evening, members of the Denver City Council. My name is Steve Elkins and I live at 1245 Quinn Street. I want to start by thanking my neighbors and neighboring property owners who have been on this journey with me. You didn't ask to come on this journey, but I appreciate you coming along anyway. I want to thank the East Colfax R.A., where we have strong leaders like Tim Roberts and Tom Fishing. I'm here tonight to celebrate that I'm a yimby and I mean that quite literally. I want to build an accessory dwelling unit to you in my backyard. When I saw our new citywide plans in draft form, I was excited about Denver taking the next steps to implement it to use as recommended by housing and inclusive Denver. I love my neighborhood and I'm excited about the opportunity to share it with other people who love it too. This idea for me started with a neighbor who was concerned I was going to tear my home down. I kept thinking, How do we save these great small homes on large lots? I had walked by 1188 Quint Street many times, which has had two small homes on one property since 1912. The property shows the concept of two small homes on one property has been in my neighborhood for over 100 years. Gentle density isn't new to Denver, except now for the first time, we have plans that have explicitly caught up with our desire for general density. I remember speaking to an overflow crowd at the January Jan R.A. meeting. I found neighbors who are hungry for a solution to combat a growing trend new, large, expensive homes in place, the small homes that are more affordable and in keeping with the character of our neighborhood. At the meeting, one neighbor was concerned about my outreach efforts. Her concern led me to send 40 letters to neighbors, property owners and tenants where I describe my project. How to contact me, how to contact staff. And if they chose to submit a support form in favor of my rezoning. Between my letters and staff book staff's inbox, my application received 18 statements of support. I learned of the owner of 1255 Quinn Streets opposition from Ms.. Stevie, who recommended mediation and not from the owner herself. I then reached out to a mediator who told me the owner declined mediation. This petition, the protest petition before you tonight was signed by a total of eight property owners. The petition got me thinking. After all my outreach efforts, no one in opposition has reached back out to discuss his or her opposition with me. A bedrock of Denver's rezoning process is outreach. However, for outreach to work, it requires people with questions or concerns to reach back. I have made myself as available as I can, but I don't really know how to move forward with opponents who can't communicate their opposition to me directly. I stand here tonight to request that you empower my neighborhood to take an active part in directing how growth will shape our lives. We need gentle density of our small homes to survive as we face increasing pressure for our homes to be replaced. I want to be able to say to that neighbor who is concerned that I would scrape my home, that we have solutions now to shape our neighborhoods growth instead of that growth shaping us. Thank you. Next up, Alison Tawfik. I'm Alison Tawfik. I live near East High School in Denver. I'm a proponent of increasing density. I think this is a great one of these great, huge lots. My next door neighbors had one of these great huge lots that was filled with alley cats and things like that. And now there are two little houses on it, too. Little duplex side by side because he owned the whole thing. What him what he could have done was scrape the whole thing off pit for a big fugly mansion on it with a pop up and go corner to corner. But this neighbor wants to just put in two little houses to match the little neighborhood that was there in 1912. I think it's a fantastic way to increase a little density, find a little add a little place for someone to one or two people to live, to add some housing to the area that will have it's right by transit. It's right by it's walkable, it's bikeable. All of the cars would be a moot issue because there's already plenty of cars. If you look on Google Street maps, you'll see plenty of room for car parking if that's ever an issue. But I think if you ended up scraping it and putting in a big McMansion with a five car garage, you'd have a much worse issue than if we have these two cute little houses. Thank you. Thank you. Ellen West. My name is Eleanor West and I live in Denver and I own 1255 Squint Street, which is immediately north of the property seeking to change. There are many reasons why I oppose the zoning change, but my focus on only two issues one the need to preserve the meaning of zoning codes. And two, the need to preserve affordable housing first, relating to the meaning of zoning codes. I purchased 1255 six years ago as a backup plan for old age should I become unable to maintain my current three storey townhome. I was drawn to the property because of the quiet nature of the street. Sturdy construction of the home, proximity to family members and the tree shaded backyard. The block and much of the surrounding area is zoned single family. It never entered my mind that someone could buy the home next door and get a zoning change to be able to build a second home, possibly larger than the original in the backyard next to mine. That's what could happen. It would permit another home that could be as large as a thousand square feet to be built on the property. I printed an aerial view to help you visualize the space. 1245 is the one with the red marker. The existing home and attached garage together are about 1000 square feet. Keep in mind that when building another dwelling, you need to keep five foot setbacks and maintain the driveway area to access the garage. Because of these current constraints, there would not be much rent yard remaining for two homes to share. Most likely, a peaceful enjoyment of my backyard and nearby homes would be compromised. Question Should one owner be able to obtain a change in zoning that will negatively impact surrounding neighbors and remain with the property forever? Second, preserving affordable, affordable housing, which is critical in Denver. If approved, the change would have a negative impact on affordable housing, albeit just one property. Homes on Queen Street, similar to 1245, have been selling for about 325,000, which is affordable and attractive to young families. If you add the cost of an accessory dwelling unit, which could easily be 150,000, it would remove the property from the affordable category and there's no insurance that the unit would be offered at a rental rate considered affordable because most likely there would be a construction loan to pay off. And most importantly, once zoning changes have been made, it sets a precedent, making it easier for others to follow suit and more homes could become unaffordable. Finally, the staff report recommending approval of a zoning recommendation raises much of the argument on consistent with consistency with adopted plans for the future development of Denver. To proceed with the future vision zoning code should be systematically changed. I doubt that the intent of the documents was to give license to individual property owners to obtain zoning changes one property at a time. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Dimitri Zorrilla. Fortney. Hi, City Council. My name is Dimitri Xavier. Right now I live at 1950 North Logan Street in Denver, and I just come here to say that I love to use and I'm pretty sure Denver loves to use as well. In fact, in Blueprint Denver. You know, that whole. Process was very much in favor and allowing a to use to be implemented across the city that's including attached and detached to use and across all neighborhoods in all residential zoned districts. Additionally, until neighborhood plans can be put in place, I believe the East Area plan is still in process. Blueprint called for individual rezonings to be allowed in all residential areas, especially where they're close to transit. Aside from that housing and inclusive Denver, which is Denver Council's adopted housing plan, it specifically recommends it to use to combat gentrification and displacement in neighborhoods such as East Colfax, which is a neighborhood that is pretty vulnerable to displacement. City Council has also approved these these rezonings in the past as well. I think additionally, the East Colfax Ana's is in favor. Finally, Denver has a history of allowing it to use, especially after World War Two. You know, we have a tradition of this and we have many neighborhoods in the past that have allowed this. But, you know, I do want to applaud the neighbors for coming out and engaging, you know, their civil duty. It's it's a wonderful thing. But I think their their fears are misplaced. I think, you know, if they say that they're going to ruin single. Family home neighborhoods. I think they're actually going to use they're going to save them. I think, you know, when Blueprint Denver calls for a single family member, it's absorbed 20% of Denver's population growth by 2040. This is one of the. Tools and this is one of the ways we can do it. You know, one of the great things about it to use is they put eyes on the alley. They they activate the alley in a way the garages just can't, you know, and lots like these, you know, we've seen lots of these be scraped all across the city and replaced with McMansions. I think this is an opportunity to save this property, to save this house, allow for more density, allow for more opportunity for people to live next to transit along corridors such as this. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Amy Mattern. Hello. My name is Amy Matter and I. Own a property. Directly. South of the property or the applicant here, and I can appreciate his efforts to add additional affordable housing to Denver, but I stand in opposition to the application. I don't think it'll add affordable housing and I'm a first time homeowner. I'm really, really grateful for this wonderful neighborhood allowed me to get on the property ladder. I am really fearful. That if they add an accessory dwelling. Unit, it'll make the property unaffordable for other first time homeowners that come behind me, because they'll be two units on or two dwellings on one property, therefore affecting the values of the property. I think it's important to make opportunities in the city for people to become first owners like myself. Also for Miss West, who is having a backup retirement plan, it offers wealth building for people. I think homeownership has also got to be a consideration in this neighborhood or my house was built over 70 years ago. It was built in my neighborhood for GIs coming back from World War Two. They had cute little houses with tons and tons of character. I do agree that scraping these houses would be a tragedy because they're such great little houses. They have great green spaces that add to our quality of life that we will not have if there's accessory dwelling units on there. I don't think it meets the criteria for public health, safety and general welfare of our neighborhood. It is right between two major arteries of traffic Colfax and Quebec. These arteries are running at or above capacity all the time. And although it's nice there's public transportation, it's likely that people are going to need a car to access the grocery store or retail as things stand right now. So you think the traffic will increase a lot, which is not good for the neighborhood or its welfare. Also, a lot of us use the alley to access our garages and having additional units on the alley is a potential safety hazard. I don't know because they're going to be reduced. Greenspace, perhaps small children living in those dwelling units are going to use the alley to play in and that kind of thing. So I think that is a concern as well. I'm a little concerned about the comparables that were used in this application. First of all, 1188 Queen Street was built over 100 years ago. There's two units and they're on a double lot. They're you know, they could probably be legally severed and have ample separate lot. So I don't think that's very comparable. The other comparables were also built prior to the zoning laws. And so I'm. Sorry, but your time is up. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. I'm going to call the next five up to the front bench. Adam Astrof, Chairman Sekou, Kevin MATTHEWS, Jerry Saltzman and Jeffrey Baker and Adam Astrof, you are up. Hi. My name's Adam Astrof. I live in the Baker neighborhood in Denver, and I actually. I'm here to speak in favor of this project. I think that ADAS are probably the most important tool we have in our toolkit to provide the needed housing for the various populations that are moving to our city. And I wanted to talk about why I support this project based on the block I live on. We're also first time homeowners and we were only able to afford our property because it's a smaller lot. It's 2000 square feet next to us. There's an apartment building, two units down, there's an EDU, there is rental units, there are affordable rental units, there are expensive rental units. There is housing stock from $300000 to $1000000 all on my block. And I think that's the kind of flexibility that we really need to be looking for. And this is why, you know, you guys all approved it. You citywide with the Blueprint Denver plan. I think that these are very important because they allow us to preserve these existing small homes, you know, that have been built over the last hundred years in our city. They those allow us to maintain, you know, a unique neighborhood character. And there are so many ways you can use an Adu to make a home affordable. If you're a senior. And you're. Aging, you can move into the edu, you know, rent out your main house to cover your expenses, or you can have an in-home caregiver live there. If you're a young family starting out, you could use the rent payment that somebody would give you for the ADU to subsidize the cost of your child care with a live in nanny or just, you know, to subsidize the cost of your mortgage. You know, I. I wish we weren't here. Frankly, I don't think that a single project like this should come before our city council, let alone require the same vote as impeaching the mayor. But I hope that you all all choose to support this, ADU, so that we can make sure that Denver remains an accessible place for everyone. And I'll just add, as far as the alley concerns, you know, again, we have a lot more density in Baker and there's there's no issues with parking in the alley. And I don't believe there would be some from this project either. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou. Yes. My name is Chen Masuku. Martial Arts and self-defense. Man, I don't know how you do this. Okay. The idea what is a use? We're a couple of things. One to. Help the housing stock. For folks who had jobs and had no house. And this land that was on these lots could be used to help build housing for folks who could afford it. The other idea was God came in from the church yesterday. Part of our mission is that we want to give poor people shelter. So we want to build one of these aid you so that we can take poor people off the street and put them in a unit so that they can get housing. And that was for the homeless. This is not a homeless activity here. It is going down. What are we talking about here? This is for folks who want to create wealth. Period. And I ain't got no problem that. As America does it. It's a matter. So folks who want to take what they got and make some money on that and do whatever they need to do, that would. That ain't none of my business. You do what you do. For folks who want to come and take poor people off the street and give them shelter in a blizzard so they don't lose their lives. Chairman, could you please. Speaking of my phone. You do that. That ain't none of my business. You got a choice to make, and you're going to have to live with decisions you make. I know ideas are not going to solve the problems of homeless people, period. It's not going to happen because you don't have those kind of folks in a large majority that have that kind of goodwill. This is America and it's all about money first so we can stop bullshitting up in here. Please watch your. Language. Let them do what you let other folks do and do this thing and our position on it. If you don't like this happening in your neighborhood, you have a choice. Move. You got the money. Move. And let these folks do what they do. Thank you. Next up, Kevin Mathews. I am Kevin MATTHEWS. I live at 1020 Madison Street in Congress Park. I want to share a quick personal story about ideas and the positive impact they can have. My father and stepmother live in Andover, Massachusetts, a suburb about 25 miles north of Boston. They have a Aidoo or a mother in law unit that they built in their early nineties. It's a one bedroom, one bath over their garage with a small living room and a full kitchen. Now, technically, these units are illegal, but at the time, they received a medical exemption from my grandmother, who had health issues. She lived there for about. Ten years. And died in early 2000. And since then, it's said vacant for about a decade, which leads to my stepbrother Mark and his wife, Pam. These are two of the millennials that you keep hearing about in the news who are $100,000 in debt each for advanced degrees and can't afford the expensive metro Boston housing market, which is even more expensive than the Denver market. So they pay now. They live they live there. It's not an ideal situation. My brother did not want to move back in with the parents, but it is a private unit. They pay a nominal rent and they live in a town that they could otherwise not afford and take advantage of the local communal line into Boston where they both work. My father told me that over the last few years they occasionally shared meals together when they need their privacy. They might not see Mark or Pam for a week or two. That is until about two years ago when they had their first. Daughter. And having doting grandparents nearby can act as childcare when needed. You can imagine how beneficial that is considering the cost of child care for my father and stepmother. On the one hand, this. Is also provided to be very beneficial. The house is very large and they my dad has just had his 82nd birthday. He's had heart issues for about. 15 years and. Has had a couple of surgeries. He can no longer take care of the home, and having that additional help has been an incredible benefit. What I want to point out is this arrangement has allowed my parents to age in place in their own home and without having to leave the community to which they have deep ties and friendships. Now, considering the benefits for both of these parties, I can't imagine why anybody would say that this arrangement should be illegal, but it apparently is. I talked to my dad this past weekend and he affectionately refers to this as snob zoning, especially for a town like Andover. There are also a couple of towns nearby. I just want to point out the town of Lawrence, Massachusetts, Lowell, Massachusetts, that have undergone a lot of development and a lot of gentrification over the past several years. And it's because of people who would like to live in towns like Andover. Who can no longer afford it. So it's not the development that's causing those towns to be developed. It's the lack of development in towns like Andover that is causing that gentrification. Help me support this project and so much. Thank you. Next up, Gerry Saltzman. My name is Jerry Saltzman. I live one block north of Steve Elkins at 1369 Quint Street. I have lived in the neighborhood for 21 years and I fully support Steve's proposal to build an 80 U. I don't think that people realize that our neighborhood already has several 80 youths in it. The carriage house and duplex across the street from my house has been there for over 100 years without any negative effects. 80 views are great for our neighborhood because they allow neighbor homeowners to care for elder family members while creating independent housing, provide affordable housing, improve neighborhood security by having more eyes on the street, and may also help keep the homeowner within their home by supplementing their income. When I attended the January East Colfax R.A. meeting, there was standing room only a near unanimous support for Steve's application because everyone was so excited about doing the same thing with their properties. Since City Council has already passed several policies that encourage affordable housing, let's move forward and enact those policies. Our neighborhood, as well as our city, is struggling to provide affordable housing. What more can Steve do to help solve the affordable housing crisis in our community? Then build an ADU. Even though it's very easy to let fear of the unknown or what if's prevent us from doing the right thing. I'm proud to support Steve's effort to help solve the affordable housing crisis because he's going to be adding one housing unit to Denver's rapidly declining housing stock. Since Steve's application devotes over 24 pages to detailing exactly how his 80, you will comply with every single term and condition of every single piece of legislation that affects the growth of our neighborhood. I don't see any reason to not support his proposal. Doesn't everyone here tonight prefer to see an edu in Steve's backyard as opposed to a gigantic two and a half storey home? Isn't an Adu much more in line with maintaining the character of our neighborhood? Thank you for letting me speak here tonight. Thank you. Next up is Jeffrey Baker and I invite Sarah Sander, half Tina Winston, Logan Meier, Tim Roberts and Leslie Talkhouse Gorski to the front row. Go ahead. Good evening, counsel Jeff Baker. 2422 Tampa Street. I'm not going to go long. I'm going to go real quick on this. A lot of people already mentioned this has been in Blueprint Denver. You guys know the benefits of this. So I'll just restated again. Multi-generational families, rental income, housing security, aging in place, nanny quarters keeps McMansions out. Denver needs us. Let's do the first rezoning with new blueprint. Denver tonight. Thanks. Thank you. Next up, Sarah Sanders. Hi, I'm Sarah Sanders. I live at. 1378 Raleigh Street. I live in an Adu and an affordable adu. It's a rental unit. That I rent from the owner and I'm here in support. Of Steve with his a this rezoning proposal. We have a huge affordability issue right now in Denver and we need to do everything we can to get more people into affordable housing. 80 uses one solution to this with the comprehensive plan and blueprint Denver being adopted. I encourage all of you to move forward with this rezoning. I think that there is some fear out there with some. Homeowners in the neighborhood. And the one thing that I can say living in an EDU is it does help to activate the alleys. There's I have a parking spot dedicated to me. And so there isn't any parking issues that we have to deal with. The idea that I'm living in so I think that there is some fear out there around. I encourage everybody who does have that fear to get out there and take a look at these ideas and really see that this is gentle density that our city needs to be moving forward. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Tina Winston. Good evening, council members. My name is Chris and I own a home in the Val Verde neighborhood. I'm currently thinking about adding an avenue to my property because my mom is aging in Philadelphia and I would like to move her out here with me. She's currently on a fixed income. She's unable to afford to continue to live in Philadelphia. And so as a family, we're trying to figure out what's the best thing to do for her currently. As we looked at pricing for assisted living or temporary kind of living arrangements for her, we realize that a nursing home with semi-private would be like 70 $400 a month and a private nursing home room would be like 80 $500 a month, which we cannot afford. So we're thinking about, hey, maybe we'll like put her out in the back of his. House kind of thing. So I met Steve Elkins when in Utah a couple weeks ago, was the first time I ventured out into this avenue of interest. And I support his idea. Basically, I support it because it would actually benefit me and my family as we move further down the road in this process as my mom ages. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Logan Meyer. Exactly today. To answer that one, I was curious how economically productive it is. Turns out East Colfax of 116 neighborhoods is 23rd from the bottom or 93rd overall. Where a neighborhood needs to produce a dollar six per square foot of residential land to pay for its own infrastructure. East Colfax only produces $0.23 per square foot of residential land in property tax. Lastly, maybe Colfax is just meant to be single family. But then I checked and only 56% of housing units are single family in the East Colfax neighborhood. So a neighborhood that can't pay for its own infrastructure in a city with an affordable housing crisis, in an area that has lots of multi-unit development. We are requiring city council approval to build one housing unit in the backyard of a local owner. No wonder young people and old people alike are struggling to find affordable housing in the city. Thanks. Thank you. Next up, Tim Roberts. Thank you. My name's Tim Roberts. I live in Denver and own a business at 7935 East 14th Avenue in the East Colfax neighborhood, where I'm the president of the Registered Neighborhood Association. We had a widely publicized well attended by some 50 people, a diverse neighborhood meeting on this rezoning on January 15th, 2019. The issue was in many ways really fully aired. And we then had a vote that unanimous that was unanimously in favor of the rezoning. We continue as a neighborhood to support Mr. Elkins and the engaged, thorough and considerate way he's brought this project forward in too many ways to cover here. He seems to have provided us with an on the ground model for how to use can work, and I think many people are grateful. One thing I want to say about the East Colfax neighborhood is that we are fighting to maintain as much affordability as we can. We were heartened by the recent announcement of two new affordable housing developments along East Colfax Avenue, but we know we still have far to go. It's been stated that we have as much as 70%, a clear majority of our population of about 12,000 people who fall into the category of vulnerable to displacement, with well over 30% of people listed in the category of in poverty in our neighborhood. Property valuations recently bounced up in our area by over 30%. This on top of a very similar severe increase in the last evaluation cycle. The resulting property tax increases are expected to potentially be the last straw for many of our residents. Either through direct tax or increased rents. We are. Losing people. We also recognize that addus and the considerable resources that they take to build are not a fix for what can probably be called an affordability crisis in East Colfax. We need as many as 1400 0 to 30% MRI units to, in fact, not just mitigate, but to prevent displacement. I feel like many realize that while the neighborhood was constructed primarily as single family homes, the growing density of Denver has simply overtaken it. So that to fight for the completely intact preservation of this particular built environment becomes increasingly untenable for a whole range of reasons. That said, on a daily basis, you can see people of East Colfax embracing the kind of openness and diversity I'm talking about. We're excited. To see equity taking root. Around us, and we'll continue to applaud Mr. Elkins and others like him for their work and willingness to invest some. Certainty in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Leslie Torrijos key. Thank you. I'll be brief because it's late. My name is. Leslie Terry Gaskin. I live at 1754 Olive Street. It's within a mile of of the adu that has been applied for. I'm here to speak in strong support of Mr. Elkins application. As Jerry noted, there's many adus already existing in our neighborhood. I think this would fit very well, and I hope to have one as well in the future. So thank you. And before I go, I want to say thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Espinosa and Councilman Brooks, for all you've done over the last 4 to 8 years. And I look forward to working with you all in the future. Thanks. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce. They're certainly not loose. Jesse Pierce representing for Denver Homicide. Low Black Star. It's a moment for self defense and positive for social change. And I was on top of the ballot for our lives this past May 2019 election. Almost got 15,000 votes with no money. We are in favor of this. As I stated previously, I support attainable means of housing in the city while we're dealing with a housing crisis. So that includes 80 youth along with tiny home villages, encampments and etc.. So yeah, I approve this. I'm in favor of this. So yeah, I already know you're going to approve this. And we saw the criteria and it's a step in the right direction. We can do much better, though. So since we can do better, let's do better. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council on this item? Councilman Espinosa. A question for the applicant or maybe actually staff, actually. Now either one. What is the size of the zone lot? And then given it was mentioned that the existing structure is a thousand square foot footprint. Given that size relative to the lot, how big of a of a footprint would be the maximum for an ADU on that parcel? All right, the. Thing. About this. Uh, the zone lot is it's about 7320 square feet for a lot of that size, the maximum to use detached to you building form would be up to 1000 feet. And I am not sure myself about the existing foot footprint. And so what would if that 4000 would be allowed with the maximum lot coverage? But I believe that it would. I don't know if the applicant. Not so, Councilman Espinosa. My current house is 719 square feet. There is approximately a 300 square foot attached garage. By the code, a thousand square feet is allowed. However, then we get into setbacks. Then we get into the fact that I still would like to have a yard. Then we get into the fact of I have a driveway at the south of my property, which I'm not interested in getting rid of. So all of these factors start whittling down that 1000 square foot footprint pretty quickly. And then what is. Is this. Sorry, I could have looked it up, but I didn't. Is this one of those? Is the decks one. One of those in districts where the bulk gets relaxed on the edu. When you have an attached, I mean, a detached accessory structure. The rear and the rear 35%. I'm not sure what you mean exactly by the book. Relax, but I do have the book plane. Okay, I'm here. So for the SD one X, the bulk plane vertical height is ten feet and the slope is 45 degrees. Even for an accessory structure, yes. That is for the detached accessory dwelling unit building form. Great. Thank you. No further. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr. President. Hello. Could you clarify for me the issue of the legal protest? The staff report attachments say that there was it has a map and it has 46,000 square feet out of whatever it is. It's about 21% just over the threshold yet in your report. There's also an email to I believe it's to you. And there is a an email earlier from the person who lives at one of those properties that is listed as contributing to the 20% stating that she is not in opposition. What is so is this a legal protest or not. So that the the the properties are showing up in green did have valid signatures for those properties. I was not involved in the signature gathering that is purely done by a member of the public. We just provide the information for it. So I'm not sure what conversations went on. What if there is a change of opinion? We do sometimes get people who have sent the case manager a letter in support and then they later reply and say, Actually, I'm in opposition or the other way. I didn't hear back from anybody. So I didn't like change the tallies because no one reached out to me. So I'm not really sure what that discrepancy was around. Okay, Mr. Brown, I just wanted the record to note that one of the properties listed as contributing to the 20%. There are two pieces of correspondence in the record that state they are not opposed. So I'm a little bit confused about that. I'm sorry. The owner, Mr. Elkins. Okay? Yes, Councilman. Thank you. You have a an attached garage and you access it from the alley. Correct. You have a long driveway off the alley. A very long driveway. Okay. So your garage doors in the back of the house. It is. It's interesting because I've seen this pattern. I'm looking at on the map here as. I've seen other houses. There's a Tudor house on the north side of Colfax where it's the same. So if you look at my house from Quint Street, it appears to be a white ranch home. And the one across the alley from you as well. When and actually I know how long that driveway is because I've shoveled it out a few times this past winter. Okay. So what you're saying is that with it, with the setbacks and with your desire to maintain that driveway, to access your garage, have you looked into what what the footprint of your ADU would be? I have it. You know, there's also been a conversation with the neighbor whom, as Steve said, neither was opposed or supported, where she and I engaged over a few emails where she considered asking me to consider and attached to you. So I have considered converting the attached garage into an idea which would further limits its impacts. Okay. And then maybe put a garage back toward the alley for yourself? Maybe. But I'm much more about housing people than cars. Mm hmm. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn and Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I wanted to follow up on, though, on Councilman Flynn's questions about the legal protest. And this is directly related perhaps to this particular issue. But it is something that, as I leave the council, is something that I wish that we would maybe look into it more carefully. So we take this particular situation. The legal protests requires not 20% of the landowners around a property, but. Owners of 20% of the land. That's correct. And that's a very, very important distinction. It's the owners of 20% of the land, so that the more land you own, the more your vote means. In this particular situation, how many votes, how many signatures would have been needed to get a legal protest. Given this normal lot? So, so so this legal protest, just it needed every property that was included, but it included three that were only partially within the zone law. So I apologize. I cannot do math in my head after 10 p.m., but I believe it would probably be more like six if they were all within. That would be kind of the minimum number of people. Yes. That that might have gotten you over that threshold. That's exactly right. As I was calculating that to get a legal protest in this case would only require six votes. How many votes did they get? There were the property, the owners of eight properties, and two of them had two owners listed. So it was a total of ten people who signed the petition, including. Who were it was sort of a nebulous about what their vote was. Right. I won't weigh in on their final opinion, but there there was some there was there were some people who had voiced opinions seemingly in both directions. That's right. Okay. So it's not directly related to some, you know, something that you know about ADOS, but it is something that I would exhort my fellow council people to take a look at in the future about what illegal protest means and what it means to one person, one vote. Think, Oh, wait, I had another question. The Ms.. West, can I ask can I ask you a question. Is last one. You said that you had bought your home in anticipation of retirement. Do you live there? Is this directly north of hit this home? Right. It's directly north. I do not live there now, actually. My granddaughter lives there now. She's custodian of it as she's taken good care. Okay. So she rents rented from you? Yes, she does. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman, Councilman Espinosa. Sort of a question for Councilman Flynn. I didn't go through those attachments enough to see. Do you know if the letters that are from the person that lives there is from the property owner? Yeah. Okay, that's that was it. Because if we're clarifying for the record, I want to make that distinction because it's the property owner that has the say in the legal protest, not necessarily the person that lives there. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 19 20447 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank everybody for staying so long before this, for this particular item and to what I what I thought was a very interesting council meeting. But I don't know if you all felt the same way. I particularly want to thank the neighbors that live in East Colfax, and particularly Tim Roberts, the R.A. president, and how much he has done for the neighborhood as as previous presidents have, too. I was at that meeting that he spoke about when there were about 50 people. The East Colfax Neighborhood Association has a meeting every month. So unlike most of our neighborhoods every month, and they get 30, 40 and 50 people every time. So it's a very engaged neighborhood. And they thanks to Steve, they were all, you know, very familiar with your project. You did a great deal of outreach to the neighbors and it was an overwhelming support for the you. And I think it just meets a lot of the criteria that are found in the new blueprint, Denver and the comprehensive plan and the neighborhood area. So I'm going to be in support of this and urge my fellow council people to do so as well. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. And Dr. Sussman, it's lovely to follow you one last time on this rezoning. And I just Mr. Elkins, I just want to apologize to you on the city's behalf. The fact that we spent three years to talk about the importance of aid use, the fact that I just worked on 80 or 80, used for an affordable housing component for folks displaced for I-70. We do this in all of our neighborhoods. And that's you spent 4 to 6 months to go through a rezoning process. Did you get to do them at the same time to put your permits in, or do you still have to go through permitting? Okay. So he's going to have another probably 3 to 4 months before one person can live in that space. And, you know, we talk a lot about affordable housing. We talk a lot about the importance of making sure people can afford to live in the city of Denver. But we have archaic permitting processes to get us there. And so, you know, I'm sorry, I apologize for that because we're not really serious as a city. We're serious when we start expediting processes for affordable housing. We're serious as a city. When we start saying, hey, we've implemented this plan and now we're going to give incentives to build a use. We're going to waive tap fees, we're going to do these things. And you have to now make sure that you have these 80 issues at 80%, 60%, 40% am I to live there? Their deed restricted because that's what we did in Swansea. And so that's where I'm at. I'll be supporting this because it meets the criteria because we spent three years talking about this. I know that everybody doesn't love it, but I got a chance to move into the whole neighborhood in 2012. Actually, I moved there in 2008, but in 2012 about another house there and I bought it for $290,000. That's amazing. Now. If I moved into that house, you can't buy a house there for $200,000 now. If I said to everyone, I hope everyone gets to move into this house, this neighborhood, because it's quaint. It's amazing. My kids are growing up there for $280,000, but I say no one can reason, no one can. All these infill projects, no one can have in any of those. There are affordable housing folks, projects that are 0% AMI and they're going to be homeless folks living there. They can't live next to me. No, you can have the tiny home village over here next to me. I have created a wall. I have created a gated community. That's not who we are, y'all. That's why I'm supporting this project. And that's why, even after eight years, I'm more emboldened to create this city that we all dream of. So I'll be supporting this. I'm sorry, Mr. Elkins. We're going well. They're going to get better at improving processes. And I'm sorry. City of Denver. We're going to get better at telling people what we really believe. That we really do want to create an inclusive Denver. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa. I'm sorry and I'm not sorry. A little over three years ago, I sat down with our legal counsel and asked him to draft a an ordinance that would allow would legalize Adu citywide the way people had been asking. So that, in theory, would help you. But the the way I was justifying that was I was actually asking that the property owners within 20 feet essentially had veto. Right. Meaning that you would go in, you would you would have legal right to do to you. You would bring your permit drawings in and you would have to post. Sort of like we do with a zipline or something like that. And that's when your neighbors could opine and you would lose. If they vetoed you, then you'd lose the right for three years to sort of come back. But the idea being that then you could actually know that and have that conversation with those property owners that are most directly impacted about siting. And if you're going to be a humble developer and we're conscious of that, you could probably be through that process or not, depending on how amicable your neighbors are. So hopefully it would have worked out for you and this would have never have happened and we could move on. And I am articulating that now. So maybe the city can still consider that. I do have the language that I gave the city attorney back then. If anyone wants to see it that said, the I do want to give a little bit of an admonition to the yimby folks. The Blueprint Denver process did not legalize this or say this happens everywhere, period. It says that it should be considered as part of a citywide process. These one office buildings are here for a reason because we have not gone and embarked on that citywide process. And so this is not carte blanche or legal license to do this everywhere, even though I have yet to see us deny an ADU, you know, a zoning request, that is essentially for the specific purpose of of to use. It does bother me that we're using that language in the new adopted plans that is intended to support that citywide process to then support these these one off rezonings. That's because it does create this air of. Is there any what are the conditions where it's inappropriate. And until we hear from those communities that truly have a need or desire to not have to use for whatever reason, it makes all communities vulnerable. That said, I prior to my tenure on council, I was a member of the Board of Adjustment and I was probably consistently the one member of the board that always allowed illegal adus. I mean, I supported them to exist and I said it before and I won't go into my family history, but that the stories that were articulated here were very much part of my community when I grew up. Having these units is is important to a healthy city. That said, it's not I'm not going to use my personal bias to make the render the opinion, but it is because I'm going to say also there was a lot of talk about Ali Al activation as a member of council. I can tell you that an ADU has been a big problem in one of my neighborhoods. Why? Because there's a lot of ali activation, but it's from the drug dealing that goes on out of that. ADU And so it happens to be the son of the mother who lives in the primary structure, who then has a criminal record, lives in the back and and does his dealings. And he's been twice busted, but he's released and he goes back to his old ways. The property is poorly maintained and it is a criminal. It attracts other criminal elements. So while we have all these nice anecdotal stories of how wonderful all these things are, they can be nodes for a different kind of attention because there aren't a lot of eyes on that, Ali. So. I just. I just want to know that, you know, when when that isn't always hunky dory, we aren't always going to get the outcomes. But this is an area east Colfax is an area that has struggled to activate and we are investing in major redevelopment and efforts along East Colfax. And the key, just like it's been key in northwest Denver, is having density of population in order to support a more robust urban fabric. If we want to see reactivation of East Colfax and you're in your commercial corridors, you have to have more people with more disposable income. And there are two ways to doing that, you know, granularly like this or with massive redevelopment like you've seen in other places. And so we have to pick our poison and you could say, no, we don't. But this, you know, our plans do call for this area to capture up to 10% of new growth. And this is one way, but I hope that as part of a citywide process, we don't create carte blanche. The conditions where once again, areas like this remain depressed because we create we create these redevelopment opportunities in areas where people want to spend their money, because that's what happens. You see investment in hot areas and reinvestment in hot areas and Cherry Creek doubling and tripling itself in northwest Denver, eating itself alive because they're desirable. And if we grant this same development entitlement across the board, city wide, that same things will happen in those same areas and these areas will then stay stagnant again. So we have to be strategic going forward. This rezoning process for the time being is the appropriate process until we've had that citywide discussion that starts to consider these bigger issues. With that, I'll be supporting this research. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Saying no one else in the queue for comments councilmembers. This a reminder that since community planning and development has determined that the requirement for a legal protest has been met and ten affirmative votes instead of the standard seven affirmative votes of counsel are required tonight to pass this bill. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 447. Susman. I black eye. Brooks Hi. Espinosa. Hi Flynn. Hi Gilmore. Hi, Herndon. Hi Cashman, EJ Lopez. Hi, Ortega. Hi. Mr. President. All right. Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce results. 12 hours. 12 hours, CONSTABLE four for six has passed. On Monday, August 5th, Council will hold. On Monday, August 5th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 584, amending Chapter 59 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to revise the amendment procedure for land retaining planned unit development zoning under former Chapter 59, saying no other business before

A bill for an ordinance relating to the Denver Zoning Code, to improve clarity and usability. Approves a text amendment to the Denver Zoning Code to clarify what constitutes a “sign” for purposes of zoning regulation and correct a code drafting error that may cause confusion regarding permitted setback encroachments for one-story porches and similar features. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-21-18.

DenverCityCouncil_10082018_18-0886

I'm Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 1109 accountable 877 has passed. Councilman Brooks, will you please vote council bill 886 on the floor. I thank you, Ms.. President. I move the council bill 866, eight, eight six be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Thank you. The public hearing for Council Bill 886 is open. May we have the staff report? Yes. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of the city council. I mean, it's just Matthew Stoiber with community planning and development. I'm just trying to get the slide show up here. And yes, this is a proposed zoning code, text amendment, text amendment number two to the Denver zoning code, which would remove the word colors from the definition of sign. And it's also a correction regarding one storey porch encroachment as a result of the made this your slot home text amendment. So I'll just briefly go over the purpose of the amendment summary of the changes review of the public engagement process. I'll go through the review criteria and the staff recommendation at the end. The purpose of the amendment is the clarification of what constitutes sign for purposes of zoning regulation, and then also a correction of a code drafting error that may cause confusion regarding permitted setback encroachments for one storey porches and similar features. I'll take the first part of the amendment first. The current definition of sign in the Denver zoning code. It's it's rather lengthy, but it's basically a device or object that advertises by any means, including words, letters, fixture figures, colors, designs, symbols, fixtures, motion, illumination or projected images. So let's take a look at that word colors. What does that mean? This is a question that our reviewers are faced with in community planning and development. The gas station canopy, if there's just a red band on the gas station canopy or a green band, depending on the gas station, is that a sign in and of itself ? Obviously, that Conoco is a sign. But what about just that red band? What about the beige color that is used in corporate architecture, franchise architecture such as the Olive Garden restaurant? What about the public storage facility, which has orange doors and they've actually trademarked that color orange on their door? Are they each are each of those individual doors a sign? Again. From that definition I just read you signs are words, images, designs, etc. that advertise colors was included in the definition of sign as part of the 1971 sign code update. And certainly colors are part of sign designs, but zoning historically has not considered color alone. To be a sign and sign committing sign permitting by staff regarding color has not been applied consistently. Exterior colors are not limited by zoning. Sometimes design guidelines may give guidance regarding color. These are not in the zoning code and this will not be changed by the zoning amendment and would continue to apply. So how did how did we get here tonight? There were questions raised recently by the Colorado Wyoming Petroleum Marketers Association regarding if color the use of color alone on a building should be regulated as a sign. And again, as I mentioned, regulating color alone as signage is not consistent with historic press practice among staff. So as a result of this question from from the Petroleum Marketers Association and others, the zoning administrator issued a determination or an interpretation of the zoning code in November of last year that would have limited colors as signs to trademark or trade dress. However, the Board of Adjustment overturned this interpretation in May of this year. The effect of this Board of Adjustment decision is back where we started, which is that color as a sign is not limited to trademark. As a result of this, there's a lack of policy direction and a need for clarity and consistency in regulation. The question keeps still still comes up is color alone a sign? And so that is what has led us to this amendment. The amended definition of sign will read the same as before, but the word colors would be stricken from the amendment. I would, however, note that the definition says by any means, including so this is a non-exclusive list of what constitutes a sign, and this still gives staff some flexibility in determining what exactly is a sign. However, it will it would give us some clear direction, I think, and the questions I raised earlier. So these are examples that I pointed to earlier of building colors that would not be considered signs post amendment, the public storage orange doors. So those I think there's 16 or so orange doors. Those are not 16 signs. The sign that says public storage is still a sign, of course, and colors that are used in franchise architecture, for example, these colored shapes on the on the facade of the Taco Bell restaurant would not be considered signs. Of course, the Taco Bell logo and the bell itself is still a sign. So what's the impact of this? Practically speaking, it will reduce ambiguity and the possibility for subjective code. Administration and enforcement among staff. Staff will be able to enforce this consistently and there will be no difference on the ground. What's a sign and how signs are regulated will continue consistent with the typical I wouldn't say exclusive practice, but typical practice since 1971. I just want to recap some questions we received at the alumni committee hearing regarding future steps in the sign code that were raised at that at that hearing. So the city is planning to undertake a bundle of sign focused text amendments to ensure efficient and legal code administration. The kickoff to this bundle will begin early next year, and CPD will host stakeholder meetings to gather public input on this. The bundle process typically takes 9 to 12 months. The city also intends a larger scale effort to rethink and update this update to sign code within the next few years. The second part of this text amendment will maintain historical levels and allowances for porches and similar features to encroach that. Encroach into primary. Minimum. Primary. Street setbacks. It will correct a code drafting error that was adopted in the May 2018 slot Home Text Amendment that can cause confusion among reviewers regarding setback encroachment for one storey porches and similar features in some zone districts. What this amendment would do would return the relevant porch encroachment text to the pre slot Home Amendment state to fix this drafting error that appears to allow setback encroachments for multistory porches but not one storey porches in some zone districts. And it will maintain the intended new allowance for one storey porches to encroach into the increased side interior setbacks when using the new townhouse building form. It will also standardize formatting and terminology used for the allowed porch encroachments. Just want to summarize the public engagement process for you. We took this question about the color assigned to the ANC zoning committee in June. A red line draft of the amendment was posted to the CPD website and informational notice was sent to RINOs in July. We had a public hearing and planning board on July 16th and the I'm sorry, July 18th and then a public hearing on the 1st of August. Prom planning board recommended approval. Again, we had a committee meeting at Luti on the 21st and I talked already about the question that came up about the sign code update. There was also a question that was raised about consistency with small area plans, which I'll cover in the next slide. And then you can see the rest of the public engagement process there. So the review criteria, which is covered in detail in your staff report, includes consistency with adopted plans and policies. So I'm not advancing. Here we go. Can't plan 2000. It should be flexible and accommodating of land use needs, supportive of the city's economic strengths and can be fairly administered and enforced, encourages positive change in diversity and development consistent with character of surrounding neighborhoods and applies appropriate controls and assented incentives and encourages porches. These are all recommendations out of current Plan 2000, which the proposal is consistent with. Blueprint Denver 2002. The amendment is consistent with recommendations regarding signs in commercial areas. It's consistent with recommendations for language amendments and areas of stability. And it's consistent with recommendations that encouraged front porches. Again, I mentioned that there was a question at Liberty regarding is it consistent with adopted small area plans as well as the citywide plan. So we looked and this is summarized in your staff report, we looked at all adopted small area, neighborhood station area plans that were adopted as part of comp plan 2000 and any that were adopted sense for references to sign color and these citations are included in the staff report. Removing the word colors from the definition of sign is not incompatible with the direction in these small area small area plans that science should be compatible with and enhance the character of their surroundings . And although it's not technically part of your review review criteria, I just wanted to also mention we looked at the draft Denver Right. Plans, commercial signage is not specifically addressed. So that is to say that the amendment would not be in conflict with the proposed draft. Denver Right plans. Other review criteria including include furthering public health, safety and welfare. So this amendment would provide clarity and predictability and zoning regulations would implement adopted plans through regulatory changes. And then another review criteria is that it results in regulations that are uniform within each zone districts. So regulations that are uniform in application to buildings and land uses within each zone district to help ensure the consistency of zoning regulations and to improve the ability to administer and enforce the code uniformly. So the staff recommendation is based on the review criteria that I've just outlined. Four Text Amendments stated in Denver Zoning Code Section 12 .4. 11 Staff Recommends Approval of Text Amendment number two to the Denver Zoning Code. Are there any questions? Thank you very much. We do have five individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you've signed up to speak on this item, ask if you please come to the front bench so that we can get through everyone quickly. I'll call your names. Please step up to the podium and then your time will start to elapse. First up, and I do apologize if I get your name wrong career Bailey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Greer Bailey. I serve as the executive director of the Petroleum Marketers Association. I live in Denver in University Hills. I just wanted to briefly thank the extensive work that Director Axelrod and her staff have done over the last year, working with collaboratively work with the industry in order to just provide some regulatory clarity for our station owners as they try to improve their businesses in the city. So that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Paris. Good evening. Jesse Paris Black Star Action Moment for Self-defense. Denver Homeless out loud in large candidate for 2019. I approve this. I don't see no issue with this. I would like to get some more detail on what this all entails, but from the current presentations I've heard, it makes sense. So I'm approving now. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Richard. Kieran. Good evening. My name is Richard Kieran. Last name again. I am a general contractor. I am one of the owners of Ktc, General Contracting, working with the gas station owners. And I am in favor of this Tex amendment change. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer for them. Thank you. Next up, John Show Horse. Good evening. I'm Jon Snow Horse. And be a. Friend of the agenda. I'm going to pass. All right. And Jeff Sussman. I'm Jeff. Sussman. I reside at 1391 Elk View Road in Larkspur, but I'm with Juneau Services Company. We're a 50 year old family business here in Denver, and I'm here in support of the amendment. I won't take any more of your time, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Flynn. Thank you. Matt Or Abe, maybe you could address this in the presentation. Matt I think you said that that the definition of sign, although we're removing color, the definition of sign characteristics is non-exclusive and that the department would still have flexibility to take color into consideration even though we're removing it as as a specific cited item. Is that is that the case? Yes, sir, that is the case. Thank you, sir. My question is, can did the department envision any particular circumstance where color would now come into play after all the examples of where it does not? We have discussed this and we can't think of anything where it would come into play. Certainly we recognize that color is part of a assign a can be part of a sign or part of a logo, but we can't think of any instance where that would apply. Okay. But we still have a flexibility in case the unimaginable. Right. I think if if the end of the question was really focused on is can color alone be a sign and we can't think of an example, but it's possible. And if that comes up, then we do I think we do have the flexibility to say this is something that advertises that uses a design or something else , and it could be considered a sign in this case, but I think it would be very narrowly focused. Okay. Thank you. And I also want to compliment you in the staff report for using the SIC as ERATO script on when you in the staff report when the one of the Evans station area plan misused the word complement and should have been complement. It's a it's a rare eye and an old editor that would pick that up. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. I was going to mention that same exact thing, but you took the words out of my mouth. Yeah, right. Councilman Espinosa. Matt, first off, I want to say hello. It's been a very long time. Matt and I worked on the Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan many, many, many moons ago. So welcome back to the city. Thank you. The question I have is, was there a conversation about, you know, you know, one of the things we've done historically and we sort of got away from but we still do it on transparency is quantify areas. Was there any conversation about saying well if it is a primary color in a in a sign that it would be limited in its application on the structure by a certain percentage? We didn't have that question about quantifying. I think we looked at I think the public storage is a good example of a of a building that if we were to apply this strictly, that each of those doors would be a sign and that the issue, I think then becomes some of these facilities are well in excess of the permitted number of signs if if we count each of these strictly. So I think that was a consideration. I think and I'm not trying to dodge your question, but we didn't discuss it specifically. I think the other example I would point out is that there are so many, particularly gas stations that have this color banding on their canopy that have just been permitted throughout the years. And and it was never applied that strictly to those particular businesses. So it was an attempt to be sort of consistent with what's existing out there already. That's actually why I asked, because there's this thing was being presented. I just kept thinking, you know, gas stations have been sort of the NASCAR of our building for us. Like you can tell which one is the the Texaco versus the Shell versus the Sinclair by whether it's white, yellow or black or red. Sorry. Mm hmm. And they've always done that. Where the the the projection was one thing in the building was a different color. And it would have been consistent with our sort of historic use of awnings. We always did an accent color, you know, typically on a you have building facade and then accent. And so I think we could have articulated that awnings and a limited portion of the building can sort of have a logo in because this is this this was the primary question in the in the stadium issue. Right. It's one thing to label a building the Sports Authority field. You could do that in white letters and it would say the same thing. But why you go after the red is because that's the branding and and in I don't know if we're solving one city do you are you not is is the city satisfied that we're not solving. Or this sort of, you know, historic sort of unique deviation and not opening ourselves up to something else. And Ari, is the city at all concerned when I see something like the public storage example that you showed? Mm hmm. All that does is scream empty building. And where we put those buildings and we brand that thing, and then we put red doors, orange doors or green doors behind a glass facade. It just says, no one's here, and that's not allowed before. Right. So I don't I don't think we thought of that specifically with this. I think that I think we did have discussions. I think it was very it was unclear. So, first of all, I would say, again, that the zoning administrator did attempt to draw an interpretation of this last year that would have limited it to trademark and trade dress that would have applied to something like public storage. But again, the board overturned that. So we were left without the clarity of direction. I think that when we look at something like a gas station canopy, when and a gas station canopy has four sides, but it may have many more because it may have two canopies join together. So then we had a discussion among ourselves. Well, if you're saying each of those is a sign, how many is that? Is that one for each sign or one for each side of the canopy? What if the size of the canopy is articulated now? Do you have eight signs or 16 signs? And it just became sort of it's, I think pointed out that it was very difficult for us to interpret to interpret that consistently. What we could say is if somebody is using a logo or a design, you know, a swoosh or something like that, that's that's a design that we could say that was a sign. But just saying a green band that's in itself is not would not. Be a sign. Interesting. The two items, the porch and the sign come up together, because I do think that we're able to discern what is a porch encroachment and what isn't and what makes a porch versus what differentiates a porch from a building or a porch from a sign. I think we could probably make that same distinction on an awning, a canopy for, you know, over pops. And so maybe that's probably going to be like that one. No vote planning board, just the sort of dissenting vote, because I do think that there's probably something there's probably an exception here we need to look at. Okay. Worry about the one size fits all approach, the nature of sort of the unintended consequences of this. Thanks. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman, you made a very nice job tonight. I don't want to prolong this very much, but what do you consider the golden arches? I think the golden arches because they are a design. There's a design element to that. I think they would be considered they could be considered design. So for so you don't need to have the word McDonald's on that golden arches to say that's right. Or the target bullseye doesn't have the word target on it, but it is a color and a design, so it is a sign. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Councilman knew and it was an 8 to 1 vote at planning board. That's correct. Can you just speak a little bit to the no vote at the no. Vote was from, uh, Commissioner Schulz. And let me just look at my notes here. That's a rookie. Um, pardon me. I just just summarize the discussion. They had some of the questions, same questions that came up today. If if a color design could still be considered a sign, the answer was yes. I will I will say I'm not entirely clear for the reason for Commissioner Schultz's no vote. He did participate in that discussion. And I think he had some questions about the I think he felt that the the branding the ability of the Petroleum Marketing Association to brand the gas stations was was already very strong. I don't want to take the words. I don't want to take it out of context. I was unclear on the reason for the no vote. Okay. Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions at the public hearing for comfortable eight six is closed. Are there comments by members of Council Councilman Espinosa? Yeah, I really explain that analogy of the NASCAR of the of our building forms. And why that matters to me is that if all the NASCAR's going around the oval were were the same color and it just had a generic font and it branded, you know, Valvoline and and STB, I don't know. I'm going back to Richard Petty Days of Furniture Row. That's a pretty generic car actually. You know, there's a reason why they're all brightly colored is so you can identify, you know, where your driver is. And the same thing with horse jockeys, they all were different colored kits. So that, again, they can be identified near and far. And in the case I get, why are our fill filling stations have gone that route? They're all vying for convenience dollars and gas dollars and and some cases liquor dollars. The real problem for me is that these these these facilities do the nature of sort of contamination in soils to failed on underground storage tanks, you know is that they end up being sort of permanent fixtures or very difficult to dispose of a remove once they're there life, you know, the leases up in the franchise is gone . I don't understand the the business. I just know that they sit there when they're when they're contaminated, when they when there's monitoring wells all over the place and when things are spotted and plumes are discovered, no one wants to invest in that land and clean that up. And and so we're to to sort of make it I get why we would want to accommodate the need for something reasonable for the purposes of doing your business. But at the same time, they're not necessarily the greatest neighbors. They have very few agendas with those operators. They have 24 hour facilities. In some cases. I have light leakage with those facilities. And yeah, if it's a modern facility we can address these things. But if it's a historic facility and you're just doing a re skinning of that, a rebranding of that facility, you know, we're doing you a favor by giving you some clarity and saying, hey, plaster our neighborhood with your your logos and your colors and maybe you'll do some other additional things to sort of, you know, pick up. But I have seven elevens that have operators where guys go in with after gunshots and don't call 911. And, you know, and those gas pumps, they don't go you know, they're hard to get rid of because there are fewer and fewer in here and they're more and more lucrative when you get them. And so this is this is my struggle with this specific this specific nature of this ask is one that I think we could come with a specific answer to for this industry. And what we're doing is we're we're trying to do legitimate clean up on any sort of confusion. But I think what it does is it it it creates an interesting caveat that I think other industries might might pick up on. And I and so with that, I'll be voting. No, thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. See nobody else in the queue. I just want to say thank you for all your work on this. You know, I think that this is a common sense fix to a problem that when people look at it and say painting that door a color is not a sign and leads to 15 signs and a violation of the number of signs. So I appreciate all the hard work that when you dig into it, it gets more complicated than it looks like. It should be at face value and takes a long time. And I appreciate your staff putting so much time and effort into it and I am happy to support this tonight . Madam Secretary, roll call. Brooks. Hi, Espinosa. No. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I can teach. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Hi, Mr. President. I am secretary. Please close voting in those results. Are we missing somebody? Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. Had Ten eyes one day. Ten eyes one day accountable. Eight, eight, six has passed. Seeing no other business before this body. This meeting is adjourned. How does what you do play into the whole wind energy story? Well, very important part of wind energy prediction is trying to tell the folks who run the electrical system when the wind is going to blow so they could take advantage of it. You have to blend wind in with all of the other. Power generation sources like coal and natural gas. So what about a regular weather prediction? Is that.

A bill for an ordinance designating certain properties as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple, easement and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to properties designated as needed for the Sand Creek Project. Grants the authority to acquire through negotiated purchase or condemnation any property interest as needed in support the Sand Creek Project, including easement interests, access rights, improvements, buildings, fixtures, licenses, permits and other appurtenances, located at 8101 East 40th Avenue in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-7-20.

DenverCityCouncil_07272020_20-0668

Thanks. All right. Thank you, Susan. Thank you, Councilwoman Sawyer. All right. Next up is Council Bill six, six, eight Council member Sawyer, will you please put Bill six, six, eight on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 20 dash 0668. Be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. Questions are comments by members of Council Council member CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President, I. We had extensive dialog on this one last week. No need to rehash at all. I fundamentally don't believe in taking property without or without it going to our most vulnerable and highest need right now. And a bike trail is not necessarily our highest need and worthy of taking property. So I'm a no on this tonight. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. I do have some questions about this bill. The first is around eminent domain. I think this is to request eminent domain to take from one property owner. Correct? Not multiple. Property owners. For a councilman. This is Lisa Lumley again. This is just for one person, one property owner. Okay. And if this is one property owner, are. There. Considerations to be factored in when determining whether the city wants to engage eminent domain against this property owner? There? Yes. And at the end of the day, we would only go forward with the domain if we felt like there was no other viable avenue and that it was a parcel that we needed for the purpose. Okay. Um, so can you help me understand how this one property owner is different, or this one plot is different than, say, Denver Country Club? Why? Why? Why might we? As for eminent domain against this property owner and not against timber country. Well, I don't know that we wouldn't ever. I don't think that anything would prohibit us from Denver Country Club if there was a public purpose need. Okay. And the reason why I bring it up is I want to make sure that I'm consistent in my in my votes. And I know we've heard time and time again that constituents want the cherry tree trail to be completed along the you know, along the Cherry Creek, the creek itself. And we've heard time and time again that a lot of complaints, including people who live in country club, about the bike path and how it's full of ice in the winter and how it's so narrow that it doesn't allow for physical distancing, and yet it is a major regional artery. So I guess it had been my understanding and maybe because I haven't been in formal conversations with real estate, but it was my understanding that that there was no interest like hell would freeze over before we would start taking property from the country club. And so I had. A. Person saying, well, country club. No, but Sand Creek. Yes. So, Councilman, my, my response is that I think we would you would want to talk to Dottie. I work on behalf of Dottie for their projects or in this case, parks. So other agencies surrealistic would never go forward on its own with unless there was a city purpose. I am unaware of a purpose that has been brought to real estate's attention as it relates to that particular trail. So to me, if it was part of a project for any owner that a land acquisition ordinance was required, we would not necessarily be looking and just deciding, you know, let's do this on our notice that owner and any of the other land acquisition or instance that have come forward. What you would see is that it is the entire project that is identified. And in this case, for this particular project, there is only one parcel that is required. Okay. Thank you. And thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. Lisa or maybe even Councilman Hernan. One of you might be best able to answer this question. So the parcel itself is there. Does the trail currently go around this parcel? And it's this parcel is just being acquired to connect it in a more direct way. Or is it that the the Seeing Creek Trail cannot be completed without this parcel? Councilman I don't know if you'd like to respond to said last week you've done something I haven't, which I've never written it. Yes. Yes. Councilwoman Sawyer, we have to go around this parcel because we go around as far. So because of that. So that's a challenge that Sand Creek has had for a very long time. And why it's part of the 2016 master plan for the Sand Creek Regional Greenway to acquire this parcel for better connectivity. Got it. Thank you. No further questions. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Councilman, say the market. Thank you, Madam President. Sorry they got me started. I mentioned. I wasn't going to ask anything. Lisa, can you explain or list off the city uses that we use eminent domain for. Councilwoman at the heart of it. It has to do with public purpose. If it is a required public, required and needed public purpose. So that could be for a park, certainly for roadway projects, for sidewalk and ADA improvements. Those are kind of the ones that jump out. Right at the top of the list. But at the heart of it, it has to have a public purpose. Have you in your history or knowledge of our history here in Denver, have we ever used eminent domain to acquire land from Union Pacific? Not that I am aware of. No, for that. In your memory, have we ever acquired land to build housing? What I want is for eminent domain. No, we I'm trying to think I want to be careful on that because there's something that makes me think we have. But no, I think what we've done is we've managed to find. Find parcels that were happened to be strategic that we could acquire on behalf of a post or prior order, that then they could turn around and work with for our piece to go out for affordable housing. But never through eminent domain or threats of. I will double check myself and I can respond back to you after this. But not that is coming to mind. And what is what are the factors that go into deciding whether it is worth it or not to pursue a parcel for eminent domain? Councilwoman? I think it is. It depends on the project, quite frankly. But at the end of the day, as I shared with Councilwoman Sawyer a number of months ago when we talked about eminent domain, that is not something that the city looks at lightly. And it is normally the last resort that we take. But it is only if, at the end of the day, we need the parcel for the project. And we can't complete the project without it. That is what would normally then move us forward in our discussions on eminent domain. But what? But what exactly makes a project? Something worth fighting eminent domain for. When when we just discussed this parcel, there already is a trail around Sand Creek and the inconvenience is just that an inconvenience. But what makes it rise to the level of taking property to make it less inconvenient? What I would say for this particular one is knowing that there are other future improvements along the creek that need to be done, that there are grant dollars associated with this particular area and property that the city needs to and has at its disposal. That and knowing that without going into any detail that we had already had some prior conversations with the owner, that that is what made this appear a viable candidate for eminent domain. And those conversations with the owner resulted in him saying that he refused to sell his parcel. Correct. Councilwoman, at this point, because those are still negotiations and because the land acquisition ordinance, I would I would be not comfortable discussing it. The negotiations right now. And who is the company that we contract with to acquire parcels pre eminent domain. We do not contract with a company to do that. Either we negotiate in house or on certain projects, especially if we have relocation, then we may use one of our right of way consultants. But we we did not use a consultant to have this conversation. Got it. And so there's. So HD pack is not a regular go to for us for these eminent domain acquisitions. They may be a consultant that we use. And whether the city uses them or they are sometimes a sub with the engineers, we do utilize them, especially though for any of the relocation projects. And what is the value of this project? If we were to pay for the relocation and the acquisition without having to go through eminent domain? And what Councilwoman, at this point, again, I don't know that that's something that I'm comfortable discussing right now. There's a very specific process. We would need to go forward under the Uniform Relocation Act, and that includes valuation. So we would need to wait and determine that with appraisals. And is there a public repository where residents of Denver could look up parcels that were acquired through eminent domain or pre eminent domain? Work with one of our consultants. I'm trying to think how to answer that for I'm not sure what you mean by preeminent domain. So I can explain. I've been part of one of the eminent domain or several of the eminent domain acquisitions for National Western and for I-70, and helping community members navigate that. And the unfortunate part of it is they don't get considered to be eminent domain unless they actually have to fight in a different level of court for that. But they end up getting approached by the city. The city's consultants tell them it's eminent domain. Tell them that if they they don't settle, if they don't agree to the price, that they will not they will not win in a court case for eminent domain. And so I've been a party to multiple eminent domain acquisitions that don't get called eminent domain. And so I'm wondering how we as the the general public could look back on the information that I'm asking you for now that you can't disclose right now after it is done? Well, certainly, once the project is completed and I say that because with eminent domain, depending on the funding sources, they have to be reviewed by C dot. There's a whole process that goes through that. And then if somebody wanted to profiles, they could because they won't just be on a Web site. That being said, there is a very especially when we are using eminent domain that the city uses regardless of funding the Uniform Relocation Act as a guideline. And so there's a very specific process in which we have to go forward, and that includes letters, notification, timelines to respond. It's very prescribed. So I am I don't know how to respond to what you have experienced, but what I will say is for all of the eminent domain projects that I have worked on during my career that has when we go out, it is recognizing it is distributing the Uniform Relocation Act. That is why if we use a consultant, the consultant is the first to say that they are there to also represent. They are not just representing the city, they are representing the owner, tenant, whomever we're speaking with to make sure that we are following the Uniform Relocation Act, which ensures that there is a fair process. So real quick on the relocation act. Eminent domain proceedings are not required in order to relocate somebody under the relocation Act. No, that is correct. We if we were able to strike a negotiation regardless whether it's a project or not, that involved that if that was part of the negotiation. Yes. And so what do we call. That on a project? What do we call that before it rises to eminent domain? But they're working with consultants to basically be moved under the relocation act. What is it called? What kind of acquisition is that? That would still be just a negotiated, negotiated acquisition. No. So there's no special way we classify pre eminent domain negotiations. Not as I understand what you're asking. No. And that's why I say we're very careful in how we do the conversations. We have to make sure that we if we go down this path, that we are following the federal guidelines that we need to. So do you recall or in your career with Denver, how many acquisitions where eminent domain was authorized actually ended in eminent domain? I do not know how many. I will say the percentage and I'm happy to try and get you a number is relatively small. Of truly ending up in court. But several actually acquired without ending up in court, correct? Yes, but it's still under under eminent domain. But yes, we still then negotiate forward based on the I'll use and then that is always our goal. Got it. Thank you. That concludes my questions, Madam President. Hey. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. So I do want to Miss Lumley. You reminded me, and I totally would agree with you. I do see that there are times when we would use eminent, eminent domain. Say, for example, you mentioned improvements. It's a matter of civil rights. So. So it isn't as if I'm against eminent domain as a as a a tool by itself. I just want to make sure that if we're taking someone's private property, that we are we are measured. And we don't just do that on a on a whim. So. I I'm trying to understand. This seems to be more inconvenient rather than civil rights or public safety. Because there is an existing path. It's a little longer than going directly on the feet. So has has Denver. I know that there are because this is an ongoing discussion. You want to be careful with what you say. I don't know if you can answer this, but has Denver been in contact. With the property owner? Yes. Okay. When this transaction is complete, assuming we agree to eminent domain, will we have the opportunity to examine the level of contact with the property owner? Yes. I mean, I understand what you're asking us and it will be documented going forward, certainly. Like I said, it's very prescribed once this is in place on the on how we move forward. Okay. And is it I'm surprised I haven't heard from the property owner at all. I mean, you know, are all the council members email addresses are are pretty discoverable. So is it inadvisable for the property owner to provide comment or is it is it should we. All right. I guess I'm kind of at a loss as to why the property owner I mean, if you've reached out to them and you say, hey, we want to buy your property, we're thinking about taking your property. And the property owner still doesn't say anything. I'm just trying to figure out, is it is it because they didn't know? But it sounds like they knew that the city was interested in the property. So I'm just trying to wrap my arm or arms or head or whatever brain around. This while also respecting that you can only say some things and you can't divulge the full the full grito. What I would say is the majority of owners probably do not reach out to you to city council in general under our land acquisition ordinances. I know that there have been a few over the last couple of years, but in general, we do a number of these, as you mentioned, for some of our other roadway projects, the ADA projects that you never hear from. Well, I would imagine the 88 projects would be pretty cut and dry, like we're taking it. It's a matter of civil rights. We have to. It's our obligation as a government entity. And, you know, so I don't see Sand Creek as necessarily the exact same, whereas there may be a defensible argument. I guess what I'm getting at is maybe the property owner. Has a reason to what? Eminent domain? I don't know what that reason would be, but but I'm curious. And after this all ends, I would be curious to know the results. So that's why I was asking if we'd find out later. Sure. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. And thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Council member Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. Lisa, I just wanted to make sure that I have kept my mind around this entirely. So just to clarify, when you and I walked through this entire process in the spring, when this happened in District five with an ADA with a couple of ADA corners along Monaco, you said that the way that the federal law is written, the at this point in the process, the land acquisition ordinance has to be approved by council first before the city can reach out to the landowner and make an offer on the land to begin the process of even discussing at all the potential of purchasing the land. Is that correct? Am I am I remembering that correctly? You're right, because at that point, we need to follow the federal guidelines. Now, it is not unusual on certain in certain situations, this being one, to have a very generalized conversation with an owner just in general. Because they and actually, I'll be honest, they had reached out to us because they had heard that we had an interest in this parcel when they acquired it. And so to have general conversations is fine. But then that's what are if we really think that this may be a path that we are going down, then we want to be very careful about what we say and what we do so that we never misrepresent the city's interest and that we are always following them. The federal guidelines. And so thank you for clarifying that for me. I thought that that was what I had remembered in my mind. But this is one of those ordinances that that is it can either be very, very big or very, very small, depending on the specifics of the situation. And so I just I appreciate you clarifying that for me. And then one other question of clarification as well. So once the. Let me make sure that I've I say this properly so once a discussion begins. If this were to be approved by council, once a discussion begins with the landowner, the city. Am I right in remembering that the city pays for if the landowner wanted to get a representation of their own or an appraisal of their own or something like that too, to make sure that whatever the city was offering was fair and that they were being fairly represented, and that the city pays for that too. You are correct from the standpoint that yes, on the appraisal. So they have the right to get legal counsel. The city, when we do the valuation and make an offer, say the landowner has the right to get its own appraisal that the city would pay for. Correct? Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thanks so much for the question. All right. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call. CDEBACA No. When? I heard it. I kind. No. Cashman. I. Can each. I see. I. Sawyer. No. Boris. I. Black I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announce the results. Three days. 8 hours. Eight Eyes Council Bill 668 has passed. 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 ie. Otherwise it's your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Council Member Sawyer Will you please put the resolutions and proclamations for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? I move that resolutions and proclamations be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. Hang on. Let me pull them all up here. They are all 20 Series 0613. 058805970598068006810685061706180679 and 0661. Target. Thank you. We'll get to the mover in the second dir. Thank you, councilman. Madam Secretary, roll call. But I. CdeBaca, I. When I. Brendan i. I. I. Cashman. I can h i central. I swear I saw x. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. You have a nice. 11 eyes. The resolutions and proclamations have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass are pre recess announcement tonight. There'll be a required public hearing on Council Bill 648 designating the Howard Berkeley Park Chapel as a structure for preservation. Anyone wishing to speak on this matter must go online to sign up. And just wanted to give my colleagues a reminder. When we go to recess, please make sure and mute your mikes and put your your picture up instead of your video. And if there's no objections, we will take a ten minute recess. Council members, please be back in your seats by 720, please. Hello. We have one public hearing tonight. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 5124, 5128, 5132 & 5136 West 41st Avenue in Berkeley. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 5124, 5128, 5132, and 5136 West 41st Avenue from U-SU-C1 to U-MX-2x (urban, single-unit, to urban, mixed-use) in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-21-18.

DenverCityCouncil_10082018_18-0877

Councilman Brooks, would you please put Council Bill 877 on the floor? Yemen's president moved the council bill 877 to be placed for funding consideration and do pass. It has been moved and can I get a second? It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 877 is open. May we have the staff report? Hello again, Brandon Shaver from CPD. This time we have an official map amendment application 2017 i00171 this free zones property from 5124 to 5136 West 41st Avenue this time from U.S. U.S. one to UMC two x. This item was also at Planet Planning Board on August 1st, where it was voted unanimously in favor to move forward. Again, we're in Council District one, this time in the Berkeley neighborhood. Zooming in closer to the site, we are at the edge of the city. This is the southeast corner of 41st Avenue and Sheridan Boulevard. And to the west, we have the city of Wheat Ridge in Jefferson County. The request here is the same urban neighborhood context mixed use two story max with limited building forms and uses because of that little access going through the context here, the zoning is see kind of a sea of us. You see one, two, all sides of it except for the Jefferson County side to the west. And then there is an insect on the right which shows the mixed use that does occur on both 38th and 44th Avenue. And we'll get more into that in a bit. The land use at the site is coming up as mixed use. It is currently three residential units and a retail storefront. It is adjacent to single family dwellings, duplexes and the city of Wheat Ridge. Here is an aerial shot to give you a sense of the building, form and scale. This is a building that was constructed in the early 1900s and definitely fits that kind of shopfront embedded commercial look. And a couple of pictures of the site starting at the top left. You can see the retail store front and the three residential units that are next to it, going to the bottom left. This is the view of the structure as you travel north on Sheridan Boulevard. And then the pictures on the right just show a kind of a little bit of what the residential character is over there. And then again, pulling out the inset map, looking at 33rd and or 38th and 44th Avenues, rather. You can see that this kind of pattern and of embedded commercial exists there as well. The process here, we have received two letters, both being from the Berkeley Regis United Neighbors Incorporation. The first was received before planning board and it was a letter of opposition. They have since rescinded that letter and are now in support of this rezoning. Same criteria here. First, consistency with adopted plans. We have the same two plans apply to this area comp plan and blueprint. Here are those strategies from comp plan that are further detailed in the staff report, mainly talking about environmental sustainability, land use, mobility and economic activity with the neighborhoods and moving to blueprint the same land use concept is here we have single family, residential and an area of stability and the future street classifications have shared in as a residential arterial and 41st Avenue as an UN designated local street. So staff feels that this rezoning will result in the uniform application of the UMTS to U.S. Zone District and will again further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of adopted plans. This application for justifying circumstances also known as changed or changing conditions in a particular area. There are also a number of new residential units in this area, particularly along Tennyson Street, which is just to the east, as well as a lot of reinvestment in the housing stock that is currently existing. And lastly, for consistency with neighborhood context, this area is very urban in nature and the zone district purpose and intent. Again, the um, access to X is mainly for these embedded commercial uses that are within neighborhoods. Again. CPD recommends approval based on finding that all review criteria have been met. Happy to answer questions in the applicant as president as well. Thank you very much. We do have two individuals signed up to speak this evening on this item. So if you signed up for this item, if you could make your way to this front bench. First up, we have Jason Lewis. Jason Lewis. I reside at 4383 Vrain and I'm here to answer any questions that counsel might have. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Paris. That's the Paris Black Star action movie of self-defense. Denver Homeless out loud, now large candidate for 2019. I had two questions. What was the am I level for these properties on Tennyson? So keep hearing that this area is building housing. I want to know what the amount level is. It still seems like this is gentrification in a already rapidly gentrified area. And also, what is going to be the use of this mixed use? What it's going to be here as commercial is going to be residential. What is this? Thank you. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Ortega. Yeah, I just wanted to ask the applicant what you plan to do with the property, if you don't mind just sharing with us what you're. What you hope to do with it. And if you're planning to use the structure or just build a whole new development. Yes, we're actually leaving the current structure and it's in its current state. Right now it has single use zoning, but the prior use was originally commercial and over the years it's just been overlaid with the surrounding single use. So we wanted to bring the the zoning up to what the current use of the building has been in the past, which is mixed use. It currently has one commercial and three residential units in it. We're looking to essentially upgrade the building. We've put a $90,000 energy efficient roof on it and we're looking to do some exterior upgrades. We've re paved the driveway and made some improvements and we're just looking to overall improve it. But before we do that, we'd just like to make sure the zoning matches the use. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Constable 877 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Espinosa. So this one, I'll just admit this was a little bit awkward for me because I didn't in fact have ex parte communications with all sides regarding this property. But it is. But I had not made a decision prior to the public hearing, and I also communicated that to both parties that I would that I wasn't making a decision. That said, this is very, very similar to my comments on the prior rezoning, which is when you're embedded in a business district in a or a business function, in a in a in a single family, two sort of district, the two X is the appropriate zoned commercial mixed use zoned district. So with that, I will be in support. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. And I'll just add that I think Stafford the presentation and showing that it clearly meets the criteria for rezoning. I also be supporting this. Madam Secretary, Raquel Espinosa. Hi Brooks I. Flynn I Gilmore I. Herndon High. Cashman High. Can each Lopez. I knew Ortega. Mr. President. I'm Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 1109 accountable 877 has passed. Councilman Brooks, will you please vote council bill 886 on the floor.

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

DenverCityCouncil_08072017_17-0819

I. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. 818 passes. Now on to 819. And I fail to mention to those of you following along 812, the first bill we voted on was transportation, the largest bill. So I should have missed that. But 415 million. Okay. So 819 is the companion ordinance. And Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put 819 on the floor? Yes, President Brooks, I move that council bill 819 be ordered published. All right. It has been moved and seconded. We are going to vote on the actual amendment. Councilman Lopez, go ahead and offer your motion to amend. Thank you, Mr. President. I move to amend Council 17 series of 1718 zero 819 in the following particulars. On page one, line 15 in the list of transportation and mobility projects to be funded with bond proceeds after, quote, Bucktown, Colorado Boulevard, improvements in quote at the project description of, quote, Central Street improvements, parentheses, Central Street Promenade, fancy and quote oh two on page two. And a list of transportation and mobility projects strike the quote, Federal Boulevard Transit Infrastructure quote project and substitute with the quote Federal Boulevard pedestrian improvements end quote on I so number three on page two and the list of transportation mobility projects add quote West Colfax transit enhancements quote after the project Washington Street 47 through 52nd reconstruction, end quote. All right. It has been moved and seconded by Ortega. Okay. Comes members of Council. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. Like I said earlier, the amendment is to reallocate a portion of the bond proceeds associated with the debt issuance for transportation and mobility projects by eliminating the Federal Boulevard Transit Infrastructure Project, thus freeing up $9.8 million to be reallocated as follows an additional 4.2 million for Morrison road improvements, bringing the total amount of bond proceeds to be dedicated to this project to $12,242,500. The addition of the following three projects that were originally listed on a potential project list but were not included in the mayor's recommendation. Central Street Promenade. With an estimated cost of the $50,000 Federal Boulevard pedestrian improvements, with an estimated cost of 2.85 million and West Colfax Transit enhancements with an estimated cost of 1.9 million. Here's the here's the thing. Those three project. The funds are kept on Federal Boulevard. And that's that's the thing. I want folks to understand that all of these projects keep the spirit and the intent of the original fund. The funds on Federal Boulevard that are kept are pedestrian improvements that are funded at two of the primary intersections. As was stated earlier in this meeting, 23rd and 26th from the Federal Boulevard Corridor study. So for folks to say that this moves money from Federal Boulevard is false. What we want to be able to do is highlight those projects that are absolutely critical to ongoing projects in our district. The other one is on West Colfax, where funds are moved for transit improvements. This will allow for West Denver to be connected to the bus. Rapid Transit may eventually lead to BRT on Colfax being extended to city limits, which is Sheridan. And we've talked about this before. And those of you who had been on the council, those I. Been at this for a while. When we started talking about BRT since and since its inception, I've always put out my hand and said, Wait, wait, wait, wait. You have another completely other side of town that we're forgetting. It would stop at her area. The city of Denver still goes on all the way to shared. Right. And if we're able to take it the BRT all the way to Yosemite and even past and all the way we go even past to into Aurora. And why shouldn't we able to do that and complete that in our own city and, you know, left and right to be able to get it done? Unfortunately, we were not successful. It is what it is. And here's the thing. We understand, okay, the study was done. The grant was applied for for just that section. No use chasing a jumbo jet. That's field and on the runway. So what we want to do is be able to prepare our side of town, West Colfax, for the same kind of opportunities. Right. And so that's why that is in there. You know, there's been great work that's been done by the West Colfax bid. You heard Dan Schorr's testimony and you heard Leslie check out his testimony for Federal Boulevard. You know, these are areas where they're absolutely critical. And when you look at the funds that that we want to keep in southwest Denver and Westwood, it's to do more than multi-modal improvements. And you heard that you heard that in great detail from Bukele West and from the folks that spoke there. It's it's increasing Morrison road improvements to the funding level that they should have. It was almost like a little like a tennis match was going back and forth and as in this process, we were watching it get funded and decreased. Funded and then decreased. And so in order for Morrison Road to Work, you got to fund, you got to complete the project. And when we were looking at this source of funds and you look at Federal Boulevard and you look at the. The original intent of this for the for the transit study. If we really wanted to make Federal Boulevard, that transit corridor, we really wanted to do that. It's not going to take $9.8 million. It's going to take a heck of a lot more investment. And it has to be programed. And that's why we picked that's why we saw this as, hey, what's going on with this? Asked these questions before and in previous council meetings and at this at this very floor without the detailed response. This is money that's not being programed. We don't know if it's for bus shelters. We don't know if it is for a bus lane. We don't know if it's. We've heard that it's for charging stations, for electric cars. We just don't know for certain. And when we asked. There's no designs and there's not it's not programed. We can they can not tell us what's going to be funded. And the detail that we. Right. And it's frustrating because here we have that. And on the other hand, we have these four projects that that absolutely are they we can program right away to complete four major projects in the city. Important transit corridor, important hubs. So that's that's you know, the one thing I really wanted about home and this is not money that we're allocated for another side of town or another. This is within the district. Right. And so this is something that a lot of the folks that you had here testifying, this is their work. This is the gaps that they that they realized. There's been tremendous work done. But you know what? This is about details. And and we want to make sure we get we get it right. If we're going to do it, let's get it right. There have been terrible accidents on Morrison with terrible accidents on West Colfax Federal. Seen a heck of a lot more improvement than what it ever had. And a lot of the things that talk about federal, you know, a lot of those actions that happened in that corridor and that stretch is not happening no more because of that federal boulevard reconstruction that we had. So. Yeah. All right. I want to allow other folks. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman. Yes, I have said all right to be asking questions. Oh, yeah, yeah. Okay. Um, I'd like to ask Krissy to come up to the, to the thing. I just have a couple of questions. I understand that the Central Street Project, there was a question about whether it was bond eligible. Has that question become more clear or. I don't know about bond eligibility. So sorry for Central Laura. Would you know whether. So the initial scope of the project more focused on landscaping elements and streetscape along Central Avenue, and at that time we deemed that the useful life of that proposed project scope didn't align with on financing. And is that the case now? I mean, is it still maybe not eligible for bond financing? There is more clarity needed around the scope of work that's required for that project for us to determine the answer to that question. So if we were to approve this amendment and it was found to be not bond eligible. What happens to it? I mean, do we have some obligation towards it or what? What happens to it? If City Council approves the amendment, then it's incorporated into the bond. And we would essentially need to work to develop a scope of work that's in line with what is eligible for bond funding. Okay. Thank you. And and now, Kristie, I was going to ask you about the federal transit project that's going away here in this in this amendment. Yeah. How many? How long along the corridor was that? Transit. Was the transit project or is initially the transit project was intended to be the entire length of the federal boulevard corridor from city limit to city limit. Through the process, it was reduced to from Evans to 38th Avenue. From Evans to 38th. That's quite a distance. Yes. And is it true that there were. Not plans that were drawn up. For the project? So one of the things we've been thinking about with regards to transit is just how do we do sort of the bus rapid transit faster? There are things that we can do from a programmatic perspective, an operational perspective to actually help transit move more quickly through the corridor. And that's what we had in mind. So a lot of things with sign signals and markings and bus shelter improvements to actually enhance the transit along the corridor. It is the second highest ridership in the RTD system. It's on the Vision Zero High Injury Network system, and we thought we could bring a lot of those things together to actually address both transit and safety issues along the corridor. Okay. I think that's all my question is. Thanks very much. Thanks, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Blair. Thank you, Mr. President. Unfortunately. I haven't learned that much about either of these proposals, the original one and the amendment. I had a brief meeting with Councilman Espinosa a few weeks ago, but most of what I've learned, I've learned tonight, and I trust Councilman Espinosa and Councilman Lopez for what they think should be in their district. Just because I think I know what's best for my district, but what I'm concerned about is federal, because we're always hearing about what a dangerous street it is. And it concerns me that we're we're not addressing that. And I understand that that we want to hold out for a BRT. But if we're spending 55 million or $60 million on Colfax, when are we going to have that kind of money? Again, for federal? We're probably not for another bond, which is in ten years. So I don't know how to weigh that decision. So Chrissy, can you provide me any guidance? And we also have great speakers on both sides of it. So I don't I don't really know how to make that decision. Well, you know, as you guys have all said this evening, there's there aren't a lack of projects that are good projects. It's hard. Decisions that we have to. Make when we're trying to think about transportation and how do we meet some of the goals that we have out there. And with regards to mode shift, several people have mentioned 73% of folks are driving to on their commute trips by themselves. And so how do we encourage people to move differently and meet the Mobility Action Plan goals that Mayor Hancock placed out there? We do think that enhancing transit and improving ridership are improving the service along these corridors will actually increase ridership and give people better options and serve a community that we're really working to better support and make sure that they through transportation, we're providing greater access to opportunity. We also know from our work with RTD that this corridor is on the first tier for improvements that they're identifying when they look at their system and where busses are getting stuck in the system and stuck in traffic just like everybody else, which makes it harder to prioritize transit and encourage that mode shift. So we do think that this project would give that opportunity to look at specific intersections where we would want to put in transit signal priority to jump planes if necessary, to a bus only lonely bus only lane that maybe in the peak period only. But we could certainly look at 24 hour. Those are the types of things that we are looking towards to move this forward and increase transit capacity on the corridor. So if you want to think about it along the lines of what Broadway Lincoln have done in the past with signs, signals and markings and prioritizing transit in that corridor, that's what we wanted to start with. But we've also learned a lot since we have implemented Broadway in Lincoln. To see what else we might want to do will be testing the red paint the red markings on Broadway starting this summer. Those are all things that would be eligible on this process, on this project, if we were able to move it forward. Thank you. So Councilman Lopez and Espinosa, I guess my question is for you, are you willing to sacrifice that for these other projects? My short answer, absolutely. It's not a sacrifice. It's a reinvestment only because it's a pilot you talked to. There was another. So when you talk about Federal Boulevard as being a concern. Yeah. At one point it was the most dangerous strip in Denver with with that Alameda, it was identified from Alameda to Sixth Avenue. Fifth Avenue to be to be to be honest. We addressed that. We widened it. You put in sidewalks, underground utilities. That was a big ticket item. And it was over 100. And I think. $36 million. It was a big deal just for that stretch. That's a small stretch. Federal. Huge. Right. Ten point I mean, $9.8 million wouldn't even. I don't know how many holes we could have dug with that on that strip. The other thing, Kendra, is that we are. Councilman Black, I'm sorry. Is this not over? We rebuilt. We reconfigured Sixth Avenue Bridges project, which was a big deal. Happened to tie right into that. And then what's going to be happening now is from Sixth Avenue all the way to Holden, where the Human Services Building is, that's going to keep widen third lane, put in medians, pedestrian refuges, things like that, better lights. That's another big ticket item. And you're only talking about maybe a mile or two max, right on Federal Boulevard. It's huge. You're looking at $9.8 million. I'd rather see hard cost. I'd rather see completed projects with those that that $9.8 million on Colfax, on those very intersections that we talked about rather than some pilot . Right. That's not programed money. And no, here's the thing. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Krissy from Barnum. Right. We talked about federal a lot. It's a matter of priority. And for ten years I was in the West Side. We know where the priority is there. Now, we appreciate that. We would love to have BRT, but you can't buy BRT on Federal Boulevard for $9.8 million. You just can't. So for us, it's just a smart investment on that side. But it's a fallacy to think that Federal Boulevard is not getting any love. Oh, my gosh. We're getting crazy love coming out pretty soon. So much that we're all going to be receiving phone calls about the traffic jams. Okay. Thank you. I would just like to insert one comment. Hampton needs a lot of love. And so to South Carolina. Thank you. More for for this. All right. To the. Chinese. That's the way. Oh, yeah. Councilman Espinosa, just. Just so you have the other half of that response as well. Yes. There is no design that were that were ready to go. That's shovel ready for for for federal. They're on this on this scale. And a portion of that is pilot, which begs the question of whether that had hits the ten year requirement, because it's something that could be tried and pulled away. But the key thing on the one sort of supportive comment tonight was and it's crucial it's crucial to federal it's crucial to Colfax. Is transit supportive land use? We do not have land use that would sort of fill in and start bringing new, new high concentrations of users. We need to this is and so that is actually one of the crucial things the disconnects that we didn't do in Blueprint Denver. We didn't follow through with Blueprint Denver. That Denver right. Update is going to be talking about. But we're a year from Denver. Right. Being adopted and we're two more many years from these neighborhoods being part of the neighborhood planning initiative. So we are. Probably a good decade from having true, you know, land. Use, transit supported, land uses, married with transit. So we actually have time. What we should be doing is for far less money doing the design, doing the studies and improving upon the recommendations of the plan so that we actually can can come forward and that can be done through our general fund. These other things are our long term needs. On West Colfax. We've we've have tall, very tall, high concentrations of senior living facilities. The city is now building one through DHS. So this is this is it is. Is as one of the public speakers. Put it, it's it's a Sophie's. Choice, but it is. Actually one that is is valuable valuable to to the pedestrian commute walking communities. I have a very high concentration of Jewish community on West Colfax as well. So these are all things that it is not ideal situation, but it is actually a net improvement and we can build towards the Federal Boulevard corridor, which was just done last year. So. And follow up with plans over the coming years. Thanks. Hey. Thank you. All right, Councilman Black, I think that gets at it. Let's go to Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm happy to support the Councilman Lopez and Councilman Espinosa in Reprograming these federal funds and other projects in our district. And I just want to remind Councilman Lopez, when he talks about the west side being sort of forgotten, that the farther southwest you go, we're even more forgotten and that Denver doesn't end. It doesn't go all the way to Sheridan. And in my district, it goes all the way to Kipling Street. And we had a neighborhood picnic there for Denver days just yesterday. And folks were reminding me there was a time when my predecessor, Councilman Hackworth, had to have the city issue, the folks in my neighborhood, Denver resident cards , because no one believed at the Southwest Rec Center that we actually lived in the city and county of Denver. So so with that in mind, I think it's very good that the representatives from the West Side get to determine their own priorities. And I'm happy to support this. Thank you. All right, Councilman Flynn, I'm going to jump to Councilman Knoop. Well, it looks like we're just equivalent over legitimate needs. Like Chrissy said, you know, it sure says something about a lack of a transportation system. So I'm hoping the Christie that you'll be supportive of putting this project in the operating budget for 2018. And we obviously need both of these projects and I'm sure you'll hear what you hear up here tonight. You're going to find support for increased transit funding. So I hope you'll consider that. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman New. Councilman Castro. Thank you, Mr. President. And I'm really very pleased to hear all this love for the West Side, but want it want to give a yo for the East Side and East Evans Avenue needs a whole lot of love. East of Colorado Boulevard, especially. And I just wanted to add that Brandon is looking far too relaxed. And I want to I want to underscore a larger go for the minivan. So there you go. Councilman Cashman, did you said the east side? Yes, sir. You know, the east side is. Anyway, we'll talk about that later. All right. Let's do. Councilman Lopez, I think you can. Armando, don't do it. No, I need to ask a question. Ask your question. So I wanted to ask this question of David and possibly Laura. Now, although in the particulars that I asked, that, you know, that kind of renumbered stuff and adds Federal Boulevard Transit and all that stuff. So for the purpose and the intent of the amendment, even though it's not written in the actual language, how are we going to record and make sure that that that those those projects are actually the intent of the proceeds? And so I don't know whether or not I just want to make sure on the record that that that's the intent of. Yes. The Department of Finance will absolutely reallocate the funds within the transportation purposed as determined by City Council this evening. As you know, Councilman, we have transparently posted summaries on our website which reflect those projects which comprise each of the purposes. So we will certainly adjust all of our summaries to include the adjustment on Morrison Road. Okay. It's like David's not in his head. David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney The purpose of the councilman's question is, as you all know, each of the projects doesn't have a number, a dollar number attributed to it in the companion ordinance. And it was easy to delay one project, add three. But the addition of the addition of the extra money to Morse and Road isn't really expressly in the language of the amendment itself, but is largest reflected that we understand the underlying intent. The budget for the Morris Road Project will be increased by the amount indicated in the explanation, even though it's not explicitly in the ordinance language . So we thought we would put that on the record. Thank you. Thank you. That's all I have. All right, set it up. Sure. Okay. Uh, Councilman Espinosa. No, that was okay. Okay, great. We are voting on the amendment for a 19. All right. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, real call. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. From Black Eye. Clark. Espinosa, I. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I heard in Cashman. I can eat, Mr. President. I police voting announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. The amendment passes. Now, Councilwoman Gilmore, we need a motion to publish as amended. Thank you, President Brooks. I move that council bill 819 be ordered published as amended. It has been moved and seconded, I assume no comments from the council. Madam Secretary Roker. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. Kinney. Lopez. All right. New Ortega. Excuse me. Sussman. Black eye. Clark. Hi. Mr. President. I saw swelling in the results. 13 eyes. All right. 13 eyes. Constable 819 has been ordered published as amendment. All eight of these bills will be on second and final reading Monday, August 14th, when council is scheduled to vote on all these bills. On Monday, August 14, the Council will hold a required public here from Council Bill 810 approving the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending and restating PD-32, Douglas Park Planned Development District (PD-32 North and PD-32 South), read and adopted as read. (District 5)

LongBeachCC_09152020_20-0928

Thank you. Next, we're going to move on to we have three hearings. So let's go out and go through all three of those hearings, starting with hearing number 17. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive the supporting documentation under the record, conclude the public hearing and find the project exempt from secure and declare ordinance amending and re restating the Douglas Park Plan Development District North and South ordinances. Read the first time and later the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading District five. Oscar Orsi, the development services director, will introduce staff for a brief presentation on this item. Yes. Thank you, Mayor, Mayor and members of the City Council. This is the zoning code amendment to PD 30 to the Douglas Park Plan Development District to modify provisions to the development standards, to expand our uses, our uses, and also. To improve upon the standards and streamline the approval process. And with that, Christopher Kuntz will give you a brief presentation. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I can this relates to Douglas Park, which is our industrial area surrounding Long Beach's airport. The Plan Development District was first established in December of 2000 for. This gives you an idea of what we refer to as PD 32. It's just north of the airport. It's divided into a northern and southern area with the cover street serving as the division between the two. It has been updated a few times over the years, but why we're in front of you today is to make updates related to use and uses that did not exist as prominently in 2004 as they do today. So there are a number of users in Douglas Park and a number of sub areas. None of the allowed uses today would be deleted, but we are expanding additional opportunity to have uses that have reemerged. So these relate to aircraft manufacturing uses. I think it's an interesting little piece of history. Douglas Park exist because the aerospace industry and our partners, you know, basically exited Long Beach and then we developed Douglas Park with our development partners to refill those jobs and create jobs for the city. And we did that in a number of different fields. But the most exciting jobs that we're seeing right now and the highest paying ones are in the aerospace industry, but in a different form. So those are satellite companies and space related companies such as Virgin Orbit, Spin, Launch, Relativity Rocket Labs that you see on the trend. So this will effectuate those changes and make it easier for those types of users to move into Douglas Park. And we'll also address some rules that are outdated. Most businesses now have warehouse space associated with their use. They don't put their headquarters or R&D users in a separate building, then those locations that have warehousing. So this would provide for those uses as well as for certain fulfillment uses that, well, Amazon existed in 2004, not in the footprint that we see today and all the things that we buy online. And for manufacturers to be able to do that, they need sufficient space and we want to provide them that flexibility. So again, it's it's all about flexibility, but these are changes at the at the margin. So these are not uses that would be toxic or unattractive. So things like furniture making, paper products, wood products. We talked about aviation related uses. And then there is a difference between what's called third party logistics and being a manufacturer that also warehouses and delivers your products. We want to be able to have those manufacturing uses that produce high paying jobs in our city. So those are the changes in a nutshell. We do recommend that the city council approve the ordinance that is in front of you. The Planning Commission approved this item enthusiastically. We've been working both on the city staff side as well as with Service Regis, who is the major landowner in the area. And we all agree on the changes that are in front of city council this evening. So with that, I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Coons. Is there any public comment on this item? Yes, I have. Deve Shukla. Hello. You should call again. Sorry for talking too much, but this is the reason why I called in today. Douglas Park is really important historically to the city. I mean, it's where we built the arsenal of democracy to beat the fascists the first time. And frankly, like what we've done with it is kind of a scandal. I mean, it's some of the best manufacturing land in the city and what are you chasing? And it goes off into space that should all be cleaned up, if nothing else, to deal with the fact that historically, how many emissions have come from that? 1.4. I mean, it's hard to take seriously how this city cohere, you know, from a policy perspective when you're talking about 1.5 million each year and what it's going to do when we tax oil in the wrong way, that captures not even all of the value. And then there's a place where the highest intensity of youth historically as well as currently still exists. And what are we doing? We're just subsidizing the hell out of it. But not in the right way. Not in a way where we can keep Jet Blue or anything. I mean, you know, it's really hard. It's really hard to take the city seriously when you're a full service city. You could have had a community choice aggregation program two years ago to help you optimize all this and have money on the table today. But now we'd rather keep subsidizing on sick and wrong people, frankly. And you've got to wonder why people don't want to live here. Why all those condos that are sitting empty might stay empty? What incentive is there when you're going to ruin this city within the next ten years? What incentive is there for me to say honestly? I mean, really? Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Okay. Councilman Mongo. Thank you. We're really appreciative of all the great work that the services has done with all of the partners that are at Douglas Park. And we're really proud of the high wage jobs that have really been available to long term residents. And we really appreciate the businesses really focusing on local job fairs. And so in all of those ways, they're giving back. And so I appreciate my colleagues support on the side of. If you councilman's in Dallas, we'll call the. Police. District one. I just talked to. I. District three. I. District four. I. District five. I District six. By. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. All right. Ocean carries. It.

A MOTION proposing the allocation of future lodging tax collections to support arts, culture and heritage programs, workforce housing and youth services, and capital or operating programs that promote tourism.

KingCountyCC_08292018_2018-0266

There are two items on the agenda. One is the motion that would recommend the allocation of lodging tax. And the second, and this is new for the first time, is the Interlocal agreement that's been transmitted since our last meeting, which if there were to be an allocation of lodging taxes by the county, would be the vehicle by which those funds are transmitted in pursuant to the terms thereof to the public facilities district. We'll have a briefing on that. That's item six. So I welcome for this briefing, Jeff Mom and Andrew Kim from our central staff, and we'll let them take it from there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Andrew Kim with counsel, central staff, the staff report for this item begins on page seven of your packet. Today's staff report builds from the staff report from the first hearing on this topic back in July. As members may recall, the first hearing focused on proposed motion 2018 0266, which would state the county's intent to specify the allocation of the county imposed 2% lodging or hotel motel tax that would become available beginning January 1st, 2021. The portion of the staff report from the first hearing remains unchanged, and today we will focus on proposed Ordinance 2018 0374, which would authorize the new agreement and an amendment to the existing finance agreement with the F.T.. And this was transmitted by the executive shortly after the first hearing. With that, if I can direct the members to page 15 of the staff report. The proposed ordinance would effectuate a portion of the proposed motion by authorizing the Executive to enter into an agreement with the BFD to make an annual contribution to the FDA as specified by the proposed motion. Attachment A of the proposed ordinance, which is on page 35 of your agenda, includes the agreement between the county and the FDA. The total contribution to the FDA would be approximately $184 million over the course of the 25 year lease term between the FDA and the Mariners. The agreement is contingent upon an executed lease between the PFC and the Mariners consistent with the May 23rd, 2018 lease term renewal sheet, which can be also found on page 111 of your agenda packet. The agreement requires that the lodging tax contribution be used solely for major capital improvements to the basic infrastructure of the ballpark. And it does not include expenditures related to baseball operations, routine maintenance of the ballpark or facility upgrades with direct revenue generation potential. The agreement also requires the BFD to inform the county of any proposed improvements on an annual basis. And lastly, the agreement requires that the BFD include the lodging tax, a contribution into a separate fund and not be co-mingled with other BFD funds, in particular the capital expenditure fund mentioned in the lease between the Mariners and the BFD. The proposed ordinance would also authorize an amendment to the existing 1996 financing agreement between the city and the county by adding provisions pertaining to advance advancement requests made by the PFC related to the lodging tax revenue contributions. By way of short background, the 96 financing agreement agreed that the county would issue general obligation bonds to fund the construction of the ballpark appropriate and transfer public funds to the PFG to finance the construction of the ballpark and have both the county NPF to acquire real estate for the construction of the ballpark. The amendment amendment number six outlines the process step BFD must follow to make the request an interest payment provision should the county issue debt to fund the event advancement request. Mr. Chair, that concludes my portion, and with your permission, I will turn it over to Mr. Mom. Let's let's see if there are questions on that portion and members have questions on that. Just I've got one you mentioned there, Andrew, at the end, the potential for issuance of debt. That's a new to me in terms of my understanding what the request was. Can you elaborate on that, please? Sure. So that that would just add a provision to the 96 finance. So there's two attachments to the proposed ordinance. Attachment A would be the agreement, a new agreement between the BFD and the county to transfer a portion of the lodging tax attachment B would be an an additional an amendment to the original 96 financing agreement between the city and the county. And that amendment would add provisions to the original financing agreement to it. If the BFD were to request an advancement of the lodging tax revenues, then that and and the county were to provide that advancement using issuing general obligation bonds. There are some provisions to to direct on how that issuance of the bond would occur and how that payment would also occur. Does the PFA, under this proposed agreement, have the right to require the county to advance funds prior to their availability because these aren't really available until 2021? And so we would have to issue debt. Is that would we be obligated to do that if the request came in under the terms of this agreement? I don't think they're obligated. We'll look into the details, but I think they're obligated. But it's just another option. If should the county want to issue debt to provide the advancement of those funds requested by the BFD? So I think just as a provision, as an alternate, as an option for the county. You have anything to add on that, Mr. Mom? We've got new microphones here, so you'll sometimes see us pause a little bit to try and figure them out. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Geoff Mum, council staff. This is one of the issues that I've flagged in my in the analysis section that we need more link reviewing. All right, well that sounds like a good launching point for you to go. Thank you. So now at the bottom of page 16 of the staff report, and this is the analysis of the audience that Andrew just briefed you on the issues in attendance. The proposed ordinance states that the Seattle Mariners draw nearly 3 million of fans to Safeco every year, and approximately 55% come from outside of King County, according to more current data from and this is actually from the Mariners. This is a typo. It's not from the D. In 2008, approximately 45% of the attendees came from outside of King County and on average 49% since 2014. Figure one, which is on page 17, provides more details of the percentage of attendees by each county, by each county in the state. From 2014 to 2018 and 2018, approximately 25% of the attendees came from Snohomish and Pierce Counties. In addition, Figure two shows average attendance from 1994 to 2017 for Safeco for the Mariners compared to Major League Baseball as a whole. And this information comes from ESPN Sportsnet. And the next issue is the economic benefits. And I'll let me ask you, Jeff, because this seems a little out of context. Why are you sharing this data with us? This is just to put into context that some of the the whereas clauses in the ordinance just to go to drew up to current detail the next issues, the economic benefit the proposed ordinance states. The Safeco Field is expected to generate $46 million for local jurisdictions and $140 million for Washington state in the next 20 years. And we found that this data is based on the being venues and populous architecture. 2014 Safeco Field Long Term Capital Needs Assessment Report, which used a 20 year net present value basis and projected to generate Safeco to generate 81 million in tax revenues to the PFA and 140 million to the state and 46 million to local jurisdictions . And these are so the total tax benefit is would be 260 million through 2036, which was the timeframe of the consultant's report. Another issue in the ALA or in the agreement, rather, is the extension of the lease. And we think it's important to note that the new this proposed agreement between the PFG and the counties states that a transfer of lodging tax receipts shall continue for the term of the lease as it may be extended in accordance with its terms. And since there's in the underlying term sheet, there's terms for the PFA in the Mariners it's 25 years long, but it also includes an option for the Mariners to extend the lease for three additional years twice. So the Mariners could extend extend the lease on their own for six years, which would under this language which would obligate the county to continue making the payments to the BFD. It's my understanding in consulting with the executive staff that this is not the intent. The intent is only to have the payment scope for the term, the 25 year term on the lease. But if that's it, if it is the will of the council to it to change that, that's an issue that should be flagged. And also in the agreement, the underlying note. Here in your staff report that as written, it could be another 70 for just shy of $74 million on top of the 184 million. Yeah, we calculated that by just taking the what is estimated to be the last year's payment to the PFA and just holding that's that constant for the for the next six years. The Amendment to agreement section in the agreement and the underlying agreement in Section three of the new agreement states that the agreement may be amended at any time by mutual written agreement of the parties. And we wanted to flag this if the Council may wish to consider the Council's role in reviewing or authorizing future amendments to this agreement. The parties are the from the executive branch in the party, especially related to the duration or any dollar amount in amending the agreement. And then there are some other edits to the underlying agreement that legal counsel has flagged, particularly just making sure that it is in the right form. And making sure that it's relevant with existing county statute and state law. And so that's the that's the summary of the of the analysis of the proposed agreement. Next to me. Happy to offer any updates that have happened since this committee last year ever deliberated on this issue. As Andrew said, on July 30th, the the executive transmitted the proposed agreement. And then in relating to the transit oriented development bond allocation, which we briefed the committee on last time. To date, nearly $50 million of the $87 million has been awarded, and that when we produce 141 units of affordable housing. 1041. I'm sorry. Thank you. Yeah, that would be really expensive. And then just technically, the staff has determined that a document provided in the last staff report by the Mariners, which is which is known as the Skanska report, it's the list of the upgrade improvements that we talked about last time that it was formatted incorrectly and that it really totals up to approximately hundred and 84 million, which is slightly less than what we had originally reported at 190 million. And then I'm happy to go through the answers to the questions that were brought up during committee. If you want me to go through those, or if you want me to direct members to them. What's what's the pleasure of the body? Do we want to have Jeff highlight those answers to the previous questions? Customer one Right part. I think you have a lot of people in the audience. Okay. Take your suggestion on that. I'm seeing nods. All right, Jeff. Sounds like you got a pass on those. We can do our reading there. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Anything else to add from central staff? Do members have questions for Andrew or Jeff based on the staff report or otherwise? No. All right. Let's hear anything I have to say. I can't hear. It's not too much. Thank you. I have a very soft voice, and I will work on speaking up if you can help us by making sure our volumes up on this new system, that would be great. All right. We're up all the way. All right. Next, we will turn if there aren't questions to a panel of guests that we've invited. And I'd ask them to just come forward. The first is Paul Moore. Who? Paul Moore, I'm sorry, who is a board member on the watch state, major League Baseball Stadium, Public Facilities District. Then we have Jerry Johnson, who is general counsel for the PFG. Dan Barrett, the executive vice president of CAA slash icon who was the lead lease negotiator for the PFG. Brian Slater, the senior project manager from being DEVENUS, the lead consultants for the long term capital needs. And Pat Tangent AIAA Principal Project Manager with Populous, who was the lead architect on the long term capital needs assessment. Thank you all for being here, and we appreciate your willingness to attend. Jerry, how how do you want to handle this? Do you have to have an order in mind? I have the table there in front of me. Once you have the table in front of you. Is that why you're sitting back there? Mr. Zimmerman, this is your first warning. You're disrupting the proceedings. If I. If I come after you again, you'll be removed. No second chances. Thank you. All right. Jerry, do you want to lead us off here? Assume there's some opening remarks and very provocative question. Introduce the panel. All right. And I've had a helpful suggestion from an audience member to pull that microphone right up to your mouth so we can all have a better chance of hearing you. Thank you, Chair Dombrowski and council members. I'm Jerry Johnson, a partner in the Pacifica Law Group, together with the National Sports Facility Practice based in the Denver office of the Hash Blackwell firm. We serve as counsel to the Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District for the negotiation of the lease between our client and the Seattle Mariners. Thank you for this opportunity to participate this morning. Allow me to extend the apologies of the board chair, Virginia Anderson, who is traveling out of the country and unable to be here today. The board is represented here today by a member by board member Paul Moore, a long time leader in the international district community, and respected advisor and manager of numerous mixed use projects undertaken there over the years. Paul also played a leadership role in assessing the long term capital needs of the ballpark in the run up to the lease negotiations. Paul Together with representatives of our two critiques, sorry, two key consultants will discuss that work with you shortly. This work was commissioned jointly by the Mariners and the PFG. Together we selected the team of Populus, widely recognized as the leading sports venue, design and architecture firm in the country and beyond, even venues nationally recognized sports venue planners and project managers. Today, the principals of both firms who worked on our projects are here Pat Townsend for Populus and Brian Slater on behalf of BMD venues. Also joining me at the table this morning is Dan Barrett, a principal in CAA icon. Dan was selected by the FDA as our lead negotiator for discussions with the Mariners. Down in his firm are widely recognized among the foremost sports business consultants in the country. His many other sports major sports venue clients include our neighbor, the Washington State Public Stadium Authority, for which he recently conducted a comparative financial analysis of the Seahawks new naming rights agreement for CenturyLink. The residents of our entire team were provided to you separately. With those introductions, I will turn this over to Dan to review the term sheet the PFG has signed with the Mariners. In that regard, we previously provided a summary, I believe we have, of the principal ways in which a solid majority of the PFO board believe the term sheet represents an improvement over our current lease. After discussion of the lease, we'd like to turn to the capital needs assessment introduced by Paul and supported by our facility consultants. I would propose that we close by addressing any questions you may have about the proposed agreements between the county and the FDA, which I think I can answer. All right. Very good. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you, Jerry. Our council members, thank you for allowing us to present today. My name is Dan Barrett with CAA Icon. I'm going to go through the general parameters of the lease term sheet that we've negotiated with the Mariners. As you know, we represented the PD's interests in this negotiation. I'm going to highlight some of the differences between the existing agreement and the proposed agreement. I'll start with the term of the agreement. The original agreement was a 20 year deal, which is coming up at the end of this year. There were several extension periods, but those extension periods are by mutual agreement. So effective December 31st of this year, there is no lease. There are no existing terms in place going forward. And anything that would add any going forward by either party requires mutual agreement by both parties. So it's an important element to understand. The lease does expire, there aren't any automatic renewals. We have reached a tentative agreement on a 25 year lease, which is five years longer than the original term. And it also includes two three year options to extend on the same terms as the 25 year extension. The rent for the original agreement started at $700,000 a year. It has escalated by CPI since that time and is currently just over $1,000,000 a year, just below $1.1 million per year. It escalated a little over 2.3% per year over that period each year. The proposed term sheet includes a rent of 1.5 million, also increasing by CPI each year. The original agreement included a profit share provision. Can I ask you a question? The rent. How is the rent determined? It was part of a series of trade offs. We went back and forth on what what terms we thought were important. We felt that an increase in the rent was something that we wanted to achieve. But there were other elements to the agreement, including a capital contribution that I'll talk about in a moment of 3.25 million. That was part of the overall agreement. And how we looked at a rent. Rent is just one element of it. When we look at leases, we look at all of the stadium occupancy costs. So we look at rent, the contribution to capital, revenue sharing, taxes that they're subject to, etc.. I imagine that comparables are hard to find, but it doesn't sound like comparables were looked at to determine where. They were. Absolutely. So when we when we looked at this agreement 21 years ago, when I was at Deloitte Touche at the time, we compared this deal to 12 other new stadium deals and we compared all the occupancy costs for the stadium at that time. This time it's a little bit more difficult because you have a mix of new stadium deals and you have renovations and you have lease extensions. And so if you look at the original deals that were built around the same period of time, some of those buildings are currently being replaced. Some of them have lease extensions and some of them have uncertain futures right now. And we can talk about those specifically if you'd like. But all of those were looked at in terms of their deals as well as what we were structuring here. I'm just going to give just if you were to break it down and take the office space for the team alone, which is at the stadium. Do you know how many square feet that is? I don't. Off the top of my head. And just if you were to look at that times of market rate for office space in the city at 25 bucks a foot, I'd probably estimate triple net these days, just a million and a half a year. Right. So like I said, there's a little light, there's different elements that if you add up the rents and I don't I don't want to sit here and take the Mariners position or make the Mariners arguments. But just try to understand. How if you take if you if you look at a real estate lease and you look at rent, that's the primary element to it. Who's responsible for operating expenses? Who's responsible for capital repairs? What are those expenditures? And if you add up the rent, the revenue sharing, the capital expenditure contribution, you end up with about a $10 million a year payment. And then if you look at the overall expenses of it, they're substantially more than that. So that's how we looked at it. It's very difficult to compare a stadium lease with a traditional real estate lease. They're just very different. And when we look at the comparable stadium leases, we're looking at what's happening in Atlanta. We're looking what's happening in Denver and Houston, in Texas with the Texas Rangers. Those are kind of the deals that are being done right now. And that's what we were comparing against. Well, it's 1.5 million per year, correct? Rent. Correct. Again, one element of the overall deal. Okay. Yeah. The next piece is another component of rent or stadium occupancy costs as we would look at them, which is a profit sharing element. The original agreement called for the PFA to share in 10% of net income from from the operations of the Mariners in the first 19 years of the agreement. There was no revenue sharing to the PFG or no profit sharing to the PFG. And the reason for that was when the original agreement was made, there was a $200 million catch up provision, which was an accumulation of losses that the Mariners had realized, as well as their contribution. Towards the stadium. And so for that reason, there was no sharing or no profit sharing during the first 19 years. They've caught up as a result of profits realized during that period, and this year will be the first year that there's profit sharing. So we wanted to make sure there was more certainty and less risk with that. It was an important element from the Mariners perspective to get rid of that provision. We're not aware of any provisions in Major League Baseball or even in Major League sports where there is a operating profit share provision like this. And so in order to achieve that certainty and eliminate that risk from the fees perspective, we went to a revenue sharing model which called for one and a half percent of ticket revenue, the first hundred million in ticket revenue to go to the PFG to be used for capital repairs. That percentage increases to 2% over $100 million. We estimate that that would be about 1.3 to $1.5 million a year growing over time. Another important element that we addressed in the lease was the performance standard of the applicable standard that the Mariners were responsible for in terms of operating and maintaining the facility. And in the existing lease, the applicable standard or the level that they have to maintain the building at is compared to buildings that were built between 1990 and 1999. Several of those have been replaced already. 20 year old building in Atlanta was replaced with a new building in Cobb County. The Texas Rangers are replacing are having their facility replaced in Arlington after 20 plus years. And in the case of Atlanta, the contribution from the public sector is between three and $400 million. In the case of Texas, the city of Arlington's contribution is 500 million out of a $1 billion project. There's also Tampa Bay, Cleveland, Baltimore facilities that are looking at renovation plans or potential replacement in the case of Tampa Bay. So we wanted to make sure our applicable standard going forward was comparing to the better the better stadium or the better condition stadiums in Major League Baseball. So we replaced the buildings that were built between 1990 and 1999 with the top third requirement. In other words, the Mariners have to maintain, improve and upgrade the facility to meet the top ten or top third of Major League Baseball stadiums. So regardless of how much money is available in the fund, they're going to be responsible for meeting that obligation. And one thing that we wanted to make sure to clarify in this lease that was not as clear as as the original lease was that that means upgrades as well as necessary infrastructure and necessary improvements. Our goal and our objective from the start was to try to make this building last beyond not just this 20 year period, not just to the next 25 year period. There's often been talk about this being a 100 year building, and our goal was to try to have funds available to avoid situations where the facility gets deteriorated in the back end isn't maintained. And we wanted to make sure that that applicable standard was in place to maintain that. In addition, we also wanted to make sure that the PFA had more control over how those expenditures were made and what expenditures get made. And so in in the current lease, the Mariners are required to submit an annual management plan which explains their one year plan to maintain the building. The BFD doesn't have any approval rights over that in the current lease. In the term sheet, we have a a a plan that requires the Mariners to submit a one year plan and a ten year rolling plan that the PFG actually has to approve. So the PFA will approve the management plan and the capital maintenance plan on a one year and ten year rolling basis to make sure that the facility is continuing to be maintained. And again, it's regardless of whatever funds are available in the reserve funds, the Mariners are responsible for that. I mentioned that that in the current agreement the club is responsible for major maintenance and capital improvements. The upgrades is a little bit less clear. We wanted to make sure that upgrades were specifically identified in the term sheet to make sure that those improvements get made. We wanted to avoid a situation that the Arizona Diamondbacks and Maricopa County are in and Phenix, where they had a dispute over $187 million worth of capital improvements. They went to arbitration. They ultimately ended up settling after about a year and a half with the Diamondbacks getting their lease terminated five years early and being able to explore options within Arizona as well as outside of Arizona for a a liquidated damages fee of 25 million, reducing by 5 million each year. So a relatively nominal fee there that we want to avoid that uncertainty in this agreement. We also felt it was important and and the PFG has been looking at the neighborhood around the ballpark and trying to make improvements there. We wanted to identify a funding source to do that. And so the term sheet calls for a an immediate $2 million deposit into a neighborhood improvement fund. And then there is a portion of rent at the FDA's discretion to contribute to that neighborhood improvement fund that is expected to reach about $25 million, in addition to the $2 million over the period of the lease. One of the small that's. Kind of one of the interesting twist on this. It's a $25 million item. What is the intent of the BFD with respect to those improvements? What do they want to do with the money? I don't know if you want me to take that or. Sure. The discussion basically is that they want to make sure this isn't a fund to do major development around the ballpark. It's really a fund to try and improve the safety, the desirability, the fan experience around the ballpark, whether that's painting, landscaping or other projects to make it more safe, more desirable. That was the original intent for that neighborhood improvement fund. There was a district study master plan that was done by the PFG that looked at some of those different elements. But that was a primary purpose there. All you want in on that? Sure. Yeah. One of the things that the BFD, because of our desire to protect the public interest in the stadium, is to look at the surrounding area and to make sure that, as Dan had mentioned, that the fan experience is a good one, that pedestrian safety is in there and that whatever gets develop is compatible with the BFD and the Mariners want to happen inside the stadium. Thank you. Thanks, Mark. One of the smaller items that was discussed but was a source of economic impact of the PFG is that historically they've had a share of insurance expense. We've now put that insurance expense on the Mariners 100%. So that obligation goes away from the PFG. An important element that that we wanted to make sure to address was the non relocation of the team. Under the current agreement, the Mariners are required to play 90% of their games at the stadium. The the requirement to play those games is part of the existing lease since the time that that lease was constructed. The industry has gotten a little bit smarter and a little bit more. I shouldn't say smarter. They've advanced in terms of how the non relocation provisions are addressed and now they're typically addressed in a standalone bankruptcy remote document. So there's a standalone non relocation agreement that we have required the Mariners to enter into that provides more safety and more protection from the parties perspective that the team won't relocate over the 25 year period. Another element of the existing agreement requires that the the club to pay the PFG 20% of net profits from the sale of the club. If 80% of the of the team is sold. That provision has not come into play given even even though there was a sale of the team, it did not. There was a there were some carve outs for the 80% as well as to existing owners. So that provision never came into play in the original agreement. We modified that agreement or that provision to provide more protection for the PFA and the community. And what we wanted to try to do with that provision is to incentivize a new buyer to extend the lease by ten years. So it would take it from 25 to 35 years and also encourage the Mariners to sell to local interests. And so local interests would be defined as someone, a local buyer would be defined as someone who has lived or had a principal business in the area, in the Seattle area, for at least ten years. If if if the Mariners sell to members within the existing ownership group or anyone who agrees to a ten year extension, there is no payment. And I should point out that there was a cap in case I didn't point out there was a $20 million cap in the existing agreement. If if the PFA is so excuse me, if the Mariners are sold during the first 15 years of the term or if it's sold to someone who extends the agreement for ten years, then it's a $20 million payment to the PFA. However, the club is restricted from selling to any owner that doesn't extend the agreement by ten years and the last ten years of the agreement. If if for some reason a court doesn't uphold that provision, then we get 10% or the PFA gets 10% of the gross proceeds of any sale. So we're really trying to put a penalty in there in the event that they try to sell it in the last ten years of the agreement without a ten year extension. So we're really trying to incentivize local ownership and we're trying to incentivize ten year extension on the 25 year term. And then the final kind of major provision, there was a disposition of the ballpark at the end of the term. There really was no provision for demolition of the ballpark once the term ends. We made sure that there was a provision that allowed for demolition of the ballpark, if that's what the community chose, as well as the PFG would retain any proceeds and any of the reserve funds in the event that the club was no longer playing in the Seattle area. And that basically summarizes the comparison of the of the existing lease versus what the term sheet is currently proposing. Okay. Dan, thank you for that. We'll have some questions. First comes from Ron Perlman, Councilmember Up the Grove and Councilman Raquel Welch. Nathan and Peter today. And I thank you very much for providing this opportunity for a discussion and listening to the public later. Getting back to your reference to a study, can you speak a little bit to the safety study for this $25 billion that was done by the PFG? You said that study was done to enable it to spend $25 million around the facility. The and maybe Paula, Jerry, you guys can talk about that. I think he's talking the district master plan that was done. Oh, by the PFG that we. Yes. So the the city in conjunction with the public stadium authority for for the football and the public facilities district for baseball did a a neighborhood study. And this involved also Pioneer Square and the international district, Paul. Correct. And you were involved in that, I think. So do you want to. Share this study was done probably about maybe eight, ten years ago. And basically the purpose of the study at the time was to try to get the city's comprehensive plan to include the stadium district as part of the comp plan. And in in that study, we looked at what could happen in the neighborhood, what are its needs and what are its wants. And basically, it laid out a lot of physical alternatives and also had some preliminary price tags on those so that the dollars that were presented in that study were very preliminary and early on. And I don't think that it is the aspiration of the D to take on that whole financial burden. That's just a reference point in terms of the kind of thing that might be useful or helpful within the district in general. And the idea of the Neighborhood Improvement Fund, Paul, is much more narrow. Yeah, the neighborhood improvement fund is is being proposed by the P of the focuses of more around the immediate surrounding of the stadium. So that's the basis of of where we're going with that particular proposal. $25 million is a significant figure for that area. And I was wondering if you can fill in a little bit about how you would spend $25 million? We we wouldn't we would not. It's a city that's a city study. And again, that is not something that we that we would take on. That's not what the Neighborhood Improvement Fund is for. This is it would hopefully do things that are compatible with that. But and I would just point out that that the primary source for that neighborhood improvement fund is is the rent. So you pay the rent fees, operating expenses have to be covered, and then $250,000 gets set aside for capital improvements. The balance of that gets contributed to the Neighborhood Improvement Fund, which is around $600,000 initially and will grow over time. The total amount over the 25 year period gets used to close to about $25 million, but it's not an upfront payment or anything like that. It's a relatively small number over that, over time. Jerry, were you involved in the initial language creating the PFG? Yes. We're in that language as the mission to do our work around the district. I don't I don't recall that. So the the mission of the public facilities district and the statutory mission is basically to steward the ballpark. And the public facilities district looked at its own mission and recently expanded that to focus in addition to just the the immediate structure of the immediate environs around that structure. And it's our belief that a limited and focused minor public improvements to the streetscape to provide for fans safety and enjoyment sort of things that Paul spoke to are well within the statutory authority. I look forward to reviewing that with you. Thank you. Happy to talk with you about it further. Thank you. Thank you. Customer Ron Councilmember Up the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I might do two questions and that's it. Well, the first one. Thanks for being here. This is a helpful and clear overview. I found it useful. I'm fortunate to be a landlord myself. I rent a little condo out that I used to have and I charge enough rent to cover the costs of the upkeep and maintenance of the condo. So why wasn't that a goal. Of the lease negotiations to charge enough to cover the costs of maintenance and upkeep, whether through rent or other payments? Well, we think that we've identified enough funding sources to cover a substantial portion of those expenses. We think that the risk is on the Mariners and not on the PFG. You can always negotiate a real estate deal where, you know, whether it's triple net or it's a gross lease. And in this situation, we identified the rent payment. We identified the 3.25 million that would go, which I'm not sure that I covered. Actually, there was a capital I didn't cover that. There is a $3.25 million a year subject to escalation commitment that the Mariners need to make towards the CapEx fund. So there's 1,000,005, there's 3.25 million. There's roughly a million and a half for the revenue share. And and then there's the emissions tax and the parking taxes. And those generate over the period, we think, a substantial amount to cover certain obligations, capital obligations that would maintain the facility. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And my second, which is sort of a follow up to that. And given that. Do the terms of this lease. Require another government such as King County, to contribute funds in order to fulfill the lease requirements? The PFA hasn't taken a position on that, but the term sheet calls for the PFG to accept what the county decides and will accept any funds, funds, if any, that the county decides to invest. So that's up. And I'm no, I'm not asking this to make a political point. I'm trying to actually. Understand it then. So is there a shortfall in the lease in terms of the ability to maintain it under the maintain and keep. That facility up, barring some other government, whether it's the state or the county or whoever the Mariners come to to ask for more money? Is that that does the lease stand on. Its own without additional public funds? Well, is there enough money in the terms of the lease to maintain and keep the field up there at the ball field up without another government contributing funds? I take that. Sorry. Ultimately, it depends. It depends on how you define the issue and how you define the cost. There's in the Brailsford and Donnelly V popular study, you'll hear that there's $385 million of expected costs. You'll also hear that there are upgrade costs, varying numbers going from 160 to $190 million. It really depends on how you define the problem and how you decide to participate or invest in it. If I might just follow up before we start asking customer calls and then it comes from others to jump in. The 365 million maintenance costs that were done in the popular study are those fully funded by the economic terms in the term sheet without any outside injection of resources. So again, they don't include the upgrades. That was my question. Okay. 365 no upgrades. 385 three 8585. Does the rent and the contribution to CapEx and the parking tax and the ticket tax, does that cover that for the term of the lease 25 years? The revenue sources, depending on what your assumptions are, are estimated to generate about 350 to 355 million. Okay. So 20 to 25 million, perhaps short. About maybe 30. Okay. All right. I think that's what council member of the growth was trying to get. So council member council member Dombrowski. And I just to add the conundrum, of course, is that without a lease, none of those obligations exist. Right. And so the Mariners have made the request for county funding and informed us that their willingness to enter into the lease that we've just described to you that create those obligations is contingent upon some level of investment by the Council. And that's not in their signed term sheet that the PFA and the Mariners signed when they agreed to execute a lease pursuant to the terms. That's correct. There's a separate communication to that effect and that is what we understand their view to be and that is what they have stated publicly to be their position. And when did they first inform the PFA of that position after a couple of years of negotiating these lease terms. The my partner who. The party was aware of the club's aspiration for public support, some degree of public support during most of the conversations that two years of work included the the the capital needs study and a lot of work before we actually engaged with the Mariners, that conversation was about a year in length and during that period of time the PFA was aware that the club was going to ask them, or at least they signaled they were going to ask. Did they indicate the amount that they would seek? No. All right. And is that Gerry, while I've got you, does the public facilities district have its own taxing authority? No. The public facilities, district levies and admissions tax, which is collected by the county on its behalf, it's it's called a tax, but it's really a user fee, honestly, at all of the revenue that the PFA collects from both its admissions tax and it's much smaller parking tax are generated by the enterprise itself. They don't have sales tax. We have no broad based tax. All of the broad based. Boxes that were provided for the original construction of the ballpark sunset when the deck was retired a number of years ago. Thank you, Councilmember Cole, while sorry for interrupting your line. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you all for being here. This is really illuminating, and I'd like to start off right away that I'm a huge supporter of the Mariners and was thrilled when Governor Lowry called the legislature and a special session when the voters initially turned down the funding for the stadium. I want the club to be successful and it is showing that it can be successful. And it's and I want to be able to reach those applicable standards to be in the top third of all ballparks in the country. And even though fan base is down around the country, from what I understand in other ballparks, the Mariners have been doing really well, even showing signs of growth because it's a great stadium. It does need maintenance, it does need upkeep, and it does need upgrades to in order to continue that way. But I am very concerned and this is all very complicated, but as has been mentioned, Dan and Jerry and that there was nothing specific on the term sheet, but one thing that had been computed demanded by the Mariners, as I understand, and you have mentioned, was that it was non-negotiable, that there would be annual profit sharing in the new lease. So we get that and in return there would be some type of revenue sharing put into place. But my understanding is that what also was assured was that the Mariners would assume sole and unilateral responsibility to repair, maintain and upgrade the ballpark in order to reach those applicable standards. I don't know if I'm incorrect on that, but that's what my understanding is. And in Virginia, Anderson's letter that came out on August 15th, I think it made it very clear that the party would accept any funding that came about from the hotel motel tax, depending on what the council decides to do. But it wasn't requesting that we go ahead with that. And even in the closing two paragraphs, it was bolded in her letter that there would not need to be that. The PFA believes the negotiated terms for a new 25 year lease with the club would substantially increase increase the club's obligation to invest in the long term stewardship of the ballpark and give the PFA an even stronger hand in ensuring compliance with their obligations. But again, reinforcing that they were not taking any position or asking the county for these funds from the hotel motel tax starting in 2021. So I'd like to hear any other comment that you might have. When I calculated out what the public I think should contribute sum, it is a publicly owned facility. I came out with 24 to $25 million, which in fact has been mentioned here, and that would be to cover the gap between what the club's responsibilities would be and the parties responsibilities would be in covering basic maintenance. And we came out with the 25 or $24 million gap, which is what I'm very happy to to go forward with. That was kind of a statement, not a question. So if there's any response, I would be very pleased to hear that. Well, Councilmember Coles, I would I would just say again that what was represented in Virginia Anderson's letter with respect to the lease is correct. But unless the Mariners are satisfied with respect to the level of public investment that they may find acceptable, then we will not have a lease. I think, in these terms, I should say. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just somewhat following up on Councilmember Caldwell's line of questioning. This was not a unanimous vote at the PFG. And I wonder if you want to say anything about the no vote and the reasons that have been given quite publicly, and if there's any response to that from the folks who did vote in favor. There's this kind of split on the board that's of interest to me. I understand it. Put you on the spot, but you're here. You're there. You're on the. Spot. Well, I would say, I guess, first of all, that this body certainly understands that unanimity is a high standard and people, reasonable people can disagree. The board has only seven members. They all worked very hard over the course of the last two plus years with respect to the negotiation of this lease and providing guidance to us and understanding the needs of the ballpark and the board as its chair, Virginia Anderson explained, did not join in the request for public funding. A majority a solid majority of the board, five members agreed to a term sheet that provides that the PFA will accept public funding but and that the the condition on the lease, the contingency is not the parties condition, it's the clubs. But again, it takes two parties to have a contract. It's worth. Was there any substantive discussion about the rationale for the dissenting votes and what we think those reasons were and how they're addressed in the least? So the whether public funding would come into the into the facility was a topic of discussion. All of the discussions within the board about these terms were properly conducted in executive session. And certainly it's not for me to to discuss the those conversations in detail. So I would say that's an issue of this magnitude, obviously was a topic of substantial discussion throughout the period of time. Thank you. Councilmember Gossett. And then Councilmember Caldwell's. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some of us did get some correspondence from the dissent, the dissenting voters, and they appeared to indicate that after having the discussion, we thought that this is them speaking. We thought that the Mariners that 50 was being very generous to the Mariners. There's no reason why there isn't a good reason why the public should have the should be requested to participate by giving $190 million over 25 years to the BFD or the Mariners or the stadium. I don't know what time I suppose it is. And their argumentation, at least to me as one councilmember, was very reasoned, and it has had a lot to do with why I've been willing to support the proposition put forth by Councilmember Carl Wells that 25 million is very reasonable. It has been helpful, Jerry, that you and the others have helped clarify that even though the vote was 5 to 2, it wasn't tied to 5 to 2 in favor of asking. The King County government for money. It was 5. To 2 saying that if the King kind of government decides to support contribution for contributing funds to this. Endeavor, that you would it that they would accept it. Am I misinterpreting? So it's close, but it's a little more nuanced there. If the board was not did not vote on the public funding question, separately, the board voted on approving a term sheet that we reviewed for you and that you have seen. And one of the reasons that at least one and to some extent the other dissenting vote on that question was the objection to the Mariners contingency that public funding would come. So there was there were typically there was never a vote on whether to ask or even accept public funding as a free standing question. Oh, okay. Okay. And then finally, Mr. Chair, Jerry, did you say that the Mariners and then negotiations said that they would walk if they didn't get anything from King County government? Well, it the Mariners advised the club I'm sorry, the club advised the 50 throughout the conversation that they were expecting to ask and and hoped that the county would provide a substantial amount of public funding. They returned the term sheet to us, signed with an explicit contingency condition that they would not enter into a lease consistent with the term sheet if the county were not to do that. So they did say that they. Would not and they didn't. Five Well, they didn't specify a number. But they didn't specify the number. They did not provide an amount acceptable to the club. It's how it's been put in. And was that presented to you in writing? Is that. Yes, in writing? Well, it's not a public document. It is a public document. The press has quoted it. It was in an email returning the signed term sheet. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Councilmember Garcia, Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To any of you, I'd like to hear about the upcoming change to the naming rights of the stadium or anything about the naming rights. What I've been hearing is that could be happening. A new name different from Safeco Field and the expectation that that would to get for any organization or business to get the naming rights would involve quite a lot of funds to the Mariners or to the team. I'm not sure. And if that is the case, is the public able to be able to benefit from any naming rights? I mean, I we want to get more funds for this. Stadium. We're just some of us are questioning and that it should come directly from the taxpayers funds. And this seems to be like another category of funding that could be available. And if so, could that be used for maintenance and upkeep and upgrades? So just to. Under the current lease, the Mariners have the ability to sell the naming rights subject to the statutory requirement that that name be approved by the PFA after consultations with the state legislature. That's a function of that feature of the statute you referred to. Council member that providing for the original formation, the PFO and the construction of the ballpark, the at the moment the the naming rights the club is, as far as we know, not engaged in discussions about the sale of the naming rights. They really have nothing to sell until they have a lease. And I don't know, Dan, if you want to speculate about the. Well, know that they are. I'm sorry. They're beard and I usually don't need a microphone. The naming rights are something that that the Mariners the Safeco deal is going to end. And so they will be looking for a naming rights partner. Jerry is right that until they have a long term lease, it's going to be unlikely that they'll be able to sell a long term naming rights agreement. Naming rights get highlighted frequently in these negotiations and in the political discussions regarding stadiums and arenas. And they are typically retained by the team in these negotiations. There's trade offs. You know, the naming rights are really not any different from sponsorship revenue or concession revenue or parking revenue. They just are a bigger number typically, and they're much more high profile. But we talked about naming rights during negotiations. Again, we made a series of trade offs in our negotiations and felt that getting the the rent and the CapEx contribution and the rep share were numbers that we felt were certain or certain. There's no guarantee that they will be able to sell naming rights to the building. The Washington Nationals for years have been trying to sell naming rights to their new building. Dallas Cowboys took them a number of years to sell it to AT&T. We would expect that they would sell the naming rights. But right now, we don't know what that amount will be. We don't know what term that will be. And we wanted to make sure we got the certainty of other revenue streams to cover CapEx going forward. I thought. Thank you, Dan. And but it's a logical to assume that said, the proceeds from naming naming rights sales could go toward maintenance and upkeep and upgrades. It's. It certainly is possible. Just like we're we're requiring them to commit 3.25 million directly to CapEx, a dedicated funding source, we could say give us 50% of naming rights towards capital expenditures. And that may be less than 3.25 million. And that would be a potential tradeoff that we weren't willing to make in that situation. We've got 3.25 escalated over 25 years is going to be a substantial payment. There are other agreements. If you take the Dallas Cowboys, for example, the city gets, I think, 10% with a cap of $500,000 a year. That that cap, the payment is substantially more. 10% is substantially more than a cap. You know, there are political ways to to get pieces of naming rights. But we think we wanted to go to the substance and make sure we had enough dollars that were certain. So is it theoretically possible that the sum of the proceeds could go to the public? It's all part of negotiations. So if we asked them for that, they would ask for some other trade offs. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions? Just following up on Councilmember Caldwell's line of inquiry on the naming rights. It seems that that number could be could vary widely. It could be $10 million, $20 million or $40 million if you have not put any kind of capture or cap or adjustment to the financial terms of the deal based on the result of the naming rights sale, as I understand it. Is we did not touch naming rights. We did not want to have the trade off where we were participating in upside and being exposed on the downside. So just gave them all the upside. Correct. And we and they also have all the risk with any capital repairs, maintenance and up. Based on your experience with CenturyLink, I think you said you had an other stadium. Can can you or anybody here on the panel give us an estimate of what a 25 year naming rights deal for today's Safeco Field might buy? Sure. And the it's naming an existing building carries less value. Typically the naming a new building, because people are used to calling it something a three time park, monster park, Candlestick Park. Probably are familiar with Candlestick Park. And I used. To be familiar with Quest. Field, which I used. To be familiar with Quest Field. Okay, exactly. Exactly, exactly. So people get used to calling it something. People are used to calling this Safeco Field. So a buyer of naming rights will take that into consideration. Their original deal was a 40 million deal over 20 years, $2 million a year. We would expect that that would increase substantially from that level because naming rights agreements have increased since that since that time, whether they could get four or $5 million a year with escalation going forward over a 20, 25 year period, it's certainly part. Possible, but there is no assurance or no guarantee that they will sit. So it could be a $100 million item. It again with a renaming of an agreement. You know, there are typically shorter term deals, maybe a ten year deal, maybe a 20 year deal. But it's just like any sponsorship agreement, major sponsorship agreements could be five, ten, 20 year deals. It's very uncertain what the revenue stream is that they're going to get. But it could be substantial. Yes. Could it be $100 million? It's hard to say exactly. That's not. It's hard to say what the what the total. Anybody else have any thoughts on that? No. All right. One final line of question, if I might, before we wrap up here. And I do want to give these gentlemen a quick update, but we got a lot of folks who have come to testify, and we do want to hear from them, I guess. And Jerry, maybe you can help me with this, but the lack of a kind of a number with respect to the public investment outside of the PFG, in other words, take the lodging tax. We'll take it if we can get it. We don't have a position on the amount. I wonder, and it seems to have come kind of late. They delivered the term sheet to you saying this is conditioned apparently upon getting some lodging tax revenue. I wonder if the terms of the agreement that the paddy negotiated would have differed if you knew that there was going to be a substantial investment of lodging tax or outside tax money end of the deal, for example. The transparency seems to be reduced. We, as I understand it, have given up our right for the annual review of the books. What the public benefits would they have been different? Could there have been low dollar or free tickets for, you know, disadvantaged children, but would the naming rights pricing have come into play? This is a 180 plus million dollars we're talking about here. That is kind of you're saying, well, we'll take what we can get, but all of these terms seem to be related to one another. As you describe, the economic investment drives, the overall lease deal. And I just wonder, it seems like a big, big number to put in and say, but everything else remains constant. Everything else remains constant. Can you help me understand whether the PFG, if it had known that $180 million of outside resources were going to come into this deal, or would you have negotiated different terms along oversight, transparency, public benefit, or just economic obligations on behalf of the Mariners? So I guess the answer to your your your question, council member, is it what you're suggesting is, is pretty speculative that that's not how the conversation unfolded. What I what I believe is that the Mariners gave us as much as they did in terms of improvements over the current lease in anticipation of having public support. In other words, I don't believe that we would have gotten the lease that we have before us now through the term sheet had they had no expectation of getting public funding. And I think it is important to turn to the the scope of the potential need, because one of the major improvements in the lease stand pointed out and very central to the question that you have before you, is the scope of the Mariners responsibility to invest in the building, which is broader and potentially unlimited with the combination. And this is very important of a much stronger hand for the PFG in determining the scope of that obligation rather than being purely advisory as it is now, the Mariners have to have our approval. Their approval may not unreasonably be withheld. True, but it's still approval. So may we turn to the CapEx? I sure. But I we're not. To be honest, we have a lot of interest in the details and maybe we can hit the highlights there and we'll. Try to be efficient. I want to give Councilman one right power opportunity after they finish the year. So let's spend ten more minutes and then let's get to public testimony if that will work. Okay. I'll try to be brief. Council Chair Dombrowski and Honorable Council Members. My name is Paul Moore, as was introduced by Jerry. I am a member of the Board of the Public Facilities District that oversees Safeco Field, and I'm here today on behalf of the board. A major element of the lease negotiations was when we started looking at this, was to determine what the future cost would be in order to keep Safeco Field in the top tier of ballparks in the Major Leagues. What we did at that time, and I think it's been mentioned before, is the public facility district and the ballclub jointly agreed to fund and participate in a capital needs assessment study. Basically, we jointly selected the consultants, the indie venues and populous architects. They. Began their study in 2015 and completed it in the spring of 2016. Initially, they were looking at our requests at a 20 year horizon. Subsequent to completing the study, we asked the peer to ask them to extend that commitment to 25 years, which they did in both the PFA and the Mariners have accepted the results of the study. The consultants estimated that the necessary improvements, those improvements that are needed to keep save Greenfield in the prime condition with the top third of comparable stadiums, would cost about $385 million over the 25 year period. And this includes, of course, contingencies and escalation. The consultants provided us also with some concept of upgrade improvements, which neither the Mariners or the BFD made any approval at the time. Since that time, and I think the council has received a document from the Mariners that they have listed a number of upgrade improvements over the 25 year period that add up to around $190 million. So the $385 million is what we believe and the Mariners believe are the necessary improvements to keep the ballpark in top shape over the next 25 years. With me at the table and Gerry is in two are Brian Slater from BTV. Then you the venues and that dangling firm populous architects who can answer any questions you might have about their study and about the capital needs. All right, Pat and Brian, give us the highlights, given where we are on the program that you think we need to know. Okay. The dialog you've heard. My apologies. My name is Brian Slater. I'm with B.A. Venues. Thank you for having us here this morning. We've covered much of it already, but over the next 25 years, the cost to maintain Safeco Field and a first class condition is estimated at $385 million. This is additive to maintenance and operations costs, which are detailed in the report and estimated at about 250 million over that same term. There are also upgraded concepts that are more fan focused concepts that are estimated at. As Dan mentioned, anywhere from about 160 to $190 million. Those are the highlights of the study, and we're happy to dig into any of the details that you all see fit. Thank you. Councilmember Up the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And as I'm asking this, you might not be the right person, but just to kind of get to a bottom line, you add up the maintenance costs you identified and the necessary improvements. Compared to the revenue that's generated without any outside money. What's the gap in the terms of the lease? If you take the revenue that's anticipated, on one hand the necessary improvements in maintenance, on the other hand, do they equal or what is the dollar delta? What's the gap? That's not over the course of the lease that's not funded. That would that would require outside funding, again, just for the necessary improvements and the maintenance. So including the 250 for maintenance. So it'd be about $280 million shortfall. There's about 30 to $35 million shortfall between the necessary improvements and the funding sources. And then if you add the operating maintenance items, that's about $250 million that the Mariners have estimated to be about 280 285 million. And that's what. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And that's what's proposed to be the team's contribution or a public contribution to be an out the the maybe I didn't ask that question correctly. The as I understand it, there's a specific dollar commitment from the team in the terms of the lease. And when you add up that commitment that's been made as well as the other sources of revenue, right? My math was different. I took the ability to fund the necessary improvements and the maintenance. There's there's two different numbers you're talking about. The maintenance that Brian just mentioned is annual operating maintenance. There was another number which was the upgrades. I think you're referring to the upgrades number. Okay. 162 190. And then we were talking about previously the the chair had asked about with. I guess what I'm asking is when the. With $180 million public contribution were that to be made? Does that allow funding beyond the necessary improvements and maintenance? Would that allow funding to go into that? I guess that third category that was identified as potential additional upgrades, you mentioned in the in the consultant's report, there were additional opportunities for new investments in the stadium beyond those that were deemed necessary. Would an outside contribution of $180 million allow the ability to go beyond the necessary upgrades? It would depend on how you restricted it according to the current draft of the inner local agreement. Those dollars would not be able to be spent on upgrades. However, it does reduce the obligation of the Mariners their overall obligation. But it could supplant. We have we have some situations in county government where the state gives us money for criminal justice. But they say you can't move your current criminal justice elsewhere. Would there be any restrictions if this money went to maintenance? Could money the Mariners were going put into maintenance then get pulled out and put on other things? Or do we have some know some plantation language in there? So I think as a as a practical matter, the did to turn back to the lease the lease the lease terms to contemplate lease terms as reflected in the term sheet. Do not subdivide the Mariners obligation to maintain the ballpark and invest in the ballpark consistent with the applicable standard. So all of the elements of the capital improvements required to do that, including the upgrades, fall within the scope of that obligation so we don't disaggregate them. If if your funding were to come as a result of the draft agreement and the legislation you have before you, that would be the only earmark, if you will, on the use of available funds for a subcategory of the full scope that the club is obligated to perform. Thank you. Councilmember Yvonne Roukema. Mr.. I'm hoping that perhaps because it's a fact finding meeting this morning, we might be able to hear from the general counsel for the Mariners because specific questions were raised, and I think they could best answer some of the questions that were raised in the process of the last hour. Thank you very much, Congressman. Right back for that suggestion. Are there any further questions for our panelist assembled here at this time? I want to thank each of you for making yourself available for your work. It's helped us understand this complicated deal a little better and understand some of the facts and circumstances around it. Paul, I want to thank you particularly for your service to the public on the board and for your decades of leadership in the Chinatown International District and working to protect the community there. So we appreciate you being here on behalf of the board. And with that, Jerry, you've got to kind of wrap up remark. And then I do want to ask if he wants to to have Mr. Rivera, general counsel for the mayor, heard the dialog and may have some additional. Absolutely. And I just wanted to thank you for this opportunity. And all of us here are available to you or your staff as you continue to consider this. Thank you, Jerry. You are just as they send you off here, the preeminent lawyer in this state for public facilities districts. And I asked you about taxing authority. Sometimes, as you know, lawyers disagree. And I kind of put you on the spot. But but would you take a look and confirm for us offline whether or not the public facilities district has existing property tax and sales tax authority subject to a vote of the people? Our our lawyers and staff are telling us that that that authority may be there. I heard you say that it lapsed with the pay off of the bonds, but would you take a look at that and maybe get with Miss Moore here to have a little lawyer dialog? Yes. You know, with that. Yes, I understand your question. I'm happy to respond to it. Thank you so much. Appreciate your being here. Mr. Rivera. Thank you for being here. You've heard the dialog, and I don't know if, Councilwoman, you've got a specific question or maybe Mr. Mayor just has some general responses to add to the dialog we've had. Well, thank you for making sure we excused. You are excused. You may go now. You're welcome to stay for the rest of this. I mean. No, Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I think a lot of general questions were thrown out here, and I think to the best of their ability, BFD representatives were trying to address some of the answers, but I think it's important to have specific answers from the from the Mariners themselves to some of the issues that were raised , especially some of the special and speculative questions. Sir, thank you very much for that. Thank you for being here, Fred, and go ahead. Thank you. I have three points I want to make. And, of course, I'm available to answer any questions that you may have. First, we respect and I sent a correspondence on this issue as well. We respect the party's decision to not weigh in on the political process as to whether this body should allocate funds to the PFG for stadium capital improvements. The notion, however, that's been suggested that the party was not aware that this was a revenue stream is is not accurate, as Mr. Johnson indicated today during during our studies of revenue streams to fulfill the necessary capital improvements, lodging tax had always been part of the available revenue stream to fund what is necessary over the next 25 years or so. It was no surprise to the PFG and I would further add that when the state legislation was amended in 2005 to restrict how the funds can be used by this body, the PFG was involved in those discussions and actually lobbied to ensure that capital improvements at professional sporting stadiums was one of the allowable uses for the tourism portion of the lodging tax. So I recognize that I believe none of the current board members were around in 2005, but the PFG is a body since at least then has been advocating to use this money for this particular purpose. The second point I want to make is this is, as I think a couple of council members have noted, the financial aspects are somewhat complicated. It's a complicated building. It's a 25 year term. So there's some complicated aspects to it. But one thing that I don't want to get lost is that the $180 million in upgrades is necessary. It's necessary to meet the applicable standard. The 385 million is the base work just to keep the lights on and the water running. The 180 million, which the Mariners will fully fund, is necessary, in the words of Mr. Johns, or the parties. Letter 180 million is necessary to extend the economic life of the structure. These are these are not these are not funds that cannot be spent. And if they're not spent, you have the situation in Texas where you have a stadium that's being demolished. In Arizona, where there is litigation for two years and a stadium that's likely to be demolished. The PFA and the Mariners recognized that and came up with the responsible. Financing plan to prohibit that. Lastly, on the notion of the naming rights, and that is that is a very good question. What hasn't been mentioned is that under the term sheet, the committed revenue sources that the Mariners are committing equal $615 million over the 25 year period. So at $615 million into operation and maintenance upgrades and capital improvements, in addition, any overruns that are required, whatever whatever funding is necessary to meet the applicable standard, the Mariners are 100% responsible for that, even if it goes beyond six $615 million over the 25 years, the way the club funds, that is through its revenue streams and one of those revenue streams is naming rights at this time. We have, I think, as Mr. Johnson or Mr. Burns said, we have nothing to sell. There is no lease as of January 1st. There is no naming rights partner as of next year. If we if we do have one, that is a revenue stream that goes into funding the $615 million commitment. And so it's not additive to that. So those are the three points I wanted to make. I'm more than happy to answer any questions of this body. Very good. Thank you, Fred, for being here. Questions for Mr. Rivera. Maybe I'll ask you, since you're here on the naming rights, the BFD representatives indicated they had no knowledge of any current status. Do you have a partner identified or any contingent or type of deal or an asking price for the naming rights? Can you give us any more information on that? We do not have any of those, and frankly, we're unable to. Given the currently situation there, there's simply nothing to nothing to sell as of now after December 31st of this year. So what is the team's current plans with respect to the name of the stadium starting next season, since signage would have to be changed here more almost to September? Is the plan to continue it as Safeco Field? We haven't gone that far. That's that's one potential is to leave it up. Key arena, for example, is still Katerina, even though there's no deal there. So what? We haven't explored what the options may be. Thank you. And then just a down in the details a little bit. One of the costs that have been identified is for a new or expanded parking garage. Is that in the 385 million number or the 180 million upgrade number. That world? You know, actually, it's not even in the 180. That's even another number that would be part of an upgrade. That would be the Mariners responsibility as a potential concept. So that is that's not part of either of those numbers. All right. That's helpful. Thank you. Other questions? Customer run rate Mark. Thank you again. And thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rivera, in the discussion about this effort to improve the safety and security around the facility, what conversations have the Mariners had with the PFG relative to this? What to me is a relatively new idea that I didn't when we were involved with the original setting up of the PFG , I as a member of the King County Council, I never thought of that as a mission of the PFG. But I'm curious, have there been conversations with you relative to this part of the lease negotiations? And again, I think it was Mr. Barrett, Mr. Johnson accurately reflected the give and take of a negotiation that took two years to get to this point. The PFG made clear that it was important to them that they have funds available to improve the neighborhood. And and as part of the negotiation, there was an agreement reached that they could take money out of our rent for that purpose. I'm not aware of any any specific projects they have in mind. Only some of the general ideas that I think were reflected this morning. And I don't have any other information beyond that. Thank you. Thanks, Jerry. Thank you, Mr. Rivera. All right. We will close our fact finding and staff work portion of this and turn to public comment. I want to thank everyone for being here and waiting patiently. And Mr. Zimmerman, you're now out of order.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute an amendment to Contract No. 32983 with Central Parking System, Inc., of Los Angeles, CA, for providing parking operations and management services, to increase the contract amount by $450,000, for the period ending March 31, 2017. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03072017_17-0155

Thank you. Congratulations to them as well. And on 16. Report from Public Works Recommendation to authorize city manager to execute an amendment to the contract with Central Parking System to provide parking operations and management services to increase the contract amount by 450,000 citywide. Councilman Gonzales. Yes. Thank you. Craig, can you provide a staff report, please? Certainly Councilmember Gonzalez, the mayor and other council members. This item is before you tonight requesting to increase the contract authority with Central Park, which is now ESP plus central parking, provides oversight of all the city parking operations, including the downtown city place garage. And in particular, we are needing this contract increase to be able to cover cost associated with increased security in our downtown garage and some of the infrastructure improvements that we've done. I want to share with everyone that we are in the process of updating our parking RFP and that should be on the street by the end of the month. So we will be refreshing some of our requirements within our parking operations and we will be looking to have that new contract in place within the next few months. That concludes my staff report. Okay. Thank you. I have a couple questions. So I know that we had met and we went over a list of various items that would be improving the city place garages specifically. And so from that, I remember. We had also talked about. Smart meter money that was to be used for improvements. And then I know measure a money will also be used for improvements at City Place. So I guess my question is why we would need an extension of the 400 or an additional $450,000. So I think those are two different items. This is the operating side of the garage. So ESP plus again not only operates city place garage but our beach lots in any location where we collect fees for for parking and where we have attendants that are working in those lots. So this is, again, primarily needed to cover increased security cost for the garage. If you recall, at some time ago, the city extended an opportunity for Molina Medical to park in the garage. And with those additional parkers, there was a requirement to increase the level of security within those garages that that at the time, we did not come to council and ask for a contract increase. So this increases essentially to cover those increased costs. So the operational portion of the parking lots and garages is going to go out in a new RFP. The physical improvements to the garages are being accommodated under a different contract. So that would be a construction contract and a design contract, not necessarily under ESP. Plus they do do small maintenance issues. So if we needed to add a security camera, for example, in a garage, we would usually rely on our parking operator to do that for us. But if we are talking about some of the things that you and I reviewed in City Place Garage, those are going to be handled under a different contract. Okay. So then, just so I am clear, and when is this contract is this contract up with the current with ESP plus? Is it up any time soon or. I know. Yes. So we're currently on an extension that I believe takes us through I want to say February, but we don't believe that we'll need that entire term of the current operation timeframe because we think we'll have a new vendor in front of council. Or it could be SB plus, but that will have a new contract in place ready to go for council approval by June. Okay, great. And so with all that, I would like to ask if we could if I'd like to just make a substitute motion, if I could, to be able to get an itemized list of these improvements first prior to approving this tonight, because I think I need to get a little bit more clear on what we're doing and also to provide that to our public, because I don't think I've been verbalizing that to a lot of our downtown residents and business owners, but I just don't think that they realize what is actually happening at the city place garages. So all of the security measures you're talking about, the improvements to solar lighting, I mean, all of this. In addition, I'd like to know the. The space is available because I know there has been some confusion as to the private spaces available and the public spaces available. And I think we need to clear that up first before making a decision on this contract or extending. This. So that is my motion. Okay. So there was a substitute. Mr.. City attorney. Is the motion to lay it over until next. Week, or do you have a date that you would like to continue it to? Let's lay it over for the next 30 days. So if we can. April, I don't know when that would be. Let me take a look. And I think the issue with laying it over into April may be they may run out of contract authority for the for the existing contract. So, Councilman, we just we'd like to bring that back as soon as we can answer those questions, because we are nearing the time where we would need some additional decisions to be able to move forward. So we'll bring it back as soon as we can, whether it's 30 days or less. If that could be the direction, we'll get it back to you as soon as we can. Okay. That would be great. Thank you. Okay. There's a motion and a second. Councilman Andrews. Councilmember Pierce. Now I just want to thank the council member for bringing this to my attention. And I think, yeah, if we could just get a list of what those improvements are so we understand where we're at and what we need to do moving forward. I think it's a great motion. Thank you. There is a motion and a secondary public comment. Like to suggest you add to it at something which would not require reconvening the Council of Trent, and it's presented itself a number of times. I don't know if the Council's aware of this, but when there are other meetings taking place in the evenings here, a number of times people lose their tickets. So what needs to be done? And these are members of the public and sometimes even a commissioner. They lose their ticket. The gates are locked. That is. The arm is down. So there should be some arrangement by which. Whoever locks up the building for the night, has the ability to raise that bar, allow the people to get out in the car without having to hand over the cold, hard and ready to wear. And I don't think you need to wait for this contract to do that. Just figure out a common sense way to do that. Imagine yourself locked in here. You lost your key. How would you get out? Okay. Thank you. See no other public comment on this item. Please cast your votes. Councilman Andrew. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. Just so you know, our next two items are are item 20 and item 19. We've both been requested to get moved up, so I'm going to try to get in there. We have folks here for both.

AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between The City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association to be effective January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_06072022_CB 120332

Before the city council agenda. Item one, Casper 120332 related to city employment, authorizing execution of the collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association to be effective January 1st, 2020 through December 31st, 2023, and ratifying confirming short term contracts. Thank you, colleagues. I move to postpone consideration of Council Bill 120332 until June 14th. Is there a second? And thank you. It's been moved and seconded to postpone this bill until June 14th and as sponsor of the motion, I will address it and then I will hand it off to Councilmember Herbold and then we'll open it up to the floor. Briefly, briefly. Yesterday in council briefing, we had a one hour presentation on Council Bill 120332 by our council central staff and lead negotiators in an open public session. Council Bill 120332 would authorize the mayor to implement a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association, the SPM. The collective bargaining agreement is a four year agreement on wages, benefits, hours and other working conditions covering the period from January 1st, 2020 to December 31st, 2023. This proposed contract would supersede the former contract, which expired on December 31st, 2019. Let's see. So this contract is proposed. Contract affects approximately 80 regularly appointed city employees. Greg Doss, Counsel Central staff, outlined the key elements yesterday of the agreement in a memo provided to council members and made available to the public on Friday, June 3rd. So as Council President, I sponsored this legislation to ensure it's timely consideration in full council in due respect for the lengthy negotiation process. As I said this, the original contract expired in 2019. That being said, I would like to offer the opportunity for the chair of the Public Safety and Human Services Committee to make some comments regarding this legislation. Customer Herbold, thanks so much. Just a couple of words. I really appreciate the motion to hold and I tend to support it. Though Council did receive a very thorough briefing on the terms of the contract. We only received it 24 hours ago. I really appreciate the thoroughness of the negotiation process and the positive outcomes for our long sought accountability reforms. But I do believe that some additional time for all of us to familiarize, familiarize ourselves with the terms of the contract will be helpful. Thank you. If you remember, they could get some verbal. Are there any other comments before we go as far as open? This would be the time to give any comments regarding the vote on the postponing. All right. Not seen any. Well, the clerk, please call the roll on the adoption to postpone this legislation until Tuesday, June 14th. Councilmember Lewis. Yes. Yes. Councilmember Morales. Yes. Councilmember Nelson, I. Councilmember Peterson? Yes. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Councilmember Herbold. Yes. Council President Suarez. I seven in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The motion carries and the bill is postponed until June 14th. Madam Clerk, to I do. The language of the bill passes and the clerk affixed my signature. Not today. Council President. Okay. And while she carries on, the bill is postponed. Thank you. Moving on to item number two. This is the neighborhood's education and Civil Rights and Cultural Committee. Madam Clerk, please read the matter into the record. Agenda item to Equipment 2188 Appointment of Hamid Mohammed as director office to Immigrant and Refugee Affairs Committee recommended the appointment be confirmed.

Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the Long Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.12.010, relating to the 30 miles per hour speed limit on Walnut Avenue, between Wardlow Road and Carson Street, as recommended by the City Traffic Engineer. (District 7)

LongBeachCC_10072014_14-0795

Okay. Thank you. Now we're going to be moving on to item six, which was pulled from the consent calendar by Councilmember Urania. I'll turn this over to Councilmember Durango. Thank you, Mayor. The reason I pulled this out, because I basically want to commend city staff for their efforts in helping the residents in the Walnut Avenue corridor and supporting the their concerns about the level of speed of drivers who drive down that street. It's a very unusual when you do a survey of a traffic corridor where the speed limit might be 30 or 40 or 35. Usually when you see any adjustments to the speed limit, it's usually something that goes up because the level of tickets, the speed limit cannot can allow something to go faster. In this case, we're looking at a situation where the speed limit is actually going to be lowered by five miles per hour from 30 miles to 25 miles per hour from the section of of Wardlow Avenue to Carson Street on Walnut. So I want to commend staff for their excellent work and service and working with the community along that walnut corridor and making sure that the safety of the residents and the pedestrians who are living that walk in those neighborhoods and ride a bike in those neighborhoods, that the speed limit is not going to be a major factor for safety because you're going to be going a little slower. So I want to commend traffic engineer David Roseman for his work on this effort and and appreciate it. But if Mr. Roseman has a comment or two, I appreciate that as well. Okay. Thank you. Are there any comments from staff? Yes. Honorable Mayor and members of the city council. The setting of speed limits is a very complicated process that's outlined both in state law and Caltrans procedure manuals. If we don't follow those laws and procedures, we not only can can't enforce the speed limits, but we can place our roadway maintenance funds at risk. We have about 400 speed limit segments in the city, each of which has been studied every five years in order for them to remain enforceable. A few years ago, there was a move by the federal at the federal level that was supported by Caltrans director at the time and a number of Orange County cities to change the way speed limits are set in California, which would have resulted in about 75%. And I'll say that again, 75% of our speed limits rising across the city. Working together, the city manager, the chief of police, the city attorney and US in public works said we had to fight back and we did so by creating alliances across the state with cities like San Jose, 8000 Oaks, Glendale, Glendale and others. Ultimately, working with Tom Modica and his staff, a new legislation was introduced at the state level that restored some engineering flexibility to the process of setting speed limits. The good news is that using that flexibility, we were able to retain our speed limits. And in some very limited cases, such as before you tonight, we were able to recommend a lowering of the speed limit. I would like to just take a minute and acknowledge a very special engineer in the audience with us tonight, Amir Kazmi . Would you please stand? Amir is a senior traffic engineer that's worked for the city for almost 30 years now. He'll be retiring later this year. Amir has been my right hand man in fighting the good fight with the state at the state level and with Caltrans related speed limits. He also came to me a couple of years ago and said, rather than using consultants to study our speed limits year after year, I think we can do better in house. We are the ones that know the streets. We're the ones that know the system best. He has almost single handedly reviewed all 400 speed zones in the city and solidified our study process so that we can retain our speed limits and have the documentation to withstand the test in court. Plus, he did in this case before you tonight, he has worked with the community in using unique engineering techniques, which I will not discuss to influence driver behavior, to get drivers to reduce their speeds and in turn allow us to legally lower the speed limit. Thank you, Amir, for all that you have done to make the streets of Long Beach safer. And that concludes my report. Okay. Thank you. So we have a customary ranga. Therefore, I would like to motion that we adopted the the recommendation to amend the code section ten 1.12.010 to lower the speed limit from 30 miles per hour to 25 miles per hour on Walnut between Waterloo Road and Carson Street. Second. There's been a motion and a second, any public comment on the item? CNN members, please cast your vote. Motion carries eight zero. Okay. Thank you. Now we're moving on to the regular agenda. We'll start with item number nine. An item an item number nine is a recommendation to receive and file a report that from my office. So I'll introduce this this item and then we'll we'll get started with it.

A bill for an ordinance authorizing the issuance of City and County of Denver, Colorado, for and on behalf of the Wastewater Management Division of its Department of Public Works, Wastewater Enterprise Revenue Bonds, Series 2016, for the purpose of financing the cost of acquiring, improving and equipping the storm drainage and sanitary sewerage facilities of the City; providing for the pledge of certain wastewater revenues for the payment thereof; and making other provisions relating thereto. Authorizes the issuance of City and County of Denver, for and on behalf of the Wastewater Management Division of its Department of Public Works, Wastewater Enterprise Revenue Bonds Series 2016 in a principal amount not to exceed $116 million to fund storm drainage projects and for costs of bond issuance. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-30-16.

DenverCityCouncil_09192016_16-0757

757 and 758 four 757. I have Espinosa, Flynn, Ortega and Nu make sure that's right. And four 758 I have Espinosa, Flynn and Ortega, so. Right. All right, great. And we will pull up 757 and find out what you all would like to do with this. Councilman Espinosa? I won't comment. What would you like to do with this on 757? Just comment. Okay. Can I just go down the list and ask Councilman Flynn, what would you like to do with it. Mr. President? Just a comment. Okay, great. Councilman Ortega, what would you like to have for a vote, please? Right. Councilman Espinosa, will you put put council bill 75 seven on the floor for adoption to be published? Sorry. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 757. Be order published. It has been moved and second it. You okay, Madam Secretary? Okay. Great comments by members of Council. Councilman Espinosa. I actually didn't have a comment, but I did want to call it out for others to comment. That is very nice of you. Councilman Flynn, go ahead. Well, fortunately, I do have a comment. Thank you, Mr. President. I struggled with this one a lot because I was one of those members who voted against the fee increase that that goes to in part in great part to to pay for this this bond issuance. And one of my misgivings was the state of the engineering and the lack of of of solid cost estimates. But I was able, in just in the last day or so to meet with staff and satisfy myself that that the costs are based on good, hard unit cost estimating and a good scoping. I believe that because I lost that vote, because we increased the fee over mine and I think to other members votes. I think that my duty now is to make sure that the city's project is done properly and to oversee it properly, but not to obstruct it. So I plan to vote yes. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Councilman. Councilman. Let me do Councilman Ortega and then Councilman Neal. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not going to be long winded because I've been very vocal on this particular project. This is the Plat to Park Hill Drainage Project that was tied to the I-70 project using part of the funding from I-70. I didn't support it then and I plan to vote no tonight. Thank you. And thank you so much, Councilman. New York. Mr. Ross, I had a question. Great. George Delaney. Yeah. Where is he now? Yeah, he just came in. Probably the. Yeah, George, come on up. And Leslie, you probably should follow and just get the whole team up here. You can you can start your questions as they're walking up. Continue. The consultant report was sent to us over the weekend, along with the resolution for tonight. And George, I think you and I talked this afternoon about the issue in the consulting room for saying that the bond issue really is going to fund the the storm drainage and that the senator sewer expense would really be funded by fees . And but then in the resolution, it says that the bar is going to fund both the storm drainage and the sanitary sewer. And just a little confusing to me from what the consulting report said and the money that's needed for storm drainage versus what's needed for senator sewer lines. Maybe your chance to explain to. Sure. Please, George. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm George Delaney, chief operating officer. For Denver Public Works. The consultant study, as you referred to, does clearly indicate and as we had told you at the time we did, our rate increases that sanitary are planned for the Sanitary Storm Capital Improvement Program Plan was to fully fund it with cash. Our the only borrowing was going to be for the storm projects specifically for the plant the Park Hill project. And what what I've been told is the reason that the proclamation says sanitary mentioned sanitary. And it is because for full disclosure, as we're doing the plan to Park Hill project, there may be some sanitary work that needs to be done, a line that might need to be moved, a line that might need to be repaired or replaced as part of that project. So there may be some bond money actually used for sanitary as in the context of that project. Not as a standalone. We're not borrowing money for sanitary sewer IP as it's as it's being proposed. But only as a an incidental portion of a plot to Part Park Hill project. So it's more of a full disclosure that potentially that could happen. It's not our plan to use any of the debt money, however, for the basic C sanitary capital program. So you really don't feel you feel there'll be sufficient money with the bond issue and the fees for sanitary sewer and there won't be a need to ask the taxpayers for additional rate increase versus fees. Right. Our our entire capital program. For sanitary will be on a cash funded basis with the fees that were approved effective July 1st. This would only be an incidental spending of some debt money if there was a need for it in the context of that project. Thank you, George. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Burns. Yeah, thank you, Councilman. No, thank you, George. Filling. You're going to have to stay up here, Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, no, I just wanted to clarify why I my bizarre comment, we are in a software change and so normally I'm able to sort of real time see that we have respondents and since we had to do this well in advance of the meeting, I wanted to make sure that this bill was called out because I felt that there were might be others. So sorry about that, I think. Thank you for the explanation, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll just echo Councilwoman Ortega. I voted against the fee increase because of my perception of the connection of the Platt Park Hill Project with the I-70 project and my dissatisfaction with what I believe is the shortfall of the Colorado Department of Transportation's efforts to mitigate the impact of their proposed development on nearby homeowners . So I will vote against this tonight and will continue to do so. Thank you. All right, Councilman. Thank you. Looks like we don't have anyone else in the queue to speak. Madam Secretary. Raquel Ortega. No. SUSSMAN My black eye. CROOKS I'm sorry, Clark. Espinosa No. Flynn Hi. Gilmore. I. Herndon, I. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. I knew, Mr. President. I was voting in the results. It's yours. Nine eyes. Three knees. We're missing a missing one. Councilman Ortega, did you vote? I did. Okay, we are missing one person. I believe we have 13 council members on my county council. Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Black. Okay. How was the vote? So an irony. I'm sorry. Your councilwoman was I? So that's tonight's three nays. Yeah. Council about 757 passes. Okay. Please pull up. 758. Okay. Councilman Espinosa, what would you like to do with this?

Recommendation to declare ordinance approving Resolution No. WD-1382, a resolution of the City of Long Beach Board of Water Commissioners establishing the rates and charges to be charged for water and sewer service; declaring the urgency thereof; and providing that this ordinance shall take effect at 12:01 A.M. on January 1, 2018 read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_12122017_17-1108

Public comment saying non please cast your votes. Motion carries 24. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare an ordinance approving resolution number WD 138 to establishing the rates and charges to be charged for water and sewer service, declaring the urgency thereof and providing that this ordinance shall take effect on January 1st, 2018. Read an adopted as read citywide. Thank you. There's a motion or a secondary or any public comment. CNN. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. Is there any second public comment period for anybody? Nope. Yes. Okay. Please. Is there someone speaking or. No, just general public comment. This is general public comment on anything, not on the agenda.

A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Chato's Concrete, LLC for neighborhood sidewalk repairs. Approves a contract with Chato’s Concrete, LLC for $995,214.00 and for one year for phase 1 of the Neighborhood Sidewalk Repair Program (201841147). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-20-18. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-17-18.

DenverCityCouncil_07302018_18-0621

Yeah, he's. He's good on the. So under Bill's introduction, no item has been called out under Bill's for final consideration. No item has been filed out under pending. No items have been called out. Did I miss anything? All right. So, Madam Secretary, will you please put out one item which is 621 up on our screens? And Councilman Cashman, go ahead with your comment. Thank you, Mr. President. So I wanted to let folks know this otherwise innocuous looking contract marks the beginning of Denver's new neighborhood sidewalk repair program. This is the first time in our we've been building sidewalks throughout our city for, I don't know, somewhere around 150 years. And at no point during that last century and a half have we marshaled our troops and gone around the city to see what kind of condition these sidewalks are in. And I think if you're someone who takes a stroll occasionally anywhere in the city and county of Denver, you've noticed that our sidewalks are in a state of disrepair that needs to be corrected. So what the Department of Public Works has put together is a comprehensive program. We've divided the city into 11 regions. In early August, our inspectors are going to begin going block by block in the western section of Region One, which is, I believe, part of Councilman Clark's district, mainly a councilman news district. They'll go block by block, citing homeowners with trip hazards that need to be repaired. We've gone out of our way to increase the low cost repairs that homeowners can make on their own if they choose to not do it on their own. This shadow's concrete is our vendor that will go out and make the repairs. We will bill the homeowner. If the homeowners are meet certain income guidelines, there's a reduced price available on the repairs, extended payment options. The goal is not to be punitive on any individual property, but to create a system of pedestrian passages that allow us to actually get out and walk comfortably about our city and especially needed for anybody with any degree of mobility impairment, especially our brothers and sisters in wheelchairs. And I'd like to give a special shout out to Matt Bryner and his team at Public Works, who we've been talking about this program for about a year and a half , and we were all set to go in early April until it got to that point of, well, exactly how are we going to do this? And doing repairs in a built environment is a challenging scenario. And Public Works is has done a wonderful job of getting us ready to hit the ground running. So I thank them for the work they've done and hope everyone will be patient as this program unfolds. As I say, it's the first time we've ever done this. And if unforeseen problems crop up, we'll address those. And we hope to move forward and have our city in fine shape in the coming years. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. That concludes the items to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. We are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? I move, the 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 18 06300658076207570758075159076307640774062107761. Sorry, I may start that one over 07610652066406610731073207360747062807300737073807440729 and 0805. It has been moved and seconded that we get them all. Madam Secretary. All right, Madam Secretary, please look all black. All right. Espinosa, I. Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Cashin Carnage. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Sussman Right. Mr. President. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. LEVIN Eyes. 11 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 686 approving the service plan for the creation of the football stadium Metropolitan District and a one hour courtesy public hearing on Council Bill 788 prohibiting discrimination based on source

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-7177 and award a contract to All American Asphalt, of Corona, CA, for the Market Street Pedestrian and Streetscape Project, in an amount of $7,394,311, authorize a 12.5 percent contingency in the amount of $924,289, for a total contract amount not to exceed $8,318,600; and authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary subsequent amendments; Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund Group in the Public Works Department by $6,071,837, offset by $2,838,000 of State Local Partnership Program Funds (LPP) and $3,233,837 of Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds; Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund Group in the Public Works Department by $6,071,837, offset by transfer of $2,838,000 State Local Partnership Program Funds and $3,233,837 of Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program funds from the Capital Projects Grant Fund; and Accept Categorical Exemption CE 21-1

LongBeachCC_04052022_22-0381

All right. Item number 35, please. Report from Public Works recommendation to adopt plans and specifications and award a contract to all American asphalt for the market street pedestrian and streetscape project and a total contract amount not to exceed 8,318,600. And accept categorical exemption. S.E. 21-01-100 District. Eight. Thank you. Who's been moved and seconded and you want to say anything else when asked if. Sure. I'm happy to see this this motion and item come forward. It's been about eight and a half years in the making and something that many residents in North Long Beach, in my district, the great eighth District, have been looking forward to for many, many years. And so I would not do it just if I did not allow Mr. Lopez in Public Works segment, Mr. City Manager to give a brief report on this matter. Thank you, Councilmember Austin. We are extremely excited to be here today. This has been a huge priority. There are four major corridors that we've been really investing in strategically. It's been a market. It's been Artesia, it's been Anaheim and Studebaker. And this is the one that we're just so excited to be delivering today. So I'll turn it quickly to Eric Lopez. Thank you, Tom. Vice Mayor, members of the City Council. The limit of our Market Street project goes from city edge to edge, so it's one of our bigger corridor projects that we had in the wild in a while. 2.2 miles. Overall, we're looking at existing conditions that are deteriorated, are in need of major improvement, major investments from sidewalks to the roadway itself to path of travel, improved lighting. There's really a whole lot of different areas that we're going to be investing in. The all of these all of these improvements are made possible by a variety of funding sources that I will get to. But I want to show what some of these are going to look like. So here's an example of both buyouts at select locations. We're going to make the crossings at certain intersections safer, and we're also going to be able to build different classes of bike lanes to reinforce, depending on on where we're at, we're in Market Street. We're also going to be investing in high visibility crosswalks and rectangular, rectangular, rapid flashing beacons throughout the corridor. And a lot of path of travel improvements, a lot of sidewalk work, new curb ramps are relocating some of the fire hydrants. And we're we are going to be able to expand the length of sidewalks at various locations. Streetlight improvements, not just for the street, but also on the sidewalk and the pedestrian corridors. That's a that's an important part of the project as well. I'm not going to focus too much on on on the design, but we wanted to show at various locations the existing condition and with the improvement that we're going to implement. So it is going to differ from the L.A. River to Long Beach Boulevard. We have one solution from Long Beach well over to Orange Avenue. We have a different solution. And and there are slight variations as we go through the corridor. Major corridor projects are usually require various funding sources to really bring them together. And so we have a series of different sources that we've been able to accumulate in order to fully fund the project and allow us to proceed. The recommendation today is to award a contract to all American asphalt, and our target schedule is to break ground in May and our estimated completion target is around the fall of 2023. That concludes our presentation. So Councilmember, I'd. Like to just thank you for the presentation, but I would be remiss if I didn't thank the many residents who who advocated to to make changes started with the request for a street light. And it grew and the need grew and the working with staff, public works. And we worked with many folks over the years, many of them who are not with us today. But a lot of hard work and effort went into this with public outreach. And I think we've had, you know, at least a half a dozen or more public outreach sessions with residents. And this project will impact a number of neighborhoods in North Long Beach, the the heart neighborhood, the Jackson Park neighborhood, the Adams neighborhood, the in the Virginia Village neighborhoods and Sutter, all of these neighborhoods will be impacted. And I think it greatly the character greatly improved as a result of this project. So I'm excited to break ground and see the finished product and I would ask my colleagues to support this matter. Thank you. All right. I'm going to have my kudos here in the this is an exciting project. Congratulations, Councilman Austin. I know you and the community have worked really hard on this. And I'll tell you, between this project and Partizan project both happening this year, it's going to make a huge, huge difference. And so this is certainly an incredible upgrade, doesn't it tie in to the is there a connection to the river? There could be a connection to the river. I think it ends at the L.A. River. Absolutely. Absolutely. No, don't don't forget to mention that we did pretty good work on South Street as well. South Street was a little more, more to do, but absolutely lots of corridor. And you got to work cut out for us. And. Along looking right and the level that's right so so he says an on and I lot to do so thank you so much every public comment here. No public comment on the. Site. All right let's. Members please cast your vote.

AN ORDINANCE proposing to amend the King County Charter to utilize ranked-choice voting for the election of county officers, including the King County executive, the King County assessor, the King County director of elections, the King County councilmembers and the King County prosecuting attorney, effective January 1 following the council's adoption of an ordinance approving protocols for ranked-choice voting; amending Section 610 of the King County Charter; and submitting the same to the voters of the county for their ratification or rejection at a special election to be held in conjunction with the November 2, 2021, general election.

KingCountyCC_06162021_2021-0232

This takes the item seven. Our final agenda item is an initial discussion of an ordinance that would place a charter amendment on the November ballot. This amendment would change the charter to utilize ranked choice voting for the election of county officers. Randy Luskin of Council Central Staff is here to give us an overview of the legislation. Ms.. Luskin, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Members of the Committee for the Record, Randall scanning with council staff. I'll begin by noting that a copy of the full text of the proposed ordinance was emailed to members yesterday morning at 11:59 a.m. on Next Notes b as the chair of the committee noted, and the scope for today's briefing will be to Orient Committee members to the language of the proposed ordinance, and also to provide a few notes regarding process. I will note that staff analysis is ongoing and a full written staff report will be included in the packet materials for your next committee meeting, I believe, on July the seventh, as well as any follow up from any questions from today's meeting. So with that, I will begin by noting that the proposed ordinance before you would propose to amend the King County Charter, specifically Section 610, and to utilized ranked choice voting for the election of county officers. This would be effective against subject to voter approval and would be effective January 1st following the council's adoption of an ordinance that would approve protocols for ranked choice voting. If the Council were to propose to adopt the proposed ordinance, this proposed charter amendment would go to the voters on the November ballot. So with that, I'll go ahead and walk through the proposed changes in the ordinance. So as I mentioned, the proposed ordinance would utilize ranked choice voting for the election of county officers, including the county executive, the county assessor, the director of elections, King County Council members, as well as the King County prosecuting attorney. And again, subject to voter approval of the proposed amendment. This would take effect January 1st following council's adoption of an ordinance approving protocols for ranked choice voting. And the general premise would be that ranked choice voting would give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference and that the voting would be conducted in rounds. So in each round, each voter's ballot would count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate. The voter has ranked third the highest. And then in each round, the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated. And then the eliminated candidates and votes would be redistributed to the next ranked continuing candidate until one candidate would receive a majority of votes, and then the candidate would be deemed elected at the time of certification. I'll note that in the proposed ordinance there is a provision that if at the end of the candidate filing period, there were only two candidates that filed for an office that the election for that office would be would there be a choice , essentially? So it could be conducted by either ranked choice voting or in accordance with general laws governing nonpartisan county offices. I will note that the proposed ordinance is silent in terms of who would make that decision. That's a policy choice for this council as to whether that would be addressed in the protocols ordinance that council would be required to adopt, or if council would prefer to address that in this proposed ordinance. Lastly, note that when ranked choice voting would be conducted per the proposed ordinance, there wouldn't be a primary for the impacted offices and all of those qualified candidates would appear directly on the general election ballot. So those that's an overall high level overview of the proposed ordinance language. Just I'll wrap up by noting a few notes on process. So this item was introduced and referred to this committee at yesterday's council meeting. As I mentioned, if the Council were to approve this proposed ordinance, the proposed charter amendment would be placed. On the November ballot. As such, the last regular council meeting for action on this item as a non emergency would be the July 20th meeting of the full council. Mr. Chair, that concludes my remarks for today. Thank you much. As the prime sponsor. I'll ask council members hello if he has any comments to begin. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. We all share the goal of creating a more fair, just and multiracial democracy. And this requires that we address not only who can vote, but how we vote. Right now, we have an either or electoral system, a winner take all system, where voters are limited to choosing just one candidate. And too often, candidates win, even though a majority of voters chose someone else. The winner take all system that we have right now is at the heart of so many political problems. It creates negative partizanship and polarization where the different sides and the different candidates and their supporters attack each other in hopes of becoming the one candidate who's elected. Instead of pitting communities against each other, though in zero sum elections, ranked choice voting allows like minded communities to vote together as coalitions. And furthermore, winner take all elections also incentivizes people to vote for who they think will win rather than the candidate who reflects their values. So ranked choice voting provides greater electoral access that creates more equitable results, and it can even save money by combining the primary and general elections into one. This all would bring us one step closer to that multiracial, fair and just democracy that we described at the beginning. And lastly, I just want to say, for those who are still not certain about this legislation, I just want to emphasize two things that Miranda already shared that may give you a little bit more is, number one, we're putting something on the November ballot. So ultimately it will be the public that decides what kind of voting they want. If they want ranked choice voting, we can move in that direction. If they say no, then we won't. The other thing that I wanted to add to maybe put you at ease is this ordinance is permitted. It does not obligate us to immediately adopt ranked choice voting, for example. The plan would be if the voters approve this change to our charter in November, then we could all come together and work on an ordinance that lays out the details, that hammers out the timeline, the technology, the getting state level permission for the technology, getting all of our buy in and ducks in in order from our wonderful elections director Julie Wise and her team. So this is number one adopted by the public. Number two, a permissive ordinance that would allow us to get our ducks in a row later down the line. But the clock is ticking since November is coming up fast. And our our timeline for putting something on the ballot is coming up soon. So I urge everyone's support. I know we're not voting today, but we will have time to work through this, think through this and ask all our questions. Finally, I wanted to say thank all of the advocates who have been working on this matter. My co-sponsor, Councilmember Cole Wells and also Miranda and all of our central staff and my my team, Graciela, for help on this legislation. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. I would encourage members to surface their questions, though. It's not a branch. Today, I would encourage members to surface the questions in this conversation today so the staff has a chance to prepare and have responses to them either at our next conversation regarding this legislation or even before then individually. Councilmember Bellevue. She. That actually wasn't me speaking up. But I do have questions after whoever was speaking up. Councilman Raquel Welch. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I don't have a question, but I want to let you all know that The New York Times has a very timely and informative article in its publication today. It's titled The Dove into Ranked Choice Voting. I will forwarded it to everybody, but it profiles the race right now for the New York City mayor's race, which involves ranked choice voting. And also that name has been used in federal elections since 2000. Team in Alaska will begin doing so next year that more than 30 cities, including Oakland, San Francisco and Minneapolis have decided to use it, as have state parties and Kansas for children. So it's certainly interesting and I will again look forward to this article. Council member, Balducci. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Apologies. I have to step away from my computer as we reach the end of our scheduled time here. But I'm going to do the best I can on my phone. So I am very intrigued personally by the concept that our our electoral methods have not evolved in a very long time. And by there's there's a lot of promise, in my view, and in ranked choice voting. A lot of it was described by council members. Charlie I do as I as I do want to make sure that we fully think through the pros, the cons, the implementation challenges, the implementation costs, all of the things that we should as fiduciaries of this government really care for when we make major changes. I really appreciate what council members Angela has offered to do in making this change to the charter to be permissive. I think that makes a lot of sense and it enables me to feel more comfortable moving forward on the timeline that we're on, because if the voters say, yes, we want this, then we we can work through details in a in a legislative process that we will have to do. But this did come out of the Charter Review Commission with the recommendation that we not proceed with it. They suggested a study and involvement of a community based process to do public engagement with diverse communities and make sure that we had thought this all the way through and involved people who would be impacted. I am a little bit skeptical and we haven't done that. Just to be clear. I'm a little skeptical that there's any cost savings to be had unless we move all levels of of of of government on any particular ballot off of the primary, because we'll still have to run a primary. It just doesn't include county members. And truthfully, I'm very interested to see what happens this August. We have a very diverse slate of candidates, more than we've seen in the past for multiple levels of local and county offices. And and so the the the case that this will that this will be needed in order to diversify our council is I think I think being tested right now as we speak. So I'm I'm appreciative that we had this time to talk to to hear the briefing. I would like to ask staff to bring forward some analysis of places where ranked choice voting has been used and what has been the results in those places compared to prior to their adoption of ranked choice voting. In terms of the the candidates that have been attracted, the results and and demographics and all of the things that we like. Let's look at what we think we want to achieve with ranked choice voting and put that to the test by looking at those places that have used it and see in what outcomes they have had. Truthfully, I'm not sure that means federal elections are what I want here. So, you know, I am concerned that ranked choice voting might lead to us sort of wiping off the rough edges, if you will, and electing the most inoffensive candidates in the middle, as opposed to people who really stand for something strong in a policy way. You know, and I offer for your for your consideration, Senator Susan Collins. So thank you for this moment to say that. I do I do look forward to moving forward this proposal. I've stated my concerns for the record and asked for whatever analysis we can get on how this actually works in other places by our staff. I would appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the questions. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Taylor. I look forward to the article that Council Member for Wales is talking about. I too would like some more information. I've been briefed by some very good enthusiasts about this recently and they admitted it's complicated to explain. They said if you can do it in a group of people, move around, it's easy. But doing it on paper is a little more difficult. So it is complicated for people that figure out to begin with. So I think how we are going to all figure it out is going to be important. And I know Julie's been working with our members, and that is good. I, too, would like to know more places where it's been used. I think there was a town in the south of us who did use it for a short time and abandoned them. So I would like to know what happened there. Worse is that law bars certain local governments from doing this kind of thing. We are not under that because we are a home world charter. But I'd like to know why the legislature decided that. And apparently this last legislative session they decided to not forward this in the legislature. So it would be interesting to know what the debate was in the legislature and why they chose not to do it so that we have an open cross. Opinions on what this is before we jump on in. Thank you. Councilmember DEMBOSKY, thanks. And I know we're late here. Mr. Chair, I'll be brief. I'm in the analysis that comes back from Miranda. I would like us to pay particular attention to whether our top two system that we have in this state makes any difference when comparing to other states. And I heard comes from Brazil, I talk about a candidates winning with less than a majority and I know that can occur. It's occurred in a number of presidential elections. Right. We have a plurality, but I think that often occurs in partizan elections here with our two step process, a primary and a general with top two advancing . I think someone always gets a majority to get elected in November. And so I'm kind of curious about the implications of that and whether that mitigates. And I want to say early on that I'm a little agnostic, I'm interested in this. I have some serious questions. I'm concerned about the timeframe. I'm concerned about getting a general green light from voters and then having politicians pick the rules about how we're going to be elected. That I just I'm interested in thinking through that. And and and and I guess I'm losing track of my last question there. But that kind of the timing here is of concern because this is very important in terms of our democratic processes and in how we do it. Oh. This is maybe my biggest concern, eliminating the primary. I really think there is tremendous value in a winnowing process and then a debate that with clear competing values and ideas and proposals for voters to look at and weigh in on, and I get that that's not totally lost when you go straight to a general. But it's a it can be a lot more crowded and tougher to decipher out and distill out those messages. And I have some real concerns, just at least out of the gate. I want to share with you all about eliminating a primary and going straight to the general and and then resolving it. I know in New York, they limited their ranked choice voting proposal in the mayor's race to the primary. And they're because they're partizan, I guess the primary kind of solves their race. But in our top two system, I see tremendous value in having that debate through the fall, where voters have time to assess things, where candidates are , where there's time for the press and the community to vet candidates and for that real robust debate in our democracy. So those are some of my initial thoughts. I'm really interested in this debate, and I appreciate the advocates bringing them forward in the kind the goals that are attempting to be achieved. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Other colleagues. Seeing none. I want to thank Miranda for the briefing and my colleagues for surfacing questions and issues that can be looked into between now and our next meeting, our next regular meeting of the committee. The whole and Mr. Chair, can serve double duty. I'm sorry. I just had one last question very briefly to the list. I want just to confirm that we all mean the same thing when we say permissive. I just pulled up and I'm looking at the language and I see a lot of shells. So I just would like to make sure we understand what what we're actually asking the voters and what happens if they say yes to this language. Exactly. Thank you. Thank you. I might suggest that for those of us visual learners, also some sort of graphs, some visual representation of what would happen, say, if there were four candidates for a particular office. How ranked choice voting, if implemented, might play out, would help me track and follow through. With that. The only vote we've had was on it on the agenda approving the minutes of our previous meetings. So I won't ask if anybody missed that vote and having no other business before us today, we are adjourned or remain members.

Recommendation to, subject to prior review and consideration by the State Legislative Committee, approve the recommendations of the State Legislative Committee from their March 6, 2018 meeting regarding SB 827 (Weiner) and AB 2191 (O'Donnell).

LongBeachCC_03062018_18-0215

Who a code enforcement. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 18. Communication from Councilman Austin Chair State Legislation Committee Recommendation to approve the recommendations of the State Legislative Committee from their March six meeting regarding SB. 827. And AB 21910. Unicorn. Thank you. Kathryn Austin, do you want to give a brief report? Yes. So the state lands committee met earlier today. We brought back an item that was originally on the the council agenda a few weeks ago, A.B. 827, which is viewed as a an affront. To local control on many levels. We we held off on a decision a few weeks ago at the request of the author. That. He was going to make amendments to to the bill. And he asked us to hold off on voting until those amendments were made. Those amendments. Went into print. Actually yesterday. And they don't look like the anything that that the city of. Long Beach can support at this time for for many reasons. Primarily, it infringed upon our local control. And so the. State led committee took a vote this afternoon to officially oppose. HB, SB 87. As well as instruct or a lobbyist in Sacramento to to watch that bill very, very carefully. And make sure that. They articulate our strong opposition. And so with that, I would ask that the city council support. The recommendation of the state large committee on that bill. And there was another bill. Regarding researching. O'Donnell's bill to research shark activities along our beach. Beaches right now, which is very important. As well. Just so we love a unanimous council support of our state ledge committee's recommendation. Catherine Bongiorni. And your second. I just want to say that I really appreciate the process. I know that oftentimes things come to council where amendments are expected and there. Can be a rush to approve or reject or support or don't support. And so I really appreciate that the council took the time to send it to State Ledge and that we went through the process and opened the door so that we could at least have some possibility of support from the state. It's unfortunate that Senator Wiener wasn't able to make any recommendations that met our needs, but I really want to encourage this Council to stick to processes that go through committee for all state and federal legislative items. And I really appreciate Councilmember Austin, the chair of the committee, for his work in supporting this process that I felt very passionate about. So strong opposition to these bills. Thank you, Councilmember. Super. Now. I just like to weigh in and thank Councilman. Austin Alcala for his leadership on this. I think we learned so much more about Sacramento going through this process and it was very helpful. So thanks for leading this round. Is there any public comment on this state large item saying that please cast your vote? Exactly, because I'm sorry, the motion carries. Thank you. With that, we're going to go ahead and do the any second public comment period.

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_08192019_19-0744

final consideration. Note items have been called out under pending. No items have been called out. Anything, Miss. All right. Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? Councilman Barker, go ahead with your question or during questions and votes. Madam Secretary, do you want to put this on the floor before we do questions or you to do questions first? Oh, we go ahead and put it on the floor. Councilman, can we please put Council Bill 744 on the floor. Yes, I move that council bill seven 4419 does 744 be ordered published? It has been moved. If I get a second, it has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Steed, welcome. You wanna go ahead with your question? It's actually just a statement at this point. A lot of people don't know how these processes work. And so my commitment to community is my word. My word is my bond and my votes are my word. So I want to make sure that even at this first reading, I go on record with my position on this plan . I want to read the ordinance request for those of you getting ready to dig into these proposals, I know this is only first reading but still want to make my concerns known and go on record as not supporting the request, said the general objectives of the East Colfax Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan are to reduce or eliminate blighted conditions as well as to stimulate growth and redevelopment. The plan establishes the framework for Future City Council approval of public improvement projects and private redevelopment projects within the East Colfax Corridor, Urban Redevelopment Area and the use of tax increment financing for those approved projects post-World War Two. Federal urban renewal today is widely viewed as a failure, yet cities are repeating the mistake with tax increment financing. Tax increment financing is the new urban renewal. Our local urban renewal projects of the past were rooted in the idea that if you cleared out cities, bars, cheap hotels, homeless missions, you could attract a new wave of capital . The federal government was pretty much handing out money to cities that did this, and often they used the power of eminent domain to forcibly purchase land that would be cleared out and resold to private developers. These efforts resulted in the demolition of poor communities. Denver and other cities corrected the blight of poverty by eliminating the poor, driving them into other neighborhoods or public housing. These efforts were often referred to as slum clearance and were justified because it was alleged that substandard areas breed social and economic ills of the worst kind and that most of the displaced people are black, brown and poor people. The policies have generally favored large developers embodying crony capitalism. Urban renewal also imposed unwanted esthetic replacing humans. Neighborhoods with outsized structures. Even when these policies were determined failures and federal money waned. Urban renewal entities needed to find local funding sources. And the one that was most settled on was tax increment financing. This method allows local or state agencies to draw boundaries around an area for redevelopment. The agency's then sell bonds and use that money to create incentives, usually cash or free land for target businesses. Future sales or property tax revenue that comes from within the boundary is then used to pay the bonds. TIFF is now a go to funding source for stadiums, retail condos and other developments having become urban renewal as modern incarnation. TIFF still shares urban renewal problems, for example, by perpetuating crony capitalism. At first glance, its subsidies don't seem like handouts, since they supposedly pay for themselves through increased revenue from new projects. But it is unclear whether these revenues truly increase because of these projects or from inflation, and the money that pays for them would otherwise fund core services, causing misplaced priorities in many cities. TIFF also plays an unfortunate role as an enabler for eminent domain, which could otherwise be unaffordable for cities. I encourage you all to review the indicators of blight and recognize who is targeted and disadvantaged by these efforts that are top down rather than community driven need based formats for community development . For all of these reasons, I'm taking this opportunity on first reading to go on record as a no for this plan and will continue to vote no on final consideration. I encourage all of my colleagues, especially the new ones, to do your research and make sure that we're representing all of our constituents, including and especially those who will be victims to our ambitions. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Black. I remove my request to speak and get back on the list at the end. Okay. I'm sorry, Councilwoman Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca, for your for voicing your concerns. This is actually in District five, and I have to just step in. We can discuss this more next week, but I wanted to just make it very, very clear from from the outset that I have been a part of this process. I've been going to these meetings and participated in this for. A little over a. Year now. And I can't speak highly enough. Of the job. That Tracy has done with Sarah that the entire community has done to come together to ensure that some of the the problems that absolutely exist in urban redevelopment. These days. Are not happening on East Colfax. Everyone in our community recognizes that gentrification and displacement of communities. Of color. Are a major problem and that East. Colfax and this area is. Someplace that could be the next real. Area of a problem. And I just can't I can't say strongly enough how much that our community, how much the city is doing to make sure that that does not happen, how they recognize exactly what's going on, that they share that concern and that they're doing everything they can to get community involved to make sure that that does not happen. So I just wanted to really put that out there because I think it's very important to recognize that Councilwoman CdeBaca has concerns are valid, and historically speaking, they are 100% true. But in this case, I can't say enough about what has been done to try and stave off those kinds of concerns and that gentrification off of that . So we can discuss this more next week when it comes to in front of council. But I just wanted to put that out there right now. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Black, understand that we have a technical issue to correct. Yes. Thank you. There is a mistake in the bill. The title of the bill, it says it said in the tax increment area. But it's actually only setting the urban renewal boundaries. And I'm going to offer an amendment. But in the meantime, if anyone has any questions, I'm sure our dear director Tracy Huggins could answer them. All right, so you want me to come back when you're ready with the amendment to fix the title? I have got the amendment right here. All right. I do have Councilman Herndon in the cue in mind if we bounce to him and then we'll get make sure we do this right. All right. Councilman Herndon. Mr. President, I was just going to encourage my colleagues, since this is on first reading for publication, there will be a public hearing next week. We'll have the opportunity to go in depth about what the east area urban renewal area does and does not do. I think there is some misinformation, but I want to be respectful of people's times and hopefully we can have that conversation next Monday, and I would encourage my colleagues to support it. Thanks, Mr.. President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. All right, Madam Secretary, how would you like us to proceed with this amendment? Do we just need to clarify for the record, or do we need to do an amendment to the bill? Okay. Go ahead with Councilwoman Councilwoman Black's amendment. Excellent. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Thank you. I move to amend 19 dash 0744 as follows on page one, line seven strike and the Andrew Place with quotes, period, quote, end quote. And on page one, strike line eight. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the establishment of tax increment areas. The amendment does not require republication. All right. We have that amendment moved. Do we need a second or did we get a second for the amendment? It's been seconded. Councilman Flynn, and seconded the amendment. So any questions or comments on the amendment will vote on the amendment first and then tomorrow on the bill. Okay. I don't see anybody in the Q on this who will vote on the amendment. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Black Eye. CdeBaca, i. Flynn, Art Gilmore, i. Herndon, I Hines Hi Cashman. I can h. I. Ortega Sandoval. I sawyer i torres i. Mr. President. I. I'm secretary please cause voting in US Results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Bill 744 has been amended and now we're going to go ahead and vote on Council 744 as amended. Yep. Anything else you need from us before we vote on that? All right. And seeing nobody else do roll call, Madam Secretary. CDEBACA No black eye. Flynn All right. Gilmore I. Herndon, I. Hines Hi. Cashman I can each I. Ortega Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres. I. Mr. President. Hi. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 12 eyes, one name. 12 eyes, one nay accountable. 744 has been ordered published. All right, Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. And, Councilwoman Canete, will you please vote? Council 745 on the floor.

Approves an increase in sanitary sewer and storm water charges beginning 7-1-16. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) The Committee approved filing this bill by at its meeting on 5-4-16.

DenverCityCouncil_06132016_16-0306

We hear government officials talk about transparency all the time. But it's things like this that cause citizens to suspect underhanded methods and doubt that our representatives are speaking the truth or looking out for our best interests. This whole experience has left me feeling suspicious, marginalized and unheard. I would like to end by thanking Councilman Rafael Espinoza for his ongoing questions regarding this project and for his attempts to make project management speak the truth and not talk around the issues or twist facts to their advantage. You are a true voice of the people and this person appreciates it. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Mayor Jeff Shoemaker. Good evening, Mr. President. My name is Jeff Shoemaker, and I'm here tonight in my role as executive director of the Greenway Foundation. Floods can happen in your neighborhood, Mr. President. Floods can happen in your neighborhood, Councilman. Floods can happen in your. Neighborhood. Councilwoman. But floods don't happen in my neighborhood. I don't need to worry about them. They're not going to happen. We don't have to plan for that. We don't have to worry about that. I don't because it's not going to happen to me. Well, take that belief system and share it with the folks in Jamestown. And Lyons and Boulder and Weld County and Estes Park and Longmont. Let us not forget. What happened on September. 12th, 2013. I stand before you tonight as the eldest son of Joe Shoemaker, the founder of the Greenway Foundation. And as I begin my 35th year as his executive director and yes. I am at old, I can assure you that Joe. Who is Denver's manager of public works. From 1959 to 1963, would fully endorse the need for. And related benefits regarding this measure. A measure that speaks to the need for increased. Protection and life safety issues. Involving our city's storm water infrastructure, thereby providing much needed benefit to the water quality and flood control safety. Of the South Platte River watershed and therefore our city. Significant issues such as these are never easy. They're always complicated, they're always challenging. And therein lies their importance. Please support this measure. Your support will speak towards the needed additional funding to provide ever increasing sufficient storm water protection. Within our city and therefore. Our urban waterways. And therefore our citizenry, both now as well. As for generations to come. Beyond ourselves. Beyond today. That's how leaders plan and that's how leaders act. Thank you again for the opportunity to stand before you tonight. And I personally thank each and every one of you for all you do and give to our city and its citizens every day. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Theresa and No. Is not here. Okay. Ben, Shannon. And as Ben comes up, I'm gonna call the next five. Joel Noble, Keith Pryor, Allison Tor, Vick, Lemon Knowles and Ryan Hunter. You can make your way up to the computer and just go ahead. Thank you. My name is Ben Schneider. I'm here tonight on behalf of the Whittier Neighborhood Association. I am the land use and zoning chair for that neighborhood association located in District nine. Your neighborhood association is Ridder's third neighborhood. Organization and one of Denver's oldest neighborhoods and urges city council to vote yes and the plaque to Park Hill Drainage Project. What are your neighborhood and our neighbors to the north currently experiencing street and home flooding. Due to the natural drainage way for the Montclair Basin having been developed over over decades. Ago. The Platt to Park Hill Drainage Project will lay the foundation for the flooding issues to be addressed by slowing the volume of stormwater. And high volume storm events as well as in the future, helping to address Denver's aging and adequate stormwater infrastructure. We frequently hear about how Denver's aging infrastructure is affecting quality of life and how pressing it is to address. We need to do something about this aging infrastructure, and this project is a way to start that. Members of the Whittier Neighborhood Association have attended dozens of meetings on the plot to Park Hill Drainage Project, as well as hosted our own neighborhood association meeting on this and feel that the project engineers have adequately shown why the project is needed and how. It will address the serious issues of home and street flooding in our area. We respectfully ask for you to vote yes on this project so we can move forward to address these issues. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. John Noble. Good evening, counsel. Joel Noble, 2705 Stout speaking here tonight. Only on my own behalf. I live in the Curtis Park neighborhood, which is part of the five point statistical neighborhood in Council District nine. And while I can't speak on behalf of the neighborhood, I can report that I haven't heard controversy about this in the Curtis Park neighborhood , and that's probably why they haven't taken a position. In my last testimony, I praised a public involvement process that took two years to find the compromise. Now it's a different kind of process that was a policy to do something new in Denver, and this is a fee increase. But the contrast is notable. There was a lot of outreach done on Platte to Park Hill in the neighborhoods that are there. But this fee increase is for the entire city and there hasn't really been much public discussion about it. Therefore, I think we're seeing an outpouring of, wait, what has this been discussed? I don't know what this is. And unfortunately that's gotten in the way of the ability to have dialog with the time that we've had. I'm grateful for public works and urban drainage, who came to the emergency meeting with less than two weeks notice last week. Unfortunately, I couldn't be there, but from all reports that I've received. Dialog was difficult because people had already decided they're for or against or they were afraid or they didn't trust. I wish this had been communicated better. That said, I'm more concerned about the possibility that we might not pass this. We have 1.5 billion in storm water needs, and we spend very little per year towards that. We spend much less than our neighboring communities. With this package, as I understand it, and the time I've taken to sit down with the engineers to say what's what's real, what's happening here? Yes. A big part of it goes towards one collection of basins, the Montclair Basin and the Plat to Park Hill projects. But that's because they're the ones that need it the most. It does what we've been putting off for a long time, making the infrastructure needed to do the stormwater system. From Global Landing Park back to City Park, golf course and beyond. That costs so much that we've been kicking that can down the road. And it wasn't until the $67 million that we could get by doing this at the same time that starts doing their I-70 project that we said, you know, if we don't do this now , we're leaving $67 million on the table. Now we don't have enough time to talk about what I learned about the other projects happening around the city. Thankfully, they're less expensive, but they're important, including the one going in front of my house, the 27th Street interceptor ones in nearly every council district. And a lot of those also attract other funds. If we don't raise the funds, we don't get the matching funds. If we don't get the projects. Please vote yes. Thank you. Keith Pryor. Good evening. Keith Pryor And this is critical just as our roads, it's not sexy. It's not fun to talk about. We don't think about it. This is not something that you see. You flush your toilet, you don't have to worry about it. It rains. Water goes away sometimes. I grew up in southeast Denver with Evans and I-25, and that flooded every single time. It still floods even after the tracks. This is significant investment that we need to make in our in our city. And it's not cheap and without continued investment in our infrastructure through fee increases, our parks. Suffer. Our infrastructure suffers, our streets suffers, our enforcement suffers. You guys deal with the budget and you know what you need to look at and you know that you have limited funds every year that come up and you have to prioritize where that money goes. This is an opportunity which you've kicked down the road. Like Joel said again and again and again, we only have limited revenue sources that are available to you. And to have this opportunity come before you and to take that opportunity and to look at leveraging opportunities which are really present at this moment. And unfortunately, the city has done a really poor job in communicating why that's there. And there's been a lot of mistrust around how this is all happened and would this occur if these other projects were not going on which to city staff. Unfortunately, discredit has not been able to really be forthright and honest and has created a lot of controversy around this, which shouldn't be because this is infrastructure. This is critical to the city. I live on 24th in Tampa right now. It's an old stream bed. It flooded again today. Luckily, I live on a little bit of a hill and I have a terrace in my tree line that it comes up three times. If I didn't, my house would flood. Will this help me? No, because unfortunately, this project and other projects still have not gotten down because we are such in a deficiency of our funding that that problem for me will not be solved. This will allow us long term wise to solve some of our biggest problems, which we've kicked down the road, but also then address other issues which are in the master plan of the 2014 Master Plan, which has been updated numerous times, which continues to be updated. It will increase our water quality with the plan, which also speaks to Jeff Shoemaker and basically rehabilitating what we can see as recreational opportunities through the Cherry Creek and also the Platte River. So there is so much good in this. Unfortunately, it's gotten bad timing and there's some really mis information out there. But I implore you, this needs to be passed. We need to invest in it. Mr. Prior Thank you. Thank you, Alison. Terrific. Good evening. My name's Allison Tawfik. I live in Council District nine. I've lived in and around City Park since 1990, when I was ten. And I'm on the City Park Neighborhood Advisory Council on behalf of Uptown on the Hill Neighborhood Association. I belong to the City Park West Neighborhood Association and like 66% of the electorate, most of whom are not here tonight. I voted for the the Western Stock Show redevelopment. I think now it's a chance to embrace that redevelopment and take advantage of some of the other moneys that we all the other silent majority voted for when we said we wanted the redevelopment. If we can take some of that city money and some of that RTD money and use those work together with Serrat and with RTD and with urban drainage and public works, then we can rather than having one person, you know, one group do it and then the other group coming in and tearing it up and redoing it. I think there's economies that can be built in there. Like I said, I lived all around city parks. I'm a big fan of the park. I know there's a concern about the trees and in the golf course when the golf course needs to be regraded. If assuming that the stormwater bill passes at the park, that the PDP project goes through that to put the low part of the of City Park on the west end of the park and of the golf course instead of the east end of the golf course. There's a concern about losing trees. My understanding is that the canopy, the tree canopy has to remain 1 to 1. So we're not going to lose any shade. And I also think there's an opportunity to build some diversity in the golf course with the trees that we don't have now because there's so many ash trees. I think we all know that the emerald ash borer is going to come through in the next probably five years. And so I think this is a great opportunity for us to increase the species diversity. My one big thing that made me want this project in the golf course was when I looked at Google Earth and I looked at where the engineer's overlay was and where the water came from by National Jewish through City Park and eventually to Globeville. There's a spot there that doesn't have any houses. They said, That's where you should put all the water. Right. Why should you flood up some people's basements? Hopefully they've got insurance. If they don't have insurance. What are we talking about? 60, $60,000 that someone's going to have to take on as their debt when you can just put all that water in the golf course. So I urge you to vote in favor of the stormwater increase. Thank you. Lemon Knowles. Good evening. My name's Lemon Knowles. I am the vice president of CP Fan, which is City Park. Friends and neighbors. I have some documentation here to be passed out to the councilors. Some of them include petition signers from petitions we ran over the weekend. Anyway, we thank you for allowing us to speak at this hearing tonight. We all want to get this flood protection and drainage issue done right. And we're requesting that a delay because of a number of unanswered questions. However, tonight, what I want to do is read our resolution regarding the drainage in City Park Golf CP Fan Resolution was adopted on May nine, 2016. And it goes like this. Whereas the flood protection and ensuring the safety of existing Denver residents is of paramount importance to all of us and CP fan and in the Denver's neighborhoods. And. Whereas, protection of existing historic Denver neighborhoods, existing areas of stability and existing designated parklands such as the City Park Golf Course, is also a crucial and must be Denver's priority. And. WHEREAS, that attention, base and proposal will forever alter the historically significant fairways of noted golf course architect Tom Bender, law and landscape architect Fred Law Olmstead, Jr . Designed to highlight scenic views, trees and topography and were as the value of C.P. the City Park Golf course to birds and wildlife. Green stormwater mitigation lowering ambient temperatures, the heat island effect inadvertent detention pollution control and the community has not been fully evaluated. And where as an industrial sump is contrary to the park and recreation purposes for which the golf course was designed. And. Whereas, detention basins pose health, safety and maintenance issues require significant buffer areas for maintenance and protection, are costly to construction, maintain and replace at the end of life, and are generally considered unattractive. And. Whereas, the use of City Park Golf course as a detention facility would weigh significant investments made by taxpayers in recent improvements such as the clubhouse irrigation system in trees and where, as the city has announced its intentions to close City Park golf course for two years, remove hundreds of trees and then excavate a huge stormwater detention plant 35 to 65 acres in size. And we're as CPP fan is absolutely opposed to the use of historic city park. Miss Knowles. I apologize you 3 minutes is up. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Ryan Hunter. And as Mr. Hunter comes up, I will call the next five Timothy McHugh, Seth Wylie and Elizabeth Frank Long Kantor and Walter Ghani's guard Guernsey. Mr. Henry, you can begin your remarks. Thank you, President Herndon. Good evening. Council members and neighbors, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. My name is Ryan Hunter and I've been a resident of Park Hill for more than a decade. I've served on the Greater Park Hill board of directors since 2010, and I was a co-founder of the Park Hill 4th of July Parade. Up until last year, I was a chairman of the board of directors for the Denver Language School, and since 2008, I've managed a Park Hill Facebook group that has over 4000 members. I support this storm water and wastewater fee increase due to global warming. We are seeing a continual increase in severe weather events. Five year storms now happen annually. Denver's population is surging and our roadways can't keep up. In 2010, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave Colorado roads a grade and our bridges a C-minus. I plan to live in Park Hill for decades to come, and I support your plans to invest in our infrastructure. The opponents of this issue talk about the damage to the golf course. I welcome the improvements. Where were the opponents ten years ago when the greens were like cardboard and the fairways looked like goat pastures? The city stepped up and invested in irrigation and improved the course. Where were the opponents five years ago when the order of the holes were rearranged to improve the flow of play? This is not a historic golf golf course that exists in some pristine state. The opponents complain about the coordination of the I-70 plans with this project as if it were some conspiracy theory rather than sensible coordination. You know what makes me mad when the city paves over my street and a few months later, Xcel is back in digging it up. Where is the harm in coordinating projects? If you're going to improve I-70, I would certainly hope you'd avoid having it flood. Lastly, the opponents this issue are pulling your leg if they're telling you that they have the votes to recall you from office. The opponent's constituency is minuscule. They're a very vocal minority. Speaking from a bully pulpit, endlessly spreading misinformation and lies. Remember that Facebook group that I mentioned? I've allowed the opponents of this project to post information about their cause over a dozen times. Do you want to know the response? It's crickets chirping. By and large, the Park Hill neighborhood is largely uninterested in this issue. Thank you for your time. I urge you to support the storm water and wastewater fee increase. Thank you, Mr. Timothy McHugh. Timothy Wong here. Okay. Next. Seth. Seth Wiley. Willie. Willie. Excuse me. Hi. My name is Seth Willie. I lived in City Park area since 2003. I own property in District nine and currently live in District eight. I'm here to speak in favor of the fee increase. This is a sorely needed project. Flooding is a serious issue in Denver and nowhere is that more serious than in the lower Montclair Basin. Residents of this. Area have routine flooding. And it's an issue that's only going to get worse with global warming. And climate change. Doing nothing is not an option. I know firsthand what flooding looks like. I've lived in New Orleans. I lived in New Orleans for seven years and have seen very serious flooding. I've lost cars to flooding and I've had neighbors and friends. That have lost much more consistently poor, lose the most to. Flooding. Everyone here knows what happened in. New Orleans in 2005. Doing nothing about this problem is not an option. I applaud the city for taking. This problem seriously. To their credit, the city is working on this issue for 15 years. They this won't do much for my neighborhood, for my immediate neighborhood. But but I believe it's important to start somewhere and you start downstream and you work from there. The only feasible option that was considered by the city, the best option. Among the feasible option are the golf is the golf course, eminent domain and loss of houses. The other option that was considered is not a very good option. Well, while this has been controversial, I applaud the city for their outreach efforts. They've done a remarkable job. Reaching out to numerous Arnaud's. Neighborhood organizations, dozens of meetings, etc.. Again, the city recognized this is not an issue we can afford to. Do nothing about. We have to act. Doing something is going to cost money over. All the fees are modest and measured. Although, again, although actions won't help me in the near term, I believe it's important to start downstream, to start somewhere, start in those areas that need it most, and do this project, move it forward and move on from there. Poorer neighborhoods downstream deserve this and they deserve our help. I'd also add that the rhetoric on the issue. Around this issue has centered on misinformation. In some cases, dishonesty and intentionally misleading has disappointed me and disheartened me as a citizen of Denver citizens. The cities need to grow and evolve and adapt. Change is a part of the game. Denver. If Denver is going to continue to move forward, this project needs to move forward. It's critically important. Again, doing nothing. Is not. An option. So I plead, I ask. All of you to do the. Right thing for Denver, do the right. Thing for the citizens of the Montclair Basin. Area. Too, for those neighbors downstream and to approve this project. Thanks. You and Elizabeth. My man, Elizabeth Globeville. I'd made it a point to the best that I could to go to the three points along this with I was at one of the meetings up at the golf course and on the West Side. And I want to say that I, I am torn by this because when the intergovernmental agreement was first put in place and people from the Swansea neighborhoods came to testify, I think to a person they were we were supporting this flood issue needs to be dealt with. The intergovernmental agreement that set in motion the transaction with CDOT, it was of course complex and it it was within the controversy of what is the best thing to do with I-70. And I'm just want to say to the city council, I hope you get. The most comprehensive vetting of all of the engineering relative to the projects. And that, yes, misinformation is happening from different aspects, from different elements within the neighborhood. There's also a veil and long view of what is the development model and who are the who is obligated to the lac to to mitigate the lack the increasing lack of porosity porous where the water gets soaked up after the rain and prevents things like the Alameda Niagara Falls going over where b b the railroad is doing, who's truly responsible for the large picture and are we? Are there veils being dropped relative to what the vision and the forward looking economy and development? Are we just focusing on tourism development or are we talking about managed growth and the true preservations of neighborhoods? And I think communication is huge. I frankly, I hate to say this, I'd rather pay $5,000 a day to sit out under this idea for delays than do the wrong thing on this project. When I talk to engineers that are outside of the project, that are very honorable in the neighborhoods and professionals and what they say makes sense to me, and then I talk to engineers inside the city. What they say makes sense to me. There's some kind of discordance. I talk to people about the floodplain that are impacted by it financially over in the Globeville area, especially in what they say makes sense to me. Then I talked to people inside the city and the Army Corps of Engineers and what's going on with FEMA and the changing of models and what effects the definition of a flood plain. I keep coming back to we don't understand because there's something about the way and the pace and the volume of communication that hasn't brought us along in our own neighborhoods, in our own city to be confident that we're working toward a solution. All of us who remember the O-ring on the Challenger loved most of the engineers. Frankly, I hope the city council is comprehensively looking at what is going on from the from from the very basis of what is the true environmental problem that needs to be solved. And so the fee is an indicator of the acceptance that the solution has been defined appropriately and most constructively. And that's where most of. Our time it was off. And I apologize for that. But you have gone over to Dallas. Never happened to me in my life. So thank you. And our our apologies for that. Next, we have Frank Locke and. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, city council members. Happy Tuesday. My name is Frank Lucas, and I am. I live in the City Park West neighborhood at 16th and Gaylord. I am just. That's District nine, City Council District nine. But I'm one block away from District ten, so I'm kind of nine and a half in the glorious Colfax corridor and and right near where the new Carla Madison Recreation Center is going to be built, which I am really excited about. And I want to thank you and your predecessors for making that happen and helping me and my neighbors stay healthy. I really appreciate your work and the investment that you've made in our communities. I'd like to encourage you to continue to invest in our neighborhoods by voting for the stormwater fee increase. And while I have been and continue to be active in different neighborhood organizations, I'm here just representing myself. Last July, when that freak storm hit, I was working in my office on Colfax in a beautiful garden level office. When I just tapped my foot and thought I heard a splash and felt a splash. And I tapped it again. And I did. And. I you know, with all the freakish calm I could muster, I pulled up the cords of my computer and unplugged them really quickly and just ran out of there and went for shelter in the doorway and watched this wild river just roll right down COLFAX bringing debris and voodoo donut boxes and all kinds of other stuff right on down Colfax Avenue, past Lafayette, and then in in the weeks following and taking bike rides down the Platte River in just a five mile stretch, my wife and I saw no less than four cars that had been washed off of the roads and into the Platte River. I it's pretty clear that our storm water infrastructure isn't sufficient. And and and we and it's not sufficient for the population that we have, the population that's growing and the waterfall that we sometimes receive. So when I heard about these meetings that were being held about it, I started to attend them. And unfortunately too many of the meetings became shout fests and relatively uninformative. My understanding of the issue is that the stormwater infrastructure has not been sufficiently upgraded for fourscore and five years. Our population has increased dramatically since the thirties. Catastrophic climate weirding has made weather quite freaky and unpredictable, and in areas like Montclair or pipes are 30% the size that they need to be. We clearly need a better stormwater infrastructure system. Please vote to support the stormwater fee increase just like the investment you and your predecessors made for the recreation issomething central. So your 3 minutes are up. Thank you. Next we have Walter Garnet Guernsey, and I'll call the next five speakers Kimberly Morris, Justin Croft, Susan Payne, John Ben Skinner, Edward Armijo and Mr. Gardiner that you can begin your work. Thank you, Mr. President. Council members. My name is Walter Guernsey. I've been a long park Parkville resident and I'm here in opposition to the wastewater fee increase. I don't think anyone can disagree with the fact that the city needs to upgrade the stormwater system. Unfortunately, the proposal that's before the city council now, which incorporates the plant to Park Hill plan, is not the right plan. The as I understand it, there's $1.5 billion worth of stormwater plans that are in the the stormwater plan that was approved in 2014. Those that plan is what should be implemented. The money that is being allocated to plan to Park Hill is a huge mistake. It does not remedy the problems in any significant way south of I-70. We've been to several meetings and I have had no clear explanation as to how there's any significant benefit to anything south of I-70 . The benefit to this project is the area around the National Western Stock Show. It's the CDOT plan for I-70. It's the other real estate interests that are in the area that are north of I-70. Those those projects should provide for themselves whatever stormwater is needed. We should not have to do it at the incredible cost of re-allocating significant amounts of money that are not then available for all the other projects. The projects that need to be done to help my neighborhood involve with the prior speaker talked about, which is increasing the size of the pipes coming from Fairmont north west. That's not being done. Nothing is being done with this money that's now being that would be approved as part of the park. The plant to Park Hill plan. I. I want to make another point, which is that. The City Council should understand that there are serious legal deficiencies in this plan for the parochial plan as it applies to using the city for a golf course as a detention plan. First of all, the closure of that park that that dedicated parkland for a period of two years is not a deer. It is not a park use. The closure is for another use. That's not a legal park use. Secondly, the the entire program will eliminate significant trees, which will change the park nature of that in a way that is illegal under the common law of Colorado. And I think that if the city council and the city proceed on this basis, they're going to find that what they're doing as it applies to the City Park Golf course is going to be determined to be illegal. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Gonzales. Kimberly Morse. No. I think you. My name is Kimberly Morrison. I'm coal neighbor and I am strongly opposed to this project. I recognize that we need infrastructure investments in our city. I do not think this is the right project. We spend our money as citizens paying consultants and engineers for the city to come up with a stormwater master plan every few years. And we did so in 2014. And these are real projects that will help real citizens in the Denver area. In just a few short months after that project plan came out or that master plan came out without any prioritized projects, without any mention of this particular area. The letter of recommendation came out from the Met specifically saying that we should do a stormwater drainage project for seed at RTD and CC in that order. And the first order of business in the solutions for that drainage plan was cutting a ten foot deep channel. It didn't say how deep at the time, but a ten foot deep channel through my neighborhood, a ten foot deep channel, 100 feet wide. Isn't why enough to make that not so. Steep that people can't fall. In? It's not a park like amenity. I think we should be investing in infrastructure that helps the neighborhoods across the city, since all Denver residents are going to be paying for it and not funding the development in a valley that is prone to flooding and putting myself and my neighbors at risk. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Morse. Next, we have Justin Croft. Good evening, Members of Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in front of you tonight. My name is Justin Croft, and I'm here as the chair of the Rhino Business Improvement District, and I'm here tonight to urge you to delay this vote. I think based on what we've heard tonight and what we have heard in our community and others, there is a lack of information. There's a lack of understanding around this particular issue. And I think we've come to a conclusion in the Rhino bid. We took a vote on this last week that a measure of this magnitude in a fee increase of this level begets a responsibility to build consensus in the community. And if the community is confused about this and feels that there has not been enough outreach effort, again, with a fee increase of this size, I would urge you to delay at least 30 days to letter that we issued this morning in order to build consensus in the community, in order to bring the facts to light, in order to really communicate what work has been done to come up with this particular solution. The kind of vacuum I think of information that is present around this fee increase, at least insofar as people's understanding of it is the kind of thing that unfortunately sets community members against community members. And you've seen that tonight where folks are really they end up marginalizing each other and trying to push each other towards an extreme position. And again, I would urge you to delay this vote and really build consensus in the community. Embark on an outreach effort over the next 30 days to bring people into the facts surrounding this particular issue. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Craft. Next, we have Susan Payne. The pain's not here. John. John Barnes, give skipper. And we have 18 minutes left in their cursory public hearing. Thank you for having me. Allowing me to touch the bite. My name is John Van Schuyler. I am the the secretary of City Park. Friends and neighbors. I'm going to clean up a little thing. That that. Happened. Lemon Knowles was reading our our resolution, and she couldn't she didn't have time to finish up the now, therefore, which is probably pretty important, too, that. All those. Things about why we considered City Park important and why we were asking for more research on this now therefore we move as the city evaluate other options based not solely on utility for C dot RTD and revenues of the city, but on full study and meaningful neighborhood involvement. All right. That's something that we passed in that included was one of the issues one of the whereas is which talks about something called inadvertent attention. So if you don't know what inadvertent attention means, please keep your hand down right now. All right. Thank you. Nobody raised their hand. Inadvertent attention is. A hole in your front yard that fills up with water and never drains out. It could be a five gallon bucket in your backyard that fills up with water, that evaporates. It can be bigger things like they have in city park, like the ball fields. In City Park proper. I'm not talking about the golf course. It's in the northeast corner. The ball fields create a detention area that does is part of the drainage area. That does not that does not get down to the main stem and therefore, does not need to be detained again. And so why is that important? Why why am I talking about that? Because the more inadvertent attention you have in a drainage basin, the smaller your flow is going to be, the amount of rainfall is the same . But every time you catch water and you stop it in the upper bays and it doesn't get down to it beyond the beyond the golf course and down to the other neighborhoods. And it's not a problem for the ditch that Kim was just talking about. I'm oh, I. Have to stop for a second and say. An engineering joke because I'm an engineer and not an optimist, says. That the glass is half full and the pessimist says that the glass is half empty. And the engineer says, Why is a glass so big? And apply that to the size of the tension that is planned for City Park Golf now. If I go walking, if any of you go walking by the ball fields, which I suggest you do, there is an area there which is surrounded by roads or parking lots, raised ground on all sides, so that if water comes into it from 23rd Avenue, crosses Colorado, it flows into that basin and it stays there. We don't play what we don't play. You don't play. I'm running out of time here. This plan does not consider giving. You ran out of time. Sorry, sir. Thank you. I'll have to. You have to call me. Thank you. Next, we have Edward Armijo. And as ever, come forward, I'll call the next five. Bridget Walsh, that techs, Adrian Brown, Steven Eppler and Dennis Royer. If you could make your way to the front end. Sorry. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name. Is. Edward Ami Ho, who? I've lived. In the neighborhood for 15 or. 16 years now. Because I just turned 65. I'm getting tired of hearing people coming in to Denver and saying, Well, I lived in Denver for 15 years and the streets are flooded. I've been here for 60 years. It only flooded once, 1965. The donor boxes. If the gentleman would have went. Outside and. Picked them up, the gutter wouldn't be back. And now, if you had pick up these water bottles, the gutters wouldn't be back and up. Another thing I am ashamed of, every one that sits on the Infrastructure Committee except you or Debbie, you guys didn't have the guts to contact me, get confined, space trained, and really inspect your so-called deteriorating storm sewer. You guys want me to respect you, but you can't even respect what I ask you. And I've been involved working with the city council for years to clean Denver up. Then you got somebody talking about New Orleans. We're a mile high. We're not below sea level. Come on. And another thing that I need to make U.S aware of this. Do you ever watch your own recording on TV when it's posted? You guys were running a circus. At your. Last meeting because you got all these people that are more intelligent than me, but they're playing the blame game. Well, what do you think? What do you think? Well, what about that? We had 90 meetings. That's funny, because I went to their last zoning meeting when it was at the Fort Lee Museum, and I personally asked Michael after he made the statement. Well, we talked to everybody. We had these private meetings. So I turned around and told Michael and this young lady, he's heard it before. Your demographics. Your study says the whole neighborhood and Swan, she and Larry are full of a bunch of low educated Mexican nationals. They don't speak Spanish. I don't speak Spanish. How can they have 60 meetings with a bunch of individuals. That they say are under educated? They don't speak. English. They wouldn't give me an answer. Almas Michael made a deal with me about Keep me in the loop. If they would have gave me the respect to let me pick an interpreter and set up a meeting with the minorities that do not speak English. And I do speak at my knees, by the way. But I don't speak Spanish. Each and every one of you would have. Got a better. A deal on who wants what. I even went to a meeting at state capital. The highway. Does not need our flooded stream. Because it does not flood in the coal neighborhood. Mr. Romeo. Guys, guys. Sorry. Sorry. Your 3 minutes are up. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next, we have Bridget Walsh. Hi, I'm Bridget Walsh, and I'm here speaking on my own behalf. I am a board member, not a board member. I'm a member. Of City Park. Friends and neighbors. Has. Have any of you seen the video that was produced that expressed our position? Would you like to show that? The video that was produced by Phil Hanlon and that expressed our position and produced. In two days over 1100 signatures for people who are against it, sort of like educated them about what we saw, our vision of what this project was about. Would anyone like to see it? Was This is your opportunity to speak. The reason we're not responding. We want to give you your 3 minutes to speak. All right. So at any rate, I would like to point out that in the whole neighborhood, the trench you intend to dig there and call neighborhood is under asphalt. And as far as I've been told, it's an unmitigated Superfund site and will expose not only the residents of coal, but the residents of Denver generally to a lot of hazardous waste ply to Park Hill provides flood protection for I-70, RTD, new development and quarter of opportunity. We want to know why the the lion's share of the stormwater fees is going to be used to protect these projects to the detriment or to the loss of the other neighborhoods in Denver. Why should Deborah homeowners rather than the project developers pay for flood protection for I-70? RTD a new development in the corridor of opportunity. The engineers will tell you that this is not going to do anything to stop flooding really south of I-70. Yet all of this money is being focused on this tiny area of new development, and we are wondering why our projects are not being addressed. Why does the city keep telling us that the project is unrelated to I-70 when numerous public documents that we've all read and common sense tell us that it is there for I-70 a related development. Why is there no ice for affected neighborhoods in parks? That's a real sore point, and it really engendered a lot of distrust. How can the city claim to care about. Cost of housing? IT plan to double fees for. Denver homeowners to subsidize new development. Why did the city wait until November 2015 to begin talking about the coal open channel and digging up City Park golf course when they knew about it from at least January 2015. Why did the city rush the I-70 intergovernmental agreement, including the time out for this plan? Timeline for this plan through the Lame Duck Council on June 215. Why won't the city address the numerous questions raised about this plan by neighbors digging up unmitigated Superfund sites will endanger all residents of Denver. Almost done. Why didn't City Council go on a junket with over 100 parties with vested interest in their vote on this plan ? Did they buy your vote? So thank you very much. Thank you as well. And you should look at the video. Name is on that text. That texture. You know, lots of people ask me. What should I say when I go down there and I say, you know, it doesn't make any difference. Say what you want. You're not going to change anybody's mind. Everybody knows that. And that's okay. You know, you shouldn't probably change your mind. Everybody want you to study issues in advance and understand what's going on. And it should be hard to to change. But it's really disappointing for people when they work real hard and they try and make reasoned arguments and they think they're going to flip you. They're going to say the magic words, and they don't. And then what do they say? They see you traipsing off to Brooklyn with Brownstein and with CRL and they look at your contribution list. And they say, I can put two, two, two together. I go down there and I talk and it doesn't make any difference. And they go off to Brooklyn and guess who gets their way? And you know, Paul Krugman talks again about how few people participate in what low esteem government is held in. And somehow you don't make connections, you don't think about there any consequences for what you do, that people are stupid and people just don't think about it and it's all right. It's one of the perks of the job. It's just one of the perks of the job. We all know you're going to pass this. We all know you're going to pass the last one. It's a kabuki dance. And then you're going to stand up there and you're going to thank people for sitting in the hard benches and staying late and talking so eloquently. And people will trudge out of here and government will be in just a little bit less repute than it was at the beginning of the evening. Adrian Brown. Thank you, counsel, for sticking around so long. Thank you, Rafael, for providing the only meal that we got tonight, which is greatly appreciated. My name's Adrian Brown. I live at 123 West Fourth Avenue. I'm here on my own recognizance. I'm a 40 year professional engineer and I'm in the hydrology business. So I actually know something about this. I question the need for this huge fee increase for the purposes which have been stated? What will happen based on my research and discussions, extensive discussions with the city and others, is that most of the money that we are talking about tonight is going to convert the Montpellier Basin and the Park Hill to to Platte River area from a network of small hydraulic systems, stormwater systems to a major system. This requires increasing the service level that it requires from 2.5. 2 to 5 years storm frequency to a 100 year storm frequency because we move from small systems to a large system. This is by Denver ordinance, so it's not forced by anything other than that. So what we're going to do or we're proposing to do is to convert from the current system, which works fine, needs work, but works fine in this area to a major system which is a $300 million mega project. And as many other people have said it is, I concur that it will achieve essentially nothing for the people up south of the approximately 70 line. Do we have to do this? No, we don't. Consider the alternative. We got into this pickle by creating a whole bunch of impermeable land where there used to be permeable land. We need to turn back that impermeable land to permeable land. There have been wonderful work done to creating permeable structures out of parking lots, out of driveways, out of roads. Romans were pretty good at that. And all of the structures that we think of and which are today impermeable to turn them back into permeable stuff, even roofs and that sort of stuff. And we can do that by increasing local containment, by increasing local infiltration, by increasing local pipe systems to convert water to locations where it can infiltrate. $200 million buys you one hell of a lot of incentives to people to do that. Like the same sort of money provide you incentive for solar. So don't do the the redundant work that has been recommended for Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown. I vote yes on this, but for the right reasons. Thank you. Thank you. Stephen Epler. But even in the. End, we have 2 minutes left. So you may be our last speaker. Mr.. My name is Steven Eppler. I reside in Congress Park. I'm a member of CP. And I'm here on my own behalf. I don't think there's any question that. Denver needs to put money into infrastructure. Particularly into sanitary sewers and water quality. However, the wisdom of this particular project in terms of wastewater, I urge the Council to delay and reconsider this specifically. It's clear from neighborhood meetings and polling that we noted that over one third of the residents. Want. More information. About this. And the. City has been woefully inadequate in terms of providing accurate information. And what we're told seems to change frequently. The plant. The city's 2014 stormwater drainage program sets a goal of providing wastewater, a level of service to residential areas of sufficient capacity to sustain a two year comment and a. Five year event. Capacity for. Commercial areas. Whereas the. P2P project proposes to increase that to 100 year event protection. I want to read from the 2014 wastewater proposal. Cost effective implementation of a citywide 100 year drainage system is not. Radical. Because of the significant capital cost to retrofit construction and limited annualized flood hazard reduction. Consequently, a phased program is recommended that prioritizes improvements to address current hazards while improving minor the minor storm system. This does not really address those minor problems at all and actually provides disproportionate protection to an area of the city that slated for redevelopment and to which the government which we already have passed a bond issue for. I don't think the whole city and county of Denver should have. To pay for this limited improvement. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Eppler. And that is we just hit one hour. So that concludes our one hour courtesy public hearing. That concludes our speaker now time. And Madam Secretary, can you if you could take those speakers off the screens or actually council members names? Questions from members of council. Councilman Lopez, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. If I could have either George Delaney or somebody from Public Works in terms of cost. I know you've heard a lot of different numbers. I'm curious about the impact to the average Denver property owner taxpayer that this will affect. What does that look like if this were to move forward, this future increase, what does that look like for for those taxpayers? From here on to the. Okay. Next benchmark. Sure. Every year. Thank you, Councilman. Again, George Delaney. Department of Public Works. This fee increase on the sanitary side is proximately a dollar a month. This fee increase on the storm side is approximately a dollar a month. So that the total increase for the combined bill to individual home or the average homeowner is about $23 per year and it'll be $23 each year for five years until 2015. The Sanitary Bill is billed monthly. 22 over 20. Yeah, 2020, I'm sorry, not 2015. The sanitary bill is billed monthly, so you would see that dollar dollar increase in your water bill. The storm bills right now billed annually, but we have plans to bill to start billing it on a semiannual basis to spread it out. And we're working with Denver Water to even potentially do it on a monthly basis so that it would spread out that cost. So rather than getting one bill that's increased by 12 or $15, roughly, it would only be a dollar monthly cost to you. And just two more questions. Well, I have a bunch, but I'm not going to sit here and take up all the time. The. Just too just from. I've heard this a few times that I just want to make sure that on the record right here in council chambers impact on global areas once they call those neighborhoods does . What's the impact now and what's the impact in the future with the plant, the park? You know. Globeville has two sources of potential flooding. One is over the gap in the levee. That's down around 38th and Brighton and that area where if the river gets high enough, it could come in behind the levee into the town. And the other one is from flow from the north. And that's that, that basin is called Utah Junction. So those are the two things we're studying. We're studying the river, we're studying the outfall for Utah Junction to decide what's best to do for Globeville. The PDP project is on the east side of the river. It does not impact Globeville. The Globeville landing outfall is north of where the levee gap is, so that water will go in to the Platte River. It will flow north into Nebraska and it will not go backwards into the levee and flooded. So we do not believe P2P will have any impact on Globeville. There are other factors that have impacts on Globeville, and we're studying those and trying to come up with the best solution we can so that we can fix get those all fixed. But those studies are underway, but we don't have them finalized. Let me ask one more one more question on that, if I may, Mr. President, since we're in global response here, it just so happens to be a pretty defunct viaduct and a crappy highway that goes right through the neighborhoods. It's always split it. What impact if this does not pass, if this council were to reject this tonight? What impact does that have on I-78? As I do? Is the reroute resurrected suddenly? And what happens to our voice and Denver's position and seat us? How does that how does that affect that whole scenario? Because I think there's. Questions floating around about that and. Sure. Good question. First of all, Cedar is going, you know, depending upon whatever court cases they have to do and depending upon getting their record of decision from the Federal Highway Administration, all that. See, that's going to build their road. Now, if. We whether we. Whether we because P2P, we have to realize P2P is is not being built because of I-70, it will relate to I-70. We can't deny that it won't keep water away from I-70. It will it does relate, but it doesn't isn't being built because of it's being built because that's the worst basin in the city and the floods all the time. But what see that will do is they were going to give us $63 million towards P2P and what Cedar will do is say, fine, you don't want to do it. We'll take our $63 million. We'll do detention around our our our highway, you know, whatever that might look like, whether it's detention ponds or pits or whatever. And so they will they they have their money for their detention. They can either give it to us or we can do a broader project where they can keep it and do their role. But I do not believe personally and I don't know anyone who has a different opinion that that us not doing P2P will stop CDOT and say, Oh geez, now we have to move our road. No, that will not happen. Well, this will this have any kind of impact, Mr. Delaney, on this lowered alternative or I mean, continuing to build at above grade? I mean, what what would their next step be in terms of what it looks like? And do they. Still have options to do whatever they want? Sure. Yeah, they do. And they will. And, you know, I, I said that I probably misspoke in committee when I said, see, that doesn't care about the neighborhood, but CDOT cares about the road. That's their job, is to protect that road from flooding. This map that you've all seen shows the the purple area north of I-70 being flood, the flood risk being substantially reduced. The reason it's reduced is because we're putting in the channel, we're stopping the water back up, up, up the basin. If and remember now there's a viaduct there now. So the water runs under the viaduct and it floods these areas. When you put a road down into the into the in the surface, then that water's just going to go and it'll be stopped. So what we're trying to do is say, we can stop this down here and stop more of an area that floods by doing our project, whether c that worries about flooding in this area. And that's another issue because they're they're going to protect this line right here, you know, and they're not going to necessarily worry about the surrounding neighborhoods. And I don't mean to say that to be disrespectful to Cedar, but that's their purpose in life. Their purpose in life is to build roads and keep them dry. And so our purpose in life is to protect neighborhoods from flooding. And that's why we're our project has a little broader scope. Thank you, Mr. Delaney. Mr. Heineman from the Urban Drainage Flood Control District, if you can please come to the podium. By the way, this man is retiring sometime soon. And I think it's okay that we bring him to these late night. I just really think that you don't got it easy on the way out. I want to talk hydrology in that 100 year event we go back to. I think I think a good starting point is September 12th, 2013. What did the hydrology reports when we looked at that? What did the aftermath look like? And I know everybody saw images of Longmont and Boulder and some of these other areas. And then there was also Aurora in some of these areas and more closer to metro Denver. What was the difference? Is there any kind of difference between what we were doing out here? I can't say we because we're not Aurora, but what they were doing up there versus Boulder. I know that I read reports that there was actually more rainfall out here than there was in Boulder. Yes. Thank you. Paul Heineman, executive director of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Yeah, the flood that we had back in 2012. What happened is that there were two kind of major storms within our boundaries. Our boundaries are contained. 40 local governments kind of from the north side of Boulder down to the north side of Castle Rock. So there were two major rain clouds that came over our district. One was in the Westerly Creek Basin, which as you mentioned, was just east of the Montclair Basin and it was over in Aurora and the other one was up in Boulder. And I think everybody saw the news reports what happened in. Boulder. And that's because that infrastructure to pass that flood had not been in place to pass that water that that fell in that major storm that fell over Boulder. There was actually more rain that fell over the Aurora basin, but the infrastructure had been built because we had assisted Aurora over the many years to build the storm drainage infrastructure that went through the Westerly Creek Basin and down into Denver and it flows through the Stapleton area. There's actually five major drainage detention basins in that area, along with a lot of channel improvements or stream improvements along the way. And really the only damage that you saw is that there at Utah Park, it overflowed and and went down the street and pulled up some of the pavement and sidewalk that the city crews had to replace. But that was really it. There was no structural damage to homes if that storm would have happened over this basin, the Montclair City Park Basin, that infrastructure didn't exist. And it is my opinion that you would have seen much worse damage that you then you saw in Boulder, because Boulder, even though they hadn't installed there, the drainage infrastructure, there was still a natural stream that ran through that area and did carry some of that water. Did that answer your question? That was exactly what I was going to. Okay. My second question and just added just pure transparency. And I chaired the urban drainage and flood control district while Paul has was the executive director for two years. And this is something that we looked at diligently every single month in detail. And, you know, nothing against engineers, none take longer to be kind of stale when you're presenting. I'm just kidding. No, no, I'm just kidding. I mean, that's that's where I was actually going to go with this. And I know that would be kind of speculation, but you are and by those 40 local governments and the state entity , you are the executive, you are the engineer. When it comes to hydrology, you are the main man when it comes to this. So that's what I wanted to bring you up here and hear that from you. So I really appreciate the answer to that question. Thank you, Mr. Time. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Delaney, I have a question for you. So one of our speakers said that the lion's share of the money will go to the Black to Park Hill project. Can you please tell us of the $23 increase a year? How much of that will go to that project? Approximately $5 per year out of the 23. Five out of 20. Okay. Thank you. Also, there's been some people who have said that the Coal Channel is a Superfund site and it's going to spread hazardous waste throughout our city. Can you please address that question? Yeah, I'm want. To. Oh, sorry. Again, once again. Shelly Vandersloot from Environmental Health. So I'm Celia Van Vander Loop. I had been with Environmental Health for many years and I'm now with North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. The there are two operable units of the Superfund site that it's named Vasquez Boulevard, I-70. The first operable unit one is residential soils, and it covered all of the residential properties in global area Cole, Clayton , Swansea and a little bit of five points. EPA sampled approximately 4500 homes and cleaned all of those that were dirty. They did not sample under pavement. And so where there are streets and where there are sidewalks, they did not sample under those streets and sidewalks. When the city does environmental cleanup or I'm sorry, when the city does a construction project or we acquire land, we always do sampling. If we are going to be removing pavement and digging, we will do environment. We would do environmental sampling to determine if contamination was there. We would address that appropriately when we did that. Operable Unit two is at the Coliseum property and the global landing outfall structure will go across operable unit two that has some smelter contaminated soils and a former landfill. We have a plan in place which is available on our website to clean up that property or to address that contamination, to prevent stormwater from moving down through the waste and also prevent contaminated groundwater from the waste from moving up into the stormwater channel. To answer your question. Yeah, thanks. I have a couple more questions for whoever wants to answer. Several people have said that the project would not provide any protection south of I-70. Can you please address that? Can you talk? I asked Leslie. Thomas to come up and answer them. Good evening, mindlessly Thomas. I'm city engineer with Public Works. I think you've been provided this map that talks about the number of how the protection will be, and I'll just share it with the folks here. So in the purple area, which really there are three purple areas that are south of I did you I'm sorry, did you say south or north? South. South. Thank you. Okay. So south would be area four, five and six. In area four, you have 3326 residential properties that would be benefited in Area five, 114 and in Area seven 2470. Okay. Then I have one more question. Can you please address others comments about the 2014 master plan and how we got to this plan? How we get to this plan? That would be Mr. Bruce. Thank you. Well, while Bruce is coming up, I would point to the council. We provided this at the request of Councilwoman CORNISH and. And in the yellow area of the map, the south of the channel, in a five year storm, the flow of water would be reduced by 49% in a ten year storm by 52%, and in a 100 year storm, 19%. So there is a reduction, especially in the the more normal storms, the hundred year storms, not so much. Good evening. Good morning. Maybe versus your Harnik with Public Works. I did also hear about the master plan issue multiple times, so I figured we would want to address it here too. To me, the Stormwater Master Plan was adopted in 2014 and to me it's a planning level. Document by city charter. We have to redo it every five years. So we did it in oh nine. The 14 ones, the current one we use, and then we'll do it again in 19 because so much is changing. From when I think it from oh 9 to 14. What changed in oh nine. We didn't really even have the surface modeling. We, we, we knew where kind of pipes would we use these basic guidelines. We even use guidelines of two year in residential, five year in the street, but that works for the really small basins. When it rains a lot, there's a lot of excess runoff. And in the small. Basins, that runoff stays a foot or less. And then it can get to the open drainage way. But in. A big basin like. Montclair, there's an accumulative effect where the excess just starts to build, to build, to build. And before you know it, you don't have a foot in the street, you have two feet, you have three feet. And so that's. Why when our stormwater master plan is updated, because we're continually getting new information and I hope I touched on why it's kind of why our level of service. Is what it is that our level of service is for 100 year. Storm drain, 100 year rainfall. We want to put as much as we can under the street. And so that the street is only flowing in a foot deeper, less. We feel that that foot deep is a safe amount of. Water to flow in the street. Anything greater than that tends to flood cars. Crawl spaces. Basements and that sort of thing. That that answer your question. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Black Councilman, New George. The I get a lot of questions from residents about the first I ask the question other than Park to park hill what are the other projects that are in this 383 and I look at and I say, hmm, I'm not sure. And it really talks about the lack of communication, understanding about what's going on. And there's 383 they look at the dollar figure and the other shocked, but then we start talking about flooding and they start to understand what infrastructure means. But can you explain more about what's in that $177 million relates to this sheet, this on our desk here, these projects. Sure. And I'll ask maybe Leslie or someone to get any provide detail for any of these projects. The three, there's $383 million in this plan for storm capital construction over the next five years, of which about 177 million will be paid in cash. Just a pay as you go sort of business. The other 206 million will be money that's borrowed to borrow to build the plant, the Park Hill project. And that money will be debt financed. The 177 million breaks into four categories. The first one is 53 million for what we are calling neighborhood needs, which are things like general storm, curbing gutter, that sort of project there for small projects spread throughout the city. The second category is what we call focus basins and those are bigger projects. And some of the projects, and I believe this was provided to you today at some point it's projects like the 27th Street Interceptor, $12.4 million, the liquid gold shared, and phase two construction 7.2 million. The Jackson Street System 9.6 million. The 16th Street System 14.3 million. The Oneida and Tennessee and Cherry Creek Phase one 4.4 million. So there's a list of these projects that are spread throughout the area, throughout, throughout the city, or at least in the areas where the basins are most critical. Then we have another category called focused waterways. That's where we have put to put the money for to match the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the work in the river related to Globeville. That's where we've put money to do other kinds for we're Gulch, for Sanderson Gulch, those those kinds of projects. And then the fourth category is water quality. And we've talked a bit about water quality. Our effort to try to reduce the E.coli coming out of five basins, coming out of the outfalls and five basins into the Platte River over the next five years. So we have this list of projects and if you have any specific questions on it, would be happy to answer them. We tried to show that on that map that we had with the little triangles and that and the problem we have with that is it's hard to put that into context of the size of some of these projects. I mean, some of these projects we're talking 12 and $14 million projects. These are not but it's shown by a little triangle. So it's kind of hard to get that message across. But we hope that this. This will help provide you and your constituents with a list of ideas of where those projects would be. About how many projects are on this list? 39, 39 projects. And something a lot of them are citywide, like curbing Gutter, General Storm and some of the water quality and other sanitary projects. You know, the plan to kill, it seemed like a huge project and distance wise as well as complexity. I mean, is it the largest project that you've ever undertaken? Yes. It is certainly one of the largest projects that we have undertaken. And as the water flows, I mean the flows south to north going toward I-70 and the relationship I-70 is as you bring 70 down, it blocks the water. So you got to channel it somewhere else. Is that correct? Is that the issue? Yes. The water typically flows from south to north, towards the river and towards San Creek. Okay. And the flooding, you know, other than councilwoman saucepans basement, the flooding that goes along prior to Park Yard. Can you give examples of flooding goes on. I was interested in the gentleman's comment about he never been flooded in cold after living there 60 years or so. Can we? Mike Anderson is here. He actually has a flash drive of all the pictures. I don't know that that's what you want to see tonight, but there is significant flooding along the especially the the Coke property. There are significant flooding that happens at 50th and Colorado. In fact, that is a place where we lost a first responder about ten years ago. It is difficult to get around in that area. Still, Vasquez is difficult to maneuver when it rains. In fact, many people when it rains, unfortunately, get off the elevated section of I-70 and drive down into the area at the end of the ramps, which can have multiple feet of water in them. So there are we have a lot of photos. If people would like to see that, we'd be happy to share those with you in. The 2014 master plan. Was this the highest rated project in that whole plan or was it the most severely drain storm flooded area in this basin? Yes, this Montclair Basin we have been keeping track of by the Red Stars that you will see in the master plan for I think it's the last five years of the plan. We showed them since 20. What? 14. Thank you. It's late since 2014. And so this season has had the most challenges that we've been made aware of. And so that was one of the criteria that we used in selecting projects. A lot of residents asked me to 383 million. What's going to control the costs there? Is that really going to be 400 million, 425 million, or is it going to be 383? That is a really good question and I have an answer for that, but I have to go back and get it. Just a second. Yeah. So we have while we can't really guarantee, okay, any price of any project, prices go up, prices go down. Scopes change. We do. Want to deliver this program. You know, within the dollars that we're talking about and we're committed to doing that. So we're committed to using the legacy systems that were developed with a better Denver bond program. Many of you may be aware of those. Those systems were based upon the best of industry program management practices, and they delivered a $500 million program within the time requested and returned $20 million back to us to be able to have additional investment in the city. So some of the key program management processes that we're expecting to deploy are some program controls, which is reporting scheduling costs, tracking that type of thing, and manage project managing project risk. And I think this is an important thing for all of us to think about. We do that by identifying risk early and mentioning that keeping a risk register, if you will, and also putting together a risk mitigation action plan to manage that risk. And lastly, we have a contingency that we've planned for in this program so that if that active management doesn't doesn't come to fruition, we do have a contingency to come back on to work on that to bring the projects into the budget. The last thing that we're really focusing on right now is careful procurement and contracting strategies so that we buy this out in the in the best way possible. Okay. Thank you. The last question, going back to Councilman Lopez's after what is seems to be such a communication and understanding of that all this project with the public. What would happen if you had a delay to September 1st on this project on approval of this phase. Of these rates? Yeah. If you gave a couple extra to extra much to talk about. Or our financial projections are based upon a rate increase effective July 1st, 2016. Keep in mind that in our proposal we do intend to go out to the bond market yet this year for to borrow $121 million towards the Plan to Park Hill project. So if it were delayed, we'd have to look at the financial impact of delaying it and lay on top of that, the ability to go out to the marketplace and borrow that $120 million would would the bond with our bonds be more expensive? Less expensive? I don't know. We would have to look at that analysis. But that's one thing to keep in mind. One of the reasons why we had pushed for the rate increase July 1st rather than waiting till January is because we want to have the financial stability in the fund and the commitment to the fund so that when we go to the bond market and borrow $120 million, the investor say, oh, you have the you'll have the money now and you'll have the money in the future because of the rate increase. So that's one of the big driving factors. Will have any effect on AIG at all. No. Here comes the attorney. It's kind of a pop quiz here, but we have. Oh, here we go. Jessica Brody, Assistant City Attorney, Denver City Attorney's Office. In answer to your question about the IAEA, the IAEA does have certain timeframes that we have committed to meeting. If the rate increase were to be delayed. It is possible we'd have to evaluate whether we could still meet those timeframes. But presumably, if we are unable to meet our commitments to see that we could potentially be in breach and those are issues we would have to resolve to see that. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman there, Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. Okay. I have a quick question. You know. Since we're on. The DeLay conversation, there are a couple of folks. Who talked about DeLay, and I think Justin Croft was one of them. Justin, can you come up to the mic, please? The Rhino. Councilman Newt talked about kind of two months. You specifically said 30 days for further outreach. What do you envision that looking like? I would envision that that would look like a pretty concerted effort to actually a lot of the issues that have been discussed based on council's questions just in the last half hour. So I think a lot of what's been discussed is there seems to be this misunderstanding or there seems to be this question has come up multiple times. Can we address that? And we've got people in the room who are kind of working on this at the highest level. So I think assembling some of that information and disseminating that in a pretty orderly way and in a really meaningful way, such that it demonstrates that the city is really behind this and that they're willing to stand behind it by. Being. Forthright, transparent, and giving as much information as possible. For people to be able to sort of. Make a community decision as to their level of support with this. Issue. You're a civic leader. You have been involved in these outreach outreaches. Never 100%. Right. So you do the 30 days. You do the 60 days, but you don't reach consensus. I think there's there's. If you can demonstrate that you've worked towards consensus diligently and in an in good faith, then you've sort of created the opportunity to build trust with the community. Whether or not that consensus actually comes to bear and my point is not necessarily delayed as far as possible to build consensus would never get anything done if every issue was. Handled that way. Great. Thank you, Justin. Sure. And David brought an issue was brought up on common law, some legal issues regarding city park that when we if this goes forward city park golf course would be out of commission for six months or whenever and we would be under a legal issue. The question is, is there validity to that? How would you respond? David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. Thank you for that question. We've been aware for some time now that this theory is out there. Once it began to be talked about more publicly, that one element of the overall project would be detention and and redesign of the City Park Golf course. Incorporating stormwater feature into the course are a large feature that's not there now. So our legal team has had time to think about this in terms of whether there would be an a validity to a claim that there's something illegal about that. And the bottom line is, we're not aware of any case law, any statutory law in Colorado that would say that stormwater facilities, flood control facilities can't be co-located with park land, but that they're somehow rather incompatible. We're just not aware of any case law that stands for that proposition, nor do we read anything in our own home rule charter that would prevent this from occurring. So the city attorney's office stands ready to defend that particular feature of the overall plan. If someone were to attempt to bring a legal claim, declaratory judgment action, for example, to to and join us from being able to do that. We were very confident we'd be able to prevail if somebody brought just such a claim. Let me conclude by saying that if it were true that there were some incompatibility between stormwater facilities and parkland, it'd be a very significant revelation, not just for Denver, but a lot of other cities that have co-located stormwater facilities and flood control facilities with parkland throughout Colorado. It's really a fairly common thing, not only in Denver but in other cities as well. So if that were to be a litigated issue, there'd be keen interest around the state from other cities in any litigation of that nature. But we're prepared to defend that, and we believe that we defend it successfully. Okay, thank you. Last question, George Delaney. One of the key, you know, points, I think, coming from some of my neighbors is a valid one and one that I share. And it's it's around Globeville. So to. To two quick questions for. You. One, and I think folks are aware of the projects that are part of 39 projects that are going to affect all of us. So can you can you outline them real quick? And then I'm going to go to the larger 50, $50 million question. There are four items in our plan right now related to Globeville. None of these are the large solution, but these are smaller solutions for certain problem areas. So we have $6 million in the plan to match the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers money to begin the design of the work for that portion of the river related to the levee, related to the banks, related to the habitat along the river, which would help with the levee. At Globeville, that's $6 million. We in a general storm category, remember, we have 5 million every year will spend on general storm, which means projects all over the city. We have three such projects in Globeville. We have the 49th in Grant Detention Plan, which is at the Platte Open Space Area, where we plan to build a 3 to 4 acre detention plan to hold some of the water that runs in from Utah Junction Basin. There's a sump at 43rd and Sherman, and there's a storm pipe extension at 40th and Fox. Now, these are not big projects. They're more localized projects, but they are projects to address areas that we know historically and over the last several years have flooded on a regular basis. So they would solve those problems, but they're not that big. 60 $70 Million. Globeville Social Solution, 60. It's going to take $60 million. And I want to I want to be very clear about this, because I don't I don't know any area, especially in my district, that is 100% solved. So it's going to take $60 million to complete. At least solve Globeville. Our master plan has projects in it for Globeville that total $62 million. Now those are in 20 $13. So with a little inflation and other costs, it's probably going to be a push. 80 million. But that's what the master plan describes as a planning document for the needs to solve problems in that area. Do you know what the cost is, too, to take care of? Make sure it's not an inundation area. Not an. Is that the river? The ocean. That is the 81. Yeah, that is the 80 million. Okay? Sure. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. Good news, Councilman Brooks. There are a couple of little spots over here that are 100% salt. So there are some areas there is no water flowing through. Correct. That's modeled in there bone dry at 100 years. Except for what obviously falls on it. I'm I apologize. You see me over here clicking through all these things. And that's because I was I received 1400 pages from CDOT earlier today, and I took that public testimony to time to sort of peruse it to see if anything there was something that I could use. I specifically was asking for several weeks for the more detailed information of what what the scope is that they're tasking their their concessionaires on this water quality side. Because, you know, like I said last time, there's some machinations about what I would do. And the fact of the matter is, there's no design. There's no design. There is some analysis in this stuff about parcels that would have to be acquired for the outfalls and things like that and and acquisition of streets and roadways for the low part of the ditch to drain that. And then there is what I'm going to show you, which is actually the most truthful maps I have seen. So speaking to if there is an extension in the two months, 30 days or 60 days, I need the city to get this right. I need you to be open and transparent in the way that they talked about. No more obfuscating with graphics. No more obfuscating with boundaries on on basins. No more distorting the timeline like we talked about last time, which is your design. Your idea predated your your design. Your design predated your prioritization, and none of them are reflected. There is no statement in the 2014 masterplan about these being the highest priority. Councilman, we we're still in question period. So if you want to frame that in the question. Then let me let me put these in the form of a question. I feel like I'm in jeopardy here. So let's go right to the pictures. So this is from C dot. I won't I'll I can get you the actual document because I downloaded them onto here. But this is the major basin map which is reflective of the actual basins, unlike this portrayal. This is the Montclair watershed in the park here, Hill Watershed. And I've done it larger so you can see it. The blue is the Montclair, the pink is the Park Hill. The red line is obviously I-70. And the concern here is that the 39th Avenue Channel is what connects the Park Hill watershed to the Globeville outfall. And so what we're doing is we're taking these flows, this pink flow that goes this way and diverting it into the blue area where it drains. And so what that does is that creates a problem for all this stuff that's coming down the blue area. And so to solve that now, you got to do this. You got to do City Park because you can't have both of those flows trying to go to Globeville. That's a problem. And so that's that's intrinsically sort of distorted about what's what's going on here. These purple areas are the soils map. I mean, these are the projected basins for I-70, for this corridor of opportunity. All of these basins are not so deep. Actually, the question is, are these the correct watersheds that see that is depicting or is it somehow these guys? Well, just real quickly, that is a basin boundary map. And the map that we showed you is a flood protection map. So they're two very different. So it's more like akin to these. But combining some of these areas. Correct or not. The map that you have in your right hand, the pink and blue map is a drainage basin boundary map. So let's get this much correct. That blue area drains into the Platte at that location. Is that correct? Naturally. I mean, that is the intent. And that the pink area drains into the Platte along that whole edge that touches the plan. Is that correct? That's okay. That's that needs to be understood. And that needs to be depicted time and time again, because that is part of the confusion for people, the layperson, to understand what is going on, especially when you get into that stormwater master plan, which starts to do this with all the different pages to make the formatting work. So are these the basins that the project basins for sit on? I, I can't tell you. I don't know that document that well. Okay. Then I should probably get the title. But what do you think? Councilman, do you want to continue with your other questions? Do you have any more questions? I have to put my I have to formulate it this way, because this is not easy for me to understand. And I think it's very difficult for the public to understand. But it boils down to this sort of what was presented by Leslie and I at I.N.S. this weekend and some of the comments that have gone thus far. So in order to get to that question, I have to go through this for everybody to understand and allowed to do that or not. I'd suggest you just ask your questions. Here's the here's the part. Here's the problem. It's hard to zoom in on your screen and it's hard for everybody to know. Well, I you know, if I had gotten these from sit out sometime other than right before this meeting, maybe we could have done that. Because why don't you go ahead and ask your questions? Be honest. This would have gone on this this would have been like I would have gotten this long since after this had been through city council. So anyway, what I want to point people to is this purple here, because that is the basin that we're talking about. So see, that's going to address all these other basins. Now, suddenly, we're in this partnership that is not related to I-70, but is directly related to I-70. So this goes back to this yellow line. That's the trench. And so this is a whole neighborhood right here with this orange is. The good news is, is like what the gentleman had said. There's a lot of streets that just get 3 to 6 inches of water, which is curbside level flooding in a 100 year event. But there is an area of coal that gets inundated. That yellow line is the channel. Everything knows that is bone dry. So that would be a part of your district in the future. That would be 100% salt. The key is, is that here's what it is today. So don't go and tell me that this is a coal solution when coal is still flooding. So that's part of that obfuscation that needs to be clear with the community that we are. We are fixing areas south of I-70, but it's between 39th and I-70, and it's to address this guy. Which is that basin. Here's 40th Avenue. Here's I-70. And that's what this is doing. And so when what had been asked. Of Leslie at. At I.N.S., and I just need you to confirm this. The question was posed. Somebody. One of the speakers said this is both related and unrelated to I-70. And you nodded in affirmation. So I just wanted to be very clear. I want to go on record as a member of council saying this, in fact, is related to I-70. And if we because and it's indicative of what the city attorney just said, which is if we do not approve this, we would be in breach with see. You know, see that has no control over 39th Avenue. None of this land is theirs. But it has everything to do with with that basin that I just showed you on those pictures, which I didn't. So, yeah, not much in comment, mean questions. But this needs to be. This needs to be seen. Those are my colleagues. That is the basin south of I-70, north of 40th Avenue that CDOT is addressing. This is in their scope of work that has been issued to those people that are building. This is something they have to solve for. We have not seen a solution, but the city has provided one and then done all this justification for this to satisfy this IGA requirement. So thank you. Councilman. Let me ask George Lane. Do you want to speak to that? I understand what you're doing. And now in pointing that out and asking. I just. Question it. But I want to make sure that you know the opportunity. Okay. And just briefly, Councilman, I understand the point you're making. When we show the purple in the yellow map, we are not portraying that this is solving the flooding, the areas south of the channel or north of the channel that is solving all the problems, but it is reducing the flow. So it's reducing, for instance, in the hundred year flood, it reduces the flow by about 20%. Now, 20% may not. Maybe instead of five feet of water, you get four feet of water. So but at least it's it's a reduction in the flow. Well, please keep in mind that this is the worst basin in the city, that our master plan, although this project, you're right, is not specifically spelled out in the master plan. This master plan for upper and lower Montclair Basin totals almost $600 million of identified investment needed. This is 200 million. This is the backbone of a system that the spill is still going to need three or $400 million. So you're right, this does not solve the problem. It does not make all the flooding go away. But it's a start in that direction. Spent investing money, 200 million in the basin that really we're saying needs as much as 600 million. So just as a clarifying, clarifying point, I mean, you're right, it doesn't do away with all the flooding. But actually, it's it's not sufficient to do that. So we know that. But that's Cedar Basin is on here. Oops. I'm touching too many parts of the screen, but this sea, that basin, which is south of I-70. Is is resolving. Yeah. According to. This graphic, all of that. Area north of I-70. And the only way it does that is if we're if we're bringing water through the Mont to the Montclair Globeville outfall. If we could, I. I didn't hear a question. So, George, I understand you want to rebut, but if there's not a question, council member has the ability to say that. Councilman Espinosa, any more questions? So let's ask the question now. Is this related to I-70 or not? So I guess what I would like to share with the council members is that the drainage in the area, as George has said, needs to be fixed, it needs to be fixed and it dealt with whether or not I-70 is at grade below grade somewhere else. It is a historic problem that the city has had in this area. So from that perspective, it is it isn't caused by I-70 in any way, shape or form. The solution, however, is an opportunity that even several of the folks who spoke tonight have recognized and that you all recognized when when the idea was passed, that we have an opportunity to work with the improvements that are happening. From that perspective, our TDS perspective, the development in the areas perspective, by doing this project now we can carve the outfall, the backbone system that we've all been talking about, and we have the opportunity to do that. Now, if we don't take the opportunity to do that now, some of those opportunities will will go away. There will be buildings built. There will be other infrastructure. There will be homes. There will be more things that are built that will cause it to be more expensive or not even feasible. So that's that's the way it is related to I-70 is because it is an opportunity. Did I-70 cause the problem? No, it didn't. So an area one that is an area that is largely going to be under the control of the city and county of Denver through the vote of the people in the 800 to $1000000000 in taxes that we're going to acquire through lodgers and renters. Car rental. Are there solutions that the NDC see or mean National Western Structure Complex could in fact do themselves to get that area mitigated without burdening the taxpayers, the entire city and county of Denver for an extra $206 million. There have been several alternatives looked at the the with all of the partnership in place, it seems like it was a good idea that everybody pooled their resources or cooperated together rather than and one of the speakers said it today, then everybody doing their own thing. So this is the proposal that we have for you today is a collaborative approach to solving this long term problem. So again, there are areas that are carved out here that don't have any. I mean, the the the flood modeling here clearly shows no inundation in those areas. I mean, do we actually have areas? It sure looks like there's an area below here that doesn't have any inundation as well. So it's, you know, a hundred year modeling. We actually still have areas that are not, in fact, not inundated north of this channel. Is that correct? Without this, it appears that. That's correct, yeah. And if you look at the heat maps, I think you'll see the same thing. Okay. Because that's what concerns me, is we're doing this one, $206 million gesture for a very, very specific area that actually already has a lot of public money pumped into it. And so my concern is not that I don't support infrastructure, but when we're taxed, when we're charging people citywide this burden, we should be having citywide solutions . Maybe one more graphic. I don't. Did you guys produce this or is this the people of the film? This was in that film, and it's a pretty nice depiction of sort of the scale of the different expenditures that are in that in that listing that you have here. I don't believe we produced that. Okay. It's a good graphic. It's a good way to communicate sort of the scale of what we're doing with this money. If we if we fulfill the full scope that we try. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. George, I have a couple of questions for you. So if this is not approved, how many acres of detention would see DOT have to build adjacent to I-70 to protect their highway? Okay. Good question. Does anybody have an answer? And there's no answer for that. I'm sorry. I don't know. I don't know. But that map that Councilman Espinosa had, the pink that would all have to be protected from flooding. So how many acres that is? I can't tell you. I don't know for sure. I'm not certain that see, that actually has detention in their plans. They do have some depressed areas that are quite deep that are up next to the highway in their plan to capture the water. But I'm not certain that it's it's not as as we've. Talked about before it fully designed. So I'm not sure there's a full detention plan like we're proposing in the city wide proposal. So do you have an estimate of what acreage those would be? I don't we we would have to look at that and then see that plan and study that to get that for you. So can you answer how close would those detention or those depressed based basins, how close would those be to residential homes to them if this isn't. Right next to them? Like. Like across the street or right next to. If a lot was ended and there wasn't a street there, it could be right adjacent to them. It's it's basically right behind the wall of the highway is where they will put that capture basin, if you will. Okay. Yeah. If I if we could get if I could get to the acreage, that would be helpful. So how how did public works staff determine out of all of the different proposed sites for detention? How did the two projects, the City Park and Cold Channel, how did those two projects rise to the top around the final recommendations? I'm going to ask General House if she would come up, please. Hi. Good morning. Jennifer Hill Ellsworth Public works so good question. We did through a nine month process, all terms analysis process. We looked at a variety of alternatives. We try to be really creative with our right of way with any city asset that we had to minimize property impact. The two that rose to the top were the ones that were feasible. These are low points within the basin. One resides in coal and the other within City Park Golf course. And you can see that in the heat map where there's red and where Councilman Espinosa was pointing to the orange color. Those are the low points within the basin. It's very difficult to move water uphill. So we tried, though, we looked and we pushed to see if there's any alternatives that we could look at different locations. So those two locations were identified because there are low points where water naturally wants to collect within the basin. Okay. And then I'm not sure if Leslie it was would be you for my final question. But in looking first thank you for the wastewater capital projects management list and its from 2016 to 2021. And in looking at this list, District 11 has $55,000. We have over eight miles of cement channels. In District 11. So I would like to have somebody explain to me or, you know, best case scenario, there's moneys that are allocated for District 11 in, you know, lines one through five on page one where it's inclusive of all or on page two from 29 to 36, where it says all but for a 70% Latino community of Montebello. With the only cement stormwater drainage canals in the city. It's very hard for me to ask my constituents to support. This. Service increase. And cover all of these costs throughout the rest of the city. And so I would just like to have a little bit of clarification. Sure. We have we have three sources of money that's not specifically outlined for your the channels in Montana. But we have three sources of money that we could use depending on once we get the issues resolved, like should we remove plants or should we keep plants and that sort of thing. We have bridge money, bridge maintenance money and the handrails, the guardrails that go over the the on the roads that go over those channels. We will be looking at and evaluating and we could use that money to repair those handrails and the guardrails over the bridges as far as the channel itself. Public works and wastewater has operating budgets where we do a lot of maintenance of detention ponds, we do maintenance of outfalls, we do maintenance of inlets, and that's for bays for detention. We can use the operating dollars to maintain, manage and maintain the channels. And then the third source of money is this general storm. You're right. It's a general store money, which we typically use for inlets and that sort of thing. But we could look at that if there was some specific need we needed investment we needed to make in those channels. So once we've determined the course of action that we need to take, we believe we've got sources of money built into this plan that will take care of those sorts of problems. And I think that's one of the things to keep in mind. Remember I said 53 million of the 100 and 177 million is set aside for neighborhood needs. And it's needs like that that we can we can use those dollars and focus those dollars. They're not spelled out specifically, but that's the source of money we would turn to when you ask us to look into it and make those repairs. So. So. So my last question or I guess more of a request is that there is a more robust and inclusive process going forward because this will be a service charge for all residents of Denver. And when I see a document that has 55,000 for the district that I represent, be it that it's layered in in different line items for transparency sake, it would be much more helpful for me to actually have that spelled out a little bit more. Sure. And I think one of the things, the four that came up with our last meeting and I think Councilman Clark brought it up, remember, we will bring back to you council every year our capital projects request in the waste water fund will say these are the 17 projects we want to spend money on in 2018 or whatever year that is. We will also bring to you our wastewater operating budget, which shows you how we're going to spend our operating dollars, how many staff we're going to have, and that sort of thing. So what I would encourage council to do is look at those things. We will enter into those discussions with you, with your neighborhood, whoever you want to, to see what's the best investment of those dollars as we go forward. But we do have a shot at it every year to make those decisions. So. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. A couple of numbers questions. $23 a year. So we're going to raise about 383 million bucks. Right. And about 206 goes to fund applied to Park Hill. So I'm having trouble with the it's $23 a year and only $5 per year goes to plant the Park Hill. If you can explain that to me. Yeah. Well, ask La Perry to come up from the Budget Office. You're not running a Ponzi scheme or something. Good evening. Members of Council LA Prairie Capital Improvement Program Manager in the Budget Management Office. The $5 of the $23 that we've estimated as the average rather annual basis for five years is based on the fact that we would be debt financing that particular project over a 30 year term. So that $5 constitutes the annual debt service payment that we would be paying as a city. So the $23 a year is a five year number. The $5 a year is a 30 year number. Let me clarify. The $23 a year is an annual number that the average resident. Five years for five years. Correct? Yes. And of that, the $5 attributed to the debt service for the project is an annual number as. Well. Just for five years. Correct. Okay. You probably did great. Didn't do me any good. The other thing I would point out and we're we've sort of lost some of this in in a lot of our discussion. But remember, so the $25 a year is for sanitary and storm. Remember, we're going to spend an extra from two and a half million to 8 million on sanitary. So what is that, five and a half million more per year for five years in center. That's 25 million we're going to spend. We're going to raise our metropolitan district rates. We anticipate we're going to go up 8% a year. 8% on 50 million is 4 billion. So 4 million times five years is 20 million. So and then the operating budget, which is about 80, $90 million, that's for all our people. And everything we're going to say is going up 4% a year. So when you take each one of those the 4% and operating the the of the money for the other items that I mentioned, the metro district and all that, and then the 177 million of the 383, that's how you get this pot of money that the 25 million generate. So the 177 is a piece of that. And then the $5 is a piece of that. $25. Yeah. Thanks. That was helpful. So the you said the on on reducing storm flow, the five year project would reduce the five year storm by 49%, the ten year storm by 52% in the 100 year storm by 19%. And is that across the entirety of the area, north and south? I believe. Is it just the south is still on the yellow line? Yeah. Okay. Just a second, sir. You could go over that math again. I really enjoyed that. Again, Jennifer Hillhouse of Public Works. So the the purple area depicted in the map represents a 100 year protection. The yellow is what you're referring to, that where we see the 50% reduction in those moderate events. So when it rains, you know, in the summertime, those moderate events are what we see every summer. Basically, the big events that, you know, Paul was talking about, that 1% chance of a hundred year coming. That's where you'll see the 19%. And it tells you that this is a backbone. More work to come for us to provide that level of service. This is is not intended. It's intended to take a big bite out of the apple. But we understand it's not going to solve bass and white issues, but it's a stepping stone to start to do more. Aiming for 100 years. Right. In this project. I'm sorry. We're aiming for 100 years. Yes. Yes. That's our industry standard to look at. 100 year protection in a basin this size and without a natural waterway. When we spend that additional 400 million or whatever the number was, that'll get us that hundred year protection so we won't have four feet in the street instead of five. So the understanding that to. The south that if you. Look to the south, yes. So that would be basin wide. And I mean, Bruce, you'd have to I wasn't part of the master plan so project. But is that a correct assumption. So the engineers are predicting, yes, if you invest that amount of money, you would start to build that level of service to 100 year protection. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. And I just chimed in at the end here, and I'll be brief, even at the risk of ruining my chances in the pool as to when we'll end the meeting. The George, the annual increase that we're talking. Just to clarify for people who might still be watching if they have insomnia, $23 per year is actually $23 per year per year for five years. So it's actually like over $100 by year five. That also applies to the $5. So it's five, ten, 15, 20, so it's 25 by the end of the fifth year for 30 years. Because it is if you compound it, it keeps its relevant pressure. Yeah, that's the word I was looking for. Compound portion. Yeah, it's compound. Okay. And just a quick response. When I chimed in, when Councilwoman Gilmore asked about where six ponds are, I'm sure either she's reading my mind or I'm reading hers. But at that very moment I was looking at the I-70 East, see that hydrology technical addendum, and I was looking right at the picture of where they have the ponds mostly there in in the industrial areas east of Colorado Boulevard, north and south of the highway. But when you get to the Steel Vasquez intersection, they're on the south side. So they're right across the street from the houses on the south side of 45th Avenue. And then the rest of them are around York and and Brighton Boulevard. But there are seven ponds in total for CDOT, so I just thought it'd be good to clarify that. Thank you. That's all. Right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right, colleagues, we've we've spoken for longer than the public hearing and we still got some names in the queue. So I would just once again ask. We could. Keep them. Recognize that? Councilman Espinosa, you're up. Yeah. Just with respect to the ponds. It's not like they're ponds. I mean, they're ponds in a hundred year event for a few hours, you know? So it sounds scary. And I just wanted to give clarification. So the graphics I gave were from the draft master drainage report, I-70 East Corridor Project, dated September 29th, 2015. So that's this is the document that those were originated from. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, any other questions? 306. So, you know, and public hearing is now closed. Time for comment, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I. I guess I'm kind of alone over here because I don't. I like the idea and the scope of the project. The two base and drainage project that was agreed to is that and I wish that this that this package included only that $134 million worth of scope that SEEDAT is sharing 40% with us. I like the fact that we are collaborating with CDOT and doing a drainage project while they are in there. That makes total sense to me. This I like the I-70 project, so I'm not I'm not on that side either. But I think that in the ten months since the prior council approved the IGA, the scope of this, this work that we're doing has gone from $134 million to $298 million. And while I know that there's a need to do these projects, I don't like being asked to pay for them upfront until I understand the scope of this particular project. When I look at the 2014 master plan, the Montclair and the Parkhill Basins together had about $340 million worth of scope in 20 $13, which I suppose was constant dollars. So it worries me that that we're talking now about adding to 134 million, we're adding up to 298 million. And we're not even reaching the scope of what we estimated in 2014. Master Plan. I think this should be done more incrementally, like we've done most drainage projects, like we're doing the one in my own neighborhood in District two in Glenbrook, where we've done everything incrementally. I don't I don't go into King Soopers tomorrow morning and give them $100 bill and say, I'm going to come back next week and figure out what groceries I want for it. I want to know when you ask me for the fee. I want to know what we're buying right away. I don't really like voting no on on this because of this one big project, but it is the largest project we've ever done in wastewater by far. It's the largest bond issue by far by a factor of five that we're doing just for wastewater. And we're only entering according to the presentation that we got at committee, we're only now entering preliminary engineering to refine the scope of each project and assign budgets at the project and program level. I feel we're putting the cart before the horse. I would gladly support the seat of IGA scope, but I can't ask taxpayers who have just been hit with a huge property tax increase. I don't want to go to them and say, well, this increase is only $23 a year per year, per year, per year, per year for five years, because that's still a major hit to to some people in my district. I can't ask them to pay that much based on what I know about the project that we're funding to date. I don't also don't like indexing future increases to the increase in the Consumer Price Index. This is a fee, so it's exempt from TABOR. We don't have to go to an election. It's a fee for service. I don't see the relationship between the increase in my groceries and the cost of my clothing versus the cost of civil infrastructure. I don't see the relationship between that being fee based. And so and finally, I did ask several times that the administration, George or Brendon, who is I think is on vacation from finance to consider factoring in or at least to address even if we can't institute it right now, a credit for people who install rain barrels that were just recently signed into law. We can now install up to two rain barrels, 110 gallons of storm runoff that I'm not dumping in your gutter anymore. Once I get them and I'd like to see the stormwater fee incorporate that in order to promote the use of rain barrels and sustainability. So, Mr. President, I have for those reasons, I, I wish I could support the rest of the rest of the scope without this large project, but that's all in one package. So I have to vote. No, thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Sussman. Mr. President. Actually, water is neither destroyed nor created, so you'd have to dump your rain barrel water into something sometime. Right? Then go away. Or just. Just was thinking about your last thought. I. I want to say that one of the best things that ever happened to me was being able to serve on the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Board for about four years. Never knew that I would know so much about drainage and I have some really I even know some really big words and can use them in big sentences. I really want to thank Councilman Lopez for the questions he asked Paul Heineman. They were spot on and certainly part of the history of this whole city that he and I learned from. I don't know if he was on all six years, but certainly was on for the four years I was on. Really good questions. We always and so to some extent, when this project came to me, I felt a little bit prepared. And I can I can hear the questions that everybody has and that the public has. It's it's very complicated. It's water engineering called hydrology and hydraulics, just to show off a little. And then I could tell you about drop structures. And so it's really it's very, very complicated. But I did feel good that I knew some things about this. And one of them was that the lower basin is our worst problem in in the city. And always we always knew that. We talked about it all the time. And so it's not surprising to me that we have a project that perhaps does have some leveraging dollars from Seedat, that we might be able to tackle this in a pretty serious way. We're going to be able to fix it completely, but we can. It looks like we can tackle it in a serious way. But what's more, near and dear to my heart. And I and I understood Councilman Gilmore's feeling about District 11 is the upper basin, the Upper Montclair Basin, which is right in my district, and which in the last few years has some really has flooding. I mean, people with three feet of water in their basement. And 2013, I was outside with the first responders helping people rescue them from the cars and having parked cars floating down the street at 14th. And Jasmine and I've seen this and we've had public works out several times to talk to us that thanks to Mike Anderson, who has been telling us very clearly and very truthfully that it's a 20, $25 million project and it's going to take 20 years. I mean, he doesn't he hasn't budged from it. And he he it's not good news. But we he says we're trying to work on it. They dredged Farrell Lake at City Park successfully, meaning that some of this runoff that comes down from the upper basin can be captured in City Park like now. You know, they always have to start at the beginning of where the water flows out and then move up. So instead of having to flow to put the pipes in for Mayfair at the plant, they could now do some of that pipe work from Park Hill. It's a much shorter distance. They have to do pipe work. We are lucky enough in Mayfair to find a place to do an open channel which whose benefits were described very well by Councilman Gilmore the last time. Wish we could have an open channel. We have a beautiful one in Westerly Creek through the common grounds, but we don't where you have to fix the pipes. So when when you hear about people that say that there's nothing in here for anything else, they're wrong. There's $30 million in here for my district in the upper basin. It'll get us at least to the border of where we are. The East 16th Avenue project is the one that's just going to go. It goes through South Park Hill and then eventually extend to that 14th in Jersey place. The Jackson system through Congress Park is going to extend to Hale Parkway and get up to seven and Jersey. And I think I can say this now, I've been kind of keep it a secret from the neighbors, but 40, 40, Bayard, which is hilltop, which has no pipes at all under it and no out of that, any of those outfalls. And we have always used just the streets for their drainage, and you just wouldn't believe what that looks like in heavy rains. This gentleman over here found a pipe and now has found the money that we can start putting and put put outfalls that were never built when Hilltop was built because of this money . Now it's only 30 million out of 283, but I can't tell you how grateful I am that it looks like we are going to be able to do something a little sooner than 20 years at least. We're going to get ready to get on this project faster than we were. And I know that my neighborhoods will be very, very grateful. And so I will be supporting this project tonight. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman and Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank everybody for being here tonight. I look in this this audience in the pews and. There's so many people who I respect and who I admire and that are friends of mine on both sides. And I could say for all these issues tonight in these chambers. So, you know, here's. Here's the importance of these public hearings. You really get to understand and hear people's input, but then you really get to get one final straw and one grasp at that straw that you couldn't in committee with a time limit and ask those questions. I am. Think about. The issues that were presented to us leading up tonight, like 700 emails. I got the same letter and I read it not 700 times. It's like buying a book, the same book, like ten times to read it. But regardless if it was something that was a form, letter is still meant something and I and read through every single one of those questions. I in 23 worked doing the community outreach for the Environmental Impact Statement for I-70. I led. You mean a couple who led the yellow shirt brigade and went door to door throughout every single neighborhood from Globeville, all the way out to Green Valley Ranch. Every single neighborhood in between. Every single block I remember. I still have a survey or two. I saw pictures from it. And in that there were two main things that were obvious when we were looking at the impact statement. And they said and these were right from the doors of the residence, he said. Two things. First. Take the highway out of my neighborhood. And I couldn't agree more. Is the worst thing that's ever happened to that part of Denver. It's to build a highway right through these neighborhoods. The second option, the second idea that came from the community we didn't present options is just getting input. Not just access, but, you know, having the light rail go through there and all this other stuff. And the grocery store came out and the Superfund site started coming out. This is when they were cleaning it. They said, if we can't move it out of here, can you bury it like Sixth Avenue? And at least give us an opportunity to see the other side and not be in the shadows of the bridge. Yeah, that's what they said. God. Honest truth. And I've stuck to my guns ever since. Now, when this came in front of us and I'll get to my brain in a second. When this came in front of us by way of proclamation, I made sure that people knew that I voted no. I. Did my best. And I cast my vote. It wasn't enough. That was a proclamation. It's in Syria's hands. There's not much we can do in Denver about that highway, about where it goes, what it's going to be. The fact that we have that lowered alternative is, one, it's better than having the double decker that they're proposing from the get go. Here's the issue. If I knew that this drainage issue was going to be the Achilles tendon and somehow magically revive the reroute, I'd be the first to vote for it. I support the reroute. I supported the reroute. When it was still an idea. Though I disagree with the direction we've gone in as a state and as a city. Absolutely. That's the highway. Let's talk about drainage. Let's talk about this fee. We have nationally a D-minus rating in this country when it comes to infrastructure. I love my champion Broncos, but we've so quickly approved tax hikes on stadiums and ballparks. But we get cheap when it comes to our streets and our infrastructure in this country. I spent two years as a chair of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. During September 12th of 2013, you really watched our policies make a difference. Take flight. And it is absolutely true. I knew what Paul was going to say. Because that is very important. And if you think that it's far fetched here in Denver, try in 2007 when a young toddler who lived in Sun Valley in one of our areas that we had very poor infrastructure, got swept away with his mother in a flash flood and was killed right here in Sun Valley. People's properties and lives are at stake when it comes to drainage and stormwater. When it comes to flooding, I don't think about it or vote it lightly. Does $23 make a difference? Absolutely. I could tell you. I could tell you how many times and I'm speaking from privilege here. A lot of us are speaking from personal privilege from say this, we've blown $23 from our budget pretty quickly. I. Well for that family. Couldn't. I bet you I would have traded $23 any day. You could do that every single day of my life to have my grandson back. And that area in Sun Valley. It's completely different because of those kind of efforts, because of fees like this, because of the the resources we pour into our infrastructure. That's the only reason why I'm voting for this. Yes. Can it be the fuzzy details? Can our understanding be kind of mediocre? I mean, I'm not an engineer. I didn't go to school for engineering. I hate math. Right. But I understand my neighborhoods. I was born and raised here. J.J. was a third baseman when I was a left fielder. Here's. Here's what I'll tell you tonight. I support this. For those reasons. You could shake your heads. But the very basic function of government is to protect your lives and your property and to do things together that individually we cannot do ourselves by ourselves. And preventing a loss of life and property in this city is by nature its core function. So in saying that. And I'm supportive of this. And I represent a district where we have a river, where we have Sixth Avenue, where we have interchanges all throughout our neighborhoods. It can be done in a way that is smart and moves water away. I would rather have the whole bunch of folks now that are in a floodplain than Lakewood Dry Gulch because of FEMA's new map. I bet you they would rather pay $23 a month than that play the flood insurance it cost. They stay in that floodplain. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Councilman Lopez, for that great speech. I'm not an engineer either, nor is anyone on this council. But I have met with our city engineers numerous times to have my questions answered. And I have confidence in our engineers, their professional, honest and honorable, and have the best interests of our entire city in mind. And when they tell me that the Montclair and Park Hill Basins are a priority, I trust them. I am always reluctant to raise taxes, but our engineers have convinced of the need. Urban drainage and Councilwoman Sussman confirm that also. I understand that many people have great concerns about the design of I-70, and I hope that you share your concerns with CDOT and our governor and your state representatives, because I-70 is a state project and is not under our purview. I have personally met with Shannon Bhatt, the director of CDOT, and I learned a lot from him. Hey, they are planning on protecting I-70 from flooding. Denver's plans are to protect our neighborhoods. And it's simply untrue to suggest that we will not be protecting the neighborhoods. It's a politically charged issue. There's a lot of misinformation and accusations of conspiracies that really aren't true. I hope that we will continue to educate the public about this and that people will take the time to learn the facts. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. The last 9 to 10 months has been no joke and really tough. I think you heard tonight from many members in my community on both sides of this issue who are charged up, very smart individuals who are making great points on both sides. My neighbor at Armijo has and I have argued with each other for the last ten months about this issue. You know, and and like I said, I think folks have just made some incredible points. But this is this is where I land in their five points and I'll make them quick because it's 2:00. And you guys are incredible for being here. One is 3700 households will have a different level of protection than they ever have before. In my district. 1300 of them are in Elyria, in Swansea and they were have 100 year protection in my neighborhood. 2400 of them are in the secondary protection. They're not a hundred year flood protection, but they are an increased 20 to 30% protection in my neighborhood. Number three. Number two, 2011. I can't believe this hasn't been brought up on our most controversial votes was the fee increase. This was the fees. It approved fees from 2011, 2013, 70% increase in sanitary and 22% increase in storm. It's a 92% increase. That's 20% more than what we're approving today. We did not have one public hearing. Courtesy, public hearing. Councilman Flynn, you're your predecessor voted against it because the fish thought the fee was too high. But it went towards basic infrastructure improvement. Today's fee that we're approving for 2016, 22, 2020 is 75% increase. Four. How do we keep three? Actually sa slate. How do we keep Denver competitive? How do we look among our 19 other cities and seven other counties right now? Today we ranked 12 with a fee increase. If nothing changed for the next four years and the other cities did not do an increase, which we know they will because they need to increase their infrastructure. We'll be ranked seven. We are still competitive as a city when you look at Senator sanitary and stormwater. Other than the plat to Park Hill. There's eight other projects that impact my district eight and I can go through them all. But Joe Noble pointed out some of them huge impacts. Well, I was. Why is your district getting this? Because it's been overlooked for a hundred years. Some of my neighborhoods, this is the oldest part of the city. We need to invest in it. That's why. Lastly and this is the this is the big one. And and I'll go on record to say I will not approve a contract. George and Leslie and Jose, unless we can figure out this global peace. I feel like it's not clear. I feel like it's 50 to $70 million. Let's figure out a plan and take care of global. I understand why it's on the other side of the South Plat. But we need to figure out a plan. And I want to sit down with you all and I want to put that on my back and make sure that we figure out a plan going forward for 2017. I was 18, 2019. This is this is I want to tell the folks who who fought this pretty really hard and even my colleague, councilman forgot your name. Espinosa I'm just telling you, you've made this project and this process and the people around it actually better. And I think we all I know I have have learned exponentially more than I ever knew about or ever wanted to know about all of these issues. But this is not the end of the story. There's 39 projects that need to get contracts to go through city council. We need to continue working through this, and I hope that we can keep working to find these solutions and provide protections in our neighborhood. You know, I thought some of the folks have been asking for delay and we actually did a 45 day. It was a 45, 50 day delay for the pilots of Park Hill because the outreach wasn't good. I'll just be honest with you, and I'll tell you what. Outreach never is 100% ever. I don't care what anybody says. I don't care what project it is. And we can always get better. But I don't think 30 days I don't think 60 days is going to do anything to improve a consensus around this issue. This is a tough issue and it's infrastructure. So I'll be supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, we have 1.5 billion in infrastructure needs and. We need to have a more robust conversation and an inclusive conversation and include interactive education in it. I don't care how smart or how, you know, you think you know how it works until you actually see where water flows. You don't know. And it's all speculation. And so to really take that to our communities, to bring that modeling to Montebello and Green Valley Ranch and give residents the opportunity to learn about this, because it's going to be a fight every single time if you don't invest in the education part at the forefront. And, you know, to my colleagues comments, every every contract over 500,000 has to come before us. We're going to ask the same questions every single time. How is there equity based on this project and how, you know? The other question is how for seniors and families who are on fixed incomes and this is a hard hit for them, what are those other options for them? What are we going to look at to, you know, not make those people feel silenced, but to really give them the opportunity to fully get educated and understand why this is a good investment. Maybe the investment in District 11 is going to be less than we would want it to be. But understanding through education that there are neighborhoods that don't have that infrastructure. And at the end of the day, if you're doing this right and from. An authentic place of inclusion. You know, infrastructure save lives, saves lives. It saves property. It makes our quality of life and our neighborhoods better. But. It's going to be a real uphill battle. If we're not providing that front end education and engagement of our communities, because it's everybody's right to understand why certain infrastructure is in their community or isn't in their community to protect and save lives and property at the end of the day. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to say it again. This project is being built in this scope at this time to drain ice to protect I-70. The. Problem I have with this fact is that she can't afford to give us the 67 million. They should keep some of it and put adequate ventilation in the tunnel they're going to build. Lake City staff tells me they need to do and they're not doing they need to keep some more of that 67 million and do adequate mitigation on nearby homeowners. That city staff continues to tell me they need to do I can't support funding. She does project when they're putting the burden on everybody but themselves to mitigate the construction and the post-construction traffic impacts on nearby homeowners. If my colleagues choose to not address that in this context, I understand and will respect their opinions. But I hope they will look seriously at what needs to be done on that project. That is extremely important. Another thing that I'm concerned about is somebody at some point in the city and this is just what I believe decided to try to brand this, that it wasn't connected with I-70. And and I think that was a mistake. And I believe that they recognize that. And in recent weeks, maybe the past month or two have started. Well, yeah, it is with this. Look, I've spent as much time as anybody on council trying to understand this. I've gone on bus tours and called and sat on busses, talking to staff and met with, you know, with CEDA, with the city, with urban drainage. While not as skilled as a journalist, as my colleague, Councilman Flynn, I was a journalist for a long time and I ask questions. So I finally was told if well, it is kind of connected in that, you know, they can build their own project. But since we're going to build this, they're going to they're going to instead of building their own outfall, they're going to knock into our project and we'll got the same outfall. Okay. That made sense to me. But it wasn't until a few weeks ago that I heard. Oh, yeah. And if we don't build our project, then they need to do these detention basins on the south side of the highway. So, you know, it's. It's confusing. There's just too much confusion for me to be able to approve this. Now, having said that. I'm looking forward. As I said last time to an opportunity to support I'll support a drainage fee increase. I'm not afraid of that. We need to build this stuff. It's important. I'm not going to argue the engineering of this project. You know, I'm a golfer. I play a city park golf course. Little bit worried about taking some trees. Trees will grow. Other people have addressed that. I believe we'll end up being a better golf course. But I can't I can't approve this project, this bill at this time. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. Just a little jab on the math. Still doing some education here. When you take 92% of a low number and that's nearly doubling it, taking 75% of that is a significantly higher hit than 93% of that original. That's actually the equivalent. If you take it back and I don't want to confuse people too much as 144% on that initial. So it's not fair to sort of say, hey, we're only doing 72% of today's number because this is so much higher than 2011. And so that's that I just wanted to throw that out there. That is, again, that sort of obfuscates the real the totality of this cost. I mean, the burden that people are going to, in fact, have to to to pay. And, you know, to Stacy's point, I did the math is less than 2/10 of a percent of the total projects are going into District 11. But yet her constituents are going to be paying the same amount as my constituents on their improvement in pervious area. So 72% of this money, District nine, on all these things that we're talking about but not talking about yet. We're not in that 72%. We're not addressing global, you know, which there are so many different ways you can have a 100 year event come down that Platte River and inundate Globeville to the 15 foot mark. You know, this is. That's easy. Fix the breach in the levee. Make that priority one. Start there. You got in. Then you said the $132 million left over to do the original project that you were agreed to a seat on the idea a year ago. I just. This is not. This is. I'm sorry. This is what people elected me for, is to not just take business as your status quo, but to actually question and challenge and understand why it is that we do what we do when there's us. There's plenty of other options. And we don't we don't get to see the full gamut of what is being considered. But we get told in these briefings, it's this way until you question it. And then you get a different answer and a different answer. This is not a hide and seek game. We're here to represent the one ninth of the city that we mean, 1/11 of the city that we represent. And I fortunately have a very, very difficult district, some of the most politically active constituents in the city. We had the highest voter turnout in District one. In that last election in an uncontested we got 30%. That's pretty that's pretty astounding. That's because people are engaged. And so if I'm not engaged, I'm not doing my job. And so I've gone off the rails. But that said, here's my problem. You know, it was stated that your management, you know, the key thing is managing risk, but you haven't even caught or sampled the area 39th Avenue. You don't know the degree of contamination you have. I don't want this to start out the way Confluence Park is today. I don't have Shoemaker Plaza there in District one. Actually, that's on the other side of the river. Never mind. I don't get to look at Shoemaker Plaza. All right. Actually, half and half. My side is an open pit. Why? Because we ran into contamination more than expected. Figure it out. Drill it a few times. Now that's cheap. You know, do an environmental assessment, all these things, and not surprised that we're circumventing the need for an EPA process on this. An environmental impact study on a $206 million $288 million total. Gouged through the neighborhood. We're putting in an amenity 13 blocks north of our best, most premier park in the city, an amenity 13 blocks north that the people in Leary and Swansea can't even get to because they're going to have a 20 some odd lane wide lane highway dividing them. Maybe they can take that lid that hasn't defined over there and enjoy it that way. So, yeah, there's some harebrained idea about rerouting. Yeah, you could. There's some right away there. And guess what? There's a proposal for a boulevard. What's in the middle of that boulevard? Big, huge green space. Their idea. There are people in this room. Before that, it talked about sort of more green solutions for stormwater, for water quality. You could turn that green space in that in that boulevard into your water quality and get it to the same spot on the Platte River. Actually, you could get it to a better spot where you weren't. You're not crossing into a different watershed. And there's creative solutions that actually would do everything that we talk about and then some for this city, but no gun deal. We don't have to think about this. We just have to deal with the thing at hand. So just now is our chance as council, we could actually say, you know what, there actually is a better future for Globeville. Elyria swans here. Not just, you know, the the overconcentration of marijuana grows, not just in the shadow of purina pollution. I mean, why are we dumping 72 million mean $270 million now? How long is Goodwill hilarious once you've been there? You know, so now we've got, you know, nearly $2 billion in investment from the city and another billion and a half from that. And now this is the great the most important priority in this city. It's not for the people that are there. That's for damn sure. So we do. We could. We could. I mean, I got elected to to sort of create real change. And I think if we want to get a world class city we started need to start having world class leadership and making world class decisions, hard decisions about what is the future, the next 50 years of Denver. It is a national Western stock show complex. It is a stellar festival park down there, and it is a thriving Globeville area, Swansea and the closest neighborhood to Denver, downtown core. And those are the amenities that have been overlooked for years. It is better improved health outcomes. It is improved access to food is improved transit options for that area than not and not a white highway. So I won't be supporting this for all the things, all the good reasons that we should not support this. Thank you. Thank you. Captain Espinosa, Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. We have massive a massive infrastructure need much bigger than this fee increase alone can solve. It's not acceptable to me to have sanitary sewer lines that are so old that they're leaking raw sewage into our storm system, which then goes untreated into the South Platte River. And it's no longer acceptable to me to simply build pipes that will spew water into the south lot without any water treatment. We have to do better than we've done in the past. It was just two of two years ago before I was on this council that I was fighting from the nonprofit sector. Exactly that project, a project that was a pipe into the Cherry Creek with absolutely nothing other than here's a giant pipe delivering water and all of the trash and all of the pollutants directly into the river. And as Councilman Lopez reminded us, it's no longer acceptable that we have areas that were flooding puts life at risk. I'll never forget the morning after that child was swept away on Lakewood Gulch because I had a group of third graders on a field trip, a conference park. Well, there were men in dove gear looking for the body of a toddler because we had a flooding issue that hadn't been mitigated. And that's, to me, where we spend this money. Without this fee increase, we'll lose the $25 million in matching funds that we need to unlock over a million in federal funds to fix Harvard Gulch, including taking my constituents in Overland Park out of the floodplain and out of the flood insurance requirement to fix River Gulch and to fix the breach from Sixth Avenue north to the city limit, including Globeville, Swansea and Elyria. Without this fee increase, if I-70 is built as he has planned, I don't believe that they'll mitigate that floodwater. They'll they'll do it in a way that is much worse for the South Platte River, with much less of any done to clean the water before reaching the South Platte. And we can do better by partnering on that project. I think that Joel Noble hit the nail on the head when he said that there is a disconnect tonight, seeing these two issues that we have talked at length about and what, two years of public involvement on a policy issue looks like and outreach efforts here. And it's not that it was for lack of number of outreach efforts, but I think that from top to bottom, there's a lot to be learned about the quality of of that process and how inclusive it is. And I echo a lot of what my colleague, Councilman Espinosa, just said. I also think that it isn't just engagement with the public, but also with council. I believe that city council as the ones who vote legislatively on this fee increase, we should have been included earlier in this process. We should have been involved in crafting this fee increase and the projects that were involved, not just brought to the table once it was crafted. And so I will challenge the administration to say I don't think that this is good enough in terms of outreach to city council. There are a lot of advocates for drainage issues, for storm and industry projects. There are a lot of really smart people up here, and I believe that we could have made this process better, not just in the outreach to the public and our constituents, but also in the end result, had we been included. And I think that's evidenced in how how many questions, how much we tried to get through in committees that were too short and into very long conversations up here on Monday nights. I think that we can do better as government partnering together as the different branches. We also have incredibly smart people, some of whom are in the room tonight, just in Croft, Kyle's Upland. What they're doing a rhino. My constituent, Adrian Brown, who finally called it quits but spoke earlier. We can do so much for water treatment and managing flooding through green infrastructure and pervious services, rain barrels. We have to be on the cutting edge on these fronts because we have a lot of making up to do for how we've handled these things in the past. I'm voting yes tonight because of all of where I started, and I'm doing my best as Adrian, my constituents said, to vote yes for the right reasons. And I'll continue to push on every single project that comes through council that's funded out of this increase to maximize both the flood mitigation but also make. Much of the water quality benefits and look for creative ways to think differently about green infrastructure and impervious surfaces. This fee increase will not get us where we need to be, but I think it will take a big chunk and I'm looking forward to pushing hard on how we spend this money to the best benefit for all of our city, our citizens, and our river. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clarke. Councilman. New. Thank you, Mr. President. I really believe in infrastructure improvement. Every great city has to have infrastructure improvements and the it has to make sure we have the funds to do that. But I also believe so strongly in what Councilwoman Gilmore has said. You know that the education and communication with our public is so important and it's missing. That's what all my residents tell me. I survey them. Several hundreds say to me, I want to know more information. I don't understand what this is about. I don't understand 383 million. Councilman Clark is absolutely right. Communication with city council wasn't great. We seemed like we were just fighting, you know, just struggling to get more and more information week after week, trying to pose questions. So we understood it fully. So. So I really would like to propose a 60 day delay to September one from July one, and with us taking action on August the 29th at the city council meeting. I don't know if I can make that a formal proposal or not, but but I'd like to propose that. Okay. So are you making a motion councilman there? I am. Okay, so we are mostly on the floor to delay found consideration for consideration for 60 days. Right. Okay. Madam Secretary, you want a date? Certain. He said September 1st. Do you say September 1st? August 29. What's what's your day, councilman? New fee increase beginning September one with the city council date of August 29th. Decision policy. Okay. So delaying final decision until. Yeah. I want to make sure we we get this correct so I'm quickly pull up my calendar so we're going to have future Monday councilman new and that future Monday that future Monday is what date. Good. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Monday, August the 29th. Postponed. Okay. Monday hours. Monday, August 20th. Councilman New has a motion on the floor ballot consideration postponed until Monday, August 29th. Madam Secretary, do you want to. You want to get that motion? I guess. They've been moved. Needs a second. Colleagues if we're going to if it has been second. All right. Any comments on the motion? Sure. Councilman Espinosa. I just want to thank you for putting offering that motion. I think it's actually a good, sensible thing considering the 1400 pages of information I got today. Thanks. That's all. Okay. Thank you. All right. All right, so we have a motion to postpone. So you know the comments. Madam Secretary, welcome. New assessment. No Black. No Brooks. High Clerk. No. Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gilmore, no. Cashman. No. Lopez. No. Mr. President? No. Councilman. Campaign manager. You know, I'm sorry. Mastectomy please those voting the results. For ice. Seven for I seven day. The motion to postpone has been defeated. All right, there or so we now have three or six up for vote. Any other comments on Council Bill 306c? None. Madam Secretary, roll call. Flynn No. Gilmore I. Cashman No. Lopez I. Knew. SUSSMAN All right. Black Brooks. CLARK All. Right. This Wednesday? No, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary. Please, for the voting. Very nasty result. Eight eyes. Three days. A nice three days. Three or six has been placed on final consideration. Does pass one predetermined announcement. Monday, July 11th Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill to 95 to change the zoning classification for city owned properties in the Villa Park neighborhood at various addresses. 1100 North Mead Street Unit Vacant. 11 nine North Main Street. Ten one 1001 North Main Street Unit Vacant. 10,000 North Newton Street. Unit Vacant. 1048 North Newton Street in a vacant. 1049 North Stewart Street. 1101 North Perry Street Unit Vacant. Have a quiet public hearing on counter Bill 392 Changing Classification. 446 North Sheridan Boulevard and a required public hearing on Council Bill 397 Changing the zoning classification for 2151 Eliot Street. Any protest against 295, three, 92 or 397 must be filed with the council offices no later than Tuesday, July 5th. See no other business. This meeting is adjourned.

AN ORDINANCE relating to residential rental properties; amending Sections 7.24.020, 7.24.030, 7.24.040, 7.24.050, 7.24.060, 7.24.070, and 7.24.080 of the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC); adding new Sections 7.24.035, 7.24.036, 7.24.038, 7.24.110, 7.24.120, 7.24.130, 7.24.140, 7.24.150, 7.24.160, 7.24.170, 7.24.180, 7.24.190, 7.24.200, and 7.24.210 to the SMC; and repealing Section 7.24.090 of the SMC; all to limit the amount of security deposits and non-refundable move-in fees, to allow residential tenants to pay security deposits, non-refundable move-in fees, and last month’s rent in installments, and to establish enforcement provisions for Chapter 7.24.

SeattleCityCouncil_12122016_CB 118817

The Report of the Energy Environment Committee Agenda Item one Constable 118 817 relating to residential rental properties amending section 7.20 4.0 20.0 3.0 40.0 50.0 60.0. 79.0 84. Code Avenue. Section 7.20 4.0. 35.30 6.0. 38.1 10.1. 20.1. 30.1. 40.1. 50.1. 60.1. 70.1 80.1. 90.202. Ten To the Seattle Ms. Code and repealing Section 7.20 4.09 of the CMC, all to limit the amount of security deposits and nonrefundable moving fees to allow residential tenants to be security deposits, nonrefundable moving fees and last month's rent installments and due submission for Senate provisions for Chapter 7.24, the committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The way I'd like to proceed is I'd like to turn to Councilmember Safwat first to describe the base legislation. And then Councilmember Brian would like to say something. Before or after disclosure. Oh, we'll do that after. After I finish this. And then customers want right after. Your base legislation. We have two amendments for consideration. I'll turn to Council Member Johnson and then Councilmember Herbold. And in that order. Okay. And before council members want you to introduce the legislation, reintroduce it. Actually, council member Bryan has a disclosure that he'd like to make. Yeah, I just want to disclose that I am also a landlord and I'll be voting on this. And that is consistent with our ethics rules. And thank you for that disclosure. Councilman Brian, Councilmember Stewart, the floor is yours. Thank you, Brian. How I'm excited to introduce again this ordinance that would limit the exorbitant move and fees. The tenants are expected to pay in this city off skyrocketing rents. The laws of the state overwhelmingly are stacked against renters, particularly the state ban on rent controlled. However, as tenants get more organized locally, we are starting the process of winning individual tenant rights that will add up to a significant tenant bill of rights in this city. This Council bill limits nonrefundable fees to only those explicitly mentioned under state law limits, security deposits and nonrefundable fees to no more than one month's rent, which most landlords do anyway, and most importantly, allows tenants to pay the security deposit and last month's rent on a payment plan. That final aspect of the bill will allow many tenants to overcome a substantial hurdle that they face in finding housing. You've heard today and in previous testimonies, domestic violence survivors telling you about why this will directly be helpful to them. And you've heard a lot of testimony from renters in general. And for those who like decisions to be based on data, as I do. Washington Community Action Network's survey of tenants found the move in fees to be the biggest obstacle to finding housing in the city. Nationwide, part reason studies over 50%, which is half of America, says they have less than $10,000 in their checking and savings accounts. So imagine having to come up with 4000, 5000 or $6,000 for moving in to an apartment. In reality, while extremely important for tenants, this is an extremely mild legislation. Landlords will still get the security deposit and last month's rent just a little later than they have gotten it in the past. And keep in mind, by state law, they should be putting that in an escrow account and not touching it until the tenant moves out anyway. However, however, while this legislation is entirely reasonable, that has not stopped the lobbyist from the ultra conservative Washington Multifamily Housing and Rental Housing Association who have opposed. Years values now. Who have opposed almost every tenant right past, both by the city and by the state. And have put real. Please, a loudspeaker to speak. And have put real resources into trying to derail this bill, as they have with every other tenant. Right. Both at the city and state level. I know that many today of those have said that they are not corporate property owners, they are friendly neighborhood landlords. If that is so, then you should be supporting tenants rights. In reality. In reality, while representing a tiny minority of our city societies, these landlord organizations have money and power. They contribute the maximum contributions to the election campaigns of many of the city council members and the mayor. And they have used that money and power to convince the majority of this council to send this ordinance back to committee when it came to full council a couple of months ago. Council members have promised renters at that meeting that full council, when they send it back to committee, that they would not water it down. And the I urged members of the public to hold the council accountable to that promise. Council members will have to weigh the interests of tenants whose risk is homelessness in the midst of skyrocketing rents and a homeless epidemic against the interests of some landlords whose risk is their investment at a time when there is no indication that that investment is in any danger. I know which side I'm on. I do want to thank specifically those property owners who came today and in other meetings to support the legislation. And I've challenged other landlords to do the same. I also want to thank all the tenants that they have come to know. What is their fifth city council meeting to testify in favor of the legislation and to share your important stories? Your courage is what has made this possible and what will allow us to push ahead to pass more tenants rights in the future. I also want to thank the organizations, both activist and labor organizations, that have signed on to a letter to council asking us to pass this council bill without watering it down, without exemptions. So thank you to the Martin Luther King County Labor Council, Washington Community Action Network, American Federation of Teachers, Seattle Education Association, SEIU Local 6925 and 1199 Northwest one America. Washington Federation of State Employees, Natural Pro-Choice, Gender Justice League. Apollo Nickels will share beside UAW Local 4121 LGBTQ Ally Ship X Transit Riders Union U.S. Puget Sound Sage Views Washington Student Association Socialist Students Socialist Alternative Asian Pacific Islander Coalition Capitol Community Council Housing Justice Project Dennis Union of Washington State. The Church Council of Greater Seattle Unite Here and 43rd District Progressives. It's not just those 300 red shirts that they're talking about. Working hard for their. Rights. Thank you to everyone at the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections who do tremendous hard work and complicated work every day to support tenants and property owners and the city's law department who helped us craft this legislation. And particularly thanks to Ali Banerjee in central staff who tirelessly worked on this legislation even during the busy budget season. But most importantly, thanks to the activists in the Washington Community Action Network, Washington again for making this possible. And especially to Sochi, Michael Vick, who has been a dedicated activist, putting efforts over the last few months, which cannot be overstated. I urge the Council to support this bill without further amendment and are. So once we have some possible amendments that we'll consider. And Councilmember Johnson, would you like to address to any of my colleagues to make some general comments to the base legislation? We could proceed in anyway way. Councilman Johnson, we'd like to start off. I would like to propose. You know, we don't have an official amendment number on this, but I'm just going to call it Amendment Johnson, I guess. One work. Thanks. I'm a one woman. Okay. So speaking of Amendment one, this is an amendment that we discussed when the bill was in committee several months ago. As the chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee, my responsibility is to oversee two different departments. One of those is the Department of Construction and Inspections. Their responsibility is to enforce many of our tenant landlord regulations here in the city, and anybody who spends any time on their website knows how complicated these issues are. It's very difficult for both tenants and landlords to have a good understanding of the individual rights on either side. The earlier legislation that we adopted in August that relates to first in time legislation had carved out an exemption so that that legislation didn't apply to tenants renting housing in a single family residence if the residence is the principal residence of the owner of the residence. So anybody who is renting to sort of what I would call roomy, somebody who enters in the same front door and lives down the hall or anybody who rents an attached accessory dwelling unit was exempted from that legislation. In order to be consistent, as I'm proposing this amendment, Amendment one that would offer similar exemptions, the I'm sorry, not similar the same exemptions to the moving piece legislation both on the security deposits and on the installation payment for last month's rent. So I want to do what I can to make sure that the Department of Construction and Inspections responsibility, when they enforce this legislation so that we can be clearer about who is under which element of which bill and which regulation. The more clarity we have for the department, the more clear it is for tenants and for landlords. So I'd offer Amendment one for consideration by my colleagues. I'll second that. Okay. It's been moved. And second, that Councilmember Johnson's that Councilman Swanson legislation to be amended by Councilmember Johnson that basically exempts the security deposit in the last month's rent from a person who resides within the unit, their principal residences within the unit. Councilmember Herbold, I know I am aware that you have an amendment to the amendment. I do want to I'm going to have to suspend the rules because technically yours was a little late. Not a. Lot. But but I so I want to make sure that we have a clean record. And so I'm going to move to suspend the rules. We have a 12:00 deadline and you just missed by that much for it to be considered. So I'm going to move to suspend the rules to allow Councilmember Herbold amendment to be considered your second. All those in favor say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. So now your untimely amendment is timely, and perhaps you could describe what you're amending to Councilmember Johnson's amendment. Thank you. I'd like to move the the Johnson Amendment one with amendment to my amendment that would delete the proposed new Seattle Municipal Code Subsections 7.24.035. H and D and by substituting FMC 7.24.0 35a as provided on the proposed amendment. What my amendment to Councilmember Johnson's amendment would do is it would recognize that it would recognize the exemption to landlords who live in the principal residence or live on the property and rent out. And a detached accessory dwelling unit would recognize that they are exempt from the part of the law that relates to the size of the cap, but that they are not exempt from the installment plan. And I'm offering this amendment because I believe that if owner occupied landlords are given the ability to charge higher move in fees, their tenants must still be given access to an installment plan. The flexibility that we are granting to these small landlords does not in any way mitigate the need of tenants to be able to afford to move in in the in the first place. Earlier this year, the Federal Reserve announced that 46% of adults and this isn't just low income folks, this is 46% of all adult adults say that they could not cover an emergency expense costing $400 without first having to sell something or borrow money. And so this this legislation is we're trying to we're trying to strike a balance between addressing the needs of landlords and small landlords. But our primary objective. Is to make sure that folks who are struggling in this city have the ability to move in to a rental that they are otherwise eligible to move into. We have 3000 people living unsheltered in the city. We've we've made some changes in the bill to address the needs of small landlords in specific. Specifically, we've we've amended the legislation to allow landlords and tenants to to negotiate a different payment plan than the one otherwise required by the legislation. And we've also amended the legislation that allows landlords to use their holding fees as a deduction from the total amount that would otherwise be subject to an installment plan. So those are some of the things that we've tried to do to address the concerns of of of small landlords. But I would say that in doing so, we can't make this the the the part of this legislation that makes it more possible for renters to access our limited supply of housing. We can't disadvantage them in doing so. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Let me make something clear, because I didn't make it clear there are actually separate amendments. We have Councilmember Johnson's amendment, which basically exempts a segment. We have Councilmember Herbals, which modifies it, but it's a separate one. So what I wanted to get the concepts out there first. I know I'm going to relinquish remarks. To you. On what you were saying. I think Councilmember Horrible's Amendment is an amendment to Councilmember. Direct and procedurally I believe that we have to vote on the amendment to the amendment first. Yes. We can treat it as such, but it's sort of complicated because it's sort of complicated. I just like because it's not it doesn't neatly fit into it. It it pulls us just a section which is half of it is, if you will. But what I. Procedurally, what Herbold is saying is what makes sense. We should. And in the. Interim. In the motion I made was a motion to amend the amendment. Okay. So. Okay. So I'll treat it as an amendment to Councilmember Johnson's amendment. So. So we're going to specifically vote on that first. Okay. So we're going I'm going to move Councilmember Herbert's. I'm not going to move. If you're going to move or you're going to move. Councilmember, you're going to move. I have his amendment. I have moved it. And is there's a second. Okay. It's been moved in. Second, Councilmember Herbold amendment to Councilman Johnson's amendment has been moved in second. All those in favor say, I know you want it. You want to talk. Well, it's a little complicated because the the procedure we are following is we will first vote on Councilmember Herbold amendment to Councilmember Johnson amendment, and then we will vote on whatever is the result of that vote. And I want to reserve my right to vote yes on Councilmember Herbert's amendment, but vote no on the minority, because I don't want any little, but I support making the loophole less. So I understand that. So so to comment on all of that at once. So. So we're we'll take the matter of this on the hand. We have to we have to vote on Customer Johnson's amendment as well. So we have time to talk about what. But what we vote on will depend on the result of tomorrow's amendment vote. Correct. Correct. Because. So. Okay, so let's keep things very simple. Yeah. So that's why I just want. Let's keep things very simple. Who would like to talk? Who would like to speak on Councilmember Herbold amendment to Councilmember Johnson's amendment? I have a. Question. You have a question. Thank you. So, Councilmember Herbold, thank you for bringing this forward. Could you explain something to me? How would this work? And let us assume that we have an individual and we had someone speaking earlier who it's her home. She's inviting someone into her home to share the rent. How would your amendment impact an individual who is wanting to be a prospective renter and what rights are reserved for the landlord in that situation? The way my amendment to Councilmember Johnson's amendment would work is that the landlord in that instance could charge whatever size moving fee they wanted to. They would be exempt from the part of the law that addresses the size of the moving fee that limits it. But they would still be subject to the part of the law that requires that larger moving fee to be paid by installments. So Councilmember Johnson, if I can just follow up with that. How does that impact what your intentions were with your amendment? Yeah, I think, again, my objective here is to try to make a clean consideration for the Department of Construction and inspections about which laws apply and which incidents. And so I will be voting no on Councilmember Herb Ward's amendment, because I believe that it's a lot easier for us as a department to go to as a segment of the rental population, landlord population. So these are the laws that you are exempt from. So that's my my my intention here is to have really an ease of understanding. Some have called it sort of an overall focus on bureaucracy. And I take that as a compliment, because I think that our bureaucracy works best when it's simple. Okay. So it clears mud right now. Just 1/2 here. Housekeeping item. I just noticed we've had several vacant seats here, so I want to send a message to our security that I'm comfortable. Very comfortable. I think we're within the fire code limits to let in 20 people who might be downstairs. We can get 20 people up. I believe we have those. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilmember Swann, did you want to say something in response to the questions and answers on this? Yes. And just given the procedure, I think it's better I incorporate all my comments at once. As I said, I will be supporting got herbals are done to amend the amendment that is that has been brought forward by Guttenberg Johnson. But I don't support any loopholes period. So I won't I will be voting against whatever the resulting amendment is. And just to describe my reasoning, this, the amendment that has been brought forward by Councilmember Johnson Waters down the legislation, because if that amendment passes, then tenant protections would be dependent on where the landlord lives. I don't think that is fair to Dennis. The law should apply, John, in general. And I mean, we should be clear that from what we know about the rental market, this this loophole will affect only a small minority of tenants. However, I believe that every tenant deserves their rights to be protected. And so that's why I would be voting no. But some reasons for voting No. One, it's simply not necessary. As I mentioned before, this legislation will have marginal impact on the landlords who are not gouging their tenants at all. Two I disagree with Councilmember Johnson that somehow this amendment will make it easier for the Department of Construction and inspections. Actually, it will make it far more complicated, both for tenants and the department, to know whether or not a given landlord is covered by the law. I mean, the the burden of figuring out laws always falls on the tenants. And why should we make it harder? Why should we make their job harder? Let's make it easier for them. And as far as the Department of Construction and Inspections is concerned, I don't think that this will make it easier for the department. It will actually this amendment will add work to the SDC because they will have to figure out which landlords covered and which landlord is not covered by this law. And finally, as I said, you know, the bottom line is everyone deserves to have their rights protected. Now, there's this whole process I know is labyrinthine. So I just wanted to clarify why I will support the Content Horribles amendment the first place. It's because it will make the Johnson Amendment into a smaller loophole than a larger loophole, which it is now. But ultimately, I will be voting against loopholes in general. Thank you. Thank you. So what will we have on the table is council member Herbert's amendment. I was passed a note to suggest that Councilmember Herbold Redd accidentally sort of lumped the subsections in the same same section, and they're actually listed in two different some C sections. So. So we just want to clarify this before voting on the amendment, but I don't think I clarified it very clearly. So. Did did you follow that customer who. I refer in my in the motion I made, I referred to three different subsections, but perhaps I did not. I see. I did. Okay. I see what I did. I can fix it. I move to amend the amendment by deleting the proposed new Seattle Municipal Code subset sections 7.24.03, five H and D and by substituting as EMC 7.24.0 36a as provided for the on the proposed amendment. Okay, that's clear as our second. Second part. Okay. So okay, we're going to have, I think, other opportunities to talk on the entire legislation. Let's just take that First Amendment first by vote. I'm going to ask just you vote and raise your hands so the clerk can see who. So all those who support Councilmember Herbold amendment vote I and raise your hand by. Opposed? No. And raise your hand. No. So that. So it fails is 4 to 4. So now let's turn to Councilmember Johnson's amendment. Sorry. What was the result of that vote? Four, two, four, four, two, four. So it failed. So now we're going to go to Councilmember Johnson's amendment, which has already been read into the record. And second, I believe. And are there any further comments on Councilmember Johnson's legislation that anyone would like to make councilmember worse? Thank you. I we had actually looked at this issue of Councilmember Johnson's exemption a while back. And I just want to say that I'm supporting this for this reason. When we look at owner occupied landlords and we look at the proximity of individuals living in your home and private property, which is different than somebody owning a much of a bunch of apartment complexes. I also am supporting this because I want to encourage owner occupied landlords to stay and into the rental housing market. Furthermore, I think that we need to be consistent with the renter laws that we now have an effect, including the first in time. I think it's important that we streamline enforcement, education and consistency with landlord tenant laws, and I think we have to be mindful that CCI is the main agency that has to enforce and implement this law. And we have to make sure that this law is fair, just and reasonable. I don't think that. That some of us who looked for exemptions are looking for loopholes or wanting to water down the law. I think that that those of us that are looking at the law, we want common sense. We want to review all aspects of the law, including the enforcement, the education and the legality. And that doesn't mean that some of us, again, aren't watering down the law or in the pocket in the pocket of big business or landlord lobbyists groups. I find that kind of rhetoric not helpful. Not all exemptions. As a lawyer of 30 years, not all exemptions are loopholes. There are reasons for exemptions. Not all laws are applied without a recognition of the facts and the people that it affects of particularly private property and constitutional rights. As many of you know, this was I asked and I want to thank Councilmember Sawant for her leadership. I ask that this be sent back to committee, not because I don't believe that this was a good law. I wanted this to be a law that would be effective and not like some of the other laws that I've seen passed in the city council where they sit on a shelf and can't get implemented because people thought the political flavor of the day was the right thing to do. And then facts change, or the reasoning or the law and the legality would not pass the scrutiny. And that's what I wanted to make sure that we handled. I'm I'm happy with this law because, as you know, I am going to support this legislation today. I'm proud that this legislation went back to the committee. During the committee last month. There were 16 changes, including two amendments that I brought forward. And the amendments would allow for landlords to collect their movement fees upfront without an installment plan. If their fees or their movement fees are 25% of a month's rent or less. And to clarify the enforcement process to ensure clear compliance. In short, I want to make sure that we incentivize landlords to make it easier for people to move in. I did not want this to be a punitive law. I also want to thank everyone who has provided feedback. And of course, Councilmember So-and-so office and Councilmember Herbert's office in working with our office and all the all the groups that made this move forward not just. Thank you groups of can. Thank you for the landlord groups we were contacted by every group imaginable and we spoke to everybody and we looked at the history of the law and how it went. So I just want to say, those of us that worked hard on this weren't trying to water anything down or look for a loophole, were mainly just trying to be mindful, practical and reasonable. Thank you. Thank you, councilman. Where is Councilmember Brian? You know, I'll be brief. I'm going to oppose this amendment. But I just want to comment on one thing, Councilmember wise, that you brought up. The the vast majority of tenant landlord laws apply regardless of whether the owner of or the landlord is a living on site. And so for consistency sake, sorry though the first in time legislation is the one exemption or exception that I'm aware of. So but I believe it to be consistent. What we should do is turn down this amendment because the body of our landlord laws apply to everybody. I saw a customer swap and the customer Herbert. Customer very. Quick point actually got some Brian already touched on it. The very important point that if the customer Johnson had said that the main reason he brought this up was for consistency for the sake of the Department of Construction inspection. Then in that, if that's the case, then then it should not have this loophole because as customer, Frank argues that only the first in time law has an exemption. And there was a very specific reason that's not a loophole and an exemption. And in fact, this is something that Council Member Herbal let on, which is that if you are a landlord or a property owner with a tenant in your unit, then for safety's sake, especially for single women who may own their own property and rent it out, it's important that they have some discretion on who rents on their own in their house. But that logic does not apply to a payment plan in any way. So I don't see any reason for this loophole, for this law. Councilmember Herbold. I too, will be voting against this amendment. I feel very strongly. That. We our primary obligation is to ensure that this legislation assists tenants no matter what kind of rental housing they're moving in to assist them in in being able to access housing by utilizing the payment plan, which I think is the most important part of this legislation. And so exempting all the tenants who rent from a landlord who lives on the property is simply going to result in fewer tenants of me of need being able to to access those units. Likewise, I don't quite understand how this exemption will make it easier for the Department of Construction and inspections to enforce enforce the law, because this this legislation is an exception to the rule rather than B being actually consistent with the rule. And it will actually put them in a position of having to make a determination whether or not the the ordinance is something that they have to enforce or not enforce when a tenant calls to to file a complaint. Thank you. Thank you, Katsuhiro. So we have on the table Councilmember Johnson's amendment. Thank you, Councilmember Johnson. I think I'll say a few words and I won't say anything on the base legislation that I will be supporting. But part of my I'll just speak to the audience that, you know, I will not emulate the behavior that I despise and the behavior that I despise are always castigating people, denigrating people, and not looking for the good in them. There are some awful landlords out there, but there are some very good ones too. And we do. I think we all could recognize we have an affordable housing crisis in this city. And I think as we approach all these problems, we don't poke fun or criticize without factual basis, good people trying to help the solution. I don't know any of these folks out here, but I don't believe they're trying to completely destroy this city in terms of affordability issues. But with Councilmember Johnson's legislation, it's very simple to me that when I first started thinking about this legislation and became excited about it, I realized this is a policy. These are policies we can actually control legally. And it's a good thing to make sure people are not penalized in the front door and that they if they don't have the money to afford a place, that they will be required to finance it. And I quite frankly, I didn't see the the big the big harm to the landlord. But I won't I won't criticize the organizations to represent them, their voices. They have a collective voice. But this is a policy, and I'm willing to revisit it if it doesn't work. But I believe that at the end of the day, it's going to be okay for everybody. I do believe that in my heart. And I must say, with respect to your amendment, that I asked the situation about the the senior I say senior citizen. I'm almost a senior citizen myself, but the senior citizen that is renting out their basement or something like that and they may want to have a little closer look and feel. And that's why I during the first in time legislation, I asked about that situation, not the the the person that owns, you know, multi-family units and the whole bit. I was looking for the smaller situation where there could be safety issues and all that. And I thought that person should rightfully have a little more say so on who they're renting to. I thought about people in my family who ran out of room, things like that. And so I was supporting your legislation. But the base legislation, I just will not talk about loopholes and watering down legislation when at least in my heart, I'm trying to do the right thing for those people that cannot afford to live in the city. And I take offense to that, quite frankly, I take offense to those kinds of terms because they are offensive. But I'll be supporting your legislation, your amendment. And I think it's we're ready to vote if anyone else has anything else to say. So I'm going to ask you to show your hand as you vote affirmatively or negatively. All those in favor of Councilmember Johnson's amendments say, I can vote and raise your hand. I all those opposed vote no and raise your hand. No, I'm just repeating, man. So and what do we have there? Five, three. So Councilmember Johnson's amendment passes and now we're ready for the amended legislation. So we have a bill in front of us introduced by Councilmember Swan. I think we've beat it up pretty good. Did anyone else want to make any closing comments? Councilmember Burgess, I. You're raising your hand. Thank you. I, too, will be supporting this ordinance. Actually separate from whether we have a housing crisis in Seattle, which we do, I view this ordinance as fair to all parties, and I think we're justified in supporting it even if we didn't have a housing crisis today. But I do want to address the false narrative that we are hearing more and more frequently in these chambers, and that is that if we want to do legislation correctly, somehow we are engaged in some sinister scheme to defeat ideas or throw things back. I just don't accept that. I mean, being a legislator is hard work and it's our job to get things right. And in my time on the council, taking a little more time to get things right is really important. And labeling and deriding opponents of our particular position is not consistent with our democratic values at all. And it pains me that we continue to hear that from some in these chambers. And it pains me that we stoop to that level. We're better than that. And all we have to do is look at the national political scene. Is that what we want in our city? And I don't think we do. And we should stop that kind of activity here in council chambers. Thank you. So I'm going to ask that the clerk please call the role on the passage of the bill. Whereas I O'Brien. I. Swear I. Bagshot Burgess, i. Herbold II Johnson President Arrow Rite Aid in favor an unopposed. Pass and sign it. Yeah. He please read the report of the Parks. Seattle Center Libraries and the Waterfront Committee.

A resolution approving and providing for the execution of a proposed Grant Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the United States of America Department of Housing and Urban Development concerning the “Continuum of Care Bedrock 2019-2020” program and the funding therefor. Approves a grant agreement with Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to accept $629,750 and through 10-31-20 to provide rental assistance to individuals experiencing homelessness through the Continuum of Care Bedrock program, citywide (SOCSV- 2019-48905). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-3-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-1-19.

DenverCityCouncil_05132019_19-0402

Excellent. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Madam Secretary, would you please put 402 up on our screens? And, Councilman Ortega, you want to see if there's somebody here who can answer your question? Yes. And I see someone coming forward. So my question is, if this is related to a specific project or does it cover multiple projects? Vince Rivera Denver Human Services. Yes, this is a consolidated grant. So it's two projects. It's actually the Lowry Project and the Veterans Project. And is the Veterans Project one on Federal Boulevard and. One on the federal? It's the veterans is it's. Facilitated by Bayard. So they have a few different. Okay. I'm just trying to clarify if this is related at all to Del Norte, who administers housing for veterans and on federal? No, if it's not, then we're okay and let it go forward. Otherwise, they need to abstain. It's not. Okay, great. Thank you. I have no further questions.

A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Environmental Hazmat Services, Inc. to provide trained personnel to collect discarded and abandoned solid wastes, including putrescible wastes, medical waste, used syringes and drug paraphernalia. Amends a contract with Environmental Hazmat Services, Inc. by adding two years for a new end date of 10-10-23 for the collection of discarded and abandoned solid wastes including putrescible wastes, medical waste, drug paraphernalia, and other materials in alleys, sidewalks, parks, and other public spaces, citywide. No change to contract amount (ENVHL-201844158-01; ENVHL-202053184-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-4-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 9-1-21.

DenverCityCouncil_09132021_21-0982

All speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so. Their Home Address. If you've signed up to answer questions, only state your name and note that you are available for questions of council. 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 refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Resolution 982 on the floor for adoption? I don't know. I think we might need your mike on again. Is it? Is it on? Huh? Okay. Okay. We might be having some wiring difficulties or something. Go ahead, please. Council Resolution 21 980 to be adopted. All right. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the 30 minute courtesy public hearing for council resolution 982 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I see we have Wolf in here. Good evening, Madam President. I just want to quickly recognize a 50 year resident of the city who's making his first appearance in these chambers, Bill Fenton Senior, who said he appreciates all the work that you all do. I tell him to expect some tough questions and conversation, and he said he'd expect nothing less. So good evening, everyone. Watching in attending. I'm Will Fenton from the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment, the kind of a truncated presentation compared to a few weeks ago, but certainly happy to address any questions as they come up. The proposal before you is a resolution approving amendments to a contract with Environmental Hazmat Services Inc. for the collection of discarded and abandoned hazardous waste on city owned property and other public spaces and the cleaning of these impacted areas citywide. DDP is the sponsoring department for the contract for this agreement is extremely important to the other agencies represented here because of the protection it provides to the public health of all residents and visitors that we serve. And also two city employees who are not trained or equipped to safely collect hazardous waste and clean impacted space. The scope of work also includes the collection, safekeeping, storage and return of possessions temporarily relinquished by persons experiencing homelessness. The current agreement expires on October 10th, 2021. In 2020, this agreement was amended to include rapid response services, whereby the contractor must provide onsite services within a 1 to 2 hour window of time at all hours of the day or night in facilitation of the arrest of individuals whose possessions or wastes require storage or disposal. Quickly, what is hazardous waste and where's it collected? And what public spaces are cleaned? Hazardous waste can be household waste included. Abandoned and misused propane canisters. Hazardous waste is chemical and medical waste. Discarded sharps, drug paraphernalia and drug making materials present a hazard to city staff and the public and are also collected by us. Hazardous waste can also be human and animal waste, food waste, soil, bedding, hazardous consumer goods, camping, fuel, industrial chemicals and other materials. Public spaces, like some of these pictures here that you've seen. Some of them. Include alleys, sidewalks, public buildings, parks and adjacent areas, as well as riverbanks and similar greenspace. On the left here, we have HHS employees cleaning the area behind the restaurant, Skyline Park. An area next to a park trail, an impacted space by a roadway, and the fountain outside city offices of Colfax and Broadway. And finally, an oil drum dumped in an alley. Resolution 2109 82 extends this agreement for an additional two years to round out the maximum five year term contract language has been added that require DHS personnel attend and pass sensitivity training. Language has been added that clarifies that DHS employees are not to engage with or negotiate with members of the public on behalf of the city and on site cleanups, always deferring to city representatives. In conversations with DHS directly that I've been a part of, we emphasized that we will not and we will not tolerate inappropriate comments or any inappropriate behavior from HHS employees. We hear your feedback and we've made adjustments. We're requiring DHS to participate in structured onsite performance review. With city staff after site cleanup for requiring clarified invoice practices to break out onsite cleanup from offsite storage operations, charges and other expenses. We've added to the contract that each of us comply at all times with the household when we're relevant to their tasks. The city has the right to terminate this agreement with cause upon written notice, effective immediately and without cause. Upon 20 days. Prior. Written notice to written notice. IHS. We also heard feedback that these cleanup efforts involving IHS were not sufficient. City staff will collaborate and are collaborating with DHS to sign off on DHS work completion after their work is completed. Their work is focused on removing hazardous materials and cleaning public spaces so that they're safe for residents. Dottie is also coordinating internally to create a checklist for completion of additional site cleanup by city personnel. Then city staff are also reviewing storage site locations and hours, almost none. We also heard your feedback about more contract expenditure details. On the left of this screen is a table of expenditures by agency and on the rate by year, the total approximate expenditures used for equipment cleanup for this contract are between 750,000 and $900,000. The city currently receives. 400 or 500 citizen complaints of encampments per week. That volume has been consistent for the past two and a half months. Parks and Recreation has also spent more than $350,000 to date on removing hazardous materials from and cleaning our city's parks. The purpose of this contract is protecting public health for everyone. Protecting public spaces for all of us. And protecting city employees by contracting with hazardous waste management personnel to adequately provide these protections, this very necessary service to the city. We ask that you support extending this agreement. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Will, for the staff report. And this evening, we had 22 individuals sign up to speak. I want to give folks a reminder. This is a half an hour, 30 minute courtesy, public hearing. And so we will most likely not get through all of the speakers, but we want to give folks an opportunity to voice their opinions. But knowing this is a contract and it's either for or against vote, we want to limit duplicative testimony. And so I'm going to call up the first few speakers in person so that we'll go through about five of them and then we'll go ahead and transition online. So if we can have a ready to go, our first speaker is Tim Savas and then we will follow with Katie Blakey, Lauren Echo, John Stockton and. You see here. Things will work here. John Stockton. Let me see. Oh. And then been done in. All right. We can go ahead, sir, and get started. Hello. I'm Tim Sabers. I'm here to support the renewal of the. Hazardous. Materials contract for the large scale and encumbrance clean ups. These cleanups are critical in and for Denver. They are saving neighborhoods and are creating much needed peace. For everyone. On those blocks. The hazmat crews that are involved do impressive work and are. Crucial for the successful. Completion of these cleanups. I would like to commend the police officers, daddy personnel, again, the houseman contractors and all of the other city contractors that perform their work at these clean ups in a consistently professional manner. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Katie Blakey. Hello, council members. My name is Katie Blakey. I live in District ten, and I'm asking you to please end this contract with us. Understand that this is a tough topic. So let's break it down a little bit. You have a contract before you with a vendor who over the last three years has habitually failed to adequately provide the services for which they're contracted. They're supposed to leave sites of encampments free of hazardous materials and debris after displacement. They leave them filthy. Community members like me, like Headwaters, are forced to clean up after them. They're supposed to provide storage services, but DHS frequently trashes belongings. Residents have told them they want to keep her store. By his own admission, and from the data you've seen from DEO, very few people ever recover their belongings. Twice in just the past week and a half, DHS was not even at the storage facility during its hours of operations when someone tried to retrieve their belongings. They failed to show up frequently. This violates the legal settlement, opening the city up to further litigation. When they were first awarded the contract as a storage hours were from 12 to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, a total of 20 hours per week, and the city would be billed for up to 20 security hours per week. Now they've changed their hours to 6 to 8:30 a.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday and from 12 to 6 p.m. on Thursdays. Though the facility is now only open for 16 hours per week, they charge the city for up to 28 hours of security per week. What more does it take to show that DHS has no business partnering with the city? How much incompetence is too much? How many times is too many when it comes to not performing the services contracted? How far can IHS implement creative scheduling to overcharge the city by tens of thousands of dollars before you say enough is enough ? How much litigation are you willing to subject the city to because they can't be bothered to show up? Where do you draw the line? On top of all of that, they're abusive to unhoused residents and frequently get into verbal and sometimes nearly physical altercations with housed residents. Why should host who is responsible for solving one of the most urgent crises in our city have to redirect their limited resources to train a private company as employees? It's not the spirits. People talk about getting shitfaced while working or getting fights with the public while they're doing their job. This is a failure of leadership, and the city is in no way responsible for remedying that failure. The services outlined in this contract are crucial. And in the case of storage ones, the city is court ordered to provide. We need a trustworthy, competent and reliable partner to help the city address one of the most challenging issues it faces. IHS is not that partner. City departments have known about issues with IHS for a long time. You have other options. Use the existing regulated hazardous waste contracts with custom, environmental and ajuste until she is able to find a new vendor. If Headwaters Protectors can form in a matter of weeks to provide excellent sanitary waste services, surely you can find a vendor to pay that will do the same. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Lauren Eko. Her counsel. I'm here to speak against this resolution. As we've already discussed this previously in the Safety Committee, I mostly wanted to address a sort of strawman argument that the city has put forward against any sort of criticism against this contract, that this is these public health conditions are a problem and that we need to address them . Nobody is saying that we don't need to address them. In fact, what people have mostly been telling you is that we aren't addressing them, that this is what DHS is doing, is not effectively resolving these hazards in any way. The massive amounts of trash and hazardous actually discarded syringes, etc., that have been found by head water protectors and other community members after sweeps demonstrates that they're not even necessarily very effective at cleaning. Out to mention that this contract has been going on for three years now. The public health conditions in encampments aren't getting better. If anything, they're getting worse, which seems like ample evidence that this isn't working. And I'm invoke your pain and do three things right. It's cleaning storage and comporting themselves with decency around vulnerable members of our population. I mean, the cleaning clearly isn't working. The storage part is laughable. I mean, at the Arc and Sweep last year, which was, I would remind you, the largest sweep in the city's history, displacing 300 people. Exactly. Two people had their belongings stored with the city as a safety committee. Your own employees said themselves that almost nobody is ever able to retrieve their property, which the D Hall survey data from last year. There's that out that almost nobody tries and even fewer are able to. Which makes sense, because if you've ever tried, it's a huge pain in the ass. I have seen one man attempt to retrieve his property. It took him a week, which he was only able to eventually do because he was able to get a ride from an activist back and forth across town because the storage facility wasn't even reliably accessible during its posted hours, which apparently continues to be the case. Nonetheless, DHS is overcharging the city for it, exploiting the four hour minimum payment for its security contractors to apparently charge a lot of money for a service that it's not even effectively providing. And then, I mean, countless people have told you about the egregious disrespect and unprofessional behavior by your employees, which I'm glad that you're attempting to address with sensitivity trainings. But it seems extremely naive to think that that will fix this problem because you just doesn't have a staffing problem. The city has created a staffing problem by the job that you have have given them to do is one that positively attracts cruel and callous people as well as unprofessional people. Because, you know, those are the only people who are going to be willing to do this job as it's put in place, and particularly the only ones who will be comfortable enough to not burn out doing it, you need to to start addressing these public health issues in a more preventative way by providing trust services and things and service boxes, etc.. Next speaker is John Stockton, followed by Ben Benjamin. Hi. My name is John Stanton. I live in Denver, Colorado. I am here to speak against the renewal or the extension of this contract. I was also at the super committee meeting about a week, two weeks ago, and I was curious to hear a lot of people speak with a lot of authority about how the sweeps are executed, including city officials that do not actually attend the sweeps. I've been to more than 75 sweeps this year alone, and I document that I show up at between five and 530. So I'm there before many of the city officials, before the city officials, before the mayor's office. And the architecture and the culture of the sweep is something that you can't understand until you're there. They can put a very pretty face on it. They can put a very sterile explanation of what they do. But the actual trauma that is inflicted during these sweeps is indescribable, unless you've seen it. I know that there's a few council members who have been here at a sweep. I would encourage the rest of you to go down to one. And there was there was two last week. There's going to be another two this week when they describe how you just behaves. It is. The most sterile explanation of what they do. In fact, when I arrive at five or 530 is often residents already in distress because the only people on the ground are NHS officials and a single employee. And those groups of people are there every morning. They work together. They have a very abusive, almost gang like culture in the way that they act, the way that they address unhoused advocates, the way that they address unhoused residents. And as soon as someone pulls out a camera or as soon as someone shows up with any sort of authority, that changes on a dime. But these individuals and this company shows up at 5 a.m. before there's accountability. And also in some of the. Addendums to this contract, some of the shifts that they say they're going to make improvements upon. I'm very curious where that accountability system is going to come into place. If you have three or four DHS contractors who work with a single DOD employee as their overseer. I'm not sure why Adam Abeyta was able to speak so confidently last week, when Adam has only been to one sweep in the last four months versus the single DOT employee who would likely be the contact point of confirmation that the area is clean, that everything is being handled very well. The culture of abuse, that the sweep also means that people protect each other's backs. And when you have the same individuals committing the same egregious verbal abuse, physical stealing of objects, destruction of property without any real concern for people's autonomy, they are going to protect one another. So some of those fixes in the contract are far too vague. There's far too many loopholes where the same people will be able to sign off and say, Well, you did a good job. You did a good job, wink. And that's very worrisome. And the fact that that hasn't been considered shows a real lack of consideration for who this affects. There are up to 1500 unhoused people on the streets every night in Denver. These sweeps have been happening at an incredible rate, 300% stronger, greater than they were happening last year. And it is your responsibility to make sure that those vulnerable populations are protected. You have the opportunity to choose a new contractor. It is not the most convenient option. It is not the easiest. It will require more work. But that is what you. Are here to do. You are here to serve your people regardless of whether they have a home or not. And IHS has not. Been doing their job. They have not been fulfilling their contract obligations. And I feel like you also would not if you continue this contract. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ben Dunning. Hello. My name is Benjamin Denning. I've been a resident here in Denver. For 55 years since I was three. Currently live in five. Points. And I'm one of the original founders of Denver. Homeless out loud. Every week, week in and week out. Everyone seems to be complaining. About homelessness in front of this. Body. The misinformed call them drug addicts and thieves. And the truth is, it's not any more so than. The lot of us here in this room, the better informed call for solutions. Which are often presented with unnecessary roadblocks. Even from this esteemed body, a couple of examples of that are roadblocks that this body has done. In 2019, there were several budget amendments. That address the biggest. Concerns that our communities have trash removal. And. Access to bathrooms. And then several other things that could help. This body didn't pass a single one of those last year. In addition to those things like that. This body did not pass an amendment that could have housed a thousand of the folks that are currently out on the streets. That would made a huge impact standing in the way. Now, tonight, we're talking about renewing a contract with a body that's been, frankly, abusive. To our homeless community. So the agencies go out there, they're learning, they're doing better. But DHS, it's almost as if they don't care. They want to get away with anything. They can make as much money. As they can and they do a poor job. You've heard examples of that. Tonight for examples of them leaving trash behind. The community groups have to clean up. Now, last time we were here talking about this subject, some folks inside the city. Told you the process for. Getting somebody else in here and what would need to be done. Like John was saying earlier. So I'm going to be easy, but you need. To do it. Because the damage that these people are causing into people's lives. Is going to just it's going to continue to escalate. And at. Some point, this body is going to need to not be passive and to just allow things to go along and take serious. Action in order. To protect our communities. Because by doing this right, we're not only protecting the homeless, but we're protecting people in. Houses and. In our communities. But what happens is you get real estate folks who stand to. Profit from this, and they want to put a big wedge into two communities that need to learn how to get there. Earlier this evening, you heard real estate agent talk about the financial incentives during. General public comment. He described to you how the. Finances work and. What the motivation is there. The number one thing that's going to drop the value on on their properties is visible homelessness. And if they call the police. And pay off enough. Council members or real. Estate lobbies or however they do it. They can get them timely moved. Like what we did up over there by the Arkin's camp not too long ago in order to make their contract. And then they don't. Care because they've already made their sale. But that's not what's important. What's important is the. Health of our community. And because we are. Not taking active things to keep these camps from getting dirty, that's. The time we have allotted for each speaker. We're going to go ahead and move to our online hearing participants. Our first one is Terry. Told the board. HILDEBRANDT And I'm a resident small business owner and property owner for over 25 years in the Golden Triangle neighborhood of District ten. I'm asking that you vote to extend the contract the city has with environmental hazmat services. This contractor is essential to the city's efforts to address dangerous, unhealthy homeless encampments. The extremely important that we have contractors available to remove hazardous waste such as feces, urine, discarded needles and rotting food. Where would our city be without this essential service provided by environmental hazmat services? Who has the expertize to safely remove these hazards from our streets, restore our sidewalks and public spaces? We can't imagine if this was left to an already overloaded city workforce that doesn't have this specialized expertize. I have witnessed encampment cleanups and have found this company doing this difficult job in a respectful, kind, patient and thorough way. In the last year and a half, I have witnessed 11 I repeat 11 serious camp mats within two blocks of my home. Many of these had so many needles that we were afraid to even go close for fear of stepping on these needles. And we have seen trash. The sidewalks were completely blocked. In the encampment there was right outside my front door. I was able to witness the entire cleanup from my front door. And I am genuinely grateful for Dottie and the environmental hazmat services group. I look forward to hearing from you and your support. Thank you. Our next speaker online is Matty Hughes. Hi. Sorry. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Hello. So I am speaking tonight to urge all of you to please vote no to the renewal of the city's contract with us. And as someone who has attended many sweeps and seen with my own eyes the inhumane way that DHS workers and DPD engage with the unhoused population, I believe it would be a senseless, cruel and counterproductive move to renew this contract. I attended the presentation of the survey by D Hall a few weeks ago to City Council, and although I already knew while that the sweeps do not help anyone in the city, if that presentation made it even more clear how detrimental these suites are. Safe. Outdoor spaces are an excellent solution. Continue trashing of human beings belongings multiple times a week or not. If you know any people experiencing homelessness in Denver or at all. Sorry, you know how traumatic the sweeps are. People lose essential belongings daily, including their ID, cellphones, wallets, few remaining photos of family and friends, their bikes, blankets, tents , which are their homes and more. They often have no way of preventing this, as the city is not following the guidelines set by the settlement of the wildfires Denver case. There is not appropriate signage giving notice for the sweeps, and often they do not give the required advance notice at all. The sweeps leave behind trash anyway. They should not even be referred to as clean ups. Please watch. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm reading off the email I sent, but I also wanted to say that I think it's also worth noting that the Council president should recuse themselves from voting on contracts that directly benefit a department led by their spouse. That's a direct conflict of interest, and it would be disrespectful to their constituents, the whole city, and show a complete lack of integrity and responsibility otherwise. And I also just wanted to say to some of my fellow Denver residents who showed up to speak that it's a harmful and uninformed narrative when they say that people experiencing homelessness are leaving needles all over the place. Sometimes they are. But we should note that a lot of those needles are needed for conditions like diabetes. People in homes have the privilege of being able to throw those things away, and the city is simply not providing the trash services that they need to clean up their messes. That people want them to do, but it's simply ignorant, uninformed and harmful to continue this narrative that unhoused people are only drug addicts and criminals. There are people going through incredible hardships that we could never understand unless we were going through the same thing. And I beg of you, this. Time we have a lot of. Our next speaker is Wendy. He sent. Her ammo. Nine. Thank you for your service to our city. Every day, Denver residents, businesses and visitors look at the homeless encampments spread out across our once beautiful city, from downtown to neighboring communities, our parks and trails. The trash and hazardous waste from these encampments and neighborhoods on the trails from overnight camping and even in our parks after curfew, sweeps have way surpassed any level of order. Our city is full of an unsustainable amount of trash, needles, drug paraphernalia, human feces, urine, gas, propane tanks, rotten. Food, etc., etc. causing the spread of disease. Infestation of rodents and bugs. Jeopardizing the health and safety of our citizens. Environmental Hazmat Services is a critical contractor. That has been professional. Conscientious, and provides a service that is absolutely essential in the removal of the hazardous waste associated with these encampments. 83% of us voted against urban camping to begin with, and now we're relying on your leadership to deal with the hazardous waste produced by these encampments. Renew this. Important. Contract to ensure the safety. And health of our citizens and our local environment. Where would we be? Where would our city be without this essential service provided by us? With the expertize to restore public spaces, we can't have a gap in service or expect an already overloaded city workforce to successfully complete this specialized service. Protein advocates say DHS employees need sensitivity training. Really, we are tasking this company with a hazardous and dangerous job. While the protest protesters verbally insult them as they literally cleaning up urine and fecal matter. Throw up rotten food, trash and drugs. Thank you to our. Police officers for being on location and keeping us and our city workers safe. Know that the majority of citizens of this city support you. Leaders should be redirecting. Sensitive sensitivity funds for. Training to the citizens of this city living in this film and their mental and physical well-being. I have been to several. Encampment sweeps and have found IHS doing this difficult job in a respectful. Kind, patient. And thorough way. Please extend this contract, enforce the camping ban, and. Let's eliminate the sweeps altogether. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker online is Tess Dougherty. For having me tonight, so to speak. I just want to address some of the things that have been said. I've never seen a single person who claims to having been having come to a sweet, bittersweet. Just to start that off. These people who keep saying that they come to all these sweeps, I've never seen them there. And there are mutual aid partners that have been there. Also agree that I've talked to them about it. They've not seen them there. So that's just curious as to where that claim is coming from. I also want to point out that you notice how every person supporting this contract extension support starts their comment with something like, I'm a long time homeowner, homeowner and resident of district whatever, and I'm a I'm a business owner as well. Do you know why they do that? They do that because they think that that saying that qualifying their comment like that somehow gives their voice greater superiority over people experiencing homelessness. People living on the street cannot be here tonight because they're protecting their things. The things that could be swept, could be stolen, could be taken from them. That is why we do not have people expressing homelessness here. That is why the contracted hour, I mean, the hours that are open for residents to retrieve their belongings are between 630 and 830. When does sweeps happen? That's when they happen. It's absurd. It's so disrespectful. And, you know, just just to also point out, we're not protect we're pro housing. We believe that people should have the autonomy to choose where they live and to do it in a safe manner. The shelters are not safe. 37 people came down with COVID at one of the 48 street shelters. One of the 43 shelters kicked out a woman experiencing homelessness and she was found dead in her tent a week later at the edge of the property. A Catholic Charities last week. Her name was Carlotta Ross. And so, you know, that is what we are here to say, that we're not protect. We don't think anyone should be living on the streets in a tent. We think they should be given affordable housing that is free of mold and roaches. But let's go back to us. When we're talking about expertize, according to their website, self training is all that is required to acquire the licenses that people keep claiming. DHS is the sole company holding these these license needles. Give people sharps, boxes, feces, give people bathrooms, trash, have solid waste, pick up and provide services. These are the things that will prevent all of these things that people keep saying that DHS is doing, each as there were £2,000 of trash found and not even even since we had the committee meeting with you guys, they have done abusive things. They don't they have no they have no. They're just like they don't care. They they they're doing these things without any remorse, even even after we brought these things to you. So I'm really concerned about the accountability as well, like John was talking about. I don't think that there will be accountability. Where's the checklist from Dottie? That was that was so clean. Where is that? You know, where's the checklist? Have you been seen the checklist since you're going to be voting on this? And I also think the council president should recuse herself from this vote, given that her husband explicitly said in that in that committee meeting that he was single handedly responsible for the contract with DHS. It's a conflict of interest. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker online is Dave Howard. Right. I thought that we had Dave Howard. All right. Okay. We're going to go ahead and move on then because that was our only they've age online that we have that they're speaking for. The item. So I don't believe. Excuse me, but I'm asking for. All right. We'll go ahead and bring David Hagan up and then we're going to go ahead and ask the rest of the individuals who are in person be ready to come up as well. Shannon Hoffman, Harmonie Cummins, Hannah Sinise are additional people in person. Go ahead. Hi. Thank you for letting me speak. I did put four because I'm for a clean encampment and for a clean city and for not being on the streets. I am not for people screaming white power to indigenous folks. I'm not for the abuse, the stealing of property and the continued treatment that we see at the encampments. I'm not for what happened just this last week after the committee meeting. They're still treating people like they're worse than trash. They don't care. And again, the folks on that said that they have been to several encampment sweeps. I doubt it. People behind me been to 77 this year, 80 I've been to, I don't know, quite a few more than 11, maybe 20, 30. I've never seen any of them. So when people get up here and lie to extend its contract, another thing we are not saying nobody nobody's clean up. We want clean air. We want stuff clean. There are countless other companies in this city that can do the job and do it well. These guys are not good. They are terrible at their job. Or they just don't care. Maybe they're good elsewhere. They're not good here. And they. They're just not good. Plain and simple. There's got to be somebody else in the city that could do a better job. When, like the lady came up a few weeks ago, said that she wanted to keep the contract, but then she said that she had to clean up the encampment with. Her friends after they left. That doesn't make sense. We're spending millions of dollars. I think this year we've already spent close to $500,000 with them. A half a million dollars already been spent this year. Really? To do what? For headquarters to get a bunch of. Volunteers to come clean up afterwards, because that's what happens after every sweep. Volunteers kind of clean up. So they get a half million dollars and then we come in and clean up afterwards. I don't I just don't understand what is going on and why this contract is so important for everybody to keep. Like, what is it? Whose pocket? I just don't understand, because if anybody else was doing this bad of a job, you would fire them. I can guarantee it. If anybody went to these sweeps and saw this, you would be fired immediately. There's no refrain. Reform. They're trash. They're not good. So ask yourself why it is that this contract must be passed to a company that was built in 2017 and then gets a $6 million contract in 2018. That doesn't make any sense to me. Established companies get those contracts, not new ones. So who's who's who's behind this? Who's behind this? Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker in person is Shannon Hoffman. Good evening. My name is Shannon Hoffman. I live in District ten. There is no white supremacy in the future. There is no white supremacy in the future. I say this today because I was recently in a class where this was the writing prompt and it was really hard for me to imagine that statement. So I just had to write that sentence several times. And I believe what's happening tonight is that it's really hard for us to imagine not having this VHS contract. But I'm here to tell you, there is no NHS contract in the future. Because everyone will be housed and everyone will have access to a bathroom and water to drink and to wash themselves. So that's what we all say we want, right? So how do we get to that future? We start by working now toward the horizon of abolition. And you have already done this for almost a year ago. This council turned down a $25 million contract with allied security. You said they have a credibility problem. Does IHS not have a credibility problem? We have outlined for you the multiple ways IHS has been disrespectful in word and action to unhoused neighbors. Much like we provided for you a list of incidents of violence from allied security. We are suggesting just don't contract with IHS. They upcharge the city and thus citizens. Just as this chart shows $1.5 million in the past five years with the bulk from Doddy close to 900 K for Sweets. This council says, well, IHS is going to do some trainings to improve their behavior. That's what Allied said. They said they'd hire a diversity coaching company and we all said, all of us. We said, that's not good enough. Based on their past behavior and another company was hired, can we not do the same thing here? Is it not our duty, your duty to approve contracts when a company meets the standard of the contract? But in this case, DHS does not do what they are contracted to do. They leave trash everywhere after a sweep. So what is the difference now in 2021? Is it that less people are watching? Because that by definition is a lack of integrity. So please have the integrity with how you voted on the Allied contract a year ago. Use your imagination to dream beyond these circumstances. These same funds and this contract could be repurposed for trash, service and toilets, making the cleanup services of DHS obsolete and actually cheaper. As was mentioned that last year there was a proposal for trash service that would only cost $300,000. So we're meeting you all where you are, but we're standing in our integrity. Please vote no on this contract and let's start fresh with a new vendor. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Harmony Cummins. Hello. Whose job is it? To be sure, contracts are well managed and asked of contractors are providing a quality service for a fair price. To be sure, we are not wasting taxpayer dollars. I think some of you guys got a handout. You guys got a handout? Perfect. It just has a practice. They're required to pay their employees a four hour minimum, but they have a practice of scheduling people in two hour shifts. So an example that you've been given on seven two, Tony Martini is scheduled himself from Tell Out the two. Then a different guy from 2 to 4, then schedules himself again from 4 to 6. So each of these shifts are now paid 4 hours each. Instead of one person getting paid 6 hours. In addition, the person who's doing the schedule scheduled himself for the first shift and the third shift so that he now makes the 4 hours on the first and the 4 hours on the second. I wonder why he's doing that. That sounds very advantageous to him. And then I ask, I do accounting. Well, why isn't someone from HHS looking at this and being like, Huh? What's going on here? Well, that's because they add a 36% upcharge to what they do. So it's advantageous for them to have these these billing hours be like this because it's more hours for them to add a 36% upcharge on and then to bill it back to the city. I spend a lot of time in District one, nine, ten and three, and our city is disgusting, as many people who said that today. And if you guys have walked around on these streets, so if we're doing such a good job with this, why is our sitting so disgusting that we're afraid to go to certain places? I know it's a problem for all of us. I've been part of the people who go up and pick up trash after a cleanup has happened. I see a lot of problems with what's happening here. This scheduling issue I described above is for security guards, so this isn't even for anyone picking up the trash. So all this scheduling, the upcharge all goes for dollars that don't do a single thing to remove anything, a needle, a piece of trash or feces from the city. At what point do we look? Should we be doing something better? It was mentioned that maybe we schedule like this because the work is so traumatic. Well, if the work is so traumatic, shouldn't we be looking at doing something more holistic at a whole? We've talked about bathrooms. We talked about trash services. It's each it's actually been and it's a whole lawsuit that the city would provide sharps boxes and some of these things. And we're not doing it. And by definition, by keep doing the same things in the same status quo stuff and expecting a different outcome. That's called insanity. So to extend. This contract. And think that our city is going to be cleaner and things are going to be better. I don't see it. And I hope you don't see it either. Thank you. Our last speaker, we have hit the 30 minute courtesy public hearing time. And so we'll go ahead and have our last speaker, Hanna Stein Streisand's. And I might have mispronounced that, HANNAH. So you can correct me when you come up here. You were very close. Strange. Thank you. Thank you for having me this evening. My name is Hannah. Strange is. And I'm here to urge all of you to vote against extending the contract tonight. Extending this contract as a continued step towards normalizing the dehumanization of our unhoused neighbors. In a past forum, testimony has been made specifically about tent poles being snapped by DHS personnel, personal items such as a pair of golf clubs being stolen by US workers in order to put in front of the unhoused person and community while their shelters were being torn down. You heard even more this evening. Dehumanization has historically been used as a tool of oppressive classes to build negative public views of social groups to fuel division between communities, as well as wear down the self-respect of those people being targeted. As Denver committed to continue to move in this direction, our tax dollars need to be placed towards wellness programs to support and uplift those in need. The treatment of the unhoused community by the city of Denver is getting nowhere. The non solutions Denver has implemented are harming our community as a whole. Our entire city suffers while traumatizing behavior continues to be normalized. I urge you to vote against the renewal of this contract and move in a new direction. I also urge you to get on the street and meet the people who you are, affect who you have the power to change their lives by changing your decisions. Help them volunteer your time and your perspective will change. You have this power in your hands tonight to make us shift toward a healthier, happier city. Please do so. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate the community members who are both joined in-person and online and appreciate the individuals that testified tonight. And we're sorry that we didn't get to hear from anybody, but we had half an hour to make sure that we weren't duplicating folks testimony. And so now we want to go ahead and move to questions from members of Council on Council Resolution 92. And we're going to start out with Councilmember. Thank you. Council President. I'd like to ask the Department to respond to the second to last speaker regarding the four hour minimums, but the use of two hour shifts by the contractor one has it true to have you fixed it? Three Are they? What are we doing about this? Thank you, Councilwoman. I believe online is Commander Ron Thomas. If we could have him promoted, I think he can address this question directly. All right. I believe we already have him promoted, so. Go ahead, Chief Thomas. Good evening. Division Chief Thomas. And to address that question. DHS basically charges. Well. They're paying each officer that works a shift $200 per shift, which is essentially a two and a half hour shift. So they are there working at two and a half hour shift. Their place, Sergeant, is scheduling those shifts. He's invoicing the company once a week and then they're paying those officers for basically about two and a half hour shift. Thank you, Thomas. First of all, the paper we have in front of us shows a number of two hour shifts, not two and a half hour shifts. And if you can address how it is that. If can you explain where it is that the speaker is is seeing that they are being paid $400 rather than $200. For each of their two and half hour to two hour shifts. We have several discrepancies between what you described and what we were given. So I want to understand both of those discrepancies. Certainly, I can attest to what I have seen within the last several months that has entered into our 12 staff record, which is our basically our record keeping our record management system relative to two time worked. And those officers are entering a two and a half hour shift generally from 6 to 830 on Monday through Friday, with the exception of Thursday, where there's some different shift hours and then four, they're essentially two and a half hour shift, which is entered into our telegraph system. They're being paid $200 through 1099. Okay. Okay. I appreciate you are reporting what you have seen. I guess let me just I'm going to ask the speaker who testified on this to come up, please. Can you just share what source of information you use to construct this? These are from IHS invoices that have been carried. And so on. The bottom line of the handout that I gave to you, that came straight from an invoice. It says, officers are paid a minimum of 4 hours per shift. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fenton. Has your agency audited or compared the invoices which apparently say something potentially different than what Commander Thomas can see in his system? And it appears we may have a discrepancy. Have you audited to compare the two? I know the DPG it for our invoices. I don't know that that it covers the service provided by the officers. I wonder if if you can address that point, you know. The question is whether we are paying DHS for the billing that they do to do for off duty officers. Is that what we're clarifying? Yes. Perhaps I can have some clarity. My name is Paul, Madame. I'm the manager with public health and Environment. Will is correct. We have not audited those invoices because they're not invoices for services to our department. The invoices that have been displayed recently are for dodgy Department of Transportation infrastructure. And so it would be incumbent upon them to review those. Is someone from Daddy here. And have. You reviewed and compared? The NHS invoices to the DPD records. Good evening. Council Margaret Melvin, Deputy Manager for Dottie. And. We have not audited those. That is something that we can do. You know, from my understanding, when we review, we do check to make sure that the hours that we requested, you know, this excess only operates at our direction. So we do check to make sure that the hours that we requested are indicated in the invoice. But this discrepancy that has been brought up is not something I have looked into. But we will look into it. Is someone from IHS here? No, but I want to see if I can address this just a little more first. Yeah. I mean, if each of us is under the impression that officers have to be paid a minimum of 4 hours per shift and we have a discrepancy, then I'm I just want to be clear. I'm prepared I was prepared to advance this contract tonight. But if we have a billing discrepancy and we're going into a new contract where it is not resolved, that is a concern. Again. This is Paul Bedard, Public Health and Environment. I had a conversation with environmental hazmat services with the President, Mr. Martin Green, today regarding this topic, and he indicated that it is the policy of the individual police officers under the police union rules when they are acting outside, when they are employed outside of city business. This was specifically, as is private contractors, to provide security that that is a standard measure of how their billing is. And so that I think my understanding is the way we're seeing it being billed represents is an artifact of the requirements for employing individuals who are police officers. Commander Thomas, are you still with us? Yes. Chief Thomas, thank you. Is there a separate way that off duty officers are paid that would not show up in your books? That accounts for the fact that your books are showing two and a half hours. But we have now confirmation that the contractor believes they have to pay for a minimum of four. No. So what I what I know is that is that the officers put the shift hours that they are actually working in our the staff system. The scheduling officer. Who fills those shifts for, you know, for IHS, sends them an invoice of the officers that have worked their shift and IHS. Pays those officers and it comes out to. Essentially $200 this year. For those really 50, it would really be $50 an hour if you were if you were to calculate a four hour shift. Paid for for hours, even though they work for two and a half. That is a term of employment that's worked out between the scheduler and the employer. Just. Okay, so, I mean, but but this is not a bar downtown. I guess. So I guess I am trying to understand why we as a city are paying our own officers to work off duty for more hours than they're actually working. If we could ask folks to keep their comments down, it's difficult for us up here to hear the conversation as well. And I'll see on the floor after this. But I'm still not understanding why we are paying for time. It's so. It sounds like we are all agreeing that the fee is for 4 hours, even though the work is for two and a half. And the question is. Why are we paying for hours that aren't being worked? Can I provide some general information that I think will help inform this? And this was a conversation that Paul Bedard and I were having back and forth about this issue. So certainly, please correct me if I'm wrong. And again, this is a little on top of what you're asking for. But I think the context this is important because DHS is not required to hire Denver police to provide security. It's an option that they choose to pursue and exercise. Right. And Marty mentioned Martin, the owner of the company who couldn't be here, even though we hoped he could be, because he had an existing personal appointment. Medical appointment. That's what he told us. He added that Marty explained that though he is not required to use an off duty Denver officer for security, the storage location and storage site security is required in the contract. These individuals are providing good service. These officers are flexible in their work hours of availability and and work for less. Per Marty's estimate, than what he would have to pay a private security service like. They just as for Pinkerton, for example. That's why he's reached out to employ off duty police. Continuing regarding cost, the contract only allows us to charge the city $68 an hour for security staff person. And that can be found on line 13 B of the contract rate sheet. I don't know if that's included in your handout, but I'm looking at a at a copy of it. And that's what they're charging this city as evidence than their invoices that we confirmed. However, Denver police in their off duty private employment have to observe their labor union rules on minimum number of hours and rates. So for the contract to use these individuals, he has to observe police union labor rules, which have a minimum pay rate of $75 an hour. But they and I don't know who that refers to. I don't know if it's union rules or anything else. We're making an exception to that so that these personnel could work with us and meet contract rates. Also, DHS said their union rules specified a minimum duration and that duration. So that's why we're seeing a four hour charge versus a two and a half hours actual on site schedule. Lastly, I'll just say that he indicated that this has worked in past years. So I just want to be fully transparent and offering that and certainly want to address any questions as best we can. But I will see the floor. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Canete. Councilman Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Madam President. So I've been really impressed by a couple of things, a bunch of questions for your release in our committee meeting and again today. And one of those things is the people that I've heard testify that would like us to turn this contract down. Almost unanimously are saying do the sweeps or the clean ups. But do them completely and do them compassionately. And I've also been impressed that I haven't heard anybody from the city from from Dottie, from DHS say that we didn't leave behind a ton of trash on Arkin's court and that there's a bunch of trash that gets left behind as a matter of course. So what I'm wondering is what has the oversight been of the city in the past? Has there been a consistent team assigned to be there evaluating the clean ups? And then how will that be different? Moving forward. Councilman Cashman. So a lot of the effort of the cleanup has fallen on Daddy to manage. We don't manage every encampment cleanup, but the vast majority do fall on us. In our solid waste team. Do you go out to the site? They will direct each other's you know, as we've said, this contract with DHS is really concentrated on the hazardous waste cleanup. Our solid waste team picks up the trash we do if it's needed. We do work with our streets department to bring sweepers. Then we work with our waste water department if needed, to bring in our VAC trucks, if, you know, if there is a wet cleanup that we need to do. So the oversight is done by the crew lead generally in solid waste. But we also, at the different cleanups, will have representation and oversight. You know, I've been at cleanups. I know Adam goes to clean up. I mean, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I appreciate I appreciate your answer. But is there an assigned team? I mean, we've heard that DHS gets there first, starts on their own. And I mean, is is there an assigned team of people who regularly there's like a four person team that is assigned to be there all during the cleanup from start to finish. So generally there hadn't been. But as the encampments have gotten more prolific, it has really overtaken a lot of our resources. And we do now have a team generally that that, you know, that is not their only job in the city, but we do rely on them heavily. And so that is a consistent team and they do have a checklist that they go through. And after the conversations and the input we've gotten, we're adding to the checklist on top of the regular items that they're looking at. We are asking them now to take not only before pictures, but we also want after pictures. We do recognize ISIS is not responsible for the final cleanup of the site. That is whichever city agency is taking the lead in, in many of the cases that will be dotty. And so that is on us. And so we're going to to make sure that we are improving that checklist so that we all have that after picture. And knowing that sometimes the sweepers, it may take us up to a day to get day to day to to get on to the schedule. You know, our sweeper trucks are out. Trucks are already working throughout the city. So that is something that we're going to be adding that we haven't been doing regularly. I'm and I'm not an expert in materials, but it concerns me certainly that any trash is left behind. With all the money that we're spending on this and with the need to do what our residents want is to clean the city. So I'm wondering, do you know whether it would work or not to take a metal detector to be sure you're not leaving needles behind? That would seem to be a a basic thing. If it's if needles are of the type of material that a metal detector would do, I mean I mean, I expect it to be clean , to be raked clean, whoever has to do that. And I know that's a big job, but I think that's what our residents want us to do. Absolutely. And so I've suggested moving forward that it would would make sense to me that we have a. An objective observer team. And I don't know what that looks like, whether it's representatives of council or other agencies, but the administration has has seen fit to not think that's important. So I'm just trying to see I mean, we're hearing a lot of concerning things. Like I said, I've heard no denials of it. Incomplete work that's been done. And I've heard no real denials of the insensitive work that's been done. So I just want to be sure that I mean, as with my colleague, Councilwoman Canete, you know, I believe these cleanups need to be done. But I believe they need to be done well. And I'm looking for assurance that there's going to be the degree of oversight that's going to be done. So how will it moving forward? Is there like a set procedure of eyes that will be on this? In short, yes, we are looking at having the checklist. That will be something that we can pull up to look at each cleanup. You know, when I see the cleanups, you know, my expectation is that that area is going to be free of trash, absolutely free of hazardous waste and and if needed, swept or we can actually bring our trucks out if we need to do a wet cleanup. So, yes, my I'm working with the team so that we do have that documentation to to show that that is the way we've left the site. I appreciate that. And I have two more quick questions now, I'm sure, and for our legislative council. Obviously, the city council has the authority and the ability to approve contracts. Do we have any ability to break conch to end contracts? You don't approve it. I mean, if we were. By that, I'm to be clear. If we approve this. There's elements in the contract, as Mr. Fenton has told us, that give the city ability to end the contract. But does city council have the ability to end the contract in midstream? Jonathan Griffin W Legislative Council Generally, no. But it would. Also depend on the terms of the contract. I've seen the maybe the person who wrote the contract, if they were here, they could speak to it. But typically the contracts are approved. There would have to be something in the clause that was violated. It sounds like there are some. But council wouldn't have the power at that point. Okay, then. Okay. And my last question is, we also heard if I if I heard the testimony correctly. Of the storage facility not being open during posted hours. And I'm wondering if that if you're able to verify that in either direction. And again, moving forward, how do we be sure that it's it's being open. It's open the hours that we are telling the community is going to be open. You. Well, I certainly want to address the storage question, but I also have a little more to add on the structured oversight. If that if I can go back to a previous question, if that's okay. I think it's really important to emphasize to this body that, again, DHS is responsible for certain materials and for cleaning cleaning the certain spaces as directed by city personnel, regardless, whichever department that is. And included now in the the amended agreement that is shared with you all, there's a section on structured oversight for quality control. And if I could just read a portion of this, maybe already familiar with it. The contractor is required to participate in structured oversight practices implemented by the city agency commanding the services under the agreement. The purpose of the oversight is to establish a shared understanding of the task or projected goals document, accept the work completion and create a record of work quality for review. Structured oversight practices may consist of, but are not limited to not limited to the following pre task or pre project tailgate meetings to establish quality goals, share goals , post task or purpose post project works, worksite inspections, use of checklists or signoff sheets on work completed and photo or video documentation of post project work site conditions. These aren't just commitments of doing things differently. These these are things that we are putting in the contract. And not only do we kind of not only are we clarifying what we expect of DHS on the site for these different projects, as you heard from Dottie directly, we also have a responsibility to kind of reset and clarify expectations as a city for each site that we are visiting, whether it's an oil drum doctrinally somewhere or for or for these encampments, we have a responsibility and we have the ability to make sure that these these clean ups are backed clean. And that's exactly what we plan to do moving forward. As far as the storage option goes, that is another area where the contract is clear that we.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with all appropriate departments to report back to the City Council in 60 days with recommendations for implementing a pre-approved Accessory Dwelling Units program.

LongBeachCC_01042022_22-0028

Thank you. Now we're going on to item 28, please. I'm 28. It's a communication from Councilwoman. Councilman Alston. Councilwoman Sarah. Recommendation to require city manager to report back to the City Council in 60 days with the recommendations for implementing a approved accessory dwelling units program. Thank you. Council Member Austin. Thank you very much. First of all, I'd like to thank Council Member Sorrell for joining me on this this item. And as we begin 2022, we've heard a lot of goals about our our housing crisis and the need to build quality, affordable housing in our city. And this is just another tool in the toolbox. This item aims to assist the city as it looks to increase the number of quality, sustainable and affordable housing units in our communities. In November, we proposed the proposed housing element, Long Beach's arena allocation increase to 26,502 units, with over 11,000 of those being low and very low income . We've fallen short of these goals in the past, and only 16% of our affordable housing target is the fifth housing element cycle permitted. I hope this item can be a useful tool that we can leverage to increase production and alleviate the housing crisis in our city. 80 youth presented a unique solution because of their small size and compatibility with single family housing and zoning. Wait times and design costs can can become barriers for projects prospective residents interested in constructing to use. And we want to eliminate that. For these reasons, the cities throughout California have started adopting approved edu plans to streamline the approval processes for employees and residents alike. Our developments the services department previously intended to develop a new preapproved program for those plans were direct but derailed by the pandemic. This item makes use of the preliminary research already done by the department staff and ensures that we develop a program based on best practices for the city of Long Beach. And I just would note that the city of L.A., La, San Jose, Chico and other cities have all adopted strategies to streamline their development processes, and this will decrease permitting time. Pre-approved 80 plans will provide applicants for 80 new construction plans. They've already been reviewed by the city with necessary permitting staff, which potentially could streamline the approval processes for able to use from weeks to days. And so this is an efficiency item as well. And so with that, I would. That's what my colleagues support on this. All right. Thank you. Next is Councilwoman Sorrow. Vice mayor. I want to thank Councilmember Austin for his leadership on this item. You know, last month seems like a lifetime ago because of the holidays. But just last month in last year, we just finalized the housing element plan for the city of Long Beach. And I think we heard loud and clear consistently that we need to increase housing and we need to explore every option possible. And I think that one of the ways that we can do it is through making it easier through this preapproved accessory dwelling unit program. And so I think that and I think that it's just, again, one of the many avenues we can take to make sure that we just really ensure that we're meeting our numbers, but most importantly, ensuring there's increased housing. So for that reason, I completely support this item and understand that hopefully, you know, when we get a report back is seeing what are the various options people can choose from based on the pre approved plan. So thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. This is a very interesting one for my district. On one side, we're very supportive of reducing government regulation and red tape and barriers to entry and finding ways for people to be able to get through city processes faster. On the other side, we also don't want to incur additional government costs. And so I hope that when the report comes back, we would be open to when a. Applicant plans to use one of these, that they would have a small nominal fee that would go towards reimbursing the city for the cost. So let's say that they cost the city 30, $50,000 to move forward with this program of a current application fee is $6,000, maybe it's 6200 because they're using one of the previous plans. It saved them in architectural and engineering $9,000. So the $200 fee could make up for and feedback into that pot. I know that there's a lot of discussion and calls to our office regarding individuals who want to use to use to. Allow family members, particularly parents, to move in with them. I know that there's one that's pending right now. That is for a daughter who was recently left by her husband and her kids and and her are going to move into a adu at her parent's house that they're building. And those delays are significant. When you don't have somewhere to live, being able to move a process forward more quickly can mean the difference between months, months of living care for an elderly parent. So I've been torn on this item because I know that there are conflicting feelings. But I do want to reduce government regulation, and I do want to support a plan for a nominal way to reimburse the city for that. A lot of these ideas that Council Member Austin have brought forward are very innovative and I appreciate the research and I look forward to seeing the report back with the recommendations in 60 days. Thank you. Councilmember Super. Now I was going to go to public comment, but because I've inherited a lot of Councilmember Mango's district, I might as well just follow up on what she just said, and that is it. We don't even have to go to the merits of aid to use and affordable housing or what impact it will have. To me, this item is about reducing staff time and improving these units or streamlining the staff process. So I would love to get there, but I'd also like to ask staff now. That's a great goal. But but is it going to be minimal impact for the study to happen? Do you see much time spent on that? Mr. MacGregor. Mr. TIM. Because some of it is. Is development services on the line? Yes, department services is on the line. Go right here to ask if you could respond. Thank you, Mayor and council members. What we plan to do is report back to you with different options, some of which could provide the staff with additional time and expenses that we currently don't have. There are other options that potentially could be easier to administer and quickly and cost the city with little impact in terms of funding . So we'll well, what we'd hope to do is provide you with those options. We have already done some preliminary investigations, including the use of pre-fabricated modular units and a housing project and a funding for such a for those types of projects. So we'll provide that information to you in short order. Okay. Thank you for that. Mr.. Morsi. And so based on that, the fact that the study is not going to impact staff time tremendously with the goal of streamlining the process and taking some burden off planning or development services. I'm supporting the item. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you. I'm very supportive of this item. And I just want to say I really appreciate the frequently asked questions sheet. It really helped break down the issue for me. I guess my question would be to the to the author of this item. I mean, it seems to me that this also affords an opportunity for people who want to have an EDU to be able to do so at a reduced cost, because the all the investment that they would have to take to build an idea would be such a deterrent for most people. And it seems like this item does that. Am I reading it correctly? I think you're reading it absolutely correctly. If you look at the cost of building 80 youths that are not pre-designed in prefab. It's significant today and I think it becomes a barrier. And so we need to remove barriers as much as possible. I agree. I mean, it's it's no secret. I've spoken very publicly about the fact that I thought our council did a very good job outlining our new laws. We listened to public comment. We incorporated many characteristics and variables that we wanted to make sure were met before we allowed an ADU and our ordinance was superseded by the state. And that's just a reality that sometimes happens and it took away some local control. So now that that ordinance is now in place or that state laws in place allowing for a readily accessible way to use and more of them, then I want to make sure that everybody has an opportunity to participate in that process and that cost is less of a barrier, although let's not make any mistake about it building. And Adu is very expensive with this item or without, and it is a barrier for many people. But if it allows folks to have an opportunity to earn some additional income on their property, then I think we should try to remove those barriers. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. Just to circle back, I think that after finishing reading the FFA cuz I think it's important to kind of highlight a few of the things that Councilmember Austin has brought to the forefront, which is that the costs of ADU use for garage conversions all the way through detached units, really in construction costs alone, you're talking 90,000 to this says 180,000. But I'm aware of a bit of a recent ADA in our our area that was over 250,000 just for construction costs. And the individual had mentioned not only had they already been in for thousands of dollars in engineering and architectural costs, but I don't think that they were aware of the fees. And so one of the other things I'd love to see on this, because the family was pretty blindsided, is there a set of fees associated, whether they're sewer fees, Long Beach, unified fees, all these different fees. And in fees alone, they had upwards of 6000, $10,000 in fees. And a lot of those fees are directly tied to the square footage. And so there's calculations that are involved. And so I would love to see that if we do bring back something that discusses the specifics of these different little options that you could have. So like San Jose says, okay, here's here's a two bedroom floor plan for 500 square feet. Average construction costs in the Southern California area are x per square foot. And by the way, your sewer fees would be this year. Let me unified fees would be that your community college fees would be this and that there should be a schedule so that people know what their all in costs are before they get started. Because once they do get started, a lot of people are all in and then they overleverage themselves or they try to get loans and they can't afford to finish the project. And we have a couple of projects that are just stuck because people ran out of money and that's also not good for the community. So if we could get those fee schedules attached and some estimates, that would be very helpful. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I'll I'll add my support here, then we'll go to public comment. First of all, I love this. I think it's a great item. It's not a referendum on IOUs use. We already proved a to use in the city. I think this is a recommendation to make it better and I support that. It is a tool we're counting on to use. We are certainly counting on to help meet our arena numbers and our housing shortage. And so if this helps make that happen, I'm supportive. Growth is going to happen. This just helps make sure it's done safe and up to code and not haphazard and illegally converted garages and things like that. I think cut sheets are good. Like when we have cut sheets on other things and make it easy, you can say, hey, build it like this and it's approved. It takes one layer out of the planning process and that's always good. I also think, you know, I always get these cards. I'm sure my colleagues do, too. Hey, we can build a you and your backyard and all that. So, you know, I've called some of them and it's not Stand B, they can't give you a flat rate. They have to do a lot of work. Just to give you a quote, I think doing something like this, when you standardize, hey, this is what this is what this size will look like, so that looks sides look like. I think the business community will respond and say, I think people would actually design businesses around where they're at, you, experts in Long Beach, so on and so forth. So I fully support this. You know, I think I think just a suggestion. I think it would be good if staff were to just work with the apartment association or developing companies that are developers of this to help make sure it actually, you know, that that is something they will utilize and that'll work. But I love this item and I'm happy to support it. Let's go to public comment and congratulations, Councilman. I think I will go let's go to public comment. We have three votes and I can say John Edmond and Tiffany Davey. So now you're up. So I said I can face six votes for president. I want to commend first of Councilman Austin for bringing this to this item to the agenda. And, Dr. Sophy, sorrow for second unit. As we know, 80 youths are the future. And it's a very harsh reality to the affordable housing crisis that we have here in California. A You seem to be one of the few very visible examples of development, specifically towards the income brackets that need the most housing and so falling in support of it. UC Berkeley says that UC Berkeley did a study and they said the average ADU cost is about $156,000. We need some teeth. With respect to this program, I think that a preapproved, a streamlining effort will help some solutions. I would like to offer would be very simple. I think there should be no fees. Forgive me, Councilwoman Mongeau. I think that the city should eat all the cost. The reality is that if the city incentivizes the free market to take advantage of something like, you know, fees and stuff like that, you're talking about, you know, 12 to $18000 in fees, blueprint blueprint fees and the planning permits and loan that $18,000 added to the cost of whatever you have to use. If the city was to eat that up, we would easily knock out a lot of the arena issues that we're facing. You know, we're behind and we need to incentivize the market to take to take advantage of this. A second thing that I would offer is that we create a, you know, similar to the gun buyback program where we allege that we take guns off the street, even though most of them are not guns used in crimes. We need to actually actually incentivize people who have illegal garage conversions to legalize them. And, you know, if that's a one time fee, like you're talking about a nominal fee where people are incentivized to bring their illegal garage conversion or granny flat and make it a legal one. I think that those units, when then legally added into the our arena unit that were behind would help us a lot because people have already done this, they just didn't do it legally. And oftentimes people, you know, are in fear of either selling their house or making it unaware that they have to use because they didn't illegally get it converted. So I think if we created a process for people, that would help a lot. And then finally, I think that RFP should be put out for a pre fabricator, a sizable one to do modular adus and the city also using maybe some of the code good money to eat up the cost for them. Thank you. Thank you. Next is John Edmonds. Hello. It's not even here. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember, city manager, city attorney, city staff. For all your hard work. Greatly appreciated. Wonderful item. Thank you so much for putting this forward. I'm speaking on behalf of the Apartment Association of California Southern Cities and in many ways city staff is fantastic, but their hands are tied a lot of the time, so the state constantly changes and then the city has to update their rules and regulations and codes to meet what some of the state rules are. But I think we can we can do more, right? I think there's always an opportunity to do that. I ask if there is a way that we could work with local stakeholders that are their subject matter experts on this issue, that can aid the city in finding, you know, more opportunities to be able to do a to use couple of examples that come to mind. We have a new construction of new apartment buildings which allow under state law the the one of the parking units to be converted to EDU and the person has to fill in the concrete, put all the things up, and then submit for an application. You know, why can't that be done concurrently? Why can't we have the inspector come out before you fill in the concrete, make sure all the pipes are there, and that we make sure that we have these units done successfully to protect life and property, but that we have a more streamlined system so that under new construction they're able to fully maximize the number of units that are able to be made. To me it seems like a no brainer, but the city's hands are tied because it doesn't speaks clearly to that issue. And I think that we can work together on finding those types of solutions in terms of process, right, because they have a lot on their plate. The second thing is like, for instance, height, there's duplexes that are within the height restrictions for the state. But because it's a duplex, it's not a single family unit, it's not viewed the same way and being able to have an ADU and so therefore staff, you know, again, have their hands tied because. Current code does not recognize what the intent surely of the state. I mean, whether it's a duplex or a single family home, as long as the heights compliant. What issues with there really be. So I think that looking at real world market examples of what the current limitations are and applicants that have gone through the process that have been denied and finding sort of, you know, common sense solutions, I just welcome that and hope to be part of those conversations. So it's fully enveloped and we can really capitalize on all the opportunities. But tremendous hats off. Wonderful item. Thank you very much for being able to bring this forward and thank you city staff for all their hard work that they do to make this happen and make Long Beach. Great. So thank you. Have a great evening. Thank you, Mr. Redmond. I think that concludes public comment. Or do I have another one? We have one more. Davey? Yes. Oh, yeah, please. Thank you. Good evening. It's not every Tuesday that housing advocates and the California Apartment Association are on the exact same page, but we are definitely in support of this item. As we all know, the conversations regarding housing being the need for housing being a crisis requires innovation. That said, beyond just this program, which I'm again, fantastic, I saw the 13 units example with three different sizes, a wonderful way to bring more units on board as soon as possible. But to the two comments from the previous speakers in regards to those that are already in existence, we do need to have a streamlined process for that as well. I shared I believe in last year that I had a lot of experience during the pandemic, speaking with homeowners who had been denied within the past 15 years to have their units go online. And we have units sitting empty. We also have units that were very reluctant to even take part in the census for the shame of living in an illegal unit and of fear of just reporting that they live somewhere to protect both their landlords and themselves. Housing is a human right, but it's also something that during the pandemic we have fought day and night for. Whether you're working till midnight, helping folks with emergency rental assistance applications, or again walking door to door to make sure every community member is counted. Thank you. That concludes the public comment. Thank you. We'll go back comes from Austin. Thank you. I'd just like to thank my colleagues for their input there on this particular item. I think it's very important that we come out in 2022 with a real aggressive approach to dealing with our housing crisis here in the city. And I think this item certainly speaks to that. I'd like to just step to to speak to what is already been done in terms of the the pre-approval or the template for garage conversions. Because I heard a little bit about that and I think we need some clarification on that. Yes, thank you. Council member staff began in two page process before COVID. The first phase we were successful was successfully implemented and that was the conversion developing country that someone mentioned earlier or typical to help those individuals wishing to convert their garages into EDU. So that's there that's available online. And it's it was something that we in the city paid for to be able to more easily convert garages. We started with looking at the different options that you listed in the council letter as well as visiting several different locations, a pre manufactured edu type. Of. Fabrications throughout the surrounding area in hopes to be able to learn a little bit more. So we've already done that. One other thing too is that the state rules regulate the amount of fees and funding you can charge on these fees. So that regulated by them. We do still, however, and again, as Councilmember Mungo indicated, it depends on its size. So we have that information that we will provide to you and report back. So there have been several efforts done, but again, COVID and funding kind of limited our phase two. So we're hoping to get back to completing our efforts. So we do appreciate this. Councilor Councilmember Hoffman. All right. Thank you. And my my just last words is we've heard a lot of good comments from an input from the council as well as public comment. Please take that all into consideration. When you come back with some recommendations, we asked for the best options possible for this Council to consider with the goal in mind to expand and streamline production of a to use in our city. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I just have another question for our director, Oscar. Are the fees regulated only for the city or are they regulated for every government entity that you pay fees to the regulated for every government entity that we pay fees to? That is correct. Wow. There are certain fees. We will engage our city attorney's office on the school fees. School fees are requesting fees and there may be a bit of a conflict there, but we'll get you that information as well in our report back report. Good to know. Thank you. There's a motion and a second and we've heard public comment to members, please cast your votes. The motion is carried. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. We're moving on to our next item, which is going to be item 27.

AN ORDINANCE relating to City employment; authorizing the execution of a collective bargaining agreement between The City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association to be effective January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2023; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_06142022_CB 120332

The report of the City Council Agenda Item one Council Bill 120332 An ordinance relating to city employment authorizing the execution of the collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association. This is active January 1st, 2020 through December 31st, 2023. Thank you. A move to pass Council Bill 120332. Is there a second? Okay. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Sponsor of this item. I will address it and then I'll open the floor to comments. Last week, at the request of our Public Safety Committee Chair, Councilmember Herbold, we delayed a vote on the Seattle Police Management Collective Bargaining Agreement by one week. Today, the SPM. The collective bargaining agreement will be considered for a vote. As you may recall, the SPM collective bargaining agreement was referred directly to full council. It was not considered at the committee level. The council received a one hour informational briefing presentation I'm sorry, on Council Bill 120332 by our Council central staff and lead negotiators an open public session on Monday, June six at Council Briefing. This collective bargaining agreement came to the Council at the conclusion of likely lengthy, focused negotiations between the Seattle Police Management Association and the City of Seattle. It's council president. I sponsored it to ensure it's timely consideration in full council and due respect for this lengthy negotiation process. The Council has the option to accept or reject, but not to amend the collective bargaining agreement, which is why per protocol they are they are sent they are sent straight to full council and not sent to committee for review. So basically we did not go to full council or I'm sorry, a committee came to full council because it's collective bargaining agreement. Council Bill 120332 would authorize the mayor to implement a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Seattle and the Seattle Police Management Association, the SPM. The collective bargaining agreement is a four year agreement on wages, benefits, hours and other working conditions covering the period January 1st, 2020 through December 31st, 2023, and affecting approximately 80 regularly appointed city employees. Greg Doss, The council's central staff, outlined key elements of the agreement in a memo provided to council members and was posted online and made obviously made available to the public on Friday, June 3rd. In summary analysis of SPM contract has been presented in writing and in a presentation publicly with the opportunity for council members to ask questions and receive answers. Before we move on, what I'll do is I'd like to hand it off to the chair, the Public Safety and Human Services Councilmember Herbold, if she'd like to provide some comments from her. So I really appreciate it and appreciate the delay last week and just a little bit more detail about that process. There are two labor unions that represent Seattle police officers, one in the Seattle Police Management Association and the other being the Seattle Police Officers Guild. Fogg represents officers and sergeants and subpoena represents captains and lieutenants contract. In addition to salary increases, increases includes several advances in accountability arising from each 2017 accountability legislation issues that in 2019 overseeing the consent decree highlighted as a basis for noncompliance regarding discipline and appeals issues identified by the CPC, the three Police Commission in their November 2019 letter, including inclusion of the standard for Evidence in discipline review addressing the 180 day timeline problems. Removing the requirement that intentionality must be proven in dishonesty charges. Allowing OC to play a role in criminal investigations. Retaining personnel files six years after an officer is no longer employed by the city and new issues raised by Accountability Partners OC , OIG and see the beginning of negotiations. APS The most important change covered in this in this particular agreement is in discipline review. Seattle's current arbitration system is broken. It's one of the main reasons a federal judge found the Seattle Police Department out of compliance with the consent decree in 2019 to a ruling an arbitrator regarding. In statement, an officer fired former chief for striking a woman who was handcuffed a currently 93 open appeals according to okay. Some of them involve complaints filed as far back as 2016. This new agreement creates a new discipline review system that marks a sea change in how disciplinary bills will operate. Help slow that backlog from growing even more by ensuring cases aren't being entirely relitigated during arbitration as they currently are. What's called De Novo. Review. Will also ensure that arbitrators who are generally not experts on saying don't substitute for judgment or the police chiefs undermining accountability, as happened in the Adly Shepherd case and recently with a parking enforcement officer who made a comment about lynching and was reinstated by an arbitrator. New system, as recommended by the CPC and the 2017 Accountability Legislation, establishes a standard for evidence rather than a higher standard of clear and convincing it is used. The new system will also prohibit hearing of new facts related to the Office of Accountability Investigation unless the new facts were not discoverable at time of chief decision and that reasonably expect expected to change that decision. Another important improvement is that the proposed ESTIMÉ contract removes restrictions on the ability of OPA. Assign civilian investigators to certain tasks, allowing the okay to make assignments based on the skills and abilities of the investigator rather than whether or not they are civilian or a uniformed sergeant. Language in the contract limits the number of civilian investigators that can work at OPM. This change to the SPM agreement now might address that limitation in the contract. There are improvements include, as we heard in public comment, subpoenas. The 2017 Accountability Legislation Establish the Authority, the Office of Police Accountability and the Inspector General PMA and Smog Objective. Because there is no process identified. I proposed legislation in a council adopt a process last year. Consequently, the SPM contract is now silent on the top means that subpoena power, as passed by the Council in 2021, is unimpeded by the contract and goes to effect as PMA member's contract also removes the Commission on OPA from coordinating an investigation and states that he will not conduct a criminal investigation, a make communicate with criminal investigators and prosecutors about the status. Of. A criminal investigation as it relates to the 180 day clock. The contract, this is a pause on 188 a o'clock whenever a criminal investigation is contracted, regardless where the alleged criminal activity occurred, or what agency is conducting the investigation. And very importantly, the contract also means the definition of dishonesty. The intent of the definition is made clear by removing intentionally and injuring the facts that are material to the allegation, immaterial flat facts. And then lastly, I just want to note in response to Agnes governance question in public comment today, I just wanted to note that I don't Colleen responded, and we have an email from him saying that Otto is competent. The sentence in the Bill of Rights section of the agreement reference will not limit new discipline, review. Process. Or restrict disciplinary actions taken by the chief under the new process. Because again, that that sentence only is only tied to the Bill of Rights and not tied to the new re process. And so with that, that's my my attempt at a quick overview at the important reforms in this contract. And I do join me in supporting this contract with your vote. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Herbold, I know that you're wrapping up months of not maybe over a year of negotiations, but I stand corrected if I'm wrong on that. But this has been going on quite a while. Council members to anyone, have any other comments before we move to go to a vote with any would like to say. Councilmember Morales please. Thank you. I will be relatively brief. I do think it's important to say that this negotiated agreement makes some important changes regarding the management of police misconduct proceedings. This agreement doesn't eliminate arbitration, which is something that the city has been working on for a while. And I personally would like to see us get there. But it does place greater restrictions on the arbitration process. It eliminates the ability of officers to bring new evidence or witnesses to a misconduct proceeding. As Councilmember Herbold said, it would have it would require an arbitrator to uphold chief's discipline rather than overturning it. And it lowers the bar for evidence of misconduct, which is a key change for reaching a disciplined decision. I think there are important elements in this agreement, even if it doesn't get us all the way to where I think we need to be. And perhaps most importantly, it sets a precedent for the entire department about discipline, review, officer liability and accountability for officer misconduct. All things that I know we will continue to talk about as we go into the smog contract negotiation. So for that, those reasons, I will be supporting this agreement. Thank you. Are there any other comments? All right. Not seeing any. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll on the passage of the bill? That's a member monogamous council member must get that i. Councilmember Nelson, i. Councilmember Petersen. Hi. Councilmember Strouse. Yes. Council Member Herbold. Yes. Council member Lewis. Yes. And Council President Fortis. I. That is eight present and opposed to excuse me in favor of another post. Thank you. The bill passes. The chair will sign it. And then can you please affix my signature to the bill? Thank you. Moving on to the Finance and Housing Committee. I see Kessler ROSQUETA has something on the calendar today. Madam Clerk, will you please read item two into the record?

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4519 Pearl Street in Globeville. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-B to U-SU-B1 (urban edge, to urban context), located at 4519 Pearl Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-22-19.

DenverCityCouncil_02252019_19-0055

I think your microphone. Yes, Mr. President. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 1955 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, March 18, 2019. I think that was I think you got a little bit ahead of it. You're just putting it taken out of order. And then Councilman Sussman was come up. So can you. You want to move that? Yes. Thank you. I withdraw that motion. Maybe you should have replaced me when you had the chance. Mr. President, I move that council bill 19, dash 55, be taken out of order. All right. That has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. All right, Brooks. Hi. Flynn. Hi, Herndon. Hi, Cashman. I can reach Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Sussman. Hi, Mr. President. I'm secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. 1111 Eyes Council will 19 0055 has been taken out of order. Now, Councilwoman Sussman, would you like to make a motion to postpone? Yes, Mr.. President. I move that final consideration. Of Council Bill 19 0055. With its public hearing be postponed to Monday, March 18th, 2019. It has been moved and seconded. Are there any questions or comments by members of Council Councilwoman Sussman? Yes, it's a. Matter of posting time and time to post. We need to push it out a little bit farther. Thank you very much. See no other questions or comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. All right. Brooks. I. Flinn i. Herndon, I. Cashman. All right. Can each. Right. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. Hi, Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results. 11. 11. Eyes Final Consideration of comfortable 19 0055 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, March 18th, 2019. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. Other bills for introduction are ordered published and we are now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration.

Recommendation to request a resolution making the month of February 2015 be officially deemed "Spay/Neuter Awareness Month" in an effort to reduce the amount of homeless animals and euthanasia in Long Beach, while promoting healthy pet practices and donations to organizations that provide spay and neuter services.

LongBeachCC_02032015_15-0102

Item number 22 communications from vice mayor. Susan Lowenthal, Councilwoman Susie Price, Councilwoman Stacey Mango, Councilman de Andrew's recommendation to request a resolution making the month of February 2015 be officially deemed spay neuter awareness month. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank the co-sponsors and the author, initial author of this item as well. We want to bring awareness to the need for cat and dog owners in our city to spayed or neutered their pets in order to help our city dramatically reduce our pet overpopulation. Unfortunately, a tragic story unfolds again and again in our city on a daily basis, in our at our animal care services, as they pick up animals that have runaway been dumped or been dumped on the side of the road, starving or injured from being hit by a car or attacked by predators. A large majority of those unwanted or stray dogs cats are not spayed or neutered. Thousands have to be euthanized as a result. Pet overpopulation is a matter of moral, ethical and fiscal concern for all residents and leadership in Long Beach. It's not just a city bureaucratic problem, but a problem that touches every resident through increased costs for services. So we'd like the city to focus on bringing awareness to the issue and the good work of our community partners who provide low cost and free spay and neuter services to residents that qualify in hopes that our wonderful pet owners will contribute to their cause. Because this is really an investment with dividends for our conscience and our mission to improve the quality of life for our residents. And I think we all know that our city's focused quite a bit on animal care issues, spay and neuter, most recently, but really over the last several years we have and I think this would be a great way to demonstrate our heightened focus. This will also provide the opportunity to talk about the wonderful dogs and cats currently at Animal Care Services. All spayed or neutered, just waiting for adoption into a loving home. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. You know what I saw? You had a second. Do you want to pass? Councilmember Mongo. Thank you both. Very low and all great commentary during this important time. While we are considering the spay and neuter ordinance for the city, I feel that it's very important for us to acknowledge spay and neuter Awareness Month for those who have not yet spayed or neutered their pets to take this opportunity for voluntary spay and neuter . There are several voucher programs available that we are very proud of. And for more information, please call 5705555. Thank you. Next to have Council Andrus. Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor. You also want to thank Vice Mayor Blumenthal for asking me to sign on to this item. You know, recognizing February as a spate of neutered awareness month brings attention, you know, to the ongoing oncoming on going ongoing issues of pets, overpopulation in our city. You know, I know that this idea will encourage residents to do what they can to help our animals that are neglected. And thank you again, vice mayor. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mayor. And without any public comments, seeing none. Please cast your votes. Motion carries seven zero. Thank you. At. Quick couple announcements. One, as a matter of practice, as we're getting used to the system, I'm always going to call on the second door even if I'm not cued up and then I'll pass if you have no comment, because we've been doing it both ways and so I've been in motion. It'll be the second. Or if you don't want to comment, I'll just move on to the next person on the on the queue. Okay. I also just want to take this moment cause I didn't get a chance to do it earlier, and I don't want to forget towards the end. Arturo Sanchez is in the audience. Arturo is our new deputy city manager. And Arturo, please waive over there anything. You see him. And he hails from Oakland, California, and is now a Long Beach resident, him and his wife both. So let's give him a round of applause real quick here. And I just had a conversation with the Oakland mayor, you know, two weeks ago about Arturo. And she was very, very sad to lose him and considered him their superstar. So that's that's, you know, says a lot to think about what we can expect here in Long Beach. And so welcome, Arturo. And I didn't also not get a chance earlier to thank Andrew Quinn, who's in the audience. And Andrew actually did a majority of the writing of the Bloomberg grant. So even though a lot of people did the work and Mr. Modica kind of spearheaded that, I think Andrew was working, you know, days and days straight through weekends to get all of the text and verbiage of that grant in place. So thank you, Andrew. Let's give Andrew a round of applause for for that too. And with that, we'll go over to item number 16.

A bill for an ordinance correcting the legal description of a specifically described area, generally located at 1400 and 1436 South Irving Street in Mar Lee. Corrects the legal description for the property described in Ordinance No. 20170729, Series of 2017, located at 1400 and 1436 South Irving Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 2-6-18.

DenverCityCouncil_03272018_18-0117

Meetings, and they feel comfortable doing so their home addresses. If you're here to answer questions only your name is called. Come to the podium, state your name, know that you're available for questions from members of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes unless another speaker's year of his or her time with your vote result in a total of 6 minutes on the presentation monitor on your right and left, you'll see that time counting down speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your members say to comments to members of council as a whole and please refrain from individual personal attacks. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 117 on the floor? Mr. President, I move that council B117 be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved to the second it a public hearing for council bill 117 in Mali is now open. Andrew Webb. Good to see you. May we have a staff report? Absolutely. Thank you. Good evening. Andrew Webb from Community Planning and Development. This is a request to change the legal description adopted with a previous rezoning ordinance for 1440 1436 South Irving Street. It's in Council District three in the Marly neighborhood. This is about a just under three acre property at the intersection of Florida. And federal contains apartments, several apartment buildings and one single unit home. And the property owner request here is to correct the legal description associated with ordinance number 2017 0729. You may recall this council adopted zone change in August of 2017 from a PD 182 SMU three for this property. During a subsequent application to community planning and development, the applicant and their surveyor noticed some errors in the legal description that had been provided with the original documentation for the zone change and requested that that be changed in the ordinance. We worked with the City Attorney's Office to determine the appropriate process here and ultimately was referred to the LUDIE Committee per the section of the zoning code that allows for a truncated review and public hearing process for correction of an error. It was approved as part of the Ludie consent agenda on February six. We did post signage and complete all the required all the requirements of the 21 day public notification. And we have not received public comments about this request. As I mentioned, this proposal just corrects an error and a legal description. It does not change the zoning of this property. So the consistency with review criteria for a rezoning can be presumed by the council's findings in the original rezoning case. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. Wow. That was quick questions for members of council. Actually, we had Mr. Speaker, we do have one speaker. I'm sorry, Chairman Sekou. We have one speaker tonight. Chairman Sekou, you have 3 minutes. Please come to the podium. Good evening and it's good to see you guys. My name is Chairman Sekou. I represent the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. I will see for poor, working, poor, homeless senior citizens also. This. Process that we're having a conversation around seems to be something that is is minor, inconsequential. And folks caught this thing. Oh. So they wouldn't have. Later on down the road consequences. And I remember. I don't know. Maybe. Eight, ten years ago. Well, we came to the same thing. Only problem was, Kelly had caught something about the story of a description of a thing, and it was missing a comma instead of a period and that kind of thing. But it had it and it had an impact on the interpretation of what was being said. And so we thanked her for finding that out because it could have substantial implications in the future. And so these things don't seem like they're much, but what it represents is the effort of the city being able to document, cross the I's, do the T's, and then make sure that this thing is found out. There's an error, that it may seem small, but it needs to be fixed. And it needs to be fixed immediately when it's brought to attention. So we want to thank you for for doing that. And we also want to thank counsel and other folks are bringing that to the attention. Now, what this establishes this no excuses for allowing things, no matter how small they are, to become unattended, which means that once we create the habit. Of paying attention to the details, then less will fall through the cracks. And then everybody don't have to run when the light comes off like scattered cockroaches looking for blame when it ain't date. It's just something that was a human error. And we make that all the time because we're human beings. But also we have the responsibility as human beings when we see a mistake to correct the mistake. Otherwise, as my grandfather was there, you have made a big mistake. So thank you very much for the work that you guys do, doing what you do. Thank council for the work that they do to make sure these things don't happen. And if we apply the same habits to the little things and we apply it to the larger scope of things that impact people on a bigger level, then maybe perhaps we can. Have the team work to make the dream work. With the least amount of headaches. I got eight more seconds. Harris. All right. Thank you. Nice shot. Okay. Thank you, Chairman Sekou. This concludes our speakers. Are there any questions by members of council? Whole bunch of questions here. Okay. Councilman Flynn. Thing. Mr. Briggs, I don't know about a bunch of questions, but I am curious if you could explain a couple of things. Who made the error and was this error contained in the legal description? Back all the way back at the beginning, I think in 1994 or whenever this was first developed. Has that ever been in there? And does that create any problem? Councilmember Flynn, the the new zoning or legal description was created for the 2017 rezoning. And it was, as you are probably aware, when application for rezoning is received, we send it to our Public Works survey staff to ensure that is correct. They look to make sure that the legal description doesn't contain any right of way, that sort of thing. And in the back and forth between our staff and the applicant's agent. There were a couple of grammatical errors that did not get noticed at that time and were called to our attention. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. I just wanted to confirm that in the documents, what we're looking at is just a portion of the legal description. Correct? Not the total legal description and the slides. I do have a slide that actually shows the red lined legal description here so you can see what the changes actually are. Yeah. So okay, that that tells me. Yes, we were only looking at a portion here and it's. Oh no actually. Yeah. So we're only talking about the little bump out, not the not the balance of the site. The this what you're adopting tonight would actually just reestablish the entire legal description for the original adoption ordinance for the rezoning. It's formatted a little bit differently. But it should it should be this entire text you see here. All right. You might want to double check that, because that is a much smaller portion than the area that was part of that rezoning. Okay. So that's why I was just trying to confirm that we're just looking at a portion of the total legal description that would have defined that zoning. But okay. Yeah, that is a fraction of of that entire area. So. Okay. We did we'll definitely take a look at that. But we did confirm this repeatedly, this time with public works and with a surveyor that that the applicant had actually hired to do a new and updated legal description. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. See? No other questions. The public hearing is now closed. Councilman Lopez, this is your district. Would you love to? Comment. Yeah. It just seems like, uh, the obvious. Correcting the, uh, the actual title and description. A lot of times you don't pay attention to the actual description. A lot of people think that's just the address, but it's actual. Mm. Property lines. And that's a big deal when you're trying to either borrow against a and to improve, improve a property or anything else. When you have that kind of problem, you have a problem with the bank. You have a problem with being able to do upgrades, anything like that when it comes to financing, things like that. These these are apartments that I've known for a very long time. My actual my aunt, my uncle, my cousins lived in these apartments for a long time. So I know exactly which ones they are and if. If this, then I'm just assuming. But if it just stands to make a corrections to do upgrades in bad need. So this is affordable housing, folks. This is these are apartments that before was a popular they are actually affordable and that's disappearing quickly. So I'm glad we're able to make this correction. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Raquel Lopez. I knew Ortega says when. I black. Eye. Clark. I Espinosa. Flynn, I. Cashman. Can each Mr. President. I please close of voting announce the results. So just seeing one Lebanese. Yeah. 11 Eyes 117 series of 2008 passes translations. Okay. All right. Monday, April 23rd, 2018. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill. 229 2018 Changes on classification of 580 South Forest St in Washington, Virginia veil a required public hearing of Council Bill 243 Series of 2018 changes only classification for 3400 Arkansas Court. 34 six The Arkansas Court and 1930 35th Street in five points and a required public hearing on Council Bill 2000 Series 2018 to 44 changes on classification for 25th Street and Glenarm Place and five points any protests against the Council Bill 4 to 29 series of 2018 to 2 44 to 43 2018 and to 44 2019 must be filed with the Council offices no later than Monday, August 16, 2018. I move. We are going to move into executive session here and I move that council, enter into executive executive session for the purposes to receive legal advice that is attorney client privilege.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 735 North Milwaukee Street in Congress Park. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 735 North Milwaukee Street in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-28-21.

DenverCityCouncil_02142022_22-0003

Madam Secretary. Closed the voting and announced results. 13 of 13 I's Final Consideration of Council Bill. 20 1-1455 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, March 21st, 2022. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Council Bill 20 2-0003 on the floor for final passage? Yes, I move the council bill 20 2-0003 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 20 20003 with this public hearing be moved to February 22nd, 2022. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of council. Councilmember Herndon. No comments by president. All right. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call on the postponement of Council Bill 20 2-0003. CdeBaca I work all right. Flynn, I. Herndon I. Have. I. Cashman Hi. It's me. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres. I work. I. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. 13 Eyes.

Recommendation to approve Mayor’s designees as argument writers for the Long Beach ballot measure appearing on the November 3, 2020 General Election ballot.

LongBeachCC_08112020_20-0749

Thank you. Thank you very much. Now we're going to move on to item ten crap. Would you please read that? Communication for Mayor Garcia. Recommendation to approve Mayor's Designees as argument writers for the Long Beach ballot measure appearing on the November 3rd, 2020. General Election Ballot. However, any private company inside of. There is no public comment on this item. So please have a first and second. That's when Richardson and. Cameron Pierce, could you please come for the vote? District one. I. I. District two. I'M District three. I. District four by district five. I. District six. All right. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

AN ORDINANCE providing for the submission to the qualified electors of King County, at a general election to be held on November 3, 2020, of a proposition authorizing the county to issue its general obligation bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $1,740,000,000 or so much thereof as may be issued under the laws governing the indebtedness of counties, for the purpose of providing funds to pay for public health, safety and seismic improvements for Harborview Medical Center.

KingCountyCC_06162020_2020-0176

or any members. Okay. So we will move on. This was not for action today. This is going to be on the council agenda next week. This brings us to item number six, which is a proposed ordinance number 2020 20176, which would place on the November ballot a bond proposal for public health, safety and seismic improvements at Harborview Medical Center. We're going to have a briefing on this in a moment. But I just want to alert folks that when the briefing is done, we will be going into executive session, which means that the council members will leave this Zoom meeting. The Zoom meeting will continue without us in it. We are going to another meeting to have our executive session to discuss an item that I will describe if the chair isn't back. And and then we will come back into this Zoom meeting to take final action on the Harborview Bond and move on in our agenda. So that will all be announced and flagged as we go ahead. But I wanted to make sure people knew that was coming. And before that, we have a briefing from our council central staff, Sam Porter and Nick Bowman. Why don't you are you are you on the line, Sam or Nick? Yes. I don't think. You don't have. To. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Materials for this item begin on page 67 of your packet. As the committee was previously briefed on this item at the May 19th meeting, I will just provide a very quick, high level overview today and lead with the only notable change since May 19th being the Revised Office of Economic and Financial Analysis on the weather forecast that was released earlier this month. This forecast anticipates significantly lower assessed values than previous forecasts, the result of which being that while the average rate of approximately $0.08 per thousand dollars of assessed value has not changed for the proposed harbor view bond, the average increase in property taxes is now estimated to be approximately $75 annually for homeowner over the life. Of the. Proposed bond. This is $7 more than estimates previously provided based on the August 2019 forecast, and that was included in the previous staff report for this item. The staff report in your packet has been revised to reflect this change. The proposed ordinance 2020 0176 would place a 20 year $1.74 billion capital improvement bond on the November 2020 general election ballot, the proceeds of which would go towards new construction, renovation, seismic retrofitting and other health and safety improvements of Harborview Medical Center facilities. Attachment of the proposed ordinance provides a high level overview of the improvements which may be funded with levy proceeds. These improvements are based on the Harborview Leadership Group recommendation report that was transmitted to council on April 8th of this year. This report, requested through Motion 15183, provides background and detail on the Harborview Leadership Group efforts and summarizes the size and scope of their bond recommendation in order to meet the elections deadline to include the proposed bond on the November ballot. The last regular council meeting to adopt with maximum processing time is July seven. The deadline for elections to receive the effective ordinance is August 4th. And that concludes my remarks. I'm happy to answer any questions. And we have Nick Bowman available as well. Thank you. Councilmember Bell, did you are there Councilmember, other council members, other questions? This is our second briefing on the item. C-note Councilmember Dombrowski. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. And thanks for having this second briefing on this important legislation. Sam, thanks for the report and the updated information with respect to the property taxes. My recollection from reading the materials in the first briefing was that in the first, certainly first year, but maybe then the second and third that the actual amounts collected are quite small. And then it goes. Then it begins to peak and then tapers off. Can you confirm that? And I'm just and then I'm wondering, is there any ability I don't know that we'd want to do this, but is there an ability to seek approval this November? But because the amounts are so small in the first year, or to actually delay collection or commence collection some time, say, in 2022 or 23 without materially impacting the time or or length of the of the period of taxes imposed. Yes. Council Member, I will direct you to pages 72 and 73 of your packet. This is a revised debt issuance schedule with the estimated annual levy rate based on the June 29th 2020 or even forecast the first few years. And the estimated levy rate for 2021 is about $0.12 per thousand dollars and then goes up from there. Does that kind of get to the answer of your question? Yeah, I thought the numbers were quite works worse, much smaller in the first year or so. I just missed the mystery of calling. I believe Patrick Hamacher is available to answer this. I think I think I think so. Very briefly in this book, that's not $0.12. That's quite $0.22 in the first couple of years. And Sam said $0.12. It was just an honest mistake. So it doesn't even get to a full penny until the third year. It's 2.8 $0.08. But I was I was coming on the line to get to the second part of your question, Councilmember, because it's a little different than what we normally have about can we not? Levy Initially, and I think we would ultimately want to ask legal counsel about that. But in general, I believe the answer is yes, because in as opposed to your normal little lift levies where you say we're going to collect a certain rate per year or up to a certain rate per year, what you approve in bond ordinances is a principal amount up to a certain amount. So what you would probably need to find out in the first couple of years if you didn't want to levy it initially, is how you were going to raise the cash to do the planning and design work in the first couple of years, which is why that rate is so low. It's a small expenditure if you're on the way to do that. I do believe you could wait a year or two before you started levying it, but it's such a small rate too. That would kind of be a policy option. Yeah, it's a it's such a small rate for a small amount of money. You could maybe look at an inner fund loan. And I even wonder if the administration of collecting that small amount is is very efficient. So I don't know, we probably lost weight deeply and I don't want to do anything that would take this off of that the track toward a strong launch. But given the economic times it and the very small sums collected, I know that sounds somewhat inconsistent, but I just wonder if we might take a look at that between now and final adoption as to when the collections would start. So. Councilmember, I'm still here. Oh, Dwight. And I think Mr. Henniker had the right idea. You should ask legal counsel, but my recollection when we did something similar many years ago, when I was at the city of Seattle with the Libraries for all bond issue, if you put a measure on the ballot in a year, I believe the legal advice we received at that time is you have to levy the tax the next year, even a very small amount. Otherwise, you're basically asking voters for something that's speculative that way in advance. And the law, as I remember, does not allow you to do that. Thank you. Appreciate it. Right. Mr. Chair, are you looking to advance this to a full council today? Not at this moment I am, but not at this moment. Okay. Are there any other questions? Colleagues. Colleagues, for your information, this is one I would anticipate questions, certainly, which is why I'm asking for questions. And then we do have a unrelated matter regarding Harborview. They will introduce as an executive session and we'll go into executive session before I would be seeking a motion on the bond measure. And just so you know what course we're charting here. So questions on the policy of the bond measure. Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to know in the chart when he heard that estimated rate is three and a quarter. With what's happening right now, is it a possibility? The best estimate actually could be lower. Mr. Hamacher. Yes. Like that king sized insect. What might it be at this point? But remember that because of this, we might issue some debt in the first year. Back to the customary Damascus question, but it'd be for very small amounts to do planning and design. So when we start to issue the construction debt in maybe three years, the market could be completely different. If we were selling 20 year bonds today, I think the rate would be closer to 2% than it was to 3%. But because of that, the executive, I think they did they have brought the estimate for the interest rates down during the time the council's been considering it. But I think they do want to plan to be more conservative than less conservative when they're trying to guess the interest rates for a couple of years down the road. I think if. Hey, no further questions. While not related to the bond proposal, the Harborview Medical Center Board of Trustees has been directly and indirectly authorized as directly and indirectly off until agreements for four properties that are being operated under Harborview is a hospital license and the rents paid out of Harborview Medical Center revenues. However, both the county code and the Hospital Services Agreement specifically define what properties are considered to be part of the medical center. These additional properties are not included in those definitions. The Council needs to go into executive session to confer with the county's attorneys to obtain legal advice of potential actions the county may take related to this matter. Therefore, the grounds for executive session under RTW 4231 ten are to discuss with legal counsel legal risks of a proposed action when public knowledge regarding the action is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the county. The committee will be the executive session for approximately 15 minutes until about 3:02 a.m., asking QC KPTV to please post the virtual meeting to that effect. And I'm asking only council members and any county employees directly necessary for the discussion to join the executive session by state at this time and council members, you may still stay logged in to zoom and leave yourself muted and step and committee assistance will make sure that you're muted when you leave Zoom as well so you can leave zoom open and I will see you in the executive session scope momentarily. Thank you. All right, then we're coming out of executive session and as we've ascertained that all members are accounted for. Councilmember Dombrowski, I would entertain a motion if you were so inclined. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I move adoption of the Harborview Bond ordinance, and as the prime sponsor, I defer to you for opening remarks. Thank you, Councilmember Dombrowski, for moving. We give a do pass recommendation to ordinance 2020 176, and it was my pleasure to serve with you, Councilmember Dombrowski, people from Harborview, people from UTEP Medicine, our labor partners at the hospital and neighbors around Harborview on first tail, and perhaps most importantly, the mission population. The hospital's duty is to serve. And as you already heard, when the board chair for Harborview Board of Trustees testified during public comment, the recommendation from that working group was unanimous for the package that has continued from the working group that Councilmember Nebraskan I served on through the Harborview Board, the Facilities Committee and the executive to arrive to us in the same form. We see now in the middle of a pandemic the work that Harborview and its partner that we contract with operate medicine do so well. But to single out and be particular the work that Harborview does as the county hospital and in fact serving our mission population, recognizing that they have a mission to serve non-English speaking poor persons, the uninsured and underinsured victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, people incarcerated in our jails, people with mental illness or substance abuse issues there has been treated and voluntarily. People with sexually transmitted diseases and those who require emergency trauma or burn care. That's truly the mission population of the hospital and who they serve every day. The bond measure itself does some critical work that Bernie spoke to in her testimony, particularly making the the hospital rooms single patient because of the number of beds that end up unusable on any given night due to infection control, something that I think the layperson is probably more aware of today in this pandemic than we might have been before. As we come to understand the transmission of COVID 19, and this is a as the current by measure is expiring, this is our chance to make substantial investments in the Harbor Harborview campus and truly its mission, including up to 150 respite beds in Harborview Hall while maintaining the shelter capacity at the most appropriate place within the campus, redesigning the arrival of the medical helicopter. Because currently, if you arrived at Harborview by helicopter, you're under being transported from that building to another by ambulance rather than simply an elevator ride down into an emergency room. That that will be addressed within the bond measure and enhancing the greatly enhancing and in investing in behavioral health, in the investments that are so needed in behavioral health and our ability to provide support and treatment to people. So I will ask my colleagues to join in this sustained investment not only in our county hospital, but truly in our community and our own well-being. Further remarks. Saying None. Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council member belt reaching. I council member Baluchi votes. I Council Member Dombrowski. I Council member Belsky. Both I Council member. Done. High Council member downvotes i council member calls I Council Member Commonwealth Votes Council Member Lambert i. Member Lambert I council member us across. Council member of After Grow. Councilmember Vaughn right there I. Councilmember Vaughn right there are both I council members online. Council members on lifeboats. I. Mr. Chair. I. Mr. Chairman. Mr.. Full time. Mr. Chair, the vote is nine zero on us. By your vote, we have given a do pass recommendation to ordinance 2020 176, and we will send that to full council without it. Without objection, we will expedite. So it appears that the account on the council agenda one week from today. See? See? No objection. So order. Thank you, colleagues. This takes us to briefing 2020 B 51. It's a briefing from the Charter Review Commission. You remember that last year the co-chairs of the Charter Review Commission, Louise Miller and Ryan Simms, presented their early reports.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 2.06.060, and Subsections 2.18.050.D and 2.63.030.A, all relating to commission compensation, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06092020_20-0502

District nine. All right. Now she carries. Thank you. Item 18, please. Communication from city attorney recommendation. Recommendations are to declare ordinance amending the Ombudsman Municipal Code relating to Commission compensation. Read the first time. Later in the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Adopt Resolution Emerging Fiscal Year 2020 Salary Resolution City Wide. Thank you. I have a motion because we ranked second my concerns and the roll call vote please. District one, district two. I. District three. I. District four. They? The Sir Club. This requires. I. District six. District seven. I. District eight. All right. District nine. Hi. Russian carries.

Recommendation to declare ordinance repealing Ordinance No. C-3377 for the purpose of removing previously established special setback requirements on the 5800 block of Linden Avenue, read and adopted as read. (District 9)

LongBeachCC_02092021_21-0085

Thank you. Item 15. Report from Development Services. Recommendation to declare ordnance removing previously established special setback requirements on the 5800 block of Linden Avenue. Red and Adopted is Red District nine. Can I get a motion in a second? Most of my advice May Richardson second by. Councilman's sorrow. No public comment. Let's cast our recovery. District one. My district to. I. District three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I District eight. Hi. District nine. Right. Ocean carries.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP TI 16-041 and award a contract to Long Beach Community Action Partnership, of Long Beach, CA, for the operation of Public Access television in Long Beach, in an amount equivalent to one-third of the Public, Educational and Government funds available each year, for a period of three years, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods; and authorize City Manager, or designee, to enter into the agreement, including any necessary amendments thereto regarding the term and/or scope of services. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04192016_16-0343

And Q Members, cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 29 Report from Technology and Innovation Recommendation to award a contract to Long Beach Community Action Partnership for the Operation of Public Access Television in Long Beach in an amount equivalent to one third of the public, educational and government funds available each year citywide. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Yes. As you know, public access television returned to Long Beach just a few years ago and Long Beach Cap was a leader in making that happen. They have opened up their doors. They've educated many people on public access. They're running stories and current events of interest to our public on cable cable television frequently. And I'd like to just stand in support of renewing their contract and ask that you do the same. Now, Caitlin, we actually go to staff report accounts when you were actually. You. Well. Yeah, man. Yes. Thank you. I also want to lend my voice of support for this project. I mean, it's been a long time since we've really had a a good community access type of program out there, programing that you offer, Derek and I want to congratulate you on that and thank you for your support of the community. You try to be as comprehensive as possible in trying to get as many viewpoints in your programing as much as possible. And I'm really appreciative of that because it's a it provides a very important part of our communicating with our community. And the public access is one of those venues that really gives an opportunity for the community to get involved, to get engaged and to express their viewpoints. And you are out there taking taking that that reporting. So I'll be I'll be supporting the same. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Yes. Yes. I just want to also commend you on that. Keep up the good work. You guys are doing a great job. Thank you. And I fail to ask for a staff report, so let me go ahead and do that. Thank you, vice mayor. We can provide that also. Before we get started, we'd also like to thank Derek Simpson and his whole group. We have a tremendous working relationship on the staff level and it's great to see this continue. So with that, Mr. Brian Stokes, our director of technical innovation, will give a brief staff report. Well, thank you, Madam Vice Mayor and City Council before you as a recommendation to adopt the specifications and award of contract to Long Beach Community Action Partnership or L.B. Cab to operate the public television in Long Beach for a period of three years with an option to renew two additional one year periods at the discretion of the city manager. L.B. Capp has been operating the Public Access Digital Network or paid net since October 2011 and over the past five years, L.B. Cap and Paid Net has transitioned into a full service community media center and public access television station, a pattern that empowers our residents to create media to tell their own stories in Long Beach . And we're very pleased to have L.B. Capp in the city to provide these media services to our community. And that concludes my report. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I, too, want to thank the entire crew. I know that Councilwoman Gonzalez and Councilwoman Mango and I had the pleasure of being interviewed in one of the shows, and we really appreciated the opportunity to talk about some of the issues that we think are important to the community and to the youth, specifically women in public office and women running for office. I think those were really important issues, and above and beyond that, you do a lot of great work for the community and I'm really grateful to have you as our partner. So thank you. Councilman Gonzalez. I, too, want to thank you and congratulate you. You know, you've you've talked. About issues that some people don't like to touch, like poverty. And I think it's really important as as Councilman Price said and as others have said, that that you're taking on those topics and that you're really doing so with great passion, but very informative as well for the public. So thank you. Councilmember Super. Now. I just want to echo the comments of my colleagues. And I was interviewed all by myself, by Derek, and I was so impressed by his research. He knew more about me than myself. And also, thank you for all the other things you do in the community. It's really great. Great. Is there any member of the public that wish to come forward? Mr. Simpson. Good evening. Council members and staff. Derek Simpson, executive director of Long Beach Action Partnership. And Lisa Amico, who is director of our apartment operation. I just want to thank you on behalf of our board of directors and the staff and the community that we serve, which is all of your districts. We're really proud that we just opened up. That village is a real partner at satellite location. We're about to open up on an Eldorado park as soon as we get some tables squared away over there we are in the first district at the library. We're in the ninth district. So we're really trying to get these resources out to the community as best we can. The one thing that we would like to ask of you tonight as well is to encourage your constituents to become members of partner, because it's your stories within your district that can really make this a greater resource for the community. I was quoted in the paper when we first got this contract of saying that the regional media only comes to Long Beach for murder and mayhem, and right below the fold was all the regional media for a big arson issue. And so we want to use this as an opportunity to tell all the positive news about our community as well, to give a balance for what goes on in our community. And we think we're working hard towards that, but we can't do it without you. And we appreciate all the support. And I would like to say to you, Vice Mayor, before you get out of office, I'd love to get to interview you as well to talk about your legacy while you've been here and Councilman Andrews, since you've made history here. We've got to get you on. All of you have been on Pat and Adam one way or another, but I've not had the honor of actually sitting down with you, so I'd love to do that with both of you. And I'd like to allow Lisa to say a few words as well. I just want to thank the Council very much for your support of public access. Not all of our colleagues nationwide enjoy such support from their city council. For colleagues, I know this would be a much more stressful situation with a lot of people in support. And it's just it's so wonderful that the Long Beach City Council really recognizes the value to this community. And that's why I believe we are still the only station, public access station to come back after the passage of DeLuca. I don't know of any other one in California. That's come back after 50 of. Them closed. So thank you so much for your support. And we look forward to just continuing to do our best. Thank you. A special shout out to Dennis. Thank you so much for stepping in and taking over after Dean Smith's retirement. He's been great city staff. We have that great working relationship and I look forward to some big things from partner TV. Thank you. Thank you. It's an emotion and a second. Members, cast your vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Item 30 Report from Economic and Property Development, Development Services, Financial Management, Library Services, Parks, Recreation and Marine and Public Works. Recommendation to declare ordnance making findings and determinations regarding contracting for work usually performed by city employees and authorizing the city manager to

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_10312016_CB 118798

After all, the last time City Light was part of an energy imbalance market in California, the Enron debacle happened. To be clear, City Light has assured us that they have protections in place to avoid that in the future. But again, for us, it's a question of adequate oversight. The Council bill was amended in committee to allow City Light to explore entering the energy imbalance market, retaining for the Council the opportunity to take further action before that is finalized. The Energy and Environment Committee recommends passage of the bill as amended. And additionally, I understand Captain Gonzalez has an amendment for a report back which would be considered friendly. Thank you, Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Gonzalez. Thank you, Council President. The amendment that I have would impose a deadline of April ten, 2017, by which time Seattle City Light must provide the Council with a detailed analysis of the costs, benefits and potential risks of participation in the Kaiser's EIA. This deadline would allow the Council to receive and review the results of this analysis in a reasonable time frame and grant city light sufficient time to conduct the analysis that is required. The fiscal note has also been updated to accurately reflect the cost of evaluating potential participation within the utility's existing resources. The E.M. or Energy Imbalance Market is an auction market for balancing supply and demand in five minute increments. The AM is relatively young, with several large utilities considering entry into this market. Several weeks ago, I expressed concerns about jumping into this market based on Seattle City Lights presentation me to the Energy and Environment Committee on September 27th , 2016. While participation in this market, if done correctly, could potentially produce anywhere in the range of 4 to $23 million per year in additional revenue, I was concerned about the utility's preparedness to enter into the market, given the significant startup investments that would be required. For example, Seattle City Wide Conservatively estimates a $4 million per year increase in revenue, but also projects a $2.8 million increase in costs and a need to invest $8.8 million in upfront capital investments in order to move forward. B 8.8 million in front in upfront capital investments with would similar to the new customer billing information system requiring new software infrastructure, new personnel, new training for that personnel, vendor building and testing, utility testing, metered designs and installations over a period of three years before the utility even saw any revenue because there are significant risks that accompany the varying revenue projections. I have asked the City Light to report back to council by April 10th, 2017 to provide Council members with sufficient time to analyze the prospects of authorizing Seattle City Light to enter into what would be a new line of business for the utility and those that request is reflected in the amendment that my office circulated to all councilmember offices last Friday. So I would move for adoption of amendment to council bill 118798 with substitute section four. Okay, let's take the amendment first has been moved in second to substitute section four with the language described by Councilmember Gonzales. All those in favor of the amendment say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. So now we have an amended bill. Are there any further comments from any of our colleagues? And again, I want to thank Councilmember Swamp for being willing to hold this for a few weeks and for Councilmember Gonzalez's continued diligence on this matter. So we have a hopefully a piece of legislation that is acceptable to the council. So hearing no further comments, please call the roll on the passage of the amended. Bill Bagshaw. Burgess. Gonzales. Herbold II. Johnson, Suarez, I. O'Brien. So weren't I. President Harrell. I. Nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you. The bill passed and chair will sign it. If that's our sole piece of legislation. Is there any? Further business to come for the council. Council member Herbold. I should first thank you. I'd like to ask to be excused from the December 5th full council meeting. 12 five. I don't hear second to second in. The Council member will be excused from December 5th, 2017 council meeting. And I'm aware that we have many folks absent that day. All those in favor say I. I oppose. The ayes have it. Councilmember Gonzalez. I just wanted to suspend the rules really quickly, if I may, to make a quick comment. That would be absolutely acceptable. Are. Is there any further business on any absences before. Councilmember Gonzales. The rules are suspended. The rules are. Suspended. Thank you. I just want to do it for the viewing public. And my colleagues acknowledge that we have a 10th person sitting at the dais with us this afternoon, and this is actually the Solow who lives in West Seattle. She is a social work student at the University of Washington in Tacoma and is shadowing me and my team today, learning about how Seattle government works and how democracy works, and have really appreciated everybody's willingness to make her make her comfortable. And so I think this is the first time we've had a non councilmember sit up at that at the dais. And so I want to thank everybody for their graciousness in allowing me to, to, to bring this young woman who's hopefully will run for office someday up to the dais to see what it feels like to be on this side of the dais. So thank you so much and thank you for joining us. Thank you. Very good. Thanks for that. I thought I heard her say I a few times. I want to thank everyone to have a great day. With that will stand adjourned. Get ten votes on things.

A proclamation recognizing National Preparedness Month and National Day of Action on September 30, 2014, and Recognizing David E. Cook for being an Honorable Mention “Community Preparedness Hero” as part of FEMA’s 2014 Community Preparedness Awards.

DenverCityCouncil_09152014_14-0795

Proclamation 14 795 recognizing National Preparedness Month and National Day of National Day of Action on September 30th, 2014, and recognizing David Cook for being an honorable mention community preparedness hero as part of FEMA's 2014 Community Preparedness Awards. Whereas, National Preparedness Month is a nationwide community based campaign to increase emergency preparedness across the United States to help ensure that our homes, workplaces, schools, houses of worship and community based organizations are prepared for disaster events, helping to reduce fatalities and economic devastation following a major crisis. And. WHEREAS, National Days of action are set to encourage participation in drills, exercises, discussions to build community resiliency. And the second National Day of Action for 2014 will be held on September 30th. And. WHEREAS, Denver's Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security encourages Denver employees, residents, neighborhood associations, businesses and community organizations to participate in preparedness activity during this month, during the month of September, and to sign up for Denver's Emergency Response Training, otherwise known as CERT offered monthly at. W w w denver gov dawg backslash oem. And where. And these are free, by the way. Whereas OEM Homeland Security also encourages people with disabilities and their caregivers and people with. Spanish as their primary language to sign up for special offerings in September and October of the Denver Community Emergency Response Training Class to meet their specific needs. At again the Denver website. Denver gov dawg backslash OEM. And. WHEREAS, on September 8th, 2014, FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, announced that Denver Cert volunteer David E Cook has received an honorable mention Community Preparedness Hero Award as part of FEMA's 2014 Community Preparedness Awards. By serving the Denver community as a trainer, facilitator and exercise coordinator. Training more than 4000 people over the last several years and volunteering in numerous emergency events and exercises, including the 2013 Colorado floods. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council hereby recognizes National Preparedness Month , Denver's Day of Action in David Cook and encourages Denver residents to join millions of Americans in learning and preparing the steps necessary to stay safe before, during and after a disaster. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest. And a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and transmit it to the Denver Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. Thank you, Councilwoman. In taking your motion to adopt. Mr. President, I move for the adoption of Proclamation 795 Series 2014. It has been moved and seconded comments from members of Council. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. I don't know how many of you have actually done one of these trainings. If you have not, I would strongly encourage you to do this. I did mine, I think about two or three years ago, and the information that you learn from this is so vital to your family and your workplace, being able to just take care of yourself and not wait for the emergency responders because they're at the epicenter of where the disaster has occurred. And so it's going to be a while before they come to take care of you. So as prepared as we can have our entire Denver community, we will be so much better off. And I just want to commend our Office of Emergency Management and all of the volunteers. I know that Mr. Cook is one of many different volunteers and trainers that do this day in and day out to ensure that we have a safe community in Denver. And I want to congratulate you on your award and just strongly encourage that my colleagues adopt this proclamation and continue to get the word out to all sectors of our community about how vital this training is. You know, one of the issues that we've been raising is the the issue of railroad safety. And when you look at some of the incidents that we've seen occur, not only in this country, but in Canada, where a rail incident wiped out an entire community on a on a weekend night, it becomes real when it gets closer to home. And so for the work that you guys do at OEM and the volunteers that provide this service to our community, I want to say thank you and appreciate that. It's something that continues to happen and just reiterate that this training is free to our community. So please, for those of you listening, take advantage of it. Your family may depend on it at some point in time. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, do we have any other comments from members of council? Seen on Madam Secretary, roll call. ORTEGA Hi, Rob Shepherd. SUSMAN Hi, Brooks Brown. I fights. I. And carnage. Lehman I. LOPEZ All right. Monteiro Nevett. Hi, Rob. Mr. President. So I. Oh, I'm sorry. Robin Brown, the perhaps not. All right, Madam Secretary, please close the venue, announce the results. 3939 is proclamation 795 has been adopted. Councilman Ortega, anyone you want to call up to the podium? That's already there. Sir. We are joined tonight by Pat from our Office of Emergency Management. And I'm sorry, Pat, I'm forgetting your last name. Pat Williams and Mr. David Cook. So, Pat, would you like to start off? I guess we just wanted to stand up front here at all, but thank you. Thank you very much for prompting us to do this again. It is very, very important that we all take some kind of action this month. We just ask you to do one simple thing, whether that's just going and making sure you have phone numbers of the people that you love in your in your cell phone. It can be just as simple as that. And I would like to express my thanks to Dave. Dave puts in a lot of volunteer hours for our organization, and we can't do it without the volunteers, and we can't do it without people like him. So thank you. Appreciate it. Dave, would you like to make any comments? Sure. If you can lift the mic up so we can. There you go. There you go. Certainly am humble. Having this proclamation as well as the award that was given, certainly could not have done it by myself. We have tremendous support with with the city county in Denver, with the Office in Emergency Management, but also the volunteers that we have, you know, supporting us as well. You know, one of the things that still sticks in my mind is the volunteers that we had to help out with the Red Cross there and their communication needs during the flood of last year. One third of the volunteers that was there helping the communications in the in the Red Cross were in the access and functional needs category. Those folks with wheelchairs, crutches and other disabilities, they wheeled right up and went elbow to elbow with all the rest of us healthy individuals and supplied a need to the Red Cross drivers that they were trying to navigate the roads that were washed out or blocked off. And so I am certainly am humbled and energized the fact that we have tremendous support in our training and in this organization. And thank you all so very much. Thank you. All. Thank you both. And thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for bringing this forward. We are on to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, would you please read the resolutions. From business development? 690 resolution approving the mayor's report and Lowry Redevelopment Authority Board of Directors from Safety and Well-Being 703 Resolution for the Mayor's Appointment to the Denver Gay Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Commission and 794 Resolution authorizing approving spend European friendly appropriation account designated liability claims sum of $42,253.61 for the city and county of Denver on behalf of

Recommendation to receive and file a report on the feasibility of a Long Beach Community Choice Aggregation (CCA); Direct City Manager to continue to monitor the energy market/regulations and report to the City Council annually or sooner if substantial market changes occur; Direct City Manager to prepare a study that analyzes the potential CCA governance options of forming a stand-alone City enterprise, creating a new Joint Powers Authority (JPA), or joining an existing JPA; Direct City Manager to perform community outreach regarding the CCA concept along with potential benefits and risks to customers, as well as to gain feedback on how supportive the community might be of a Long Beach CCA; Direct City Manager to continue the City’s partnership with Southern California Edison to raise awareness of existing programs that provide Long Beach residents and businesses with various options to purchase a greater mix of renewables and utilize energy more efficiently; and Defer for two years any decision whether to participate in a CCA, in any format, or sooner if new inform

LongBeachCC_12102019_19-1232

Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Members, please cast your votes. I know we're having some delays with the motion carries. Okay. Thank you. We are moving on to item 20, please. Item 20 Report from Energy Resources, Financial Management and Water Department Recommendation to receive and file a report on the feasibility of a Long Beach Community Choice aggregation. Direct the city manager to continue to monitor the energy market regulations. Prepare a study that analyzes the potential CCI governance options of forming a standalone city enterprise. Perform community outreach regarding the concept along with potential benefits and risks to customers. Continue the city's partnership with Southern California Edison to raise awareness of existing programs and defer for two years any decision whether to participate in a citywide. Thank you. This is actually a we have a change. We're not going to hear this item tonight. But I want to turn this over to Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. Yes, I'd like to make a motion to hold this over to February or March next year. We just haven't had enough time to really get our hands around the report. That's the motion in a second. So if I can, I do have four members of the public. The motion is not is not the report, but to move the item. And so if therefore, those four members, the public want to speak to that, I'm going to call them up now. Marlene Alvarado, Caren Reside, Dave Chocola and Larry Goodhew. I wouldn't want to speak on that, Mr. Goodhew. You want to speak on moving this? It's just on moving it, though, sir. Dave Shot Collection Resign. Marlene Alvarado. Do they want to speak on moving the item? Please come forward. Is this? Make sure I've got two kids over. This is just a motion to move Tim to February or March. The whole. Report. The issue dealing with the cannabis. No, this is not cannabis, sir. Okay. Thank you. All right. Marlene Alvarado. You know, once again, I'm with the First District, and I think this is a really good. Alternative. To climate change. Right now, we're. Having an existential crisis. You, city council member, will not stop. Extracting oil from our land. And we have to stop it. But this is going to be the best thing that we can we can have. I would prefer that all of you stop accepting money from from the oil companies and also that we stop getting our taxes from oil companies. This is a good solution. Thank you. So. I just wanna make sure that we speak to moving the item, not the item itself. So. Thank you. Misery side. Karen reside in the First District. This is a really critical. Item for our city, and it's apparent that we're not going to make the December 31st deadline for this year. So moving it with the intention of. Establishing a deadline of December 31st of 2020 would be. Preferred by the Long Beach Panthers. And we feel that this is an opportunity to impact climate change and to shift the direction that our city is going in. We are heavily dependent upon oil. But the marketplace is going to determine. When the value. Of oil is greatly reduced. And we need to be looking forward to that because it's going to happen sooner than we all expect. But the developments are a new form of energy, so we support moving this to March. Thank you. And Mr. Shukla. Dave Shukla Oh. Shukla Third District. Can I support the motion? And I'd like. To alert the council to. Ab11 722. And SP 719 2011, along with the CP C guidelines on I.O.U. Neutrality concerning. Community choice. Programs. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment. There's a motion the second to move the item to February or March. Please cast your votes. Council on Sunday has. Washing washing cars. Thank you. And now we're going to go back to item four, which is pulled from consent. I can read that item, please.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and consider the third-party appeals by Jeff Miller (APL19-012), Melinda Cotton (APL19-013), Susan Miller (APL19-014), and James Hines (APL19-015), and uphold the Planning Commission’s recommendation; Adopt resolution accepting the Environmental Impact Report Addendum (EIRA-03-19) to the previously-certified Belmont Pool Revitalization Project (EIR 01-16/SCH#2013041063);

LongBeachCC_01212020_20-0068

Now we're going to move to item 20. Oh, you play club, please. Regarding item 20, report from Development Services. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and consider the third party appeals and uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation. A DAB resolution accepting the Environmental Impact Report Addendum. A resolution approving a General Plan Amendment Declare Ordinance Approving a zoning code amendment. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting for the City Council for Final Reading, declare ordinance approving a zone change and amending the zoning use district map. Read the first time and later go to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading. Approve a modification to site plan review, approve a local coastal development permit and adopt a resolution to submit the local Coastal Program Amendment to the California Coastal Commission for its review and certification, all located at 4200 East Ocean Boulevard , District three. This item required an oath. Those wishing to give testimony, please stand and raise your right hand. You in each of you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the courts now and pending before this body shall be added to the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Mr. Perkins. Vice Mayor. I guess I'll kick it off just as late in the evening. But just a reminder, this matter is an appeal regarding the pool project for the city. The city is the applicant. Here we have four. Appellants. Earlier today, the vice mayor allocated up to 10 minutes for each of the appellants to make a presentation. If they felt that it was necessary to go for 10 minutes as a reasonable time period, we will kick it off with the city making comments about the project. Then each of the appellants will be given an opportunity to speak. Then we'll have public comment, then a short rebuttal if necessary by the city, then back behind the rail for a vote. So the first order of business is City's presentation. Thank you, Mr. Assistant City Attorney, Vice Mayor Andrews and members of the Council. I will be given the presentation on behalf of staff. We will try to be efficient with your time. We realize the late hour. However, this is an appeal and there are some facts that we need to get in the record. I'm supported by a very talented team, both from the planning side and also our project team, led by Eric Lopez and Josh Hickman, who can answer questions as well. So to revisit this project. If you remember, the previous facility closed in 2013 and we came forward about a year later with a programmatic design that was approved by the council. We then completed conceptual design in 2016. This was in front of the Council in May 2017 where you approved the year and gave us final direction on the design and the related entitlements. We then went through a longer process where we submitted the project to the Coastal Commission in August 2018. We got back some comments from them and then really went through kind of a re-envisioning of the project which will really walk you through today. And then the last step was the Planning Commission gave us unanimous approval and a recommendation on December 2019. And so I'm going to walk through what those changes are today. Do you want to get out for the record that we do have a a approved secret document and we're asking for an ER addendum. So we have evaluated the potential impacts of that revised project. There are no new significant impacts, there's no impacts that exceed the those analyzed in the previously certified EMR and that the mitigation, monitoring and reporting program that's certified E.R. Continues to apply. So it's important to note that this project is really in a split jurisdiction between the city and the Coastal Commission. The area in red is their original jurisdiction. And so while you're making actions on behalf of Coastal Commission through the local coastal development process, this does need to go to the Coastal Commission. So there really were three steps Planning Commission, City Council, but really the ultimate project decision is going to be in the hands of the Coastal Commission. So the major entitlements that we're looking for are a general plan amendment, zoning code, amendment, zone change, local coastal program amendment, modification to site plan review and a local coastal development permit. So back in 2017, this council in a in a pretty long hearing about 5 hours, heard the project and gave us some direction. We also heard some concerns from both the council and the Coastal Commission. And so those included looking at increased recreational components, increasing our connection to disadvantaged communities, addressing sea level rise, addressing height concerns, providing a robust alternatives analysis, providing a parking analysis, and lowering the overall project cost. And we're going to go through each one of those. Some terms, the recreational components. We heard loud and clear from the council. You'd like this to be not only able to host competitive events and have, you know, lap swimming for everyone, but also to really focus on youth and recreational components. We've added a number of components, including zip lines up in the top left vortex pool, which is in the bottom left is an example of that fun elements like splash pads and water features for kids and some small slides and some cascading features to really increase the recreational component. We also wanted to really make a strong connection of this pool to every other park. You know, existing park programs in our disadvantaged communities. We found the best way to do that was to incorporate the pool into where kids are already going to their neighborhood parks, including transportation options, being able to, for example, go to your neighborhood park and knowing that on that Wednesday, that's the day you get to go to the Belmont Pool if you're already incorporated into the programing at that park. That helps people realize that this is a community asset for everybody. They're hopefully telling mom on the weekends, I'd like to go to the Belmont Pool. I've already been there. I know it's a cool place and let's go. We're also looking at language access programs to increase marketing of the pool to the entire community in four different languages and a number of other projects and programs that are in our coastal application. For sea level rises was a major concern of the Coastal Commission. In this diagram diagram I'd like to call your attention to that blue dotted line. This is now the new poor design. And if you notice that blue dotted line, that is the 2100 maximum sea level rise in the 1% storm in the hundred year storm. And so coastal commission under the previous pool, it was designed so that the water in that year would, in those major storms, touch the facility and then recede. And Coastal Commission felt that that was still an impact for sea level rise. In this new design, we have designed it so that that water does not touch the facility. So essentially we are completely out of sea level rise from the facility. And we believe that will satisfy that requirement. We also had a major height reduction. We're proposing making this an outdoor facility rather than an indoor facility. The original building height was 60 feet. The prior design, which is what you saw in 2017, had a maximum height of 78 feet. The new improved design is what we're calling it has a building height of 35 feet. So a significant reduction. There are a couple of areas where we have higher than 65 and we have the sale element that you can see this is a neat kind of shade structure and also brings that aquatics theme to the to the pool. And so the max of that is 60 feet, which is the top of the mast and the lights, which is equal to the original building height. And the top of the shade canopy is 49 feet. You can see the dotted outline with the old pool was not even the prior design. And so this is a significant improvement from a from a coastal view, shared perspective. We also look significantly at other alternatives. Those were considered in the air, which also went through a lawsuit to which the city was successful in. We looked at Harry Bridges Memorial Park. We looked at the Queen Mary, and we focused a lot on the elephant lot and convention center. And all alternative sites were determined to be inferior to the Belmont as Belmont Pool. We then went through a process with council to give additional information about our our turn alternatives analysis. In particular the elephant lot and really spend some additional time on it. We're able to show in that analysis that the elephant lot is actually inferior to the Belmont site in the in the revised design in that we would not have sea level rise impact at the Belmont pool site, but we would have sea level rise impact in that same scenario at the elephant lot. We'd also have to do additional parking. We'd have to build a parking structure in order to accommodate that for at a significant cost and probably in excess of $50 million. There's also leasehold issues. We also looked at environmental data and saw that from an air quality perspective for swimmers that are outside, it's superior to be at the Belmont Pool site and a number of other factors. We looked at parking analysis. There are currently 1116 spaces at the prior facility under the new facility, with all the parking improvements that we've made. We would have an increase. 1152. The old Belmont Pool had a parking demand of 834 spaces because it had significantly more seating. The proposed facility demand is 614 spaces, so we are well within you know, we have almost double the amount of parking that we would need and well within actually lower than the previous the previous pool. We also did some additional design modifications. We went out to our stakeholder advisory committee and talked to them about the project. That's been the committee that the council asked us to really engage with as throughout this process and not talk about some of that in a second. We've also engaged with the 2028 Olympics Committee, and they are highly interested in having diving at that facility. We believe everything that we've done in our design has been consistent with what we heard in 2017 from the city council as well. And so here's the picture of the outdoor facility. This used to be an indoor covered pool. This now you can see the bubble was removed significantly lower in height and still a very elegant structure. This is the overhead. And you can see that the push to the left was suggesting suggesting that that pool remained. That's the current temporary pool. We would enhance it with some additional buildings and some decking and make it a more of a permanent structure. And then you can see the the pools on the right. We've maintained all of our water bodies. So we haven't lost any major water bodies. We are looking to relocate the beach concession. That was a beach concession outside of the facility. Given all the improvements we've done to concession stands along the beach, we don't need it outside anymore. We don't need that one anymore. We recommend bringing that indoors for a year into the facility for a better experience. We also are designing this pool to be Olympic dove ready, which would include the ability to have 10,000 temporary seats that could be constructed. And while there's no commitment from the L.A. 28 Olympics, they are very, very interested in having this as a as a potential to consider. And we would create that to them to Olympic standards. We have also increased open space. The original facility had 18 118,000 square feet of open space. The prior design that you had approved in 2017 increased that to 127,000 square feet of open space. The improved design increased that even more to 141,000 square feet of open space. And if you look at green space compared to the original facility, it is more than or nearly doubled. In terms of the increased green space. Increased spectator seating. The original design had 1250 seats. That was important to the proponents of the project. We've actually now increased it to 1555 seats at the main pool and 310 seats at the existing Murtha pool. This is a picture of the support building. There will still be a building on site that is covered, but that really is for locker rooms and for, you know, maintenance equipment and offices. So it's a much sleeker design. And so I do want to talk a little bit about cost. So part of the main factor here is that cost escalation has grown since 2014. When we first approved the programing design was $103 million programmatic budget, which over time the cost estimates came in around 145 million. That was not a realistic project. We have 61 and a half million set aside for the project. And so, you know, we we believe with all these scope changes, we can address the concerns, make it a better project, make it more, you know, in line with cost of commission and council, maintain the bodies of water and also reduce the cost to 85 million. We have a lot of public comments. We have over 100 written comments since the public hearing was published for the Planning Commission. All comments received have been provided to you. They relate some of them relate to noise, and I did want to cover that. We actually have less outdoor seating than the previous pool. We also have a glass perimeter wall that is going to be covering the entire facility, which will help with noise. It will be closing at 10 p.m., which will help with noise as well. It will have below daytime exterior noise levels and we'll also use directional speech. So noise, you know, has been studied in the air is not an issue. There is one thing that is still being kind of looked at is this concept of a 25 meter wide pool versus 25 yards. The original design was 25 yards. The stakeholders have requested an increase to 25 meters. We've looked at that and done some additional outreach. We included that in the ER addendum and looking for some direction on that. The costs might be up to a 1.5 million. We're hoping that can be significantly brought down as we look at some other options and design. And that's currently within the $85 million ballpark range. And so for next steps, we are asking for your approval tonight. We then we originally, when we put this presentation together, had a goal of really trying to get this on the February 2020 Agenda for Coastal Commission because it's here in Long Beach. When you if you approve this tonight, the Coastal Commission will have everything they need to consider that. From a timing perspective, they're telling us they may need a little bit more time. So we would ask for the the next immediately available local meeting to be heard here in Long Beach. That will probably be sometime in April or May. We would then do final design and permitting in winter 2021 and get the pool built by winter 2023. And so in conclusion, positive findings can be made for all the required entitlements. The E.R. addendum with the previously certified ETR satisfies fully the sequel compliance. We recommend that you approve the entitlement package and accept the IIR addendum, and this is the list of all the recommendations that we're making to you tonight. There in your packet. I won't read them all in the interest of time. And that concludes stuff's presentation. Thank you. And with that, we will start out with the. It's a package. We started with. A vice mayor. We have four appellants listed in the order on the agenda would be first appellant Jeff Miller with up to 10 minutes allocated for his appeal. Thank you. Would you please come forward to. All right. No problem. So would you please come up to the front? Okay. All right, fine. Yes. Yes. I do have a PowerPoint presentation if we can bring that up. Seven years ago, the city failed to heed legitimate concerns about sea level rise, flooding, seismic and liquefaction at this location. So ignoring other alternative sites, the city pool planning began giving little regard over costs or Coastal Act limitations. For the past six years, this area has been a grassy park with mature trees. A passive park is the correct usage for this geological location. So Saga, more plans, more wasted dollars to appease a special interest group began. This is a flood zone. You won't be able to reach the building because it's sitting on an island. This site will require grid work of 80 foot deep pylons in the sand where groundwater is at six foot. These are significant negative impacts to prevent the beach from disappearing completely. The city has been backfilling the beach, calling it sand nourishment as worn by the city's own climate change report. Coastal areas should be planning managed retreat. Putting this facility on a plinth with retaining wall or doing sand enhancement is considering armoring which will eventually resolve and acceleration of our beaches. Coastal Commission will not allow these types of remediation or build up of infrastructure. Long Beach public officials warn coastal homeowners of rising water from climate change will eventually flood their neighborhoods. Yet at the same time, Long Beach promotes plans for a massive pool complex. Ignoring their own advice. Here we are tonight with the latest rendition that has never seen public outreach. This plan has even more flaws. East Ocean Boulevard has already been narrowed. Plans intend to remove East the Living Plaza. Note In this slide, the residential size cul de sac loop in the center with a 31 foot turning radius. This is also the area for handicapped parking. This traffic plan could not possibly be feasible for the Olympics. This is inadequate for traffic management. Here's another missing reality check. Then an avenue East Ocean Boulevard pool entrance is not used only for personal vehicles. It's used by oversize vehicles daily. See the earth movers on extended semis, massive beach sweepers, first responders, police, fire and paramedics. Note paramedics are regularly at the pool. Diving areas and children's rec areas have propensity for accidents. So with inclusion of these areas in the pool, plans will require more paramedic visits to the pool. Many cities have closed diving areas because of accidents, lawsuits and liabilities. More oversize vehicles at this intersection include busses, the pool, chemical supply trucks, and there are delivery trucks to the businesses on East Olympic Plaza. You will see military exercise vehicles on the beach, including hovercrafts and Humvees. The city claims they will require special traffic control at special events, but this has not been the case. Light and noise are huge negative impacts with a ruthless pool plan. The old and closed Belmont pool contain the noise. Noise complaints from the old closed pool were from illegal skateboarders on the Front Concrete Plaza. This new pool design is a skateboarders delight with the lure of ripping on the concrete stairs, plinth and ramps. The majority of the new noise is from the Open Air Belmont temporary pool from water polo whistles, air horns and P.A. systems. If the operational noise can be so easily abated, why was this not done at the temporary pool? Why did the city not record dust measurements at this pool to full analyze neighborhood impact? These noise violates municipal noise codes as per the city's municipal noise code. Areas near schools, hospitals, so on are considered noise sensitive zones. This pool is right next to a preschool. The oversize towering light poles at the temporary pool saturate residential night neighborhood nightly. These towering lights are twice as tall as the street lights. Competitive swimming and diving require higher illumination than recreational pools, creating increased light glare clearance aboard the highest diving tower must be 16 feet, five inches. How can the Dove Tower be covered and stay within zoning height register restrictions? It is blatantly false to say there will be no negative light. Noise or traffic impacts with this plan. The EIA addendum states that traffic volume will double due to two large pools. This is without even counting the impact of the new recreational features and frequent special events. But what makes this plan especially egregious is the city intends on operating this facility 350 days a year from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. at night. This pool is five times larger. It is the size of a football stadium. Cleaning the pool will go on long after the pool closing time of 10 p.m., leaving the lights on. Phasing PA speakers away from the residential is not a successful soundproofing plan. Noise from the beach. Events in the temple invade the neighborhood now regardless of speaker direction. Not only have the residents been subject to noise and light intrusion with the open temporary pool, the noise, lights, traffic and chemicals have decimated the protected wildlife habitat at Bennett and Ocean Boulevard. Fractured open space does not make a park. The Coastal Commission considers this open space, free or low cost coastal recreation area, even with large subsidies that taxpayers will be burdened with. These will be charged to use the aquatic center. If you have walked the Belmont Pier, you are fully aware of seagulls perching, pecking and pooping the seagulls. Thank you for creating this design, contributing to their activity, and adding places for their target practicing. A pool is not a coastal dependent but with towering light poles is planned exceeds height restrictions. Move it to the elephant lot instead of manipulating zoning heights to squeeze it into a residential neighborhood. No parks and rec pools should be built for a weeks long Olympics event. The Olympics are a terrible investment and a huge risk. This past June, a presentation was given to a select group. I was part of this group. Originally, I was part of the city designated pool advisory committee, but somehow I was not invited to this meeting in June. In this presentation was text about Olympic diving. The slide you've seen was taken at that presentation. Also in this presentation on page 17, a page titled Probable Path Forward. It states reduce height by creating an outdoor pool with option to cover later. This is called segmentation or piece mealing, and it's illegal. Another missing design consideration in this pool plan is allocation for a first aid room. Recommended pool guidelines suggest a swimming pool with a surface water surface area in excess of 4000 square feet shall have a readily accessible room designated and equipped for emergency care. The room shall have a cat sink telephone, including first aid kits and long spine boards with ties and collar and blankets for potential triage spaces for victims who need to be moved away from on lockers. Where is the allocation for this first aid room? This is especially necessary with a diving area and a children's recreation area. Despite significant geological, environmental, financial obstacles. With this project in this location, city will not consider another location. The old pool building was demolished because it is on unstable ground. So how preposterous to build in the same location. Where will the money come from? Taxes. Bonds. Grants are sold off like the City Hall is a privately financed P3 project. With shrinking budgets. Are you going to allow general funds to be siphoned off to float a pool? These proposed plans are new build and they need a new IIR. No pool on the beach. I request my retain remaining time for rebuttal. Thank you. Thank you. Next week, the. Good evening. Vice mayor and council members. I'm Jeff Miller. I ask you to postpone or vote no on all of the items of this hearing? The second attempt to build the BBC. The first attempt three years ago ended when the Coastal Commission found fault with the proposal. The immediate problem is that you and the public have not been given all the information needed to make an informed decision. There are two significant gaps in information. First, the details of the second version of the BBC have been fully known only since they were presented at the Planning Commission meeting of December 19, 2019, just a month ago. Even then, the materials presented did not include some relevant data, such as the design renderings separate from the plan drawings, which you just saw in the presentation tonight. Some public comments were also omitted from the documents. I believe those items are still missing from what has been presented to you. And second, the city has not answered the significant questions about this project. 22 of them asked by the Coastal Commission. Their approval of the project will not even begin to be considered until these questions have been satisfactorily answered. This project seems to be shrouded in secrecy. The second version of the design has been produced and presented with almost no publicity and with no public outreach. Not one public meeting was held to present this design ahead of the December 19 Planning Commission meeting. Even though it has been touted as a citywide facility. The last public outreach meeting was in April 2016, and that was for the first version of the project, a totally different design. There was a secret presentation of this latest design to the BBA stakeholder committee last summer. From the beginning, there has been only one resident representative on that committee. That representative was intentionally excluded from that meeting. The proceedings of that meeting were not made public. This is not a citywide representation. The signage at the Belmont Park where the project would be built is incorrect. The four large billboards four feet tall by eight feet wide, are the illustrations and description of the four year old project. There is no picture or description of the current project. This new project was never presented to the city's own Marine Advisory Commission. This commission meets monthly and is tasked with advising council on quote matters regarding city policies pertaining to marinas, beaches, waterways and near-shore areas, unquote. They had no meeting in December, but they did have one in January. This project has been portrayed as a replacement of an old pool. It is not. It's a new project, far greater in size and impact. It would be a replacement of a natural beach and park containing grass and mature trees, which have been enjoyed for the public by the public for six years now. This is the baseline. A new E-R and approval process are required. It is not accurate or acceptable to claim. The second attempt is merely a revision of the first BBC, which was presented three years ago. At that time, two council members acknowledged it was a new project, not a replacement, and voted no. Now is that it is a different new project. The presentation at the Planning Commission meeting in December was basically a stealth action. It was scheduled at an extremely busy time for everyone in the middle of holiday activities guaranteed to minimize public awareness and participation. The meeting was announced, then canceled, then confusingly reinstated. The documents, images and exhibits presented at that meeting were not made available to the public until three days before the meeting. These included the air addendum of 865 pages. I challenge anyone to be able to even read, much less understand and prepare a response to all of the documents in three days. The ER addendum contains significant errors of fact. Here is only one example in the section describing traffic impacts. Quote The project site and surrounding area have not been further developed or altered since the 2016 certified air was prepared. There is no information in the administrative record or otherwise available that indicates that there are substantial changes in circumstances pertaining to transportation and traffic that would require major changes to the 2016 certified air, unquote. That is blatantly false. Since 2016, Ocean Boulevard in that area has been reduced from four lanes to two. The Olympics, now renamed Iconix Fitness Business, has opened with a large demand on parking. The beach in that area has undergone a large increase in usage in those intervening years by volleyball players, dog walkers, pedestrians, bicyclists and others. Also adding to parking and traffic demand. Changing the zoning to accommodate the extreme height of the structures, including the floodlight poles, is nothing but a trick. To mask this inappropriate height. And there's the question of money. The stated costs of this project have been nebulous. The cost of additional design work has not been addressed. The operational and maintenance costs have not been detailed. And the Tidelands Fund. Money set aside is not really available if you want the city to be prepared for the 2028 Olympics. The pier is the viewing site for the sailing events and it needs costly upgrades. And finally, there is sea level rise and increasing damaging storm surges. The sea can't be held back. Long Beach should be leading the effort to deal intelligently with sea level rise, not creating a problem for itself by proposing a new building on the sand. The Coastal Commission will not look kindly on the attempt to ignore this problem and instead put an expensive facility on the sand vulnerable to an uncertain future. Please start now to plan and commit the funds to renovate the pier for the 2028 Olympics. That will be something to be remembered for building a first class venue for the Olympic sailing events. Not the costly mistake of pursuing a flawed proposal. Please postpone this item or vote no. Don't approve this project now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Seems to be a little bit longer. I hope you can hear me. Good evening, Vice Mayor Andrews. Council members, or is it? Good morning? I think not. But anyway. My name is Melinda Cotton. My husband and I have lived in Belmont Shore for more than 35 years. We're fortunate to live just a few blocks from the beach and have walked and bicycled the states. The city's enviable Long Beach the entire time. As temperatures rise, we see more and more people flocking to the beach to enjoy the bike and pedestrian paths soccer and volleyball, Rosie's dog beach, the surf and just playing in the sand and making sand castles since the old Belmont pool was demolished six years ago. Olympic Park Plaza Park has shined as a beautiful beachfront jewel with family picnics and group parties, people walking their dogs, young people partying and having improper, improper and impromptu soccer games on the nearby sandy beach. The L.A. 28 Olympics Committee has liked the area so much, they've chosen the waters off the Belmont Pier for the Olympics competitive sailing events. This artist rendition of the sailing venue is telling for. When you look closely at the beachfront, you'll see in the Olympics picture no Belmont Pool complex. The existing green treed Olympic Plaza Park is still there. The L.A. 28 official website shows swimming and diving events taking place at USC's baseball stadium. It's called Dado Field in downtown L.A., where they'll put in a large temporary pool, which you see in the artist's rendition and diving facilities. The L.A. 28 game does have water polo water polo events in Long Beach. The site, a large temporary pool and stadium to be built in the elephant lot next to the convention center where other kinds of events will take place. This is the same site the Coastal Commission and many others have strongly recommended for the BBC. Doesn't that tell you the elephant lot is the best place for a permanent new complex? That is, if the city can afford it. An expensive $85 million pool and diving complex is not needed in Belmont Shore. We already have and have had for six years an Olympic sized temporary pool that is slated to become permanent. It serves recreational swimmers and water polo players, provides lessons, aerobics and more. One must ask, does the third district need additional public pools and special diving facilities when only two other council districts in the city have public pools leaving six districts without? And that $85 million price tag that we heard talk about earlier, that $85 million price tag just for the BBC is daunting. The NY 20 city budget shows in the red less than $54 million set aside for the BBC complex that's out of the beaches and marinas $89 million total capital improvement fund shown in blue. And the funds set aside so far are at least 32 million less than the current pool estimate, with no information as to where those extra millions will come from. The Title IX Capital Improvement Fund also expects less than $3 million in new money this year and in years to come. And that's also in blue on that chart. Think of just a few of the titles unfunded needs. We know the crumbling Naples Sea still need for more repair phases. Phase two, which is now going on, is costing $15 million. That indicates another roughly $60 million for phase three through six. Again, unfunded. Public Works also says there's no money to rebuild. The 90 year old lifeguard headquarters on the beach or to appear on the council in 2015, recognized the elderly 1930 structure, needed rehab or replacement, paid for a study and architects. But no idea when that might happen. The junior lifeguard building did get approved and apparently will go under construction. But don't we need a really up to date lifeguard headquarters building and marine safety and public safety by 2028 when we have the competition off the Belmont Pier. Yet the city has promised the 2028 Olympics Committee it will rebuild the Belmont Pier for the sailing competitions. But it, too, is listed in the budget as an unfunded, unfunded, high priority. And the pier needs serious help, which was highlighted in 2017 when a storm to docks off the end of the pier landing on the beach. Now, three years later, the pier still hasn't been fixed. The Marine Advisory Commission asked why at this month's meeting in early January and was told bids to replace the docks were coming in at two and a half million dollars and the city has only $900,000 in insurance available. We were told, again, lack of funds is the key. And then there's continued climate change, sea level rise and global warming to plan for. The League of Women Voters held its sixth annual climate symposium at the Aquarium of the Pacific last Sunday with scientists detailing the seriousness of SLR, especially when combined with king tides, storm surge and wave action which plagued the peninsula regularly. And on my street in Park Avenue, we have heavy rainstorms flooding the street and our garage. The Aquarium of the Pacific titled It's October Climate Change Event Coping with Sea Level Rise with a focus on Long Beach. As we all mature and peninsula. And as you see, this deluge is already happening in front of my house. I know this LV Post article from just a year ago, only last January, with floods inundating the Olympic Plaza dry where the Belmont Beach and Aquatics Center is to be built. Is this really smart? Shouldn't we be spending our limited tidelands and other funds on the critical needs noted above, rather than spending $8,085 million on an aquatic complex on the beach 100 feet from the surf? I think a lot of us would think the answer was no. And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them and thank you for your time. And if there's time left over, I might have comments after the report. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Hello. My name is Jim Hines. I'm a 30 year resident of Long Beach and a taxpayer. And this is my first process in the city council. So bear with me. But I hereby request, respectfully request that the City Council reject this application of the Belmont Beach and Aquatic Center as the item is presently written. From a taxpayer perspective, I believe better analysis is the other stakeholders and other speakers have said is the make a sound decision is ordered is required to make a sound decision. Analysis should examine the city latest redesign relative to the days overall city investment needs, the strategic criteria, associated risk and funding. A comprehensive risk assessment should be made sure in best, most likely and worst case scenarios not just the initial investment, but also importantly, the operating support and maintenance costs. Question How likely will the center be completed in 85 million? Well, is that not to exceed cost or is it a 5050 chance that the cost will be there? And who will who will bear the brunt of the overruns? What are the major concern? Risks, contingencies and associated costs. From a finance standpoint, I'd like to see an S-curve. Taxpayers should be informed of the project risks relative to their requirements needs, not just wants. Ground rules and assumptions against total nonrecurring and reoccurring costs. Financial should also be reported both for public and private financial commitments. That far along, you should be getting the commitments and their likelihood firm upfront commitments should be obtained for the initial investment. But as well for the operating revenues before going forward. Olympic requirements seem to be the driving factor for the 85 million. The question is, is what are the firm city commitments for the Olympics? You need to nail those down. Otherwise the requirements are a wish list or a want list. Well, relative to weather, what is needed? For example, we should know whether the Olympic cost drivers, the number and size of the pool, the driving force, the diving facilities we talked about, the associated costs and commitments. It seems that a few wants are driving a lot of the cost. Although vocal, the reality is a 50 meter pool, etc. is only used for competitive purposes and that only represents about 5% of the total population. So from that, you know, other similar aquatic facilities without diving seem to cost anything about 15 to $30 million. And we know that UFC, you know, just spent $8 million to renovate their facility up there, too, with diving facilities, etc.. So that should be nailed down relative to who's doing what, when associated with the cost of this effort. Um. We hear a lot from the competitive swimming community, but where is their financial commitments? Taxpayers. With all that, the taxpayer shouldn't be the point and the burden that satisfy the special interests. Also were the swimming requirements coordinated and integrated with our local public school systems. To date, there seems to be little. Long Beach taxpayers are already paying for a $28 million Olympic sized pool for the Long Beach City College. Long Beach tax payers are already, you know, are also paying, you know, 3 billion for Major K and major E for school upgrades and repairs and include new pools and pool upgrades. Cambria, Ohio, for example, has a new $12 million pool, reportedly because there's no public pools nearby. Wear them or any of the Long Beach Unified School District, Long Beach C College or Cal State, Long Beach financial commitments to the pool. That lack of coordination doesn't and does not inspire taxpayer confidence. Up to 80% of the like the Aquatic Center Lysate because it's typically tied up in operation maintenance and support expenses. What is the project? Operating life with its probable operating maintenance and support cost. Is there a list of operating maintenance and support concerns or risk? What are the reserves? Is an operating and maintenance risk assessment being performed or the operating commitments he's made with the swimming, private, public and private organizations? My understanding in Sacramento is when organizations stepped up to pay 70% of the operating costs or 70,000 per year of the operating costs, where's the commitments from these people that, you know, from these organizations are want these special requirements? Which one of this according to the also according to the capital improvement process, you know, public works, financial management. Any possible end user department should have quantified anticipated name cost route for each council so they can have a detail and understand the costs and risk against future allocated budgets and to make an informed decision and such as that being done. My personal benchmarking shows that cities with aquatic centers experienced net operating losses, some substantial rip up to billions of dollars. Again, council members and taxpayers need to understand the driving cost requirements and get a detailed breakdown of the probable operating costs, room routes, revenues and cost recovery. The taxpayer's concern is that the city does have a reputation of neglecting infrastructure. Look at our streets, sidewalks, public facilities with liability. Debt is up to 2.3 billion. And we're going to add new, new infrastructure on top of that. What about the Queen Mary? The city has established criteria for capital improvements. Question is, does the aquatic center meet them? Does Aquatic Center address any city health, safety or legal concerns and mandates? Does the Aquatic Center prolong the life of the city asset or in minimizing future costs? Repair costs? Can't be prolonged anymore. We need to reassess the needs to the to the current environment and the constraints. Is the aquatic center in the is long range strategic plan. Is there a city long strategic plan? Does the Aquatic Center secure will be able to secure future funds through programing, planning or grant eligibility versus its cause ? In summary, I asked, is the current needs and priority of the proposed Belmont Beach and Aquatic Center serve the average Long Beach taxpayer, especially, especially with the $2.3 billion liability and infrastructure. I then encourage careful consideration of the City Council regarding the financial realities of the proposed Belmont Beach and Aquatic Center project and in its existing requirements as they now stand. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I would like to take the opportunity to make a couple of comments in rebuttal. Obviously, there's a number of. Oh, I'm sorry. Do you want to do public first or rebuttal? Okay. Mr. Vice Mayor, it's appropriate to do public comment now and then. City staff, since they have the burden of proof, would have the opportunity to provide a rebuttal to anything that's been said. All right. Thank you. So any public comment on this item? Would you please come forward? We have Khadijah Cager, Mel Nutter, Joseph. Griever and Joseph Slim and Anna Christiansen. Terry's daughter, Kim or O'Shay calls Lee and Cantrell, Lucy Johnson, Joe Weinstein, Katie Roll, Dr. Preston Smith, Dave Sugar and Keith Mason. I'm in this. Can I clarify the amount of time that you're giving to the public speakers this evening? Agenda item, it's. Over ten people, so we're kind of down. And their place. Seconds. You can go whenever you feel. Thank you. Yes. Good morning. My name is Gordana Cager, and I'm an appellant on this pool to the Coastal Commission. My comments were filed earlier this week via email, and as most of you know, I am opposed to this pool. I'm so very grateful to those of you on the dais, along with your staff who were willing to meet with me this week. Thank you for listening, and thank you for listening to our concerns about this pool. There are so many unanswered questions that it's absolutely irresponsible to make a decision this evening. So I urge your no vote. The Coastal Commission has serious concerns and questions on this pool. City staff, I understand, has responded to the December 6th incomplete letter with a response this afternoon. Have you seen that information? You must have that information before making an informed decision. And exactly how many public meetings were held in Long Beach about this project? Zero. One private meeting was held with the pool stakeholders in June of 2019. I urge you to consider the comments of Councilman Oranga, Coastal Commissioner Urunga, who pointed out significant issues on the first design in 2017. This revised pool has not changed those issues. We will see you at the Coastal Commission. It will not be in February. It will not be in May. Maybe this year. Thank you for your time and please vote no. Thank you. I'm Bill Netter, and I'm here representing Gordana Cage, who. Appealed your. Approval of a local. Coastal development. Permit to the Coastal Commission back in 2017. Because the coastal. Are because the city waived the time to hear the appeal, that appeal is still pending, and it's unclear what the city's position is relative to that pending appeal. But regardless, the proposed finding that the current proposed local coastal development permit is consistent with your certified LCP or local coastal program is false. The fact that the staff proposes. That the city. Seek certification of an amendment to the current LCP is proof that the city staff knows that that proposed finding is untrue. And if you look. At the comments I made before the Planning Commission, I expanded upon that. The staff reports that the changes made to the project since 2017 could have been made in response to public input. That is not entirely accurate. The only public exposure to the proposed changes occurred at the Planning Commission hearing in December. Thank you and have pointed out and I have a few other things to say, but I thank you. So my name's Joe Giaever, and I live in a third district. So, yeah, Mr. Mercola, for kind of an important piece out of the timeline there, and that's those appeals. So the several appeals from local residents were combined with a couple of appeals by the coastal commissioners, and those appeals are still pending. Not clear to me whether the city has ever informed the commission that you've got a new project on the same property and that old clip should probably be just rescinded and start over again. But despite all that. The revised pool has definitely been made smaller just to make it cheaper, I guess, but it doesn't resolve the issues in those appeals. So I don't know who the stakeholder advisory committee is, but it clearly doesn't include the appellants or probably the most important stakeholders, at least from a dispute resolution perspective. So two of the issues kind of go together. The idea of alternative sites for this pool and the and the prohibition on protective devices from sea level rise. So in the first of all, the the elephant line was considered. Last go round and eliminated because it was. So I said, thank you very. Much. She's okay. Um. Oh, thanks. Anyway, I'm next by speakers, please. I was going to say good evening, but I think somebody was right when they said good morning. Thank you for your time and your stamina to stay awake and pay attention to these these comments. And we greatly appreciate your efforts. My name is Kim O'Shay. I work for Southern California Swimming. Our offices are over in San Pedro and we represent over 20,000 swimmers who participate in competitive swimming across this area all the way over to Vegas. And our swimmers love to come to Belmont. They love Long Beach. They love the history here. They love their experiences. Hopefully, many of you were able to look at some emails that you received earlier today from Olympians who participated in meets throughout history here in Belmont and phenomenal, phenomenal memories, sentimental value and success as well. But we're not only talking. About Olympic swimmers. Yes, it's a special interest group and we're very much into the competitive side of things. But we also want to applaud you for looking at cradle to grave programing for your community. Absolutely. To look at putting little kids into swim lessons to make them safer around the water because we are a beachfront community all the way up through programing for senior citizens that want to lap, swim and stay healthy. So it's cradle to grave programing and it's a beautiful community service. We thank you for your time and we greatly appreciate your attention to this. And we would vote for a recommend voting for approval to uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Speaker. Good morning. Dave Shukla, Third District. I both my brother and I were on the swim team at Long Beach Poly and from 1996 through 2002, we participated in the Moonlight Swim finals at the Belmont Pool. After his injury, after he became disabled, he did two years of physical therapy at the Belmont. It's an important institution. Having a city pool, a flagship institution, is important nonetheless. I. I oppose the project even as revised when it was approved in 2013. In February of 2013, that was the first City Council meeting I went to as an adult, and there were hundreds of people here in the afternoon. Through the evening. The offshore clinics was here, but not here next door, but they were in the city council chambers and they were engaged. It's the dead of night. What are we doing? What are you doing tonight? The appellants are going to start. Whatever merits you think their arguments have. They are going to continue. And the one issue that I have specifically with this project is that. It's a built structure that's going to last 60 to 80 years. Sea level rise is something that we're increasingly learning is coming sooner and faster and harder than we expected. It would be a horrible symbol for the city to take tidelands funds and not think of how the lifecycle of those funds has been used and what that flagship actually works. Thank you. So. Hello. My name is Terry Stoddard. I'm the general chairman for Southern California Swimming. And as Kim has mentioned, I'm here representing over 20,000 registered athletes, 800 coaches and over 150 clubs and 250 officials that have been through the process of using Belmont's pool in the past. Myself, I swear on my last national championship there and 15 years later I was able to win a national championship as a team. But more importantly, as my daughters then were able to compete in a massive championship and also for their their college and a four year school. So the whole process went through. And now, as my grandkids are beginning to learn how to swim at age six, four and ten months, they're looking for facilities like this. But my players applause an iconic. Pool that goes straight to the memories of learning to swim, have the opportunity for competition on weekends, but have the ability to have fitness throughout the time. Eight people die from drowning every day. Having this in a coastal community is going to give us the opportunity to avoid that, and it's going to be able to reach out not to only the communities of Long Beach, but the surrounding communities. We urge you to continue your support of revitalizing this project. Thank you. Could you please call the next speakers? Joseph Silverman. Anna Christianson. Corey Leslie. And Cantrell. Lucy Johnson. Joe Weinstein. Katie Roe. Dr. Preston Smith. Keith Mason. Please come. Up. Yes, please. Come on. Other names as you call, as you please. Coming up, Joseph slamming Anna Kristiansen. In the name of the bride. Oh, okay. Fine. Thank you. Yeah. And if she wants it. You know, we can't do that, too. So I think keep doing it that last time on the clock. You have Lieberman's points. I'm not going to reread them. Okay. But I am also speaking for Lieberman, the BBC. Move it or lose it. Build it downtown on the elephant lot or some other location where more residents, especially low income people of color, are likely to use it. How and where we build our municipal pools reflects a pattern, reveals a pattern of race and class prejudice. Olympic sized pools in the wealthy, white, south east corner and too small. Jim Crow, I'm quoting a gentleman who wrote about contested waters, the history of swimming pools in low income neighborhoods for people of color. BBC. Both boosters, as you see here tonight, invoke nostalgia, insisting that our former Belmont Power will be rebuilt in the same location while also demanding to make it bigger and better. And we know that 16 of those 17 stakeholders are either representing sports teams or for profit businesses. A state of the art facility for competitive and for profit owners will not reverse the high risk of drowning faced by the majority of youth in Long Beach. We are a 70 plus percent minority community nationwide. 40% of white youth and 60 to 70% of youth of color do not learn to swim and are more likely to drown. All residents are expected to share the $85 million cost some will be paying with their lives and the communities. Prioritize public health, safety and recreation. Let's plan accordingly. Thank you very much. Next speaker. I am cautiously and I'm opposed to this agenda item. I have no issue with building a pool and but I do have objections to the location and specifically with the risk associated with that location and also with the cost. The risk once again, is the sea level rise and placement on the sand where liquefaction and earthquakes can cause another a loss of our of our pool. There's also poor public access in that location. It's way over in the corner of Long Beach. We're using precious tidelands funds that in and of themselves will not cover the scaled back design that is lacking a roof and will very obviously be a money pit for maintenance. And now about the cost. Why is it that Torrance can produce a public swimming facility for $15 million? Santa monica built a pool on the beach in 2009 for 27.5 million. With the additional listed amenities a rec room, the swimming pool, a splash pad, beach volleyball, tennis courts, soccer fields, canopies, a cafe, rentals for paddleboards all that for 27.5 million. Why are we paying 87 or 85? Whatever it is? Less than a third of the price of the Belmont Pool is how they did it in Santa monica. Thank you. Very much, Mr.. Salmon. Why Skip doing that? Good morning. In control. And I agree with everything that's been said. I'm asking you to either vote no or postpone this. I'm speaking for carp. I we sent you a letter. I want to reiterate. You're being asked to approve an addendum for the Environmental Impact Report that was approved for a completely different site plan and location. Removing the roof from the previous pool. Adding a kids fan zone. Moving the project, taking out a park and public ride away are all significant changes to the original site plan and EIA are the additional impacts of noise, light, traffic and parking have not been adequately studied nor mitigated. The city manager tells you there's no problem, but there's not been any studies. The new project must have a new IIR. Carp has never opposed a pool. We have opposed the location. And this location is flawed. The elephant lot. There's no proof that it has in greater danger from sea level rise than the current location. I would like to see a study that shows this. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hello. I'm Joe Weinstein, and I sent you the other letter from Karp. What's at stake is not merely making the right decision about a pool. You've been presented you've been presented. A project which proposes to spend at least four times much as much as is necessary to produce a full fledged aquatic center. Karp supports the idea of a multipurpose aquatic center. We don't support the proposed squander. These proposals would have us. Thanks. Thanks to the choice of the absurd choice. Based solely on nostalgia, but needless and foolish and almost about the worst possible sight. Belmont Park has a beach. Thanks to this, you have a recipe for squander. And you think this is just about a pool project about aquatics? No, I'm afraid not. These proposals will damage not only city finances, but the public career of every official that votes for them. Because you declared a fiscal emergency and you want a permanent sales tax. And when you approve these proposals for squander, you are sending a very clear message that people are going to continue to reiterate. Namely, you want the tax revenue in order to squander it. Squander is not okay even if you get other sources of revenue, because think of a philanthropist as a philanthropist, want to enable you to make you have to spend more in order to get less. That's essentially the message you'd be sending to a philanthropist. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Is Lucy Johnson still here? Katie Role. Dr. Preston Smith. And Keith Mason. My name is Dr. Preston Smith. I admire your your ability to take this. I have a difficulty opposing the pool since I was a swimmer in high school at USC. But I've also spent 45 years studying the beach and its processes. And for that reason, I have two. Reasons why I oppose it. One is the costs. The money should be set aside for use of protecting property. We already have problems in Naples and the peninsula. We need we need to protect the property that we do have. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is in 1939, we had a hurricane caused by warm water. We have warming water and much more of a chance of hurricane men. If we look at history, will see that this area was under water in the thirties and then there's a sea wall running along the back of the of the parking lot. You also had storms in the late thirties. We have signs of erosion now. And I have a letter from demonstration to the Army Corps of Engineers stating that we had. 114 feet of the recession in during a two hour, two month period. So for all the reasons, I think it's a very dangerous place to put the pool. Thank you. Thank you, Doctor. Next we go. And Keith Mason. I live in the third district on the I regularly use the temporary pool that's there. I'd like to see something done with the pool in that area. I don't know that we need to pools. I don't know that $80 million is the right amount of money. But it certainly would be nice to have something in that area that was used a lot today, and I think it would be a real detriment to the community to not do something like that. So with only 30 seconds. I came yesterday to the meeting. Thank you. Next week. You? Is Lucy Johnson still here? Carrie Row. That's the end of our speaker's list. I think, you know, the answer comes from the Council on Price. Is that it, or what do we know? We have this as an opportunity for a short rebuttal, if necessary. Is there a time when energy just. It's reasonable. Is there anyone who like I. Yes, we would like to provide some brief rebuttal. Those were a lot of comments. There's needless to say, there's a number of things that we disagree with. I will focus on the the large ones and do the mostly in chronological order. So forgive me for this being a little disjointed. There was a comment about that there no access for fire lanes or oversize vehicles. The facilities for were designed with fire lanes and the ability to turn around any type of oversize vehicles that are necessary. There was a comment about that. We need to armor the building that is not correct or that sand replenishment is required and that is armoring. That is also not correct. We had originally contemplated sand replenishment but with the new design, since we aren't impacted by sea level at all because we moved out of the sea level plane as requested by coastal, that is not required. There were a number of comments about how the information was shared. I do want to point out that when we were first contemplating a redesign back in June, we of 2019, we created our stakeholder committee. We brought them to. I'm sorry. Didn't create them. We reactivated them and brought them together and shared information about the project we did at that time. Take a little bit different approach because on that stakeholder committee was also an individual and others who had sued the city. And so because of that legal action, we actually did still provide the information. We just did it in a different forum. So they got phone calls from me and we shared the same information. We just did it in two different forums. We also then provided information before we came to Planning Commission on December 3rd and writing so that everybody had the new design. The discussion back in June was high level concepts, and then we provided a new design on the 13th. Then went to Planning Commission on the 19th. That was a major public meeting. You have the public meeting today where there's additional input for everyone to be here. And it's well attended, obviously. And we also have an opportunity, a coastal commission. And there was a comment that we are proposing a cover that is not correct. That was an initial part of a discussion with the stakeholders and could we may be consider recover. We did not put that in after getting some stakeholder input. The project will be designed so that we could add one in the future, but that would be a completely separate project going through all the separate entitlements and separate air if future councils ever want to do that. There was a question about the notice of incomplete application from the Coastal Commission. They did send us 22 different questions about our response that we submitted back in, I believe, November. We have submitted to that as of today. We'd be happy to share that with anyone who wants to see it. It's a seven page response. Frankly, doesn't affect what we're doing here tonight because that's addressing a different jurisdictions issues. They're different than than the ones that we have here tonight. But we can certainly make that available to anyone who wants it. Do you want to respond to the cost as that has been brought up? When we talk about $85 million, that is a total budget figure and it's actually pretty comprehensive. It's kind of soup to nuts on the project. It even includes the cost of demolition of the facility of the old one. So we wanted to provide the council on our fiscal policies, not just the construction cost, but the full cost of the entire project, including soft costs, design costs and the demolition. And so whenever we talk about that 85 million, that's what's included there. And so I did want to clarify that. So when you're comparing this to other projects, a lot of times that you'll read about it in the paper, that'll be the construction cost of the facility. Our construction cost is significantly less than $85 million. There was a comment that we had promised the Olympic Committee to rebuild the pier. That is incorrect. There isn't you. Yeah. They're not asking us to rebuild the premier and the pier. That is a separate project that we're visioning. But that is not a requirement. We also had been asked about maintenance and operating costs, as have been estimated. We started that when the council first entertained this project back in 2014. We got permission to move ahead knowing that there were maintenance and operating costs. Frankly, this project has gone through so many different changes. That is all going to be updated after we get an entitlement and then the council will make a decision whether you want to move forward. Once you have the entitlements, that's one thing you still are going to make a decision whether you want to fund this project or move forward. And our fiscal policies say we're going to go through all of the costs, both capital and operating and maintenance when you make that decision. There was also comments that we should not be spending city taxpayer dollars on this. I want to remind everybody, this is not the general fund. These are not your property tax dollars or sales tax dollars that go to this project. These are specific funds funded in the Tidelands, funded mostly out of transfer from the Port of Long Beach and oil operating dollars that are funding this project. Oil dollars and dollars from oil recovery. These are not tax dollars in the in the normal sense of the word. And then finally, there was a question about the appeals and what the status of those are. We are in constant communication with the Coastal Commission staff on this project. It's been that way since we first proposed this project. We have talked to them about staying our appeal so that we could go through this process. All of those appeals will be heard at the same time. You know, Coast to Wall is holding everything so that at the meeting that they are planning to have, everything will be discussed. Everyone will have a chance to come. We expect that to be very, very well attended. If you'll notice, there were not a lot of supporters here, and they all are. A lot of them went home and then let the council member talk to that. But also they all know that, you know, everyone's going to come out and really talk about this at the Coastal Commission because that really is the the final body making the final decision. So if I turn to staff today, miss anything critical. I just. Think correct to. Factual items in the record. In Ms.. Miller's presentation, there was a comment that this was somehow inconsistent with the city's climate action plan. The city is working on a climate action plan, but there is no draft, much less any adopted plan. So there's no way for this to be inconsistent with that. And there were multiple references to the Olympic Games. Just to clarify what's in front of the council. No agreement what the Olympics is in front of the council at this time. It is the land use entitlements that are in. Front of you for the. Permanent structures at the site. Any temporary activities for the Olympics would be subject to a separate item that would come in front of this council. And those items are exempt from sequel under a different section of law at square guidelines 15272. And with that, there. Were many items brought up, but just to correct those items on the record. So we have our full team here. We have anything from our environmental consultants to our project delivery team to our project manager, and we are available to answer any of your questions. Councilmember Price, would you like to? I'm sorry about that. Thank you. Councilman Austin. So I want to thank everyone for staying, especially the appellants and the public that came out to speak. I know it's been a late night and I really appreciate the fact that everyone stayed and I appreciate everyone's input. I want to thank staff for working very hard on this project for as long as they have. It's great to see how far this project has come. It's taken us a long time to get to this point, and I think we've had a lot of investment from our city council in educating themselves about the project and learning about it and really understanding the issues. We've heard input from residents city wide on how the project can best be possible and has. We've included lots of amazing amenities as a result of comments directly from my council colleagues. The last time this item was before us. Whether it's a competitive swimmer, toddlers or seniors, the amount of recreational activities and opportunities to use the space has been enhanced as a result of this redesign. So I think staff are taking to heart the comments made by my council colleagues. The last time this item came forward. This will be truly a pool that anyone can enjoy and it will increase access to the coastal. Area for. Residents throughout the city. I think that the changes that have been made to the facility make it less intrusive and more feasible for us to construct, which I appreciate. The height has been greatly reduced, which I know was a concern of some of my colleagues, and the design changes have reoriented the property to reduce the impacts on the beach. I will say, and I have said this over and over again, this pool has been designed with sea level rise in mind when we're talking about sea level. I am far more concerned about the hundreds of homes and the thousands of people who live around this facility whose homes have not been designed for sea level . Rise like this property has. Are this the. Proposed design has? We did have a large group earlier today, if I may inquire of staff, how many letters of support and opposition we received. I received a total of nearly 300 comments. I believe approximately 250 were in support and we've had the remainder were in opposition. Okay. Thank you for that. And I appreciate. The folks who took the time to write letters, because I know I knew tonight was going to be a very long night. And in the past, we've had a lot of youth who are interested in swimming attend the meeting tonight. And with the SDR item, I knew that the earliest we would get to them would be 10 p.m., so I'm glad that they didn't come for that. We talk a lot about I know the opponents talk a lot about the best use of tidelands moneys and I have talked with some of them in the past for the beach path, for example. Some felt that that was a waste of tidelands money. And I understand that. And while I appreciate those concerns, I don't share them. I believe that engaging our coastal spaces and activating them has been a positive benefit for the city. And I'm very, very much looking forward to continuing to do that. I would love to have swimming pools in every district in the city. I really would. And if the decision today was whether or not we're going to fund a pool with $85 million of general fund dollars, I probably would not be supporting that project because our biggest projects right now and from a citywide level are our street infrastructure, our public safety. And if we had $85 million of general fund moneys to play with, I think building a pool would not be anybody's top priority. We are using money that's restricted in terms of where it can be used. And I think that it's. The void of the. Pool is felt by many. I heard the opponents speak tonight about the use of that property, but I will say from the residents who live around that facility, the businesses who operate businesses right around that facility, that the void of the pool is felt very strongly every day, while on occasion you might see families picnicking in the area. We often do see also encampments, a lot of areas that are not maintained and a lot of non activation of the space that has deteriorated. The general use of that space. I think that's I think when we talk about pools throughout the city, the only pool on the east side of Long Beach is a temporary one. In Belmont Shore, we have no permanent pools. And the east side of Long Beach, we do have two public pools, but they are located in exactly the areas that some of the opponents suggested. We built. Additional pools. And so I'm all in favor of building more pools. But in terms of this project, I ask for my colleagues support and I do want to commend staff because they've been working very closely with Coastal Commission staff to get us to this point. And will there be changes and modifications made along the way? Absolutely. But staff has worked and earnestly with Coastal Commission to try to get to a place where we have some meeting of the minds. And I want to thank our staff, our entire staff for the excellent work that they've done and for allowing me to carry on this project that was really started by my predecessor and Assemblyman O'Donnell and Councilwoman Lowenthal, who were all very supportive of this. And I carry the torch forward on their behalf as well. Thank you. Councilman Suber No. Thank you. I wanted to cover a point. Tom McCann actually covered it, but a few speakers did bring it up and that was about the 2017 appeal and their questions. Would that be rescinded? Would it be dismissed without prejudice? I think Tom could explain that. That will be addressed by the Coastal Commission along with everything else. So it's kind of an aggregate of of both appeals. I think that. The other point that Tom Marcum made was that this is not the final decision on this in terms of the council in the funding. So, Mr. Murdoch, if you could just repeat what you said in that point, I think it's important. Yes. So before we can even get to that funding decision, you have to have an entitled project. So you're one part of that coastal commission will make a decision on the on the final entitlements. You may have to come back and actually tweak things depending on what they're what their actions were. But then, more importantly, you would need to give us direction on should we move forward with, you know, getting to 100% construction drawings, bidding the project and then ultimately deciding on whether or not we should fund the project and actually start the construction. So there are still several steps ahead of the council. Thank you. Thank you. I'll be short. Looking at the hour, I. I was, I think, one of the one or two council members here in 2014 when this first came before us. I can remember the meeting like yesterday. I can remember my mindset going into that meeting, but then also being influenced by a lot of people who who utilize our pools and what the Belmont pool really and understanding what the Belmont Pool really meant to so many people in this city and not just in the third district, but from for those across the city. Recently had a an experience where we had our niece's staying with us during the Christmas holiday and they stayed about a week . One is a competitive swimmer at the University of Pacific. The other is going to be a water polo sensation in Long Beach State next year. But during their time with us, they were looking for a place to work out because they're competitive athletes. They needed to to work out. And so I gave them my car keys and said, go down to the Belmont pool, you can the temporary pool. And they loved it. There was a perfect experience for them. And so I think we sometimes take for granted the resources that we provide and can provide as a city. And this I got to say, I'm really delighted to see the cost of this project scaled down significantly. And I think that that has that can't be overlooked. You know, you go from a $140 million project to an $85 million project. That's the direction I want to see. Because when we first. This project was first proposed, I think it was a $60 million project. Then it started escalating up the other way. And so I commend staff and everybody involved for getting us to a place that, yeah, 80 million plus is expensive, but it's, it's way more reasonable than where we were headed. And so and the design changes I think are are definitely consistent and reasonable as well. I did have a question regarding just the little nuance of detail, 25 yards versus 25 meters. Can you explain that? Yes. So while most of us with a calculator realize that's not very much distance, it means a whole lot to the poor community. So certain groups swim 25 yards, you know, and this is just the width of the pool. It's 50 meters. Is the is the normal size of the pool. It allows you to do more collegiate type of practice on the 25 yards width, 25 meters is a little bit longer. And that is what is considered a fully Olympic pool. So not many people swim 25 meters, but it allows more water polo to be done with floating goals, which is important to the water and community, water polo community. And it allows you to have what's called a fast core. So it's a little bit of distance, but it does make a big difference to the to the swimming community. I appreciate that. That note of clarification. Again, I want to thank everybody who's been involved in this. What we're voting on tonight is moving this to the Coastal Commission. Is that correct? That is correct. Right. I will be supportive. Fine. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Yes? I forgot to ask that staff make a change in the design that we change it from a 25 yard with to a 25 meter width pool and that we we consider that change as part of our design element. Thank you. So we're considering that to be part of the motion. And we've done all the environmental study to allow that it's included in the air and we've done some additional outreach and staff is very comfortable with that. So thank you for the direction. I'm so impressed. Thank you. I want to thank the appellants that showed up today and the community members that have been involved in this process. And 2017 I issued my concerns on this item was not here, but issued a lengthy letter that I know was submitted as well, and the Coastal Commission had access to that. My concerns are voiced. I have some questions that I'd like to ask and understanding that this is putting it to the Coastal Commission. With this design, obviously support a smaller design. My first question is around the Climate Action Adaptation Plan, and it was stated by staff that we have not yet adopted one. My gut reaction. And I and I know that the votes aren't there for tonight, but my gut reaction is to say we should we should stop considering a poll until we have a climate adaptation plan. But I know that that's not where we're going to end up. But that's that's my gut response. Could staff walk through for me two pieces? One is, what is the timing on the cap and two out of Thailand funds? And I know we're not talking about funding it today, but just so we know as we're moving forward. Are there things in the cap that are proposed right now that Thailand funds could be used for to protect against sea level rise and some of the other issues that that are a priority for us. Thank you, Councilmember Perez. So we're about. A little under a year out of completing the Climate Action and adaptation plan for this city site. Then we'll go to the Coastal Commission. Average turnaround for items at the Coastal Commission right now is in excess of a year. So we're talking, you know, 24 months before being fully complete, the hold up on the Climate Action Plan has nothing to do with sort of this topic of sea level rise. That has to do with the greenhouse gas reduction side and finding sufficient greenhouse gas reductions for the city within the city's existing fiscal and logistical constraints. So. I don't want to go too far astray and end up in brown at all. But we can, you know, provide you an update on the Climate Action Plan under a separate cover, but its completion is not imminent. And I'll answer the Tidelands questions of all of our projects in the city, the ones that get the most scrutiny from a climate perspective and sea level rise perspective and all of those things are the projects in the coast that is pretty clear set out by the Coastal Commission. They expect that, they ask for that. We look at every single adaptation there and the main idea is retreat. So wherever you can, they're not looking to armor or prevent sea level rise. They're looking to basically get out of the way. And that's exactly what we're doing with this project. We have retreated completely out of the 2100 sea level rise projection, and we do that with just about every project along the coast. We look at climate impacts. I can't believe for 24 months out of. Having a cap. We had a presentation like a year ago. I know this is not the agenda item, but I am just. Really surprised because I thought from my conversations with development services that we were looking at this early in this year. So I am I'm very surprised that we're two years out. We and to clarify, we. Do expect to have a TFP to you in the next 30 or so days. On the cap. We are within a major milestone of, as I said, completing our local adoption over the next 12 months. But it does have to go to the Coastal Commission and to our great frustration. But nonetheless it's taking in excess of a year for the Coastal Commission to process our items. It's heartbreaking. I feel like climate change, like we always say it should be, it is the ultimate crisis and yet it takes us so, so long to go through this process. So, I mean, there are some things that we can talk about at a later date that I want to tease out necessarily. But I'm very interested in looking at even proposed items in the coast that are geared towards protecting our environment and thinking about climate change and thinking about how we offset supporting the poor while being able to do that. Can we also really invest in some of these focus on climate change? Because we've done a lot on tourism already, I think all of the nodes. And so this is just a public way for us to start that conversation. I know that you guys mentioned it. The cost has come down. Any additional fundraising that is being looked at now that the cost is lower or. Yes. So there are two main aspects that we'll be looking for for those funding. One, we do want to approach the Olympics Committee. We're a ways away from actually getting a commitment on Olympic diving to this point. All of the facilities that they've looked at, there really aren't any additional cost to the city. This would be one where we are creating a facility where one does not currently exist. So we think there's a good opportunity to talk to them about funding. We are also looking at doing some fundraising and some marketing and sponsorship. This is a big asset. It's going to be right in the Olympic area in 2028 and we believe there is some potential for some tasteful sponsorship of a naming rights for the facility, and then we would look at any other ways to close the gap. So it's a much more manageable gap to close than before. So would you like to keep up again? I just have one quick thing, but yeah, I can queue up again. That's fine. Now you go ahead if you have one quick go ahead. On the you mentioned naming rights. I just want to make sure that the staff brings forward a agenda item about how we do naming rights before we get to that point. Yes, that would be for council approval. We did a exercise about a year and a half ago where we just understood the feasibility of it. Before anything really gets done, the council will have to adapt that and blessed. I'm going to be nearing the. I see nobody else queued up so I could to make it short because it is late, as you tell my wife, that if I get home after. After Colbert put the APB on me. Colbert belonged on finished of the standard. A review that we have here is the standard of review that we have for this project here. The standard of review that we had in 2017 with a whole lot different. And it was a different project. And at that time I brought that up. There were a lot of issues that were involved with that project at that time. So that we're right that we're right up here, that some changes have been made. We'll talk about heights and a few shades and and sea level rise was a big one. And then. And so the long story short, I didn't vote for that project. But we I said, anyway, it went forward to the Coastal Commission knowing that the Coastal Commission has a different standard of review. And that and that has been going on, I'm guessing, for the last two years, year and a half, where staff has been meeting with a close commission staff to talk about some of those concerns that were raised back in 2017. Height and sheds and sea level rise. So the project comes here. Now we have a different a different standard to review today. From my point of view, this area that we have here today is satisfactory. You addressed a lot of the issues that were brought up in 2017, which in my opinion is enough to move the project forward to the Coastal Commission. That having seen that, there's still going to be another standard of review again by the Coastal Commission, which is going to be, I think a little more. Scrutinize it a little harder. Going to be a little bit more. More. Critical as to what's going to be presented. And I think the challenge is that here the challenges with costs commission, I think you understand it and I think it's going to be also a challenge that the commission knows very well about sea level rise. You said a key word there, kind of a managed retreat there had to do managed retreat because they're already back. But that's another issue that the Coastal Commission is dealing with every month in terms of managed retreat. We had a whole workshop on a managed retreat and sea level rise where a lot of cities are not as positioned as we are, where they're really encountering some really serious erosion along the cliffs, in their bluffs to where there's there's going to be some serious decisions being made for them next 20 to 30 years. What are they going to do with those those homes where they can't retreat anymore? I mean, they're done that. What's what's going to happen? People who have made investments for their families and I mean a. Sure you say a house with a great view of the beach. But that's going to be gone within the next 20 or 30 years because of sea level rise. No rate is going faster than we thought we were thinking at first it was going to be about six feet. But by 2001. 100, but it's going to be actually looking. Projections are more like ten feet, which is going to be a massive impact not only for here for us, but around the world, obviously, and everywhere else . So what I want to do, what I want to basically push forward is that this is a different project now. The standard reviews is much different. The standard review that the Commission is going to look at is going to be different. I think that step has already been challenged with that. I know that you have been asked to provide additional information, some additional challenges being put forward to you to to meet so that when it comes to the commission or when it is adopted an agenda, it is pretty much the the plan that that you want to go forward with. I don't think this is the end of this discussion. I think there's going to be some war on on this project because obviously, I think there are still some some issues we need to take care of. We have to look at, and especially when we're talking about, you know, environmental justice issues with having access to the beach. We talked we had a big discussion earlier tonight about affordable accommodations and Sterling's short term rentals. So, I mean, it's all that it's all it's all related. It's all related. And we'll be dealing with those when they come to us. So I'm going to be supporting moving forward to the Coastal Commission because I think that the standard review there will be much more much more difficult. The reason, much more challenging. I mean, thank you. See? No more comments from anyone. Please take the vote. Ocean Cay.

A bill for an ordinance amending Articles III, V and VII of Chapter 28 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by repealing and reenacting a new Division 3 of Article III establishing a Minority and Women Business Enterprise contracting ordinance in furtherance of nondiscrimination in City Contracts for Construction, Reconstruction, and Remodeling, and Professional Design and Construction Services; repealing and reenacting a new Article V establishing a Minority and Women Business Enterprise contracting ordinance in furtherance of nondiscrimination in City Contracts and Purchase Orders for Goods and Services and Opportunities for Minority and Woman-Owned Businesses and Small Business Enterprises in Procurements for Goods and Services; and repealing and reenacting a new Article VII pertaining to the development and utilization of Small Business Enterprises in City contracting and concessions. Amends Articles III, V and VII of Chapter 28 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by repealing and reenacting a new Division 3 of Article III establishing a Minority and Women Business Enterprise

DenverCityCouncil_04062020_20-0286

I'm very excited that the government is embracing more technology. I'm so sorry for the circumstances, but I'm glad that we're having so many positive results. Thank you, Mr. President. The. What's. Test. Test? Yes. Oh, it looks like it's coming through, right? I think we're getting close. Did you ask. Me to ask no one again? No. So we bought a tenable. Okay. So what I'm being told right now is that we are live in the room and we do have a quorum, but that we have lost the zoom feed for now. So we're going to proceed with our meeting since we do have a quorum. So our meeting is back and um, what we have right now for those of you who couldn't hear us before, is we are in the call out sections. Do we need to, Madam Secretary, do we need to reread the bills for introduction or redo anything that we that might not have been on audio? Or are we picking up where we were? I can start again with the bills for introduction from business arts workforce in aviation 2286 A bill for an ordinance amending Articles three, five and seven of Chapter 28 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by repealing and reenacting a new Division three of Article three, establishing in minority and women business enterprise contracting ordinance in furtherance of nondiscrimination in city contracts for construction, reconstruction and remodeling and professional design and construction services. Repealing and React Reenacting a new Article five. Establishing a minority and Women Business Enterprise. Contracting ordinance in furtherance of nondiscrimination in city contracts and purchase orders for goods and services and opportunities for minority and woman owned businesses and small business enterprises in procurements for goods and services. And repealing and reenacting a new Article seven pertaining to development and utilization of small business enterprises in city contracting and concessions. And from finance and governance 20 to 90, a bill for an ordinance authorizing expenditures in the General Government Special Revenue Fund based on a letter of intent from the United States of America to award funding to the city and county of Denver for the Denver Kids Headstart Fiscal Year 2023 2021 program. Thank you, Madam Secretary. All right. So called out was under bills for introduction on a resolution something called and bills for introduction. Council member Flynn has called out council bill to 86 for questions and a comment. Sir, Madam Secretary, if you put that back up on our screens and Councilmember Flynn, why don't you go ahead with your questions and comment? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Apologies for the backtracking. I called this out with some questions that I had. And in light of the need to have people not come down here unnecessarily and the fact that we're going to have another opportunity next week. Email with Adrina and some others, or next week here on the floor, either by virtual presence from the agency or in person, as whatever may be the more convenient or advisory. We are going to require prime contractors to pay subcontractors, minority and women subcontractors within 35 days of those subcontractors giving an invoice to the prime. Whereas the the bill says that they shall be paid within 35 days, quote, regardless of whether the contractor has been paid for the same work or payment period, unquote, by us. We have heard for many years that Denver's processes leave something to be desired in terms of prompt payment ourselves. So this looks like it's a case of do as we say and not as we actually do ourselves. I know that from talking with Adrina and and Jason and others that are working on this, that we have the Peak Academy working on processes and streamlining and trying to get prompt payment ourselves. But there still are underlying issues. If the prime contractor is itself a minority owned or women owned certified business acting as a prime, they will be subject to the same 35 day requirement, yet may not be paid by us for up to six months for the same work. So I'd like to find out what are our processes or what's our intention for handling those? And the other new issue that has come up, Adrina, and I hope that she's still able to watch. If not, I will email her after she is watching. Okay. Email after the meeting frequently. And from my experience covering construction projects as a journalist and working at RTD on the airport train project in the field, there frequently are change directives that occur that are carried out by subcontractors. This entails a lot more lead time for the city to pay the prime. Yet we're requiring the prime to pay the sub within 35 days. In essence, we're asking our prime contractors to finance in part finance our projects. So it's very important that the efforts that Adriene is office and the rest of the that public works and the airport are working on to streamline our processes, come up to speed and that we have confidence in them. So I want to hear more by next week about how we're going to implement some of these ten. I think there were ten process improvements that we were looking at doing. And otherwise, this is like a case where we're taking care of our of our MBA subs and getting them paid on time. So we're filling the air and one of the tires, but the other three tires are still flat. So we need to get we need to inflate the rest of the system and get it working clearly. So those are the those are the concerns that I want to see addressed. We have all up on this dais and the other members have been receiving email from some prime contractors. Not all of them are big multinational corporations. Some of them are pretty small outfits, and some of them are graduates of our MBA program. And they have concerns about their ability to meet this 35 day requirement when we can string them out for up to six months. So I'm hoping to have answers by that next week. I did not call this out for a vote because I believe it does need to move forward. Every other aspect of the ordinance is something I wholeheartedly support. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. All that conclude I don't see anybody else on that item. So that concludes the comments on that item. And now we are. Carrying into uncharted territory here. So we had an item called out by one of our members who's on Zoom. Well, I have confirmation that Janet can see all of us. I'm not sure that they can see the Zoom people. So I'm going to go ahead and call it out and we'll see what happens. So I'm secretary. Please put the next item on our screens.

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and The Housing Authority of the City and County of Denver, to launch the new Lower Income Voucher Equity (LIVE Denver) program. Approves an $1,180,000 intergovernmental agreement with the Denver Housing Authority (DHA) through 12-31-23 to launch the Lower Income Voucher Equity (LIVE Denver) program to create immediate affordable housing options for employed workers by connecting vacant rental units with income-qualified Denver residents. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-23-18.

DenverCityCouncil_07092018_18-0592

We're missing one. Somebody's hanging fire. There we go. All right. 12. No, 66. 94 has been defeated. All right. Next item up is five men. Two. Councilman, will you please put 592 on the floor? Thank you. A move that counts a little 592 series of 2018 be placed upon final consideration. Do pass. All right. It has been moved. And second, it. Um. Councilman Flynn, you're up. Thank, Mr. President. I call this out again to vote no on this. I voted no on introduction last week or two weeks ago, I guess. And for the same objection, we have a lot of housing assistance programs and projects. This one is very similar to things we do in through other vehicles. But I believe this has a few aspects that go just a little too far and primarily that we are looking at filling some vacant units that are that have been built and have not been rendered by the landlords. We're going to fill them by subsidizing rents that, frankly, the market ought to be bringing down in the first place. And one of the aspects about this live Denver voucher program that I that I found particularly difficult is that we are going to not only use our own city funds, but we're going to accept contributions from some of the employers whose workforce whose employees are having difficulty finding housing. And it just I said, wait a minute, why don't they take that money instead of putting it into our housing subsidies and they take that money and pay their workers a living wage so that they can afford to rent a place on their own in the first place. So with those two issues in play, the fact that these corporations ought to be paying their workers enough to live near where they work, and that if we continue to subsidize rents that are above market, then they will never come down. I just can't vote to approve this. I wanted to call it out and vote no. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Again for that one person out there that was watching last week and now this week, the I just want to explain, they will be voting in favor of this as opposed to what I did last week. And that's primarily because of the mechanism like I was talking about then that is created that I think can be an avenue for a sort of income certification and other things going forward with other programs. So there are some some good with the bad and for that I'd rather have the good along with the bad. And so I'll be supportive of things. All right, Councilman, I take it. This is. A program that I had some questions about as well. But the reality is that there are units all across the city. They're not all downtown high end, right. Brand new units. These are units that are available today that can put people who need housing into housing immediately, as opposed to waiting for projects that often take three and four, sometimes five rounds to go through. Colorado Housing Finance Authority to access their low income tax credits for their project. That helped write down the costs that make it affordable to be able to put low income people in those units. So I will be supporting this tonight because it does create the opportunity to address an immediate need. I think it's a program that we need to get periodic updates on so that we could look at what the impact that it's having on the individuals. I had shared the concern that if we were only looking at high end housing, that at the end of the two year period people wouldn't be able to afford to stay in those units. And so it was important to be addressing the need all across the city in finding affordable units that exist in neighborhoods all across the city, which this project does. Thank you. Thank you. So in other comments from Secretary Roll Call. Flynn. No. Gilmore I heard in. Cashman All right. Can each. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Black. Clark. Espinosa. Mr. President. I. Close voting and other results. 11 eyes one day. 11 eyes, one nay motion passes. All right, this concludes. Items need to be caught out. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published, were now ready for the bloc. Votes and resolutions and bills on final consideration members. Remember, this is a consent vote, 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 Lopez, will you please put the resolution for adoption and the bills on final consideration of passage on the floor? Excuse me. Sorry. I know what you're going to say. I was going to say happy birthday. I don't know. Okay. I remember that the resolutions and adopted I move that resolutions be adopted in bills and final consideration to be placed on final consideration and do pass in a. Block for the following items. Councilman. There's I don't know if you know, it's 2018 and there's a screen in front of you that you can. I'm old school here. So all series of 2018, six nine. Resolution 690. Resolution six 7681. 691 586. 667. Amazing. 683 642 six. 83 six 645 671. Correct. Madam Secretary, please. It's 643. That's right. Sick. So. 721 and bills for bills on final consideration. 651 614 623 649. All series of 2018 did. Did you say 671 also? Six. No, I think. Thank you. Mr.. I was rudely interrupted. Yes. 671 for the record. And 645. 645 for the. Um. Did you get 649? Yeah. Okay. Six. 49. Yes. Okay. Madam Secretary, do you concur that all of this is correct? Yes, ma'am. Yes, Mr. President. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, for that. Yeah. Okay. Electricity goes out. It's. It's it's been moved and seconded. Secretary Roll Call. Black eyed clerk. All right. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Herndon Cashman, I. Kenny Lopez. I knew Ortega. Mr. President. I please go to the voting and thus results 12 vice. All right. Do we? I'll. I'll. I'll take, uh. Councilwoman Sussman. Yeah. You know what? Take that down to 12th place because. SUSSMAN Thank you. Councilman Thank you, Councilman Cashman. All right. The resolutions have been adopted in the both have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight.

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP PW17-131 and award a contract to Toole Design Group, LLC, of Silver Spring, MD, for preparation of a Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program and a Vision Zero Action Plan, in an amount not to exceed $199,817, for a period of one year, with the option to renew for one additional one-year period, at the discretion of the City Manager; authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents and any necessary amendments, including adjusting the fee schedule for inflation; and Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW) by $225,000, offset by grant funds. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03132018_18-0244

Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item? None. Please cast your votes. As we move on to the next item, we officially have passed the land use element meeting from last week on time, which which I didn't think was possible, but we always find a way. Next item 29. Report from Public Works Recommendation to. Award a contract to a tool design group for preparation of a Systemic. Safety Analysis Report program and a Vision Zero Action Plan and an amount not to exceed 199,817 citywide. There's a motion I just briefly. I know I know that it's late, but can we just please get vision zero is actually really important. And can we kind of come back and give the council an update? Because I really think that we've spent some time talking about Vision Zero and can I maybe a status on how the action plan is going? Can we do that? Mr. BECK Yes, Mayor, we can, but why don't you just give me 30 seconds? Because this this initiates the program. Really, what we're asking this evening is to allow us to hire a consultant. The consultant is going to do a number of community meetings and help us develop a Vision Zero plan. So what we will be bringing back to council when we have that plan is how we plan on approaching achieving a Vision Zero, which for the audience means that we would have no pedestrian deaths from vehicle accidents. Excellent. Thank you. Any public comment on this item saying none, are it? Please, cash? Yes. Can I go? Thank you. I also want to just highlight how great this is that we are finally hiring a consultant. I know Mr. Beck knows how important Vision Zero is to me and my constituents in my district. We've had a handful of incidents and two deaths in my district since I've been in office. And so I was wondering if you could clarify for us just quickly what a safety analysis report program specifically analyzes on traffic safety. Thank you. At 1215 in the morning. It's okay. Welcome back. Back in two months. No, I can I can tell you that now, essentially, Vision Zero starts by looking at the data, and the data will show us where the most dangerous intersections are in the city. So that's the start. And then we'll take that information out to the community and start identifying where we have our most dangerous intersections and. Improvements at those intersections. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please cast your votes. Motion carries.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to amend Contract No. 33203 with KPMG LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership, of Irvine, CA, for specialized services in connection with annual financial audits, to increase the contract in an amount not to exceed $922,895, for a revised total contract amount of $7,056,834, and extend the contract to June 30, 2021. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08042020_20-0716

Thank you very much. Okay. Item 26. Clark, would you please me the item? Communication from City Auditor Recommendation to amend contract with KPMG for specialized services in connection with annual financial audits to increase the contract in an amount not to exceed 922,895 citywide. All right. And do we have a motion on this, please? Could we get a second? In. We have Mango and Roberto. No. Excuse me. Do you have any problem coming in this? There is no public comment on this item. But I am thinking. Good for the. Vice Mayor, can you repeat the mover and the seconder? But. I'm sorry. I didn't catch that. Can you please repeat the move for a second or vice mayor Roberto? Elanga and the second. In the second the basement area. Now it's me and the maker and the building. That is the second. Okay. Thank you very much. District one. I District two. I agree. I district for. My. District five. District by. District by. High. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. District nine. I know she cares.

Recommendation to adopt the findings of the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee relating to updating crossing guard locations at intersections throughout the City based on qualification criteria; and Receive and file the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee report on Crossing Guard Deployment Plan for the 2016-2017 School Year and concur with its recommendations. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08162016_16-0766

Motion carries. We have item number number 26. Next report from Public Works and police recommendation to adopt the findings of the Pedestrian Safety Advisory Committee relating to updating crossing guard locations at intersections throughout the city. Based on qualification criteria and receiving final report on crossing guard deployment plan for the 2016 2017 school year citywide. Thank you as our staff report. Yes. Public Works director Craig Beck and our traffic engineer, Eric Woods from. Good evening, Vice Mayor, members of the City Council. This item before you is the result of a citywide initiative started in 1978 to perform a pedestrian safety advisory committee to look at crossing guard locations throughout the city. So many people think that the school districts have crossing guard responsibility. Actually, it is the city we utilize general fund to pay for the crossing guards. So tonight, the peace sack recommendation is before Council for Consideration, which is focused on the crossing guard deployment plan for the 2016 2017 school year. And I'd like Eric Winston to just walk through some of the criteria that was used to evaluate these locations. Good evening, Vice Mayor, Council Members. The recommendations from Peace Act for the upcoming 2016 2017 school year relating to crossing guards include the recommendation of three new locations for school crossing guards and the removal of seven locations for crossing guards. These seven locations have not. Been staff for. The past six or seven years, so this is not a new loss for crossing guards within the within the city. The criteria we use to look at crossing guard placement and removal is number of students, elementary school students, crossing given location and the number of vehicles per hour that students have to cross conflict with crossing streets. And that number varies depending on if you've got a traffic signal or a stop sign or uncontrolled. Other locations have been evaluated as part of this program and have not been recommended because they do not meet those criteria. In addition to the school crossing guards, public works and traffic engineering, look at additional pedestrian safety improvements at these locations, whether or not school crossing guards are recommended or not. Some locations have been recommended for enhanced visibility, marked crosswalks, continental style crosswalks or other locations. I'm happy to take any questions we have at this time. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. I'd like to thank you for your efforts in all of this. I think the Public Safety Advisory Committee, their work in finding locations for us is it's incredible. We've been waiting for this for a long time. So I know a lot of us are excited. Quick question. I have one question relative to Third Street. I see Main Avenue is one that is selected, but third and Golden was not selected and I don't know the reasoning why. Do you have that information? Yes. Councilmember the of the volume of elementary school students at Third and Main was about twice the number over twice the number as a third and golden. That's why that was recommended over and over. Third and golden. Okay. So it was just the amount of students. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. I just want to thank you guys for bringing this forward and being really clear about, you know, the fact that the ones that we're removing haven't had stopped there in a while. And just thank you for that. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I, too, appreciate the clarity. And fortunately there's some misinformation out in the community. And so I wanted to ask a couple of quick questions to make sure that we had the record correct. So, Mr. West, if I remember correctly, the Public Safety Advisory Committee was reactivated last year by this council after having not met since 2008, because this council cares about safety, transparency and our community's input on safety. Is that correct? Yes, it is. At that time, August of last year, the committee evaluated six intersections that were last evaluated for crossing guards in 2005, more than a decade ago. And all of those that were in the fifth District have not had a crossing guard at them since 2009, far before my time on this council. Is that accurate? That is accurate. I know this is Councilman Mongo. Not probably. I know there's only one at home to be confused. So to be clear, I'm using the proper questioning methods. Right. So to be clear, this council's vote does not remove any active crossing guards from the fifth District. That is absolutely true. Maybe I should have been a lawyer. Susie's inspiring me. Furthermore, the proposed budget for school crossing guards budget is budgeted for an increase from last year's 972,000 to a proposed budget of $1.142 million in 2017. So should this Council approve the proposed budget, we would be furthering our commitment to public safety and the safety of our intersections . Is that accurate? Yes. Wonderful. I just want the community to know that this council is more active and more committed to public safety than we have seen since, I believe the record shows 2005. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Councilman Austin. So I want to first say objection for leading the witness, but thank you for the staff report and the clarity. I have one location obviously in my district that I am a little concerned with because it is slated for elimination. One of the sites is Duley Elementary School and the location is Daisy and Alamo. And I know that it hasn't been starved for for several years, but we are we're there's some changes happening in that direction, that neighborhood that that could could impact this. And I just would like to know, how often is this going to be evaluated, the Peace Corps, how often are they meeting? And will there be opportunities for for the community to kind of weigh in? Should there be some changes? Councilmember, as you heard, that this committee has been lax in meeting. But we think it's an important thing to review on a regular basis. So we we have actually the city's traffic engineer who participates in the Peace Act meetings. We'd be more than happy to reevaluate this site if you believe that that something has changed since we looked at it about a year ago and come back to this council, if we have findings that would dictate that it should be added. I would just just ask that you do some outreach to the school community and to the principal at Dula Elementary as well, because I'd like to and I do know that that, you know, the participation on the BP stock has been optimal either. And so I want to make sure that, you know, we make sure that everybody is at the table. Certainly happy to do that. All right. Thank you for the clarity. Thank you, Councilman Austin Councilmember. Thank you. If panelists will indulge me, I would just like to mention one crossing guard from the fourth District, Connie Donati, who retired this year after 22 years of service, walking that route between the third and the fourth District on Atherton at Studebaker. And Connie is 78 years old. She watches the meeting. So I hope she's watching this item. And she's 78. And they calculated that each day she steps up on the curb 75 times. So it was time for retirement, I think. Thank you, Connie. Thank you, Councilmember Eureka. Thank you, Councilman. Vice Mayor. Excuse me. I notice that there's very good. Only one that. In West Palm Beach. I have four or five schools in West Palm Beach and only one crossing guard. How is it? Is that a correction? It's only for the elementary school. Is that it? That's correct. Only elementary schools. Okay, I stand corrected. Then I will. They will. Thank you. Is anything public? Councilmember Mongeau I received a text message from the community, so I thought I would add one more clarifying point on redirect. Mr. West, is it true that all of the intersections that we have evaluated in the Fifth District that have not had crossing guards for quite a long time, but are now here on this docket. Are now. Signaled intersections with buttons that people can push for green. Yes, that's what I understand. Wonderful. So we've made those intersections more safe. Yes. Thank you for that. Thank you. Councilmember Durango. My chief of staff is earning her her pay today. She indicates to me that they have about four elementary schools, some that are key to it, and yet only have one crossing guard was at Garfield. Polina. But in. Mr. WEBSTER So I think that there's a disproportionately number of categories lacking in my district, perhaps. I want to take this offline and perhaps let's talk further about what I have my needs in that area. Catherine. We'd be happy to work with your office to identify particular intersections that you believe we should study in. Have future inclusion in this in this program. Thank you. Thank you. And is there any public comment on this item saying non, please cast your votes. Motion carries.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Use District Map of the City of Long Beach as said Map has been established and amended by amending portions of Parts 15 and 22 of said Map from Light Industrial (IL) to Commercial Storage (CS), read and adopted as read. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_04202021_21-0309

District eight. District nine. No motion carries. Next is at a meeting. Report from Development Services recommendation to declare ordinance amending the use district map by amending portions of parts 15 and 22 from light industrial to commercial storage, red and adapted as Red District eight. No public comment. Can I get a motion, sir? Mr. Mayor. It must be stopped. Yes, we do have public comment for this item. It's not on my list. Okay, sure. Let's do it. We have Linette Frenzy. Linet friends. That concludes the public comment for this item. Of emotion by Council member Austin. Can I have a second, please? Second pick, Councilwoman Price Roll Call. District one. I'm in district two. I'm District three. I'm District four. All right. District five. District excuse me. District five, I. I. District seven. No. District eight. By. District nine. Ocean carries. I don't know. I'm sorry. I should have I recuse myself on that item. So I don't think I should be voting on it. Sorry. There, there. We need to then have a motion to reconsider the item, which will take a roll call vote. And then we can have a second vote on the item with Council District six recusing. Motion to reconsider. In. Okay. Let's go and do a vote on the motion to reconsider, please. District one. All right. District two. I think. District three. Five. District four. By. District five. I. District seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. All right. Thank you. Now, the mayor, the motion would now be back on the floor as first presented. Okay. And we have a we have Councilwoman Sara recusing herself on the item. That's correct. Do we need an emotional and seconder? I have a motion to make a motion by Councilmember Offset and have a second budget. Mr. Mayor. Yes, Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry to interrupt, but Mr. City Attorney, because this is a virtual meeting which you have to close out of the meeting. Plug back in is that we were in the room. Right. That would be the best thing. I don't have it in front of me, but we. That's how she should step away. Absolutely. Thank you for the clarification, councilman practice for asking someone to have to do the vote again. I know. I know. Thank you. Let me log out. There's emotion and there's emotion across them. Second by. I'm sorry. The second is by. We don't have a second place. Second Vice Mayor Richardson, local. Council District one. That's a different. One. I mean. Council District two. I council district three. I. Councilwoman Price. Like. Mark. I'm going to. I thank you. Council. District four. High. Council. District five Council. High. Council. District seven. No. Council District eight and. High. Council District nine. No motion carries. Thank you. And Madam Court, do we do we have general public comment also open public comment before we finish the rest of the agenda? Yes. Okay. It's going to do that.

A bill for an ordinance designating 2900 South University Boulevard, the Wellshire Park Cottage, as a structure for preservation. Approves an individual landmark designation for property located at 2900 South University Boulevard in Council District 4. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-26-18.

DenverCityCouncil_08062018_18-0688

And move that council bill 18 0688 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been. Moved and seconded. And do we have a technical amendment for this one, Councilwoman Sussman? We for this one. So technical limit. All right. So, Councilwoman Sussman, will you offer your technical amendment? Well, I mean, find out where it is. This one I was not told about. I move that council bills 18 dash 068 be amended in the following particulars on page one line 12 strike the date February 20th and replace with June 19th. It has been moved and seconded. Any questions from members of Council Councilwoman Susman? This technical amendment corrects the date of the Landmark Preservation Commission hearing for this designation. Thank you very much, Councilwoman Sussman. See no other questions or comments, Madam Secretary Rocca. SUSSMAN Right. Black. Brooks. I. Espinosa. I. Flynn. I. Gilmore. Herndon. Katherine. Kinney. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Sussman. Hi. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please. Because the voting announced the results. 3939 as Council Bill 688 has been amended. The public hearing for Council Bill 688 is now open. May we please have staff report? Good evening, council president, council members. This is four 2900 South University Boulevard for a landmark designation application. As Andrew just said, this is in Council District four in the Wiltshire neighborhood on the corner of University Boulevard and Bates Avenue. The property was constructed in 1926 prior to the incorporation into the city. PJ is the owner of this particular property. The current zoning is SBF and the request is for a landmark designation for this property. This was submitted to Glenmark in May. On the 21st, it went to planning board for the rezoning and then for the Landmark Preservation Commission for their approval, which was unanimous. Then went through Rudy Mayor Council at first reading and we are now at the public hearing as required by the landmark ordinance which was established in 1957. Sorry, it is required to meet the designation criteria in at least two of the following categories history, architecture and geography. To maintain its historic and physical integrity, which basically means it should look like what it used to look like. And it should be considered how it relates to a historic context or theme. This particular property, which was constructed in 1926, was through was for a dreamed of the development of the Wiltshire Park neighborhood. This was the first house that was developed with this neighborhood. You can see it on the 1925 Park Plat. This was also developed in coordination with and the developers coordinated with the Wiltshire golf course in an attempt to build an upscale neighborhood kind of in the southern part of Denver. This was developed by Elinor and Phil and Wider, who are developers within the city and county of Denver. They did the brawny Bonnie Brae development, and this was hoped to be a second version of Bonnie Brae just a little bit further south. They hired landscape architects to design the layout of the streets. It was intended that it was going to be multiple. Lots would be put together for larger homes. In 1925, owner took out a mortgage in order to help build this particular structure. He had planned to build more. However, he went out of business and so he sold this particular property and with sort of everyone else in the late 1920s when the Great Depression hit, it hit him as well. And so his business of the Wiltshire Park ended up going under and no other buildings were constructed as part of the Wiltshire Park development until after postwar. Into what we see today is more of a postwar suburb. So this property is representative of the initial dream of building the Wiltshire neighborhood but didn't really come into fruition except for this particular property. And the Wiltshire golf course. The Landmark Preservation Commission and staff feels that this meets the history criteria for the development of this of the city of Denver. The application also talks about it being a historic for its architectural style or type. This is a French eclectic style. It was constructed in 1926, and this particular style was brought back to the United States after World War One, after soldiers had been banned in France, and they brought this particular style back to the United States. It's rarely seen in Denver. It's been used more popular other places in the country, but it's rarely seen in Denver. Some of its defining characteristics are steeply pitched, complex, rough types, a lot of hipped dormers stucco walls and often seen as stone, used as sort of a whimsical detail, as if it's a French farmhouse. There are multiple pane windows and French doors and then entryways that typically are arched and stooped, but without a large porch in front of it. And so these are the character defining features of the French eclectic style as seen in this particular property. And finally, it is also significant for its geography and the geography of promoting and understanding the appreciation of the urban environment by means of distinctive physical characteristics or rarity. This is both a rare and distinctive building for Denver and particularly for this part of the this part of Denver. The French, a collective style, is very unusual for Denver and extraordinarily rare in this particular area. And it's sitting on a very large lot in comparison to the other buildings that are around it that are smaller. One story ranch houses on smaller lots. And so this is both a distinctive style for the area and for Denver as a whole, as well as a rare as a as a style that's not seen on a large lot. After meeting all three of the criteria, our property still has to maintain its historic and physical integrity. Does it have the ability to convey its historic and architectural significance and being recognized as belonging to a particular place in time in Denver history? This is a photograph on the left taken in about 1935. It was given to the authors of this particular designation as they were doing the research from a former owner and resident of the property. And so you can see from the 1935 photo to today that the very the form of the building is still there. The application does note that there have been multiple additions to this particular building, but these additions are very small in scale. They're stuck structured, so they maintain the same compatible the same compatible material with the rest of the building. And there are small size and scale, and they're also easily removable. And so it still retains its historic integrity, even though there are a few small additions on the building. And finally, the Landmark Preservation Commission considered how the structure related to the historic context and themes in Denver history. This particular area was projected as an area of development and growth. It was initially started post-World War One when there were hopes that there were actually more materials available and people available to start building it. There was an initial part of the development or planning of it. But eventually, due to the decline and then bankruptcy of the owner business in the late 1920s, it did not get fully developed in sort of fits within the theme and context of the Great Depression. So the landmark staff in the Landmark Preservation Commission found that it met the criteria under history of having a direct association with the historical development of the city, that it reflected the architectural style of the French eclectic style and architecture, and that it met the geographical criteria as being both distinctively physical, distinctive physical characteristics, as well as being rare for the area that the property maintained its historic and physical integrity, and that the LPC considered how the structure related to the historic context and themes of Denver history and recommended approval for it. Thank you very much. We have one individual signed up to speak this evening. PJ Paterno, you are up for 3 minutes if you'd like it. Again. My name is PJ of Toronto. I'm going to watch my words more carefully this time. Again, I sold a property that was 1900 and purchases property. I never took the time, effort, energy to do their historical research last time. And I think there's price and cool characteristics of that building. So it was kind of fun to do it this time and learn a lot about the building. It's helping me get to the usage that I wanted. A little fun. Fact is, there's for the last 15, 16 years, it's been a daycare for autistic kids that which they used for the back doorstop for all those 16 years. As we were cleaning some things up, it looked very interesting to me and it turns out it was the missing Keystone piece above the door. So there's these lovely rocks that go around the door and there's one piece is just missing. And I've been trying to figure out to get somebody to fabricate. And all of a sudden I realize the back doorstop was that that piece. So one small improvement and hopefully lead to many others. It's cool property. I intend to you know again, anyone driving by it for many, many years will recognize it. The outside, I think it's a really great building. So thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? All right. Seeing none of the public hearing for council Bill 688 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, thank you, P.J. Patino, for your willingness to buy this property and invest in it. Numerous people had looked into purchasing the property and they wanted to build townhomes there. And it wasn't something that would really fit into the neighborhood. It wasn't really desired by the neighborhood. And to find a buyer who was willing to land market and to spend the resources to restore it to its probably better than its original glory is really a gift to Denver and to the community because as we all know, a lot of historic buildings are being torn down. So I'm really, really thankful, P.J., for your willingness to do this. And thank you to all of you at CPD for helping with this. And my community is very excited about this. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I am going to vote yes on this tonight, but I do want to state that I don't concur with the. The history criterion have direct association with historical development of the city, state or nation because the subdivision never went forward. In fact, Wilshire Park is not even in our records. Was this part of Arapahoe County when it was subdivided? So we might not have the records, but it was recently it was replanted in, I think, 1955 as Southern Hills. And so nothing it's association. It's direct association with the historical development. The city is really zero. But I believe that it does qualify under to the two remaining categories. So I intend to vote yes on. I just wanted to state that I disagree with the historical finding. Councilwoman Black, to you. I would like to respond to that. This the statistical neighborhood actually is Wilshire. And the Wilshire End still stands in the Wall Street golf course, and it's all part of the same community. So I disagree with you. As is your right. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I mean, I guess you could argue that the fact that there is a different community and this is the one fragment to, you know, if it would have been significant, if it had succeeded, it's also sort of significant that it failed. It's sort of weird. It's all part of the history of that place, whether it looked all like these French structures or at all looks like what didn't happen. It's sort of interesting what we you know, what what traces and remnants we the tell tale of of of our of our location and our history as a city. Each iteration, what we sort of choose to to say is significant and what's not. But what is significant to me and worth commenting on is first, I want to thank you for for for pursuing this designation. But I also wanted sort of noted, I probably should have called you up to ask this question to sort of emphasize the point is that you made it very clear your financial your financial advisor, you run a series of companies or amalgamation of companies that all deal with money. And there's often this question about the value of preservation. And and and I would think that somebody who knows the numbers had done that math and said, hey, this makes sense for my business and for the long haul. And so so I hope that that's factored in. And I hope you do. I'm glad that you sort of postponed your improvements because you you know that there are some tax credits that will come along with this. And as you save those receipts, you'll be able to to to take those deductions year in and year out relative to that, unless you have giant receipts and you take them one year. But, you know, it's there is there is value to the structure. There's value to our place, our history, and there is value to the owner. And and I think somebody with this background on a property like this has made that that factored into that calculus part of the calculation and determined that it makes sense all around. And so thank you for for coming to that realization when others might not have, because generations down the road will sort of recognize this anomaly and go, how the heck did that get here? And what is that connection to other parts of this place, as Councilwoman Black noted. So thank you for doing that. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to add my thanks as well to Mr. Putnam for moving forward with this designation. I know this property so well, having driven by it for years and years, and it's one of those that you look at and go, wow, that that certainly has potential. But boy, it needs some love, needs a whole lot of love with 34,000 square feet, I think, and a large building. And Mr. Turner was actually directed an error to my office originally because he's right across the street from a District four, from my District six boundary in District four and had a chance to chat with him about his thoughts. And I thought it was a great idea then. Thank you, Councilman Black, for bringing this forward. I think it's a it's something that is going to make South Denver better. So thank you, sir. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And seeing no other comments. Councilwoman Gilmore, we need a motion to pass as amended. I move the council bill? All right, I move that council bill 18 068 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black eye. Brooks. Hi, Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. I. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. All right. New Ortega assessment. I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close voting in those results. 3939 as comfortably. 688 has passed. As amended. Kalsoume Gilmer, will you please put Council Bill 699 on the floor?

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3325 West 16th Avenue in West Colfax. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from G-MU-3 to G-MX-3 (multi-unit to mixed-use), located at 3325 West 16th Avenue in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-9-20.

DenverCityCouncil_07202020_20-0538

Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20200538 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It's been moved. May I get a second? Second. Thank you, Councilwoman. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 20538 is open. May we have the staff report? Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, counsel. My name is Edson Ibanez, and I am with clean time employment. Let me see if I can put this on. Or screen it. Perfect. So before you today we have 33, 25 West 16th Avenue. It's currently zoned GM three and the applicant is requesting GM x three. It's currently in Council District three in the West Colfax neighborhood. And the property is on the north west corner of Irving Street and 16th Avenue. It's approximately over 56,000 square feet. And it's a one story, Boys and Girls Club facility and they're currently requesting is GM x three. It's currently zoned GM three and it's surrounded by GM, you three to the north, south, west and east. And the current line use is public, quasi public, and some of the surrounding uses are multi-unit residential, two unit residential and a public quasi public land uses. Here is a bird's eye view of the property looking north. To the bottom right hand corner is the actual Boys and Girls Club facility. On the bottom left is the elementary to the south. And then the top two photos are new multifamily housing. So it went before the planning board on May 19, June 3rd, and it was approved unanimously by the planning board. And before you today it has received eight comments of opposition and one comment and one con support which are attached to the staff report. So there are five review criterias that are analyzed for the appropriateness of the request, and so we will dove into each one. The first one is to see what with adopted plans, apart from comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint in Denver of 2019, there is one neighborhood plan, which is the West Colfax Plan of 26, but before the first will look into Plan 2040. The proposed MAP amendment is consistent with several strategies from comprehensive plan 2040 that are mentioned in the staff report. But I'm going to dove into a few here within the neighborhood vision vision element under the strong and take neighborhood goals. Specifically, goal number one strategy talks about building network of well connected, vibrant mixed use centers and corridors. Strategy B says ensure neighborhoods offer a mix of housing types and services for a diverse population and strategy d encourage quality infill development that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods and offer opportunities for increase in amenities. Under the equity vision element, specifically under equitable, affordable and inclusive goals. One strategy to increase development of housing means close to transit and. Mixed use development. Strategies to improve equitable access to resources that improve quality of life, including cultural and natural maladies, health care, education, parks, recreation, nutritional, nutritious food and the arts, as well as Goal nine Strategy to improve the quality and availability and affordability of early child care, education and Child Development Services. Within the climate vision element specifically environmentally resilient goal eight strategy and a promote infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place and strategy. B Encourage mixed use communities where residents can live, work and play in their own neighborhoods. Now the request rezoning is shown on the context map of general urban context under Blueprint Denver. The proposed GM three zone district is consistent with the neighborhood content description and appropriate for this location because it allows a variety of building forms, compatible heights and building form design standards. The building form standards and use work together to promote safe and active pedestrian scale residential areas. When we're looking at the future place for this area that it is classified low, medium residential areas, which is primarily residential with limited neighborhoods serving servicing commercial and buildings are generally three stories or less in height. Irving Street is a residential collector. As a residential collector, street and 16th Avenue is an and an on designated local street. The building form standards for the proposed gmc's three zone districts are consistent with the plan's direction, including three storey heights, building high building coverage and low to moderate setbacks. But the land use is allowed could be more intense than contemplated by the plan direction. The Gmc's three zone district allows restaurants, retailers and offices which could result in significant intensity if the entire property were to redevelop. The application ignores that the plans that the plan statements that limited neighborhood servicing commercial can be found within specifically what the applicant is requesting with the gmc's districts. GMAC's districts are intended to ensure new development contributes positively to established residential neighborhoods and character, and improve the transition between commercial development and adjacent neighborhood. Residential neighborhood. Within the growth strategy area. The request is consistent here, which maps the area as all other areas of the city which anticipate to see 20% of new housing growth and 10% employment growth by 2040. Now within the West Colfax farm, this neighborhood plan has a vision for improved urban design. Strengthening the mix of land. Uses and enhancing mobility options for residents. The subject property is located in the framework of the Framework Plan's Future Land Use Concept Map as town center and the plan reference town centers as perfect locations for destination, retail, employment, dining and entertainment venues and as well as elderly housing. Housing for low and moderate income workers, daycares and youth programs within the town center. Regulatory tools recommendation into it gives specific directions on the mix of land, uses that support the function of town centers and the GM x three is consistent with the town center, regulatory tools, recommendations and town center district planning goals, the West Colfax Plan . So on balance, the proposed Gmc's three is consistent with the adopted plan direction. It provides an appropriate transition that complements the surrounding uses with the allowance of mix it uses, although it may not be the best fit for the future. Place Recommendation under Blueprint Denver. It is consistent with other recommendations, including street type, building, height and growth strategy, and it is consistent with the recommendations of the adopted West Colfax plan. So here I provided specifically just to give a little bit more guidance on what the applicant requested, which is a GMC'S three. So their current use, the Boys and Girls Club is classified under vocational and professional schools, which they want to continue and they want to provide offices by building a two storey structure that provides offices and the continuance of several services. So the applicant requested the GMC'S three specifically aligning with the type of uses now under the general urban neighborhood context, there are other mixed use zone districts such as S three, which is the residential mixed use de RL three, which is a residential office, and then the GMC three, which is the main street three. So as you can see under D.R. three, these, I kind of made them in gray so that you can specifically see these. These are not what the applicant proposed. These this is just to give a quick comparison on the uses that the applicant is requesting. So under the graphics three, the uses that they're looking for would not would only be allowed on the first floor. And they're looking to do a two story construction under the road. Three The residential office vocation or professional school would not be permitted, but offices are permitted and under the GMC three, it is permitted. So therefore, looking at the other criteria, the proposed rezoning will result in uniform application of zoned district building, form, use and design regulations. It would further the public health, safety and welfare of the city by implementing the adopted plans and change or changing conditions is an appropriate justification justifying circumstance for the proposed rezoning. And the request GM story is consistent with the neighbor concerns inscriptions on district purpose and intent statements. CPD recommends approval based on the findings that all the criteres have been met. I am available for questions and the applicant is here as well. All right. Thank you, Edson. We tonight council has not received any written comments on Council Bill 538, but we have two individuals signed up to speak this evening and those two individuals are Kim Davidson and Jim Berghoff. And so we're going to go ahead and. Work to get them. Moved up so we can hear their testimony. All right. We've got Kim Davidson in. Hello. My name's Kim Davidson. Are you able to hear me? Mm hmm. Yes. I'm representing Boys and Girls Clubs of Metro Denver, and Edson has done a great job of describing how this requested rezoning complies with the city. The city of Denver adopted plans. So I'd like to just address a little bit of how we came about wanting this with wanting this rezoning and what we planned to do. This rezoning will provide us an opportunity to construct a two story administrative building adjacent to our Arthur E Johnson Club on a site that is presently a soccer field. This makes economic sense for our organization because we're presently in a warehouse district north of Eighth Avenue and east of I-25 with our program Support Center. The new location would, number one, enable us to train our new employees with an operating club next door. It would permit partnership with early childhood development organizations and also community based organizations providing meeting space. And in partnership with with other nonprofits, it would improve employee access because there are so many public transportation options nearby, from light rail to bussing to. Other transportation and. The the other thing that we would really benefit from is the ability to bring board members and other donors to that new office building and be able to show them a club that's actually working next door. So those are kind of our points of logic. We understand that there have been maybe some objections about us taking too much parking in the area. And and actually we would provide city required onsite parking that I think would pretty well cover all of our needs. And there might be some on street parking during the day, but I think that would go away in the evenings. We've got a 60 year commitment to that area. We've had that that club in that location since the sixties. We've had developers approach us and ask if we could if we'd be interested in selling. We're not. We're there to stay. And I'll take any questions you might have. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Davidson. We had one other speaker, Jim, first off, and it doesn't look like we are still seeing Jim in the Q. And so that concludes our speakers questions from members of Council. Councilwoman Torres. Madam President, one I'd just like to thank. Where are you from? CPD. That's an. For the slide. There you are for this slide, comparing some of the possible other zone districts, just to better understand what it doesn't it doesn't provide. I think that might be even useful for me as I go back to community and kind of talk about the decision that was made here tonight. I do want to ask him, you're not doing any making any changes to the existing building, is that right? No, we don't plan to make changes other than improvements, capital improvements as as as we're able to. We actually just did a fairly significant renovation of that club, and we're preparing to put new mechanical equipment on the club. And and it's basically in very good condition right now. And that's a couple stories already, is that not? Well, it's a single story by definition, but the gymnasium is actually the same height as a as a two story building. Okay. And they how much parking are you building on site? I can't answer the exact number of spaces, but I know that we will need a building permit and we'll need to meet city requirements for parking, and we certainly will do that. And then you talked about your intention to not build straight to the setback on the portion of the property that goes up against kind of residential. Can you remind me what that. What that was going to look like. Sure. We we committed to building to the neighborhood context and not building something that looks out of place in that location. We would follow setbacks that are. Similar to others in the UK. Thank you. I don't have any more questions. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Edson. Did you have something to add? Yes. I just got an email from Jim, the second speaker, and he was having technical difficulties and wanted this and say his apologies. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. See? No other questions by my colleagues. That closes the public hearing for council bill 20 dash 538. It's closed. Sandoval had. Oh, I'm so sorry. Oh. Councilman Sandoval. Thank you. Did you see my hand raised function work? Sometimes it works. No, I didn't see it up there. But I'm glad you can always just yell at me. That works. Thank you. So may I ask the gentleman who's representing the boys in question? Sure. So when you say you're going to build to the neighborhood context, so that can mean a couple of different things. So I just want to clear clarify for the public what you mean by that. Do you mean by the zoning or do you mean by the neighborhood context? For me, when you say neighborhood context. That context means brick. That context means landscaping. That context means more mature trees. So I mean the neighborhood context that you'll take cues from the neighborhood context or that you'll actually just follow the zoning regulations and the hyphen and the sidestep accent and that type of detail. I am not the architect who is designing the facility, but I'd say that it would be our commitment to make it look like it fits in that in that location. And we already have actually trees that are mature on the property. So we're a step ahead there. I can't completely commit to you exactly what kind of an exterior we would put. But if. If Brick would be helpful, then we'd certainly consider that. Let's look. That's all I can really say. I would just encourage you to block a couple blocks. The architect who designed red rocks like middle school. And that is a beautiful historic structure, landmark structure in Denver. And the Kaki Gonzales Library is new. It's modern, but you can tell it takes cues from the neighborhood as well. So when I think of neighborhood context, I think of the built environment and taking cues from the built environment. So I would just for me, somebody who loves land use and gets into the nitty gritty details of things, I would just be cautious with using neighborhood context because it can mean for me, if I go by there and you haven't taken cues from the built environment, I would be I would be remiss supporting this because I think that's really important and architecture subjective. I'm not trying to say that you have to go modern or older. I'm just saying long lasting quality building so that in 50 years from now your building is still there. And that's what you see. That's in the neighborhood. That's the buildings that are still standing. That makes good sense. And our club has history also. It's, you know, it's it was built. I think in the fifties for as a Jewish school and temple. And then we bought it from from them. So that architecture already exists. Great. Well, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. Looking through the list of council members, and I'm not seeing anybody with hands raised. So the public hearing for Council Bill 20 20538 is closed. Comments by a members of Council Council member Torres. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Kim, for shepherding this along. I'm just really excited to see Boys and Girls Club really grow its footprint in West Colfax, its connection to the schools in the area, to its building that exists there. You know, one of the comments that was attached was officially labeled as opposition, but it was pretty praising of the asset that Boys and Girls Club brings to West Colfax in diversity and youth engagement and after school planning. And so just really glad to see that you're planning to. Make West Colfax your your home and grow that a little bit more and happy to support tonight's rezoning. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Any other council members who would like to make comments? Give it a moment. Say no others. And looking for hands raised. Nobody. Okay. Madam Secretary, roll call. For us, I. Black I. CdeBaca. I. Park. Sorry, Clark. All right. All right. I. Times I. Cashmere. All right. Can each. I. Sousaphone, I swear. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 hours 12 ies council bill 538 has passed. All right. Thank you, everybody. Next up, Councilman Herndon, will you please put council Bill 562 on the floor?

Approves an increase in sanitary sewer and storm water charges beginning 7-1-16. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) The Committee approved filing this bill by at its meeting on 5-4-16.

DenverCityCouncil_05312016_16-0306

So, Councilman, you can question Councilman Flint for a vote. Yes. All right. So I thought. All right, so, Councilman Clark, will you make the motions for us today? Happy to. Mr. President. First thing we need to do, we need to have 306 ordered published. Thank you, Mr. President. Four, move that council, bill. Three six we ordered published. It has been moved and second it. And Councilman Ortega, I know you have in the script for postponement, we first have to vote on the publication descriptor. Kind of wrong the way it's written. So should three or six pass on publication? Then I'll come to you for the postponement. But the Kersey public hearing. Feel free to offer that when you come to your comments. You. All right. First one in the queue. That's Councilman New. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry. I guess so many questions. We really didn't have much time in our in the committee for a lot of discussion. And so I do have a lot of questions, I think, for wastewater. Is it Bruce Burdick? You pronounce your last name correctly, I hope, which I probably did not. Hi. It's Bruce Janek, H.R. and Ike Wastewater. Right, my colleagues. There are three documents that I put on the. On your desk. Each one. There's. There's the consulting report that this is. I saw this for the first time over the weekend. It's not quite completed, but there's a map on page 12. There's three maps I'm going to ask my questions to you may help you as you look for. So page 12 and the concern report is the map of the 2014 master plan. And I apologize to the public. We'll post all these maps so you can have the available questions. And so says 2014 storm drainage masterplan. The the second is is is a water quality map you'll see this is they're laying it out says overall water quality study basin scoring. And the last is, is the map that George Delaney's been using for us in our briefing, which is the, the $383 million plan that we have going forward for these fires tonight. So you got those three and it'll help you figure those questions. I was when I was looking through the consultant report this weekend, I had no idea. I didn't get quite oriented to how complex this project is and this whole master plan is. Now, I learned that this plan is $1.5 billion, the entire plan for the master plan. So it's quite impressive and I'm not surprised. I've been in large cities where these infrastructure projects are are coming right to the forefront all the time. It's quite, very, very expensive. So one question I have is about the the map on this page. Well, that has the master plan priorities and the scoring that was developed by the consulting firm. And I was really impressed by the methodology and the way they scored things. Could you talk a little bit about this map and then also the map for the $383 million? How did it translate? How did the scoring and the consulting report, even though it's not quite finished, how did it translate to the 383 plan? Sure. Let me I'll try my best, councilman. Thank you. So the storm metrics map there, 67 based on citywide. And we we always ask ourselves, where is the highest priority, where should we spend this money? And so we thought if we do this in an objective way. And so we developed these criteria where we say, well, where's the flooding? Where is the storm the most undersized? And then we came up with other those were kind of the technical criteria. Then we came up with some more social criteria, like social justice. We prioritize residential versus commercial and industrial, and we kind of put that all together in a very metrics based system. And it scored these 67 basins and we created this heat map. And as you can see, the red is kind of the highest priority basins. And lo and behold, it's the oldest part of town, which in common sense, it makes it makes the most sense. And you see some of the lesser priority are those newer areas like Lowry Lake Stapleton, where we've seen big storms hit those areas recently. And we really don't have the complaints in those areas. If you do have if you do flood, please call us. We're happy to document these, but that's kind of how it came about to answer the second part of your question. So that's looking at the whole city at 40,000 feet. Now we have a bucket of money and we developed this six year plan and we say, well, where can we start to spend these this bucket of money? We just can't spend it all in one place. We separate in a different buckets, but we have these large projects which have a need. There you go. I'll go to that one. And so we said, well, we're going to we're going to kind of split this up and we're going to prioritize these major outfalls where there's the greatest need. And so you see, there's a correlation between the red basins, the highest priority basins that you saw on the previous map versus this is our six year plan with the proposed rate increase. So if that answers your question, I think they correlate nicely. One kind of objective and then this one is the actual plan. Implement implementable plan with the rate increase. In parts of the $383 million plan. There are areas outside this red area. There will be projects that will be needed. And I don't disagree with as a lot of stream storm drains, we've got to fix these problems and protect our citizens and our homes. So how did how did that translate to to the the 383? There are some areas that are really not included in the 383 that are in the red, but not most of it. So how how did you determine those areas that are outside of the red high priority area? Right. So, you know, there's there's these critical programs. There's these annual programs that we want to do that help people that help these localized flooding areas. And that's our that's our general storm. And so that's a citywide program, about $25 million over six years. There's a water quality program about the same amount. Then you see the red. Those are the focus basins. And that was the one you're talking about that has the kind of the most money, the biggest bucket. And then the blue lines you see on the map there, those are our focus waterways because our waterways, they have a need as well. A lot of them are undersized. Then they also have some water quality problems as well. So it's professional engineers and using sonar determine those is the high priority areas that need to be fixed for sure. We tried to divvy it up kind of fairly based upon this judgment, but it's also very objective with the metrics. There's 383 million. It's going to be it's about one fifth of the or maybe a little bit more, 30% of the 1.5 billion. Our plan and this is going to be six years. Is there a phase two that's going to happen in the six years after this one that we'll be able to use? Some of the the $383 million in fees will still continue, you know, in year seven. So unless they're revealed, that money will still be there. Is there is part of this consulting report that's going to be completed. Is it going to identify the phase two so that the public will know what areas are going to come next for for assistance? I think the metrics is a tool, right. It's it's going to identify those priority basins. And we feel good that those priority basins are kind of there pretty good. The second part of this metrics is going to identify specific projects within each basin, because there's a chance that there may be a high priority project in a low priority basin that makes sense or vice versa. There of high priority basin doesn't mean we should just go build every single project in that basin, the red basin, so to speak, and then we'll move on to the orange ones and then the yellow ones. There's a prioritization within that prioritization, if that makes sense. So, you know, so the 1.5 $383 million takes a big bite out of the apple. But there definitely there are still be needs after the six years. Okay. Going through the water quality map, then, how does that relate to the storm drainage map? Because there are some areas that are considered high priority to storm drainage, but really low priorities in the water quality. How does that fit together? Because 21 million of the 383 million is for water quality. I'm sorry. I was messing with the computer. I heard water quality and prioritization. How does that fit with the storm drainage? Some areas in the storm drainage your high priority and and really are lower priority for the water quality as well. I'm trying to figure out how that fits together. Right. So so water quality is kind of its own little entity. Water Quality Projects is a program that we want to really improve because there's mandates by the EPA, by the CDP to clean the water before it enters our waterways. Right now, there's pollutant levels that are, quote unquote, too high. And we want to we want to take care of that. So water quality ran its own metrics based upon their own criteria. And to me, when you look at the water quality map, you're looking at the kind of the dirtiest basins. And it's really that that for urban jewel, it's that first half inch of rain. It's those oils, it's the sand. It's everything that washes into the into the river. It's not necessarily the two or three feet of flooding that you would see in a major storm. So water quality has its own, quote unquote, bucket in our six year sip at that $25 million range or so. And the water quality program is it's a standalone program, but there's kind of a synergy between water quality and storm because you can build projects together. So it's separate, but yet it's it's very in line with Lake Montclair. That basin in the middle is a high priority basin, just like it is for storm. But they use different metrics, different criteria. Okay. Thank you. The I'll get a lot of questions about the Park Hill and its relationship to the I-70 storm drainage project. So can you can you describe and explain whether apply it to parking areas related to I-70, drainage or not? And I'll probably ask my colleagues to answer that. Um, the. Since I'm here. I'm Leslie Thomas. I'm their city engineer in public works. Thank you for that offer. To clarify, the drainage project that we're doing here is solving a major drainage issue that we have within the city. It is not happening because of I-70. There are two separate things happen to be in the same place. Very confusing. But the drainage that we're doing here is to solve the drainage problems in the city and county of Denver. I understand that the budget total of 206 million for the project of Park Hill really contains 54 million for the A70 drainage. So it's really 152 million for a plant market, is that correct or. Is that. Right? Most spring in these numbers. You're springing these numbers on me here. If you really want to talk numbers, Jamie can come up and really clarify for us. I think one of the main things that I want to make council aware of is that with the AIGA, we see that they are providing us contributing to our project to leverage those dollars. We are there's no dollars going to see that. Would would you be doing these drainage projects, whether our services construct constructed or not? Yes, sir, we would be. Okay. So they're high priority, just like the maps? Yes. Okay. The other issue is the golf course, you know, and being a golfer is really torn between this, I hate to say a big retention pond, bill, but also I see an opportunity to improve that golf course which it needs. So I have my buddies. Magoffin Buddies, we, we don't play over there much, but we would love to see that golf course improved, especially the, the views of the city that are just spectacular from that golf course is a city considering an arrangement with a golf professional design firm like Nicklaus or any of them to to really try to if you're going to if you go to tear up the golf course with the drainage, are we going to put it back into a much more higher quality golf course? Yes, we will be doing a RFP reviews, that type of thing for a design builder that would include a golf course designer and a contractor that specializes in doing that type of work. So we're excited to be able to put it back in even a better condition than we have it now. Right now, I think it'd be a real asset for the city. We feel a little rushed on on these fees coming forward, you know, and I do, especially maybe my other colleagues know, but maybe I just didn't what is oriented to the whole project as much as I should have, and maybe it's part of my fault. But is there a sense of urgency about getting these fees increased tonight? Is it have a relationship to the idea with deadlines that are really urging us to come forward and do this tonight? Yes, we have an opportunity to leverage our dollars now with the seed dollars. And part of that idea, often when people make contributions to your project, they have things they would like to have in return. And so to have the the timing work out is a benefit to to their project as well as to our city. So the timeline is important to us to allow us to get going on our project and serve the citizens of Denver as well as leverage what's happening in our community. Was there a particular reason why these fees, at least for last year, any piece of the IJA not approved last year when the idea was approved. At that time we were working with budget and management and our rate consultant ref. Tell us still to really understand what the needs of the Enterprise Fund were, it's a utility and so that is a rate based enterprise. And so we needed to understand what was needed to do that business and we were still in that process. And the outcome of that study in that conversation is what we bring to you today. I just do a survey with my district in residence and we had about 500 responses and and we asked a couple of questions. Do they support the the plan? And and 43% said yes and 20% said no. But what was surprising to me is 33% said they don't know, they're not sure they need more information. So I'm sort of worried about whether the general public understands the complexity of this whole project, which and the need and we've got to do this restructure projects. There's no question in my mind about that. But understanding all the relationships and complexities of that, a sort of took that away. I also had a question about Globeville. I misstated and said that there is a hundred year plan with or not, but it could be a potential and they're going to do a study. And I think that everybody that the responses I had on March 11 and the various supportive mitigation plan, which I believe you said the city would help support if there is a problem with that area. Yes. Right. In the last I asked about voter approval on this, you know, this is 383 million. And I know I'm not going to talk about funding source was fees or taxes or whatever. It's all coming out of the taxpayer's pocket. So the ten year, you know, better bond issue is 550 million and the one that's coming up hopefully in 2018, me I hear it can be that high, maybe 350 million. So it's quite, you know, sort of surprising to a lot of my residents got a lot of comments about, wow, you know, the largest increase that wastewater has ever had was 50 million and now it's 383 million. And so they were just confused about how how how that came about was so suddenly. So I think it just goes along with that need for more information. So I really got that question about whether would. Problems with it, cause if we did defer this to for voter approval in November. I'm going to turn to the makers and the lawyers. I'm George Delaney, chief operating officer for Denver Public Works. As you know, the wastewater fund's an enterprise. It's really a utility. And as a utility, it is funded through fees and fees under TABOR, as an enterprise, recognized enterprise are not required for a vote of the people. We have to keep in mind and Leslie mentioned this is a utility. Utilities have to cover their costs. And you're we're asking you today to determine what those costs are going to be, because we're asking for a certain level of investment in capital and for the reasons we're giving you. But once you determine what that level of service is, then the utility has to raise the dollars that it needs to provide that service, whether it's Denver Water, CenturyLink, Comcast, Verizon, they're all utilities. And you don't vote on utility increases because you vote on the level of service you want from that utility, and then that utility does the cost accordingly. So because and I think that was recognized in the TABOR Amendment that you don't have to vote on fees because fees cover the cost. They're not for anything else other than the purpose for which they're intended. So there's probably this question wouldn't really would come up if I guess if the public knew more about the project in itself. That's what I'm taking away from my survey is this the general public needs to know a lot more about the about the project and how complex it is and in the future, too. To me, this is about the future of Denver. You know, this is enormous cost, 1.5 billion in the future. But we've got to do it from a from a quality infrastructure point of view where we're going to be a great city. One thing I would say to that point, and granted, this is a citywide impact fee, but for the Platt, the Park Hill project, Jen's just telling me we had over 90 public meetings over the course of the last several months to discuss this project to find that interesting funding. Mr. Delaney. Mr. Delaney, I would ask that you please address to the accounts and to the members in the audience, if we could please. We have a lot of council members in the queue that want to ask questions, so if we could please allow that to happen anyway. So but that those meetings were done in the area that's impacted by this. So perhaps, you know, maybe, you know, in your area or in the southwest Denver where they're not necessarily impacted, they may not have had the opportunity to go to those meetings. The meetings were held and public outreach in a good faith effort to at least advise the people who are going to directly be impacted by that project, that they be made aware of it. I was just going to mention the birds and mining meetings included a lot of different things. So we looked at different strategies, including house chats, where we would meet around dinner tables, your your main public meeting that you all are familiar with, with open houses we did where, you know, we had stakeholder meetings. So it's a vast kind of tactic of that. We took that trying to get to each and every individual. We also have media tools like our website. We have updates to the public on a weekly basis that sign up to the stickler. So it's not just your standard public meeting, but we really try to get out to the churches, to schools. We sent home information and packet. So we really did a. True effort to try to share as much information as we possibly could. With the. Could you just say your name for the record, please? I'm sorry. I'm Jennifer Hillhouse with Public Works. Thank you, Jeff. I don't doubt that at all, but I think we need to do more do a better job somehow, because just I just looked at that consulting report and I was so impressed. But then it didn't conclude, you know, here's a consult report that should have been a great instrument to tell the future of Denver in terms of infrastructure improvement. And it just didn't do the job. And so that makes you wonder, you know, how can we improve these tonight when we all of a sudden the recommendations are not quite there or there's questions about it, but there's no question we need to improve our infrastructure. And so I really appreciate Georgia's orientation. I appreciate all the work that Leslie has been done with me and to talk to me, to explain stuff. But but I hope we'll do a better job with educating the public. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. George, not a question, just a comment inadvertently touched on something that I've been trying to put into words when he said in response to councilman knew that with regard to the fact that this is a utility and we set fees for service, that once we determine the level of service we wish to provide , then we set the fees. My concern about this is that we're going about it backwards cart before horse and that we're setting the fees before we know exactly the kind of service we're going to provide. I have a great deal of concern about what's been added to this post. Ortega and I do support doing the scope that is in the seed Ortega and I wish that the administration would give us a fee structure that would allow us to proceed with complying with the iwga and build those elements and give us the time to do some more preliminary engineering and some better cost estimating. On this, I have a feeling that we're opening up a box of unintended costs that can haunt us in the future. I know I spent years covering the CIA construction. I spent years covering our treaties fast tracks project. So I know what can happen when with cost overruns, even when you do a lot of preliminary planning. We have on on the slide that was presented at the last Infrastructure Committee. There's a paragraph that really struck struck fear in me right now. This is from the presentation. Right now we are moving into the preliminary design phase for the plans for Park Hill projects. Those are the ones beyond the site Ortega. And as we do, we will refine the scope of each project and assign budgets at a project and program level. I can't support the totality of these fees, which increases over five years by 66%. The annual bill that homeowners will get, that property owners will get for storm runoff, just for storm runoff, 66%. I can't support opening up the wallet and giving that 66% without knowing exactly what we're going to be building other than what was promised in the Senate. So, Mr. President, I would really I would like a vote on this because I can't vote yes for fees that I don't know what we'll be building with them. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. So it is it's on the floor. So we will see as we get through all council members. Councilman Ortega, you're up next. Thank you. Before I put the motion on the floor, I also have some questions. I first want to start by thanking city staff and folks from urban drainage who have met with me on multiple occasions to address many questions that I've had about this project. And for me, some of them go back to when we were asked to approve the idea for, you know, the the wastewater, the stormwater improvements that we're talking about doing that were going to be coupled with the I-70 project. My first question is, I would ask, I think, George, if you could come forward. What is the largest bond that we've ever done using wastewater feeds, and were they only storm fees or were they also sewer fees? We we've done two bond issues for the storm. The first one was a $30 million bond issue that was done back, I believe it was in 2006. We then in 2011 refinanced that 30 million and added another 20 million to it. So we've had a $30 million issue, a $20 million issue, all so total of $50 million. Our annual debt service is $4.3 million to pay off that $50 million. It was all four storm projects. But one of the uniqueness, unique things about the Wastewater Enterprise Fund is that even though we are keeping storm dollars separate from sanitary dollars, when you do a revenue bond for the Enterprise Fund, you can cross pledged revenues. So the purpose of the bond was for storm. The money was spent on storm projects. But if Storm did not have the resources for some reason to make that debt payment, which they have sanitary, could backfill that amount of money under the enterprise, under our statutes. Correct me if I'm wrong about the storm fees actually come from the impervious surface charges that go to each property that has either rooftops flat work that does not absorb water. And and so each property owner is paid in that based on that square footage. So help me understand how we can significantly increase the fees when their square footage does not change. Well, what we try to do on the end to balance some of that concern, and you're right, is Storm Bill comes to you annually and the storm bill is based upon your impervious surface on your lot, which means basically the concrete, the roof, the patio, everything that where the water cannot be absorbed. What we do is we look at the ratio of your impervious surface to your total surface, and then we charge you a rate based upon that ratio. So the, the lower your ratio is less. In other words, the less impervious surface you have compared to your total lot, the rate that you pay is reduced because it's a it's a ratio based rate. And that's our intent. The purpose for that is to say if there's something you can do differently, if you can if you want to put in a third driveway, you can do it, but you're going to pay for it. If you want to take out one of your driveways and put it in something else that the zoning might allow. You can do that to or reduce the size of your patio, etc.. So in other words, there is there is a recognition of your ability to adjust your bill by reducing your impervious surface. So the data that we've received on the rate increases that each property would receive looks like that was equalized. So can you clarify that? Sure. It was. What we did was we took the average lot size in the city of Denver's 7500 square feet, the average impervious surface in the city of Denver, based upon that average lot size is 25, I believe it's either 22, 50 or 2500 square feet. And so the average bill that you see that's going to go up a dollar a month for a storm bill 20, 20 $12 a year is based upon that ratio of about one third impervious surface to to tooth to the whole the host lot size. And that's an average across the city of Denver. Okay. Let me go into my next couple of questions. Jessica, you want to add something to this? Jessica Brody, Denver City Attorney's Office. I just wanted to clarify, in chapter 56, you see rate tables that break down for impervious surface area and different sized properties. What your actual charge is going to be and if you look at the ordinance that's before you, it updates those rate tables so that you can see exactly how that would play out for a different property sizes. Thank you. I want to go on and ask a question about the Army Corps study that is being done that ties into a look at the river corridor. And I'm not sure who wants to answer this question, but it's my understanding we're talking about $18 million for the entire study. Is that the entire corridor that goes from Chatfield all the way to Weld County? Peter Bart along with Denver Public Works. I'm the project director for the Army Corps Study. The Army Corps study is a $3 million feasibility study. Denver is paid for half of that study. The Army Corps of Engineers has paid for the rest, and Denver has several partners in our $1.5 million. So the study that we have going today is a one point or is a $3 million study of which the city has paid 1.5 million, along with sharing some of that cost with its partners. How much of that have we already provided? We've provided all of it in a contract. Okay. So where does the $10 million come from that we're going to put into it that sort of helps complete that study? The. Upon completion of the feasibility study. It's a planning level study. There will be, you know, at some point in the near future the need to do preliminary design on the projects that are selected as a result of the study. So the 10 million, 10.5 million that is in the current rate structure proposal is the seed money to begin that process. Okay. And why is it so expensive? Why are we talking about $18 million that needs to be spent if we're going from. Basically Littleton, all the way to Weld County. How come Denver's having to pay half of that? It's half of the river corridor, actually, in Denver County that stretches the respect. I don't know where $18 million came from. But the Army Corps study is like in the end, the projects are three major go to Major Gulch is Harvard Gulch and we're Gulch along with half of the South Platte River from Sixth Avenue to 58th Avenue. So several miles of that in Denver. I don't know how much those projects will cost. They will they'll be quite expensive in the end. And that's why we're doing it with the Army Corps. But the design costs on that will be a substantial amount of money. So is Littleton in Weld County and Adams County contributing to this entire study that's being done since it's from basically one end of almost the range to the other? I, I think there's a little bit of confusion. Let me let me ask Paul. With the urban drainage and flood control district to go ahead and talk about the fad study. So there's a flood study that's being done. The Army Corps study is a set of improvements to the river. So there are a couple of things. It causes things to get very confused. A time where it's fall here. What people. Yeah. And please note that our study is in Denver. Okay. So the amount in Denver is the $3 million is what you're talking about. Three. And I'm the project that we're doing with this. The study costs $3 million. Okay. You want to come up and add to this? Paul Heineman, executive director of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. The core study is just in Denver. The other study that was spoken of is a floodplain study that goes all the way from Chatfield up to Brighton and into Weld County. And that's one that urban drainage is administering. And the other communities do have money in that study. The Corps does not. It's too there's a lot of different flood models that have been done over the years, and that study just puts them all is putting them all together. But that there are two separate studies or. So let me make in Denver just correctly. Yes. So we've got the Army Corps study that's going forward and then urban drainage. So where is the coordination happening? So that, for example, as we have seen developers that are trying to develop in the Globeville neighborhood. Correct. They're being told they've got to build four foot foundations in the area that is on the west side of the river. And in one case, the Army Corps data was showing the water flows at a different rate than what the urban drainage flows are showing. And I'm not sure which of those are actually being used by our CPD agency to now mandate that people wanting to build in Globeville. And keep in mind, we've had a little investment in these neighborhoods. So when you have somebody that actually wants to invest in the neighborhood, not on the Brighton corridor, not in Reno, but in Globeville. Right. You know, we're making it cost prohibitive. And so I'm not sure which of those two studies and you can't speak to this because you're not from our public works department. But, you know, it's it's confusing because we've got two different things going on at the same time and the city's using one of those two. And I'm not sure which of those two studies and I know the Army Corps study won't be done for about another 18 months. So help me, Peter, if you're the one that would address this. Help me understand where we're at and don't go, because I have another question for you. Okay, Will. Peter, do you want to help address this? There were two issues that we're seeing in Globeville. One is a potential spill in the South Platte River. And as Paul indicated, the urban dredging flood control district is modeling the entire river to really lay the foundation for what's going on in the river. That's a separate effort than the Army Corps study. The Army Corps study is looking and specifically within the South Platte River, on what type of of habitat improvements can be done within the river to improve the the natural environment within the river. A side benefit of that project could be floodplain mitigation in case. So urban drainage is working very hard to to put the benchmark on what's really going on on the South Platte River. The Corps study is coming up with solutions for habitat, which may also include floodplain benefit. So two very different things. The same people, the same staffs are working on both of these within Globeville. There's been identified the potential of a spill out of the river, which is why it's being modeled and why it's being looked at to see exactly what's going on within the South Platte River. In addition, just like you see in Montclair and some of those neighborhoods, the original channel, the drainage systems, other things out there are not up to snuff and there need to be improvements done. So those that lack of major drainage work within the global area, the outfalls, those things that get the water all the way to the river are not in place. And that causes localized flooding within the Globeville area. And so when you when when you talk about is it this study or that study, there are 2 to 2 items, two conditions within the west side of the river area, where you can either have a spill for a potential spill out of the river or you can have inundation areas as a result of insufficient local drainage systems. So I was just looking for a copy of a press release that came out in 2008 announcing that Denver had spent $25 million to take Globeville out of the floodplain. Did we get it wrong? How is it now that Globeville is still being flooded? And let me bring Paul back up to talk about why we did what we did and why we have the issue that we have there. Before I start on that, I'll just. Add two more sense to the conversation on the two different studies. I kind of do a little bit of training for my board when because this, as you can see, all of this is very confusing, storm waters confusing. So I talk about hydrology and hydro and hydraulics and the study that urban drainage is doing is called hydrology. And that's how much water is at a certain point and how deep it is. And the core study is looking at the hydraulics and that means what to do with that water. Okay. So if that helps a little bit, I don't know if that does. The the project that you're referring to is. Yes. When we went into that project, we had a certain flow rate and the a certain model that we were using to design that project in Globeville. And that model actually started at 38th Avenue, which is kind of unfortunate at that area, because now as we're going through the entire model and and melding these two models together and looking at new technology, because over the past 40 years, obviously, we've gotten better at predicting what these floods might be, which is hydrology. Let's talk about so when the project was that you're speaking of was completed, it did show that it contained the water that was at the time accepted to be the flow rate at that area. With this new endeavor, it's showing that that was probably a little bit an error was an error. So yes. So now the flow rates are with the new models intermixed are are greater in and excuse me in showing a spill. At approximately 38th Avenue. So as part of the 2008 work, did that include the levee that was done on the west side of the river? I believe it was. Yes. And I recall that that was it was talked about extending that levee to the south side of 38th Avenue during the time that that study was going on. Do you know why that levy wasn't done south of 38th Avenue, which is where we know the water leaves the river bank and floods the west side of the river into the global neighborhood. Yeah, I don't know that answer. I wasn't intimately involved in that. I don't know. One of the Denver staff knows the answer. Paul, can you answer one last question? What is the normal size of a project, size or even scope that requires urban drainage to do an environmental impact statement on your projects? Normal is kind of an interesting word. What urban drainage does is we are in charge to assist local governments in projects that drain basins, which are larger than 130 acres. So that's pretty small, but yet we don't go all the way down to the storm sewer level. So where does this fit, this plot to Parkville fit into that scope? This is this is a big. This is one this is a big project. This will be a major project for us. One of the larger ones we've done. So is Urban Drainage, the lead agency doing the work, or is it actually the city. In the city right now is the lead agency. Okay. So is there a reason why we did not do an environmental impact statement on this project, given that it's much larger than the scope of what urban drainage normally does? I'm going to have to relay that to someone else that has that information. The. Environmental Impact statement is related to funding and is related to federal funding on projects. This project right now does not have federal funding in it, and so we have done public outreach. And Jen can speak to other things that we've done historic analysis, environmental analysis, things like that that are similar to that. But there is no federal agency involved, so no federal referral to go to. So it's just not. But doesn't the idea directly tie some of the seed dollars, which are most often federal dollars to this project? No, I mean, we've got an Egis that clearly speaks to the need for the drainage. And I understand the reason for wanting to leverage and be able to address, you know, what has been a drainage problem for this area for some time. But but we're not receiving federal dollars. Federal dollars are not being used on the project. So that's why. It's a funding requirement. Okay. I have one other question before I move the motion. These are not the end of my questions. Each time I have like I think three or four sets of questions that I have sent out. And when I get the answers, it raises additional questions. And I appreciate the patience of my colleagues in allowing me to just ask a couple of these. One of the concerns that I have is that although when you look at this map, it shows that the Globeville neighborhood is very much within the impacted area. And again, this is in the document that Councilman New referred to. This is the Storm Metrix analysis. But yet, when you look at the 2016 to 2021 map, it takes it's taken out. And so what that says to me is, if we're using the 2016 to 2021 storm capital program as the guide for how we're going to move forward and spend future dollars, Globeville is not going to be taken care of. This is an environmental justice community. They're going to be impacted with an I-70 project, with the National Western Project, yet they're going to still have serious flooding problem. We're not calling it. You were calling it an inundation area, not in the floodplain. But the fact is they'll still have flooding problems. And yet we were not addressing that in the 2016 to 2021 storm plan. I think that is a huge problem for me being able to support the storm fears. When I first started meeting with city staff and learned way later they Globeville was still going to be flooding even after spending $25 million to take them out of the floodplain. We're not addressing the problem for this low income neighborhood. And if if the inundation area shows throughout this process in the Army Corps and urban drainage projects are completed, that potentially puts them back in the floodplain. And for these neighborhoods, it'll be cheaper if they start getting flood insurance now, because once they're actually found to be back in the floodplain, it will cost them more money to to get floodplain insurance and to not address this, which, by the way, was studied. We've got copies of studies that were done, even going back to looking at the levee that should have been done south of 38th Avenue. But yet the plot to kill was not even one of the projects that was in the budget. And so we're spending a majority of these fees in an area where it's needed. I don't disagree. The need exists, but. We did this whole approval with this IGA on the front end and we've been doing the community process on the back end and it's why I think you have community people who have been very concerned that. Their voice had not been factored in throughout the steps of what is normally done in in this process. So I'm just making the editorial comment. I'm not looking for a response at this point in time. I guess if I could clarify, I would appreciate it. So what are you trying to clarify? I am. As far as Globeville, I just want to be clear that Globeville is not ignored in this plan. We have said that there is a study that was previously funded to the tune of $3 million. That's not in this plan because it's already been funded, and another 10.5 that will be used to do the work that we need to do that Peters, Peter and Paul Heyman and the urban drainage team with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We need to do our work. We need the time to do that so that we can understand what improvements do need to be made. And then as we go into another six year needs assessment, as Councilman New has brought up, those types of projects will come out and Wolf will figure out the next step that's appropriate at that time. So I apologize, but I just really wanted to make sure that people were clear on that. So, Leslie, let me just be clear about one thing, because I've been told that, you know, we're looking at a distance of the river from Sixth Avenue to the end of the city limits. Does the 10.5 include that entire corridor, or are you saying that the majority of that is going to be spent in the Globeville neighborhood ? The 10.5 that's identified in that urban waterways is to support that grant as Bruce Hornick, who's our head of Master Planning identified. There is neighborhood dollars in there, 25 million, I believe it's about 5 million a year that can spent be spent without this throughout the city. So as projects are identified, Globeville is certainly a high priority area and I would expect that we would see projects in there. And what is the total cost to fix the Globeville problem? I've had some. Estimates thrown out to me. The storm drainage master plan puts the the small infrastructure, excluding the river at about $80 million. Remember that a citywide citywide need of 1.5 billion. So we have 80 million in Globeville. I don't yet have an idea of what the South Platte River improvements will run. I mean, we're still in the middle of the study, and I just I don't have those figures yet. So it would be 80 million to fix the problem for Globeville, but we only have approximately 5 million a year that's spent citywide to address storm drainage problems. Is that correct? Well, the 80 million is correct in the 5 million per year is correct. How we go about doing this is something that we need a little more time to study. We're working on it and we're not ignoring it. And and the city has been at this for a long time and will continue to be at it until we get them all. I may not be here, but we're going to continue to work at it. Mr. President, may I put the motion on the floor at this point? Do you want to wait to call folks who are in the queue first? If it's regarding second reading, we have to first vote on the publication, so it has to first be valid publication. But Councilman, if you wanted to do your one hour courtesy, you could go ahead. And that's. That's what I. Meant. Oh, go right ahead if you want to do that. Okay. Mr. President, I would like to move that. I'll make sure I have this correct. Council Bill 306 be that that we have on second reading a public hearing on Monday, June the 13th, 2016. So I guess I need to formally postpone the bill so that we can have the public hearing on June 13th. So, Councilwoman, you're just requesting a one hour courtesy public hearing? That's yes. It doesn't require doesn't require a vote. Okay. So we've had a lot of back and forth going on all day long about this issue with our staff about whether we needed a motion. So you're saying we don't need to move. Any courtesy of this this. Okay. These don't don't require hearings or councilmembers requesting a courtesy public hearing. So right as as council president, I could say no and then we could vote on it. Or as council president, I could say yes. So. Well, I just want to be clear that I did make this request when it came to committee, but to formally make sure that we have this done, the request is to do it on June the 13th because we will not have a quorum next week, as you indicated earlier. So, yes, so we will pending publication don't want to get the cart before the horse. Of course there will be a one hour cursing public hearing. Council Bill 306. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Next in the queue, we have Councilman Espinosa. I need to figure out how to get courtesy public hearing at first reading because I think it would be nice to be able to have additional questions before it's sort of just going to get motioned on the floor and moved that way. But they do have a series of questions here. Thank you. First to my colleagues, councilman and councilman Woman Ortega, for asking such thorough questions. I wish we again had dealt with this, continue to deal with this at the committee level rather than what had transpired there. But that's our our process. And I'm just going to say that. So my question is and I don't care if it's George or Jennifer, but when the 90 meetings that you cited with the community, when did those begin and when did they conclude? Thank you for your question. Jennifer Hill, House of Public Works. So we started in July and it was the end of July 1st public meeting though was in August when we went out to the public was just kind of the need. We had public meetings and process and again, you know, these included tours, R.A. meetings. We went where the people were. We had our own meetings, so we really did everything. And then we concluded, we extended it by three months. We heard from the public that it just wasn't enough time, very complex issue to news comment. And so we did extend by three months. We were hoping to be done in January and extended into the spring. So our last public meeting was in April. So again, for timeline purposes, this well, I want to get the exact quote. When did that you guys scored? Based on the heat map to generate the six year plan and so you generated a priority list but your your public meeting about $206 million worth of this 383 all predated this draft January of 2016. This is the draft that talks about priorities that didn't come in until essentially five months after the IGA in full and months after the meeting, which actually predated your meeting with the community. It's sort of back to Councilman Flynn's concerns or questions, which is that we should be approving projects, not putting the cart before the horse where we're actually approving money without having done this process. I mean, I have to ask time and again at committee personally, and now I finally got this is the first thing that indicates any sort of attempt at prioritization. If you go back to the. So I do have a question related to this, which is why don't we where is that list? So I have this map that has a bunch of stars on it. But if you look at that $1.5 billion stormwater master plan, there is page after page after page after page of project in there with dollar amounts assigned to it and ideas. Scope may be wrong. It's very brief obviously for the nature of that plan, but where's that for council that shows every single project that is part of the balance of the 383 that is not the 206 because I had a slide out committee that said we've got some neighborhood plans and I mean neighborhood projects , and I know that they're out there because we don't dream up 383 without assigning numbers. Hello again, Bruce Janek with Public Works Wastewater. So as as you pointed out, Councilman Espinosa, we did prioritize the basins first. That's kind of the 40,000 foot level of saying, what are these highest priority? Let me let me back up. But did that happen in draft mode in 2000? And I guess even before that, when before this study was even in a draft, we were building projects based upon where people flooded. Well, you know, where our models are showing the greatest street depth. And so we kind of we had an approach when it was a good approach, but then we really went to the next level of using these 12 criteria and prioritizing it as a whole. And we started the basin level because there are 67 of them and we're we're confident. We like the map. It's defendable. And now we're digging into the project level because like I was saying earlier, there could be there's a variance of priorities of the projects within the basins. Like you look at a red basin, I mean, as. I'm trying and trying to understand these two maps. So this map that was up on the screen shows four labeled areas. I won't call them basins because I'm confused by this map, which is I understood where the basins themselves. Which is it? Which one? Which one has the base. In your left hand. The one that citywide. That's the that's the metric study. Those are that's our those are 67 prioritized basins using that red, orange, yellow kind of heat map. Okay. Because I'm concerned about what has gone on and I don't know what went on in those public meetings, but I do know what happened in my 1 to 1 briefings and at committee. And what had happened was some obfuscation, which is the stormwater master plan deals with these basins labeled as they are on this map, which are the 68. And what clearly is happening is that we are diverting water from one basin and routing it through another basin to the global outfall. And it happens to be that that basin is actually actually already got pretty good water quality per your plan. But now on this map, we seem to have combined it. So it looks like we're we're just draining one big basin, right. When it what concerns me is that and now I get it. I get why Leslie insists that. And she's the only person that continues to insist that this has nothing to do with I-70. And it's probably because they're federal dollars link to I-70 and boom, now we're an environmental impact study. And so rather than do that, we're just going to bear this whole cost on the city and county of the taxpayers, of the city and county of Denver through a fee so that we can avoid actually studying the impact of this, which is significant. It is the largest project that urban drainage is undertaking, and we're just missing that. And so why this matters on these basins in your maps is that we are routing. I mean, there are there are eight there are eight basins on here that are red. Six of them are sort of captured in these four basin drawing that you've done here, sort of observe these getting how these basins are subdivided. Yet. We don't show those two basins that are on the other side of the river like they don't they're not a priority. Are are they? I think Leslie and Peter spoke to who they are already with that $3 million Army Corps study that we're that's undertaking. Ten years down the road. We can start thinking about that. But these have to happen. The study is underway right now. And that serve the difference in the basins where you're counting eight versus four is in the in the one in your left hand. Those are those are collection systems, basins, and the other ones are major basins. It's a very technical definition, but essentially the ones in your right hand, those are our priority focus basins that have a very undersized backbone drainage system. The Montclair Drainage System is served by a 120 inch line that was built in the 1930s. But what I want the public to know is that that let's see, on a highway crosses one, two, three, three basins, and then it's merged with another basin here, the Montclair the upper the lower Montclair Basin, which it doesn't actually touch. And that would be mitigating those 100 year flood waters as they impacted I-70, regardless of whether we put a new channel in or not. And so this level of the area that you have colored on different maps is the primary area that is impacted would actually already be that's already downstream of those primary areas are already downstream of I-70. So I-70 mitigation that would associate the I-70 widening would actually already benefit those communities with or without Denver investment. Is that correct? And we probably have to let's see. That doesn't have an obligation to collect the water and protect the neighborhoods to the north there. But right now, that water goes underneath I-70. This water would go into I-70. And they there's there's an opportunity for them to collect the water on the south side and just dump it on to the north side at the same levels that there exists today. So so. The problem is. Getting to the north would still be 2 to 3 feet of flooding to the north even after set up with their system. That's pure speculation on my part. Well, but one of the reasons I it's because I've been told time and time again about leveraging CDOT money. So it's sort of weird that that has nothing to do with this project if they're throwing money at it. So but when we're leveraging the CDOT money, the reason is, is I've been told in different by different people that there's a solution that CDOT has, but it involves 30 foot walls and it's just atrocious and all this stuff. But when I talk to see that they have a sketch about how they're going to route through a conduit through the lowest point and daylight out into the Platte River, all these flood waters down Clyde Street below grade. And somehow that has the natural fall. I'll have to believe them, because the real problem is, is no one's done that analysis, even them themselves haven't done that analysis. So where do these 30 foot walls come from, this sort of boogieman of of water quality ponds? Where did that come from? I mean, is there a design or is there not a design that see that has to capture their water requirement, 100 year flood requirements? I believe, yes. I can't speak for them, but they do have a design underway. I believe it's part of their year and you can get those documents. I would just say to your point earlier is that the water doesn't really care who the who owns the land. It falls and it collects and it drains into ponds. And so there's there's property damage and potential upstream of the basin in the entire basin. And so that's why that's why this objective analysis of where the highest priority need is shows Montclair as the highest priority. And and the number of red stars, if you see on there, are documented significant flooding locations, and there's the majority of them in Montclair. So it's really. Don't get me wrong, I am I am 100% for 100 $383 million investment into our Enterprise Fund for storm water and sewer infrastructure. But I question whether the majority of that money should be focused on these things. When your own stormwater master plan, which I don't have here, but it's in my office, has projects associated with that that are not of this scope that actually solve this problem. And then when you have the the gift of I-70, which is going to be below that grade or below grade, having to mitigate this water themselves and doing this as part of that that that we could actually leverage that as a solution to help us with basically everything north of of I-70 where this water would flow. But for some reason, we decided to take it upon ourselves to put in this 39th Avenue channel to to divert it to the Globeville outfall, which is in a different basin. Well, meanwhile, there are. How many basins here? One, I probably do the better part of 30 or 40 basins that flow into the Platte River north of Globeville. That in fact, there's a 100 year event in any one of those 40 basins. We now know through the study that urban drainage is done, will flood in, inundate all of Globeville. Seems like that should be a priority. When you have 40 chances in a 100 year event impacting the neighborhood versus the one. So when I. I still would love to see that priority list that you guys had before you had this, because you sound like you had one. So where that showed me how all those other basins and in that 2016, 2014 master plan laid out. But I am concerned about the fact that there is no design and we're putting money at this, because I've been told, too, that the solutions put forward for City Park in the Upper Montclair, I mean, the Lower Montclair Basin. There was a solution there to use the soccer fields, which I think meant the softball fields. But that won't work because it's it's uphill. I don't know how we don't how we propose solutions that are uphill, but it's not. It worries me about the fact that we don't have designs going forward. So I did have, let's see, three be I mean, questions of the base and maps. We talked about 1 billion versus 1.5 billion. So when this was presented at committee, it was talked about as a $1 billion master plan. Maybe that was 2014 numbers. How did it get from 1 billion to 1.5 billion? Is it because the scope at this basin is now increased from about a 60 some odd $80 million solution to a $206 million solution? Just to see if I can answer that, I guess we do our master plan updates every five years so that in 2009 there was adopted by City Council. And I believe the total value of all those projects was one point to $1.1 billion. And then we did it in 2014. New projects got added in like the Globeville study that Councilman Ortega talked about. So $80 million in needs there. And so between those kind of newer projects that we were identified using the latest tools and technology and more so the just construction cost inflation in general, that's why we're at 1.5 and we're chipping away slowly at it. But I would honestly expect that in 2019, when we do our new master plan, the cost would be 1.5, if not more. I bet it will. And that's a concern now, right. Which is we're going from $101 in average fee a few years ago to pushing 500 in about five years, an average fee to capture this project and some others rather than a whole bunch of others. And what we should expect by the time we do this again, that the cost of that $1.1 billion master plan is going to be much higher than $1.1 billion. So this is a game that we can't afford to waste money on when we have so many needs citywide. And so it concerns me that we're going to obligate ourselves and go from a a a low average cost to a better than average cost with the need to go much, much higher. Because, as you know, to put $383 million is just a fraction of 1.5 billion. And if that's where the need is, we should be prioritizing our projects accordingly, but not justifying it sort of after the fact. Just just one point of clarification is that I think, you know, with that $383 million, it's a it's a balance. There's there's big needs there. Small needs. There's there's just single intersections that flood. And then there's whole kind of streets and kind of multiple blocks that flood. So what we try to do with our program in those buckets I talked about is do focus on the big projects in those highest priority basins, but also save chunks and big chunks of money for water quality for our general store manual to address those local problems citywide. So it's but if you look at the inundation, usually I have those inundation maps, the areas that this 39th Avenue channel is protecting our largely surface parking lots and not neighborhoods. You know, and so where is that? I question the prioritization. I guess, in our preliminary analysis, looking at the whole Montclair Basin, there's over 2000 structures that are endangered. It's just rough estimate about $487 million in potential damages during a major flooding obfuscate. I'm talking specifically a 39th Avenue channel, because there's no doubt that capturing water at City Park one way or the other would have tremendous impact between City Park and 39th. It's what that 39th Avenue Channel is doing, the Platt to Park Hill Port portion there. That is the concern because it is really clearing out water from that would be dealt with at I-70 46th Avenue and doing it at 39th Avenue at our cost as opposed to see Dot's cost. And why should we do that when we're actually now diverting that money that could be better spent on a whole host of those small projects which you agree have impact for those intersections on a more regular basis. I mean, we have a lot of 505 year and 20 year floods before the probability is there more so than a 100 year event. And so we could do a lot for the city, the people of this city, on a more routine basis, because I think we all put in an all hands on deck when when a major event comes. It's just what we do as people. And so while we wouldn't want that to happen, we're prepared to deal with that. And if you even look at those inundation maps, it is not for a long period of time. That's just the way Denver is. You know, the accounts of floods and at least it's not the. I that you have down in in Houston so the four so that we talked about the 30 foot wall. So I just. It's just unfortunate because I still today I'm getting information that is somewhat contradictory and it doesn't it it it's sort of I it concerns me that we're supporting things with with language after the fact when I've consistently asked for things that show me that lead to this path going forward. I mean, there was an idea that was rushed through, you know, a prior council. It's not lost on me that there are only five sitting members of this council that voted to support that the rest or were either in opposition or knew. And I wish that if this doesn't go through, that you recognize that we all support stormwater and sewer improvements and infrastructure, but that we work on a program that makes sense for the city, the entire city, because the entire city bears the burden of this. That's more comment than anything else. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Herndon. Leslie, can I. Have you come up to the mike? I have a question. So looking at Google Maps where you see the Globeville Landing Park and, you know, I'm looking for another structure where it would be appropriate to have an outfall to provide drainage into the South Platte. And the closest that I can find to the Globeville Landing Park is Riverside Cemetery, where they're conversations about creating some new outfall or something that that would address. Clearly, the stormwater needs to move towards the river. And the the drainage to the north. And we've looked at it with the National Western Stock Show and all of that. The global landing outfall is really the natural place for this water to go. On the south side of I-70 to the north, there actually is a couple of outfalls laid out when I believe is along Rear Street and I guess I would have to look to my team. They would be identified in the stormwater master plan to facilitate the drainage in that area. Okay. Thank you. President Herndon. I have a couple comments. I will be quick. So I actually serve on the board of directors for Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. And, you know, thank you, Paul, for your simple explanation of really what urban flood, urban drainage and flood control does. You know, you're dealing with the hydrology. How much water, how deep is it going to get it moving off of our streets and to ensure public safety? You know, the Army Corps of Engineers, they deal with hydraulics, what to do with the water. I highly respect the engineers and Paul and his team and the consultants with urban drainage and flood control district. They deal all throughout the state. They confer with, you know, folks on a national level of how best to address this. And as a fellow science professional, I respect that. And your team, you know, the 39th Avenue or Cole Channel has been brought up as a negative. And I just like to provide a little bit of context around a naturalized channel for my colleagues. And Paul is going to get a laugh out of this because even before I was elected as a montebello resident and addressed, you know, advocate for the community, I have always complained about the Montebello channels, and so I'll talk about those in just a little bit. But the whole channel is basically proposed to be a natural or naturalized stream corridor. It's going to be one mile long, approximately ten feet deep and 100 feet wide in the whole neighborhood, a naturalized stream corridor channel becomes in. Councilman Clark has got to love this because, you know, we taught environmental, education and science, both of us. And so this is what you talk about when you're teaching children and urban folks about how best to work with the natural environment and geography and and and, you know, wildlife and how we are only visitors a lot of times. And so, you know, this is going to be this one mile long cold channel or 39th Avenue Channel is going to be a source of wildlife habitat. It's going to become an outdoor recreation amenity for neighbors to get out into a natural setting, riding bikes, running along, seeing, you know, foxes, raccoons, nesting songbirds in an urban context neighborhood in Montebello, where my family lives, we have eight miles of channels. They are not naturalized, eight miles of cement channels. They're ugly, they collect trash. They have to be dredged because plants come up through the concrete. There is no opportunity for folks in my community to recreate along these channels and to use them. And, you know, my home was built in the early nineties in the Gateway Division of Montebello. We hated the detention ponds. We thought they were ugly. They were just a source of kind of collections for storm water. And when you really start to educate folks about that, this becomes a collection point for a wetlands within an urban corridor. So you were creating wildlife habitat, green habitat for the community in detention ponds. A half mile from my home, I have four huge detention ponds. Montebello never floods. We have not flooded in Belo. It all flows through the community into the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge. And so looking at this as creating native open space in an urban core, aquatic vegetation filters out pollution pollutants. Oil, fertilizers, pesticides, anything that runs off of. You know, Non-Porous surfaces, a wetlands, a detention pond, an open channel. It filters out all of those toxins, cattails, aquatic vegetation. Nature at her best does it. And then that water flows in to the south, the South Platte, and it's cleaner. And so I just want to provide that context for a and that I have been caught in the flooding that happens in this basin with my two young children in the car. And you are trying to get around flooding the water and get anywhere you can to get to higher land. And at certain points you're like, okay, well, I'm going to take the baby out of the car. See, I'm going to walk with my toddler and abandon my car and try to get to higher ground. And so that personal, terrifying experience because coming from downtown, trying to get to Montebello and it taking 4 hours to get home , you know, we deserve better for our residents and we need to invest in infrastructure. I'm the first to say I've got two kids in college. I don't like a fee increase. But when we're talking about protecting our residents lives, if there was something catastrophic, you know, I think I think that we have to weigh where we're going to put our dollars and what we're going to do. And I don't want to sit up here and make a decision that in, you know, ten years, 15 years, 20 years, people die because of a decision that I had a part in or did or didn't do. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Now, are we questions? Comments combined? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. It's been an hour. Yes. Pardon me, sir. Yes, sir. We're still there. Thank you. Okay, let's see. Leslie, if I can ask you a question, too. I just want to get clarity. Right now we're moving towards a 30 per the consultants are moving towards the 30% design of the plot, the Park Hill project, correct? Yes. They're beginning design. That's correct. Okay. Well, so we're early in the design. So the the budget increases that we've talked about have been more general about Labor's more expensive materials and more expensive. The scope has been broadened. So when, when we get designed, the price of the project is either going to go up or down. Right. Well, where is the the intent of the number that was placed in this rate structure? The intent was to cover the maximum we thought it could be. And you're right, it can go up and down. But we really are intending that this would be the cap. Okay. So if it goes up. I'm checking with my express. Yeah. So you what you're saying is you threw in a whole bunch of fudge factors to try to envision as high a number as possible. My concern being if the price is going to go up from there, you know, other projects are on my list of this 383 wouldn't get funded. So what you're saying is could happen, but you really don't think it's going up from here. So it may go down then. Yes, we could get more out of this. 383 is what you're saying? Yes. Okay. Why? My understanding of the involvement of urban drainage in this project is their only involvement is in the Globeville landing outfall and that they're not involved in the design of the Coal Channel, and they're not involved in the design of the detention on City Park Golf Course or any of that. Is that correct? At this point, urban drainage holds the contract for the design for the Globeville landing outfall. We would expect, because they are our advisors and are the experts in that in the region on how drainage should work, that they will remain our partners and advisors on the rest of the project. But we would expect that the city would hold the contracts. That differs from what urban drainage staff tells me. Is that different, Paul? Do you want to come in? Thank you. Paul Heinemann, urban drainage. As it stands right now, denver is doing the contracts through the plat to park. However, Leslie is right. We are there sitting with Denver staff helping advise and go through those projects. Right now it's in the in the early planning stages, but as we get further along will definitely be a part of that process. Is there a contractual arrangement with the district for this? Right now we do not have one, but I'm sure in the future there's the definite possibility that there would. Be one whose staff was very clear with me that the only involvement at present was with the 33rd Street outfall in the Globeville Landing outfall. That is correct right now. Thank you. That is the only thing we have. Thank you, Paul. Okay. And my. Line of that question is I was one wondering why urban drainage in a project of this scope is not more involved. Along with Councilwoman Gilmore, I'm on the Urban Drainage Board and I'm very sold on their expertize on the model, the nonpolitical model with which they operate. And I'm concerned that there's not a greater contractual connection. I would hope that changes. And while he's walking up, I also want to acknowledge Mr. Heineman, Hyman's 31 years with the district that unfortunately for a great many people is about to come to an end. So he can go out and spend some time in the in the outdoors with his family and grandkids. So I'll recognize that right now. Yes. Well, thank you for those comments, Councilman Cashman and Councilwoman Gilmore. I appreciate those very much. We we will see you had. Some comments now. I've lost. Well, I was just saying that I was concerned. Oh, when when when when the staff told me there was not a greater relationship to this project. Yeah, I can talk about that. Obviously we have limited staff on which we can work on projects with. And what we do is we each year send out a request to the local governments, city and county, Denver being one of them on what projects they would like us to partner with and what. And then we are able to partner with a certain number. And when we do partner, usually we have some amount of money in it with this project and going forward and Denver already being very well invested in it and has very capable staff in doing this portion of the project. The outfall project is what we were kind of already started with and got going with. But since this is moving at the pace it is, is right now, we do not have the staff to to fully help administer that entire project. But in the future, there's as the staff has said, there's many other projects that will be coming up as well as the future of the. Park, the Platte Project. So we will be involved in that as well. But it's really each year we reevaluate what our what our staff can handle and what the local government needs are at that point. And the needs of the staff for Denver right now at this point is to get this thing, you know, really under control right now. And we just don't have the staff to to help them right now. Great. Thanks for that clarification, Mr. Bartlett. And please. I heard something wrong either this afternoon when we spoke or this evening. I asked this afternoon about the Globeville situation as far as trying to get an idea on a timeline and so on. And what I heard you say, which I had no idea because I had no idea of scope and what would be done, etc.. And tonight I heard something about 80 million bucks that I thought was related to Globeville. Now, if you could clarify now there are two two concerns in Globeville. One is river spilling. Right. And that's what what urban drainage is studying to figure out how much water and the court is studying to figure out what do we do right. And then there's also the local inundation areas. Mm hmm. And that's more of a localized, localized issue where we don't have adequate storm drainage systems to get that water from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill right next to Tor Junction drainage. Exactly. And so the Utah Junction and Globeville, portions of the masterplan, identify $80 million worth of improvements that need to be done to handle that localized. And when we were speaking this afternoon, I thought maybe I was mistaken. I thought you were talking about what specifically we want to do on the South Platte. Okay. Well, we're still studying that. And toward the end of the year, we'll begin to have some really good ideas what that might look like. So great. So since this is a comment as well, I am. Absolutely. That's all I have. Thank you, Miss Bartley. Thank you very much. I share a lot of my colleagues comments. I mean, they have absolutely no doubt we need to raise an enormous amount of money to improve our stormwater infrastructure in the city, especially in the Montclair Basin. I mean, you have a very large basin with no drainage system, but by and large, I mean, I think there is some piping going on along the way. But basically we don't have a gulch like Harvard Culture where Gulch or any of the other areas. And I have no question we need to raise a ton of money. My discussions with the city, with the administration have been and this applies to drainage and it applies to our streets and applies to our sidewalks. We need to raise a lot of money. And the bad news for our residents is you're the only place we have to go to our residents and our businesses to find this money. And we need that. We're going to need it along the way. And as I said, I'm convinced we need to to build something in the Montclair Basin. I believe that the plant, the Park Hill Project specifically is conceived at this time in this scope to add storm water protection for I-70 along the way is an important spine for a greater system. I believe that to be true. I believe the scope of the I-70 project is extreme and I think the routing is ill conceived. That is a broader discussion that we're not going to go into right now. But what I have, what I can't ignore, and it is very much related, is that the. She Dot's reaction to the homeowners adjacent to the I-70 project is insufficient. The mitigation that they're proposing for homeowners along the I-70 corridor is insufficient. I'm aware that my colleague, Councilwoman Ortega, her office, is working diligently to try to fill a gap that she refuses to honor there. The tunnel, the part covering I-70, the tunnel that's being created is intentionally designed just short enough that they don't need to put a fan system in it to ventilate the the emissions. So Denver's going to need to spend additional money on air quality, monitoring the mitigation for the nearby homeowners. It should include vapor intrusion protection. It should include new doors, new windows, insulation, a much more extreme package. See, that's proposing to portable one or two portable air conditioning units and some interior storm windows. I had city staff tell me today we are working hard to make up that difference, to work with other groups, to make up that difference. I don't think we should be doing that. We as counsel are left with very few. Avenues for those of us who are unhappy with the way that project is unfolding to express that displeasure from me, this is one of those opportunities. I have spent a great deal of time becoming familiar with this project. For me, my complaints are not with the engineering of this project. I am not an engineer. I have done my best to understand this project, but my complaints are not with the engineering of this project there, with the connection to a related project. And my understanding is if we don't build a plot to Park Hill, I-70 will build its own system. They will need to do some additional work that they won't have to do. If we do build a plot to Park Hill. So with that in mind, I won't be. I'm not happy with this because I look forward to approving some sort of a fee increase to so we can move forward with this tremendous need that we have in the city. But I can't do it on this particular bill. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn, I'm going to hop over you and come to you, and I'll come back to you at the end. Councilman Brookshire up. Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks, council count. Councilman Flynn around the bringing up the question on 30% design. I think that's an important question and I am actually see here, I'm going to bring you know, Leslie, why don't you come on up to answer this question. This has already been touched on the 30% design piece. But I just want to make it 100% clear. And since we're in the. Comment slash questions. I'll do the remakes myself and just say. Bar? None. Every neighborhood has always as come to us before you get to 30% design. That is, I can't find a neighbor who won't say that. So, you know, I think that's important for all of us up here, too. I know I pushed that in Q2 of this year, said, let's go to the neighbors before we get there. And so we're there with a lot of hiccups. So I just want to say that a disclaimer, but 30% design, we approve say we approve this rate, this stormwater increase. I want you to to answer with specificity your limits of what you can use of that increase. Meaning can you go above say say that, you know, the budget goes crazy? Can you go above what is allotted what we approve in front of council tonight? Well, George, I need your help on this one. He's asking if we can go above what we've approved tonight. As far as I understand. And George will come up and fix me when I'm wrong. But my understanding is, is that there will be rates that are generated by your approval of this proposal. Those rates will be money from those rates will be appropriated through the annual budget for capital projects. And so those will be set up through our annual program over the next three years or excuse me, six years as those rates come in. And then we will as our teams, design teams and construction teams, planning teams will design and construct to those budgets that are approved by council through the annual appropriation. If additional dollars are needed, it will go through those processes for council to appropriate on an annual basis. Is that correct? So in short, there is flexibility for you all to overshoot the budget. And if you do overshoot the budget, you have to come back to city council or anything above what? What amount? 500,000. I mean, what what are we talking. We will need to appropriate every year these rates that are that we are we're discussing now have not been appropriated yet. So that will be to you to appropriate those budgets. Any contract that is over $500,000 will come to you for approval. So there's a couple of different ways for council to interact with us on that. Yeah. Do you want to charge. It on it? George Delaney The other thing to keep in mind is this plan calls for debt financing of the P2 plant to Park Hill project. As your council staff or your council has advised you, you will have to approve that bond and that indebtedness through another ordinance that will come down the line whenever we're ready to do that. So that will at least sets the limit. And I guess if we needed to change the amount at that time, we would be changing the amount. Here's here's the concern. And I think it's a valid one that we don't want to give a blank check to a project that is already it's a large project. I live in the area. I know that it's needed and I have emails from last year. It was the second quarter of last year during the rain to prove it. But my question is, I think it's a valid question of how do we know that we're not? You know, what's what's the assurances this council has with the assurances the public have that we won't exceed the limit? Yeah. And as Leslie had said earlier this evening, we were instructed to look at a project and put in every cost that could be thought of. To be honest with you, and that's how we got to the upper range of $298 million. Our goal is to wait to bring in a project that would be less than that amount of money. So it's, you know, you build it to the highest level and then you have the value engineering. We value engineer projects every day to bring them back within budget as as possible as much as you possibly can. So that's our plan on this project. But we will be coming back to you. We come to you every year with an appropriation for projects. You appropriate dollars for us, allowing us to spend those those dollars. If we need more money, we have to come back to you for supplemental. We've done that in the past. In this case, we will need an appropriation for the project and approval to borrow the money. So there are some check points along the way. We'll we'll be bringing these numbers back to you. And hopefully, you know, our plan is to stay within that range. All right. So, you know, I think when we if this goes on to second reading or whatnot, you know, I'm going to come back to this just just to provide a little bit more hard line. If we if I'm hearing you say if we see 290 million, you know, we don't want to do that, but we'll have to come back to you. But a little bit more harder line just so we don't leave that door open. Rope. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Let me let me call Bruce up here real quick. Bruce, if you go to that map, this has been brought up time and time again about Globeville. And I don't think we are linking the two maps. So the map that shows the secondary protection under make that shown to the public secondary protection under 39th Street. Primary protection above 39th open channel. And you. We need you to pull we need to pull it up on that. I don't think I don't think we have that map. Is that the map you refer to that has the it's kind of the purple above the channel and the yellow. Primary protection, secondary protection. Right. And so I don't know if is it we can still speak to that not having the map. Just for clarification. Yeah, this is the water quality one. Yeah, we we need the thousand 14. Yeah. Let's see if you have it here. No, that's not it. I have it on my computer. But, yeah, not everybody can see this. Yeah. Yep. So I hate I hate that the public can't see it. But this is this is an important map that shows the protection areas. Once the detention area is put in and City Park, the open channel is put in along along 39th Avenue and into the along 39th Avenue. And the yellow area is the secondary protection, which looks like it's it's mostly, you know, coal a little bit of. Clayton a little bit north city park Whittier and above that is what we now refer to as Rhino used to be referred to as five points, and above that is Globeville or Swansea. So here's what I can understand. We keep talking about Globeville not receiving any protection, and I think it's clear that south of I-70, along Global AMI Landing Park, along the South Platte, there is an area where I think Peter Bart line described it as leakage or whatever you want to say comes in to that area. Right. But above just below I-70 and just below I-70, all of Globeville is in that primary protection, all of Elyria and Swansea is in that primary protection. So am I reading that wrong? I think there's a clarification that's needed. You heard it again. Globeville is on the west side of the river. Yeah. And so it's actually not in this purple primary protection in Globeville. The confusion exists because Globeville neighborhood is on the west side of the river. But the major outfall for the Montclair Basin is called the Globeville Landing Outfall because it goes through Globeville Landing Park. Okay, so we're. Talking about we're talking about homes. So so let's talk about homes and statistical neighborhood neighborhoods. What is protected. So protected in my mind is Cole, Clayton, Skyland, Whittier, Elyria. Secondary protection in the purple area is in my am I missing it north it's kind of the two colors north of 39th is their primary flood protection where the channel is going to collect those significant offsite flows before they have a chance to go further north on at the railroad tracks and all that stuff. So you have Elyria in there. You have Swansea in there and you have a you don't have, you have a portion. Of Globeville in there. According to my statistical neighborhood map that I go off of, I don't I think Globeville needs. Is a break. Where does that break? What does that break. Is that the. That's the plat. At the plat. Right. That's. So. So homes just east of the Platte. Businesses just east of the Platte are all protected. Everything on the west is not protected. And on the west side, right this the flats of Park Hill, it's a it's a, you know, protects the businesses, residents, homes, whatever. On the east side of the Montclair Basin. Okay, great. Um, the the last. The last deal. Leslie, let me. Let me bring you up over time. And Councilman Flynn touched on this. If we don't pass this tonight. What happens. And, you know, I just I just need a staff person to to clarify what he said. Does I-70 still build there? Storm drainage? I-70 will move forward at its own pace. It's not reliant upon this action for city council I seventies it's own project. So whether whether you all choose the folks that are impacted our our storm drain master plan if this doesn't move forward now I 72 switch or around. Okay and is there a penalty that we would have to pay for the idea. We would have to go back through and take a look at what if no action is taken on the rates? We would have to look at our existing. Fund of balance and take a look at what we could do or we would have to go back with them and let them know that we could what we could or couldn't perform based on the cash that we had and then make those arrangements with them, you know, as the chips would fall. And just lastly, what is the. I understand the way my math is, 45% of this storm water increase is, you know, this project that is getting the most attention, Platts of Park Hill. What happens and how many? What is the number of projects that are around the city that will not be funded? You know, I wish I could express that to you, but this plan is put together as we've all done all of this work. So we would basically have to go back to the drawing board and look at the amount of cash available and see what projects, if any, could be moved forward. It would be a complete redo of our plan. George, do you have another thought about that? No, that's right. I think the one thing to keep in mind again, George, Tony, you've heard a lot of testimony and discussion today. Keep in mind that the upper and lower Montclair Basins are the number one highest risk flooding basin in the entire metropolitan area. Whether you build where we build plant to Park Hill or not, you're going to build something in this basin. Our master plan. Maybe it doesn't have this specific project in it, but our master plan says we need to invest almost $600 million in these two basins to mitigate the flooding risk. And so whether you build this project, you build another project, whether I-70 gets built the way they plan, whether it doesn't get built the way they plan this project, something will be built in this basin to mitigate the flooding because you can't allow these, what, 2000 structures or something that somebody said, you know, you know, to flood . And the other thing to keep in mind about this, one of the reasons and somebody mentioned, well, if this is your priority basin, why aren't you spending all your money there? It's because we're asking every every property owner in Denver to pay into this fee. And we have other areas in the city that flood, and we know we have other areas in the city that flood. So we are trying to fund projects, and that's what this map shows. Well, you can't see it, but the map that we had handed out, we're trying to fund projects throughout the city because we're asking everybody in the city to pay for this, for this, for these these rate increases. And so, yes, this is our priority basin. Yes, we have to do projects in this area. It's our highest risk. But we have other risks, too. And so we're trying to be trying to be appropriate stewards of the cities and the rate payers money and spread the projects around the city because we have other areas that have problems as well. Thank you, George. Mr. President. Thank you. You know, I'm not going to make any conclusory remarks right now. I do I do believe that we need to move to the second reading and have a public courtesy, public hearing that Councilman Ortega has put forward. And so I will be supporting that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Kasich. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions and I'll do my comments. I think this is probably best answered by George, but you can defer if it's not the right person. So you're going to come up. Thanks. Can you share the general age of our sanitary sewer system? Sanitary? Sure. Sanitary system is approximately averages 60 years of age. Six zero. 66, zero years of age. We have 1475 miles of sanitary sewer in the system that we're responsible for maintaining. Thank you. And can you give us similar what's the general age of our storm infrastructure? Storm is newer. Storm average is about 40 years of age and we have about 750 linear miles of storm drainage pipes and channels. Got it. And even if none of our storm system were old, if none of it were inadequate, if it let's just imagine that it covered everything. We had a great number of concrete pipes and underground things. Would we still be facing legal or other demands to change or improve the way we did storm? Are we under any, you know, pressures that are influencing this package today? Right. Yeah, we would be. I think in terms of our development and what we require of our developers, how far they have to be out of points in an event inundation or in flood floodplain issues. The other thing is to keep in mind storm also takes care of our water quality. And regardless of what we do with our storm system itself, we have to in order to keep dumping. Water into the Platte River. We have to buy the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and they give us a permit every year and they're going to renew or hopefully they're going to consider renewing our permit this summer . There are certain kinds of levels of E.coli that have to be met with in the Platte River and other requirements. That's part of our storm system. So we would be modifying our storm system to, if nothing else, to to extend it throughout the city to take care of the areas that flood, but also to improve the storm system we now have, because it is not the quality of the water we're putting in the river needs to be improved. Okay. Thank you very much. That's helpful. So next question. And this is not scientific, but we have a number of neighboring cities around us Parker Castle, Rock, Westminster. How would you generally compare the size, the age, the complexity of our system in Denver to some of those surrounding cities? Our system is probably older because our city's been around longer. We've been developing longer. But what's interesting is our average sanitary and storm rate that our people pay is about $340 per year. The average in the metropolitan area is $426 per year. So even though our system is older and it needs probably more updating and more infrastructure improvement, we have been able to keep our rates below the metropolitan average by, what, nearly $80 a year. And even with this rate increase, which is basically for sanitary and storm, it's about $24. Then we'll go from 320 to 340 and the average is still for 26 and assuming they don't change. So we're trying to keep things. We're trying to do as much as we can without increasing costs, you know, to our to our ratepayers as much as possible. So we're investing less than a typical city that's newer and less complex in our system. Right. Next question is probably for Leslie. Again, you can defer if it's the wrong one. And I'm just going to ask you to not going to like these questions, but I'm gonna ask you to just try to be blunt and not political and not couch it. I would just. So there you go. So imagine that CDOT is coming to a community to build a big transportation project that's not controversial and they're going to spend a ton of money. Do they ask the local community for a contribution towards that project? Typically. You answer that? Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's fine. Yeah. Since we do projects all over. The answer would be no, they don't. And for highway projects. For highway projects? No, they do not come to the LOC unless it's a you know, for. I'm speaking strictly from the dry from the drainage standpoint. Yeah. No, and I'm not talking about drainage, actually. This is really important. This is really important, actually. Okay. So thank you for jumping in, Paul, because I totally appreciate your effort. I, I was it was funny because your answer wasn't what I expected either, because I've done transportation for about ten years now. So when I see that it's building a big road and and it's going to, you know, improve traffic congestion, whatever it's going to do to see that, tend to ask the local community for some contribution to large projects. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Okay. That's what I thought the answer was. Let me give you an example, Councilman, to ask us, what did we do with T Rex? Big project. Big highway project. Right. In T-Rex, we had an idea with RTD and let's see, we we the city contributed $15 million in hard cash match. We provided all the right of way we contributed donated to right of way to build the road and to build the railway and all that. We waived all permit fees just so no different really than a lot of what they're asking us to do with I-70. So and that was, what, 15 years ago? Ten or 15 years ago. So, yes, the answer is they always ask, in fact, if they build their own detention system and they build these holes and, you know, and the walls or whatever, they will come to the city of Denver and say, we built these detention ponds to protect our road. You have to maintain them because the law says the state builds them and the local municipality maintains them. So we'll have to maintain these drainage vaults that we don't want to have built, be honest with you, but would have to maintain them anyway. So yes, they asked us for a lot of money. Okay. And I just think that's really important because I think what my goal with these questions is to unravel some of the confusion about how we ended up here. So just, you know, my goal is not to, you know, put anyone on the spot. It's to unravel confusion. So so we can assume that Seedat asked Denver for a contribution to this project. So we could have, for example, contributed a significant amount of cash, or we could have contributed something like underpass or an overpass or an exit lane or something like that. Is that correct? So, Leslie, can you help me just in the bluntest clearest terms, simple terms, explain why we chose to offer this as our contribution. We we did it because we want we want to protect the city and have a say. I'm sorry, folks. She asked me for the blunt answer, and I'm giving it to you. We are public works. I am the city engineer. And the more that we can protect the city and create a city that we want to live in. You all just had a fabulous discussion about how Denver is and how we all love Denver. We love Denver, too. We live here. We live here, too. And we want this project to be built in a way that solves our problems, not creates problems, like George said, that we have to take care of. So I just want to say it back to you even more bluntly. So given the choice between $20 million of cash or an overpass or an exit lane that we saw no value in, we offered something that we needed anyway. Yes, that's. This. I mean, I'm just going to just start my comments with this observation, which is we have so many smart people in this city on this project and it's killing us because, you know, we don't have someone who can tell a very clear and simple story and that we we got to own this as a city. We have not done a very good job of telling this story clearly. And so so I want to thank the residents, I think, who have pushed us with the questions that you've asked to understand what we're doing and why. I want to thank all of my colleagues because I think you all have educated us so much on the details, but I just want us to actually slow down and help explain this in, again, simpler terms. If you put aside the controversy, we are I think there is so much technicality in this controversy, in this conversation because of the controversy, and it's not helping the residents. Councilman, you mentioned when he says his residents just don't understand, it's because who could possibly, you know. Yes, locals protected east of the river, but not left. It's it is. We are missing. We're missing the forest for the trees. So here's the forest. As I have come to understand it, half of this package, half of it is for sanitary sewer. It's for crumbling pipes. It's for keeping human waste. Yeah, it's true. There's $23 on the average bill, and more than $11. $11 of the 23 is for sanitary sewer. It's for poop people. I mean, I'm not I mean, let's this is the thing. We're getting so technical. We have a city with 700,000 people and we all go to the bathroom. And our sanitary sewer is the one difference between us and drinking water and as an illness. And the way you mean think about Denver's founding in 1880, right? The South Platte River was the bathroom. The one difference between now and then is the sanitary sewer system. So I just want to take that piece off. I've not gotten emails and I've not gotten calls telling me that people don't believe in our sanitary sewer. So half this package has not been controversial. And I just we got a name that we got a name. What have this package represents? So we got the other half, the package, the controversy, side storm sewer. We have been chronically underfunding this infrastructure. I you know, I have a lot of respect for our governor and our he was our former mayor, but he told a story to the residents of Denver during his time that you could just do it all with less. You didn't need people. You didn't need more budget. You could just cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. And a number of us took office with libraries closed three days a week without hiring an officer for five years and not having funded some of this infrastructure. It wasn't a it wasn't really a true story because the true story is when you start funding that stuff, you get behind and it hurts your city and it hurts your future. So we've chronically underfunded the infrastructure. We want to do it better. Councilwoman Gilmore was very eloquent in describing water quality, a concrete pipe that dumps a bunch of water that has runoff from parking lots and dogs and all those things directly into the river isn't safe. So we want to do it better. We want to slow it down, and we want to improve the quality before it goes in. I actually don't think that's that controversial. There are a lot of questions about the the coal portion of the channel, and those are really valid questions. But I haven't heard anyone say that it's best to just take the dirtiest water possible and dump it in the most concentrated form into the river. So. So quality is a portion of this package doing things better, replacing things that don't do a good job now. So that's not controversial. Then you've got the pieces that are about improvements and expansions. And Councilman Flynn, you asked a great question about approving a package without everything being known. So here's a piece of my experience on this council. When I was first elected, there was an approved stormwater plan and it had a set number of projects on it. And the staff came to me and said, Listen, we told you these are the projects we're going to do. They're really good projects, but guess what? Fast track is going in. And we have three or four stations that now we have an immediate need to change priorities because if we don't, we're going to miss an opportunity to do a grade separation and a train is going to go through a flooding area, or we're going to miss an opportunity to leverage $20 million of somebody else's construction with less of our money to get it out. And we changed the plan and we changed it for a really good, valid reason. And if we had promised and said in stone, Hey, these are the projects we're going to do and we can never deviate, we'd be in big trouble. I sit on the Denver Regional Council of Governments and again, it's an analogy, but hang with me, if you will. We have this, you know, fiscally constrained transportation plan where every city puts its top priorities on it. And it's it's a 20 year plan. And every single year we make changes to that plan because communities themselves acknowledge a change. Maybe a big employer left, maybe a transit project came online. Who knows? But that kind of evolution is really important. And if it were if there were no safeguard, I would share your same concern about having nope, no concrete list, but there is a safeguard and that's the annual budget process. That list gets refined each year, and if this council feels like the right priorities aren't getting on it, then we have that power. So. So as I peel through the pieces of this package, half of it non-controversial, it's sanitary sewer portion of it for quality, right. Not that controversial portion of it to catch up on, chronically underinvested still below the regional average. Even with this increase, we will still be below the regional average. So then what do we have left? We have the controversy of the Platt debacle, and so I cannot eliminate the controversy around I-70. I think the concerns that have been raised and the the desire to imagine a different course of action is is so I get it viscerally. I wish that $850 million of the funding for that was not tied to replacement of the deficient bridge. And we could imagine using it for a different purpose, but we can't. That's the project that's going through within a year and regardless of this project. See, I was going to ask for something from us. I would rather get credit for something we need anyway for that project than to simply give them cash to put into something else that we didn't need or didn't care about. So leveraging and getting a better outcome. Is this perfect? No. I think every question my colleagues have asked about the secondary protection, I think there's a ways to go yet on that project. But I also see other gates coming on how to get there. And so for me, I'm with Michael, my colleague, Councilman Brooks, in believing that this deserves a chance to go to the next reading, to continue to clarify the questions that have been asked. And I think, you know, I think we will hopefully learn as a city that if we can talk about this as what it really is , which is it's a package to do sanitary sewer, to catch up on chronically underfunded infrastructure and to get credit for something we wanted to do anyway for a big pain in the ass project that's really controversial and politically unpopular, and no one wants to say it, but that's what we're doing. I can I mean, I just want to be honest. And I think that the more direct and the more plainspoken we can be about this, I think the easier it will be for our residents to then give us valuable feedback. Do not want me doing sanitary sewer. Really? All right. Do you not want do you want me dumping dirty water into the river from concrete channels only? Really. Let's talk about all of those pieces and then we'll continue to advocate and work on the I-70 piece. It's not done. Councilman Cashman's point. Right. Looking for every chance to continue that conversation and I share that. So so I think we move this forward. We hear from residents and I hope we do a better job in the future of this project and in the future of telling the big picture without getting so lost in the weeds and avoiding controversy. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman Kenney. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a question that I would like one of the attorneys I don't know who best to answer, but I think Councilman Flynn and Councilman Brooks both brought up good points from different angles. And so I'm asking reading through the bill what we are actually passing here versus what we are talking about. So could one of the attorneys point me to and reading through the bill, I don't see anywhere in the bill what we are actually voting on, where this says a peep about what projects it will fund. Is that in there in a missing it? Jessica Brody, Denver City Attorney's Office. You're correct. There's no specified lists in the bill. The bill is about the rates. So the discussion that we're having about projects is to give everyone here, members of the public, a sense of where that money goes and how it's used. But what we're what we're approving through this action is, is the rates themselves. So at its very core, what we are voting on is the increase of rates that would allow us to leverage funding debt issuance, to enter into contracts for projects to do work. But it is not specific at all in anything that we are going to be voting on today or on second reading. What projects those are? Yes. That's correct. We're not in approval of specific projects. And and then and I don't know if you want to answer this question or if you want to kick this off now at a public workshop. But any any spending of that money on any project would have to either through a contract that's over $500,000, an appropriate appropriation of funds through the budget process, any debt issuance, all of that we would get to vote on when it happens. That's correct. So everything that is project related, if there's someone sitting up here who hates a certain piece or project of this, we will have a chance to vote no on that project. Is that correct? Yes. You'll have more bites of those apples. Okay. So I think that, you know, for me, we have a huge infrastructure need. I don't think I haven't heard anybody up here at least dispute that. And I've even heard people who I think are leaning towards or are going to vote no. So that is specifically acknowledged. And that's all my questions. You don't have to. You can. Thank you very much. Acknowledge that, in fact, that this amount of money, however we end up slicing it up, is never going to cover the entire need of what we have. And as councilwoman can each brought up, this is we're talking about poop water in old pipes that is dripping into our stormwater and leading to elevated levels of E.coli in the South Platte River. We are we're talking about all kinds of infrastructure needs that we can continue. And I think that it's good and it's it's it's a good part of the process that we continue to have a debate, that we continue to pressure staff on behalf of the people that we represent, that we as a body continue to have conversations about what the right projects are, what the priority of projects are, that staff continues to prioritize that. But at the end of the day, and I guess I'm just talking a little bit to my man, Councilman Cashman, who I think the world of that there are votes to say no in in opposition of things that I don't disagree with you on certain projects and what Scott is not doing and not bringing to the table. I guess where I diverge is that this is where we this is where we get the money to do all of the good things and all of the necessary things. And then we continue to fight the fight on what projects it funds. But I think we're getting caught up in every little detail of the project. And there are people up here who've said, and what I want, I don't want to write a blank check. I want to know exactly what this is going to fund. But that's not our process. That's not what we're voting on. There is no bill that would come forward that would say these are the exact projects that will be funded by this, because what we are voting on is changing the ordinance on the fee, the money that will be generated. That's what we're voting on here. And then any of those projects that require more than $500,000 or require any appropriation, any thing in the budget or any debt issuance, we then vote on that that bill for that project. And so for me, there is such a desperate need on so many fronts for this money. This is ambitious. This is a big bite towards getting that done. And I, I think it's what we need to do. I think that people can't think that this is the end, that we take this bite and all of our infrastructure needs go away. And all of a sudden we're not putting poop water into the South Platte River. That's still going to be happening after this. We're still going to have huge infrastructure needs. We're still going to have areas that are at threat when the last hundred year flood hit Denver. 1965 most devastating natural disaster in Denver history that led to the building of Chatfield Reservoir, Bear Creek Reservoir and Cherry Creek Reservoir. Massive infrastructure projects because people lived through what it's like to experience a 100 year event to protect our citizens and before they have to live through that devastation, it's going to take a massive investment. I think that we need to continue the conversation about what is strategically best and what if this is tied to other projects that we don't like and how do we best advocate for the best end in all of those projects? It doesn't change the fact that this is just the first bite at what we need to do. We have to do from an infrastructure standpoint on storm and sewer water in our city. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clarke. All right. We got three left and all of these people have spoken before. So, Councilman Flynn, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Clarke. I can't disagree with anything you say about the need or anything that Councilwoman Kennish or any of the other members said about the need. I acknowledge the need, but before I raise people's fees to pay for those needs, I need to know what I'm buying. I don't oppose doing something about the flooding problems that I personally witnessed. I was I was working at the newspaper the day that firefighter Robert Crump was sucked into the drainage inlet on Colorado Boulevard and died saving a woman's life from a flood. So I know the need. I just need to know what we're building before I raise people's fees to pay for it, as opposed to raising fees now and just creating a pool of money. I know that Councilman Cashman and he's well known as the young idealist. On the council. So he he foresees a possibility that. You know, that maybe the cost could come in in less than than what we are estimating now. And among all the projects. I've covered and worked. On. There was only one that came in at less, and that was one that was in my dreams. So Brendan. Can I ask you a question? And this is only to get your face time on Channel eight because no one's called you up yet. But I had asked and this is real brief, I had asked at the committee meeting. Is there a way that we can work into the fee structure? A credit for any homeowner who takes advantage of the new rain barrel law and stops dumping from serious stops, dumping 110 gallons of water into our gutters. I would that would also promote the expansion of the rainwater program. Is that something that you've looked at yet? So I don't see it in the ordinance. Good evening. Brendan Hanlon, the city's chief financial officer. We don't have a plan for that at this point in time. I believe that the that the infrastructure is too new to be planning around that. In conversations with public works, we would have to figure out. Exactly how to calculate a. Credit based on how much is essentially retained on site and then where does it go. So I think that's going to be a little bit more work as that matures. It would go on my wife's vegetable garden most likely. Do you think it could come back on the 13th when there's a courtesy hearing and maybe take a high. Level view of how that might work? We could try to look into it. I don't know, but I will ask. I don't know that it's possible, to be honest with you. Okay. Well, that's my answer there. We're using. But this is by far like by a factor of five times. The largest bond issue that wastewater is considered. We've done a 30 and a 2450, and here we're talking about $236 million in bonds for this and for other projects. And remember, on the T reg project, when Governor Owens did the trans bonds, it ended up dedicating about half of the future annual federal gas tax revenue strictly to debt service. I'm a little concerned about going this deeply into debt and tying up annual revenues for debt service, which can't build anything other than what we've already built on Platte to Park Hill. What would be the impact on this rate structure? And I asked this question in committee if we took out the plat to Park Hills scope except for what was in the IGA. So Councilman, I believe you're just looking through my questions here. So remember when I was in council committee, I was describing a situation where the average increase over that five year period of time is 10.6%. That's the average if you total up the three elevens in the 2/10. So 4.3% of that increase over that five year period of time relates to the debt issuance for the whole $236 million. So that would have to be modified, reduced in some way, shape or form. We'd have to rerun cash balances to figure out exactly what would have to true up in that situation. But if you simply just do the math of if that debt issuance was not in the numbers, it would be 4.3% that would not be attributable to the rates. Now, you might come back and say. There might be more cash projects that you would want to do, but that would be a different calculation that would need to be. Adjusted now. Finally, in the Ciudad IGA they see that the state agreed to pay additional other than the 40% of 140 million for the two basin drainage project. But only up to a certain amount, which I think would have capped the whole thing at about about 151 million total city and state. She agreed to pay another 6.9 million on top of their. Do we have a is there a measure in the IGA that that has see that contributing any more? Then that to this project? I don't know that I have the answer to that question. No, I don't believe so. That is what the crowd is answering. Okay. I don't like that either. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Perry. Actually, I'm Georgians. Just not the current IGA. I mean, it limits them. One of the things I want to point out to Brandon said, because you said something that pique speak my mind. The Storm and Sanitary Fund generates about $130 million a year. Now the payment on $250 million of bonded indebtedness, which would be the current 50 plus, the new 200 would be 232. Right. Would be around $20 million. So roughly 15% of the fund would be committed to debt payments. So it's not like we're mortgaging whether you can buy a house as long as it's only a third of your income. This would be about 15% of the system's income will be pledged in debt payments. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. The only other thing I would say before we vote is that I don't like the notion of paying for something before I know what I'm buying. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. Up. Yeah, I think, Councilman Clark, I don't have to directly respond to that simply because to just take this on a literal face value is is completely ridiculous to me. It's what we do with our zoning, which is, oh, there's no project going here. You know, it's just a rezoning, but in fact, has real world impact. We know we're going to do something with this money. We, as council should, in fact, know what we're doing before we appropriate. I mean, this is a fee increase. It's not going to anybody but us. So to do our job on behalf of the public, we should have a very good idea about what our goals are, even if they change, because we have the latitude to do that. But we should know before we do that. Otherwise, why did we have any of this? Why didn't they just come up and say, we need $400 for stormwater and sewer? This is far less than the $1.5 billion that we need, but this is the most important. We're done. You know, we have to have this conversation. We have to know what we're buying. And we can't just default to the literal what we're actually what the bill is. I get that. But that also that latitude actually allows them to go well over 198, allows them to reduce the the stormwater, I mean, the sanitary projects . And that's actually what I want to get to with Councilwoman Kenney. You know, we we've I've heard you guys mentioned the age of this project. I mean, the age of our sanitary system. That is not unusual to have a very old sanitary system in a city. There are cities with older sanitary systems. The age itself does not mean that it is a failing system. And I just have to I don't have to go any further back than looking at the budget records for the prior years. You know, this breakdown cap last year was 17 million for stormwater, $1.8 million for sanitary. The year before was it was a banner year. $21 million for stormwater, $4 million for sanitary. But the year before that, $18 million for stormwater cap. $685,000 for sanitary. So it's the priority has been on stormwater and it will continue to be on the stormwater. And just because we have an aging sanitary system does not mean that it is a failing sanitary system. These are good systems put on by put in by good people a long time ago with forward thinking cities. So there are problems that need to be addressed. And we're going to do that. But it's it's it's too easy to use that argument that it's an old system and that it's half the money. It is not half the money. It is $8 million going forward versus $20 million going forward. And and it's only that portion that is not the 206 that is going to PDP. You know, it's the balance of the, what, 383 that we're then dividing that way. And so maybe I'm wrong with my math, but it's something like that. George, but there's nothing wrong with that. Before we clear the record about going forward and I want you to, because that's important, even though we don't need to know that for this bill, the past the past records on the CFP is right from Brandon. So go ahead and tell me how this money is going to be spent going forward. Two things with the sanitary system and we please keep these things in mind. Yes, it's an aging system that you're right. It doesn't mean that the system is falling apart. But we lined the pipe, 2 million linear feet of pipe, sewer pipe, sanitary sewer pipe every year to prevent that from happening. And we need to continue to do that. The years when it was less I can't speak to that. I don't know why that was the U.S. but that's one of the reasons, one of the things we want to do. The other thing to keep in mind for Sanitary and Council of Women can mention it is we have more people now and I have more we have more people flushing and showering and doing laundry and all that. We have our our effluent is treated by the Metropolitan Reclamation District. They, they, they treat the sewage. They then send us a bill. Depends on how much you send them. What's in the, in the water, that sort of thing. That rate is going up about 8% per year. So I don't want to lose sight of the fact that in part of the sanitary rate, in addition to the pipes which we could debate, you know, the condition of the pipes. But in addition to that, we also have the metropolitan rates, which are increasing on average about 8% a year. So so that system brings in a considerable amount of revenue precisely because it's designed to sort of take care of itself to some degree. So then to Georgia, actually, you should stay out there because I want to know how many congestion rate total toll lanes were put in T rex. Zero. Zero how many free public lanes were added with t rex. Drive at every day? I'd say two or four. Yes, I mean, yes. And then four. Was the light rail there prior to T Rex was that the light rail prior to T Rex? No. So that's again, I don't want to have to blur this reality, which is, yeah, we made similar concessions, but we were getting a lot as a city and as a public. We got free, free drivable lanes for everybody without having to pay tolls. This is a PDP, I mean a3p project that is going to be privatizing the two new lanes that are going in each direction. Meanwhile, we're only getting three new lanes, the same three lanes we already have today. So the congestion for everybody else is the same. And the light rail, sorry, the commuter rail is in it didn't need this. It doesn't need us. It's done. So, you know, it's just it is not apples and apples when we're talking if we start to extrapolate the, the the leveraging of I-70 and comparing it to t rex t rex completely different agreement and in an end result and impact. And I didn't mean to put or to to portray that it's the same thing. I was answering the question. This. T rex asked from a does see don't always ask locals for money and the answer is. Yes, yes. And and so that's why I was glad. But then when we were trying to simplify it for in terms of for the public to understand, we were trying to then sort of equate the two. And I want the public to understand that I said that the giveaways and concessions that were made for T Rex are in smiles different than these giveaways to to see that for I-70 we got more lanes, we got free lanes and we got a light rail in the process. So we got to move a lot of commuters in this thing, not just create two toll links in each direction while perpetuating a problem that has long existed in those communities. So. Let's see this little of others. So yeah. And I wanted to say to this. Yeah, this the 288 potential million dollars that this project is going to. We're not talking about stopping other projects. Well, there was some comment about stopping other projects or stopping projects. This this amount of money you heard me said, I don't mind making an investment in infrastructure, but this project diverted to this location will in fact, keep many of those other little stars that are known significant flooding locations from being addressed when we could probably capture a lot of those. And so the last thing Councilman Brooks had that map. And I want to speak to that. So I had held it up for you guys. I don't know if you could see it. And I don't know if I can bring it back up, but here it is. So this is the map, right? Which shows the yellow area and the purple area. And so that big that big gray line right here. Oh, I can't draw unless I'm using this thing. Apparently, this gray line is A 70 and so C that needs to address all the water that comes in this way. And so if we put this big channel right here, it does that. That's why that purple area is like that. But if we don't do that, CDOT will still stop all that water right there because it's going right into their ditch and they have a design for that and they have a plan for that. And so we're doing this huge investment to solve that problem, which really isn't you know, there are multiple solutions to that. Apparently I'm wrong. Leslie So explain to me what we're doing right? I mean, you reacted to me as I'm saying something false. I guess I answered that when I answered Councilwoman Nature's question. They do have a drainage plan in there. Yeah, it will give us. Holes in the ground that George will have to maintain. And it doesn't fit the land planning that we did with all the neighborhoods, Globeville area and Swansea. And so and there is, as Bruce said, no guarantee that they won't protect their investment by putting a street across and running the water across the street and back into Swansea. Elyria. So you did say that I-70 will create problems. So what are those problems? Because I asked you, Don, for their designs. They don't have any designs. They're relying that on their their contractor, their concessionaire to complete that work. That's a design build project. Well, what I'm referring to is what we've all reviewed in the office, the drainage alignment. And that's already in that's in the courts. I mean, there's there's there's contention over that. I mean, we still haven't had a letter of record, so we're relying on something that doesn't exist. So I guess what I'm reacting to is that by being able to invest this in this project, we are able to do the project we want to do to solve the problems that we have. So now let's talk about. Problems that will happen. We have. So this is this one right here is the 50 year study model. I have the 25 to 10 for this area. And so I'll stick with the 50. This is what that channel does. Okay. I don't know if you can see this. I'll I'll have to switch back and forth. But so right here, this is the this is the lower Montclair Basin and the other one. So these two. Virtual surface stream. These flows flow up to 39th Avenue and yeah, they flood some parking lots up there north of 39, south of I-70, to a fairly healthy level of inundation , a foot and a half to three feet in a 50 year event. But so after we do this channel. This area right here, you see all the color area. That's the inundation stops, stops cold. And this this is true in the ten year model. The 25 year model in the 50 and 100 year model stops cold. And that's the flow that that sea that needs to capture and divert. And that's what you know, that's what we're doing to benefit those these parking these surface lots. You know, when we have real inundation in wholesale neighborhoods, again, that's the before you saw what the after is. And so this is this was and so why I'm bringing that up is because go back to that purple map that I showed you with the line. Again, the difference is whether we start that protection here or we start that protection at I-70 and see that has that in there program that has it in I-70, it crosses one, two, three, three drainage basins that are either in the red or the orange and doesn't divert water into during this mission that already is in the red. And so this is a level of understanding that we don't get to it. COUNSEL Maybe my colleagues all understand it at this level, but going back to what Jennifer was saying when I got first approached with this and briefed, I got I got these maps and got told that this was going to benefit. That area, and I had to go back and point to the fact that there was no benefit there. So then I got that yellow and purple map that Alvis brought up, and it had a whole huge yellow area down here, including that area. And I had to point out that once again, that area is not being protected. And then we got that last version that we just presented, which starts to carve around that. And so I don't know what went on in those 90 group meetings, but if it went anything like what it got presented to council about that same time, I don't know how you would expect us to understand it at this level. Well, the one and I just to point out the one reason that yellow and one reason this project is more expensive than the original idea is because we changed the scope. And remember, one of the big changes of scope was the big detention area and the City Park Golf Course. The detention area in City Park Golf course creates that yellow area. Now, it doesn't it's not a primary, as you said. We agree with that. It's a secondary. But that that detention pond and City Park golf course holds the water and creates a secondary reduction. Now, what does that mean? So in a 25 year storm or 25 year storm, which is typically what we get around here, it cuts the flow of water by almost 50% through that neighborhood. Now, a 100 year flood. No, I mean 100 year flood to maybe it cuts it to 15 to 20%, but it does for a normal storm. And so I think that's the one that's the one addition. You know, so if if the old projects started, the channel went north. The new project starts at City Park Golf Course and goes north and those in between benefit from it. Yeah. And so that's the thing is I don't know. I mean, I'm sure there are hydraulic engineers and and and and civil engineers in those communities. But it's after 22 years of working in the field of architecture, this was hard for me to ascertain, especially once you compare these maps to those maps, to the tracks in the master plan and how they're oriented and they're all jacked up. It's difficult. And and then you hear the reports, you read the reports and the concerns about a whole host of other things. And then the read the yes. And there's a lot going on here. And I don't feel like my questions have gotten answered. I don't feel like I feel like tonight we're getting sort of the straight story with the exception of pretending this has nothing to do with I-70. So. So am I. You know, once again, I think that you guys wouldn't take that long to re reconsider. I mean, to come up with how this how this budget I mean, this fee increase could could change. And I think you have ample time, given the status of I-70, to actually postpone this portion, carve this portion out and come back to us while I'm still in council. Because if I don't if we don't if we kick this till the actual I-70 thing gets resolved and constructed, then my new colleague is going to be you know, there might be a new council here. And what I for I bet happens then is that it gets told that we had already approved that and that this was this was already agreed to because I had that happen to me here. And so I'm not I'm not I'm not buying it. I'm not buying at all. So things. Council angry Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega. Yep. Have two brief items. The first one is I'm not sure who from public works should come up and speak to the EPA study that talks about water quality. And in that report, it also has a recommendation. You heard councilman when asked a question about a credit for rain barrel, but there was a specific recommendation for development that are providing their own onsite detention. And I've asked this question and I just want to hear again how the issue of credits for development that are providing their own onsite detention and I'm not talking about 100% credit, but it's for credit of the water that is being kept off, you know, from running off the site. I mean, there will be runoff from the streets, from the curbs, the gutters, the rooftops. But the anticipation is some of that would be captured onsite. So help me understand how that is being addressed as a credit for those developments as it's as it was recommended in the EPA's study. Councilman George Delaney. Again, I'm not sure. We have not addressed it to be straightened out. I appreciate that. One of the concerns is, I guess, and I'll just give you my perspective on it are our needs in this area are so great that even though you, the developer, are retaining the training on your site or water quality treatment on your site, I still have bigger, bigger issues. So before I start giving you a discount for what you do, I need your rate. Be honest with you. To pay for the others, they're not doing that. And so right now, it's sort of like an all or a total citywide kind of effort. But but but but I do remember seeing your question about that, and we did not consider that as part of this rate adjustment. Okay. Go ahead. So just to clarify, the current requirement to detain and treat On-Site, which applies to. Areas. Of disturbance over a certain size, is to address the incremental impact of that new development. It doesn't address the many existing needs that are identified in our master plan. It's just to account for the new incremental impact of that development. Okay. My last question is for Brendan. BRENNAN One of my questions I will always ask when we're looking at large public finance projects is about our debt capacity. So, you know, I look at the big picture of the city, including some of our enterprise funds like DIA. So we've got outstanding debt on Idea Hotel. We're talking about roughly $300 million for the Great Hall National Western Center. We just did 800 million. I don't know what the DCP anticipation would be or if that's sought out to be something that's tied into a bond issue or a separate public private partnership. But I'm assuming there would be some expectation there's city funding into it. Are there other big projects? And then my last question is. If we have some major emergency, do we have the capacity to handle dealing with an emergency bond issue to take care of some major emergency, or are we getting close to our debt capacity? So again, Brendan Hanlin The CS Chief Financial Officer So just to clarify, I think you've hit a number of the big projects that we've been discussing. Off the top of my head, I don't know that I could rattle off a number of others, but I think the important part of the projects that you've listed off is that there are different funding sources that support the debt issuances that were allocated for those. So National Western was a revenue revenue bond transaction and we dedicated specific revenues towards that DIA Enterprise Fund for those projects supports that and the revenues from that Enterprise Fund support that project. The wastewater fund has its own revenue streams. Our debt profile for that fund is supported by its own revenues. I would say that in terms of a large emergency, you've probably heard me profess to this. That is why I argue for no no less than 15% fund balance for the city and county of Denver. Now, I think part of that, though, depends on the nature of the event that you're describing. If it was a large wastewater event, we would have to have that conversation around what is the wastewater fund's capacity for a large event. I don't know what large event that you're describing could be, but it would take a multitude of different funding sources for the city and county of Denver to respond to a variety of different events. And then just the last piece is about the impact to our bond rating. I mean, they look at the big picture of our our fiscal stability. Right. And so. So right now, the wastewater fund is rated by two agencies that is triple-A rated. So that is the highest level rating for those two agencies. We believe that this rate increase will support the debt issuance, which will maintain the coverage ratios required to maintain that triple-A bond rating. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. I also want to take any other questions or comments on three or six. The only thing that I will add is just one clarification. In the last council, we actually save money quite frequently on our bond projects. And I remember this council had a debate on what to do with allocation. So, Councilman Flynn, you were not dreaming. That was a reality. Madam Secretary, roll call on 306. Black eye, Brooks. Clark by. Espinosa No. Flynn No. Gilmore I. Cashman Can each new. I'm going to I'm going to vote. But I just want to know I reserve I want to hear the public hearing it. Public needs to be able to speak about this issue at that second reading. And there's no guarantee of vote. Yes, then. Oh. Ortega. I'm casting my vote in the same way because I think it is important that the public have the opportunity to be here and for their voice to be heard. At the public hearing on June 13th. I. Sussman, I. Mr. President. Hi, Councilwoman Ortega. Still waiting. Got it. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the result. Nine-Nine's three days nine-nine's three days three of six has been ordered published, so second hearing would be on June six. However, council members are not going to be here because we won't have a quorum. But in the event that something happens that we have all council members here, let's tie a bow on this and we need Councilwoman Ortega, your motion to postpone second reading to the 13th. Mr. President, I move that second reading on Council Bill 306 be postponed until Monday, June 13, 2016. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Any comments? Just want to clarify that. That does include the one our courtesy public hearing is correct. And we went to the voting screen. So I just looked up to see if anyone has a comment. Nope. No imam's sector. You can go back for a roll call postponement. Second Reading to Monday, June 13th, 2006. Madam Secretary, as soon as we get a move, Councilwoman Ortega on the screen and then a second will move, then second. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. Hi, Brooks. Hi. Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore, I Cashman. Hi. Can I knew Ortega. I assessment. Mr. President. Hi. Magic trick. We thought voting our results. 1212. I'd find a consideration on three or six has been postponed to Monday, June 13, 2016. All right, we've got one more bill, one final Councilman Brooks. 323, 324, 325. What would you like for us to do with these? Let me gather myself. Mr. President, I would like to postpone final consideration of these three companion bills at the close of the public hearing this evening, scheduled after the recess. Council Bill 322 Regarding the addition of 2561 Street Project and the creation of 2561 Street Tax Increment Area.

On the message and ordinance, referred on March 2, 2022, Docket #0312, for your approval regarding targeted residential picketing, to protect the quality of residential life in our city, the committee submitted a report recommending that the order ought to pass in a new draft. Councilor Arroyo moved for substitution. Motion prevailed.

BostonCC_03302022_2022-0312

Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The docket has passed. I just want to say, on behalf of our colleagues, thank you to Councilor Baker. Thank you to the BP team for working on this important matter. Mr. Carr, please read DAWKINS 0312. Lucky Number 0312 The Canadian government operations to which was referred on March 2nd, 2022 Docket numbers 0312 message in order for your approval, an ordinance regarding targeted residential picketing to protect the quality of residential life in our city submits a report recommending that the legislation to pass in a new draft. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Look. At this time. The chair recognizes Council Arroyo, Chair of the Committee on Government Operations. Counsel Arroyo, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to make a motion to. Seeing and hearing no objection. Thank you. The language of the committee report has been substituted. Thank you, Mr. President. Everyone should have this substituted copy on their desk. It's the one dated March 30th. 2022. This docket was sponsored by the mayor and referred to the Committee on Government Operations on March 2nd, 2022. The committee held a hearing on March 14, 2022 where public comment was taken in a working session on March 25 , 2022. This matter must be acted upon before May 2nd of 2022. The proposed legislation would prohibit targeted residential picketing between the hours of 9 p.m. and 9 a.m.. The term targeted residential picketing is defined as picketing, protesting or demonstrating with or without signs that is specifically directed towards a particular residence or one or more occupants of the residence, and which takes place before or about the targeted residents. All other ordinances and statutes would apply, including laws regarding excessive noise, disturbing the peace and blocking streets and sidewalks. The provisions of this ordinance would be enforced by the Boston Police Department, and violators would be subject to fines of increasing amounts based on the number of offenses . 100 for the first offense, 200 for the second offense, and 300 for the third or subsequent offense. That's the version that was submitted. I'd like to thank my council colleagues for joining the working session. Councilor Murphy, Councilor Flaherty, Councilor Lara. Councilor Fernandez Anderson Council were real councilor me here, Councilor Louie Jan and Councilor Flynn and Councilor Edwards. I'd also like to thank the members of the administration for their participation. During the working session, the committee discussed why this ordinance is needed when a city noise ordinance already exists and how that noise ordinance was being enforced. The committee also discussed concerns with the fines and appeals process of this particular matter. The law department was able to provide clarity on the legal analysis and discussed the significant government interest in protecting individuals privacy rights within their homes. BPD discussed the need for balance and freedom of expression and enforcement of the noise ordinance, stating that the objective of the department is to de-escalate, divert and negotiate. Arrests are a last resort. BPD also stated that there have been no citations issued for violations of the current noise ordinance for the protected protests, but that the departments have been coordinating with the West Roxbury District Court. During the working session, councilors offered several language suggestions, including defining harm as a standard in order to provide context for the ordinance. For example, regulating activity that rises above a noise level and blocks public ways, removing the word towards and replacing it with, against or in opposition to and removing a particular residents. The committee also asked for clarification around the term subsequent offense and whether offenses would be tracked over a period of time. The law department reiterated that targeted residential picketing is permissible for 12 hours of the day. The amendments that have been made to the ordinance include the following the removal of the words a particular residence after the term torts to eliminate ambiguity so that it now reads for the purpose of this section. Targeted residential picketing means picketing, protesting or demonstrating with or without signs that is specifically directed towards one or more occupants of a particular residence, and which takes place before or about the particular targeted residents amending the fine structure so that they're not lower. So $50 for the first offense and 50 for the second offense and 300 for the third and subsequent offenses. And then defining the period for which subsequent offenses happen to within a 12 month period. In other words, after the first 12 months, if there's another offense, you would start out one again, referencing the specific state laws that give the city authority to issue fines and starting the word state before statutes and starting the word harassment in the third paragraph. And finally, inclusion of severability language, which is standard practice for the city to ensure that if challenged, only the challenge provisions would be impacted. The substitute committee report also includes one additional amendment in the fifth paragraph that would prevent information collected by the Boston Police Department through enforcement of this ordinance from being included in any database maintained by the Boston Regional Intelligence Center. Passage of this docket in a new draft will ensure that the expectation of privacy that individuals have in their homes is protected while maintaining freedom of speech and assembly rights. The stock it regulates targeted residential picketing between certain hours and imposes reasonable limitations on the time, place and manner of speech and is content neutral. The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the quality of life of our residents and prevent them from becoming captive audiences in the privacy of their own home. In particular, this ordinance seeks to do this during the night and day, a night in early morning when such intentional intrusion into privacy is especially invasive and burdensome. The proposal in its amended draft provides clarity and is narrowly tailored, while leaving ample alternative channels of communication. As the chair of the committee, I seek acceptance of the Committee report as substituted and recommend that this docket on Odds Pass in a new draft. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counsel room. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter at this time? The chair recognizes. Counselor Baker. Counsel Baker. You have the floor at. I wish this party came around me when this was happening to me. There were people out in front of my house, but they were crawling all around my house all hours of the evening. They were calling my phone and calling me a scumbag landlord scumbag. They were harassing my wife on her phone. Fireworks being shot at my house. Post being posted on my house. And this was happening. March, April, May, June, July, August of 2020. Because I took an action that was about transparency. And now because this is happening to one person, we're going to change all the rules. And I think we're I think we're we're edging in on First Amendment here. I think we're edging in on the right of free speech. Do I think that people should be out in front of the mayor's house at this point screaming at seven in the morning? No, but it's their right to be able to do it. And because it's happening to one person. Now. We're going to change the rules. I just think it's totally wrong. And again, I wish I knew the severity of what happened at my house. The last time, the same guy that drove by my house all summer long and threw firecrackers at my house all summer long, I came running out of the house and all my neighbors came out. The women with it, with their babies and everything, and they told me they were watching it happen. I didn't see it. I'm a little bit on the second and third floor. Don't see necessarily what's happened on the on the first floor. People were creeping all around my house. This party didn't really give. That much of a care about me and my family then my family and I proper English. Correct. But now because it's happening to one person and she happens to be sitting over there now, she could do certain things like maybe have the police back up into her driveway and get out the back door and drive through them. She could do things like that, but I don't think she's she's doing that. But this is a back and forth here. We're looking to just get people more divided, more and more divided. So I today will be voting no on this, not because I think that people should be out in front of anybody's house. They were at my house. They called my house. I lived with them for six months. I just got rid of all the text messages. Calling me a scumbag just got rid of them because I don't need it in my life. But I think that this is a problem here. So when it doesn't work for us, we're going to change all the rules. At what point does it end First Amendment? I think we're talking about it here today. So I will be voting no. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel Baker. Any of our colleagues also wish to speak on this matter. Thank. I'm sorry. Now, the chair recognizes that large city council resolution council resigned. You have the floor. A great working session on this as but I know that a lot of the counselors had questions from the Boston Police Department regarding some of the language that currently exists, saying laws would continue to be enforced. I'm just wondering if the chair's office ever received any data from the Boston Police Department regarding requests from counselors on enforcement over the last ten weeks, in the last year on this on the laws that are included in the ordinance that will continue to be enforced that. Thank you. Counsel and Counsel Arroyo, are you able to respond to that question? So we're still so as far as we know, I know that the question specifically, and you can correct me if I'm wrong on this case of Louisiana, was they had made clear that there were no NOI citations that they had put up and to their knowledge, within the last ten week period. And I think we asked for a time of a year so that we can have a better analysis of when and how they've actually held up the noise ordinance. We are still waiting on Boston Police Department to send us those numbers. They have not sent us those, but we will continue to ask and wait to receive and if required, do a 17 have to get the information specifically on the noise ordinances and how they've in the past enforce or not enforce them and where they're doing that and whether or not I believe that that was the outstanding request , correct? Yeah. So those those violations, those sort of civil violations, we're putting a request for that. We're still waiting for DPD to give us that that data. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Counsel Rail. The chair recognizes. Counsel Bork. Counsel Bork. View of the floor. Thank you. Counselor Flynn. I was going to speak on this matter, but I just wanted to say, in response to what Councilor Baker was saying, you know, I think that a lot of the the outreach in 2020, both both as Councilor Baker saying that spring and then, you know, for many councilors that summer after the budget vote , I think that that that was a data point that the recent action has been another data point. And that's more about a pattern of the question of sort of like what we what we think counts as civil discourse in the city and and what are the appropriate places for people to make their message heard. I think that, as the chair has repeatedly said, nine and 9 p.m. still leaves 12 hours for picketing. And I don't actually think that the media coverage in the city has left anybody unable to express their message on any number of points recently. And so I guess what I would say to Councilor Baker's point is that it it seems to me that rather than being a reaction, like just for one person, you're saying for the mayor, it's more like we've got a consistent pattern here in which folks are crossing this threshold. And it's a real problem for a lot of our neighbors. Right. And we're trying to deal with how do you think about the fact that elected officials we answer to you, we absolutely need to hear what people are saying. But at the same time, we've got neighbors who, you know, have a right to their sleep at seven in the morning. And so for me, I guess as a councilor who's only been in for a couple of years, it feels as though that this that this last couple of years has been characterized by a lot of activity of this type. And so I don't think about the ordinance that we're voting on as being just about the mayor. I do think about it as also about what you were discussing happening at your dwelling. And I think that, of course, that's always the way that we should be thinking about legislation, is that as is general impact . And yeah, we might have a specific instance that makes us focus on the issue by work. We should always be legislating for a general impact. And I think for me the reason I'm going to vote yesterday is that I feel comfortable that the legislation is narrowly tailored enough to be well within the Supreme Court precedent when it comes to the First Amendment, a reasonable time, place and manner restriction that it's going to be evenly applied, that if we're talking about civil fines here, that it's not moving into criminalization. And for me as a councilor, I feel comfortable that that that is going to be a uniform impact and that it isn't about a particular act of speech. So I just wanted to stress that for me, there's actually a continuity rather than a discontinuity here. As somebody who was really troubled by what happened to Councilor Baker, what happened to many of our houses in the summer of 2020, and and also what's been happening to the mayor and other other folks. So I just wanted to say that from my perspective, it's more of a reaction to a pattern. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel. BLOCK The chair recognizes counsel, royal counsel. Royal, do you have the floor? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to note as well that obviously targeted harassment of any kind, including and especially what Councilor Baker offered up, is wrong. It shouldn't be happening. And frankly, you know, last year with the budget votes, we saw folks as homes targeted in sort of an isolated incident this year. And I think it's mostly this year to get started this year. In 2022, we started to see targeted residential picketing in a way that we've never seen before. We had Superintendent Bailey on our working session, who's been an officer for over 30 years and said he's never seen this in the entirety of his time on the force . My mother's home was targeted and whether or not they were attempting to find my home when they were informed that it was my mother's home, they remained and they continue to harass my mother at her home. And I think one of the major issues with this is when we allow folks to to come to a conclusion that going to our homes or the homes of our family members is acceptable, those kinds of mistakes will happen. They will end up outside of people's homes that aren't the people that they're actually trying to get to. They are going to be putting people in distress who frankly aren't even necessarily the targets of who they're trying to put in distress. And so this doesn't and I just want to be clear, this doesn't even stop them from doing that. From 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., if they wanted to, they could still go to any home in the city and do what they've been doing. It doesn't actually stop that. It just gives folks some grace. From 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. to allow them to get ready, start their day, put kids on school busses, do the things that they have to do in the city regardless of where their political leanings are. It allows them to do this. This doesn't even stop the behaviors that we're talking about. It doesn't actually say you can't go to somebody's home, period. It says from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. for 12 hours of the day. We got 24 hours in a day for 50% of this day. If you want to go stand outside of somebody's grandmother's house or mother's house, and fortunately, you can still do that. There's nothing here that stops that. And so this is very narrowly tailored, very contained. I think the idea here is. To provide some grace to residents to allow them some peace in the early morning hours, because, frankly, they deserve that. They did not sign up for that kind of picketing in their neighborhoods. And so that's addressing a new issue that I think we see escalating. We've never seen this kind of escalation. We've never had to deal with this to this degree. I think it's awful that it's happened in the past. And my hope is that, you know, I had someone say it's it's awful that we're legislating civility, but we are. And so my my goal is ultimately peace in our neighborhoods for folks to come to the appropriate sections. I have actually spoken with protesters. I've taken the time out of the day to do that. I have been at city hall, and yet they still find their way to our homes. And so what I am saying, period, is when we're doing these things, there's a time and place to do them. And this is just saying from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m., the place is not in front of people's homes. So that's that's what this is doing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Excuse me. Excuse me, please. Please. No comment in the city council. Officer, can you please ask for her out of the room, please? We're in a brief recess for 15 seconds. In the working session. Earlier this morning, she was just about. We're back and we're back in session. The chair recognizes. Counselor. Murphy, counsel. Murphy, you have the floor. So to follow up on the question. My colleague, counsel Louisiana had if you could clarify, Counselor Arroyo, why if there were some questions, I was at that working session and I know we had many questions and some of them were answered in this new wording. But if we have until May 2nd, if you could just make it clear for me why we're voting today and we're not waiting for some of those more of the answers to come back. Thank you. The chair recognizes Counselor Arroyo, Counsel Arroyo, you have the floor. Because none of the questions that we're waiting to come back deal with the legality of the ordinance itself. There are questions about enforcement of other existing ordinances that, frankly, I think are important in our data. We're going to get and we can follow up on how and how we expect the city and DPD to enforce or deal with sort of these civil infractions and whether or not there's discrepancies in how they're being used and where they're being used. But all of the questions that had to do with legality and whether or not this ordinance would be legally or constitutionally upheld have been answered at this time. There are no outstanding questions on that that were posed at the working session. And so that is why we're moving forward with the vote today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel Thank you. Counsel Murphy The Chair recognizes counsel Fernandez. Andersen COUNSEL Fernandez A.nd you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding the hearings and working sessions. I just have a point to make because and it's really unfortunate to my brother, Greg Baker, that you had to go through that and wrong. Two one is wrong is no matter no matter what is wrong. Well, so I and in James Baldwin I think and I'm not. Don't quote me word for word but in the letter to Angela Davis talked about if they come for you in the night, they'll come for us in the morning. And I think that the tone is about, you know, BROWN done to one humankind is it's like you were doing it to all and I'm just a little bit disturbed that wanted to happen to you. But to that, the point is if if it let's say hypothetically that that was the case, you should I believe you. I'm saying in your case, you should have been protected and supported. And I'm sure our colleagues, many of them supported you. But let's say hypothetically that it was only about one person in this instance, then it's wrong. Wrong is wrong. Right is right. And when someone is harassed or hurt and if that has to go to an extreme for us to change a thing in order for someone to feel safe that it's wrong, then she is not safe. Let's say it was only about one person. Remove the man from it. Then we have to do what is right to ensure that now we had the work in session and the police department was very clear that no one was arrested. There was there were no actions taken. And so and I also I'm to believe that I've seen it with my own eyes, because I know some of us have driven to our home to to to witness it, to understand what's going on. And I've seen it where officers stand by and things happen and she's harassed and she has to walk through people to go somewhere. As a woman or as a man, as a child senior, it doesn't matter. She doesn't feel safe. Even if it was only about one person removed her position or her job title. And tell me what you think that is. That's wrong. So we have to address it either way. And I don't believe that we need a new law, a new ordinance and new anything. I think we're talking about something totally different. This is not protesting. This is harassment. This is abuse and verbal assault. It's totally different. I don't think we need it. But if we have to go to extremes because there was a group of people not doing their job, not arresting, not taking action, for now, we do what we must to intervene so that someone can feel safe. But I don't think that this is just about the mayor. I think that, as my colleagues have stated, it's about her neighbors and council. Flynn is going through this council. Arroyo's mom's going through this and others have gone through this. And you just made your point. You said you wish that we did that for you when it happened to you. So do you wish for this to happen to protect someone or not? Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Fernandez. I wasn't planning to speak on this matter, but I'll speak briefly. I'm going to support. Support this proposal. And one of the reasons or several of the reasons I'm supporting it is based on the quality of life of neighbors that live near an elected official or a public official. Can you imagine a senior, 85 years old, that's that's a World War Two veteran that's struggling to try to get to sleep. And having being woken up at 9:00 at night or about 7:00 in the morning, how could you imagine a person with disabilities that's also struggling? Young, young little babies, infants or kids that are going to school that need their sleep so that they can function properly the next morning and they're being woken up at nine at night, eight at night, 7:00 in the morning. So there has to be some civility, some respect for neighbors. And I think this compromise is is fair. I do have a little problem. Problem with the 9:00 one. I, I couldn't imagine someone going to someone's house at 830 at night and trying to. Wake someone up and especially your little baby is trying to sleep or a senior or veteran is trying to sleep. I'm supporting it. But I think this is a fear a fear compromise. That's all I'll have to say on the matter. The chair recognizes counsel Baker. Counsel Baker, you have the floor. I appreciate your concern, but my colleagues warrant wrapping themselves around me. They weren't calling to make sure my family was okay when the fire was out behind my house. That was until about midnight. They were crawling all around my house three or four or five in the morning. The calls started at seven until midnight. Nobody gave two shits about me and my family. And this is very specific. The legislation comes out after this happening to her. And by the way, she's not disengaged with the public that standing outside, that she's still. Twitting around and everything else. So at what point does she show that she's above it anymore and she's not going to be harmed that maybe maybe her ears will be harmed? The Boston police will not let her be harmed. And now, mind you, I lived through watching watching Newbury Street get totally looted. Nobody was arrested. We're looking to arrest people here now for for noise violations. We're going to go out with these things that, oh, that's above 70 decibels. We better arrest that guy. The city was on fire. We didn't arrest anybody. I think we arrested the one kid that that that burnt the the police car. That's what I saw. I saw my city that went through 2020. Championship banners and parades and everything. Not a problem. Not a problem. But yet we allowed people from outside because I was standing on the corners. I was standing on the corners. I was watching who was creeping around my neighborhood. Pennsylvania plates. Ohio plates. Florida plates. This is a national agenda playing out here. And it was the list that brought this all here. Now that it's happening to the left, we're going to change the rules. And I think it's very specific towards one person. And I disagree with you. That's what we're having this this this discussion about, because we should be able to to disagree without everybody in this room hate me. Quite frankly, I don't care if you hate me or not. I'm here to represent my people from District three. And I'm going to say what I have on my mind. I think it's very specific towards her. Yeah, 9 to 9. Not a big not a big deal. But I think it's wrong. I think we're encroaching on on our rights, our right to protest. I mean, the people that what that were that were. Looting the stores on on on Newbury Street. Not a single person got arrested. Not a single person got arrested. What about that business person that lost all of their all of their inventory? Did you see the video for the guy on Newbury Street with the bikes? That's in your district. What happened there? So, yeah, I think it's wrong. I think we're doing this specifically because someone's in. Someone's in the office over the head. Great. You won. Awesome. But we're looking to change the rules here now because the left is in charge. So they go to the left and now it doesn't work for them. So let's change the rules. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel, make up the last comment I'm going to have is counsel, our counsel, our view of the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. I just wanted to correct for the record that during the George Floyd protests, 53 people were arrested. The person who was not arrested was the Boston Police Department officer who was caught on video talking about mowing over protesters with his vehicle. But 53 people were arrested. Two of them who were still going into court and being supported by the ACLU up until just a few weeks ago. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. I'm sorry. I'm not going to take any more. Just young. Counselor Flynn. Sorry. He specifically referenced me and my district. I just want to make. All right. Can you counsel Bob, can you respond very briefly? And let me let me just be clear. This will be the last testimony before we go on to a vote. Yeah, I just I just want to say. From my perspective. I. 20 and situation. We actually had like a major operational failure where there were no police in the area of Newbury Street because they were all centered around the Commons. We had out-of-state folks coming in with vans. It was very orchestrated and planned. It was pretty clearly a separate action from the folks who were on the college protesting. And so I just want to stress that I think the whole history of that is quite distinct from what we're talking about here. And it was, of course, something that I was deeply concerned about in my district and the ramifications going to be something we struggle with in the district. But it was not, I think, connected to the to the conversation that we're having today. So thank you. Thank you. Counsel walk. Counsel. Excuse me, sir. Please, please refrain from talking. Officer, could you please us? What? A lot of this. Council Royal the chair on the Committee of Government Operations. Seeks acceptance of the committee report and passage of the docket zero three, one, two and a new draft. Mr. Clarke, if you can do a roll call vote. Roll call on docket 031 to Consular. Royal Consular. Royal Yes. Council a Baker Council a. Baker no. Council a but yes. Council a Bach. Yes. Council of Reading Council of Region yes. Council Edwards. Council of Woods yes. Councilor Fernando Sanderson. Council Fernando Sanderson. Yes. Council Clarity. Council Clarity. Yes. Council Flynn. Yes. Council Flynn. Yes. Council. Borough Council. Ah no. Council Louisiana. Council of Louisiana yes. Council. Let me hear. Council a me here. No. Council a murphy council a murphy. No. In Council world. Yes. Council overall? Yes. Thank you. And the docket has passed in a new draft. We're going on to matters recently heard for possible action. Mr. Couric please reach 0239.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Sections 2.01.210.B, 2.01.340.B, 2.01.370, 2.01.390, 2.01.420, 2.01.810, 2.01.1010, 2.01.1030, 2.01.1210, and 2.02.010; by adding Section 2.01.395; and by repealing Sections 2.01.330, 2.01.350, 2.01.610, 2.01.620, and 2.01.730, all relating to the Long Beach Campaign Reform Act and Campaign Disclosure Statements, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_11112014_14-0926

Item 28. Communication Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declared ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to the Long Beach Campaign Reform Act and campaign disclosure statements. Read the first time lead over to the next regular meeting the City Council for Final Reading City Wide. Can I get a motion? Okay. There's been a there's been a motion and a second. Any public comment on the item? Saying No public comment. Councilmember Price. Thank you. Just for clarification, Mr. City Attorney, I read through the agenda item. We had had some discussions at an earlier meeting when we were at Long Beach City College and we had talked about some increases in officeholder accounts and contribution limits and things like that. That's not part of the proposed item tonight, is that? That is correct, that those items were referred back to the Election Oversight Committee. They were placed on the agenda for October 14th, but their agenda didn't provide them sufficient time. So that's been held over until their next meeting and wouldn't come back to the council until the Election Oversight Committee has a recommendation. Thank you. And Mr. Mayor. Yes. Councilman Gonzales. I just wanted to commend our city attorney, Charlie Parker, in our city clerk's office, as well as the Elections Oversight Committee. We've been working very diligently. Each meeting at least an hour and a half or so at a time to be able to look at all of these inefficiencies and get us up to par in a way that certainly makes it a lot easier for us and gets rid of a lot of antiquated policies. So I just wanted to thank you all for for your hard work in that excellent. The motion on the floor. All those in favor say I and the opposition, the abstentions. CNN motion carries item number 29. Item 29, Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to Declare Ordinance Amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending subsection 10.12 .010.8.58 relating to speed limits read and adopted as read.

Recommendation to direct City Manager to schedule a City Council report to review progress on the city's Report on Revenue Tools and Incentives for the Production of Affordable and Workforce Housing, adopted by the City Council in May of 2017. Include updates on all 29 action items, including progress on the inclusionary housing policy, short term rental policy, and updates on new funding from recent State legislation including recording fee legislation. Direct City Manager, through the Department of Development Services and the Housing Authority, to present research and findings on potential polices to support tenants, protections for seniors, rental assistance programs, and support for renters to move into homeownership. Policy considerations should include: • A "Seniors First" program to ensure vulnerable seniors receive priority in rental assistance and relocation programs; • Options for new and/or expanded rental assistance and relocation programs; • Policies that support tenants adopted in other cities; • Programs to assist renters with homeownership programs;

LongBeachCC_01162018_18-0040

Since entrepreneurs are yeses. Okay, thank you very much. Now we're doing item number seven and then item number six. And then item number ten. Communication from Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilman Andrews, Councilman Austin recommendation to direct the city manager to schedule a city council report to review progress on the city's report on revenue tools and incentives for the production of affordable and workforce housing. Thank you, Councilman Gonzalez. Yes, I first would like to thank my council colleagues, Andrews and Austin, for joining me on this item. However, I know that other colleagues have taken great part in these housing discussions, and I thank all of you as well, and I appreciate everyone that has participated in the discussion relative to housing issues and renters. Advocacy for renters. The issues of displacement. Finding ways in which we can empower renters in Long Beach with resources, education and policy while working with both housing advocates and property owners, is certainly the spirit of this item. As we know, we are almost 60% renter populated, and I don't believe we have any choice but to address the issues that so many of our collective residents are facing. This will be a challenge, I know, but I really urge all of us to be open minded to the process. Renters, property owners, and all who truly care to make the city more housing inclusive and supportive on all levels. We will review our progress on the city's report on revenue tools and incentives for the production of affordable and workforce housing. So much work has been done there, but we will ask city staff to work on a seniors first program as the immediate downtown area. Somewhere I call home is home to over seven senior restricted housing locations. And for that reason, we should have a vested interest in finding more programs for them. Options for new expanded rental relocation programs from renter, from renter to home ownership programs will also be included in this package. In addition, I'd like to include a few more items. First, a review of our covenants for restricted housing properties. I know we have quite a few restricted housing locations that exist in our city and council districts one, two, four, six, seven, eight and nine. And the majority, of course, are District one. But I would like to have city staff provide options the city can take in either keeping the covenants in place or finding some sort of next step. Number two is create a meeting of the minds between all housing advocate groups and property owner groups. So Housing Long Beach, La Brea Apartment Association, the California Apartment Association and Small Property Owners Alliance and provide insight on research so they can provide research and insight on these policies. And lastly, we should include in this report the report on citywide rental rates, which was dated on September 26, 2017, which will include more information and provide a larger context to this discussion. And lastly, we included last but not least, and I think a lot of this is what I certainly have focused on, but want to ensure that we focus on ongoing, is that very small percent of negligent landlords. We know that they exist. They're about 1%, maybe even less than that in our city. And they are the individuals that are consistently putting their tenants in serious quality of life issues. They create blight in our neighborhoods. They disrespect our neighborhoods while also putting renters at risk for being evicted. It's unfair and unjust, and as a city, we need to finally address the issue of slumlords even more than we're doing now. So with that said, I look forward to my council colleagues, their discussion, their insight, their input on anything in here that they'd like to see. And I also look forward to this report coming back in 90 days. And if we cannot get it back in 90 days, let's at least get a two from four that says that we're still working on it. So we know that this is still a life document. Thank you very much. Thank you, councilwoman. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I want to thank Councilmember Gonzalez and Andrews for bringing this item forward. I know I've had some extensive and heartfelt conversations with the mayor about this issue as well, and I'm happy to sign on in support of this. I think it's time that the city council and we've had we've kind of played around the edges a bit, but I think we need to jump right in and have a full discussion about housing in our city. And I do believe that we should be looking at housing for all, but we should also be looking at housing in our most vulnerable citizens first. This this particular item asks for us to look at, especially seniors, and looking at affordable housing for students and working families and those experiencing homelessness. I am obviously disturbed with a 2% vacancy rate in this city. Obviously, it means that, you know, we have a high demand here in the city of Long Beach and we should be providing assistance to tenants. I would love to look at and see and understand what the best practices are in that area. I want to see how Long Beach compares to in our housing issues compared to other cities in our region. Regionally, I want to I want to look at it from a broad perspective as well. I want to know what how we compare to other big beach cities in Orange County, in L.A. County. And I do think that it would behoove us to and we've talked about it in other forums and other issues, but in other agenda items, forgive me, but exposing those who are irresponsible landlords, I mean, because I think a lot of the responsible players get get painted with with a broad brush because of the the irresponsible actions of a few. And so I know that this is going to be an issue that we discuss citywide. Anyway, we're having this conversation city wide, but I think it's responsible for the city council to try to lead the discussion today and have it throughout the course of the year, because I don't think the issue is going to go away. It seems to be more exacerbated by today, and we need to be looking toward solutions. So I'm happy to support this item and look forward to a report back from staff. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Councilman Andrew. Yes, Mayor. First of all, I would like to thank our Councilwoman Gonzales for bringing this item forward. You know, I really believe it's time for us to have a progress report on actions and, you know, underway for affordable and workforce, you know, housing. You know, the report has already addressed housing needs and opportunities to create housing, you know, for various opportunities. But at this point, I think it's important that we create a program, especially for our seniors. And I'm looking forward to seeing these updates in the coming years. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Longo. Thank you. I read a interesting. Study recently that came out from L.A. County and five or six other nonprofit and foundation partners that came together to talk about health and life. Expectancy. And if you take. The time to read the report, I think that you'll find that housing has such a. Huge impact on people's life expectancy. If you take the time. There's a particular. Study that compares Cudahy and another community that is so significantly similar in terms of demographics, education, all the different components and the. Various things were not the determinants of length of life. The major determinant was. Housing and the availability for people to own their housing. And so. I would only ask that we also look at the opportunities. And incentives. For those that have apartments to convert those and allow the people who live in them to buy them and own their own future. So I look forward to hearing this. I think it's great work. I know there's lots of great work still to do. Well, I appreciate comparing. Us to other cities. As a person who lives here and loves it here. I don't know why anyone would want to live anywhere else. And so I know why we have such high demand. Because everyone wants to. Live in the greatest city in America, Long Beach. And so it's hard to compare the most amazing downtown by the water and the greatest residents in any city in America. And so. For that, I look forward to the. Report and thank you for leading on this. It's really important that Long Beach stays ahead of the curve. Thank you. Yes. I want to thank my colleagues for agenda raising this. And it's great to hear that so many of my colleagues feel like housing is a big concern. Obviously, housing, jobs and education are the three things that determine life expectancy. And as you guys have heard me mention in my district, there's a six year difference in life expectancy in my district alone. And so dealing with the issues of housing are really. Important and. Critical to me. I just wanted to say that I think the timeline of 90 days, after all the work that's already gone into this is really reasonable. And so I hope that staff does come back in 90 days with some information so that we can start moving on the work that we've been doing for a long time . Thank you so much. Thank you. And Vice Mayor Richardson. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Just wanted to chime in and just say that, you know, as a part of the everyone in conversations, we've been taking a look at it, some of the home ownership piece of this. And it's an important, important part of this. Homeownership is still one of the chief means of wealth building. And whether we want to acknowledge or not, we have a real issue around the racial wealth gap in our city. You know, we just saw a presentation from the Green Lighting Institute that study Long Beach, Oakland and Fresno. And what it really did was paint a picture that, you know, homeownership is taking place in our city. We're seeing a lot of investment in all of our neighborhoods, even in the low to moderate income neighborhoods. But we're not seeing is those loans being originated by or to low to moderate income individuals. So people who actually live in those those neighborhoods. And and so there there's a lot of work to be done specifically on that issue. There are some programs we've learned a lot and some of these conversations. And and we're going to be coming forward with some of that, some of the feedback from those discussions in a matter of weeks. So I think this is all timely. I think it's great that we can place a focus on it. But I don't I see homeownership is called out. And I think we there's a lot that we can do to make sure people can and can enjoy that that dream of owning a home and then realizing those benefits. Thanks. Great. Thank you. Just two things that I think obviously are one, very supportive of this. I worked with Councilwoman Gonzalez on this agenda item, just crafting it just to make sure that we had the right the right focus. And also, I had spent some good time with Councilman Austin also as well, and Councilman Andrews. And so I think we all are obviously interested in how we protect our folks and to allow them to stay in their homes, particularly in these issues around folks that are receiving rental assistance currently and those that are in covenant properties . So two things I think that are important. The first is we need to make sure that the first part of this motion, which I don't want that to get lost either, is going to happen much sooner than 90 days, which is this council needs to have a public report on. The work that happened over the last year and a half around housing production and around affordable housing. And so I know that will come hopefully in the next few weeks, I assume. And I just want to just point out that some of the key pieces of that are going to be the issues around ensuring that we do the inclusionary housing policy for new developments. The issues around short term rental agreements. And so those items especially are important for that report. And I think there'll be a lot of questions from the council and others about the status of those. And so I think that's important. And then the second piece of this is these new items. I think the the critical piece of this agenda item, I think also is looking at what kind of best practice and policy is around the country. And we should never be scared of good research and we should never shy away from getting as much information as possible as to what other cities are doing in this area, whether it's around vulnerable populations in rental assistance, whether it's around policies that support tenants across the country, in other cities, or rental to homeownership programs. And so this is an opportunity to have all of these discussions at the table for the Council. So obviously very supportive. And I want to thank the council members, all of us, for working together on this item. Council Member And I'm sorry, was this back? Okay. Sorry. Councilmember Pearce Oh, yes. I recall that there was a two from four that was possibly already done on the Mello Act or maybe it was inclusionary housing. Is that true? Do we already have some two from fours out of this study? I'm going to ask our housing bureau manager, Patrick Geary, about that. We councilwoman, we actually have several different force that have gone upstairs, and we can highlight those when we come back to do that update on the revenue. Tools, incentives for if we're. Going to ask just for like a email tomorrow, that includes all the two from fours that stemmed from the study. Just so we have that in the meantime. Sure. Thank you so much. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? Please come forward. Thanks again, Mr. Mayor. Gary Shelton. Councilmember Austin, you mentioned I want to see this and I want to see that, and so do I. And Mr. Mayor, I think. Well, while you were expressing your thoughts on Patrick, you're might have been taking notes that kind of look that way. I'm not sure. Some things that I would like to see in this and thank you very much, Council Member Gonzales, for bringing this forward and the others with you. Council Member Andrews The move from homeowners, from renting to home ownership, we have an imbalance right now about 40% to 60%, I think ownership to renters. And if we were to bring parity, if we could do 5050 on that, I would like to see something in this report that would address how we're going to move 25,000, 25,000 housing units from renters to owners. There's a lot of condos that would be converted. There's a lot of housing, affordable housing ownership opportunities that have to be created. But we're talking about 25,000 just to bring parity. So this is a long term goal that hasn't gone anywhere. And we're going to try moving it. We have to start moving it now. So I'd like to see how that might be taking shape. I'd also like to and I've talked to you all about this before when we've had these housing sort of summit informational meetings around town, affordable with a Capital A, I'd like to make sure that the report is very, very clear on what that means in relation to affordable housing for the workforce folks, which is moderate and above moderate. We hear a lot about Low Maid. Well, the low is all we ever hear about in the below moderate level. There's also very low and extremely low. And you talk about the seniors that are in the in the in living their final years trying to seek affordable housing. And many of them are extremely low housing, are extremely low income. And you should know that that's less than $19,000 a year for an individual. So that's important to know that there is something other than low when it comes to workforce housing and low, low mod housing. And then finally on on rental assistance and relocation programs also for vulnerable seniors, but any rental assistance, a relocation program, I would like to see how they plan on perhaps focusing that on rental assistance and not on simply relocating people. So as long as we are wishlists, Patrick, if you can ask some of mine, I would really appreciate that. And an encouragement that you can give Patrick to do that from the council would be greatly appreciated as well. Thank you much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank council members. My name is Jordan Winn. I'm a community organizer for Housing Long Beach, as well as a member of the Long Beach Tenants Union. I'd like to thank once again Councilmember Gonzalez for bringing this forward tonight. We're really eagerly looking forward to this review. And one of the things that we wanted to bring to attention. I know. Guess he was just talking about many of the different things that we want to look at the other cities have done. And we, of course, want to bring forward the issues of renter protections that's rent control and just cause eviction. These are things that we definitely want to see, hopefully considered by the city council, as you probably know. Last Friday we resubmitted language for a rent control and just cause eviction as well as the rent board ballot initiative that will hopefully be seen on the November 2018 election. So we're hoping that whatever review occurs in about 90 days that these things are brought up by city council and we're looking forward to these. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Mayor City Council, Don Darnell are asking me. I'm a commissioner. On the Senior Citizen Advisory Commission and also their housing committee. I want to applaud Councilmember Gonzales, Andrews and Austin for bringing this forward. I think it's a very timely and very necessary one. We're going through so many housing issues, as well as the homeless issues at the same time. I retired from a 30 year military career and myself took advantage of a program in the city of Long Beach Head at that time to help obtain housing. And so if it wasn't for that, I wouldn't be able to live in my condo right now. So that was a good program. I don't know. The details of it, but whether it could be brought back. But there are some details that certainly should be considered. Of course. The people that. Should benefit from this, of course, and you've put seniors first is great. But we're talking about low income people. We're talking about skinny veterans. Disabled and great. Many of the seniors are disabled to some extent at least. But displaced people and homeless people, it's very important. I would and of course, as you recall, as you know. Seniors are very high propensity voters, too. So don't forget that what I would request. Two things I'd like to request is that the proposed program be very specific. In the range of rents and the costs that would be involved and excuse me and defined. As affordable, a clear definition of what's affordable. Different parameters there. And also, I'd like to request the city manager allow. The the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission to review and comment on the proposed program before it's submitted to City Council. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Yeah. Hello. My name is Harry Hap. Gideon and I belong in First District. What I want to say is a one week ago. I was at the state of the city. I enjoyed your presentation, Mr. Mayor. And it was. A very, I should say, enlightening and very exciting speech. Three. Two days after that, I found myself in Sacramento in a committee chamber discussing Costa Hawkins. I'm sure you're all familiar with that. And the restrictions. It's an archaic law that places restrictions on housing. There was a vote taking place. There was public comment and a vote taking place, and it was defeated by one vote. The the measure was to eliminate has the cocoons. And that. Yeah, that. That was disappointing, but not as disappointing as the number of people. That had come there to a to object not to object to the repeal of it. And that was. That was really, really disappointing. And so what we'd like to see what we'd like to see in Long Beach. Like the speaker. A couple of people before me is. Is just cause evictions and rent control. So with that, I thank you all for putting up with me. But the horrific thing that I saw that took place. I believe that there's large amounts of currency that's coming into this country as buying up properties, raising property values and causing my time's up. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker, please. Hello, honorable councilmembers and mayor. My name is Fred Sutton with the California Apartment Association. Thank you for all your time on this dais and spending time on this issue. The association is very thankful to see housing providers and their expertize is to be consulted on items that could affect their communities. There are many operational nuances that need to be taken into consideration as we have these discussions. There are policies in other cities that work very well and there's policies in other cities that are very counterproductive, both to our shared goals and to the housing stock. We look forward to working with the city and all the council members on these issues. And thank you very much. Thank you. And our final speaker. Good evening, Honorable Mayor Dr. Garcia. Vice Mayor Richardson and members of the council. I'm here this. Evening on behalf of the Small Property Owners Alliance, and we very much appreciate Ms.. Gonzalez, Councilwoman Gonzales, including our organization, as we've we are an important. Organization representing owners in Long Beach as well. So we greatly appreciate that. We look forward to being able to work with the city as we build on your report. Mayor Garcia of last year, those 29 recommendations, we want to. See what has happened. We're interested, too. And we also want to work with the city on the issues that are being brought up this evening. So we thank you very much for that opportunity. Thank you. Thank you. And with that, we will close the public comment. There's a motion in a second to approve the recommendations. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and do. Where is my list? We're doing six and then 10 to 6 is a day work program for Councilman Price and then ten is the audit bid. And I know that our amazing auditor is here. See, now she's getting a taste of all of these lunch. I know she wants to run for the council after this. That's all I keep. I keep I keep hearing that. And actually, that's that's that is actually correct that we have her is my thing here we I actually we it's so late they so here is Ken is Ken Roth here? Here. Ken, please come down. Is Jordan win here or win? I'm sorry if I got there. He talked to you. Okay. Okay. Okay. Is Robert Pete here? No. Okay. Mr.. Mr. Roth, these are.

Recommendation to receive the application of Cloud 9 Sports Bar L.B, LLC, dba Cloud 9 Sports Bar Long Beach, for an original Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) License, at 1740 East Artesia Boulevard, determine that the application does not serve the public convenience and necessity, and submit a Public Notice of Protest to ABC on the bases of high crime in the reporting district and residences within 100 feet of the establishment. (District 9)

LongBeachCC_05022017_17-0328

Item 20 is a report from police department. No comment. Recommendation to receive the application of Crown nine sports bar Long Beach for an original ABC license at 1740. Is Artesia Boulevard determined that the application does not serve the public convenience and this is a necessity and submit a public notice a protest to ABC on the basis of high crime in the reporting district and residences within 100 feet of the establishment. District nine is a second on this motion first. Okay. Vice Mayor. Thank you. So I want to hear from staff first, and I wanna hear from the public before I get my comments. Thank you. Commander LeBaron. Honorable Mayor and City Council. Item number 20 is an application for an original Onsale Beer ABC license. This location is currently. Closed, resulting from the suspension of a previous. ABC license. The police department has conducted our investigation and. Based on the high crime formula for the reporting district, as well as the proximity to residences within 100 feet of the location, the Long Beach Police Department believes this application does not serve the public convenience and necessity and recommend a public notice of protest be submitted to ABC. That concludes my report and I am available for any questions. If you might have. Any public comment on this, please come forward. Yeah. I'm here. My name is Debbie Flynn. I'm representing Grant Neighborhood Association. We are also I'm the one that denied the claim to ABC and talked to our detective, our Zoller, on this. I've been in the neighborhood for 24 years. We have seen a lot of fights come out of that bar. We've seen prostitution. We have seen. Drunk drivers come out of that establishment. Hit parked cars in the middle of the night, two, 3:00 in the morning. We have seen used. Condoms, children walking to school, finding use condoms on the sidewalk. The trash is atrocious. I have no idea why they can't pick it up, but they need to be responsible if they're going to stay in the neighborhood and be responsible for what they do and what their patrons do. I don't see any reason why they should have their liquor license. Especially when they're using it for underage drinking. And it's been proven from a detective. Marcella has told me from her report. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speakers. Hello. My name is Patrick Conlon. On the internet, the insulin. I was told I'm not actually here to speak on cloud nine. I was told to speak during this time just because you ran out of general comment. And actually, is that. Now this has to this has to be on this issue. Has to be on this issue. Yes. Sorry. One of your staff told me to wait for the end of the meeting. You can speaking. It's expected. There's a there's a second public coming here at the end of the meeting. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Councilman. My name's Brett Johnson. I live on Rose, which is. The bar is off artesian Rose. I grew up. There. I've been there for. Over 24 years. My mom, my father. Now I'm raising my. My my daughter there and my my wife. I've known this bar for a long time growing up there. And I've seen when it was Dutch Mill to players, to all these different bars. And I saw it was an opportunity for my family to actually own something in our neighborhood and take advantage of of something of what we want to call it, a dream. I think everyone wants to be their own owner and take advantage of raising their kids in their neighborhood. And I saw this chance for me to take advantage of it. With that being said, I talked to my best friend and my uncle. We actually walked the bar, already talked to a North Division commander who mostly told him that we want to change things in the neighborhood. We want to be on track with him and be on the same page. Well, when the vice came around and talked to us, we told them that we're signing on with the cameras. We're all for everything that we need to do to make the neighborhood better. Me growing up there, I want the bar to be back high. It was when I grew up. There were no problems, no friction, no fighting, no none of that. Like I said, I'm raising my daughter on the street, so I'm asking for you guys to give us a shot. We invested a lot. We didn't know that we were going to have this many issues because we didn't know that the bar was hated so much. We had to find it out later on down the road. It almost made us feel like we made a huge mistake. But I know we can change things around and it's going to be for the good for the neighborhood. One of the things that we want to do is going to continue to go out to the meetings we wanted to link up with Ground Association. I have heard of Great Association, but everything snowballed on us so fast that we weren't able to meet with her and we were trying to meet with you are still there. We talked to Jessica and Chris, so they told us certain things that we would have to do and the timing was just bad right now. Well, good for you. Congratulations. But it was just bad for us. So just. We're just asking for you guys to give us a chance. Thank you. Thank you, Nick Speaker. Honorable Mayor. Councilwoman, my name is Shaun Addison. I am the new owner that is requesting this license. 4:00 at night. I was raised in Long Beach. Got my high school education here. My college education. And I'm proud to say that I am from Long Beach or I was a I guess you could say made a man here . When I was presented with the opportunity to own a business in the city. I jumped at it. My best friend, as anybody would like, he said, is something that we've always dreamed of from the from the jump. It was just it was a great idea. You know, we were all for it. And then slowly but surely, we started to hear all this negative stuff about the previous owner and a lot of things that have been brought up about the previous owner. But that's not us. And I haven't had a chance to meet with the Grant Association. But like he said, we're all for being a part of the community. A lot of the things that she brought to to our attention just right now, some things that we haven't heard of cleaning up or making sure that things that may be a nuisance in the neighborhood are are taken care of by the new owners of the bar. Like you said, we met with the North Commander, Division COMISAR We had a good discussion with him, Jose Gonzalez, which is the plan that the community's community association policemen. We met with Detective Barzola and we've heard a lot of things that, like I said before, the previous owner did and he took advantage of a lot of things. But that's not what we want to do. Like we said, we want to get the bar back to what it was and we're hoping that we're afforded the opportunity and a chance to do that so we can be a part of the community and something that they can be proud of is not looked on as a nuisance, but just as a reputable business in the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker. Good evening. My name is Dan Forsberg. I'm the president of the DeForest Neighborhood Association in support of the Ground Association. I do have experience with that bar, in particular, not with the new owners, but over the last three owners between urinating underage girls, running in and out of there, busts going on close to that area. And I mean, it's unfortunate for these folks that they're they're coming in and being blindsided. However, we have an overconcentration of bars, liquor stores in problematic areas, including motels on Long Beach Boulevard, etc.. It's time that we honor the residents of North Long Beach. I've been there for 35 years. It's time we honor them with a little bit of an upswing to honor that renaissance that Rex is always talking about and move on. So I support Debbie and what she's doing. I'm hoping that these folks will meet with the Grant Association. They meet the first Thursday of the second Thursday of every month. You know, I don't know when the purchase has gone on, but I've also seen many, many, many times where there's a quick sale and it's grandfathered and all kinds of other things go on. It's time we stopped doing those types of things and just respect and honor the neighborhood. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So. So with this circumstances, you know, it's a bit unfortunate that, you know, this is the this is the you know, the first time I heard from this property owner was, you know, a week or two ago because, you know, there was I'd probably received about 50 communications from residents within the last month . And when I say it's unfortunate, it's not particularly the new owners fault, but I think we need to be more clear in the direction when people apply. As soon as were notified that these things happen, we should have some sort of a process to, you know, go work with these people to modernize and update their users. We can say no tonight. But the reality is those bars aren't going anywhere. The last commander, when when when did this liquor license get shut down? The the previous liquor license. Mike, the previous liquor license was. Suspended in August of 2016. August 2016. And when was the last violation? It was at that same time. So it's been it was close is 2016. And just last year, I took my staff on a tour of all the bars after it was closed down. And it was why it was open and it was selling alcohol. We went to two tours to every single one of them, and that's just the history of this. There's a lot of history of these establishments. So the question for me isn't necessarily how do we continue to shut down bars on Artesia? The question is how do we pivot and create a new standard for bars on Artesia? You can have a dove bar. You can have something high quality. Muldoon's is an example. Rock Sands is an example. All the bars on on Second Street, these are great examples. But the standard for Artesia is it's just frankly too low. And we have to build more congruence and confidence with our residents and our neighbors because there's no way there's no way that this was going to. I mean, it's easy job for me because staff has already recommended a protest. So I'm going to uphold staff's protest. And I'm going to ask that. With this and I've talked with city staff already, and this is not a part of the motion. This is I just think it's appropriate for me to state this. I want to meet with our economic development folks and and whoever else is appropriate code enforcement, whoever, to develop a real strategy for the bars, the six bars on Artesia Boulevard. We've already done we've seen some great examples of what can happen. The last gentlemen's club in Long Beach was on Artesia Boulevard, and we leverage for them to give up their entertainment license in exchange for alcohol becoming a sit down restaurant. Now, their Uptown Bar Grill. Neighborhood associations actually meet there. You know, Pistons, a historic bar on Artesia Boulevard has been closed for years now. A new a new owner, Michael Barber, who has Falcons and others making an investment. How can we have a strategy on Artesia Boulevard to where property owners, if they want to invest and they want to be a good player, someone who wants to make an investment, increase the standard, raise a standard for the area. They have a path to do so. And it's not just we come to city council and they continue to get shut down. So my motion is to uphold staff's recommendation. But I do I would like to sit down with the property owners now that we've you know, we've met them, I'd love to sit down with them with our economic development folks and figure out a better strategy and agenda for this bar and all the bars in Artesia. So that's my motion. Thank you. Okay, there's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Maximum item. I think it's 15.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute a new agreement between the Long Beach Police Department and the Long Beach Unified School District to staff School Resource Officers for an amount not to exceed $745,488, with an estimated net cost to the City’s General Fund of $186,372. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_09202016_16-0882

Motion carries. Thank you. Item number 19 please. Report from police recommendation to execute a new agreement between the Long Beach Police Department and the Long Beach Unified School District to staff school resource officers for an amount not to exceed 745,000 citywide. Thank you. And I made the motion here. Councilman, your English. You'd like to speak to your second Councilwoman Gonzalez. Well, actually, there's a staff report. I just had a. Question actually just on if there's not. That's okay. Okay. Let's go ahead and hear the staff report. Okay. Commander Louis Police Department. This agenda item basically executed a new agreement between the police department, Columbia Unified School District, to staff school resource officers for the upcoming school year. The agreement will not exceed $745,480, with an estimated cost to the city's general fund of $186,372. Long Beach Unified School District share of the agreement is 75%, which basically encompasses $559,116. The 186 372 portion is the other 25% that the city of Long Beach Police Department. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this item? Seeing the. Vice mayor. Sorry, I just had a question. Sure. So, Commander, what are the four schools that will be selected? Because it mentioned four police off. I'm sorry. The four police officers will be assigned to the high school campuses. Which high school campus are campuses? Will the. Police officers be located at. Jordan Poly Millikan and Gabriel High Schools. Okay, perfect. Thank you. And this. This is a continuation of existing resource officers, correct? Yes. Okay. Please cast your vote.

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; repealing Ordinance 124552 and amending Sections 23.42.058, 23.47A.002, 23.47A.004, 23.47A.020, 23.48.002, 23.48.005, 23.48.065, 23.49.002, 23.49.025, 23.49.042, 23.49.090, 23.49.142, 23.49.300, 23.49.320, 23.49.338, 23.50.002, 23.50.012, 23.50.014, 23.50.044, 23.66.122, 23.66.322, and 23.84A.025 of the Seattle Municipal Code to change marijuana zoning regulations and make technical corrections.

SeattleCityCouncil_01112016_CB 118580

Yes, I've signed all these documents. I'm just kidding. Okay, next we have the report of the planning land use. And no, do we have one more item on this report of the planning Land Use and Sustainability Committee? Please read the report. The Report of the Planning, Land Use and Sustainability Committee. Agenda number five Constable 118 580 relating to land use and zoning repealing ordinance 124552 and in many sections 23.40 2.58 23.40 78.002.004.0 2020 3.40 8.002.005.0 6520 3.40 9.002.0. 25.0 42.0. 90.1 42.3 100.3 20.3 38. 23.50 .00. 2.0. 12.0 14.0 4420 3.60 6.1. 22.3 22 and 23.84 8.0 25 zero. Mr. Code to change marijuana zoning regulations and make technical corrections, the committee recommends that the bill passes amended. Councilmember O'Brien. Thank you. So I'm just going to walk through a couple of the points on this bill. We have four amendments that I'm aware of that we'll take up in order. And then I can just speak to what the bill does at the very end to the mayor presented legislation to the council a little over a month ago . We had a public hearing and a couple of committee meetings to discuss this and the bill that the mayor proposed. There's there's two measurement issues that we often conflate, and I'm trying to keep them clear here. One is around buffers. So how far do marijuana businesses have to be from certain types of other uses, like daycare parks, community centers, arcades? And then the second term we use a lot is dispersion, which is how far do marijuana retail establishments have to be from other marijuana retail establishments? There are three different levels of businesses. There's the retail establishments. There's also producers and their processors. I just want to be clear that when we're talking about dispersion, we're only talking about retailers. There's not a dispersion requirement around producers or processors. The buffer zones apply to all of them. The bill that was proposed by the mayor and came out of committee included a 500 foot buffer zone for producers, processors and retailers for the types of activities. The buffer from the types of activities that state law allows us to reduce the buffer below a thousand feet. The dispersion requirement is not any requirement by state law that doesn't exist in existing city law. The bill that was proposed by the mayor's office proposed dispersion requirement of 500 feet, meaning if one retail business is located in one location, the second one could had to be at least 500 feet from that property to open up as it came out of committee that was amended by former Councilmember McCarter. His amendment was passed out of committee to reduce the dispersion requirement to 350 feet so businesses to retail businesses could not be within 350 feet. So we have four amendments. The First Amendment is one that I'm sponsoring. So I'm going to go ahead and speak to that and ask for a Second Amendment number one in our packet deals with the buffer zones and specifically with lower the buffer zone from 500 feet to 200 feet for the producers and processors only, not the retailers. To around 50. Feet. What did I say? Hundred, 250 feet. Thank you. I'm getting the words right now. I need the numbers wrong. So, again, current the current ongoing bill we're talking about has a 500 foot buffer zone for all types. This amendment would reduce that buffer from 500 feet to 250 feet just for the producers and processors, not for the retailers. Is there a second for that? Okay. Okay. I'll just speak briefly to that. My from a policy perspective, I understand the idea of having buffer zones from these certain types of uses. Again. The ones that come to mind arcades, community centers, child care centers, parks, the types of sensitive uses within the city that often have youth often have folks that specifically are prohibited from using marijuana. We want to keep some space between those those uses and the retail stores. The the producers and processors, on the other hand, do not have any retail presence. There's no signage. There's really no way for my understanding, for the average citizen to even know what's going on inside. It's just another business that the public doesn't have access to. So I don't believe that having a great buffer zone for those operations makes policy sense, which is why I'm supporting that. We have an amendment to decrease the buffer for our producers to 250 feet. Are there any other comments? I'd like to actually make a comment, as I said this morning, that it's I'm I'm going to support the amendment, but with some level of concern. And that concern is, as I understand, the state's position, they are not limiting the number of production or growing licenses. I think there are policies as far as going to be sort of let the market take care of itself. Many growers, I think, are possibly going out of business because there seems to be a lot of product out there that hasn't been moving. And I'm concerned that, again, there are chemicals that are sometimes used, there are disposal issues on the grow operations, there are odor issues that neighborhoods are concerned about. And I just don't think we've adequately thought through some of the unintended consequences of just increasing the number of producers. And I don't even know if we need to do that at this point. I don't think we've done that, both research or data homework or looked at the impacts. But I as a policy standpoint, we have decriminalized this product and we're trying to get patients their medicine, and I'm supportive of where we're trying to head. But I just think there there's a lot of work still to be done as we lower the buffers. But generally speaking, I know there's been support on the council for this and I don't want to send away that support, but it is with some level of concern. Are there any other comments of Councilmember O'Brien. Just at this morning, this morning's briefing council President Harrell, you mentioned that and I had a chance, my staff had a chance to have a conversation about producer providers. And I just the reality is that this is kind of a joint regulatory effort between the city and the state. And ultimately the state holds a lot of the cards is what's happening. My understanding is that the state is not in the process of issuing any more producer processor licenses. They have set a cap on the number of retail, but of course it's a state and they could change their mind at any point in the future. So I don't my sense is that your concern is not something that's happening today, but obviously could become valid if the state were to change its direction. Absolutely. Hearing no other comments will vote on this in a minute. All has been moved in. It's been moved to Amendment one, has been moved to there. A Second Amendment one to council. Bill 118580 has been moved. And second, all those in favor say I. I opposed. The ayes have it. Let's move to amendment number two. Great. So I'll speak just briefly to this and hand it off to Councilmember Herbold, who is a sponsor of this. This amendment is also about the buffer zones. This is about buffer zones for the retail operations in one specific area in the downtown zone. Councilmember Herbold So. This works off of the existing buffers in the mayor's proposed bill. The existing citywide buffers are 500 feet. This creates an exception to that of 250 feet in a specific zone. It's the downtown mixed commercial and downtown mixed residential zones. And this is in the downtown urban center west of I-5, north of yester way and south of Denny Way would not apply in. Specific. Carved out areas within the downtown urban center, including downtown office or one and two downtown Harbor Pike Place Market mixed or Pioneer Square mixed. The reason for this amendment is this is a high tourism area with cruise ships. More will be coming soon and an existing street drug dealing problem. It's actually we've had Liz Campbell from the Belltown Community Council come and speak to us about their concern about the illicit drug trade in the area and that their desire for a legal store will hopefully eliminate that that illegal activity. In particular, I know that there were questions about. A Town ID and Pioneer Square. Those are not included. And if there are specific questions that councilmembers have about the amendment, I'd love to receive them. Thank you, Councilmember Herbold. So are there any comments on Councilmember her Herbold Amendment two, which, as I understand it, for retail stores lowers the buffer to 250 feet. Any other comments? Only in those zones. Only in the specified zone. I should say. Okay. So it's been amendment to Councilmember Herb also has been moved. Is there a second? Second so moved in Second Amendment number two. All those in favor say I opposed the ayes have it. Amendment number three. Okay. So amendment number three, we're going to shift from just talking about buffer zones to talking about dispersion. The current bill before us has a dispersion requirement of stores have to be at least 350 feet from each other. Council members purchasing Gonzalez have an amendment that would change how we calculate dispersion. So please, this amendment has to be viewed in the context of the buffer zone as well. So both the buffer and the dispersion need to be viewed together. So this would say that there cannot be more than two properties with major marijuana activity, including the retail sale within 1000 feet of each other. So a thousand feet is approximately four or five city blocks, depending on what part of town you're in. So if you think about a neighborhood business district, for example, with this amendment, there could be two retail outlets within a thousand feet. If the buffer is also met. So except in the downtown area, the amendments that we just passed, it would have to be 500 feet buffer between. The sensitive uses like parks, community centers, childcare facilities. But then only two allowed within 1000 feet. So I would move amendment number three. Second. So we have amendment number three in front of us that's been moved on second. And are there any additional comments on amendment number three? Councilmember Gonzalez The only thing that I would would add to this particular amendment that I think is important for us to keep in mind is that this this particular dispersion requirement would not go into effect until it is signed by the mayor, so it becomes effective immediately upon the mayor's signature. So this does not impact current current marijuana retail locations. It would only impact the siting and zoning requirements for major marijuana activity moving forward. Thank you very much for that clarification. We have amendment number three that has been properly moved in second. And all those in favor say I, I opposed the ayes have it. And Councilmember O'Brien, I believe you had Amendment four. That was somewhat based on the passage of 1 to 3. The bill, their own adventure for portion of the meeting. So amended number for the intent of a minimum of four is to go back and add some recitals justifying the changes in the buffer zones that we just made in our in our documents. There are four different versions based on what could have happened earlier in the meeting, because both amendments, one and two are approved. I am going to go ahead and propose alternate RD of Amendment four, which, as is the recital language that had previously been reviewed by law to support the changes in the buffers that we just made in the amendment. Second. Okay has been moved in seconded amendment number four, which is basically alter D. It's been moved in seconds for its passage. All those in favor say I. I opposed the ayes have it. Councilmember Brian, you want to make any closing remarks relative to the bill as amended? Yeah. Thank you. I want to I want to thank the mayor's staff and David Mendoza in particular for doing a lot of work over the not just the last months, but over a year. It feels like we are at the leading edge of a new industry. We're trying our best to get this right. We're learning a lot, I think the the enforcement work that they've done to help transition medical providers into the recreational framework, well, not perfect. I think it is taking great steps. I also want to thank folks from the community for the various aspects that have done a lot of work to try and help us understand what their business environment looks like as we made these changes. I want to highlight just a couple things that we're not doing today but may come up specifically around the current legislation and the underlying law before we passed this legislation. Both prohibit retail operations within any of our historic districts, and that is not being proposed to change today as a tourist district. Historic districts include Ballard Avenue, Pioneer Square, Pike Place Market, Columbia City, International District, and perhaps others. There have been conversations from folks in the community who would like to lift that prohibition in both the Ballard Historic District and possibly Pioneer Square. And my conversations with community members from both Ballard and Pioneer Square was that the communities there hadn't had enough time to process and have conversations on those, but are open to possibly making changes in the future. And so what I have told both advocates and community members is that I will do what I can to help foster communications in the coming weeks and months. And if it seems that we can get to a place of consensus, I would certainly support coming back with legislation to make changes to those historic districts where we've had more process and more opportunity for people to weigh in. Thank you, Councilmember O'Brien. I'd like to suggest, as I support this amended bill, that we still have so much work to do. I mean, we're way beyond the issue as to whether we support decriminalization of marijuana. I mean, that that's an old debate. I think we've shown a strong commitment toward basically supporting this industry and making sure we regulate and tax and do all those kinds of things as well. At this point, we're also looking at trying to enrich our city and trying to educate our kids and trying to protect our neighborhoods. And so when we talk about the environmental impacts, we talk about the people impacts, we talk about its effect on poorer or underrepresented communities. There still remains a lot of policy work to do. And this, I think, is one of the very few times where the state are actually moving faster than we are from a city standpoint . So as they do their licenses, I think we are trying to figure this out. We also know that there are many neighboring cities as well trying to figure this out as well who may not get as many licenses. And so Seattle, being such a large city that we have an opportunity to be a leader in this industry, but to do it in a very smart and concerted way. So I think that both the race and social justice impacts of what we're trying to do, the environmental impacts we still have work to do. I want to support I want to voice my support to all of the industry participants out there, both on the medical side and recreational side for helping us create this industry. And we hope to be partners with you in the future. Are there any other comments on this bill as amended, just briefly? Councilmember Gonzalez. I also wanted to echo Councilmember O'Brien's gratitude to the mayor's office and to David Mendoza in particular, who has spent probably a countless number of hours working on this policy issue, both at the state level. And we're lucky enough to have him here at the city continuing to to provide us with his his knowledge around this particular industry and policy issues related to to to this new venture that we're on. I'm really pleased that this ordinance has passed. I think it's really critically important that we continue to foster an environment within the city of Seattle where we can create a competitive industry for retail marijuana businesses. And I think that the zoning law that we've just passed will do exactly that. Of course, we have a lot of other work to do to ensure that there are no disparate impacts based on race or social justice or other important factors. First and foremost will be tackling, I think, the delivery legal delivery services system to make sure that either they are folded into the system or that we are deploying city resources appropriately to ensure that those types of illicit markets aren't hurting. What the voters have said loud and clear is an industry we want and expect to flourish within our city, within the bounds of the law. So thank you to the mayor's office and thank you to the city council for for taking this step. Thank you for those comments. Councilmember Gonzalez. Hearing no further comments, I move the passage of Council Bill 118580 as amended and moved in second that council bill 118580 passed passed. Please call the roll on passage of the bill. Burgess. Gonzalez. Herbold Johnson Suarez O'Brien. Safwan Bagshaw. President Harrell I. Nine in favor. Nine opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Next we'll have a report of the energy committee. Please read the report. Okay. And as the clerk prepares to read the energy bill, I will announce that the bill that we just a minute is not ready for the chair signature, but once it is ready. You'll be signing at that point? Yes. Are you ready for the energy report?

Order for a hearing regarding access to low-cost veterinary care. Remains in the Committee on City Services and Innovation Technology.

BostonCC_02162022_2022-0292

02920292. Councilor Braden offered the following order for a hearing regarding access to low cost veterinary care. Thank you. The chair recognizes counsel Brett and Counsel Braden. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. This hearing order is a refile and was spurred by increasing volumes of constituents in public and subsidized affordable housing, expressing difficulty accessing low cost veterinary care services for their pets in their families. While Boston has many reputable veterinary hospitals and nonprofit organizations providing reduced cost care, including partnerships with Boston's City Animal Control. Not all programs are equitably accessible to residents in need across the neighborhoods. This has led to low income residents and also in Brighton, a need we have learned of residents in public and subsidized affordable housing developments having difficulty accessing low cost veterinary care. These include residents at the beach at Samuel Gardens, which is 250 units, plus a Commonwealth and um Commonwealth housing, which is over 400 units in Brighton with increased luxury development. We've seen a proliferation of corporate, boutique, upscale, specialty and subscription based veterinary services that widen this gap. My office has met with leading veterinary professionals from EMS, Piqua, Animal Rescue League and Tufts Cummings School to discuss equitable services as well as the impact of the pandemic on the industry. They have expressed enthusiasm for a hearing to deepen partnerships with the city to address this widening gap in service. Pets have increasingly become integral parts of our lives and families, including improving mental health and occupational health. As we look ahead towards the post pandemic recovery, the city should consider adopting a holistic one health animal human animal care approach. We know that the health of people is connected to the health of their animals and under shared environments. This approach has been approved by the CDC, veterinary professionals and policy advocates across the country and the world. Interdisciplinary human animal care approaches to city services should look like integrating broad and holistic public health approaches to food access, senior services, housing access, and considering population growth projections for neighborhoods and capital planning needs. Public health, education, disaster preparedness, and much more healthy pets mean healthy people. This is a much needed conversation. I look forward to hearing from veteran professionals, pet owners and struggling to access low cost care and city agencies, including animal control, care and Control and the Public Health Commission on how to incorporate a more holistic approach. Thank you. Thank you, Counsel. Bright. And would anyone else like to speak on this? Would anyone else like to add their name, please? Please add Councilor Arroyo, please add Councilor Bark please that council Edwards council Fernandez in to send consulate priority consular me here consulate Murphy Council where all the the chair. Darkened 029 Till will be referred to the Committee on City Services Innovation Technology. Per the request of the sponsor, we will take Dawkins 0293 out of order, and we will come back to it in a minute. Mr. Clarke, can you please call docket 0294?