Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 8

A MOTION declaring the necessity of administrative planning and coordination to address gender identity, and sexual orientation inclusion in King County administrative processes and establishing a gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion task force to develop a recommended King County administrative gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion strategy.

KingCountyCC_05162018_2018-0165

All in favor. Say, I hope any oppose minutes are approved. All right. Now we will turn to item nine, which is a motion which would declare the necessity of an administrative planning and coordination to address gender identity and sexual orientation, inclusion in King County administrative processes, and would establish a gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion task force to develop a recommended King County Administrative Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Inclusion Strategy. This legislation is written in my office and co-sponsored by Councilmember Cole Wells and Councilmember Up the Grove and is really had a good partnership in its development over many months with community partners, which we appreciate. We're joined by Sam Porter, who will give us an overview from the central staff's perspective. And Mathias is here I see from our Office of Equity and Social Justice. You're welcome to come forward to if you want to do this. Thank you, Sam. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sam Porter, Council Central Staff. The documents for this item begin on page 75 of your packet. Proposed Motion 2018 0165 would require the executive to establish a gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion task force that would review and make recommendations to revise administrative processes with regard to gender identity and sexual orientation. Administrative processes would include but not be limited to forms, questionnaires and interviews conducted by person county personnel. The analysis and recommendations of the task force would be done not only on the contents of the forms, for example, when a form requires the individual to indicate their gender, but also on the experience of gender nonconforming gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals when accessing county services. When such questions are being asked in January 2018, the Washington State Department of Health adopted a rule change that amended the Washington Administrative Code pertaining to birth certificates to include a gender option of X to provide individuals with an additional gender option if they do not identify with being either male or female. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, gender identity is defined as a person's perception of having a particular gender, which may or may not correspond with their assigned sex at birth. A list of possible organizations to request representation from is described on page 82 of your packet and includes the King County Council Executive's office and the Human Resources Division, as well as business representatives and organizations that serve gender non-conforming and sexual minority communities and communities of color. The proposed motion outlines the following six task force objectives, which are seen on page 76 of your packet. One To review the Washington State Department of Health ruling and determine its implications for King County. To consult with county departments and community groups. To assess existing King County administrative processes regarding gender identity and sexual orientation. Three Identify processes suitable for modification and consider potential implications if a process gathers information used by other government agencies. Four Develop a recommended statement of intent to address gender identity and sexual orientation inclusion in identified King County administrative processes. Five Assess the experience of individuals accessing county services and providing requested gender identity and sexual orientation information and identify strengths and weaknesses in the current state of King County Customer Service. And six Make training recommendations for county employees to achieve excellent customer service and address the concerns of task force members. The proposed motion would require Task Force members to transmit an initial framework for completing their work, including an estimated budget to council within three months of their first meeting. The executive's final report would be due to council one year after the approval of the initial framework. And while the motion does not prescribe specific dates upon which the deliverables must be transmitted, it does state that the task force excuse me, shall expire 60 days after all reporting provisions have been completed. And that concludes my remarks. Thank you very much. Sam, do members have questions or comments for Sam before we hear from the Executive Branch Council member Gossett? Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Sam, I I've in recent months, maybe the last year, seeing a lot of Latino people used. Latin X. An overwhelming majority of them do see themselves as either male or female. So how do you distinct distinguish that from just put an x, which means you don't identify with any gender. That is a very good question. I am not prepared to answer that at this point. What about what about this guy? I can say some things about that. I mean, the actually, it's often what it would look Latino with Latino or Latina. The the actually Spanish is a very male focused language in the sense that when you talk about a mixed group of genders, the default is kind of the OS, which is the male. So I think generally the ax has been done as a way to be inclusive of male female, you know, would include transsexual gender, not non-binary, too. I mean, I think it's an all inclusive term beyond the male female binary. So how do we do that in relationship to what we're trying to do and create more clarity? And more responsiveness to how people perceive themselves. COUNCILMEMBER The task force would would address that concern and bring that up within within the context of what their the intention is. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Gossett. And I think you've highlighted just one of the kinds of issues that we're hoping to gain more knowledge and expertize and recommendations on from the task force about how King County can respond and be more reflective of our community in our systems and processes. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you and good morning. Good morning. Thank you. This is my third meeting into North Bennett back already. So I want to first respond to Councilmember Gossett. What the gentleman said a minute ago is actually accurate, that the Latin Spanish language is very much prides themselves in in having everything, including inanimate objects like pencils, have a gender determination. And it's part of their culture. And I really don't think it's really our place to be telling another culture how they speak and what their words are. So I think that we're stepping into things that really aren't the role of government to be doing right now. So I don't understand on page 75 where we're talking about the Board of Health ruling on birth certificates, how we got from that to having a task force. And it seems to me and looking at the things that the task force will do, that there's a huge overlap between our sj r h r r we have lots and lots and lots of committees. They seem to be doing government by committee, so I'm not sure what is. Where do the overlap is? Where what's missing that we need this. What is the reason for this? And what do you think the costs will eventually be? I realize that we don't know exactly yet, but in order to do this, we must have some ballpark figure of what we think this Casperson will cost. So I'd like to have those questions answered. All right, Sam, take your best shot there. I would defer to you, Mr. Chair. Oh, that means I had to listen. I was listening, Councilmember Lambert. Here's my view on the task force. This is an area that. Well, let me start up start back with some general principles. King County, one of the things we're talking about now in our messaging is making sure that we are a welcoming place and this government is a welcoming place for everybody. All 2.2 million people in our county and I think we are getting a little more aware and a little more knowledgeable and a little more sophisticated about understanding the depth of diversity in our community and that there are in historic systems barriers that have been built into those systems that really can turn people away, can turn people away from participating in important government functions and can inhibit our ability to provide services as a government. 2.2. 2 million people and I mean all of them. What this task force asks us to do is bring some expertize to the table in the area of gender identity and sexual orientation issues that I don't have and that I don't think a lot of us have here in the government. And I think it's an appropriate use for a task force to bring expertize into a decision making process, to look at the issues from a community perspective, from and with experts in the community, to give us some recommendations and advice about how we can be a welcoming government, an inclusive government, a responsive government that respects and reflects the individuality and diversity of all members of our community. So whether it be in our delivery of health care, whether it be in our civil rights functions, are voting functions, our transit system, our justice system go down the list of functions that King County provides. We think that there are areas that we could be better at and be more inclusive of that in terms of how we deliver those services. So that is the motivation, if you will, behind this legislation. And with respect to the process, the suggestion to have a task force is really to have its expertize. With respect to cost, there is some probably additional cost. I don't think that's been as fleshed out, if you will. But my sense is my understanding is that the executive, while stretched, is supportive of the legislation. But these will be. Able to carry out this work. Councilmember Caldwell's Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know what else I can really add to your, I think, eloquent statement here, but I would like to comment on my colleague's remarks. Councilmember Lambert. I think she is correct in saying we as a government should not be dictating to any cultural group there anything about their language or their customs, their terminology and so forth. But I don't see that reflected in this legislation. In fact, what the intent of the legislation, or at least one of the intent is to be able to become more informed by a process of inclusion, of having individuals and organizations who represent various cultural groups, gender identity and so forth, to provide the input to the county so that we are able to make informed decisions and in doing so become more inclusive and making sure that we're doing everything we can, as Councilmember DEMBOSKY stated, to be a fully welcoming county for all of our citizens. And not only am I in support of this legislation, I did sign on as the sponsor to thank you, Mr. Chair. And Councilmember Caldwell's Councilmember Duchin. Yeah, I am. I actually appreciate this effort quite a bit. So when you think about all the different things that the county does internally, externally, how we provide services, it's hard to even imagine the ways in which our work can impact people, how we could do a better job of serving people, how we can do a better job of interfacing with people. If we are more thoughtful and respectful about where everyone is coming from and who they are. My own personal experience is you all are probably tired of hearing at the jail. This was a really difficult issue for us with treating people with respect. Keeping them safe, you know, and basically acknowledging their rights as human beings. And we grappled with it. And sometimes it was really challenging to do the right thing. And our knowledge has changed so much over time that our practices really I don't I can't imagine that all our practices have kept up. So the idea of having a really close look at how we're doing, how we're treating people, we're a service organization. We serve the people of this county. And I think that we're going to serve them much, much better if we are thoughtful and listening and respectful of who are or customers essentially are. So I really appreciate this effort. I'm also a little like I get a little bit hesitant with the bureaucracy sometimes, you know, like another task force. But we need to bring it's just a way of saying we need to bring people together from different points of view with different knowledge to the table to help us understand what we don't know already and how we can do more and do better. So I think this is I think this is a worthy effort. And I'm I'm glad it came forward. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Lambert. Thank you. I also agree that it's a worthy effort. I'm just concerned that we have worthy efforts on this topic and others repeatedly and that we're getting a repetition of it, the repetition of the repetition. So I need to see what we aren't already do. We get the regular charts that show how we're doing in all these categories and and every place in the county by their classifications, the working level, the upper management, the elected, we get these charts on a regular basis. So I think with all the committees we already have, I don't know what this will provide that we aren't already doing in multiple places. So if you could get me a chart on that, that would be really helpful. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mathias. We invited you here to share a few words in the executive's office and didn't get a chance. Sure. And happy to say a few things. Good morning, Mr. Chair, and council members. I think from the executive side, I think we are strongly in support of the intent of this proposed legislation. I think as already has been mentioned, it's very much in line in terms of our intent to be a welcoming county for everybody. And also not only that, also, as we know from an equity and social justice perspective. The more we are able to disaggregate that, I know exactly who we're serving, who's in our community. We're actually better able to serve those individuals and those communities. So it's not just a I think, a feel good thing. It's actually about how we can better serve our residents. So I. We support it. And those grounds, if we don't have that, that we don't know what we need to actually do. So that's very important. I do have some some of my concerns, but I'm confident we'll be able to work through some of these things is around the resourcing and prioritization and how do we actually do this jointly with council to be able to stop it sufficiently? We have full work plans already running at full force, so trying to figure out how we actually resource that, staff it, whether we use some of the models we've used for some other taskforces, including bringing in consultants willing to, I think, explore some of those options. And I think the maybe the final thing too is just potentially a concern in terms of trying to think about this piecemeal first. First, I'll also say just in terms of generally, we've already been doing some of this work. I know I worked with one council member, Belden. She was also with the tension and the jail. Why work with your health to include sexual orientation and the and the history forms, for example, medical history, which is extremely important. Already in the employee survey, we included transgender and non-binary as categories. So I think we've already been, as a county, been making some good work and been looking at some of those kind of best practices. The concern I would have, too, is that maybe we are potentially looking at this also piecemeal in the sense that we're looking at sexual orientation and gender identity, but also we kind of sometimes run into similar challenges around other demographic categories. So, for example, race and ethnicity and we do a lot of employee we do employee survey, we do customer surveys, you know, we we track information from clients, etc.. And I think there's a lot of inconsistency in terms of how we do that. So I think that's one of the things is just thinking about how we can actually use this an opportunity to be better in our demographic and tracking, trying to make sure that we're following our best practices. Sometimes that's a complicated issue because sometimes there are some federal requirements in which we have to track information in a particular way that isn't necessarily the kind of the best practices or where we where we should be going in the future. So brings in a lot of different considerations to think about, but just trying to think about how we actually not just set up a task force this time and then, you know, next year are going to be having to set up another task. So like a race, ethnicity, for example. So that's some of my thoughts. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Councilmember Sure. Thanks, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate it. Came a little bit late, so I didn't get all your staff report. So let me just I just try to read that entire audience real quickly. So we're putting together a task force. That task force is going to report back to a variety of people, including the council, within three months. Is that right? The first report would be due back within three months upon the first meeting of the task force. Though once the task force is identified and they have their first meeting, they would have three months to transmit a report, including a budget to council. Okay. And then one year upon the transmittal of that report, the final report of the task force would be transmitted. Wait a. Minute. So one year within one year from that point, the final report would be transmitted? Yes. So I guess what maybe the chair would permit a question. What is the timeline for us directly from creating a task force to look at these issues that make sense? It's the recommendations themselves that I think that largely won't be controversial. There might be a couple in there that are controversial. We're going to put a couple in for you just to be controversial. Okay. Perfect. I got make you want my job to be interested. What? What? So what? What what is your vision in terms of this coming back before the council for us to take action to ratify it? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we'll look to work with the executive branch and the task force with respect to how we would receive and then respond to and implement. If that was the decision, any of the number of recommendations that might come back, it could be on a rolling basis, you know, or it could be. Here's a final report on the general steps we think the county should take to be, you know, a better provider. You'll come up with your implementation plan and funding to do it. I don't have a set vision for that, and I would defer too to the group that will do the. Work very well. The only thing that struck me, Mr. Chair, is that three months seemed like a quick turnaround. It sounds like you're building in additional time. That's kind of an initial. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Dunn. If it's all right, I would also like to add that on page 84 of the packet online 131, the task force may also provide interim updates and recommendations as the task force deems necessary or as requested by the Council or executive. Or by the council on me. Thank you, Sam. Council Member McDermott, thank you for joining as a co-sponsor. Would you want to put this before us for action? I'm of the Give it to Pass recommendation to Ordinance Motion 2018 165. All right. That's before us. Thank you very much. Any further comments or questions, Mr. Chair? Yes, Councilmember McDermott, thank you. You know, we've had a discussion about other task forces and other work, but I think the testimony we heard today speaks to the amount of information, research and knowledge we have about transgender issues and issues around sexual orientation. The executive director of the Internal Gender Center showed us the statewide report for the city of Washington on trans issues. It was three pages. There's a dearth of information in this area, unlike some of the others that we tracked more carefully and were behind. I think this is an opportunity to catch up. For a community that's far too often at risk. Thank you. Councilmember McDermott, Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hey, I. I'll answer anything. I do identify as male Councilmember Garcia, and. I'm going to identify your thoughts. All right. You tell me differently. I appreciate the way you respect me like that. And that is the last thing I wanted to say. I think this is a significant sound step forward because in terms of our commitment to equality and social justice, because it allows people who are seen as I perceive themselves in a very, very small minority to be respected and to be able to articulate to us what their perceived gender is. And we have not had that in the past, and that is clearly a form of discrimination. So that's why I'm happy and planned to support this ordinance. It's a step in the right direction. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, I apologize for my mistake. That's okay. Thank you, Mr. Gosset. All right. A clerical collar on this motion 2018 0165, which is before. So that do pass recommendations. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Bell, DG Hi. Councilmember Dunn. II. Councilmember Gossett, I. Councilmember Kowalski. Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember McDermott. All. Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember Bond. Right. Member. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. The vote is six ies. One No. Two excuse. Okay. We have given a do pass recommendation on this motion. It'll be on the ordinary calendar, in the ordinary course. Thank you, everyone, for their work on it today and your participation. Look forward to continuing with that work. And I want to thank, if I can, my chief of staff, Christina Logsdon, who for close to a year, I think has been working with folks on the legislation. So thank you, Christina. Very, very nicely done. Okay. Let's turn now to item ten, which is a briefing, I'm sorry, to the fleet of lawyers who is here.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1450 North Olive Street in Montclair. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 1450 N. Olive Street in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-3-22.

DenverCityCouncil_06202022_22-0470

I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. To advise 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-469 has passed. Thank you for the staff report. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill 22, dash 470 on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 20 2-0470 would be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the required public hearing on Council Bill 22, Dash 470 is open. May we please have the staff report. The afternoon again? Members of City Council. My name is jump in your fill with CPD and no. I am going to present an overview of the MAP Amendment four 1450 North Olive Street. The subject property is located in Council District five in the Montclair neighborhood. The request is to rezone from ESU d x to ESU d1s, which would allow for an 80 you in the rear of the property. Well, all other forms and you standards would remain the same. Spuriously mentioned the property is currently in the urban edge single unit Dixon District, which in this location would only allow for the suburban house and the Urban House building for a minimum standard size of 6000 square feet. And as you can see on this map, while the property is completely surrounded by SUV X, we can see that this Colfax corridor is predominantly zoned ESU three and EMS three and EMS five to the east. The current land use of the site is single unit residential and it is mostly surrounded by other single unit uses and some two unit uses to the east. We can also see a mix of uses along East Colfax that range from commercial retail, mixed use and industrial uses. This slide shows us that the subject property is located in a residential area but only have to sell through MySQL, a predominantly commercial corridor. Throughout the rezoning process, application modifications have been provided according to code requirements. Planning Board recommended approval anonymously April 20th on consent agenda. And to date, staff has not received any letters of support or letters of opposition from the public or from any ordinance. Denver's zoning code has five review criteria, which I will go over. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans of legal rezoning. We have a comprehensive plan 2040 loop in Denver and the East Area plan. The rezoning is consistent with several of the strategies and comprehensive plan 2040, but I'll go over a couple of them. The MAP Amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Now looking at Brooke in Denver, the subject property is mapped as part of the urban edge neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as low residential place types. Displaced types have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. All live street is designated as a local or undesignated street. The growth area in Denver is all of areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Lupine also includes specific policy recommendations. We have housing policy number four that focuses on diversifying housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. The Interior plan was adopted in 2020 and it updates the guidance in Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver within the East Area Plan. The subject property is within the urban and neighborhood context and designates the subject property as low residential single unit future plans. The plan recommends this subcategory in areas with single unit homes, with accessory dwelling units are appropriate also land use and build foreign policy number six states that the east area neighborhoods should be inclusive places that integrate missing middle housing and accessory dwelling units. The ESU D1 Zone District allows for a single unit residential use with an additional dwelling unit accessory to a primary single unit use. Therefore, the proposed ESU D1 next on district is consistent with the East Area Plan guidance. Therefore, staff finds that the request is consistent with the applicable adopted plans. Stuff also finds that the requested rezoning meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of the regulations, and it will further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through its implementation of adopted plans. It justifies circumstance where this reasoning is clear that the plan sees the approval of the existing East Zone district. The city has adopted comprehensive plan 2040 in Denver and the East Area Plan A stated throughout this presentation, the proposed rezoning to East one x meets the intent of this plan's. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban edge neighborhood context residential district and the ESU. D1 s on district staff does recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met. All right. Thank you very much for the staff report, Fran. We have one individual signed up to speak on this tonight. Jesse Perez. Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. When I was just a person, I represented Black Star Action for Self Defense, Positive Action for Social Change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council, front line Black News. And I'll be the next mayor of timber in 2023. And I resigned in disgrace in Christopher Herndon's district. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight. As I've stated previously, I have supported every use since 2019 when I ran for city councilor at large and almost 15,000 people with no money. No or media recognition or exposure. And I continue to support them in 2022. So full support of this rezoning tonight, it meets all five of the criteria. Consistency with adopted plans, uniformity with district regulations. Part of this public health. Safety. Wellness. Means justified circumstances and consistency with neighborhood context zone district in that sense. So saying that it meets all five of the criteria for support of this rezoning. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, Dash 470. Seen no questions by members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 470 Council Member Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. This is an. Area that was. Is covered by the East Area plan. Its use in the East Area Plan were discussed at length over a three year period with community feedback. So it is consistent with adopted plans. This has been discussed. Community has had plenty of opportunity to weigh in and I support this point. Thanks. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And it does meet all of the criteria and happy to support it this evening as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, Dash 470, please. CdeBaca. I. Hines. I. Can I? Sawyer. I. Torres, i. Black. I. Clark I Flinn I Herndon. I Cashman Ortega I Madam President. I Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the result. 12 Eyes 12 Eyes Council Bill 22 Task Force 70 has passed. Councilmember Black, would you please put council bill 20 2-5, eight, nine on the floor for final passage.

Recommendation to request City Manager to have the Parks, Recreation and Marine Department and the Public Works Department review the list of trees approved for planting in parks, parkways, medians and other public properties and report back to council with a new list of approved trees.

LongBeachCC_08022016_16-0690

Motion carries. Thank you. Next item, please. Item 15. Communication from Council Member Pearce and Council Member Super Nan. Recommendation to request the City Manager to have Parks, Recreation and Marine and the Public Works Department review the list of trees approved for planting in public properties and report back to council with a new list of approved trees. Council member, Peter. Thank you. This item came up through the discussion of how many trees we were going to be trimming and possibly the trees that we would be removing due to the drought or just the fact that they're old and we have an outdated list of trees that we would like to ask for, a new list that includes drought tolerant, that also considers historical context and neighborhood context. So it's a simple request. All right. Motion in a second. Councilman Mongo. Okay. Councilman Price. Thank you. I want to thank my colleagues for bringing this item. I think this is a fantastic item. It's something that an issue that comes up all the time. I know that the city is currently undergoing a bike history policy. Is that right? The ficus tree policy. I'm not aware of that. I think, Mr. Beck of ficus tree policy. Councilmember Price, I think you're referring to a recent action taken by the city's tree committee relative to focus trees in the public right of way. And basically the committee took action that that looked at removing ficus trees from the right of way because of the damage that they caused to sidewalks and to storm drains and other utilities . So I apologize for the interruption, but the Tree Committee basically felt that there are other trees that are more appropriate for the park, for the parkways, besides effects. Okay. Thank you. Well, that's a that's an exact makes my point. Exactly. We have a lot of trees that are planted in medians that later turn out to be visual obstructions or require too much irrigation for medians. And I know we have reoccurring issues on sidewalks, so I think this is a great agenda item. I want to commend my colleague, Council Member Pearce for bringing this item and Councilman Super now for signing on. I think this is some this is this should help guide us in the future when we're planning new park spaces and medians because we I cannot tell you how many calls our office gets about landscaping in the public right away. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Yes. Thank you. A question for staff. Do we already have a list of what's released? That actually speak to this motion already? Yes, Councilmember Austin, there is an existing approved street tree list. It was last updated, to my knowledge, in 2012. So I think it would be worthwhile to look at it again. I don't have the number, the exact number in front of me, but it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 to 90 different species of trees. Okay. Well, our interns actually did did some research and came up with the list. And I think that's that's about accurate. But I think I see about, you know, at least 15 or so drought tolerant trees in California, native trees. Um, have there been new trees? Kind of. Created since 2012. That's the question. I don't have an answer to that. But again, as staff, we're more than willing to look at the tree list. And if there's updates necessary to bring forward, we'd be happy to do that. Okay, I'll make sure that my colleagues get a copy of this list as well. Councilman. Gringo. Thank you. The only one concern I would raise is that in my district, we have Christmas tree laying. And there are trees already in. Who have lived their their lives and are at the end of their longevity. And the neighborhood in that area, the association and the Wrigley Area Neighborhood Alliance, are very concerned about those trees. If they were to come down, what would they be replaced with? Obviously, there's discussion about replacing them with like trees, however, that those trees are highly, highly. High maintenance in respect to what they require. So if we do the study, I would want to include some kind of tree, if you will, as an alternate that would serve a purpose of a Christmas tree lane. Well, maybe not a a similar tree to the ones that are there now, but at least something that would provide the same type of environment and the type of of celebration that we have every year with the Christmas tree laying. Now, there is some discussion taking place in regards to funding for that type of tree. We know that it's going to be expensive and we're going to be looking at that. We've been in discussions with the staff at Parks and Recreation to look at what are our options and what are going to be some of the the costs involved. So not that I want to separate myself or separate the Christmas tree limb from from the study. However, I want to make sure that there is some kind of sensitivity to that particular stretch of street to ensure that we can continue to have the great celebrations that we've had year after year in the past. Councilmember Pearce. Yes. Thank you, Councilmember Yanga. In the discussion section, we talk about the historical context of trees, definitely recognizing Daisy Lane and the history that's there. And so we want to make sure that in this approved list of trees that we take into consideration those neighborhoods that might have some historical context. So definitely including that. Public comment. CNN members, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Q I'm going to try to move that. I know we're trying to get the national night out, which is probably not going to happen, but I'll try. I will try my best, please, if we can. Item 23, please.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation; authorizing the Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute, for and on behalf of the City, a Use, Occupancy and Maintenance Agreement with Southwest Youth and Family Services to provide family support center programs consistent with Seattle Parks and Recreation purposes.

SeattleCityCouncil_05102021_CB 120050

Agenda Item 37 Council 120050 Blaine to set up Parks and Recreation authorized and Superintendent of Parks and Recreation to execute four on behalf of the City of Seattle. A Use Occupancy and maintenance agreement. The can we recommend civil pass. Wonderful. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. Councilor. Whereas you are the Chair of the Committee and I'm going to hand it over to you to provide the committee's report. Thank you. Thank you. This bill renews an agreement between the Southwest Youth and Family Services and the city to continue their great work. The new lease is for ten years to continue programing. Southwest Youth and Family Services have been providing critical social and educational services to underserved families in southwest Seattle for over 40 years. The Public Assets Native Communities Committee recommends the City Council pass this bill. Thank you so much. Are there any additional comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments. Will the Court please call the rule on the passage of the bill? Mascara. Hi. Peterson. Hi, Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Whereas I. Morales. S Council. President Gonzalez. I am in favor of both. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk seize it? Fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Well, the clerk please read the short title of item 38 into the record.

AN ORDINANCE related to the City Light Department; authorizing and directing the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of City Light to execute an Interlocal Agreement with the Kalispel Tribe of Indians.

SeattleCityCouncil_12162016_CB 118800

Agenda item 27 Council vote 118880 0 million two. Satellite Department Authorizing and directing. The General Manager and chief executive officer of satellite to execute a interlocal agreement with Kalispell Tribe of Indians. The committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember worries the Council bill authorizes the Interlocal agreement between City Light and the Kalispell tribe. The tribe is adjacent to an overlap in the Boundary Project, which generates a large portion of electricity. City Lights Sells. This is an innovative aspect to this agreement that I want to highlight for the council I'm channeling. So on here and me, the Kalispell Career Train Center, owned and operated by the tribe, was developed to train members of the tribe in the community, in the fields of mental, mental metal fabrication, welding, carpentry, computer design, production in line assembly, shipping and receiving marketing, job readiness, safety and work ethics. It's basically a workforce center since the Kalispell Career Training Center benefits Seattle City Light in the form of creating skilled, diverse and stable workforce, City Light will continue to pay towards its continued development and the tribal workforce development. Through this program. The City Committee recommends passage or yea passage of this bill. Thank you very much. Are there any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Suarez O'Brian. Bagshaw Burgess. Gonzalez High Johnson President Harrell High seven in favor not opposed the. Bill passed and chair of the Senate please read agenda items 28 through 31. Agenda Items 28 through 31 appointments of 550 through 533 Appointment of Thomas Buchanan as members. City Light Review Panel for Term two September three, 2018. An appointment of Leon Garnett as members City Review Panel for Term two April 11th, 2018. The committee recommends these appointments be confirmed and appointment of Patrick Linsky as member Seattle City Light Review Panel for Term two September 30th, 2019. The committee recommends this appointment be confirmed with the Divided report, with Councilmembers Juarez and Gonzalez in favor and councilmember somewhat opposed and appointment of John Putz as members of El Satellite Review Panel for Term two September 30th, 2019. The committee recommends this appointment be confirmed. Thank you, Councilmember Suarez. This item in the next three or appointments to the City Light Review Panel. The Review Panel is a volunteer position that reviews City Light, strategic plan, policies and finances. All its members are extremely hardworking, and we appreciate all of their willingness to serve. Each position on the review panel is reserved for different city light interests. Tom Buchanan is nominated to fill the review panel position reserved for residential customers being besides being a residential customer, he's an environmental activist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, who is engaged with Energy, Environment Committee and City Light in the past. The committee recommends confirmation of this appointment. Would you like to read them all? Yeah. Please. Is are any of the people here today? Nope. Okay. Okay. Second is Leon Garnett. Leon Garnett is nominated to fill the review panel position reserved for low income customers representatives. He is the chief operations officer for Center Stone, which provides services and advocacy to low income City Light customers, including with their low income Home Energy Assistance Program. The committee recommends the appointment number 30. Patrick Tobolowsky. Patrick Grabowski is nominated to fill the review panel position reserved for industrial customer representatives. He's a representative of Nucor Steel, which is one of Citylights largest customers and was recommended to this position by the Manufacturing Industrial Council. Again, the committee recommends council confirmed his appointment and last is item number 31. Mr. John Putz. John Putz is nominated to fill the At-Large review panel position. He's from D5. Just want to add that which is not reserved for any interest. He's a research scientist for the Energy Authority and has extensive experience with energy trading markets. The committee recommends council confirmed this appointment and I would like to reiterate that the Energy and Environment Committee appreciates all the members of the City Light Review panel and all the time they volunteer on behalf of City Light customers. That's all. Thank you. Are there any further comments? Councilmember Burgess. I have a question. I note here that there was a no vote on Patrick Tobolowsky. Correct. Was there is a specific reason or issue there? Excuse me. Well, Councilmember Sawant had some issues with Mr. Taberski as well as Mr. Purton, I believe, but on the no vote. I don't know what to share. Except that she. Just opposed his appointment. Did did she in committee, did she articulate what the objection was? Do you remember? She she did articulate what her opposition was in the course of our Energy and Environment Committee. She took issue with Mr. Dombroski environmental record and commitment to the City Lights Department, the city lights, ongoing commitment to climate change efforts based on some information that she found in his background. It's related to an affiliation with a organization whose name escapes me at the moment. But she had she had concerns about his environmental record and in the context of an organizational affiliation and made note of those remarks, made note of of her objections during the course of the committee. But we should add that Nucor, in the chair of the Manufacturer Industrial Council, sent you, Councilmember Bridges in December of 2015, a lengthy letter recommending him in highlighted all his achievements, which I read into the record. Thank you very much. Thank you. We also received a letter from another organization that is I think it's Puget Sound Keepers that sent in a letter of recommendation and endorsement of Mr. Trump, Alaska's nomination to the city review panel as well. Is there anything else, Mr. Burgess? No, thank you. You answered my question. Actually, Councilmember Gonzalez. Yeah, I know that. Thank you, everybody. I've got a real good. I'm younger. Wow. Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez. Yeah, we do. Confirmed the appointments are not confirm. I did want to just give some context on this particular review panel because some of us were instrumental in setting it up. I think it's critically important that this panel. They are. First of all, we don't we we want diversity of opinion. We want diversity of values. We want those who are advocating for low income customers, high usage customers, environmental advocates, etc.. It's not necessary to have an identical view from every person on the committee. In fact, that sort of defeats the purpose. But most importantly, they should have access to the same information that we have relative to costing and pricing and policies. Because one of the biggest complaints of the customer base, whether it was small, medium or large, was that we weren't sharing the information. We were making costing and pricing decisions and rate decisions sort of in a vacuum. So this review panel becomes critically important because a lot of the organizations they represent and the constituents they serve, they're very livelihood depends on us having a very smart and effective utility. And so I'm glad to see these appointments made. To be candid, these were overdue. We do not want empty seats on this critical panel. So I'm very pleased to see that the committee stepped up and got some folks here that seem to be of high caliber on this review panel. But I do not think this a panel we want to treat lightly at all. I would just add, Councilmember our president, Harold, that all four gentlemen appeared in their confirmation packets were quite complete and very impressive. So and again, it's a volunteer, as you know, because you created it. It's a volunteer panel. And all of these gentlemen are quite, you know, educated in their field. And so we're lucky to have them. Okay. Any further comments? Those in favor of confirming the appointments vote i. I those opposed vote no. The motion carries and the appointments are confirmed. Please read the report of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. The short titles. Please report to the Sustainability and Transportation Committee. Agenda 32 Constable 1188 780 relating to the Seattle Department of Transportation, the committee recommends to pass.

AN ORDINANCE relating to street and sidewalk use; amending Ordinance 125706 and the Street Use Permit Fee Schedule authorized by Section 15.04.074 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_09082020_CB 119865

Agenda Item 19 Council Bill 119865 An ordinance relating to street and sidewalk use amending ordinance 125706 and the street use permit fee schedule authorized by section 15.0 4.074 of the Seattle Missile Code and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Madam Peterson. As Chair of the committee. You are more than welcome to be recognized first, unless you would like to hand this over to Councilmember Strauss to address the bill. Thank you. Council President Yes. Councilmember Strauss has done a lot of work on this and so I'd like to turn it over to him if you would like. Otherwise I can address it as well. Yeah. All right. I just want to thank you. Councilmember Peterson, chair of Transportation Utilities Committee. This bill was intended primarily to address sidewalk cafes and street cafes. Permitting, I did hear during public comment some other concerns, and I would have liked to be able to address those earlier on. And again, anyone who's engaged in land use, please don't hesitate to reach out to our office. We look forward to working with all stakeholders and Councilmember Peterson, who's done some really great work on this, and we work really well together. So all that to say is that sidewalk cafes and and cafe streets are really going to be the way that we create an economic ability, the ability for our economy to exist during COVID times, because outdoor transmission is lower than indoor transmission. And so the ability to use our public rights of way for economic activity is incredibly important. And this bill not only allows that, but also allows that to be free of charge so that we are ensuring that our economy is able to restart as quickly as possible and outdoors in an outdoor setting. We've seen these sidewalk cafes and street cafes and Seattle together, streets popping up across our city. And it's a really amazing feature that I think will have a lasting impact in a positive way for the city of Seattle and how we eat, dine, shop and and speak to one another, whether it's in COVID or once we're out of this pandemic. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson, would you like to add anything on to that? Councilmember Strauss Well said. And also just to remind everybody, this did pass unanimously out of the committee with all five members of the committee. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, Councilmember Mosqueda. I see your hand up and colleagues of anyone else would like to make comments. Please do let me know. Thank you. Council President Ford, the chair of transportation and for the prime sponsor of the bill. Actually, just a quick question, if you don't mind. And to catch us up, I wondering if you can talk about the timeline of some of these street cafes and the permitting process. I saw some comments online about the short duration of some of the permitting and a desire to either see the duration extended or in some cases , to make these locations permanent so that we can have some super black spots across our city as a possible positive outcome of this policy change. Can you comment a little bit if it's appropriate, Madam President, just on the duration and the possibility of extension or permanent nature? Sure. Councilmember Peterson, would you like to take that question? Yes, it is. For just a few months. It is supposed to be about during COVID pandemic. And first, we need to collect the data on how it how it's going, what the impacts are to other businesses who might not be getting these permits to who might want more parking nearby or bus routes, etc.. So we're collecting it's going to be collecting data on this so that we can determine what to do on a more permanent basis, if at all. Councilmember Strauss. Yes. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson. I would say that these permits were set up as quickly as possible by start working to respond to the COVID pandemic. So much like some of these other emergency responses, there was a short timeline associated with them. I think that with any pilot project, this one included, we will see the benefits and we'll also see what doesn't work so well. I am going to champion that we make these permanent features within our community because I think street cafes and sidewalk cafes are even before the pandemic. I was a very large fan of these. And to your point, the super blocks where we're able to really create a pedestrianized space that still allows for deliveries, operations, people with all ages and abilities are able to access that space and the three minute to go orders as well. There's a real opportunity here. I'm going to champion to make these permanent, and I would hope that my colleagues would join me in that. And with that, I want to thank Scott for working as quickly as possible to get this temporary permit available free of charge. Thank you both very much. Thank you so much. Are there any other comments by my colleagues? Okay. I would just say that I did reach out to the Department of Transportation related to some concerns that we received sort of in the in the in the in the 11th hour here about and we heard a little bit about this in public comment about the impact of this bill on street use fees on on construction of affordable homes. And unfortunately, my understanding is that Ascot did, in fact, do a presentation for the organization that reached out to us via letter and in public comment today, and that they received no concerns or feedback at that time. Again, that doesn't that doesn't mean that that there weren't concerns. It just means that that there was an opportunity and the opportunity was not taken at that time to provide any concerns. And again, the Department of Transportation believes that the intention of this proposal is to actually reduce the cost for townhouse type developments, and that projects outside of urban centers should remain pretty even. The increases proposed in the street use fees will primarily be in the downtown core. So Director Zimbabwe and his team are are happy to connect with any of us colleagues that continue to have concerns about this particular issue. And I look forward to supporting the bill as it is introduced today with the understanding that obviously there there could be there will be more to come on this policy issue as flagged by Councilmember Strauss in terms of. The potential long term nature of this kind of a program. So that being said, let's go and close that debate. And I would ask that the clerk call the roll on the passage of the bill. Or both? Yes. Whereas. I. Lewis. I. Morales, I. We'll get up. PETERSON. Yes. Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Council President Gonzalez. I vote in favor and oppose. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Agenda Item 20 Will the clerk please read item 20 into the record? Agenda Item 20 Council Bill 119867. An ordinance relating to the city's traffic code amending sections 11.4 6.10 and 11.4 6.020 of the Seattle Invisible Code to revise permissible areas of operation and the right of way and other public pathways for electric personal assistive mobility devices and motorized scooters.

Recommendation to conduct a study session to receive and file a presentation on the results of the user fees and cost recovery studies for the Development Services, Health and Human Services, and Parks, Recreation and Marine Departments and associated departmental recommendations.

LongBeachCC_05042021_21-0395

Madam Clerk, if you can please read the the study session item, and then I'll turn to. Recommendation to conduct a study session to receive and file a presentation on the results of the user fees and cost recovery studies. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council. So we have a presentation to give to you tonight on a strategic objective of a council's that's been underway for a couple of years now. This started back with the Budget Oversight Committee making a recommendation to the council to really focus and bring some attention to how we set our fees, doing some real analysis through outside experts to help us understand at what level should we be doing cost recovery? How do we determine cost recovery? And then where are the areas that we want to essentially subsidize? Because we want to make sure that our community has access to our services at a at a price that is affordable or at no cost at all. And so we are bringing you this as kind of an action item study session. And you're actually not taking action tonight. No fees are going to be approved tonight. This is more of a policy discussion. And then we'll be bringing you some of the first round of of the recommended fees on May 18th for you to consider. So I will turn it over to Grayson and Jody and Alejo, who will walk us through our presentation and the complex analysis that's been conducted. Great. Thank you very much, Tom. Good evening, Mayor and members of the city council. This agenda item, as Tom said, is to present to you an overview of the citywide fee study that has been completed for three departments, Health Parks and Development Services, and also present the department's recommendations on any changes to fees as a result of the study. Today's item is a presentation of the study and departmental recommendations that was previously transmitted and received by City Council on April six and similar to April six. As Tom mentioned, there are no actual fees changes being proposed tonight. The purpose of today's presentation is to provide City Council with an overview and an opportunity to make comments. The actual hearing to change fees as recommended by departments as well as other midyear fee changes is scheduled for May 18th. If the City Council has any changes to staff recommendations on fee changes, those can be made on the floor on the May 18th fee hearing. Geraldine Alejo, our revenue officer, will first provide a general background on fees as well as a background and overview of the citywide fees study. Then we will be turning the presentation over to Health Parks and Development Services, who will each go over the highlights of the study for their respective departments and their recommended fee changes? We will be available for questions at the end of all of the presentations. Before I turn it over, I do want to comment that this study and review has required a great deal of work analysis and time on the part of the departments. And Geraldine and I just want to appreciate them for their work towards this effort. And with that, I will turn it over to Geraldine. Thank you, Grace. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the City Council. I will first start with a brief overview of fees and charges. Fees and charges include two types of categories user fees and regulatory fees, both of which are included in the city wide master fees and charges schedule. User fees are charged for the use of a public service program such as recreation programs. Regulatory fees are charged to pay for the costs of a government program which regulates fee payer activity or use to mitigate the impact of the payers activity, such as building permits or pet licenses. Rents and penalties are also included in the master fees and charges schedule for convenience, but are not subject to the cost of service limitations. Rents include facility rentals and off street parking. Penalties include parking citations or late payment fees. Next slide. I you. User fees and regulatory fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of providing the service or program. City policy requires that fees are set at the cost of service, except where there is a greater public benefit using a lower fee. This is important to point out because in many instances the city actively sets fees lower than the cost of service to achieve other goals, including maintaining access to public programs and seeing competitive comparable jurisdictions or market rates. Some of these goals and dynamics will be highlighted as part of the department presentations and their fee change recommendations. The city currently has routine processes in place to ensure that fees are reviewed and updated regularly to capture annual cost increases. The city implements an annual inflation adjustment based on city cost increases called the City Costs Index, or CCI. The master fees and charges schedule is adopted each year with the budget with any proposed changes by the departments as well as any CCI updates applied to the fees. Mid-Year adjustments are also periodically submitted to City Council, either as a coordinated citywide effort managed by the Budget Office or on an as needed basis by individual departments. The next city wide fee adjustment letter will be presented to City Council on May 18th. Each fee adjustments council letter includes an estimated revenue impact from a proposed fee change. The revenue impacts are theoretical and may not necessarily result in a budgeted revenue change by the same amount. Any adjustments to actual budgeted revenues must be evaluated holistically and consider a variety of factors such as the stability and certainty of the revenue source, as well as whether the department is meeting its current overall budgeted revenue commitments. This review and update is typically part of the overall budget development process. Now I'd like to provide an overview of the Citywide Field Study Project. As a reminder, in fiscal year 19 and at City Council's direction, staff initiated an updated citywide study. This will be a multi-year project where all city fees will be evaluated, with some exceptions, such as the cases where separate rate studies are in progress or rates are set by external agencies. Each department study will identify and review the fees charged, calculate the full service costs with indirect and direct costs. Determine subvention rates by comparing fee revenue to the full cost of service and provide recommendations for fee levels or structures. The project continues to move forward on a rolling department basis and is anticipated to conclude in 2022. The first round is complete and covered development services, parks, parks, recreation, Marine, as well as a portion of Health and Human Services. Each of the round one departments will be presenting study findings and the recommendations later in this presentation. The second round started in November with energy resources, public works and police departments. Pull in. Preliminary results are anticipated for these departments this summer. A consultant applied a consistent methodology across all department studies, which started with identifying service centers and fees and reviewing cost components. Cost components are based on the FY 20 budget and include direct costs, salaries, benefits and operating expenses as well as indirect costs, which includes departmental overheads such as administration and citywide indirect costs based on the city's indirect costs plan, the cost components are then included in a fully burdened hourly rate per position. The allocated cost is determined by multiplying the fully burdened hourly rate to the staff. Time spent to support a service after the fully allocated service cost is determined. It is compared to the current fee revenues to identify the subvention rate by service. This table is a summary of the costs, recovery and subvention rates per department and shows that the city is generally under recovering for calculated service cost. More information will be included as part of the department presentations with costs and subvention rates reported at the General Service categories or areas. The departments have reviewed the results of the studies and have recommendations on any changes they are proposing to make. The majority of department recommendations align with the study recommendations on full cost recovery, but deviate in some cases based on prioritizing different goals other than full cost recovery, as I noted earlier. These various factors will be noted as part of each department presentation. The departments will share more information on the recommendations. But to summarize here, the first table is a summary of the department's FY 21 midyear recommendations. Of the 1147 individual fees reviewed by the consultant, 470 remained unchanged. 276 or increase 190 were decrease. 188 were restructured. And finally, there were 23 deleted fees. The fees reported here are proposed clean ups to the department. Fee schedule for services are no longer provided by the city. The estimated theoretical annual revenue impact from the department recommendations is 2,013,978 and spans across various funds. Again, budget and actual revenues will be reviewed during the budget process and will vary based on usage and market or economic conditions. Although departments will be presenting an overview of study findings and propose recommendations, no changes to the master fees and charges schedule are requested tonight during this study session. Proposed changes to the master fees and charges will be brought to City Council for approval on May 18th. The proposed changes on May 18th will include the department recommendations discussed today, as well as other midyear fee changes typically proposed by departments as part of the midyear fee change process. Regarding fee changes from the city wide fee study, there have been no changes to the recommendations since they were first received by City Council on April six. After May 18th, the next citywide fee adjustment process will be part of the FY22 budget adoption process. This concludes the overview. I will now turn it over to Health and Human Services. Pamela Bright for an overview of study findings and the Department recommendations for fiscal year 21. Thank you very much. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council Members. Physician Services. Preliminary results are as such. The vendor reviewed 77 fees within a physician's services bureau. Next slide, please. Within a physician services bureau. They reviewed service categories in the following areas vital records, travel, immunization, laboratory services. As a result, the study found that the department is at a 46% cost recovery rate and a 54% subvention rate. PS. An Environmental Health Bureau will be reviewed in a later phase, tentatively scheduled for later this month. Next slide, please. The bottom of the screen represents the total, which is a combined total for each respective service category, which those service categories are in column one. In Column two. That is the combined actual cost to render the services, which is the 1.1 million. Column three. That $508,603 is the amount collected for the services rendered. The total profit or subvention is a 594,866, which represents a 46% cost recovery and a 54% subvention rate. Next slide, please. While determining whether or not to accept the fee study, we had to consider many factors. Enhancing access to public health services. Essentially the overall public benefit. Comparisons to neighboring jurisdictions. Medicare. Medical fees for clinical services. Or clinical fees. Regulatory requirements for laboratory fees. With this in mind. Out of the 77 fees reviewed at this time, we are not requesting any changes. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. Okay. I'm sorry. Okay. So this particular slide. Is the key items to consider. So for today's presentation, we really wanted to focus on vital records and vital records. We wanted to look at the full cost for recovery. When we did a comparison to other jurisdictions, what we noticed was what we were able to information we were able to get back was that the expedited copy of birth certificate fee would be 113% higher than L.A. County. The studies propose letters for non contagious disease b would be 450% higher in L.A. and Riverside counties. The study's proposed emergency weekend death fee. Death certificate fee would be 280% higher in Berkeley. Next slide, please. So overall, increasing these fees or increasing these vital records fees to recover the full cost of providing these services would inhibit or hinder access to these public services due to all preceding factors, as well as detrimental impacts of COVID 19 pandemic. The Health Department is not proposing any changes at this time. The Department will review the study recommendations for physician services fees and may move forward with proposed fee increases as part of the fiscal year two fiscal year 22 budget process. However, there's a high probability that we will not recommend any fee increases. I know there was one flight that was missed and that flight talked about some of the reasons why. We do not want to increase the fees. And those were okay. And. City services reform, I think is further up. Further back. But essentially, when we looked at all day, we compared it to other jurisdictions. We looked at Medicare, medical fees, studies, office schedules. We also took into consideration that the benefit to public. So that's why at this particular moment in time we are not making any recommendations to increase anything is. Not sure if there are any questions. I have a. Question. Sure. But I don't know if we're saving them till the end. I could. Okay. So I'm going to turn it over to Parks Recreation and the Marine Department. Thank you very much. Honorable Mayor and members of City Council. My name Brant Dennis and I serve you in this community as a director of Parks, Recreation and Marine. This evening I present to you an overview of our department's cost of services study and a summary of recommendations. I'd like to point out another major area that our department supports is Animal Care Services. The department is appreciative. Of the opportunity to complete the cost of services, study fee revenue and its impact to the department's ability to provide programs and services is important to PRM. We take our responsibility seriously to establish fees that are fair and equitable, to provide affordable and diversified services to all individuals. Next slide, please. The department has over 800 fees spanning multiple funds during this round of the study. 654 current fees were evaluated. The remaining fees, not including in the study, are regularly reviewed through other established mechanisms. The study discusses changes to current rates and possible new fees pursuant to the City Charter. The Parks and Recreation Commission has authority over recreational programs and facilities, which includes the approval of related fees. Fees within the Commission's authority that were approved at their meeting in January will be presented today as they were part of the study. It's important to note that full cost recovery is not always recommended in order to encourage access to important recreational opportunities. Next slide, please. Here you will see a summary of subvention rates by service area. The columns represent service costs. Fee revenue at the current rate and the total profit or subvention. This chart includes all group funds. This chart does not include revenue unrelated to fee charges and doesn't represent fees that were excluded from the study, such as golf and marine slip fees. At the current level of fee and fee revenue represented here, the department is achieving a 13% cost recovery rate overall. Next slide, please. At the conclusion of the Study Department recommendations include changes, including both rate increases and decreases to meet cost recovery and operational needs, as well as changes in fee structures to align with service provision. The total estimated annual revenue impact from the recommended changes is approximately $514,000 in general fund and over $60,000 in the Tidelands operating fund groups. Next slide, please. During the course of the study, it's important to consider the impact of prime services and programs to the community as part of the compassion sales policy. Animal Care Services rate changes are recommended to encourage the best outcome for treatable animals. Implementing changes in fee titles to clearly identify services is recommended for consistency and to align with our service offerings. Market based fees such as rent, space and equipment are set by what the market can bear and public demand. Cost recovery is often calculated at an aggregate level of cost center, which considers the costs of a group instead of individual fees. Next slide, please. Of the total fees included in the study. PRM proposes that 340 remain unchanged. 20 fees are proposed to decrease. 162 are proposed to increase. 109 are restructured fees and 23 fees have been deleted. Recommendations in the study for new fees that are not proposed as part of the fiscal year. 21 midyear recommendations will be brought to City Council at a later date. Next slide, please. Examples of recommended adjustments are decrease fees for animal in pounds, increase fees for field use permits and facility rentals, and new fee structures for artificial turf fields just to name a few. Rates set below cost recovery are charges for staff time, animal impound and medical services and the youth sports program. Keeping these fees below costs recovery removes barriers to access programs and services. Next slide, please. Comparisons to other jurisdictions and agencies can be difficult because other agencies have different fee structures and fee types then prime such as sports field use and facility rentals. Animal licensing fees are in the higher range when compared to other agencies. Marine Bureau rates maintain a competitive price point when compared to similar marine agencies, helping to ensure a financially sound enterprise while remaining in competitive balance with marine industry price trends. Finally, I want to thank financial management and the consultants for their leadership. These are important to our city and the department finances and help us provide critical programs and services that our community needs. This concludes my presentation, and then I'll turn it over to the Department of Development Services Director Oscar Orsi. Thank you, Mayor, and members of the city council. Next slide, please. Unlike the other departments that you've heard from tonight, the development services is funded largely from the Development Services Fund rather than the general fund. And it is funded through the collection of fees for services that include entitlements, client checks and inspections. The consultant helped us analyze over 400 fees, and it was determined that overall the department was under collecting the most significant subventions were in our current planning and historic planning services. However, we also determined that the building bureau was over collecting by approximately 30%. Next slide, please. As illustrated in this chart, current planning and historic planning have the largest fee recovery variance at 69 and 40%, respectively. As a whole, the department's invention rate is approximately 11% or $3.64 million. Next slide, please. Development services are recommending both increases and decreases, decreases in fees as well as restructuring fees to align with the services provided. As previously indicated, the theoretical revenue rate would be $1.45 million. The fees would be aligned with the study's recommendations, with the exception of historic of certain historic and current planning fees. Next slide, please. Although historic and current planning fees are not at full cost, recovery staff has recommended recommending that certain higher historic and current planning fees be phased in over a 2 to 3 year period because of the nature of the increases. Staff will evaluate the increases each year to determine if there was a need for an increase. Next slide, please. This slide provides a summary of the proposed changes to the fees. As indicated, 41%. Rather, 170 applications are proposed to be decreased, whereas 27% of the other fees are proposed to increase for 114 total fees. At this point, we are recommending that no changes be made to our to certain fees, particularly our fees, as we need further study to better assess the vacancies and the COVID impacts that we've had. As indicated on the next slide, 19% of the fees are proposed to be restructured to align with services. New fees for new programs or services with no fees such as a short term rental program and appeals are also proposed. Next slide, please. In an effort to compare our fees and to determine the competitive nature of of Long Beach versus other communities. We did do a comparison, but please note that it's difficult to compare with each jurisdiction because of the potential in difference in a difference of service delivery model. And we may those other communities may be under collecting for that similar service. That said, staff selected a few common fees and found that they were within the range of other cities. Next slide, please. This slide provides several examples of some of our most common permits. Just to highlight a few of those. The CHP, for example, at 8400, is within the range of other communities, although a range of other communities. As another example, the hypothetical 2500 square foot addition at 4500 lies also within the middle range of other communities. And that's it. Thank you. I'll turn this over to Grace for further information. Great. Thank you very much. So wrapping up this presentation, in summary, the city is generally under recovering for costs based on the studies done for health parks and development services. The three departments are proposed recommendations that are generally aligned with the study's finding for full cost recovery. However, as we've mentioned tonight, there are deviations from the study's findings where the department proposes setting fees lower than the cost of service based on prioritization of other goals, such as program participation, competitiveness, maximizing revenues, residents needs and ability to pay, etc. The theoretical revenues potentially generated from the proposed fee changes will be evaluated and if adopted by council included as appropriate as part of future proposed budget processes in line with our financial policies. And lastly, these proposed changes discussed today, along with other changes to the master fee and charges schedule, is scheduled to come before council on May 18th. City Council can officially adopt these changes on that date. This concludes the presentation and Geraldine, myself and the departments are available for questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. I'm going to take over. At this point, I don't have the cue system. So I'm going to call I'm going to call through council members from 1 to 9 and just let me know if you have comments. Council District one. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to thank staff for this presentation. One of the things that I'm looking forward to is not seeing fees increase for our residents. Right. Especially during this pandemic. But I really look forward to in the near future getting the opportunity to really dig deep into this presentation and the fees themselves. So thank you very much for this presentation to start. Fantastic. Thank you. Council District two. Yes, thank you. The ICE mayor. And I also want to thank the staff for this presentation. One of the things that, you know, we hear a lot about is that, you know, government is inefficient. And so I just want to make sure as we're looking at our direct and indirect cost, that we are looking at restructuring any . Of our products or. Services just to make sure that we're being efficient as can be. And and definitely want to make sure that we are aligning our fees so that all of our residents can utilize our services. And that it's, you know. Accessible and affordable for all of our residents. So where you think you. Thank you. Council District three. Thank you very much. Appreciated that presentation. Thank you very much to all of the departments that presented this evening. I do have a question for our PRM team. The first thing is I. Want to acknowledge and really thank you for being able to take a look at our swim of fees and reducing those. I think that's a really fantastic. I like that we were able to reduce those both for adults and youth and really try to promote some more aquatics programing so that the residents can take advantage of that , that offering that we have. So that that's really fantastic. I did have a question on page. 57 of the 455 page Appendix A. There are some increases for group rentals. And. The rate seem to increase based on the number of people. But then there are different categories. So if you look at, for example, item number 436 for a group rental of 41 to 80 people, there's a certain cost. But then if you look at 440 for a group rental, 41 to 80, there's a different cost. Is that is that based on the venue or is there a different table that goes along with this with this appendix that I'm not aware of? Yeah, Councilwoman, that's a good question. So in many in many cases depends on the change of venue, but also as the group size increases for pools, it does require a ratio of increased lifeguard coverage. So that could be a factor that's clearly distinguishing some increases. But yeah, we were pleased to keep a lot of our rates are swimming rates for the general public at or at a reduced level. Thank you. Okay. Got it. Yeah. I don't think I have any additional questions. I mean, obviously we have to strike a balance in terms of the the services that we provide and the fees associated with those. And I'm sure that metric is different for each department. I will say when I was looking at. And I just sent. A photo of it to someone on our staff when I was looking at the development services fees, one of the biggest fees we get complaints about from people is the concessional conditional use permit fee. And it's noteworthy and I think it's worthy of mention that our conditional use permit fee is much lower, I think, than other cities of our size, or at least along the same lines, insignificant in terms of the difference if there is an increase from other jurisdictions. And I think that's really worth noting and something that I hope to cite in the future if that complaint is directed at the city, because I think that it takes a tremendous amount of work to process those conditional use permits and to be able to do it at a rate that is consistent with and in many cases lower than neighboring jurisdictions. I think it's worthy of mention. So thank you very much for the presentation tonight. Thank you. Counsel before. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. I have kind of a general question. I can certainly wait till the 18th to sort this out. But just to kind of plant the seed. So I understood that one of Grace's concluding remarks was that in some cases, we have fees that do not cover the cost. Conversely, I assume to balance that budget, you'd have to pay fees that are over the cost. So if we can kind of cover that topic on the 18th, I greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Edition five. Thank you. I've been working towards this report for several years, and I think that the pandemic has really highlighted the disparities in our systems and the great need for us to be able to target specific. Reductions in fees through need and need is not always determined by a person's participation in a type of program, but really their true costs and burdens and in their position in life. And so one of the things that I think is really important is for us to continue to work towards a universal access card for Long Beach, where a person could qualify for assistance, and that card would then allow them to receive lots of our services at a reduced rate. So an example of that is in another jurisdiction. The Junior Lifeguard program is. $540 per session. However, if you meet a certain threshold, you get a subvention of somewhere between ten and 90%. So that would really target pulling in communities that would not otherwise have had those opportunities. Instead of spending a program on the whole. Next, I would say that there are certain costs that we haven't because we've always invented them. And in certain cases I think that. Some individuals need that support more than others. So an example might be, and I try not to pick one out, but I think that the the example is important. If a vital record service is subsidizing the costs by 49%, and then we say if we were to do true cost recovery, then we would be at a 113%. And I wasn't clear it was 113% of L.A. County's fee or our fee, but a birth certificates, $28. And if you're a family that needs assistance and aid, $20 is still a lot of money versus a family that may have had. Means and was able to provide. A different level of of opportunity. They would be comfortable paying the $56 for the birth certificate. And I think that we do ourselves a disservice as a city just reducing the fees for every unit of every person. And I think that we as a city would be able to provide more assistance to the people who need it most. If we were able to really push forward with our qualification card and the reason I say that is I had a discussion with another councilmember today that was really enlightening about how do we get people in the system? Well, people are already qualified if they're a resident of Long Beach through the utilities. So even if you don't have an ID card, you may pay utilities in our city. And so if you've already gone through the process, either with Southern California Edison or the Long Beach Community Action Partnership or with the gas company or the water company to demonstrate that you're of low income, you should be able to scan your card anywhere that services are needed. And we should be able to, as a council, determine that there are programs and services that you need that we should subsidize. And then, on the other hand, if you're not in need of those services today, we had a great presentation at the Infrastructure Committee by Mr. Mario Cordero, who talked about the K-Shaped recovery, where certain people and certain income groups have amassed more wealth in the last year with the inability to spend money than they've ever needed to before. And I know that that's apparent in my community that has median incomes that range from the I guess it doesn't range because it's an actual number, but this year's numbers not out yet. We have a high increase in permit requests. And so if we're not burdening the true cost of those permits onto the person and applying, then the the catch on that is that then their projects are often delayed. So there are people who tell me I would have paid the extra $200 if you would have let me process my roof, because not letting me process my roof means that there's significantly more costs because now I have a leak and that leak has caused this and that and the other. And now my costs are $3,000 more because I wasn't able to get the services I needed in a timely fashion because we either vented the costs and did not have enough staff. I know that COVID was a specific, unique scenario in development services this year, but. It's important for us to put a couple of things of messaging on everything that has a fee associated, in my opinion. I believe that we should put on any document that states a fee that the city does not make money on residents, business owners or landlords, that the true cost of recovery of this service would be. X So let's say there was a fee that was 80 $500 this up and Councilman Price brought this up. We get a lot of requests to reduce the cost of a cop. Perhaps it would make sense for us to say that the city does not make money through fees. Therefore, cost recovery. The true cost recovery of this fee would be $12,860. Through an action of the City Council. We are supporting this fee because we believe there's a value in having a conditional use permit presented to the Council. And so to incentivize that, we reduce the fee by 25% and your fee is 80 $500. Councilwoman, obviously that's. Your 5 minutes is up. Thank you. Obviously, that's very verbose and we could hone that down considerably. But I plan to meet with each of the department heads that have gone through this process so far. I look forward to hearing their insights and and opportunities for improvement. And I have some specific questions on some specific fees, but I guess I'll meet with them individually on that. But there's one thing that's happening in my district that doesn't have a fee associated with it and that individuals should not get a free service if we don't feel that there's a need to segment it because there's not a value that the city as a whole. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Council District six, please. I just want to thank staff for the presentation, and I think it's really important and I appreciate the process that takes of getting us a report on user, just the fees and reviewing it. And I look forward to our May 18. As you know, they're similar. My colleague just questioning how we can ensure that the fees are done in in a way that ensure services are appropriately provided in consideration of those it's serving. So so that's pretty much it for me on my end. Thank you. I think. All right. Thank you. Council District seven, please. Thank you, Mayor. Well, the most important is, I think that this study really comes out of the fact that we really have to look at market based fees, what's out there, what can the market tolerate in regard to some of the structures that we have in many of the services to make sure that, you know, at these things, you said it best right there to make sure that that people understand that the fees that we're charging is not because we're out to make a buck, but because we're providing a service. And I think that's very important that we get that message out, that the fees that we had is a cost, recovery of the cost for our employees out there, of vehicles, of gas, whatever, whatever it takes, all the other infrastructure type type of costs that we have to bear and those fees cover those costs. So, I mean, it's very important that we get a real robust market fee structure in there in place to make sure that we are aligned with what our neighbors are doing so that we don't overprice ourselves out of the market to to have people eventually say, I'm leaving Long Beach because you're just too expensive. I know that comes up a lot with with our license fees or business license fees. We get that all the time. I get that all the time. But you guys cost too much. Also, we were always been criticized for the fact that our parking fees seem to always be going up. And, you know, we have to be careful about if we have an increase in fees, we have to make sure that it's within the market and what and what people can stand. So I'm looking forward to the 18th. We will be able to have a more robust discussion on this and be able to review all the other 1000 fees. Are there 2000 fees that will be reviewed across all the department? So I want to thank staff for an overview. Thank you. Thank you. Council District eight. Thank you. Join. Want to join with my colleagues in thanking staff for this detailed presentation. I think we missed this a few weeks ago, but I'm glad we are. We're having this conversation. It's very enlightening. I, I want to just to sort of give recognition to our previous form about budget share Stacie, Margo Councilmember lingo for being or harping on this issue of subversion. And I think the first time I heard that term, I was doing a, B or C meeting and she's been talking about this for some time. And so to have this report, I know it's something that she's been working towards for for some time. And so I want to thank her and especially our financial management staff, but all the departments who participated in this, this is very eye opening, understanding that our mission is service as a city. It's not we're not a corporation. And so we don't necessarily need to balance the cost. But I think we should do a better job of cost recovery where we can. And this gives us a really bird's eye view of where opportunities could lie, but also where where we we we may have some some challenges. I want to be mindful of the 23 projected shortfall that we have. And and this is a great opportunity for us to start making adjustments to to address some of our budget challenges that we know we will be facing in the very near future. And, you know, based on what I'm seeing are our we've got a $55 billion subvention and the recommendations from staff is is to recover about $2 billion of it here. I think we can do better, better. And this council I put upon each and every one of us to go and dig a little deeper and look at , you know, where we can, you know, make make adjustments. I did have a question for, I guess, that our city manager is when it comes to subvention in terms of local government practices, is there any sort of like standardized? Methodology to to to understand switching cost. And where we should be. Is there is there a standard or best practice recommended councilmember Austin. We do have city are part of our city wide financial policies is a policy on cost recovery and our financial policies that council have adopted is that we would cost recovery at the rate of service except when there are other priorities that the Council deems as higher. And as we mentioned during the study and the departments also addressed this as well. There may be other goals such as program participation, staying competitive in the market, different ways to maximize our revenue, looking at our residents needs and abilities to pay. Overall, I think cities in general do factor in all of these things when setting their rates and for their cost recovery. And our goal for these citywide studies that we're doing right now is to get to the data and the facts for what the data tells the subvention rate is. But then also each department is customizing and looking and evaluating with the consultants what is our goals and our priorities and why we might be setting rates at a lower level than the actual cost of city. So and one thing just to clarify from a comment earlier is we are not setting any fees higher than the cost of the service, at least not intentionally. And so part of the goal of this study is to to make sure that we know that we are not doing that and getting the data and the facts so that we know if there is any overages will bring them down and if there is subvention to evaluate whether or not we want to bring the cost up to cost recovery or to continue this event for these other purposes. Thank you. And I just had a clarification on that. I'm sure we'll have a lot more discussion on May 18th, but I want to get some clarification. Were all of the funds considered here, general for or for other departments, or were other funds factored in reserve? So health fund is in the health department is almost all health fund fees in the Development Services Fund. It was a little bit of general fund, but almost all of it is Development Services Fund, which is a fully contained enterprise and is designed to be cost recovery and self-sufficient. And then in Parks and Rec, it's mostly general fund, but there's also some tailwinds there as well. So related to the Marine bureau, would that be tailored mostly? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. And no further questions. Look forward to more conversation about this. Thanks. Fantastic. Thank you. Just a few thoughts on this. So look forward to this has been a good discussion. Great presentation. I look forward to the discussion in a few weeks. I hesitate to raise fees on. I always hesitate to raise fees on low income families and youth, particularly on quality of life programs. I know that we do full cost recovery, but I think just the staff mentioned it. Sometimes the council has a different priority and historically we've, you know, focused on removing barriers for people to be able to participate in some of these programs. So I would you know, I hesitate to raise any any of those fees, and I don't see those being proposed here. I think our policy on full cost recovery, you know, I think that that's a that's a good thing. Most most businesses that I know and and you know and from what I know, folks, as long as they get a value add, as long as they understand what they're getting for their fee, they're fine paying what the market fee is and and making sure that full cost fees go directly to the city. If anything, folks like seeing it actually come into the city's coffers and not go to a third party contractor to provide service. So these fees, they do support, you know, our city having quality public services and public employees providing those services. So. So I think as long as we keep them, you know, think about the value added, particularly as it relates to the development services fees. If that be into development services, you know, if they're fully funded, they're going to move faster, that people are going to get projects done quicker, ultimately saves money. And so so we just have to think about the value add. The other thing is and this is the issue of raising the past, I'm just going to ask, you know, staff to kind of respond to this. You know, I've I've I've I remember, you know, one time we opened a burger place in North Long Beach. They opened all their fees and they were closed within a year. And, you know, we have areas of town where the failure rate of small business, like they like many, many small businesses, fail in the first three years. We always ask the question, why charge fees in the first place and add to a barrier for a business that we know is going to struggle in this in this particular area of town. And so I would just ask staff, you know, as we're thinking about these fees, are we factoring in and how we go about making sure that we I know we have to make sure fees are fair across the board, but that we sort of, you know, target cents or rebates or whatever it is to make sure that they advance some of these, you know, strategic goals. I would ask staff, how would how would you respond to some of those recommendations in the past about, you know, structuring fees or rebates related to fees to create, you know, more opportunity in areas of the town where, particularly with small businesses, just haven't thrived within within the first three years of establishment. Yes. Vice Mayor. So in that particular instance, that would probably mostly be the Development Services Fund. So again, it's designed as a self-contained fund so that it's not drawing upon general fund. In some of your other areas, we might just say, hey, we just want to cut the fee in half for certain areas or for certain types of businesses, but for their own services. If you if you aren't doing full cost recovery, then you're going to end up having general fund go in and subsidizing that, which we've always tried to avoid. So in that particular instance, we would recommend that you achieve your full cost recovery. You set what the rates are, you make sure you've you're collecting it, and then you create a separate fund, could be Recovery Act, could be something else, and then be really surgical and really intensive about where you want to provide a subsidy. So then you can say these are the types of businesses that fail. This is what we want to try to, you know, create and make it easier for them and use that funding to reduce the burden on the business. Thank you. And it all makes sense to me. You know, I know this is really the forum for that. But, you know, as we move forward, those are things I'm interested in seeing. We have the ability to make things work a little bit easier, particularly in areas that have dealt with generations of the same economic condition. And we have to change the condition in order to have a different outcome. And so those things I'll be looking forward to in the future. Those are my comments. Thank you so much, staff. I see Councilman Mungo's queued up, queued up for a second round, Councilmember. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember at. I want to address some of the things you said, because I think it really goes back to a discussion that you and I and the council had in 2014 or 15 where. There was a first year refund and rebates program that we did, and we set aside general funds to pay back some of the fees that a business has to pay in the first year that they have a business. And one of the things that was really interesting is the business community really supported the idea that if you open a new business, you shouldn't have to pay the fees for two years. And the council was supportive. We had a unanimous vote. We moved in that direction. Then in alignment with the business community, they said it would be really easy for them to get these refunds. And so it was literally a one page document that had maybe five things to fill out your name, your business, your address, the amount of fees you want refunded. It was simple, and it was at every station in the Development Services Office. And what we found was that in the. Strain and struggle of opening a new business. The number of people that actually applied for it was significantly lower than the anticipated projection by both the business community and the city. So I am in agreement. It would be great if we could figure out a way to. Incentivize opening businesses. I know that from our presentation from Mr. Chrysler Economic Development, our restaurants are on the low end of the number of new businesses in the city and your district. In my district, we don't have as many. But it is interesting as a a person who's opened my own business before, as a person who comes from a family that had 16 businesses in the lowest income areas of Long Beach and a franchise. When you're opening a business and when I interview individuals who have gone through these processes, there's just so much paperwork and guidance at the beginning. And I think that something else that I want to say, Councilmember Sorrow and Councilwoman Allen and you spoke about earlier that has also been a real gem to my heart is really that mentoring and coaching that's available from our Small Business Development Center and other areas. Because when you're starting that business up and you're trying your financials and order and your marketing and all that, this one form, which was the simplest we could possibly make, it wasn't a top priority to these businesses. So we really need to reflect on hopefully times have changed and that would be something that they would be interested in. But I know that we ended up repurposing that money after two years of underutilization. I'm I want to comment on a comment from Councilmember Otunga. I thought it was really a really smart comment to say about market rate fees and as a champion for the libraries and having brought forward many items that waived the fines on books. The way that we're able to do that is because the individuals who can't afford to make those those payments do. And there were some unique stories. I talked to a couple of moms and my mommy group about how Councilmember Ortigas item really brought forward their just knowledge and awareness that they had outstanding books and they ended up not needing to not pay their fines and fees. It was $5 and they felt it was important to pay it. So they taught their children and they did. But the item and the ability to do that is possible when we have market rate fees and other areas, not that we want to raise fees, especially in a time of COVID, but Councilmember Austin's point about the best practices of cost recovery, the city would have $55 million to target and say, we believe that the most important thing in these communities is considered an apex to health. And so we don't want to have sports fees, and we could do that if we were cost recovery in other areas. But it's about tough choices. So I know one of the things that happened in another area that I worked in, in another government was when we found out what those cost recoveries were. We also put ourselves on a three year path for cost recovery. We did not burden those entities with the full cost recovery in the first year. And so potentially that would be a strategy. We know we're in a deficit. I would love to be in a position where we had the Long Beach access card, where families that needed it most and qualified for income assistance could scan. And when they needed to go to Eldorado Park or when they needed a park at the library, they would pay nothing but individuals who were making $180,000 a year, $400,000 a year, which we're very fortunate to have lots of people in our community that do that. Perhaps it wouldn't make the most sense to be subsidizing their parking or subsidizing their $7 to go to the park. So I think that those are the ways in which we really get the communities that need it most instead of just an overarching fees, our fees, and we should lower them all because they're high, then we don't really get to use the funding to help the communities and lift them up in an equitable way. So those are just some of my thoughts and I hope that. The transparency component of this is appreciated because I think it's important for each of us to know what the true cost of things are so that we as a city and as individuals can prioritize where we believe that funding needs to go. So thanks so much. And I don't support raising too many fees. I'm in the downturn, the economy, and I never support raising them on our our families that are most need. But I think it's important for us to make those tough decisions. That's why we were elected. So thanks so much. All right. Thank you. Any public comment on a study session? No public comment. All right. Let's go ahead and have a roll call. We need a motion and second to resume on file. Some moved. Moved. Okay. I think I saw Austin second. Or is that your second? Okay. All right. Let's go ahead to the roll call vote. I'm sorry, who is the seconder on the motion? The usually ranga. Ranga? So Zondi house was a mover or ranga was a seconder. Right. Okay. District one. I. District two I, district three. I, district four. I. District five I. District six i. District seven. I. District eight. By District nine. I motion carries. All right. So that satisfies the agenda. As we close, I'm going to go to four new businessmen, go to council member Zoro first, who has a request to close the meeting.

An ORDINANCE related to the City’s Emergency Management Program; adding Sections 10.02.045 and 10.02.047 to the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) to refine the roles and responsibilities of the Office of Emergency Management; and amending Sections 10.02.050, 10.02.060, 10.02.070, 10.02.080, 10.02.090, 10.02.100, and 10.02.110 of the SMC to accommodate these refinements.

SeattleCityCouncil_09082015_CB 118483

Agenda Item 29 Council Bill 118483 related to the city's emergency management program, adding sections 10.0 2.045 and 10.0 2.047 to the Seattle Municipal Code to refine the roles and responsibilities of the Office of Emergency Management Management and amending sections 10.0 2.050 through 10.0 2.110 of the Seattle Ms.. Code. To accommodate these refinements, the Committee recommends the Council bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember Harrell. Thank you very much. So the city's emergency management program has evolved in the last ten years from primarily first responder focused program to what can be only described now as a full fledged whole community program, including the roles, responsibilities, training and practice for nearly all city departments and dozens of community partners. So the Seattle Municipal Cole chapter describing this program as enacted in the seventies, with only minor departmental name change in the last 15 years and really no longer reflects the strength and breadth of our current program. And so since that time, national standards for emergency management accreditation have been developed. And so the suggested revisions are more in line with the national standards and the substantive changes. Substantive changes can really be categorized in four areas. Number one, the new OEM director will be appoint an appointed position as it is now. The OEM director will oversee an established program. The program abides by an incident command system, and the mayor's emergency executive board will act as the policy oversight body during these extenuating circumstances. And the current code is basically silent on these issues. Ten years ago, when the current OEM director was appointed, this appointment was not subject to council confirmation. And just by way of context, context, the director technically reports to the Chief of police, but in practice this OEM director is a captain position reports also to the mayor. So six different chiefs of police and the current OEM deck director has served under all strike that have all been supportive of this kind of arrangement. This legislation establishes the Office of Emergency Management. However, the office will remain a division within the police department unless the Mayor wishes to move it, which is currently under charters within the mayor's discretion. Again, on August 9th, on August 19th, the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee made a recommendation, passed this legislation. I ask for your support. Questions or comments. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Harrell I Lakota High O'Brien, Okamoto Rasmussen, Sergeant Bagshot Gordon and President Burgess. Hi nine in favor and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read items through th4.

Petition of Seattle City Light to vacate a portion of Diagonal Avenue South, west of 4th Avenue South.

SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_CF 314451

Agenda Item 17 four file 314451. Petition of Seattle City Light to vacate a portion of Diagonal Avenue, south west of Fourth Avenue South. The committee recommends that all be granted as conditions. Thank you. It's chair of the committee. I'll provide this report. Clerk file three one, four, four, five, one. It's simply the petition of Seattle City Life to make a portion of Diagonal Avenue, south west of Fourth Avenue South. The vacation of this portion of the street would connect Seattle See Light South Service Station, which includes property on both sides of diagonal south at this location. The Seattle Department of Transportation and the Seattle Design Commission have reviewed the vacation position in this Clark file 314451 and recommend granting the vacation public benefits proposed as part of the vacation process include transferring property currently owned by satellite in the Georgetown neighborhood, the so-called slum property to ESTA and to the Seattle Department of Parks and Rec in conjunction with development of a bike pedestrian trail, improved bike ped connections between Georgetown and South Park and an off leash dog park within the Georgetown neighborhood. The committee voted unanimously to recommend approval. Are there any comments on this bill? Will the clerk please call the roll and granting the clerk file as conditions? Lewis. Yes. Morales. I must get there. I want. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Yes. Juarez, I think, has a President Pro-Tem Peterson. II. In favor and unopposed. And the clerk's I was granted as condition. And the chair will sign the commissions with the clerk, please, to fix my signature to the conditions on my behalf. Item 18 Report. Please read item 18 of the rest.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager to execute an amendment to Agreement No. 23214 with Tiburon, Inc., to provide software support services for Computer-Aided Dispatch and Records Management Systems, in an amount not to exceed $402,327 for an additional 12-month term through February 2017. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02162016_16-0144

Councilman Mongo. Motion carries. Item 21 Report from Technology and Innovation Recommendation to Execute an amendment to Amend Amendment to agreement with Tiburon to provide software support services for computer aided dispatch and records management systems in an amount not to exceed $402,000 citywide. Is there a staff report? Our Technology Innovation Director, Brian Stokes. Vice Mayor, member City Council before you is a recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the agreement of 2321 four with Tiburon to provide software services for our CAD system, our records management system in an amount not to exceed $402,327. It's for a 12 month term, and I'm available for any questions after that. Thank you, Councilman. Councilmember, Your Honor. Thank you, Mayor. This is an important tool that our police department uses. And in tracking the vehicles and other. In other issues that the cap comes out to. I strongly support them. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Councilman Andrews. You too. Thank you. Is there any member of the public that wish to address Council on item 21? CNN members cast your vote. Motion carries. Item 22. Yes. No.

Recommendation to adopt resolution to authorize City Manager to submit a Notice of Intent to Comply with the regulations of Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383) per the Senate Bill 619 (SB 619) Statute. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03012022_22-0231

Motion is carried. Great. And then we have item 20. Report from Public Works recommendation to adopt a resolution to authorize city manager to submit a notice of intent to comply with the regulations of Senate Bill 1383 per the Senate Bill 619 statute citywide. Thank you. Every staff report here. Marin County Property team. Can we provide Aaron rolling with panelist access, please? Thank you. Yes. We're promoting her right now. For. Mayor in council. We're getting the staff on. But I'll just give a real summary. We did this action. That's what we did. Yeah, we did this action last meeting. But the state asked for some pretty minor changes to the actual documents that you're going to approve. And we need to get those approved tonight so we can submit them by March 1st tonight and be in compliance with state law. So this is essentially. What you saw last week, just slightly modified. Fantastic. Thanks for clarifying. Is there a motion in the second I can move your fingers or a second? Second Sunday. Has there any public comment here? If any members of the public wished to speak on this item, please use a raised hand feature or if dialing in by phone by pressing star nine. Dave Shukla. Oh, hello. Thank you. Very briefly. I'd really like to see green beans throughout the entire city. I think also we need collection points for organic. We need soil creation. We need the ability to allow vendors who already do this, to do it in the most cost effective or least zero leased vehicle. Miles traveled way possible. We want. As fewer listeners as possible. Thank you. I conclude. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Mungo's queued up. Thank you. I could because I was going to make some comments related to the implementation of the system may actually be less environmentally friendly than the system we currently have in place. And so while we are working towards meeting the statewide goals, I think it's also important for us to continue to advocate for the most effective and environmentally friendly option for Long Beach, which may be different than environmentally friendly options for cities that live closer to landfills. Thank you. Thank you. Let's have a look. District one. High District two. Right. District three. By. District four. By District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. All right. Motion is carried.

A proclamation recognizing the 30th Anniversary year of the Metropolitan Denver Scientific and Cultural Facilities District.

DenverCityCouncil_11192018_18-1383

However, since no written protests of assessment were filed with the manager of public works by November nine, 2018, Council will not sit as the Board of Equalization for the proposed Skyline Park Local Maintenance District. Next up, we have proclamations. We do have one proclamation this evening. Councilwoman Black, will you please read Proclamation 1383? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation number 18 1383, recognizing the 30th anniversary year of the Metropolitan Denver Scientific and Cultural Facilities District. Whereas, arts, culture and science play a unique role in the lives of our families, our communities, our state in our country, and enrich our lives by embodying the accumulated wisdom, intellect, knowledge and imagination of humankind . And. Whereas, in 1988, voters in Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson Counties voted to create the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District, a special district collecting a 1/10 of 1% sales and use tax for distribution to arts, culture and science organization. And. Whereas, CFT was reauthorized in 1994, 24 and 2016 by the voters across seven counties, including Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas and Jefferson Counties, securing a place for art, biology, music, zoology, dance, history, nature and botany in the fabric of our lives, ensuring nothing less than culture for all. And. Whereas, in the 30 years of CFD existence, the landscape of arts, culture and science in the metropolitan region has expanded greatly, with nearly 300 organizations spend IT funding from distributed distributed funds in 2017. And. WHEREAS, organizations benefiting from funds from CFD create an unparalleled level of access for Colorado residents, offering thousands of free and discounted activities each year. And. Whereas, nonprofit arts, culture and science organizations drive the Colorado economy by generating $1.9 billion in total economic activity and supporting 11,820 jobs in 2017. And. Whereas, CFD continues to thrive as a national model for cultural funding now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver's Section one that the Council of the City and County of Denver State of Colorado does hereby proclaim 2018 as the 30th anniversary of CFD. Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be transmitted to the scientific and cultural facilities. District Executive Director Deborah Jordi. Thank you, Councilman Black. Your motion to. Adopt. Thank you, Mr. President. I move the proclamation 18 dash 1383 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Comments from members of Council. Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm honored to serve on the board of CFD. The 30th anniversary is quite a milestone. It collects close to $60 million a year for the metro region, for our arts, culture and science. Thousands of organizations have benefited, benefited in those 30 years. With that tax, we're able to have a world class arts and culture scene that you wouldn't have in other cities of our size. So it's been a great, great benefit to the city and county of Denver and all of the other counties surrounding us. Additionally, it was mentioned in the proclamation there are hundreds of free events and free days for all of the cultural organizations. And it's not just our big organizations, the art museum and the museum, nature and science and the performing arts complex. But it's also small arts organizations across all of those counties. So it's just an incredible benefit that we have living here in the metro region. And I think the voters of 1988 who voted for it and everyone who has reauthorized it since then. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. And Councilwoman Black, thank you for bringing this forward. This is. An incredible asset to our community. And I know cities across the country have tried to figure out how Denver and the metro area was able to accomplish this. You travel to other cities that may have a little bit arts and culture. I know Austin claims they have the biggest music scene, but our music scene is way bigger than Austin's. We just don't quite promote ourselves the way they do. Right. But, you know, it's not just music. It's our performing arts. It's our crafters. We have such a robust creative sector in this city and this metro area that we really have something to be proud of. And there are lots of people who work full time in this industry, but there are many who work part time and do other jobs. And if we could continue to grow this industry, then we could have more people that would be able to do this full time as opposed to part time. But, you know, almost any night of the week, you can go and listen to live music at any number of venues. We have many street festivals where we have music and crafters. So I'm I'm really excited. And for those of you who are not aware, the National Restaurant Stock Show is looking at doing a public market that sort of takes a lot of the work that's already happening to that next level where we have a year round go to place, where we could have a lot of these different kinds of things happening on a regular basis. So great work for everybody who has been part of this. I know this was under mayor pinions days. I remember Susan Barton scout worked for him when this was brought forward. But it was a metro wide effort and continues to be. And it's not just venues in Denver that get to benefit from this. There are venues across the metro area. And so we're we're really a very blessed community to have these incredible assets, not just the physical structures, but the people who make all of this happen. So congratulations for 30 years of some incredible stuff happening in our metro area. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. So, you know their comments. I'll just add a second to everything that was said. We are very lucky to have CFD and to have voters who are forward thinking enough to see what that could be. Awesome organization. And thank you, Councilman Black, for bringing this forward. Madam Secretary, Raquel. Black Eye. Brooks Espinosa, i Flynn I. Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Cashman can each i. Lopez Hi. Ortega. Hi, Susman. Hi, Mr. President. I am. I'm secretary. Please close voting announced the results. 12 hours 12 hours proclamation 1383 has been adopted. Councilman Black, is there someone you'd like to bring up to accept? Yes, we have two people from CFD here today, Deborah, today, who is our executive director, along with our board chair, Rob Johnson. Rob, please come give Deborah some support. It's an incredible board and an incredible organization. And thank you both for working so hard. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Black, President, members of council. We are truly happy to be here and really appreciate your ongoing support. You know, I remember the days when Susan Vargo, Gail was on council. It really working hard through to every council since. But what's unique is not only the the depth and breadth of what the organizations do, but the reach of collaboration. We have so much collaboration between Denver organizations in Boulder and Douglas County that come together just like we see in other parts of our community and the business sector and others. It's amazing to think that in 1989, the first year of distribution, there were 124 organizations. Today there are almost 300. At that time, the first year of distributing the funds, it was $14 million. And as Councilman Black said, we're on the road to $60 million. The National Endowment for the Arts total budget for the country is around 150 million for the entire country. Our distribution is in the seven county the size of Delaware and Rhode Island put together. So it's pretty remarkable. Remarkable. It's also what the organizations do to create wonder and joy for the children. When you think last year that 4.3 million children attended cultural performances or run outs at their school. So thank you for having us and supporting us. CFT. Thank you. Thank you very much. Was our only proclamation before we move on. Unfortunately, due to fire code and the signs on the back. We can't have anybody standing in that back aisle. That is the ingress egress. So I would ask if everybody can get real cozy and make room so that we can fit everybody in.

The Petition, referred on February 3, 2021, Docket #0296, for a special law re: An Act Relative to The Boston Landmarks Commission, the committee submitted a report recommending that the home rule petition ought to pass in a new draft.

BostonCC_11172021_2021-0296

TUCKER Number 0296, the Committee on Government Operations, to which was referred on February 3rd, 2021, number 0296 petition for a special law relative to an act. An act relative to the Boston Landmarks Commission, submits a report recommending that the home rule petition ought to pass in a new draft. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The chair now recognizes Chair Lydia Edwards, chair of the Committee on Governance Operations. Chair Edwards, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. The committee held a hearing on February 8th, as well as working sessions on February 18th and September 8th, 2021. This docket would amend Section two of Chapter seven seven, two of the Acts of 1975, basically a landmark step in defining law of the state of Massachusetts. It would allow for local resources to have historical significance in the community to be designated as landmarks. Right now, it essentially requires a certain significance at a state level beyond our local hearts and minds and significance. And this would allow for us on the ground in our neighborhoods to really identify things that mean something special to us as a landmark. We had a really good hearing, a lot of which was more concerned about whether this could be used as a defensive tool to stop development and reality. We wanted to make sure it was a proactive tool to really celebrate our diversity, celebrate what makes each one of our neighborhoods a little different, and to acknowledge that diversity and to really encourage people on the ground to be part of that conversation celebrating our history. Just wanted to note who some folks who came out to testify and I apologize for not noting this was led by our Councilor Bock, and I want to appreciate her. Not only did she lead this, but she also came up with a compromise legislation that I think everyone could come together on, saying we're going to be able to value our neighborhoods and also still grow our neighborhoods. But just calling out some people who came and testified at all of the hearings called Specter, the Environment Commissioner, Rosenthal , the executive director of the Landmarks Commission, Lynn Millage, who is chair of the Democrat Commission as well. Also, I want to thank Greg Basile from the Greater Boston Real Estate Board. Adam Hundley as well from the Greater Boston Real Estate Board, Paul Stankey from the Director of Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia came over to explain some of their landmarks, processes and of course, Greg Geller, executive director of the Boston Preservation Alliance. I'm going to turn this now over to Councilor Bok, but I do recommend that we pass this matter. I think we've had robust conversation and this is a perfect balance of preserving, but also celebrating and growing our city. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. The chair now recognizes the district council from Beacon Hill Councilor Kenzie Box, the floor is yours. Thank you so much, Mr. President. And thank you, Chairwoman Edwards. She summarize it well. But, you know, I think a number of colleagues were at our initial hearing, and one of the balances that we really wanted to strike was this is not aimed at being a sort of cudgel to block development. It is a question of giving Boston the right to protect its history in the way that, frankly, every other major city that we talk to in the in the States and also as close as across the river in Cambridge is able to do. So it's just making that significance level for landmarks able to be related to local stuff. And it was really great to be able to work with them both. Our Greg's Greg Vassell on the real estate board side and Gaylor on the Preservation Alliance side to think about, you know, how do we do this in a way that's meaningful? But that also doesn't penalize sort of projects that are currently underway and put them into any kind of like double jeopardy kind of situation where they thought that they were operating under one set of rules and then it shifted. And so we did end up kind of coming up with a compromise that that will ensure that projects that are already in the process in various ways are not sort of suddenly being subjected to a different standard on the landmarks front. And I'm pleased that at our last working session, all the stakeholders expressed that they were comfortable with where we had landed. So this is definitely one of those like the legislative process. It actually works sort of things. And obviously the next step will be to go up to the State House. But I would be very grateful if colleagues would support this today. And I think it's a reasonable step to take to just make sure that we can we in Boston, when we know something's really significant to us or have all the tools at our disposal. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you very much. Councilor BLOCK, who would anyone else like to speak on this matter? It's after nine six, seeing no takers. Councilor Edwards, chair of the Committee on Government Operations, and Councilor Bock, the lead sponsor. Seek, accept, seek acceptance of the committee report and passage of docket 0296 in a new draft. All those in favor, please indicate by saying I oppose. Nay, the ayes have it. The docket has passed. Congratulations. I'd now like to ask Councilor Baker to please take over the rostrum for docket. But as he does that, Mr. Clerk, could you read docket. 04410441 Councilor Edwards and who offered the following? The Committee on Government Operations, to which was referred on March 17, 2021. Docket number 0441 ordinance relative to the investments of the City Treasury submits a report recommending that the ordinance to pass in a new draft.

A RESOLUTION regarding a voter-proposed Initiative Measure establishing a public development authority (PDA) to build and operate a mile-long elevated park and other amenities along Seattle’s waterfront, integrating one block of the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct into the design of the elevated park; authorizing the City Clerk and the Executive Director of the Ethics and Elections Commission to take those actions necessary to enable the proposed Initiative to appear on the August 2, 2016 ballot and the local voters' pamphlet; requesting the King County Elections' Director to place the proposed initiative on the August 2, 2016 election ballot; and providing for the publication of such initiative.

SeattleCityCouncil_08172015_Res 31607

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report to the full council. Please read item number one. The report to the full council agenda. Item number one, resolution 31607. Regarding a voter proposed initiative measure establishing a Public Development Authority PTA to build and operate a mile long elevated park and other amenities along Seattle's waterfront, integrating one block of the existing Alaska Way Viaduct into the design of the elevated park, authorizing the city clerk and the executive director of the Ethics and Election Commission to take those actions necessary to enable the proposed initiative to appear on the August 2nd, 2016 ballot and the local voters pamphlet requesting the King County Elections Director to place a proposed initiative on the August 2nd, 2016 election ballot and providing for the publication of such initiative introduced August 17, 2015. Thank you. As we know, this matter qualified from King County elections by gathering the necessary signatures. In 2012, the City Council passed Resolution 31399, which established the city's support for the Strategic Plan Central Waterfront Concept, Design and Framework Plan and the funding plan for the Waterfront Redevelopment and improvements which rely on the removal of the Alaskan Way Viaduct as planned by the state. Proponents of Initiative 1 to 3 favor the establishment of a public development authority to build and operate a mile long elevated park and other amenities along Seattle's waterfront. Integrating parts of the existing Alaskan Way Alaskan Way Viaduct into the design of the elevated park and have submitted to the Office of the City Clerk a petition bearing sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot. The measure before US Resolution 31607 rejects initiative Measure 123 as being inconsistent with the strategic plan, the Central Waterfront Concept, Design and framework plan, and the funding plan for the Central Waterfront Redevelopment and improvements. This resolution would send this matter to the August two, 2016 election ballot, which is the next regularly scheduled election. I move adoption of resolution 31607. It's moved in seconded. Are there any comments? All in favor of adopting Resolution 31607 Vote I II oppose Vote No. The resolution is unanimously adopted in this measure, is sent to the August 2016 ballot, and the chair will sign it. The report of the Energy Committee, please read item two. The Report of the Energy Committee Agenda Item two Council Bill 118479 relating to the City Light Department and amending sections 2.49.042 of the Seattle Municipal Code to align income eligibility eligibility eligibility guidelines for utility funded emergency low income assistance program with other city rate assistance programs and allow year round program operation.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation; authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 1902 NE 98th Street; authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space, park, and recreation purposes; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_09092019_CB 119616

Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee Agenda Item two Council 1196 16 billion to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing acquisition of real property commonly known as 1902 Northeast 19th Street authorizing acceptance and recording of the deed for open space, park and recreation purposes and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember. Whereas thank you. Council President. This ordinance allows for the acquisition of the 1902 Northeast 98th Street Parcel in the South Fork of Thorn Creek up in District five for open space and recreation purposes. The Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee recommends Council Full Council pass this ordinance. Thank you, customers. Any questions, comments or concerns? That those in favor of adopting the resolution. It's a bill. It's a bill. Council president, pay attention. Okay. I was excited about the next person. Okay. Please call the rule on the passage of the bill. Gonzalez, I Herbold. Hi for us. I Mesquita. I O'Brien. Pacheco, I so want. I thank President Harrell high nine in favor and unopposed. Bill passes and chair will sign it. Now read the resolution.

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to negotiate with interested Long Beach carriers or operators a financial agreement for the development of a Customs and Border Protection facility at the Long Beach Airport, subject to further City Council action approving the final terms and conditions of the agreement; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute and submit all documents necessary to the United States Department of Homeland Security for designation of the Long Beach Airport as a United States Customs and Border Protection User Fee Airport for the processing of aircraft, passengers and baggage arriving from outside the United States. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01242017_17-0041

Thank you. I hope that I see you all there because it's going to be a very exciting time. Thank you. Thank you so much. And just also, Madam Cricket, I know that the timer is not appearing for some reason on our screens, just as we as we start the hearing. Okay, I can fix that. Thank you very much. Okay. We're going to go we're now going on to item seven. We're going to just kind of start over. So I'm going to have the clerk read item seven again and Mr. Romo, pretend like we're starting from the beginning. Okay. Madam Court report from Long Beach Airport. Recommendation to authorize the city manager to negotiate a financial agreement for the development of a Customs and Border Protection facility. And execute and submit all documents necessary to Homeland Security for designation of the Long Beach Airport as a United States Customs and Border Protection User Fee Airport Citywide. Mr. West. Mr. Romo. Honorable mayor, honorable city council members. Just Roemer Airport director. I'm here to provide an update and overview of the Federal Inspection Service feasibility study that has come before the City Council prior. And we're here to present a full and complete debriefing of the study itself. I would like to mention that this was commissioned and performed by Jacobs Engineering under a contract with the airport. But this is also a project that has required an inordinate amount of city support staff, primarily out at the airport, although we have received some significant assistance from staff here at City Hall. We've had a number of of employees in particular who've done a lot of heavy lifting. And I did want to at least give some recognition to one person in particular who acted as the contract manager throughout this project. Mr. Dale Worsham The Airport's Administrative Officer. So again, I want to acknowledge and thank him for his great, tireless and excellent work on this project. And. So with that I'll get into the presentation. So I wanted to start out by sharing with the mayor and council and members of the public who are here tonight as well as those watching online or on MLB.TV. The study, again, it is as a recap, looked at particular elements or items related to the feasibility of having an f i. S sited at the airport. And it was again a commission to provide a comprehensive and full evaluation of what interface would would mean for the for Long Beach Airport and . The items that were examined. If you've looked at the study, reviewed the study, these would be familiar. But we looked at both or we looked at market demand, which is do air carriers see a market here in the Long Beach Basin and in Long Beach to provide that service? What would the economic impact be as a result of construction and operation of an office? This in the report was done primarily on a regional basis. That's how impact studies are normally done. But at the request of one of the council members, we did a analysis looking at a more localized or Long Beach centric impact. We also looked at environmental compliance issues specifically related to the previously completed Environmental Impact Report. And if this project were to be approved, what additional environmental requirements to do due diligence would have to be done before a project would start. Next we have facility concepts. If you'll recall, there were three concepts that were put forth. These were very high level ideas or designs. They were not based on anything that was done with discussion, with any stakeholders per se. It was really done based on what Customs and Border Protection has as its requirements for functions of an app. Yes. We also looked at the airport itself, specifically on the airfield side in terms of what with the existing geometry and series of taxiways and runways support international operations. And last sorry, the second to last item was financial feasibility. If we were to construct an F, I guess, how would it be funded? Who would pay for it? Not only for the initial construction, but how it would be operated. And those costs would be recouped over time. And then, last but not least, examining any potential security risks, as they might be related to the introduction of international service at Long Beach Airport. In addition to the study itself, which again, it's been available since October, for everybody to read and review as well as attend study sessions. It also is accompanied by extensive community outreach. People will recall that at the front end of the study there were two community meetings that were held, later followed after the study was completed by three study sessions. The finished product itself is really comprised of the summary study as well as a fairly robust and thick series of appendices that support the information that's contained in the base study. Because there has been concern about what an has in terms of its operation might might mean to the city's noise ordinance. The city did outreach and sent a letter to the Federal Aviation Administration to get some guidance on any potential impact to the noise ordinance. So overall, the staff's position in assessment of this, after looking at all all the information, all relevant facts, are that the study findings provide a very solid framework for which to base a decision on possible next steps. This is where this slide here really just talks about some of the key elements and reminders to the greater audience about what Long Beach is and kind of how it fits in the rest of the air transportation system in our region. As a reminder, you know, Long Beach Airport is one of five commercial airports in the greater Los Angeles region. I may have mentioned it at a previous presentation that, you know, the L.A. region is actually pretty unique in that we've got five airports that support the travel needs of about 20 million folks that live in the greater L.A. region. That includes L.A. County, Orange County, San Bernardino, Riverside Counties. So it's one of the few places in the country that has this number of airports at a fairly small region. Long Beach Airport itself. We did get our statistics for 2016 and ended the year with 2.8 million passengers, a slight increase from 2015 where we had two and a half million passengers. And of course, in one of the first and foremost things that we always look at at the airport and I think from the city standpoint, is that Long Beach Airport itself has a long standing, almost 22 years now and a robust noise ordinance that protects the surrounding neighborhoods. And some of the specifics or key elements of the noise ordinance that at present no more than 50 air carrier flights are permitted to operate at Long Beach on a daily basis. The commercial carry operations from a schedule standpoint are restricted to occur between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. in the evening. And there's an imposition of fines on operators outside these hours with few exemptions. And specifically, I want to talk about the exemptions. The only time that there can be an exemption is that one hour window between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m.. And those typically are waived in the instance of whether or a bona fide mechanical reasons that are beyond the control of an airline. Any any violations occurring from 11 p.m. until 7 a.m. in the morning. Those are subject to fines, regardless of the reason. Legal considerations here this we want to just talk about something that some history because part of this was in addition to doing the feasibility study itself, we wanted to get some reaffirmation from the FAA. So on September 8th, 2016, the city attorney requested of the FAA to reaffirm its legal opinion on the effect of international service and that effect on airport grant assurances specifically as they relate to the noise ordinance. Oh. And the slot I'm sorry, the allocation. Resolution for those that may not be aware that in addition to limiting the operations within the noise budget is as it's calculated in the OR as stated in the noise ordinance, the allocation resolution speaks to the the number of times or the frequency by which an airline must exercise or use its allotment of flight slots. So the response from the FAA was received on October 18th, and their response indicated that their conclusions that were reached in 2015 were the same. So and the net effect was that the consideration of a potential out by US facility would would not have an impact on the city's noise ordinance or allocation resolution. And again, something else for for the benefit of the public out there. That Long Beach Airport's noise ordinance is grandfathered under anchor or the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 1990. But again, the FAA conclusion was that the FAA US will not impact the city's noise ordinance. This is just a copy of the letter that we made up there. The tape is much too small, but this was all and this is available online. This was something that was published so that the public could review this letter themselves. And again, that was that was received by or there was it was dated on October 18th, 2016. So this is a high level restatement of the facts relative to the project. And that, you know, providing international air service will not impact the noise ordinance. And this is based on the FAA is opinion that was made at the request of the city attorney. Nationally, and this is part of the study as well. International service itself comprises about 20% of all air travel in this country. Locally. Regional airports that are similar to Long Beach that have international traffic levels except for L.A.X., are at about actually they're under 5%. So the two other airports, not counting L.A.X. that have international service or John Wayne and Ontario, and again, both those airports have international traffic at under 5%. The study did also find that Long Beach, you know, that international flights would range somewhere between six and eight flights or 12 to 16%. If you convert those flights into percentages of our total slot allocation after a 3 to 5 year period. The other thing that we looked at, in fact, this was an important component when the council authorized staff to engage with JetBlue and Customs and Border Protection on some concept of what FISA could look like, because the information that was contained in the study was very much based on a formulaic set of instructions. So it was simply said the the consultant looked at what FISA typically looks for, and that's why they had the three scenarios and the square footage of the FISA ranging I think anywhere from, I think, 28000 to 30000 square feet. So staff met with CBP and JetBlue in early January to get a little bit more guidance based on what this facility could conceivably come in at from a square footage standpoint. Vital to the project is that we wanted to make sure that a facility would meet the operational need, but they would not create any expansion potential. That it would also place limitations on the operating hours so that we could have an effective buffer between the last arriving international flight and against the curfew. So giving you an example, what we'd want to do is make sure that Customs and Border Protection officers who would have to clear those international flights, that they would leave the time certain so that if a flight came in after that timeframe, so let's say 10:00 at night, that's that's the curfew they would have to divert to a nearby airport. Additional considerations of right sizing. Again, with the discussions we had with CBP and JetBlue really yielded the possibility that an IFRS could be sized at about 15,000 square feet, which represents about a 30% reduction from what the study had estimated. And the square footage itself because it's at 15,000 square feet. And the larger it does place a constraint on the number of flights that could be handled. So we would want to make sure that it's designed that it would accommodate no more than two flights at at the same time. And again, restating what I said earlier about the operating hours, that we would restrict it to a single eight hour CBP shift and that we would want to make sure that it's operating within the permissible hours of the noise ordinance. And again, any flights that would arrive after that time certain would not be able to land here at Long Beach. And instead they would have to divert most likely to LAX. But they would they would obviously they could not land it and clear at Long Beach. I want to talk about again on a high level, some of the benefits that the study showed about an F, I guess, at Long Beach Airport. First is choices. Local travelers would be able to have a choice to opt to use Long Beach as a launching point at a much more convenient, much less congested airport. It's much as folks know that use the airport. It's a much friendlier campus and a nicer experience for for people who are taking flights out of Long Beach. Stability, you know, having a relatively small international component, as we said, 12 to 16% or 6 to 8 flights. It really does strengthen the airport's financial position because it diversifies routes in the airport business in general, having a diversification of your routes really tends to strengthen and bolster the airport's position and protect it during natural economic cycles where you might otherwise see a downturn. Connection. Although Long Beach is what you call an origination and destination airport. And so the vast majority of people who are using Long Beach are either traveling from Long Beach someplace else or from someplace else to Long Beach. Having an international component does provide a better connection throughout an airline's network. So again, it's a small incremental piece. But again, this kind of goes to helping to diversify and strengthen an airport's business model in terms of protecting itself against economic downturns. And then lastly, the economic impact and this has been discussed, I think at length here as well as other study sessions. There are positive impacts that accrue both during construction of the project and once it's operational. So staff's recommendation tonight for the council to consider or we recommend moving forward. This independent study has fully reviewed concerns related to noise, security, the environment and has provided for a lot of public input. So through a series of these study sessions and community meetings as well as Q&A opportunities where we have responded, I think in every event to questions that have come up. We want to make sure that all questions go answered. The FAA has provided written confirmation that the noise ordinance would not be impacted if this project were to move forward. The study also verified that it's a fairly small component in the scheme of things. It's obviously less than the 20% average nationwide, but 12 to 16 flights were identified as potential international routes were again 6 to 8 flights out of the 50. And staff has. And I really want to back this up that, you know, your staff has really gone above and beyond at our community meetings, as well as responding to email requests and requests from council. We've listened to the residential residents concerns. We've addressed questions. But this study, you know, it. Did not. Reveal any impacts to the quality of life with the introduction of international service. So in addition and as we get to the close of this presentation. Restating that the size of the facility limits. The amount of international service capacity in the size itself has been reduced by 30% from what was initially estimated in the Jacobs report. The proposed facility size fits within Long Beach, the previously outlined environmental impact report that said it will comply with any additionally required environmental work that might be that would have to be done as part of this project. And that staff would negotiate with CBP to shift hours of enough hours so that all international flights would have to operate within our operating hours and that they could not arrive after hours. Instead, they would be rerouted to nearby airports. And that is it. With that, we're open for questions. Okay. We're going to start the next section of this. And so thank you staff for the presentation couple announcement as well. So for the folks that are outside, because I know there's a lot in the waiting room, if they're interested in doing public comment, we will allow you to do public comment. So I think the fire marshal, Mr. City attorney, will work with getting folks in and out. So once folks in this room do their public comment, if there's folks outside who also want to do public comment, I know they're watching right now, you will be allowed to make your public comment as well. And so we'll have a process for those folks to come in as well. And so I just want to make sure that they that they knew that the folks that are that are outside. In addition, a couple other things that I have, a couple of councilmembers and they're going to turn it over. There's a couple of council comments. We're going to open it up to public comment and then we'll come back to the council for more, I think discussion and and deliberation. A couple comments, opening comments I want to make. The first is I do want to I know there's been a lot of people involved. I think they're going to be great comments tonight. I just also want to make sure, just to get through this, that we're all respectful to each other in the comment period. I know that there's neighbors that are here tonight that have serious concerns about their homes and about their neighborhoods. I want to make sure respectful to them when they're when they're when they're speaking and they're giving their their concerns. I also know that there's a lot of other folks here that are supportive of the terminal. And particularly I want to point out there's a lot of JetBlue employees, and I'm talking about the rank and file employees that are there picking up their handling baggage, that are working hard, that live in our community, that and they also deserve our respect because they're a part of our community as well. And so to the JetBlue employees that are checking in people's bags and they're handling people's luggage as as all of us fly, your work is also valid. And I and I want to make sure that people also know that this discussion tonight and debate is not about those employees. And so this is about a larger issue of whether we should have an Air Force terminal at the airport and so to the JetBlue rank and file employees. I also want to thank you for your work for and for being a part of our community as well. So hopefully we can all be. Hopefully this is a this is a serious discussion. It's going to require serious conversation and a lot of questions. And so I'm hopeful that we're able to do this in a way that's respectful and and and that we're able to have a process that respects each other. So, please, we're all part of this community, so let's be respectful to each other as we start this. So I got to turn this over to to start with with Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. I want each and every one of you to know how personal this is to me. I have knocked on many of your doors. I have talked to you personally. I appreciate your input. I know that sometimes the things that I say confuse you on where I stand. And that's because I often did not know. I think that it is important to have. The ability to debate important things so that we escalate the discussion, both from the standpoint of your own neighbors, whose points that I bring forward regularly, and and of those I hear in the community and my colleagues. I have read the reports, but more importantly, I have read your emails and taking your calls and talk to you at community meetings, whether they were intended to be airport community meetings or not, and. I have reached out to people who are typically quiet on matters to gauge their sense of their neighborhoods and their communities, because I really do want to best understand the factors that lead each person to their profile. Yes or no FISA stance. I, too, want to thank the staff for for listening and taking the time to come to what can often be very, very contentious and quite honestly, impolite meetings. And I appreciate you for continuing to show up with a smile. And to be so professional, despite the negativity on both sides of the issue. I want to thank those of you who have given me your patience to let me decide on my own without threats of what you will do to me if I don't do what you want to do. Respecting that the person that lives next door to you may not agree with you. And with that, I want to thank the JetBlue team, especially Lou, who attended a community meeting and took the brunt of many comments from the neighbors. He is the man that's actually at the JetBlue facility on a daily basis managing the staff who may be your next door neighbor. Recently, they did a hiring where almost 40 of their employees were all from Long Beach neighborhoods. Those are people who were either underemployed or not employed at all before and now have money to pay their car payments and pay their rent. And those are important jobs like any other. And so I appreciate that no matter which way the vote goes tonight. I want to be respectful of all of you. And so I think it's important to though I am aware of the answers to some of these questions, I think it's important for you to hear them. I'm going to ask the city staff to respond to a couple of quick financial questions that have helped me down the path of my decision making process. And then I will put a motion out on the floor so that when you make your public comment, you can make comments based on what what is out there. Because I see a lot of familiar faces that I've seen at many meetings, and I know that the dialogs have progressed in many different ways. And so with that. I just want to thank you all for being respectful of each other and hopefully those of us that are here on the dais. City staff. Would you please outline who would pay for the new FISA facility under the current information you have. So well, based on what the discussions of the study, what they revealed is that this would be a partnership between at present JetBlue Airways and the city of Long Beach, Long Beach Airport, in particular the city of Long Beach, or I should say the airport has capacity to contribute up to $3 million in passenger facility charges, as has its contribution to that project. And the balance would come from JetBlue. And how much would passengers have to pay to utilize the facility? There would not be a direct assessment to passengers itself. I know the study talks about a per passenger fee that would strictly be a financial model. The way the airport would handle it is that we would calculate the costs both for the capital. So to do the construction of the facility as well as the ongoing expenses that would be passed through to all users or any users or if it's a single user. So there would be those costs would be passed through to that entity. They would make the decision to build it into the ticket price or absorb it within their system. And how much does the airport currently impose and collect through those fees? Currently, the airport's collection level is $4.50 for each implement or each departure from Long Beach Airport. So based on a I'm going to say last year's numbers of about one 1.4 million in payments. Multiply that by the 450, you get your your PNC collection for the year. And something that's really important to me, and this is a dialog that we've had on many other issues when it comes to funds that are not unlimited. Similarly to the dialog we had a few weeks ago about Tide lines. Are you able to discuss a few of the other projects that are in the pipeline that are currently using those fees that we are charging? Yes. So I mean, I think we've got a number of projects, but I'd say four in particular, there are two on the airfield or runway reconstruction project, 4 to 5 left, which is the short case. Runway, which will be rebuilt later this year, has a portion of its kind of its of its cost covered by PFC as well as another taxiway project. And then on the land side are there, you know, on the non-security side of the airport, what we would envision for follow on phases of terminal improvements. So for a new ticketing area, new baggage areas. Much needed baggage. Area. Yes. And what is the current outstanding debt at the airport? It's approximately $100 million. I think it's a bit more than that. It's 134. 110. Okay. Just checking. Thank you. You know, plus or -10%. Just 10 million extra. With any of the money generated from what, would there be any money generated from the facility? No. This is an international arrivals facility. So it's it it in and of itself does not generate any revenue. It does generate a cost recovery for the airport so that it's not paying for the cost to operate it, though that would be, you know, extracted from from users of the facility. So so just to be clear, the revenue that it does generate, because there is a revenue that comes for those fees, it is directly proportionate to the exact amount of the expenses. So there would be no additional financial revenue separate and apart from cost recovery. Other than in the first. I think I think it's modeled the first year or the first few years where the recovery of the capital to construct it would also be recovered. Perfect. And. What is the city's potential financial contribution that is being requested of us? The study outlined that we have PFC capacity of up to $3 million. I don't think a specific dollar amount had been identified, but there was capacity for up to 3 million. But that is 3 million that. If it does not go to this, it goes to other very important projects, including the baggage claim area and the structure and all those others. It's not like there's $3 million lying around. Well, I would say this. I believe that the projects that I mentioned, the PFC collections, those have already been set aside for those projects. That said, there are always projects that can come up that, you know, that this could be reprogramed and used for. And what other types of projects could be completed at the airport using those passenger facility funds that you mentioned? Well, I mean, typically. We don't have any identified as of today again. But we will always be looking at different ways to improve the experience at Long Beach Airport in general, the types of projects that are that are that qualify for PSC funding or those that are approved by FAA but not fully funded by FAA. It's also can be used to cover debt service, which we've got as part of the previous development or that was done for the terminal improvement as well as the parking structure and then other projects related to safety, security or capacity. Thank you. I believe that the information provided, especially since our last time together, has been very eye opening and important to the discussion. I think that there were. A lot of. Thoughts on what it could be, but I think we have something more concrete now. In thinking through what I was deliberating, did we get to the point at which we discussed the new cost and size of the facility? In the presentation. Yes, ten, $10 million and 15,000 square feet. Was that in the presentation? We didn't talk. We talked about the smaller size. I mean, we could give an estimate that, yeah, we're looking more in the neighborhood of about $10 million. Okay. So in the discussions and dialogs and all of that, we've listened to the experts. We've listened to the applicant. We've listened. I've listened to the residents. And. I've heard a lot of concern from the community, from a number of aspects about FISA. So for a starting point for this evening, I hope that whether you're supportive or not supportive, that you will hold your boos or applause no matter which side you're on. But I would like to make a motion to receive and file. And with that, I'd like to ask the mayor to go to public comment. I'm open to a dialog with neighbors. There are a lot of you here. Many of you have participated in several meetings, and I appreciate that. I see some inquisitive faces I receive and file means that we would not be progressing down the path any longer. Sleep. Please. Please. And with that, I know there's a lot to be said and I'm open to continuing to hear it. I think in the last. Six days, I've probably received 45 calls from people who are very, very, very passionate on their side of the issue. And this is where I stand at this moment in time, and I look forward to hearing from the community. Know, we have a we have emotion and there is a second as well. Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have some comments that I'd like to make after I hear from the residents. But before going to public comment, I think it's important to acknowledge a few things. This has been a very educational process for all of us on this council, regardless of what district we represent. This is an issue that we have all taken to heart. Every single one of us. It's an issue that we've studied with, studied. It's an issue that has kept many of us up at night. Trying to think about. It has been by far the most difficult decision that we have had to make as council members. I say that for myself. I know some of my colleagues feel the same way because of the various interests and the passions that the the item has. There have been a couple of council members who have demonstrated incredible leadership, and I think it's important to acknowledge them as we start to undertake the public comment process. I want to thank Councilman Austin. Councilman Austin is my colleague. But above and beyond that, he is a friend. And early on when this discussion happened, when the item came up, I pulled him aside and I probably asked them this question several times and I've said, Look, I know you live under the flight path. Be honest with me. Your position on this issue, is it political or do you really, in your heart of hearts, believe it? And on numerous occasions he has said to me, I want you to come and have coffee with me in my back yard. I want you to understand what I go through. And his feelings and his beliefs on this item are real. They are real fears and concerns that he has and he has conveyed that. Just so you all know, just so you all know, he has conveyed that to his colleagues on a very personal level, which has an impact on me, because I can't do anything to separate me and my family from him and his family or for those of you who have families who live in the area. So those words mean something to me. Beyond that, he has put forth a few council items that I have been very happy to sign on to and support . Not because I was not in favor of moving forward with a study, because I was absolutely in favor of moving forward with a study. And I don't regret that decision at all. It's been very educational. I've learned a lot. Historically, I think the information that we've received is going to serve us well as a city for decades. But he wanted to make sure we had a full council before we voted on the issue, which I supported. He wanted he has on a couple of occasions tried to start the discussion of a master plan, which I have supported. He cares about his community and he's shown incredible leadership on this council. Councilman Ranga similarly has showed tremendous leadership on this issue. I was very happy to support his request for a study session that we had in December, and I was very grateful that he brought that item forward. And I made it very clear when he brought the item forward that I didn't want it to delay the process at all, because I would rather we go through the exercise and make the decision, as opposed to continuing to punt things out so that people are living with this uncertainty. I'd rather we have certainty. And and so I said to him that I was more than happy to support the study session, but that I didn't want it to delay things. And he was very gracious and I think we reached a great place on that. But his vision to have a study session and allow us to all be educated at the same time in the same consistent fashion, because when you're getting a briefing, you're not sure that the briefing that you're getting is in the same tone and as the same content as your colleagues. Staff does an amazing job, but we all have individual different relationships with staff and they may make some assumptions in regards to where you might be leaning based on how you voted in the past, which is a very, very dangerous thing to do because we should approach each item on a case by case basis, which I know that we've done on this case. So Councilman Miranda, bringing that forward was fantastic. Councilman Supernormal has been a tremendous advocate for all of you. I will say the one thing that I absolutely respect and value about Councilman Supernanny is that he analyzes things in a way that I understand. You know, sometimes people around you make decisions and you're scratching your head like, I have no idea how that happened or how they got. From A to Z. I don't understand the thought process. I always understand Councilman Supernova's thought process. In many ways, I think we think the same. We analyze the same. And the presentation that he did at the study session was phenomenal. It really got me thinking for the first time about things I had never thought about before. And I can tell you, I've read every page of that study. It is tabbed and highlighted, as you would expect a lawyer to do with any document they read. It is something I've taken very personally, and yet the issues that he raised in his presentation were things that I thought about for the very first time from hearing him talk about it, and I told him that that night. So I appreciate these three gentlemen because they've been exceptional leaders. I also want to take a moment to acknowledge the hard work and the sheer heart and genuine energy that Councilwoman Mango has put into this effort. She has people don't know this. You know, we all know our colleagues in a way that the public may not know our colleagues. Councilman Mungo has a tremendous heart for the city. She cares deeply about her community and she tries to do something that perhaps isn't as easy to do for someone who it's their first time in public office as it is for seasoned politicians. She tries to listen to all sides, and she's not good at being fake. She's genuinely very, very honest when she hears something and she says what she's thinking as she's interpreting that. I value that about her. And in this process, I think she has been really, really open to hearing from all sides. And if you tell her something that she she's her brain works faster than most people that I know. And when you're telling her something, she's already thinking about what her response is going to be because of something that you've said that's triggered a response from her. And so in this situation, she has analyzed this and studied this issue so much that her response is always processing. If she hears something, she's processing it. She's processing it always from the other side. And I love that because she has the ability to look at things from all angles. And in this vote, she has been a tremendous leader. She has not been afraid, not even once, to change her position based on what she's been presented with and how that information makes sense or resonates with her. And I respect that about her. And she should be given a lot of credit for how far we've come on this issue and her analysis. This was a very difficult decision for her in terms of how she was going to land. And I'm I'm extremely honored to work with these four colleagues who have all shown exceptional leadership in regards to the airport issue. I have learned from each and every one of them. And and I think it's important that we acknowledge them and show them respect, because this is not easy work to do. I also want to acknowledge and thank our staff. Our staff has been amazing, regardless of whether you agree with them or you don't agree with them. I have felt. Completely. Able to make whatever decision I want on this issue with their support. They have not pushed us in one way or the other. They have not advocated for or against. They've been giving us the facts and they have been doing the work of the people and analyzing information and giving it to us in a way that we can process it. So I want to thank our staff for that. The airport staff, city manager staff, the city attorney's staff. Thank you. This was a very difficult position. And in many Scituate, for many of us, you were educating first time council members right off the bat about a very important issue. I want to say that JetBlue is a tremendous partner to the city. I fly JetBlue. My family flies JetBlue. I love the contribution that they make in the city. And the motion that the councilwoman has made that I am supporting as a second year of is no reflection whatsoever on JetBlue. And if they try to take it that way and think this is somehow a disrespect to them, that's their choice. You can't really control how people interpret your words or actions. But all I can say is this is a decision about the residents of the city of Long Beach. It's not a decision about a particular company. And that I just I want them to take that to heart. I also want to thank all the residents who have educated us through this process. Honestly, when you come up to the podium and you talk and you share. What you're. Afraid of. We could sit back here, as we often do as council members often do, and we can sit back and say, you know what, that fear is unfounded or that fear won't materialize. We can do that. I'm going to talk a little bit later about what I think about that fear in regards to this decision. But it's difficult for you to do that. It's difficult for you to put yourselves out there. Take time away from your families to be here. But it's really important because your words and your heart with which you have spoken through this entire process is the thing that I think about when I'm analyzing this issue. I could be reading a study and I will immediately flash to somebody that was at the podium. Those are the images that resonate with me is the people who are at the podium, the people who talk to me or talked to us about using their hard earned dollars to buy a house, trying to raise their kids in that house, just like my husband and I are trying to do with our family to give their kids a better life, and fearing genuinely in their heart of hearts that this decision is going to impact them in a negative way. That fear resonates. So thank you to the residents and to those of you who have been respectful in your comments, have not alleged a conspiracy theory or not alleged corruption because someone is looking at things from all sides. Thank you. You have credibility with us. We are your public servants, but we live in the city too. So to those of you who have respected the process and respected the difficult. Process that we have to go through. Thank you. So with that, I support this motion wholeheartedly. Mr. Mayor, if I may. Sure. And then Councilman Mongo. And then I know we're going to go to the city attorney just to clarify the motion, and they're going to begin public comment. I think that I should probably go through my thought process that got me to where I am. I think it's an important part of the dialog related to where I stand. I might repeat a sentence or two because I, I wasn't sure if I was going to go into the full detail, but I will. I mentioned that we've heard a lot of concern from the community about a number of aspects related to the office and that the neighbors and their concerns are important to me. I do appreciate Jacobson and the diligence that they had in completing the report. They are a nationally acclaimed organization who put a lot of experts to work for us in a short amount of time to answer anything but the kitchen sink that the council added in to the motion that was here almost a year ago. I mean, we have listened to those experts, we've listened to the applicant and we've listened to the residents. And I think that that's worth saying twice. But after significant deliberation and study, I just don't believe it's the right time to proceed with an IFRS facility. And here are some reasons why. While this is at home. For those who are at home, you don't know. But you can hear the other room on a delay. This is an investment the city would make if it felt it were in the best interests of the airport financially. Many of you know, I take the financial considerations of each of our decisions very seriously, and after taking into consideration a full review of the associated issues, assets, liabilities, revenues, and that that is a big part of my decision making process. The financial investment the city would make in this endeavor does not outweigh the potential benefits at this time, the potential economic impacts to the region and more importantly, the city of Long Beach and the airport itself. Just don't justify in my mind, setting aside all our other priorities or reorganizing. I just feel that the potential economic impacts. Don't justify the investment. The airport is one of our largest economic drivers. I really hope that even though you stand on one side, pro or notifiés, that you get to know the diversity of our airport tenants. Many people do not know that on our airport property we have so many diverse tenants. And when I say tenants, they are our renters. The city of Long Beach is their landlord. And and we have to discuss and understand what what it looks like in each and every one of their eyes. We need to ensure that the airport remains financially sound for us and for our neighbors and for the jobs that are there. The investment the city would make into this facility. In my opinion. Could be better used for other projects, providing additional benefit to the airport and to the community. And while I have discussed several times that revenue generated at the airport does stay at the airport, those ripples are felt in our neighborhoods because when those neighbors when those businesses do well, they employ our neighbors. And these include enhancements to the parking lot, which are good construction jobs, new rental car facilities which I recently visited and really need an upgrade. Our ground transportation center. Our baggage claim improvements. Something that's near and dear to many of our hearts, and especially to the volunteers that are at the airport regularly giving the tours, the historic preservation projects of the gem that we have today. And of course, for the safety and future of each and every one of us that use this airport, the runway rehabilitations that are crucial to our future. We must be mindful of the current outstanding debt at the airport. As Mr. Romo stated, we have over $110 million of debt to fund the new parking garage, the terminal concourse and the related infrastructure and airfield improvements that I feel are a priority. Our airport is functioning well today. I love it. We love it. I hear that over and over again. We are winning national awards. And the city should not proceed with a new project while we have so many other important airport priorities. Thank you. Thank you. And we're going to go to and right before we go to public comment, we're going to go to Mr. City Attorney, just to clarify what receiving file means for the record, and then we're going to open it up for public comment. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the Council. For the Audience. The motion to receive and file will direct the city manager and the airport staff to take no further action with respect to the establishment or construction of the Federal Inspection Services at the Long Beach Airport. If that's correct, Councilmember Mongo. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So at this time, we have public comment. There is a motion on the floor. If you have a public comment, please come forward and make sure you state your name for the record. Thank you. Very good. You click as the address. I fully support the measure that has been put forward. I think it makes eminent sense to me. The biggest red flag that was raised was relative to the statement from staff from the report was provided to staff. Is that the a the FAA would not change its position. As you know, we have an a new administration in Washington. And I think in the long run, that administration will prove to be a tremendous asset to this city. And indeed they have already funded and increased funding to the U.S. Department of Justice to fund to increase the funding to go after corruption within the city. Not only this city, but the entire state of California to address the epidemic of corruption that was engendered per the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal by the former attorney general of the state. No, I do not. But I think in the long run, it will be a good, good for the city. The current president is, in fact, a businessperson. And so I think it's uncertain as to what he would do. So hence I think we should support this motion here. And look at it maybe ten years from now when we have a very firm understanding of what the issues are. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. City Council people. My name is Dan Lipton and I'm an excuse me. My wife and I are homeowners in Bixby Knolls, and we lived in a take off pattern for ten years. I don't believe my comments to you now will be terribly popular with most of my neighbors. I don't find the existing traffic as a detriment to my way of life. Our way of life in Bixby Knolls and I office from my home. Even as an occasional inconvenience when we're entertaining out back. I believe that comes with the territory when you choose to live in 90807 and beyond. I don't think as a resident I could tell the difference between a domestic flight and an international flight. Hearing from its sound or its flight pattern. And with no net change to the noise ordinance and the number of flights per day, I can't find objection to the measure. Creating a gateway to Mexico and beyond can only add a positive economic benefit to Long Beach, not unlike pre and post cruises have done already for our local hotels, restaurant tours and retailers. I love our airport. It's one of the best in the world. So selfishly, why would I ever want to make that horrendous trip back and forth to LAX when we have a first class airport in literally our own backyard? Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, mayor and council staff. My name is Sam Patel. I don't live directly in. The district, but we watched the planes go over and I like watching the old planes go over in the military planes, too. I really enjoy using this airport when I get the opportunities. And even before. This issue came up, I always thought, why is it we can't get international flights out of here now that opportunities there, even though granted it would be limited, but it's still something. And I find that one of the things that I'm concerned with is that I understand this affects the council districts that attend, but it also affects everybody in Long Beach. It's not just about a couple of council districts, just like all our council districts sometimes have to take on things we don't want to, but we know it's for the betterment of the city. So we all have to share in what makes this city better, not just for ourselves, but for the rest of us as well. I've looked at what they're presenting for this study and stuff, and I see where there's really not going to be any major increase in this. Like they said, with the flights out of it, the noise pattern that's going to be protected. The plane, the noise that comes down from it really isn't going to make a difference whether it's international or regional or if it's local, it's still going to be the same noise. And I understand some of the concerns, and I do know that the airport. Is there, but it's been there and it's still there. And if they increase these 50 flights just to domestic flights, it would still be the same amount of flights, the same amount of impact. The difference being that we would have international. Now. One of the things that. We would provide is a. Stimulus for we are expanding the cruise area. And one of the things. That it does do is allow for people to access. Long Beach directly from other parts of the world. And in Canada, especially, the snowbirds come down here to take the cruises. That's one comment I've heard from a lot of friends of mine. So basically I'd like. To support this for all the residents of Long Beach, and I understand. There's concerns. On both sides. But I myself, I travel a lot domestically and internationally, and I really do enjoy using the Long Beach airports, one of the easiest ones for us to use. So if it can all be done and made a win win situation. Which most things can be done. If we can do that and provide the international service, that would be great. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Please. Denny Kagasoff Kagasoff, resident of Long Beach homeowner. Shame on me for not having gotten involved earlier, but I'm here to say I do not support the expansion of our airport, which I think is perfect the way that it is. I think anyone that is a resident here obviously has concerns about noise and pollution. I'm raising my family here and we just do not support any expansion. And as far as the study that was done and saying that there's not going to be a negative impact on the residents, I think that in and of itself should invalidate the study. And then as far as an exemption for whether or a mechanical failure, that's absurd. So. Is there anything else I can say? I apologize to the people that are here to support. The expansion. I know you all have reasons to want it. And you have economic interests and. Breaks my heart that we're in conflict here. But as a resident of Long Beach, we have a great city. I do not want any expansion to an international airport. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. My name is Robert Ward. I live at 1166 Clayburn Drive since 1964. Before that, I grew up in Bixby Knolls, a 3848 Linden. Our families had a store in this town for 75 years. My dad started in 1941. I taught it poorly for a while, but then I decided I would go to work with my brothers at Ward's Furniture, which was basically on PCH and Pacific for all those years. And now my son owns it, who is in North Long Beach. Off of Victoria. We volunteered for many things. In this city to try to make. It better. From Boy Scouts to my son being the chairman of. Goodwill twice and still was on the board. There. My brother and I have served as I personally served as president of the LDS Church. I had about 5000 people. In this town. My brother, who served at Long Beach Eastlake, had about the same number when we were called to serve as volunteers. I volunteered at Poly High School to coach a water. Polo team a couple of years, which was fun. These left his older brother and I. Ran track together at Poly High School. We bought the house in 64. My wife and I, just as you were about to give birth to our first son with a little two bedroom house. And as our family grew to six children, we eventually I wanted to move. To be honest, my wife said, no, I love the schools. Our kids are going to the same schools. I went to Longfellow Hughes Poly, and our kids got a great education. It was wonderful when they went off to college because of that PACE program at Poly. I have two doctors, his sons, and they studied hard. I'm grateful. In 1991, Mayor Ernie Kell gave me a key to this city that still hangs on my wall because of the work we had done remodeling that church that I was in charge of it 37 to name her 37th and Long Beach Boulevard. I'm here today to say that planes we've seen at all. What's happened to the airport first 20 years. I wouldn't fly out of there. Now I am. It is a beautiful little airport. It goes right over my house. Yesterday, for the first time in a good while in the rain, the planes were landing over my house. I don't know how those people in the East End do this. Yeah. My wife was scared the first time and a long time because the house shook. That plane was so low to be able, I guess, to get to the airport. I'll conclude with this. For many years, I've watched our council make Long Beach a great place to visit, and I don't have a problem with that. I hope it's time that you will think, let's make Long Beach a great place to live. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Councilman. Mayor. First of all, I wanted to thank Ms.. Price for her comments. I agree with most of them, but because of this new development, I think I'll leave those comments for another time. One of the things that I was concerned about during some of the meetings that took place, it was implied that JetBlue might sue if and I say implied that they might sue if we didn't go forward. And I say, if that's the attitude that they want to take, then we should just boycott them. I mean, this is not this is not being friends. This is not this is not being a good neighbor. And they had a huge amount of violations in their violating the noise ordinance. You know, if they if they want to have something good, they need to be a good neighbor first. Then people might think about a different consideration. But when someone has to be frightened in their own home because of the noise, I don't think that's being a good neighbor. I also would like to mention something that has not seemed to have been mentioned, but have you ever heard, has anyone in this room ever heard of a terrorist attack on a municipal airport? I don't think so. Okay. So we're talking about international. And even if it's only a few flights, it makes it international and it makes it a target. And we are already stretched with police. Are we going to add another security consideration here? I don't think we need to do that. So what I want to do is and I do want to thank Ms.. Mango for her change of heart here. I do appreciate that. And I also want to thank Long Beach Neighborhoods first for their huge effort. Thank this group and the many people who have attended the meetings, who have passed out fliers who have worked to arrive at this place. They're a good group of people. They really care about the neighborhood and I think they should be thanked also. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi, my name is Carmen Lopez. I live in Bay one six. One is. Lila Street. And I just want to thank you, everybody. I really happy because I was one of the ones passing those fliers. And they just like you and Mr. Mango. I support you. You came to my house for my board when you wanted to be a city council, and I really wanted you to support us. So my house is my life. And I really appreciate this. And I just want to say thank you to everybody. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. My name's Fred Asch. I live on Rose Avenue and California Heights. First of all, I want to thank Councilwoman Pryce and Councilwoman Mongo for joining our Councilman Supernova, Durango and Austin and supporting them on voting no against expansion for the. Office facility in Long Beach. I just want to make three points. I just want to make sure. That we know with a new administration, a simple executive order can turn things around pretty quickly in Washington. So any assurances from the. Previous administration and the FAA may not hold any water. And so I'd like to make sure that once. When Secretary Chao is approved and. The new FAA directors. Installed, that we may. Take another. Another request for their opinion on any changes. Most of all, I just want to point. Out that the most important thing for us in districts four, seven and eight is our quality of life. And that can be exchanged for any any sum of money. And we're not prepared to let it get away that easily. I just want to make sure that also the airport in their construction of fees, landing fees, penalties, make sure that it's commensurate with L.A.X., because. I don't think we want to inadvertently offer financial incentives. For other airlines to want to operate out of Long Beach for international flights. I think right now there's a lot of violations on curfew because it ends up being cheaper to pay the fee for the fine than it is to pay cancelation fees or hotel bills. Or to. Reposition aircraft. So I want to make sure that whatever. Fines and fees. We have offset the the the lower cost. Of violating the curfews. As well as the PSC. I want to make sure that international flight. Packs are equivalent. To those charged at LAX. Or Santa Ana. So there's no financial incentive. In that way. We know the airlines, obviously. If I'm a stockholder. In JetBlue, their number one incentive is profit, not necessarily quality of life of the community that they operate in, and that rightly so. They have a they have a. Responsibility to their shareholders. So we must understand. That as a fact. But most of all, I want to thank those other councilmen who support our three council members in support of not allowing the FAA facility in Long Beach Airport. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. Members of city council. I'm Randy Gordon, president and CEO of the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. On behalf of the Chamber leadership and the many businesses that we represent, we support this agenda item tonight and move forward in the process of obtaining a customs facility at our airport. The Chamber further supports this customs facility at the airport due to the multiple economic benefits for Long Beach in the region. Many have been outlined in the feasibility study, as you know, and presented by staff as back as far as December. Construction of a customs facility. Would create approximately 250 jobs and generate a financial one time regional output of 38 million. Sustained employment by the airport, air carriers, government and businesses supporting the operation of international flights and the custom facility would create approximately 350 jobs. Jobs in $36 million of annual regional output. International travelers spending estimated, would create another 179 jobs and $31 million in annual local output. These are other factors. These and other factors is why the Chamber weighed in to support such that such a facility as this. These benefits are not only part of our equation, but also helps us with our economic benefit for this facility. We are encouraged by other benefits, as well as noncommercial aviation businesses that find their airport convenient. Again, with the constraints of the noise ordinance, all within the constraints of the noise ordinance, they are Gulfstream, Mercedes Benz, Virgin Galactic and Ross Aviation and many others that Long Beach call home. And undoubtedly, they employ many Long Beach residents because of such companies. Long Beach is seen as a regional economic driver. The Long Beach Airport needs to have its full potential realized and is not. Not allowing a custom facility will not allow us to reach that full facility and this international city become an international airport as well. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. John Slattery eighth district addresses on file thank you to Austin, Turanga and Supernormal for the work you guys have done on this. Councilman Mongo, I know you've taken a lot from a lot of different people. I've been to a lot of your meetings and you've taken a lot. So I know this has not been an easy decision for you, and I'm just kind of happy you guys have come here. I've said a lot in the past. This is to two key things. Always economic doesn't make economic sense. And the noise ordinance, because I still feel that it's going to put it at risk. If you listen to Mr. Gordon there. A lot of the stuff he's talking about we can do with the domestic flights. There's no reason that it would need to be international. We can fully utilize it. We got in Mercedes Benz, who had a mercedes Benz who he just mentioned, Virgin Atlantic. Them knowing that this is a domestic airport. One gentleman said he moved in. Lives on the flight path. No problem with it. I've lived under it since when we had 18 flights and that was the limit. There was no noise bucket. There was no going higher. And if you look historically again and again, we give a little bit and the residents are the ones who end up suffering. So, again. Please, no on the FISA. Thank you, sir. Next week, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Council. I'm Dan Cannon. I live in the fifth district. My husband, I are homeowners. I'd like to thank Councilwoman Mungo for her change of heart this evening. Her decision and the concern that I had had mainly was that the cost to US residents is something that people weren't really talking about, is the health issues from emissions from the jets. I could point you to a very scary article in Wired magazine in 2011 called Sunlight May Turn Jet Exhaust Into Toxic Particles May. However, there's also a 2010 National Geographic article. This claims that 10,000 people per year die as an end result of inhaling jet fumes, which is more than dying. All the aircraft is during that year. That was one of my main concerns about this one. I am very thankful to the Councilwoman for having changed her vote on this one. I suggest that we all support you as much as we possibly can. I would have to agree with you that we have a wonderful little airport here in Long Beach. And incidentally, anybody that's concerned about international flights 19 miles away from Eldorado Park, John Wayne, we can fly out of there. We can support. Thank you. We can support however we possibly can if this vote should happen to go through and be passed that we do not do this. I'm going to be in touch with Councilwoman Workers office tomorrow to find out how we can support you in supporting our airport. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. My name is Willie Quinonez, and I'm a resident of Bixby North, but I'm here in support of our Long Beach residents, not just the residents in my community. When I first heard about this project, the first question that came to my mind is, Are you crazy? I believe that if this measure was put before the voters of Long Beach instead of just the city council, this measure would fail. I believe that opening up this international flight is just like opening a Pandora's box. It was just the beginning. And if the other airlines see the concessions that JetBlue is getting, they would be wanting some to. Long Beach does not need any more traffic, pollution, noise and wear and tear on our already overburdened streets. In conclusion, I would say that the creation of a few more jobs does not trump the people's tranquility and thousands of Long Beach residents. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Evening. My name is Dave Walker and I live in the eighth. District in lost readers in. I'm here too. And also been. Active in the nonprofit community for 25 years. And I want to say that there's been. Absolutely JetBlue coming. This town has been absolutely fantastic for us in our nonprofits and great support. And I don't think that they'd be turning around and suing the city for any decision. But I'll let that happen. It may. I'm I'm here to say that I'm in support of this. And one of my main reasons is it is a fiscal responsibility. What I've heard here is that we are looking. At a $10 million project and we have a corporate citizen, absolutely phenomenal, willing to pay 70, 75%. For this project. And that adds to the balance sheet for the city. It helps me as a taxpayer as well. When I bought my home. I knew I was. In the flight. Path. And I knew what was taking place when I came. Here. I don't know if there's been any discussion to say if. It's a fiscal fiscal. Matter that you. Are here. Tonight, maybe there's room for discussion to see if JetBlue would be willing to help the city out. Even more and make this. Potentially become a win win for this city. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia and council members, thank you very much for your vote today on this item. Councilwoman Pryce, you did an excellent job of thanking everyone here. Councilwoman Super and all. Councilwoman Mongo, Councilman Robert U ringa and L Austin, my councilperson person. I live under the flight path and I don't usually speak in front of groups, but I had to stand today to thank you and to also present an apology to Councilwoman Mongo. Several days ago, I sent her an email in which I accused her of predisposing this issue. And at the end of that email I said, if I'm wrong, I will apologize and I do apologize. Thank you again. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hello. I'm Shannon and CarMax is Ad Lo and I live in the fifth district. I love Long Beach. I love it here so much. And I love the airport. I make all my friends family come out of Long Beach. I won't pick them up in L.A.X.. I don't go get a cab, call Uber. I'm not kidding you. So everybody I know comes into Long Beach Airport. I support it wholeheartedly. I relate to Councilwoman Mango last night, my reservations about the office. I won't go into that again, but I will say thank you from the bottom of my heart. This is so important to so many people. So you have a new cheerleader tonight. I got your back, girl. With that. I just want to say it'll JetBlue. I love you guys. I hope you stay I hope you don't leave and I hope you. Don't sue. Us. So please stay. Here. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. I'm Sarah Jones. I live in North Long Beach off Atlantic. I'm here to. Support local hire and unions. I mean, this project would generate 250 jobs over the course of about 2 to 3 years to build the build the expansion. And that's all local hire. That's all construction jobs. That's all union jobs. Before I was in the union trade, I worked as an air traffic controller up in Monterey, California. We had these same noise ordinance problems and it always came back to this airport has been here for so long. That if you move into the flight path, it's your choice to move into that area with that flight path, with that noise, and therefore you sacrifice your right to. Complain about it. When you move into an area. You accept that all the different conditions of that move. In at the time of purchase. You willingly moved in knowing that the airport, the flight path is there, that the noise is there. And personally, I don't see it as an issue. You know. Whether it's international travel, it's local travel. The runways is as big as it is. It can handle most size of aircrafts that are in the system right now. As far as the noise difference, the newer, bigger jets are actually using more efficient, cleaner and quieter engines. And the only way we get those newer, better planes is by offering longer jumps and international travel. So if you're worried about the. Fumes to the aircraft. The local hops are actually an older aircraft, older engines. They pollute more. So this idea of bringing in this international travel with the better planes, the newer planes, the newer engines will actually reduce the emissions in Long Beach. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name's Roy. I hate to care. I'm a 47 year resident of the city. I first moved here in 1969. I've been a registered voter in this city since 1985. Generations of my family call this city home. My mother's buried here. Okay, now I'm in my 34th year in aviation inspired by that airport. My mom retired from Boeing. Okay. I know you have history there, too. With that said, the purpose of an airport. Is to drive commerce. You have a port in an airport. To the main things every city want to drive commerce, jobs and tax revenue. Okay. Pushing a port and not the airport. Is like developing one arm and tiny government behind your back. Approximately 20% of this city lives below the poverty line. Last year we spent, what, $59 million keep a6400 families in their homes, the renters assistance. Okay. We can't get $3 million to. That's the airport's going to pay for. Itself. To push commerce. Companies like Mercedes Benz, who would definitely replace a Boeing and others like it could replace a Boeing. Boeing is not coming back. You need more Mercedes Benz, companies like that. You solidify their desire to stay here when you make it convenient for them to flatter executives there without having to make a. Second stop somewhere to clear customers before they get here. You want to you want to. Inspire. Business to come here. And you can't do that if you don't inspire. I was inspired. To get into aviation because of that airport job down Lakewood Boulevard in 1978. I was 13 years old with my mom. She was pointing out airplanes that she had worked on that week at Boeing. I looked across the street. Saw at Douglas at the time. I saw a small plane taking off too far right. And I said. One day I'd like to work right there. That was 1978. I didn't see JetBlue coming. Now make over $200,000 a year. Employed by JetBlue. I live in this city. I live in a sixth district. Your district, Mr. Andrews. My children. Thank you for the college promise. But they don't get. Any other. Assistance I pay out of. Pocket. We can either spend a lot of money in poverty programs or we can help put those people to work. And save some. Of that hard earned. Taxpayer money to pay for more police officers, firefighters, water treatment plants, power grids. Or we can just keep. Doing the same and not. Invest in the city, invest in the citizens. Okay, look, I understand about the noise ordinance. The noise ordinance protects. The rights of the vocal minority. Don't let them demagog over the needs of the majority as a half million people. In the city. All rights are protected. Their rights. Thank you so much. Hello. My name is Peter Perez. Before I speak to the airport issue, I do want to bring to the council's attention that I read in the I think it was a Long Beach Post, an article where Long Beach was identified as one of only seven cities west of the Mississippi River. That has, if you take their assets and liabilities, assets out weighing the liabilities, we're not bankrupt. That has a lot to do. And your article pointed out that has a lot to do with you guys the way the city is run. The city has opened books they made. They commented on the openness and the honesty of the books the city keeps. And I think we need to give you all credit. I really emailed the mayor a little while ago about that and center and then. Councilman super off, but I wanted to thank you all and past members and past mayors for taking care of our hard earned money. And it's a big responsibility and guys do a great job. So thank you very much. As to the airport issue. The vote hasn't been taken, as I understand. So I do really urge you all to vote against it. You know, we speak a lot about JetBlue, about businesses creating jobs. Well, we're I'm a homeowner here in Long Beach. I have spent I have put a large part of my net worth into the house I own. I have invested in one beach. I moved here about three years ago. It has a large investment to come here. Okay. Besides investing in Long Beach by purchasing a home, we pay property taxes, we eat here, we shop here. We pay sales taxes. We create a lot of revenue as homeowners. All of the homeowners in this in this building pay a large amounts of money to the city. We also create quite a few jobs. We have people to maintain our house. A lot of houses in Long Beach have been expanded. We have craftsmen coming in, fixing, fixing things, expanding homes, tile, you know, building on rooms, taking care of gardens. We create a lot of jobs and homeowners here create a lot of jobs, a lot of commerce in this city. It's not just one company or a group of companies that does that. So I want to thank you for the proposals put before the council. I want to thank you for. Entertaining a vote to not create the Customs facility. And I also like to point out one other option item, which is we're relying on his feasibility study quite a bit. And just tonight, out of the blue, we hear that this facilities feasibility study, which is supposed to be so elaborate and so perfect, overestimated the cost of the the customs facility by 200% and the size of the for customs facility. So what else has missed or misrepresented? Not misrepresented, but is not correct in the study that we will pay for later. So again, I thank you. I thank you for your no vote on the facility and for your stewardship of our funds. Thank you very much. Thank you. And thank you for your email. Appreciate that as well. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Chris Osborne. I'm live in the fifth District 5401 Canton. I'm a homeowner and I am against the office facility. There are plenty of reasons to vote no. We've talked about decreasing property values, challenge to the noise ordinance, financial risk to the city. But I want to talk about our health. I work as a physician assistant and I see lung disease such as asthma, COPD and cancer frequently. There's no question that environmental pollutants like those found in airplane exhaust worsen and in many cases cause these lung conditions. I have three epidemiological studies that shed light on this problem. One study in particular was done by the Massachusetts Department of Health and it showed there is a statistically significant increase in COPD for those living within the vicinity, which was defined as five miles of the of the original airport. The study also showed that children within this five mile radius were 3 to 4 times more likely to have respiratory disease. Now, five miles, this airport was was bigger than Long Beach, but five miles includes pretty much all one beach. Every district is within five miles of the airport and everyone is affected. If the FAA facility is approved, the number of flights will inevitably increase much faster than they would without the FAA facility. Already without international travel. We have seen several days this year already with 100% flight slot utilization. That's unprecedented according to the FAA. The noise ordinance is open for challenge if any party feels it places unreasonable burden on them, as would be felt by, say, Southwest or Alaska if they wanted more flights to fly, more slots to fly domestic or international. And if I ask, facility would be opening the door for more air traffic and it would subject us more to more exhaust and more pollution. Our overall health is not supported by by an FAA facility, and FISA facility just supports the corporations and it neglects the health and safety of the residents. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Anthony Brown. I live at 3870 Gundry Avenue in Bixby Terrace in Councilmember Yolanda's district. I live there with my wife and my three children. We've been there for 12 years and we're homeowners. I just want to go on record as being another Long Beach citizen who's against the international airport. And I want to encourage you all to vote for the motion tonight. I probably can't speak as well as my other eloquent neighbors have in favor of the motion. But I do want to thank every one of the council members for going forward with a study arming all of the citizens of Long Beach with the facts that are necessary to make an intelligent, informed decision about this issue. Thank you all for doing that, and thank you all for your consideration. Thank you, sir. Next speaker. And my name is Franz Neumann. I'm in the seventh district as well, under the flight path. I came here, was going to have a lot of angry words because we've lived there for about 13 years. We've had to deal with lots and lots of late flights. The idea of the noise ordinance is great and we'd fully support it, but it feels like it's broken very, very often. And that is something that affects us because we also work from home. We're also raising two kids at home and having them constantly wake up or having us wake up. You feel a little bit like you're still raising an infant. You're just not getting enough sleep. But I'm very happy to hear that the vote seems to be going the way we want it to go. And the one thing I haven't heard is just the fear that I have that this would lead to litigation and possibly, you know, the loss of the noise ordinance and the very idea that we could have possibly have 24 hour flights just kind of scares me to my core. So that's kind of the fears that we have as homeowners, as business people who work from home and as parents. So we're very happy. That the actions have been taken today by Mongo. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council, Craig Koch of the downtown Long Beach Alliance, a DVA, is on record. It has submitted a letter supporting staff's recommendation this evening based on the economic impact as well as job creation for this project. And while we respect the maker's motion as well as a second motion, we feel as though that this project is beneficial not only to the city overall, but also to the economic vitality of our downtown. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Linda Sopko, fifth District. My address is on file. I'm quite heartened tonight. It's really nice to come and see. That. It's, you know, a city council meeting about something so. Important and not having, you know, everybody being upset and throwing. Things and rancor and bad names and bad words and everything else. I had a lot of things to say, man. I was writing stuff out all day today. And I you know. Quite honestly, I was amazed after we went through this about. Expanding the airport. Just a few short years ago that we were jumping right back into bed with another huge project that was going to be controversial about the airport. Can we take a break from it for a while, guys? It would really be nice. I love the idea about the long term. Plan because to me that made sense. It was like. Okay, let's look at doing everything we can to keep that airport vital. Which we are. It's gorgeous. I flew out of there a couple of weeks ago. I flew JetBlue. I love JetBlue. I got to tell you, you know what's nice about JetBlue? I got to tell you, guys are airline stewardesses are great. They were cracking jokes. They made it fun. And it was a short flight. I was a little disturbed because my daughter flew up there a couple of weeks ago, went to San Francisco, and I had to go pick her. Up and she sent me her information. And when it said what terminal she was coming in. For JetBlue, it said the Long Beach International Terminal. And I got to tell you, every hair on the back of my neck went up and I went, oh, well, is that a mistake. Somewhere or is there a. Done deal? My question, you know. To all of you, first of all, to thank you for all the people who don't live directly under the flight path. For being here as well and caring. About those of us that have or do. And and in response to the someone about you move where the airport is a lot of people in this you know room moved in there when it was 18 flights. Okay. And it was never meant to be a big, huge airport. But anyway, going back to that, I would really think I think this took so much longer than it needed to. I think we knew a lot of this stuff up front and I know you needed to do studies and everything else. Is there a way that next time something of this immense meaning to so many. That we could work to create. A better community connection? Because, you know, when you got staff telling you you can't speak and when you've got, you know, your friends that are on the council can't talk to you. And quite honestly. You know, many of you are my friends and I have. Had personal experiences with a. Lot of you and enjoyed fine dining and have mutual friends. And it's really kind. Of a sad thing that it becomes the city against her. People who elected all of you guys. I mean, you guys were elected by we the people. You weren't elected by the staff, you weren't elected by JetBlue, you were elected by the people in this room. And, you know, Stacy is my representative. But quite honestly, so. Is Darrell and so is Susie and so is Janine and so is Lina and so is Dr. Garcia and Dee and Robert and Al. And Rex. You guys represent all of us. So just because, you know, your district. You know, voted you in, you know. What you guys do affects everybody. Thank you, sir. All right. My time is up, but thank you again. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Council members and Mayor Garcia. My name is James Stoke. I'm a residents. Of Long Beach. My home is in Long Beach. I have rental. Properties in Long Beach and our our family has properties all around this community. We have friends that live all around Long Beach going all the way down to Newport Beach. But you're going to decide tonight impacts everyone. It impacts the residents. It impacts JetBlue and it will impact our businesses. I was going. To have a different presentation. Tonight. Things kind. Of changed. I commend Stacie Mango on her decision. In motion to recede going forward as well. Suzy Pryce. Your second of the motion. For all of those that are going to vote to oppose. This idea. I'm going forward and that's the way you vote. I think it's going to be a very wise decision, not only for JetBlue ultimately. But for all of the residents. The residents around. This city of. Long Beach and their residents and business owners throughout Long Beach. There's a lot of reasons not to go forward on this. I just want to make one comment. That I haven't heard tonight. And I was going to suggest that a moratorium be proposed until we find the result. What the next couple phases of next. Gen are going to do to the city of Long Beach. The phases haven't even been fully implemented. And we already know and see new flights. Going over our airspace. What's particularly troubling. Is the fact that LAX. Is now using their Long Beach. Air. Air. Runway, the Long Beach runway. And that's. Causing an awful lot of extra traffic. That we've never had before. So, again, thank you for your wise decision tonight. If you're voting to oppose it. And I do like JetBlue, I've flown it many times. Matter of fact, you almost kicked me off. Of a flight. I just had a few too. Many before I got on the plane. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Mr. Mayor. Council and staff. My name is Roland Scott, and I'm here today as a concerned citizen in favor of the firehouse facility. I'm presently serving on the Airport Advisory Commission and have been serving for approximately six years. I'm also a 45 year resident of Long Beach. My comments tonight are as a private citizen and do not necessarily represent those of the commission. I realize that the citizens most affected by the airport have a legitimate concerns regarding noise and frequency of flights and other issues regarding the airport in its operations. The problem we're having is a constant fear mongering, half truths and innuendo perpetuated by those who do not support the airport. The primary fear out put out there is that they will allow the FISA facility, that our noise ordinance will likely be challenged in court. Really, this is pure speculation. And really, I personally would like to have the ordinance challenged in court because I believe it would withstand a court challenge due to its scope, maturity, workability and success. Then we could put a stop to this issue and put it to bed once and for all. There's a flier out touting the assertion that there is no significant economic benefit from the up air facility to our airport in our city. For the past year, our revenues at the airport have been declining and we've cut to our reserves. At the Commission, we're tasked with the responsibility of making sure that the airport is economically viable and that we have varied sources of revenue to support the airport. This is one of those sources. There are those who contend that there will not be many jobs provided at our place, and that is taken in comparison with all the jobs in Long Beach. This might be true, except if one of these jobs is yours. And one or one of your family members. By the way, those assertions are just guesses on the part of those that oppose the pass and are in direct conflict with the Jacobs study. There are four regional airports that serve international travelers, but they don't serve Long Beach. And it's unique situation that allows our citizens to have a pleasant, expedited travel experience. And the majority of the people I have talked with at length support our customs facility. And I would venture to say categorically that the majority of Long Beach citizens support the facility at Long Beach. There are those who have raised issues pertaining to the next gen next generation. The FAA has sponsored redoing it our airspace and how it will be utilized in future for the Los Angeles area area. As a former airline captain, I can tell you that there are concerns as to how the airspace is utilized, but it has nothing to do with the FISA facility, although there are persons trying to connect the two together and obfuscate the issue. As an example, what is the noise, impact and pollution of jetliners passing overhead Long Beach at 10,000 or 13,000 feet? The noise sensors in Long Beach can't even measure that because it's so slight and the noise equals the sound of your fan motor on your heater at home or the noise your hybrid makes when the engine comes on. Finally, I would like to add that we elected all of you to make decisions, some of them tough ones, some of them possibly not popular. This isn't really that tough. Approving the up ass facility is the right thing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Respected mayor, respected council members. My name is Imran Ahmed. I'm the corporate resident of Airport Plaza Drive. I manage a hotel over there by the name of Marriott and I do support. The international terminal at. The airport. We believe that it will bring substantial economic progress into our city. If not anything else, we need to understand there are two additional hotels coming up in the area, which is approximately 250 rooms which. Need to be accommodated, which need to be supported. Airport is one of the the venues that we we expect business coming out of. I understand the noise ordinance, which is not going to be touched as far as the the the flights are concerned. Therefore, I. Do support it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia. Council and city managers and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Mark Helmick. I'm a property owner in the seventh District. My wife and I reside at 3952 Rose Avenue. We are directly under the flight path as planes leave the airport. I want to personally thank Councilman Turanga for making it his priority to continue to protect the quality of life for the neighborhood and to preserve the noise ordinance. That's a quote from the January 20 press-gazette. As I said, my home is directly underneath the outbound flight path. I, too, would invite anyone in the room to have coffee or a barbecue at my patio. It's not a slight intrusion. And in fact. Gatherings frequently are put on pause. The conversations have to stop because the noise. Is an issue for us. That said, it's hard to believe our neighborhood was chosen by me and my wife because it is a step up neighborhood. I moved from Lakewood. It was a nice neighborhood and remains a nice neighborhood. I'd like to maintain the mix of retirees being replaced by young owners and families who are dedicated to renovating the property and improving the value and therefore being reassessed for tax purposes. We contribute all the way around even if we don't work here. As I said, our neighborhood is is nice. It's desirable. It's step up. It's not elite. But it's not ramshackle, cramped it operations, you might imagine, exist under a flight path. I'm not a tree hugging anti-capitalist. I'm very late to the house party. I believe the intrusion of an FCC will threaten the progression that is going on with home improvement in our neighborhood. I believe the increased noise. Will threaten the desirability of the neighborhood. In the blogs and editorials. And here tonight, I and others like me are vilified by supporters of the FCC for choosing such a neighborhood in which to live. We should have known somehow the airport would only get bigger, conditions would only get worse. How could we not have predicted such an argument? Actually makes my point that conditions are slowly eroding unless we stop pause like I did with the TV, pause like we do with the conversations and think before we act. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Honorable Mayor Garcia and members of the City Council. I want to thank Council members Austin, Turanga, Supernormal and Mongo and praised for your diligent study of the issue. And your. Your position. I sincerely hope that the rest of the members of council vote this down. We've heard all. The reasons I can't think of any that are. More eloquent or compelling to say than what others have stepped up here to say before me. But we've heard about the noise violations. They keep going up. Late night arrivals threaten to get worse with international traffic. And JetBlue, of course, builds the fines into their operating costs. I think the environmental impacts that we've. Heard about from. People are as real a concern as noise and the the environmental impact report upon which the Jacobs report was built. Supporting the FTA FISA construction is over a decade old. It just. Doesn't make good business sense. To have all our eggs in the basket of one carrier. And again, we've heard that other carriers could cry unfair. Competitive advantage and truly challenge the noise ordinance. And when. And if the noise ordinance is eliminated, we could see multiple phases of expansion and increased flights as other carriers. Demand and. Receive slots. We only get 70 local non construction jobs out of the expansion and our property values could decrease in the neighborhoods we enjoy so much and Long Beach would become much less pleasant places to live. So I think that given the market. Demand that. The collapse of the noise. Ordinance is not a. Fantasy, it could be a true threat. And we we. Really greatly appreciate you studying this issue, and. We hope that you all vote it down this evening. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hi. My name is Laura Lewis and I have lived in the eighth District for 20 years and I am against the international flights at Long Beach Airport because if we keep the noise ordinance and the flight limitations, the more international flights we have, the fewer regional flights we will have. And I am a frequent user of the regional flights. Last week I flew on JetBlue from Long Beach to Salt Lake City. Next week I'm going to San Jose on JetBlue again. I love JetBlue, but I really like the regional flights. Use them a lot, and I. Don't want to lose those. And if we have international flights, we'll lose some of the slots to the regional flights. My coworkers who also live in Long Beach. Fly out of Long Beach this week. The guy who sits in the next cubicle from me flew out of Long Beach to Phenix. My boss flew out of Long Beach to Oakland this week. I don't want to lose those local flights. Second point is, I don't think passengers. From international flights will bring in any more revenue from local from the regional flights. They will mostly be Southern California based leisure travelers. So the only. Money they're likely to spend in. Long Beach will be. They'll maybe buy a meal and either parking or cab fare, but that's it. And guess what? When people fly. To San Jose, same thing. I'll probably buy. Breakfast and either parking. Or cab fare depending on what works. And the construction. Jobs in building this thing. Will not be permanent. They will be temporary. They'll go on for a year or two while. The thing is being built. But then they'll be over. So they're not a permanent solution, is it? I mean, yes, it's nice to have it. Work for a couple of years, but it wouldn't be nicer to work for something that provides. Permanent jobs. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, City Council and staff. I'm Myron Campbell, and I'm a JetBlue crew member. I'm a ground operations leader. And Mayor Garcia, I want to talk to you directly, but I just want to thank you for the recognition earlier and thank you for allowing us the opportunity and spotting us. I'm the guy that does this. I bring your aircraft in. I'm the baggage guy. But I'm also the guy that welcomes many, many Long Beach passengers and residents back home. I'm the doormat, along with a lot of other frontline crew members that we have here in the audience. I'm going to deviate just a bit from what I had prepared, but I just wanted to talk to you about a time in 2008, 2009. A lot of you can remember that time, the economic downturn and a lot of folks weren't hiring there. Mass layoffs, mom and pop shops were falling and small communities were disappearing. There was a company hiring. They were right here in Long Beach, and that was JetBlue Airways. They were still hiring. I joined them in 2009 and on my way to training. And I was in Orlando for the meeting that we we have there, JetBlue University. It's a room just like this. And there are people lined up along the walls. Wall to wall. So what are these people doing standing up here? Maybe they should have a seat. There's plenty of seating. But lo and behold, a portable cordless microphone went around the room and a lot of them began to speak. And they were the vice presidents and directors and managers and things like that. Embracing us, circling us, welcoming us, his family members to the JetBlue family. I want to mention this because a lot of folks have come up. They've mentioned that. They've mentioned things like corporate greed. I've been all these meetings, big pockets. Another gentleman mentioned shareholder, shareholder profit. It's all about the money. But JetBlue, it's it's not always about the money. It's nice to be able to turn a profit at the end, but it's not always about the money. Our culture is service, and that's evident through what we've done in many of the communities, not only the ones we fly to, but right here in Long Beach. This community very important. And so council members, I just I just urge you for your yes vote on FISA. I'm not going to mention the speculation and things about health and jobs and things like that. But we have the the Jacobs survey. We have the Jacobs report. They are the professionals. As councilman, Mongo, councilwoman, as you've mentioned. And it's very, very clear that it needs to be a yes on SARS. So I thank you for what you all do. You don't do it for fame, for fortune, not even for your own personal recognition, but for so that the city of Long Beach can continue to grow. We love the use and enjoyment and we want to keep it here and welcome international passengers. I want to say bienvenidos a long beach the next time in about a few years when the next plane arrives. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hi, my name is Rita Nayak, and I'm here to talk about social capital. I've been a resident of Long Beach since 1984. I went to Prisk Hughes Poly Cal for college. I lived in L.A. for seven years. I hated L.A. there was traffic and noise everywhere. It was congested. There was no community. People rushed in. They were angry. It was hard to make friends. I told my husband that Long Beach is the city to raise kids, so me and my brother right behind me slowly convinced him. And we moved back here with our two little ones and we bought a house in Bixby Knolls nine months ago. And our intention was that that's going to be our forever house. And I'm so happy that you guys have decided that you care about the people of Long Beach. And I'm not the only person that's moved back here. Long Beach is special. People move, they get multiple degrees. They can live in L.A., they can live in Redondo Beach, they can live in Orange County, and they are all coming back here. I was on Facebook talking about this issue, people from fifth grade, sixth grade, my softball coach, I you know, I played at it in the third District, Eldorado Park, and people come back here and they do it for community. We all want to be involved and be a part of a place. We want to make lifelong friends and invest in everybody who lives here. And I can get one in from the other in 17 minutes. There's no traffic. The diversity is amazing. The parks are plentiful. There's no stress added stress for me. And that means I can do more, more here, not just for me. I'm a privileged person. I own a home, and I hope that everybody here invests in Long Beach and the people here, because we can because we have the opportunity to do so. We don't we don't have the added stresses of trying to get to one place or another quickly and the traffic and I'm going to do that this weekend. I'll be volunteering in somewhere in honor of you guys for choosing us. I really appreciate your choice today. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next picture. Please. Hi. I'm British Sampat. I live in the seventh district. That was my sister. And I'm happy she's here in Long Beach. She enjoyed. What she saw when she came to visit my house, when she came to visit me. And she wanted that place for her kids and her family. And I want the same to raise my family. I hope I can have one. I was raised here and I moved back because I wanted those things. I didn't want to move to L.A., El Segundo, cities like West Chester that are inundated by the noise from L.A.X. . And I've always the same environmental concerns, noise issues, traffic potential for exceeding the flight window that other residents have mentioned. Um, you know, I enjoy the efficiency of our airport and I don't want to lose that for the sake of occasional vacation destinations or trips. As I mentioned, there are already five airports in the greater L.A. area. And so there's plenty of choices out there for international trips. You know, we should be different and maintain our quality of service for domestic flights. That's what actually brings people to Long Beach and makes them willing to pay and maybe the fractional higher ticket price to get that good service. You know, allocating slots for international flights does not promote the fiscal progress of Long Beach as much as returning domestic flights does. The chance of losing 12 to 16% of the slots dedicated to international flights will mean that we lose flights to cities that actually bring in consumers and people for conventions, conferences which bring in a lot of income during the week. And that also attracts future investment. So let's use our development opportunities consciously to maintain and showcase the quality of life that we have here and share that with others. So thank you very much. Thank you very. Much. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Ramon. I'm from the fifth District. This has been a very interesting journey, to say the least. I got to really know. Darryl Supernova. And Stacey Mongo quite. Well and some of these other folks. Uh, it's been very, very interesting. I was going. To just try to crack a joke. I was talking to Lou over there from Jet Blue. I still got 50 questions that. Haven't been answered. I'm just joking. But one of the questions, one of the things that I'd like to say is that I've got this noise audience in my head. I memorized everything. I know where the sensors are. I know I've taught people how to look at the airport and and check it out themselves and the flight paths and everything. I got all this mental lint in my head and I don't know what to do with it. Thanks to our airport director who has just been fabulous. So I mean, I don't know. I sometimes try to get information out and next thing I know, I get flooded with things and I get things kind of wrong sometimes. And Stacey Mungo can testify, right? Um. Well, will or whatever. But I try to do my best. And when someone says, Look, you screwed up, fix it, I do my best to fix it. I don't I don't say I always do it right or whatever. But I try my best to do some of this stuff. And I'd really like to thank Stacy for really kind of hanging in there. And she has really been battered. For a. Lot of reasons that really aren't fair, I think. And so I hope that everyone can can kind of get together. And indeed, if there's some people that you'd like to kind of. You know, work with. Somehow I somehow be a focal point because some of the the JetBlue employees I know when I talk to you, I try to get some of the information right by all three groups. And they say, yeah, that's right. And then when I post, it just goes crazy. You know, people, I don't know how they take some of this stuff, but at any rate, I just want to say thanks, Stacy, for for your effort. I know that you've you've tried your best. And I really want to thank your chief of staff, Christine, who originally gave me this stuff, and also Gerald Supernova, the Mr. Atherton tip, you know, very good. And that's you got to know that. And then also the all these other folks that are there. I was kind of a neutral person, but I just want to thank, especially in the mayor's office, all those folks there. I got to know so many people. It's just crazy. I'm going to give you 15 more seconds. All right. Thanks. Thank you for taking the correction. Well, thank you very much. Please come forward. Next speaker, please. Just come down a little bit, everyone. We're going to. And then Mr. Perkin. Said, evening council members, thank you for Miss Mongo, for your position and thank you, Ms.. Price for supporting the position as well. My name is Nancy Lopez. I'm part of the fifth District. My mother spoke earlier and she so fervently expressed the importance of this issue to us. I grew up in West Long Beach in the 1990s, which is was not easy. There were a lot of gangs. There was a lot of drugs. And like somebody else said, this house was a step up for my family. They moved us out of there because they knew that the future there was slim. It was. I'm proud to say that I moved on. I did get my degree. I went to UCLA and like somebody else said, I came back. I received my master's degree at Cal State, Long Beach, and I'm here. I work at Cal State, Long Beach as well. Thanks to the move, we no longer had to deal with the lot of the. A lot of the violence and a lot of the drugs and the gangs. And when my parents moved to that neighborhood, they didn't sign up for an increase in flights or for a constant violation of the noise ordinance. They wanted a better life for us. Time and time again. I've heard from Mr. Roman, the district attorney, and from Jacobs, about the noise ordinance, how it will not be violated. However, myself, my mom and the other residents of Long Beach not only disagree, we have evidence. Just last night at 11:35 p.m., a plane passed over our house. I worked two jobs. I work as a program coordinator for an educational outreach program, and I'm a social worker on the weekends. And sleep is precious to me. So I really appreciate you not moving forward with this. Not only that, there are other concerns that we had, and I hope that these are taken into account in the future. We do not have a research team to pay to support our fears. As somebody said, we cannot corroborate them because we don't have anybody to do so. Nobody has looked at how housing will be impacted. Nobody has looked at how security will be impacted in the surrounding neighborhood. And that's nothing that can be proven because we don't we don't have anybody that can do it. I hope that you take this into consideration for any future plans to expand the airport or to make it international, to really think about what the issues that the community members are bringing forward, not just the noise ordinance, not just the number of flights. Thank you very much. Thank you. That's speaker piece. Good evening. My name is Andrea Philo. Good evening, counsel and neighbors. I just want to say that Long Beach is a city of neighborhoods. It's not an industrialized city. The vision that I hear sounds like an industrialized city is what, you know, the expansion, the FARC and then Mercedes Benz. And I think the Jacobs report clearly did say that there would be a regional economic benefit, not specifically to Long Beach, except during the construction. But we're a neighborhood of we're a city of neighborhoods, and our neighborhoods matter. And there are new people moving into these neighborhoods, young families moving in. Their kids are in the schools, the local schools. The teachers have to stop talking. Everybody says, oh, it's just 50 flights. It's not going to change. We're going to trade one for the other. Well, the reason people are concerned, the residents, is that the noise ordinance is a fragile thing and other airlines are going to want a piece of it. They will. This is how you run a business. If they have another venue to fly out of, then they will ask for it and then they will challenge and will have to fight them. So it's not something we don't want to go down the slippery slope. There's no reason to go down this slippery slope. We have a beautiful airport. And people do come here from other areas to fly because municipally, it's a good airport for domestic flights. And they the cutting down of the domestic flights, which would be also happening, which is already happening to a degree. Would not be favorable for our city, for our conventions, and also for people that live here that want to fly domestically. We don't fly to Mexico or the Caribbean as much as we might fly to New York, Phenix, Texas. So the other interesting thing is the health issues, the environmental impact, the traffic congestion. All of these things, the security issues. I think we have a beautiful airport and I'm a JetBlue fan. I fly JetBlue. I'm one of their favorite customers I hate. I hope they still love me. But. You know, they're doing well. They got the flight to Cuba from Fort Lauderdale. They ought to be happy. They're one of the airlines that got that. So, you know, they're doing okay and we're doing okay. And we'd like to leave it that way. All right. Thank you all. Have a good night. Thank you. Miscavige. Wow. I can't get the words mental lint out of my head. First, I. Want to say, Stacy. Thank you so much. I know that this was a very difficult process for you, that you wanted to honor the business that you businesses that you represent. But you also are defending and honoring the residents from around the entire city that are impacted by it. And I thank you for that. Susie, your. Words. In support of Stacey and the road that she's traveled on this and the seconding of the motion also say a lot for the type of leader that you are. And I know you read everything you told me that when you first came on board. So I know you do your homework. And I appreciate that. So thank you. And Daryl and Roberto and Al. Thanks for keeping this in the light. I know it wasn't always easy because there is many sides to issues and so thank you for that. But now I almost feel like a council person. I'm thanking everybody for everything. But and Robert and the other council members that actually reached out to me and communicated with me personally. During this time. I appreciate that time because I know your time is valuable. It means it means a lot. So thank you. Thank you for that. And I hope that everyone is. Supportive that all nine of you are supportive. Of the motion that Stacey made. Seconded by Susie. But I also want to take just a second to say we love JetBlue. I love. JetBlue. I hope they add back New York flights and Boston flights and Washington, D.C. flights. And and for the. Crew. For the crew members, I was a crew member for. United for 35 years. I understand the job that you do. And the service that you provide, whether on the ground or in the air. And so we're very supportive of JetBlue as a as a corporate neighbor. And we hope that you understand what our concerns are during this. During this event, I guess I can call it an event. But on behalf of Joe. Sopko, who is not going to speak. Tonight and L.B. hush. Board members and Long Beach neighborhoods, first, we thank you all for keeping this to be open and civil process, and we look forward to working with you on other issues. And I actually would like to start my retirement, if that's okay with you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Brian Muir, eighth district. You know, I just I've lived in Long Beach for 40 years, the last 14 of which have been in the eighth District. And I just want to address my neighbor here who says that the noise doesn't bother him. It's kind of funny because I am on the steering committee for our neighborhood watch meeting and we have this huge block party every year. It's a great, great turnout. And every meeting that we have, it's kind of become. A running joke that we have to stop and pause. Wait for the plane to pass. We all cheers each other. Which with whatever adult libation we happen to be drinking at the time. And then we go on with our meeting. And we. Have to do this 3 to 5. Times during the meeting whenever we have this. The noise is. There. Trust me. In the summertime, you. Open your windows. And one of the gentlemen was talking about having to pause. Yes. You have to sit down. You have to pause whatever program you're watching. Did did it? Did you? Did it. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. And then you can play again. You can't have your windows open. It's that. Loud. All right. And I also don't know. What with the no noise ordinance says about larger planes, but any international flight that I've been on has not been a small plane. It's a larger plane. Last time I checked, larger planes make more noise. So if you're talking international flights, I'm assuming the planes. Will get bigger unless I'm. Mistaken. They won't. Okay, perfect. Thank you. That I misspoke. But that being said, I want to I wanted to thank Councilwoman Mango. I was not going to go to your gala fundraiser that you are putting on. My kids go to Newark specifically because I thought you were in the pocket of JetBlue. I am horribly mistaken. And I will now be attending your gala. And just for the record, none of the money goes to me at all. No, no, no. That's tomorrow. No, I know. I know. But but. I want. I wanted to say this to the other council members. Think about that. When you make your decision because it. Will affect you and how the rest of the community. Sees you. And how we think. You see us. And ultimately, that's what it's about. It's about our community. All right. That being said. Go to first Fridays. It's awesome if you haven't been. Let's keep that up. Our community is great with thriving in Bixby Knolls. Let's keep it that way. All right. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Hi, everybody. My name is Tony Cadmus. I live in the seventh District. I've lived in my wonderful home for 30 years. I appreciate all the time and attention that you have all given to this matter, and I certainly appreciate my calcium. And your ranga is awesome. I appreciate. Councilwoman Mongo, your yours and Councilwoman Price's comments tonight. This is so serious for all of us. I appreciate all of you for listening to us. It's so important to me. Well, everybody really that spoke ahead of me and I am against the expansion. Those that spoke against the expansion pretty much said what I think needed to be said. So I'll move on here if people want to speak. But for me, this is a quality of life issue that that's just that's got to be one of the major things to consider for the residents of Long Beach. So thank you for your time and let's see how the vote goes. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Please. Yes. My name is Laura Selma. My address is on file. Hello. Hi. I've been a resident of District four for 25 years. I've also lived in one. Two and seven. I've asked the city clerk to distribute these little pages, so you should be getting those. This is my poster of the airport. Airport impact, because it shows how wide, you know, the airport is not just in that little area. It affects all of us in the city. I did this on purpose. If you if you could show that to other crowd, because I just noticed when I was sitting up there, it'd be so nice if all of our residents, if we had a little desk over there with a microphone and PowerPoint and we had $350,000 to spend on a report and PowerPoints, we could make a presentation to you. But all I got is a poster. We care deeply about this. I had a prepared statement. I'm going to just cut it down to when I heard the annex overflow and their cheer because they weren't we were well-behaved in here. They cheered and they cheered in a way that brought me so much joy, the joy from them, because you're voting to you're making a motion to protect residents. I read the JetBlue annual reports. I have an MBA and I know they're a good airline. But I also know that every business it has. One purpose in it is to make money. And I don't want you to lose sight of that. So there are good airline, but your job. Is to protect the residents. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker what I'm going to unless there's unless there's council objection. I know we shall folks coming in. What I'm going to do is I'm going to set the timer for 2 minutes. However, if you're at two and you really need to finish what you're saying, I'm going to let you keep going. But if we can just try to limit it as best possible. That would be great. We still have a lot of comments, so please, sir. Challenge accepted. Mr. Mayor. Council. My name is Mike Mangan. I'm a resident of the eighth district, 42 years old, which means I've been a 42 year resident of the city. I've lived in District three, four, five, seven and eight. I have a five year old daughter and a two year old son, and I am here for them more than anything else. I want to commend Councilwoman Mongeau for her motion. I want to commend Councilwoman Price for her support. And I want to acknowledge the political courage that it took to offer that motion and verbalize that support. Because I'm sure you've been on the receiving end of feedback, including mine, that's been intense and vociferous. And I know it took a lot of guts because I know you're getting it from both ends, too, that there's tremendous, powerful interests leaning on everybody here. Right. And I want to thank Councilman Supernormal, Councilman Turanga. My man, Alan the eighth. We're going to miss you. You're a one man argument against term limits, but keep up the good work as long as you're still there for their steadfast support. And beyond the political courage I want to offer. I also think it's political intelligence as well, because anybody who comes out in support of keeping the airport the way it is is doing their own political futures a tremendous favor in both the near-term and the mid-term. And I want to address a couple of the arguments I heard tonight. One is, if you live near the airport, you can't complain. That is ridiculous. That argument is absurd. I live near Atlantic Avenue. I don't want to turn into a ten lane highway. I mean, give me a break. Right. And secondly, the second argument is the economic impacts. I've read the Jacobs study, 250 jobs. Sounds like a lot, too. You have to realize how many of those are temporary construction jobs may be done in a week or two. And how much is 250 jobs measured against hundreds of thousands of Long Beach residents who are going to have their standard of living and their quality of life, potentially their health impacted. The smart choice is to say no to this. I appreciate how the dialog is going tonight and I hope you continue to support Councilwoman Mango's motion. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. My name is Judith Anderson. I live in the seventh District. I live in Castle Heights, and I like the airport. I moved here. I knew the airport was going to be there. I like it. I like the DC threes. They make a lot of noise and they're polluting, but they don't fly out all the time. I don't want the airport expanded and I do want to know that the city council cares more about people than money. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Speaker, please. Hi. My name is George Correa. I'm a long time resident of Long Beach. I lived in the second district, the third district, the fourth district and the eighth District. I want to thank the mayor, Al Austin, and the rest of the council members for listening to all of us. I'll try to keep it under a minute. Since I believe in Shakespeare's quote that brevity is the soul of wit. There have been arguments for and against, and they've both been eloquent. I really think that a lawyer could make an argument for either case. And I actually took a little tally of the people that spoke for and against. There's about ten that have spoke for the FISA facility. And about 28 against, I think with a subject that's so controversial, it would not hurt to err on the side of the constituents that voted you into office and vote against the FISA facility . The other thing that I wanted to mention, which someone else already mentioned, is that knowing full well that you moved into a area that has a airport isn't reason to give up your First Amendment right to speak and convince the city council members that represent you to change their minds. And I think everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker, please. Good evening. Hi. My name is Melinda Cotton. I live in the third district in Belmont Shore. I was part of the group that was plotting and cheering outside. We're very grateful that the council has recognized council member Franco and Pryce especially have recognized that it's best for Long Beach, the quality of life, the residents, the business community , really, and the economics of the city to not bring in the FISA and protect the noise ordinance. What I would like your attention to tonight, there have been mentions of NexGen. What it is, as we know, is the FAA is rearranging the airplanes over our area. Basically, there's going to be a meeting next week. I wish I knew the date. I hope that the council members will get the information out here in Long Beach at the adult school. I'd Willow and the FAA is sponsoring that to learn more about it. And as my council member has heard already, we're experiencing that overflights from L.A.X. and elsewhere over our homes. They're probably pretty high. A lot of people may not hear them. I heard one, about three in the morning last night. So even in our older home with double windows, we're still hearing them. So I do hope you'll have to pay attention to that. And thank you very much, Councilmember Super Nine and Austin and your rank. You did a great job in bringing out the information and bringing forward all of us holding the study session. So we're grateful. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. My name is Carol McElwee, and I'd like to thank Mayor Garcia and the council members for considering livability. I was born in Long Beach. I was raised in Bixby Knolls, and I live now in District three. My mother, Joyce McElwee, would be here tonight, but for health reasons she couldn't make it. But she asked me to speak on her behalf. I was three when my parents bought the big signals home on Sirius Avenue, which is now under the flight path of the commercial aircraft. She wanted to let have you know that when she's on the phone, if a fly when a plane flies over all conversation, stop and only commence when the plane passes. Also, when her TV is. On, she has to place it on pause. Because nothing can be heard. She finds oil oil droplets on her car. And she's concerned about breathing very bad air and has respiratory problems at this point and heart problems. And that's why she's not here tonight. I'm also very concerned because I've seen how the city has changed with the commerce and the pollution and the noise. And I did live in L.A., but choose to move back to Long Beach because of that problem. I'm an attorney. And I did see the. Or at least reference to the FAA letter from last October 2016, where they have reserved the right to investigate further complaints from any carrier that believes the ordinance is a barrier to their entry into, I guess, the L.A. or Long Beach market. I look at as an invitation for litigation, and I'm so happy that the council is putting its residents first. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Believe me, I am not from Long Beach originally. I am from Los Angeles, born and raised. After college I moved to Long Beach and I did not know why I had come here. I was taught religiously that when you arrive in a destination and you have no idea why you're there, you need to pray and ask God , why am I here? After several years living in District nine, I received a calling. And when you receive a calling, you have two choices. Either you answer the phone and hang up, or you answer the phone and pay attention. I understood that my reason for coming here was to assist the homeless. And in order to do so, I had to become familiar with what that felt like to the homeless. Not one homeless person that I have met in any of these districts have ever complained. That the airplanes are too loud. I can't sleep. Because the airplanes are too loud. I'm sure you've never received a phone call from one homeless person complaining that the airplanes are too loud. There's this statement ringing in my head about society and we, the heroes that push society forward, those heroes that make us count our tracks and look forward and push. We're in that time now. Something's going to come and push us forward, whether we like it or not. What you fail to realize is without being religious on you. You being given an invitation to push forward by air. And from what I'm hearing, many of your constituents are saying no by choice now. Next the next time the push comes, it may not come with an invitation and you will be pushed forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Miller. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Council Members. I'm Ron Miller, executive secretary of the L.A. Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council. And I'm here tonight to talk about careers, not temporary construction jobs, as some people have framed it. But I've made a career out of 38 years worth of those temporary construction jobs because that's what construction workers do . Now, whether this this project gets built or gets voted on gets approved tonight, it's really neither here nor there. You guys have done a hell of a job in the city helping the building trades with a partnership. To do work at the port, do work at the city, do work at the city college. We've got an apprenticeship readiness program at the City College. We're partnering with you guys on. And we're putting many members that live in the city of Long Beach into careers in construction. So we're doing about $8 billion worth of work at the airport in Los Angeles right now. And I know the. The airport in Long Beach does work every year. So I'm looking for a champion or as many as you guys want to stand up. And talk to me about doing an agreement at the airport for the work that's done there under a local hire agreement. There's no reason we can't have the port, the city, the community college and the airport under a local hire agreement to put local folks here to work in a good construction trade, middle class career. So that they can prosper here in the city. You know, you need economic. You guys are the second largest economic engine in the in L.A. County. It can't be just all homeowners. It has to be some economic development. So I want to thank you for everything you've done. But we have more to do. So let's do it. Thank you. Thank you, Ron. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Dr. Tony Mazzeo. I've lived in Long Beach for 29 years and I've been registered voter for 29 years here. I love my city. I went to Cal State Long Beach for my undergrad, and I've lived here ever since. I'm in health care and I've cared for our elderly in post-acute care settings for 20 years now. This is the first time I felt compelled to speak at a city council meeting as a Long Beach resident. I wanted to urge you to vote no no on the airport expansion for several reasons. There are many peer reviewed health studies showing a strong association between pulmonary disease and living in close proximity to large airports. I personally have asthma and I'm intimately familiar with the research findings on my disease and environmental factors that. Would affect asthma and respiratory illness. We can't deny the studies regarding environmental repercussions will experience. I purchased my home this summer in Long Beach. I invested over $700,000 on my property. My fear is the decrease in home value due to the proximity of my home to a large international airport on a weekly basis. I fly JetBlue for work out of Long Beach Airport. I'm very familiar with the airport and with JetBlue services. I love the airport. I love the remodel and I love the charm of our airports and the small size. I don't want to lose our local flights that I use weekly. I understand the draw that large corporations with deep pockets have. But once large corporations are here in our city, our voices would not be heard as much in terms of expanded flight patterns and further expansion once they're established. Noise ordinance ordinances are broken all the time. Larger corporations would easily be able to pay the fines associated with any violations, as they do now when they break the ordinance. Thank you, ma'am. If you could go ahead. Thanks. Okay. In conclusion, I just want to say thank you. I voted for you. I posted your signs on my lawns, and I want to thank you for representing us on this vital issue. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, city leaders. I'll try to speak into the mic this time. I want to thank you for listening. Listening to all the people and really studying the numbers. I asked you to do that a couple of times, and it looks like you did so. Thank you. I wanted to touch on a few things because I've heard some different numbers tonight about the jobs. And to the gentleman before me. I don't think the question is about short term jobs just in general and construction being disregarded. It's that the the big push for this with revenue in jobs and there's really not a lot. Long term I had counted five in operations and management and ten inspectors and two agricultural inspectors and one supervisor. That's not a lot. Not for whatever the building costs now. The thing is that any job brought to Long Beach will generate revenue. Right. So it doesn't need to be based on being international. And that's what's so great. The things that are being done now are fantastic. Revitalization of downtown, the embracing of technology by our mayor. The businesses that you're bringing here as big as Mercedes and as small as steel craft, which just opened in my neighborhood. Those things are fantastic. Those things make community. Those give people reasons to move here. Like I did, I moved from San Francisco. Long Beach offered me the most diversity and quality of life that I could get outside of San Francisco and in the Southern California area. And I love it. The houses have charm. There's a great downtown. There's an art scene. There's music. It's fantastic. So those in favor of thinking that that international airport is the way to go, there's there's much better opportunities out there. So I just thank you for your efforts. I thank you for listening. I encourage you every time these things come up to really scrutinize numbers because they're easy to swing many different ways. And thank you for representing us so well. Thank you. Thanks for moving here. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is Dick Wynn and I'm proud resident here at Long Beach. I'm here to speak for myself and on behalf of my six year old son who doesn't have a voice in the community yet. I just want to touch on two points. Our children and our community, if you can imagine, would me for just a moment, the face, the frightful face of a four or five or six year old boy playing in a park as a giant jet plane flying overhead. Or imagine, again, 200 elementary schoolchildren saluting the Star Spangled Banner in their early morning as again, a jet engine roars overhead and disrupt their flag ceremony. Being a physician myself, I know of the deleterious effect of noise on our children. The World Health Organization has scientifically proven that noise negatively negatively affect our children, your airports and highways. They effect decreased their learning, decreased their memory, affect their sleep, increased their stress hormones. Blood pressure. And as adults, this can lead into tinnitus, the chronic ringing in the ears. The only solution is controlling the noise at the source and expanding the airport internationally. I doubt will do that. My second point is that language is establishing itself as a community, a family with pristine parks, historic homes and great schools. A friend of mine recently visited from Washington and she she said how much she admired the Long Beach Airport, its history, its uniqueness, its small town appeal. Having an international flight would disrupt the fabric of the hometown feel, where neighbors look out for each other, their family and their families, children's health of their future. We need to continue. To sustain that image for years to come without adding noise, pollution, pollution and traffic. Thank you so much, council members. Thank you so much. So please come on down. I also want to just take it just 1/2, please. I want to make sure that I have everyone that's in line that wants to speak so I will know where that ends. Is everyone in Mr. West that on the fire marshal's side that want to make a public comment? Rich. Oh, you know, let me let this let me let this lady over here at the mic up here. Go. Yes. I can't even see who if that is a. Good evening. My name is Luis Pago, and I'm here because I live in the seventh District. I prepared myself a speech and I would like to read it. I'm here tonight to ask the Council to reconsider the enlargement and developing an international airport here in Long Beach. The city has been a sleepy town away from the hustle and bustle of Los Angeles and a place where I can feel a sense of safety in our neighborhood and some nostalgic surrounding not found in L.A. or any big cities. If anyone has visited small towns like George Towns in D.C. or Santa Barbara, California, it has had airports surrounding it. But not in the town itself. But it is a tourist town where tourism generates financial income to business people in the town. It was an international airport, his place in the city. We can never return back and we will create a city of more expanding roads in road to the airport, just like the ones you see in John Wayne and Alex. Government agency will be asking people in the surrounding area to buy their homes called eminent domain and the expansion will result in decrease of property value in the face of Long Beach will become an area along Central Boulevard, Inglewood and the surrounding area. I live in an area where aircraft circles the airspace. However, if the planes leave the airspace, the noise they bring lingers and don't leave with them as they pass me. So while the noise lingers, another aircraft follows. And this continues throughout the entire day. Well, overnight until 1 a.m. or 2 to 2 a.m. begins around 4:30 a.m. depending on the noise, it can be thundering and can shake walls and window. And a public meeting held in December. The presentation strong enough to convince the council that having an international airport was good for the community because it would bring jobs. That was also stated when they built L.A. in John Wayne, but the result only brought neighborhood flight because the environment created difficult to access to homes of people who lived in that area. And we're going to try to wrap it up, ma'am, but please continue, if you could just close up. Thank you very much for letting me speak. Thank you very much for being patient. Is there anyone else up there, Mr. Marshall Marshal, that need to speak at one of the mikes on the top? Are we okay up there? Here. Okay. And then is everyone in already that needs to speak? Okay. Well, I'm going to because I'm going to I'm going to close the speakers list with no one else on the outside. I think we're I think we're good. So who's the last person in this line? Okay, so the gentleman you just raise your hand. You're the last speaker. Okay. All right, great. Please continue. Mayor Garcia, members of the City Council and staff. Thank you for this opportunity to address you this evening on an issue which obviously has a lot of gravity and is a test of both the community's patience as well as your stamina. So thank you so much for giving so much attention to this issue and for all of your hard work and study for this particular issue. I'm here tonight. My name is James Silva. I live in the fifth District. My wife and I are the owners of a real estate company, A.T.. And I'm here in no small part. On behalf of the hundreds of people that I have talked to over the last several months who still don't even really understand or know what's going on at the airport. And I am pleased to be able to go back to them tonight and tell them, at least not tonight, will there be a yes vote? So I want to thank Councilwoman Mongeau for her courage in in her motion and Councilman Price for second on that, as well as all the council people for all of your your hard work and leadership. We have celebrated good times with you. We have mourned through hard times with you. And we appreciate all that you do for our city. So with that, I would just simply say we look forward to your strong leadership in the future, and thank you for putting our citizens first. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of Council. My name is Rafael Reyes. I'm the vice president of Operation for Ready Gen Inc. Ready Gen Inc. handles all the aircraft appearance for JetBlue Airways. We've been operating out of Long Beach for the past 16 years. The day one, once JetBlue started that, it was operating out of a trailer. We support them coming in with the office terminal because it's going to create more jobs, not just for the airport, but also for the car rental facilities, taxi drivers and the port. So please just take this ownership and take my word. Give us this vote. Just for jobs creation, economic growth and looking into the future for the. City of Long Beach. Thanks again for your time. Thank you, sir, very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, councilman and women and Long Beach residents. My name's Rosie MATTHEWS. I come here today having grown up in Southern California and as an airline pilot of nine years who is well aware of the technicalities and formalities regarding office. With all that being said, I'm still 100% in favor of customs facility being built and urge you all to vote accordingly. Your political careers aside. A no vote would essentially be cutting off the city's nose to spite its face. Urge you to not let a vocal minority influence the needs of a greater majority. I've reviewed the various concerns presented by area residents throughout the feasibility study and I must say that all my questions and concerns before were fully and properly answered, using facts and logic instead of emotion. There's a reason that the Jacobs study didn't show any negative impacts and that simply because there aren't any negative impacts to fires. I understand that implementing FISA has changed, and for the most part we have we as humans have issues with change. The current noise ordinance caps the number of commercial flights serving Long Beach. Building FISA doesn't change that. The current noise ordinance sets curfew times and monetary penalties for violations. Building FISA doesn't change that either. We all make decisions on where we live. Choosing to live in a flight path is just one of those. Let's go over a few things that FISA does do. Construction alone will bring in millions to the local economy and hundreds of jobs for you. As a traveler, the ability to fly out of Long Beach internationally gives you the ability to join much cheaper airfares based on an airline's historical impact when starting service. If there's one thing in this room that everyone in this room can actually probably agree on is that LAX is an operational disaster. Why would anyone want to choose to travel in and out of there when they can do so easily and comfortably out of Long Beach? I'm here because FISA and Long Beach absolutely needs to happen. Don't cut off the city's nose to spite its face. I encourage you all to vote yes on FISA. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Mayor, Councilmembers Robert Land with JetBlue Airways Corp.. The Jacobs study that you commissioned and it's taken two years to get to this vote tonight speaks for itself. The cost to the city, as you've heard from staff, is zero. The one time benefit on construction is tremendous. You've heard from the building construction trades folks tonight and other labor leaders. The ongoing economic benefit to the city is hundreds of millions of dollars annually. And the only thing the Jacobs study misrepresented to the benefit of the city is that the facility is smaller and less expensive to construct than they suggested. Should the council approve this tonight? JetBlue, I want to reiterate, I've mentioned in the past, will not cut or eliminate any domestic routes. So every market we serve will continue to serve. JetBlue has been a strong corporate citizen up till now, working in the community, active in the community. And as such, we urge your favorable vote on this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Land. Next speaker, please. Thank you. Council members and may of our city. I mean, Mayor Garcia. I'm sorry. I apologize. Garcia but my name is Manny Solis. I'm a longtime resident of Long Beach. 30 years. I live in the. 90815 area, which is also known as Los Altos. Stacey Wolf knows that. And I've raised my three children here. They've gone to schools locally. They've all attended Long Beach State. My last youngest is graduating this spring, so I'm very proud to be a Long Beach resident, very proud to have raised my children here. My wife works at Boeing, which used to be McDonnell Douglas. She's worked there 30 years. And I think we may be forgetting that all the homes that surround this area were built originally to support the manufacturing of aircraft. And and we need to keep jobs as they're leaving. You all know the C-17 is no longer. Other programs have been cut. So we need jobs here in Long Beach. I am also a journeyman electrician. I'm also an instructor at the Electrical Training Institute. So all of our apprentices are trained to be journeyman workmen. They are trained with safety. They are trained for all the laws and regulations that go with construction. So I'm sure that this job, if passed, will be built with all the local standards and national electrical standards. Like I said, this apprenticeship houses about 1600 apprentice electricians. And as you know, all the shop classes have less the high schools. So we want these jobs and we want to continue our training here. And this project is vital to our success. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Next speaker, please. Council member. Mayor Thank you. My name is Daniel Toots. I'm a resident in the city of Long Beach, and also I'm a proud member of the IBEW Local 11. Second Year Apprentice. There is many reason I became a union electrician. I want to mention a few of those reasons tonight. Um, solidarity, pay, equality, safety, training, respect on the job and join in the working class. The job created by the Federal Inspection Facility will help me continue my career as an electrician. Now here is one of the main reason to be working in the city of Long Beach is a short commute. I rather be working nearer home and I not have to drive miles away to another city. As a Long Beach resident, I ask you to support this project. Thank you. Thank you very much. Like Speaker. Thank you, council members and mayor. My name is Freddy Pickett and I'm a Long Beach resident. I'm also a proud IBEW local 11 member second year apprentice. I've learned a trade out in the field and in the classroom. Both are important to my job. The jobs created by the Federal Inspection Facility Project will keep the men and women apprentices like me to continue to earn and learn in the trade. It's not enough to teach apprentices electrical trade in the classroom. A lot of our learning comes on the job. And it's projects like Federal Inspection Facility that feel the need. As a Long Beach resident, I ask that you support this project. Thank you. Thank you very much. Speaker, please. Mayor Councilmembers I'll be brief. This council has always been progressive, and you can start with the place and local hire. It's it's great. I personally can say that I put 40 members of this community into a career that will change their lives. So it's it's nothing to, you know, slack it. Ms.. Mongeau, I know she stated her reasons for not supporting it and she was the only one that said that not one person in the audience mentioned that the fiscal impact was why they were not supporting it. It was all about noise. Everything they said was about noise. Even if you guys vote no, even if you vote no, it will not change the noise. There'll still be the same amount of flights. All right, let's let's. Everyone gets respect to be able to give their comments. So, please, flights are flights. Weather to Sacramento, weather to Cancun. You cannot tell the difference where the flight goes. The Olympics will be here hopefully in 2024. You know, Long Beach will be a destination. It would be nice to be able to fly people directly to the airport. I live directly right up the street from the airport. It's a great place. I fly out there next week to Sacramento. It is great for regionals. It would also be great to fly internationally as well. We're debating a what is issue right now. You know what? Not not nothing in that feasibility study said anything that the noise is going to change. Everything was going to stay the same same amount of flights that are changing where they're going. I would hate to stop progress on a what if issue because we can always say, what if the airline leaves? Right. You know what if they stay? You know, why are we going stop progress on a what if issue? Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. Hi. Hi. My name is Katie Class. I live in District five. I live right where the small planes fly. I'm obviously a mother of three young children, and our neighborhood is a really special place. And I'm really fear that the know. I really fear that the international expansion is just going to bring a lot less security to the neighborhood. It'll lower my my home value, which is really important since I just bought my house a year ago. And I do plan on spending probably the rest of my life in that house and raising my children there. I just really would like you to consider the fact that it really affects all the families in the neighborhood. And there are many families like mine in our small on our small street and any other street near ours. So we say no. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. My name is Steve Fry. I'm in District five and I want to thank you all for being here and for thoughtfully hearing everyone. I'll keep this short. I have to go to the bathroom. But how do you think we feel? We're all right. I came down here. I went to Cal State, Long Beach. I did my undergraduate and my graduate work here. Go Beach. I moved away after living in Burbank for a while, and in other parts of L.A., I decided that Long Beach was where I wanted to come back to. I moved to your district, Councilwoman Mungo, and I thank you for your change of heart. I am obviously against this proposal. I purchased a home down here not far from where she lives, and it is a very special community. I mean, it's magical and we're in the process. We've renovated our house exterior. We're in the process of obtaining an architect right now who's going to be doing a major remodel on the home, adding square footage, etc.. I'm also doing work in Glendale, where another property is that I have. So I'm kind of comparing the two cities. But what I want to say is I'm putting that project on hold because of this. I have a lot of concern about it. And initially, when I purchased the home, knowing that I was in near the airport, I asked a lot of questions and the people that I purchased it from were worked in the aircraft industry and they said, Oh, the little aircrafts are kind of quaint. We've grown to love them too. We have these small flat planes flying through. It inspires my kids, but we just don't want to see anything change on that. So I urge you to just consider it seriously. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the council. My name is Rob Mitchell. I'm the manager of airport affairs for JetBlue. I don't want to go through all the facts laid out by the city's Jacobs study, because I think they're they're well known at this point. But I do want to say that the council can vote yes on customs today, causing no risk to the noise ordinance, no additional noise or flights, because there are only allowed 50 flights a day. And voting yes on customs would mean that the city gets a facility at zero cost to taxpayers. No risk that those taxpayers would ever be on the hook because JetBlue is making is willing to make a commitment to do that and that the facility would provide thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of economic stimulus year after year if it were built environmentally. The Jacobs study actually cited that there would be some reduction in emissions because general aviation flights that come from international origins today to Long Beach now need to make an unnecessary landing and takeoff to clear customs before it comes here. Moreover, as my colleagues mentioned, JetBlue would be committing that no domestic routes that are served today would be canceled. So, yes, JetBlue certainly wants to see this project move forward after, I think, what is a thorough two year process. But I do want to underline that our company and our amazing 700 passionate and incredible crew members here in Long Beach care deeply about this city. We've been here for over 15 years. And with that, we truly. With that said, we truly, truly believe that this project is in the best interest of not just customers at Long Beach Airport, but the community of Long Beach as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hi. Good evening, council members. Thank you for being here. My name is Hilary Hagler and I am a first time homeowner in Bixby Knolls. I live directly underneath the flight path. I thought it was really important that I came here tonight because I am also a crew member of JetBlue and very happy. So I am on both sides of this issue. I hear the issues coming from everyone, all the residents saying that they're concerned primarily from what I've heard, about noise and pollution, and I understand their fears. So I want to address you as well as them in saying that we're not here to discuss the closure of the airport noise and pollution, what happened last week with with violations. That's that's unfortunate. And that's going to happen. The pollution is still going to be there with an airport as it would in existence anywhere. We're here to discuss FISA, and I am vehemently in favor of this passing as both a resident and a homeowner and someone who cares deeply about City of Long Beach and JetBlue. We're simply rerouting the flights that we're going to be taking. We're not impacting the noise. We're not going to increase it. We're not going to increase the pollution that is coming to our city. And as someone who cares deeply about my. My home, the value of my home, the pollution, the noise. I'm effective. I hear it as well. I do live directly on the flight path. I, I want to say that I care about JetBlue. I care about this company. I care about this city. And I trust them. And I and I care that you have done the research. I have done the research. And I hope that you make the right decision and vote in favor of this passing. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor Garcia, members of the city council. Mr. Romo. My name is Alex Kurtzman. I'm director of airports and ground infrastructure at the National Business Aviation Association. I am speaking on behalf of the association. Which represents the interests. Of over 11,000 member companies that rely on general aviation aircraft. Those members include numerous tenants and users of the Long Beach Airport who continue to be strongly interested in the airport's future accessibility and viability. And Bay supports the efforts to restore CBP services to users of Long Beach Airport. The facility would be an asset to the airport with positive effects propagating beyond the city of Long Beach. In addition to presenting the airlines at the Long Beach with the ability to service a more diverse set of originating cities, the CBP services will allow Long Beach's vital general aviation component to operate more efficiently and with less impact on the environment while benefiting the local economy. Statistics from numerous airports, such as the neighboring Van Nuys Airport that have recently introduced the CBP facility, consistently prove that the addition of CBP does not result in a dramatic increase in general aviation activity. There would also be no change in the generation fleet mix for aircraft utilizing Long Beach. As a result, the majority of aircraft that would be utilizing the facility are already arriving at Long Beach as their final destination. However, because of CBP services are not currently available, these aircraft must interrupt their return to Long Beach in order to clear customs at another airport. The environmentally sensitive and safety conscious vote to bring customers to Long Beach would benefit local businesses and based aircraft returning home. Voting yes would reduce the risk associated with additional operations, improve efficiency and reduce environmental impacts while bringing income and economic benefits to Long Beach. The additional fuel sales deliver services, business growth and local job opportunities. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Yeah. Hi, I'm Marshall Teskey, and I wanted to thank the mayor and the city council for all the work that you've done on this. I know that you're only part time. You're only getting part time salaries. Most of you. And I think you should be a full time council, but that's a whole other issue. So I'm a resident of Bixby Knolls and I'm on the steering committee of the Long Beach Area Peace Network. We do not usually take issue pick take positions on neighborhood issues like this. We're interested in stopping the endless wars. We have vigils on our in Belmont Shore on the weekends. And we want to control military recruiters who convince schoolchildren to join the military without knowledge of their parents. We also believe we believe that the customs facility and the international flights at the airport will open the door to changing the noise ordinance. And every time there's been a change in the noise ordinance at the airport, the airlines have gone to federal court and they've had expensive lawyers and they've defeated us. Although Bixby Knolls is a upscale neighborhood, given the economic decline of 2008, the slow recovery, my neighbors depend on this retirement for their own, this money, which is in their homes for their retirement. So Long Beach Area Peace Network believes that this is just another attack by corporations on working people and middle class people. And the unintended consequences of this proposed facility will be the loss of property values in a stable and desirable area of Long Beach. So that's pretty much why we're we opposed it. And I just wanted to thank the council for for what they've done. And thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Please. Thank you. Council Mayor Garcia, Vice Mayor Richardson for letting us speak. I'm going to keep this a little brief. I have a pre-written speech. And if you're a Bernie supporter or you know about Bernie, this is going to sound a little repetitive, but I think it's important. Let me begin by saying that this country is moving rapidly towards an oligarchic form of society in which the lives and decisions of so many are made by the few at the top. And one of the things that's tough love to preach is the trickle down theory, you know, where we all try and help out the very rich so they will turn in turn trickle down benefits to us. And if you think that ideology has no place in modern day discussion, you'll be quite surprised to hear that it's far from the truth. Case in point, this discussion today. Think about it. A huge, wealthy multinational corporation, JetBlue, which makes millions of dollars in profits a year, comes on down to our local government and demands that we construct an f i f f i s facility, which mostly benefits JetBlue all so that the benefits trickle down to us. And we decided to take them so seriously that we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hosted many discussions. Spent hundreds of hours calculating data here and assessing success rates there. And over a year of mulling over a decision and all that time and all that money got spent over one single question Is it wise for us to get involved getting to to turn international? And the reason we did all that wasn't because we were having an issue about it not being international. We didn't have a big outrage. In fact, we have an outrage because it's even being talked about. The only reason this is being brought up is because a big giant corporation decided to to talk about it. And I think that's a big testament to our political system right now, that the fact that the only reason really we're talking about this is because a big giant corporation tells us that we need to talk about it . Let's focus on actual issues like pushing for more infrastructure reform, pushing for prison system reform, where we can actually work with prisoners and not, you know, ostracizing them. There are so many issues we should be certainly discussing, but a multinational corporation says no thank you. So please do not let the airport happen. Next speaker, please. That was Sterling. Raichlen, folks. I'm David Raichlen, and I'm a long time resident of Long Beach. I'm a business owner here. I'm a physician. I volunteer and do a lot of things to help the local community. And I was truly heartened that. Councilwoman Mongeau made a motion that's before the council. And I truly. Commend her and the rest of the council for considering that motion. And I hope that it passes. I think that that will, at least for now, set this issue to rest. But I also wanted to comment on an observation I made that. A few days ago, Mayor Garcia gave this wonderful state of the city speech, and I was there, and maybe some of you were there, too. And it was full of progressive. Policies and programs that were already in motion, as well as ones that. Are happening as we, as we. Speak, are in the near future that benefit the. Whole city. And as I was sitting there listening to his wonderful presentation with all the graphics, etc.. The FISA facility just. Kept popping up in my mind. Why are we even considering something so regressive where the benefits go. To a few? While the risk and harms that are certain. To happen are going to be borne by the entire. City. So I urge you to vote for the benefit of the entire city. And I think that the simple way to do that is to vote yes on the motion before you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Speaker, please. Hi. My name is Tony Pearson. I'm in the District five. I've lived in. Long Beach since. 1980. My daughters. Went to school here and all of. That stuff. I'm not really concerned with the noise because of where I live. I feel sorry for anyone that has that problem. But looking at the Jacobs feasibility study, we were looking at it and it says here that the. Study describes the area surrounding areas as businesses, multi business, parks. Warehousing and hospitality. Now I don't know, but I. Live two blocks. Over from. The airport and I live in a. Housing track. And if you go two blocks. On almost any area in or around the airport, you're in housing. You are not in any of these businesses or multi parks or whatever. Okay. So all of us, we don't have any. Type of security. If you look at. L.A.X., if you look at John. Wayne, they all have a lot of these businesses and everything with them, which has security or they have gated communities. Now those people have a. Security force. That protects their. Property. Who is going to protect us. When we. Have international people? And I see. JetBlue is going to be going to Mexico and Central America. That's their first. Choice. Who is going to protect our people? Are you going to add more Long Beach. Police to patrol our areas. So that we don't have to worry about our property and our lives? That's a question that I. Would like answered. Okay. And I see. Everybody looking at me like, oh, that's not a problem. But it is to me. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. Hi. I am a student at Long Beach. And, um. Sorry. Um, I actually have some concerns because, um, residents also were from Lakewood and they had no idea about this meeting. Um, so in the Jacobs study, they do say that the Long Beach Airport borders the city of Lakewood. Yet I do not know if any public outreach was done to residents beyond the city of Long Beach. Um, also in addition, um, we did see some of the students and I, we did see that there was a comment with, for this agenda and it closed at 4:00 today. How are those comments being interpreted in your guys's decisions? Um. Another, um. Another aspect that some of the students are concerned about is that Long Beach City is an open access area. It is patrolled by campus police. But if you have international airports coming in and you have the FAA. Yes, but the Jacobs study, it was saying that some of the exposure is a minimal risk and that some quantities is basically okay because it's kind of. Um, it's much lower than the ports. But for us, the safety of the community, even a minor risk is a risk and it's too much. Also, um. We also are concerned about. Um. The districts, even though the routes for the Lakes and the Ontario and John Wayne are international, we do not see the benefits of having another international airport. Why are not the airports? Why are not JetBlue considering destinations that are in the United States? Some of us actually come from other states to go to school. So we would like to visit our families during the holidays more often. Thank you. Just to wrap it up, thank you so much. And also, L.A.X. has a benefit of having the Metro Transit for the Green Line. And I know the Jacobs study was talking about some of the bus routes, but it's a more convenience and it's a better avenue through the green line. So we do not believe that residents and people would be using LA Long Beach more than L.A.X. or John Wayne. Thank you. Thank you so much. And just so you know, that the the the comments that you're referring to, so everyone everyone everyone gets some. So when they close, they get sent over to the city council. So we are a copy of the comments. Oh no. Yeah. Before the meeting we had comes before the meeting starts. Before. Was really quick in an. Hour. We get them all place on our desk. Thank you. And we get them, by the way, as they come in. So it's not all just set one. A lot of them are done as they come in. Next. Next speaker is mayor, members of the city council. Good evening and thank you for enduring this tonight. I appreciate the fact that you're willing to to face these tough decisions. My name is Perry Bannerman. Residents of the Los Altos area. The one thing that I appreciate most about this city, more so than the diverse neighborhoods, more so than Second Street or the beach or the port, is the civic pride that that people have in the communities willingness to engage in matters like this, as evidenced really tonight. And and as a community, I think we all understand that. We have the best interests of the city in mind and we want to see the airport succeed and we want to see a major employer succeed as well. But what I would like in this project, too, is what Metro might face when you're considering expanding light rail into a built out community or a built out city. People live here. They're entrenched here. They've they've lived here for generations. And as members of the city council, I think that you need to remember that when you're faced with this difficult decision. You have the responsibility to maintain the quality of life of the residents. We're the first to be approved tonight. I think that in the short term, you might not notice that much of a difference, maybe some rejiggering of schedules, maybe some added flights, but all still staying within the thresholds in the noise ordinance. But I think there's far too much emphasis being placed on the protective abilities of the noise ordinance. And really that's as evidenced by the conclusion of the FAA and the city attorney's office. One successful challenge to the noise ordinance by a competing airline claiming barriers to entry could absolutely collapse the noise ordinance. Is that speculation? No, I don't think so. I think it's just natural progression. What I would call the approval of the FISA court is the thin edge of the wedge. It's a seemingly minor. Change. That begins a major development and a potentially undesirable one. I urge you to vote no tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. Please. We've got our final three speakers, which I know we cut off the speaker's list with the last gentleman. Four speakers. I'm sorry about that. Please go. Ahead. I'd like to urge all I would like to urge you to please vote no on the airport. International expansion. I reside on 5215 East Eagle Street District four, which is directly under the Long Beach dissent flight path. There have been numerous, numerous times on the airlines have violated the noise ordinance. And I'm a homeowner, I'm home owner, and I have a son with autism. And the noise has consistently affected our evenings past 10 p.m., which is detrimental to our family life. We have lived in our neighborhood for the diversity community and so that my son can attend the autism program at Bixby Elementary. We love our neighborhood and understand the financial benefit of the airport, but I also find it unacceptable for airlines to violate the noise ordinance, which affects the relationship between the residents and the businesses. The international flights will bring more planes and more instances of possibly breaking the flight ordinance. And although they say the room might be a dramatic difference, it's still a difference that negatively affects me and my family. Please vote no for the benefit of my family and the families in the neighborhood. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Mr. Scopo. Sir Joe Soper, Fifth District. I wanted to thank all of the volunteers, all the neighbors that came out tonight to let you know how they felt about this issue. Many of them took off from work early. Some of them even called in sick to be here on time. And this is the way we do things. It's real important. Democracy in action. There is a elephant in the room, though. One, there is a JetBlue violates our noise ordinance frequently. JetBlue is a wonderful organization. I take it all the time. Every time I can fly out. But. Last year in the last 12 months they that they violated the noise between 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. 133 times. That means a young lady who just spoke in front of me with the children that went over the top of her house 133 times last year, between 11 p.m. and seven in the morning. If you all said when you were elected that you were going to protect the noise ordinance, I believe that that's part of your protecting the noise ordinance. Just because they pay a fine doesn't mean you're protecting the noise ordinance. They really ought to stop doing that. And quite frankly, had they stopped doing that, if if JetBlue actually fought for the noise ordinance or protected or didn't violate the noise ordinance, we may have a different outcome here tonight. But but that that's not a you wouldn't award a child, one of your children, for doing something badly. You wouldn't give them something positive. And they really that's what it comes down to. Thank you very much. Thank you. Your next speaker, please. Hello, Mayor and City Council. My name's Laurie Smith. I'm a longtime resident and homeowner in Long Beach. I'd like to thank the city council members for their wisdom tonight, as I do not support a customs facility or making our airport into an international facility. I'm grateful to my third district councilwoman, Susie Price, as well as to Councilman Supernormal Durango and Austin, who represents our L, represents the district of which my in-laws live, who are directly under the flight path. When we speak about fiscal responsibility, we need to always speak first about property values. As someone else mentioned earlier, property taxes are the main moneymaker for the city of Long Beach. So if we are ever to speak about the economic development for Long Beach, it's important to understand that bad development decisions are what bring down property values which will bring down Long Beach economy. I wanted to speak about the decision to even higher Jacobs Engineering, who produced the fire study. There are frightening number of lawsuits against Jacobs engineering in recent years. Here's just 2nd May 2015. San Bernardino County High sued Jacobs Engineering for their Desert Detention Center expansion project. They're seeking 13.6 million in damages. And this is in violation of their duty of care. They were negligent and carelessly perform their work under the agreement and caused delays and setbacks. In 2016, an article about the toxic waste cleanup crews in Tennessee who were led to believe that their the ash sites were safe. JACOBS Engineering was accused of misleading workers about the safety, air monitoring and safety safety training, among other allegations. Is this the type of company our city entrusts with providing accurate information regarding such important decisions? I like to ask that the City Council ask for monies back as they did not fulfill their contract in presenting at the City Council study session. Part of their city council study session was to present the study, and I was confused and disappointed with the city's decision to have the airport director, our airport director, a city staff person, give the customs field facility presentation. It was not appropriate and Jacobs did not have a representative in the audience. I would need another minute. As you said, they had their representative in the audience and he had previously given this presentation. So the next time we're here at City Council discussing the airport, I'd like it to be when City Council brings an airport community roundtable to the vote. Having a community roundtable will help with the ongoing questions and concerns that we have. We, your constituents have regarding the airport that you manage, as we have experienced here, this issue the community has no ability to discuss with staff's airport staff or city staff unless it's here in front of you. The current Airport Advisory Commission only discusses operations and does not address community concerns. Not to mention, they're under investigation for conflict of interest issues. Tonight I was asked by city. Tonight I asked city manager staff about the airport master plan, which I thought was going to be made in a presentation to City Council, but it was merely filed. So please, may I suggest to City Council that we make this airport master plan available via via your city council newsletters next door or place on a future. Thank you. Council meeting. Thank you so much. Thank you. No final speaker, please. Okay. Down to the last one. Mary Garcia, council folks. First, I want to thank Al Austin for being one of the first to support the opposition of the terminal and all the other council members who have opposed it. As time has gone on. Now, a couple of things. I want to regurgitate what others have said, but I was a little confused. And a JetBlue pilot this evening said that there'd be no loss of domestic flights. But earlier somebody said that the utilization had hit full capacity recently. So those two comments don't agree. So I'm not sure who's correct there. JetBlue wants to increase jobs, bring jobs to us. Maybe they should buy Boeing airplanes. JetBlue only flies Airbus aircraft. Just wanted to point that out. And then a gentleman from the Chamber of Commerce stated the jobs will come from international with the international terminal and flights. But when those jobs just be taken away from the other airports, I can't see that we're bringing any other folks in internationally, maybe just taking them from other airports. I live on on all of Avenue and Al's district there. I have a recording studio, so the sound and the noise affect me greatly. Well, thank you all for your patience, for listening to all 45,000 of us this evening. And I'm sure you're going to all do the right thing if you. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thank you all for. For being respectful of all the speakers and everyone's points of view. That's really important in these discussions. So I'm going to take this back now to the city council, because we do have some comments in discussion and I want to make sure that we do these fairly . So let me just go and go down the speakers list and then we will go back around first. First round gets everyone that hasn't had a chance to speak yet and then we'll go back around to those that have had a chance already. So let me start with that list. Councilman Austin. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor. And wow, I just want to thank all of the residents who came out and worked very, very hard, contacted my office, contacted the other council members, but really, really made your voice heard over the last couple of weeks and over the last two years over this process. And particularly, I'd like to turn to first say that I'm speaking in support of the receive and file motion. I think it's the right thing to do. I want to thank Councilmember Mongo and Price for bringing forth this motion, for being very thoughtful and getting to the right decision, which I believe. I want to thank council members Virunga and Supernova for being steadfast partners throughout this two year process. These gentleman stood solid and never wavered. And so for that, I very much appreciate your. We reached a smart decision. Our hope we're going to reach a smart decision tonight due in large part to a very measured and transparent process . I've always talked about the process, and the process has to be right, making sure that we're transparent, making sure that our residents are engaged and know all that we know that goes into the decision making. These residents, in my opinion, have shown that and shown that big time. When you have come forth and spoke, spoken, you know, as much as most of the staff knows about airport issues, I was speaking to somebody earlier today and I talked about the residents in my district. Right. I said I've knocked on every just about every door in the district and talked to many of my voters and residents throughout the eighth district. And generally, I can find several airport experts on every block. Right. Folks know this issue. They know it inside out. They've studied it. And they've they've lived with it for for many years. And that's something that, as a council, I'm glad tonight that we are we're showing some respect for. I want to thank the airport staff for their diligence and professionalism throughout this process, although I don't agree with the staff recommendation this evening. I do appreciate their efforts. I've worked and had the opportunity to work with five airport directors since being elected to the city council four and a half years ago, and that includes two interim directors. But this at this point, I want to just just say I'm very impressed with Mr. Jess Romo, our airport director. And I really hope that he enjoys a long career here in Long Beach. I think we can do a lot of great work together. He was hired during a very chaotic time. He has navigate it, I think, admirably. Admirably. So. Let's give him a big hand as well. We heard a lot from our JetBlue employees who certainly have an interest in the future of their company. And I appreciate really what JetBlue represents. And I think most of our residents here in the city are proud that you choose to call Long Beach home and you operate from our city. Our municipal airport is a thriving airport at capacity. All 50 flights slots are being utilized today, and that's largely because of JetBlue's commitment to Long Beach. A Through I flew through into Long Beach on on Long Beach Airport on Saturday, this past Saturday. And the terminal was completely full when I came in. That is a testament and it tells me more than anything that that it's working today. Right. The airport is working today. And if we're at capacity and we're talking about capacity that go into international flights or an F, I guess what would actually just invite more chaos in the future? And I'd be remiss if I did not take my eight district staff. Jonathan, Melody, Monique, Heather. They they have been there for my residents. They have endured it. They have. They've taken it on the chin because they pick up the phone. And I don't. They've responded to the residents. And I think they should be. We owe them a great deal of gratitude for their excellent service to the eighth District, but to the city of Long Beach as well. This has been a very tough and rocky road. When I assumed office four and a half years ago, I was good on the airport front. I did not see this coming, but I think we as a city council, I can certainly tell say that me as a city council member, I'm stronger because of this process. I'm more attuned to my district as a result of this process. And, you know, I'm I don't want to see it happen again. I can tell you I don't think we can we can go another decade or two without dealing with this type of turmoil. And drama. But but I think it was a great exercise for our community to see the hundreds of people who have turned out here over the last couple of years. I started small and it's grown and grown. And this crescendoed to standing room only crowd here this evening. I want to commend you for your work and your your your dedication. The fact that it shows that the eighth District, the fourth District at Long Beach is a community. You know, our residents are talking to one another and our residents are pretty well organized. So I salute you all for your efforts. Ray Gavlak. You know, we had to go take a process here to get there. Here. I do appreciate your your leadership and your efforts on this and your many years of leadership on the issue. I mean, some of you guys are get this, but I owe you a box of chocolate. Less. That's it. I think this this council is going to get to a good place this evening. I want to also recognize the steady leadership and the steady hand of Mayor Garcia in this regard. He has he has he. You know, I didn't know where he was on this, quite frankly. And I still don't know where he is. But he has led this council in a manner that that has allowed us to get to a place. And I think this council as a whole also has grown up over this this process as well. And so I want to salute my colleagues for for really, really taking this issue to heart. You know, it was very frustrating early on. I mean, I was the individual that called for the very first study session about the the noise ordinance. Right. Because none of us on this council were here when that that noise ordinance came manifested when none of us were here in 1989 and 1991. And so it's been a steady process. I do appreciate everyone's patience. I haven't been the easiest person to live with over the last year, year and a half, because of this issue. But I can tell you that I will be celebrating, hopefully with my residents tonight and the rest of the eighth District will be celebrating, hopefully a decision made this evening. So thank you very much. I'll hold my comments for now. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Gringo Councilmember Austin whispered to me a little while ago. I don't know what I'm going to say. He wrote all that in 15 minutes. Guess I should bring my laptop with me. I still don't know what I was going to say, but I will say this. I came armed tonight with the Jacobs study, the Airport Advisory Committee study, with the Economic Development Commission study, with the staff presentations, including the one made tonight. I came here prepared with a number of questions and and a statement. All of that done. I don't need it tonight because I think that the courage that was expressed tonight by Councilmember Mongeau and Price in making this motion set it off for me. Many people who follow the city council know that when I talk about study sessions, I'm pretty much against them. I think they're a waste of money. I think that the conversations take away from from the activity and the actions that we need to take. However, I did strongly encourage that we make this study available and accessible to everybody because we all needed to hear what the feasibility study was going to bring forward. We all needed to evaluate it. We all needed to process it. We all needed to really understand what a fierce facility would mean to Long Beach. And that came out. And I'm very happy that we were able to do that because we were able to now come together and look at that study with under the same microscope and come up with the same conclusions. I want to thank the audience, the residents of Long Beach and, of course, the Jet Blue, the representatives who are here, labor who's here. They brought their perspectives and we needed to hear that. We need to hear all of those perspectives, because without that, we have no basis upon which to make a decision, because we need to bring all that together in order to come up with a decision that will be not only right for the city, but right for the region. And I think this is right for for what we have to do tonight. And I will be supporting the motion, because I think it's one that has the most impact for our city. You know, when we look we talk about Long Beach, we talk about neighborhoods, we talk about Bixby Rose Highlands, Bixby Terrace, Wrigley West, Long Beach . Those are my district. But then there's Los Altos and Naples and El Dorado Estates, and there's many, many Hellman over here. So, I mean, there's I could go through every district and point out neighborhoods that are that are important there and how important it is for the residents in those neighborhoods to come out and express their views and express their their likes and dislikes as well as to what's happening in their district. And many of us here in the council, myself included, I came up through the neighborhood associations. I learned about my city through the neighborhood association. So those of you who are here, I want to thank you for your participation there and those of you out there in the audience. If you're not a member of your neighborhood association, get to be a member. That's how you learn a lot about Long Beach. We might be half a million people. 483,000 or whatever. And and change. But we are what we call an international hometown. And we're going to stay that way. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Next up is council member supernova. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. My comments will be very brief tonight. I say it's time to move our trays up to the upright in lock position. But actually, I'm going to be brief because of that wonderful speech Councilwoman Pryce gave me. I know. Two quick one on my head. So thank you for that. And also, I don't want to speak too long because this is your night, folks in the audience and all those who email list and and persevered over this long period of time. As they say, it's great to win one once in a while. And this a great night. I'll be supporting this motion. If I hadn't communicated that yet. And. And like my colleagues mentioned, I really want to thank Councilwoman Pryce and especially Councilmember Mongo. It just took a lot of courage to do what she did over the past weeks. And we really appreciate her support tonight. I also want to thank staff and Jess Romo. You mentioned Dale Worsham and thank him for his work, but you didn't mention he's a fourth District resident, so I wanted to add that too. And also, I see Ron Reeves up there. For those you don't know Ron Reeves or Ryan McMullen, they email me nightly to tell me when the late flights are coming in. And that's, I think, above and beyond the call of duty. But, Ron, you better take off pretty soon. You're going to have to check those flights and send me an email. So, again, thank you very much. If you have time, we have a community meeting tomorrow at 5 p.m. at Los Altos Library and we'll go over this. I won't be going to Councilmember Mungo's gay club for that reason, but you can head over there after my community meeting. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilmember. Thank you, Councilmember. Next up is Councilmember Pearce. Thank you very much. I want to really say how much I respect and honor my colleagues on the council for having this process be meaningful for them, for their constituents, for everybody is a part of the process. And so I know that this is a item that has been really important to people long before I got on this council. And I have to say that in my six months on council, it is the toughest vote that I have had to take and that it has been a coming to this council with an idea where I felt like I was with the airport to taking a almost four hour tour of the airport and learning about all of the small businesses that operate out of there and the impacts that that airport has on our greater economy was eye opening for me. I have received many of your emails, some of them nice, some of them, you know, exciting. And I also wanted to comment that the the emails that we received, the comments that we received, I did go through and read each one of them. There are 56 and there are 29 of them in support of the FISA facility. I know that it is really difficult for you all that live in the flight path. And so I want you guys to know that I heard you tonight. I appreciate all of your efforts in really making sure that you push your council members to be the best representative for you. Whichever way I vote tonight, I just wanted to reiterate that I feel like there's a lot of information that's been provided. I do have a lot of questions, and I was hopeful that we would be able to get a lot of those questions answered in a meaningful way that would allow us to have vision as a great city. There are few times that we have a vote like tonight where we send a direction to where we want to go. So whatever happens tonight, I hope that we come back to a conversation about what kind of city we want to be. And to me, that is not about an international airport or not an international airport. It's about the process and the time that we take to get the facts straight. It's about a process and the time that it takes to make sure that we really get our questions answered before we bring something to a vote if it if we still have questions. And so those are a little bit of my comments. I definitely had a much longer thing around how we used to be an international airport and some questions around that. I had a lot of other questions about how many flights, you know, we are circling other airports, how many we divert, how many we don't. But I wanted to just say, I really appreciate being a part of this process, and I'm really honored to be able to take this vote tonight and really respect all of my colleagues and their leadership on this. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Next up, I have Councilman Andrews. Yes, thank you. My first of all time. I'm here because I'm not going to try to be brief. I'm not going to try to be long. I'm just going to try to be to the point and being that is, I just want to sit here and say that as I listen to a lot of all of you individuals here tonight, I went upstairs, I went to sleep. I woke up, came back down. Because the fact that I think this is a very important, you know, item, and I really want to commend Mrs. Mango because the fact that I sit and watch her being snubbed the first time she came up with this, but she was steadfast. And that's one thing I like about this is price. I definitely want to commend you for supporting that agenda. But me, myself, I think there's times in the community which I live in, I think of jobs. Jobs in me is the most important thing in my district because I always said a job will stop a bullet . And this is one thing. When I look at JetBlue, when they talk about jobs, I think they talk. Going by the community which I live in, I probably will be the only one who will vote against this because the fact that I feel like what I'm doing, I'm doing it for the betterment of my district. And not only that, but I think JetBlue is doing things where a lot of you think, well, you know, the f f aside, they you know, when they talk about what they're doing, that could be or that could not be. But I would just hope that if that ever comes back to this, because you already have the votes, I know and would be the only one to do that. But tonight I'm going to stand on what I believe in. And I just hope that JetBlue will really take some time. If you are going to be here, don't leave. Stick around. One day this will come to fruition for you and for all of us. So I want to thank every one of you. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Next up, we have Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. I want to thank everybody for the fruitful discussion. I know we all been here for not just a few hours, but just for the past couple of years that we've been discussing this and as a resident, but also a representative of downtown. I'll be very honest, I think I've said this in the past, and a lot of our residents in downtown, they're not directly impacted. They were supportive of looking at the office study facility and looking at what the possibilities might be. However, I know personally that if I were in your shoes, I'd feel very differently. I've listened to each and every one of you. I know how passionate each and every one of you are on this issue. And I haven't said much because I'm sitting back and I'm listening and observing what everyone has to say. And I completely realize that my my council colleagues have they've done a lot. They put in a lot of work. And many of us on the council, although I know I personally wasn't at meetings, I was certainly listening. I've met with many stakeholders to learn a little bit more about the issue, both on the JetBlue side and both in residents, and listening to my residents and hearing all of this and compiling the information together to make the best decision tonight. And so I will be supporting my colleagues and in supporting the residents as well, all of you, in ensuring that we, you know, can understand your needs. But I also know that, you know, JetBlue is an incredible business for us here in the city. Does that mean that, you know, it will go away tomorrow? I hope not. But I think that we have certainly a wonderful airport here in the city working for a private sector employer, one of the largest tech employers in the country, Microsoft. I actually tell a lot of our executives to come in to Long Beach. And so I know that in the future we will have opportunities for better businesses to be around the airport. I know we will have opportunities for jobs to be around the airport. And I just thank you all very much for your your time, your your passion, and just for allowing us to listen to you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Next up is Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And this has been an interesting a really interesting last two years. And, you know, I've heard the word change of heart. And I didn't hear a change of heart tonight because for the most part, you know, I want to acknowledge, Stacey. And, you know, the second year, the motion and the council members who led this, you know, there's been a consistent request to sort of go through the process and keep an open mind until the appropriate time to make a decision. And that's come out numerous times along this campaign. And Stacey, I think I might need to rearrange my schedule to change your Gugulethu. Sounds like going to be a heck of a party. Sometimes you do want to allow discussion for process to develop so you can make a good decision. And I got to plot 2 to 3 council members really led this because the fact is, you know, I would like to liken this to Ali versus Foreman. These guys were on the ropes for a while. But I mean, this is this is a heck of a finish. I got to tell you, Staff, you guys have done a fantastic job reciting the questions, attending meetings as as recent as just this last Thursday with the Forest Park neighborhood. And like Leanna, in my conversations with the district, my residents really have seen very little impact. And, you know, they haven't expressed one way or the other. I literally heard one person shout out the ninth District tonight. But, you know, we do read what everybody said and look through it. And my residents haven't felt strongly one direction or the other. And so, you know, every time that the council has been proposed with an option to, you know, look at this or extend it so the fourth issue could be sat or explore the feasibility have typically taken the position to go ahead and advance and move to the next step so we can better understand this. And I want to thank my residents for allowing like giving me the cover to make a real value proposition discussion rather than a political or emotional discussion about the facts. And we did look at the facts in the Jacobs study, and I did evaluate it. And the impact there is minimal economic impact and a minimal a minimal impact to the neighborhoods. And so the question is, is that, you know, is that enough to really have a value proposition about where to go, you know, to, you know, JetBlue? They've answer my questions. They've been available to me, to the folks, the workers who have who have come up and spoken tonight. I think, you know, you make very good, very strong points. But I think we've demonstrated that we do support local hire. We do support infrastructure and investment, and we've demonstrated that over the last two years. And so to the residents who I spoken with as early as last night and this morning from, you know, allies, fraternity brothers, different people, I'll just say as a leader, sometimes there's a time to lean in. Sometimes there's a time to step back and listen. We step back, step back and listen. And the residents simply don't want this. And so that's going to be my vote tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much, Vice Mayor. Everyone's had a had a chance to speak. So I'm going to I'm going to say a few comments and then we'll go back and there's some folks that want to speak again. And so we'll definitely go through that. So everyone gets a chance to to speak to. It's a big decision. So we want to make sure everyone gets a chance to to give their opinions. I think it's really important, first of all. And I want to make sure that I do this tonight, because I think it's really important to think a few key folks and some of which have not been been mentioned tonight, but their work should be recognized. Mr. WEST And to the airport staff and to Mr. Romo and to I see a few folks that actually work out at the airport work very hard as managers or as folks at work, either as affiliates with JetBlue or others that are just there working with our planes or we are in the retail division. I just want to thank all of them for consistently operating what is one of the best airports in the country. We love our airport. They do a great job. And and I think, like all of you, we love reading about how the Long Beach Airport has the best food or it has. It's always ranked one of the best airports it's easier to get in and out of. And I think that's all true. And so that when that wouldn't happen, it just doesn't happen overnight. It happens because you guys work so hard. It also happens because a lot of you. Many of them I've known for a long time have worked to make the airport what it is today. And so I want to thank all of you for doing that as well, because we have the airport we have today and the terminal that we had in the concourse that we have today, because a lot of you fought for it and a lot of you were vocal throughout many years to get us to the point where we are today. And so can we please give a round of applause to our airport staff because they deserve a round of applause. You know, I also to the to the 700 crewmembers of JetBlue. I said it before and I'll say it again. Thank you for working for a company that that came into Long Beach when it was a difficult time. I know I and I think hopefully everyone here wants to continue to support in your efforts here in the city in providing, as you know, great service to most of the folks here that use JetBlue as a as a great airline and a great and a great service. And we want to continue to work with you, particularly on on issues that matter to to our residents. But thank you to the 700 crew members that make Long Beach home or a place to work. We appreciate your your commitment to the city. But you know, the one of the unsung heroes that hasn't been mentioned yet and I don't know anyone that's put in more work, you know, and I know that not everyone agreed with him all the time, but him and his team worked incredibly hard. And that is our city attorney's office to guide this process for the last two years and try to provide advice to the council, to the community. And I know that Mr. Parkin and Mr. Mays and the entire team worked very hard on this as well. I just want to say thank you, Charlie, and your team for for working so hard on this process. That's very important. And and then finally and I'm going to say something about Miss Mango at the end, but I do want to say thank you to all the residents. There's some of you particular that have been relentless, and I appreciate that. I think and I want to say it's is it Mike? You know, Mike, you and I talk that a snow day like, gosh, two and a half years ago. And, you know, and I I've never forgotten that conversation. You know, I appreciate what you told me that day. And I just want you to know that that's all that stuck with me since we had that conversation. I know that I'm not sure that roofing that Rick and Bruce are still here. Bruce has been my most vocal, consistent call phone caller and emailer on this topic for for probably the last year and a half. And they're great people, and they've had me in their home. And I just want to thank them and appreciate them for being so consistent in their in their advocacy as as residents. And. And I also want to just all of you I think we've received this council has received and I don't know if I can speak for everyone. I think I've received more correspondence on this issue than I probably have on any other issue. And from all sides, I've received correspondence from all of you. I received correspondence from employees and supporters of the terminal. And I want to thank all of them for being engaged in the process. To my friends in the labor, the labor unions, IBEW workers and those, you know that we are committed to local higher. This council has a I think a sterling record on project labor agreements and local hire and will continue to do so on all on the many projects that we will also build in the future. I finally I want to say to Councilman Mongo, she knows tonight that she has my support and I want to say that. Her process. And this has been difficult. And but I admire that she has done her homework, done her research, and she knows that I support her. As of last night, she was engaged in talking to residents, talking to constituents, listening. She asked a lot of questions. I know a few folks said that they she had a change of heart. I'm going to be honest with you. Stacey's never had a firm position. She's wanted to get information. She's wanted to move the process forward. But she's always mentioned to me and others that she wanted to get to this point to actually make a final conclusion. And she has made, as you all know, a conclusion on this process. And so I just want to thank Councilwoman Mungo for a process I know has been very difficult for her. But but for, I think to be leading the way that she leads. And I want to thank her for that. And let me just say one, one one final thing to the rest of the council members. I hope that, you know, I pledge to you very early that I will try to lead this process in a way that was fair, open, where everyone got a chance to give their their opinions, that we'd have opportunity for public input. And I hope we've been able to to do that in a way that was fair. Lastly, let me just say that on the issue of the noise ordinance, I believe that everyone in this room are united interests is to protect our noise ordinance. That is the single most important thing that we have at our airport. It's something that it's something that I have. I mean, I know I've been in many of your homes. I've talked to many of you. I know a lot of your friends. And I've pledged that to you years ago. And I continue to pledge that to you. And I know that our friends in the airport community also believe that protecting our noise ordnance is what makes our Long Beach airport such a great airport and so beyond after what happens tonight. And I think you've heard from folks about where this is, this is going to end up tonight. We're going to wake up tomorrow and live in the best city in the country and have the best airport anywhere in the country. And we're all going to work together to continue to make our airport the great place it is today and what we love so much about it. And I hope to will continue to work with JetBlue. We're going to continue to work with all of you. And and hopefully tomorrow is just another another great day in our city. And so I just want to thank you for for being positive tonight and for allowing the council to have the ability to go through this process and make a decision on a very important issue that these kinds of issues don't come before this body often . And so I want to thank you for giving them the ability to make to make their decision to make the right decision. So thank you very much. And with that, I'm going to turn this over now back to Councilwoman Price, Councilman Mongo, and then we'll go to a vote. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I'm going to I'm going to try to be very quick. But just so we're clear, when I seconded the motion, I spent all my time thanking everyone. And I think that the residents of my district deserve to understand my reasoning. So and I spent a lot of time on this, so please bear with me. I'll try to be quick about it. I have the luxury in this issue of knowing that this project would have serious direct impacts. For. But would not have serious direct impacts from most of my residents. For the most part, we are not under the flight path. We don't have major roadways that would become a route to or from the airport. Many of my residents rarely hear the planes arriving or departing, and most of them will not benefit financially from the addition of an international terminal. In moments like this, I have the unique role that I need to play in weighing the speculative benefits of a financial interest that may present in my district and other districts against a much clearer and obvious potential harm or detriment that would be felt by residents. Not in my district. Harms felt by residents who are kept awake late at night. By flights, by families who depend on noise, the noise ordinance to preserve their quality of life, by people who commute past the airport daily, and children as well as the retired people who breathe the just jet exhaust and are concerned about the dangers of that are serious concerns. The fears are simple to understand, and although we might say that they are unfounded or without merit, they are the issues of concern around dinner tables as families grapple with quality of life, property values and not things that we're talking about here in terms of economic success of the tourism industry in Long Beach, or the convenience of flying to Cabo San Lucas or Mexico. I have a family, and the best way I can grapple with this difficult issue is to put myself in other people's shoes and consider how my family would be affected with even the fear of potential harm. Putting myself in that mindset makes the weighing process a lot clearer for me, and that is the process that I have undergone. As council members, each of us is no stranger to making decisions that are at times at odds with some of some or even the majority of the residents in our districts. This situation, however, is very different when faced with those decisions in our neighborhoods, such as with a traffic enhancement for those who live in my district. We can generally push through that decision, knowing that the positive impact that we believe will happen will be realized despite the fears in a matter of weeks or sometimes even months. The situation is very different. If we as a council were to push through tonight and approve this, approve the FISA facility with the belief that the economic benefits are real and that the residents concerns are unfounded. The best case scenario for the positives to be realized by the residents is a year and a half before the city can point to any facts to say that the benefits are real and the harms are not. During that time, all of these residents are worried about their futures, their quality of life, their health, and what this change will mean for their families. This stress would be putting the residents most affected by this in a very difficult situation, and that reality is really hard for me to accept. Residents most impacted by this plan have, honest to God, fears and pressing concerns about how this will impact their daily lives. These concerns are more urgent and pressing than the possible economic benefits that are speculative in regards to our local economy. And I just want to say, reiterate what the mayor said and many of my colleagues said, I want the one thing I would ask our community is when issues like this happen, give us the benefit of the doubt, give us the bent, allow us to. Go through. The process. I can't tell you how many times people have come to this podium and implied that there is some financial benefit that we're going to have as a result of voting one way or the other. That's it's so offensive. I don't even know how to say that. It's so often to those of us some of us here have two jobs. We're trying to raise a family. We're trying to do good for our community. I've. I met with JetBlue once, and that was today in regards to this vote. Never accepted any money from them. So when people come up to the podium and they make these implications of this conspiracy and these financial benefits, it's really hurtful. It's really hurtful. And similarly, when people say things like this is, you know, you're doing this, you know you're going to vote against JetBlue because you're concerned about, you know , the politics of it, the political vote. Most of the residents in this room are not my residents. They don't live in my district. But you're part of this city and I represent this entire city. I represent your families, even though you're not voting for me. So, please, when we have dialog like this, I'm just telling you, you can say whatever you want when you come to the podium. But I'm just telling you really honestly, that there are things you can say that are said and heard with credibility and things that you can say that are totally offensive to those of us who are trying our very best do the best job that we can. So just think about that, because we're your neighbors. We are your neighbors. Our kids are going to school with your kids. We go through the same things that you all go through. We are one community. So the only thing I would say is this has been a really stressful vote, but that's okay. We take that on. We just want to make sure that our community understands that we're working hard. We're not always going to agree. And finally, as an attorney, I know we've talked a lot about this noise ordinance. I would hate to be the counsel that sets something into motion. That causes litigation. In regards to our no noise ordinance, I think for me, when it comes to the law in this regard, status quo is a good thing and it's not a risk that I want to undertake. So I thank you all for being here. Thank you, Councilwoman. And close us out. Councilwoman Mongo. I want to thank all of you for being here today. I'm going to make a personal ask. I know that many people. Over this last six months, not just on the airport issue, but in our presidential election and other things have said some mean and hurtful things online. And I challenge you to go home tonight. And press the delete button. And I challenge you the next time someone makes an accusation and says that they know how. One of us feels when one of us hasn't said that themselves to challenge that. It's easy to say You should do it this way or you should do it that way. I appreciate what Vice Mayor Richardson said. It's been a growing process. There are some of you who were at my meeting last night who had attended a meeting when I was first elected and when I was first elected. I didn't know how to run a meeting. I'd been on your side at community meetings. I've never had a roomful of people all yelling at me at once. And it takes time to figure out how to manage that process in a respectful way that I get to hear everyone's point and they get to articulate it, whether it's on a note card or getting up to a microphone. Or. Being respectful of each and every one of your time. Because there are there are key people who have spent a large amount of time on the phone with me. I appreciate Corliss, but also Carmen and Nancy. I think we've spent hours on the phone together and still after an email and calls and then you follow up with a handwritten note and all of that back and forth is a development of ideas that I hope throughout the way you understood that I was open minded and I understood that you were open minded. And I think that that's valuable and important, and I appreciate you for that. I remember Mike and John at Snow Day at Darrell's for Snow Day and those dialogs by the snowman. And I thought that that was a very good step, but. With that. The people I've named were kind in that process, so I challenge each of you. The Internet has gotten so terrible, the accusations and the meanness doesn't produce anything, and all it does is take our neighbors offline and we need them online for the reasons that Councilmember Urunga talked about. We need our neighbors engaged in the community. So with that, I want to thank all of my colleagues. I appreciate the time that you've given me and the respect of the people who live in all the districts. I want to thank Councilmember Price and the mayor for pledging to meet me last night in the final hours until the wee hours of the morning after Councilmember Pryce had put her children to bed with their homework, I hope they woke up at seven and finished. And I want to thank all of you and I hope that you appreciate the way I appreciate our city attorney. I cannot tell you how much I have leaned on them in this process. How many questions I have asked. How many times I've called their cell phone at odd hours, including weekends and evenings, and no call is too early for them. I commute into work very early and they always take my call and I appreciate that because throughout the day I can think of the things that they said and compare them to the emails I'd read from residents the night before and really hash through in my mind that next step in my process. So thank you. Let's all make a commitment today that on every issue going forward we exemplify kindness. And I will do my best as well to do be as kind as I can, no matter what. And sometimes that means taking a step back. I hope that if you are available to celebrate tomorrow, we're supporting six local schools and charities at the Giving Gala that's on Facebook. I hope you'll consider it. I hope that in this discussion about the airport, you'll put a save the date on your calendar for the festival of flight, because this is a day that once a year we celebrate the airport as an asset. It is an asset and it's an important asset. And if it were ever at a point where it were running in the red, we we would be in a considerable amount of hurt. And so I hope that you'll mark down November 4th as the date that you will come. You will bring your family, you will eat from food trucks and go on bounce houses and admire the planes that are a big part of our community. And with that, I hope that my colleagues will. Oh, with one last plea to Dee Dee, that $3 million we would have spent, I promise will spend it on other construction at the airport and other jobs. So I hope you'll consider a vote yes, because it'll still be jobs. It'll just be different jobs. So with that, I hope that we'll get a full vote of. Council this week. Mayor. I appreciate that very much. Like I said, I love the way you. Like I say, you're steadfast and I like to say pray. You can't go in. You broke your vacation because they do have the votes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And with that members, please go ahead. The motion is on the Council on Mango motion to receive and file the FAA study and the the FAA proposal. Thank you. Oh. So a receiving file means that this matter is closed and no longer scheduled to be heard by this council. And we will not be moving forward on any plans to build or developed or plan or finance any part of an office facility at the Long Beach Airport. Yeah, that would. Yeah, that's right. So you all want a yes vote? Yeah. Sorry. Receiving follows like the legalese received from motion members. Please go and cast your votes. Motion passes. Caitlin from Paris. Thank you all. So much for. Oh. I moved to dismiss the meeting. We have almost done. Almost done. I just we're almost done with the meeting. I just need to do. If there's any new business announcements and then we'll go in and close after the. Public. Comment. Oh, I'm so sorry. You're absolutely. Right. Mayor. Item five. Oh, we're going to go back to the. Okay, then I'm just going to take a one minute recess to allow folks to exit, and then we're going to do the concert calendar item. The other public comment and the announcements. Thank you. All right. Bye, guys. Well, I think. They're. Okay. We're going to we need to continue the meeting. So I apologize if people can please just quietly, quietly exit so we can continue the meeting. And I'm going to do right now. Yes. Everyone can. Please quietly exit. I'm going to continue the meeting. You lose everybody. I think the. Worst thing you can do, you don't have a wife. We can go ahead and take the roll call, please. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilmember Pierce. Councilwoman Price. Councilmember Supernova. Councilwoman. Mango. Mongo. Councilman Andrews. Councilmember Ranga. Councilman Austin. Vice Mayor Richardson. Mayor Garcia. Here. If I can have the council, just take their seats. There's some folks have been waiting for a long time. We have. Mary. I believe it's Mary Gray. Manna manatees. Guadalupe Balderas are the first three speakers. I'm going to repeat those names.

AN ORDINANCE relating to taxation; increasing the commercial parking tax and amending subsection 5.35.030.B of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120228

Agenda Item 29 Council Bill 120228 An ordinance relating to taxation increasing the commercial parking tax and amending subsection 5.35.030. B of the Seattle Ministerial Code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on Council Bill 120228. Agenda item 29. We are now on agenda item 29. Does anyone have any comments? Hearing no comments. Will the police call the roll on the passage of Council Bill 120228. Agenda Item 29. Sergeant. Yes. Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD. Yes. Whereas. I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mascara. Hi, Petersen. Hi. Council President Gonzalez. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you so much. Council Bill 120228 Item 29 passes and the chair will sign it. Will the park please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Please read the title of item 30 into the record. Agenda Item 30 Council Bill 120222.

AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance amending the Building and Fire Code of the City and County of Denver. Amends Article II of Chapter 10 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to approve a second set of amendments to the approved 2016 Denver Building and Fire Code. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-29-16. Amended 12-19-16 to make non-substantive changes to reflect an amended filing number and date in which an amended packet of amendments to various International Codes were submitted the Clerk. The original amendments to the International Fire Code submitted to the Clerk contained an incorrect PSI reference in IFC Section 913.6.1, and an incorrect footnote and table entry in Table 503.2.1. Both errors have been remedied in the packet of amendments re-filed with the Clerk. The changes are reflected on pages 238 (footnote 1 at bottom of page added additional language clarifying the table) and 300 (913.6.1 changed the psi from 150 to 175).

DenverCityCouncil_12192016_16-1195

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right, moving on, Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens. And Councilman Cashman, could you please put Council Bill 1195 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 1195 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded and I am going to offer up an amendment. So I move that council bill 1195 be amended in the following particulars on page one, line 21 Strike the date of December six, 2016, and insert the date of December 19th, 2016. And on page one, line 21, strike the clerk filing number of 20160067003 and insert the clerk filing number of 20160067004. Has been. Moved. And second, it will go on the comments by members of council and I'll start the comments by explaining the amendment. The purpose of the proposed technical amendments to Council Bill 1195 is to make non substantive changes to reflect an amended filing number and date in which an amended packet of amendments to various international codes were submitted to the clerk. The original amendments to the International Fire Code submitted to the Court contained an incorrect piece I reference in IFC Section 913.8.1. or sorry 913.6.1 and incorrect footnote and table entry in table 503.2.1. Both errors have been remedied in the packet of amendments re filed with the clerk. The changes are reflected on pages 238. Footnote one at the bottom of page added additional language clarifying the table and 309 on 3.6.1 Change the PSA from 150 to 175. So that's with the amendment. And then says We have this bill called out. This is one that I'm really excited about and have had the pleasure of working on a package of updates to our codes that are going through. And one of them is about signage, which doesn't sound like the most exciting thing in the world, but four for me and I think for a lot of people, this is a really exciting change to our signage and this is and how we sign single store restrooms. So a restroom that you can go in and lock the door and it's just you inside. And the way our code was set up before was if you had two single stall restrooms or more, you were required to sign them as a men's room and a women's room. And what this amendment does is it changes that to require that these single stall restrooms are signed as gender neutral. And I think that this is just a great example of one your government at work for you, because this was brought forward by the people saying, hey, this is a change we'd like to see. And I think it's also a great example of common sense in in what we do. And that I think that as we started having the conversations about this to every stakeholder group that we talked about, this was a common sense solution as shared in committee, you know, as a share of a few things as I went through this journey, learning about this signage change and starting to pay more attention to the signs that are on the restrooms throughout Denver. But we had, you know, so many different stakeholders at the table talking about how this change of changing something as simple as design was really great for families with children, for transgender people , for caregivers to achieve potty parity, which was a term I had never heard before, but I had experienced many, many times when my eight year old daughter was standing in line at a single stall restroom when right next to it was another one because it had was marked as a men's room. She couldn't use it. And and also our business community when we met with the Downtown Denver Partnership and some of their committees to talk about it, we actually had a business owner who said, Oh, yeah, that's the most ridiculous rule. I put those signs up to tell your inspectors, come and check me off, and then I immediately take them down because it's bad for business. It's bad for business to have people waiting in line when there is nothing different about the bathroom across the hall, and they should be able to to use that. And so I think that this is, again, one of those commonsense changes that really doesn't make a difference for a lot of people. I know that it's going to personally affect my life and my district on Pearl Street and Broadway, where most of the businesses are already doing this. And yet if someone were to call them in prior to us voting, this change through the city would be compelled to take it and find them for having signs that say, Behind this door there's a toilet and anybody who needs a toilet can use it. And I think that it's as simple as that. And so I just want to give a quick shout out because there are a lot of people who put a lot of work into this. So to Jill and the entire CPD team, it's always easy to be on this side of the table and say, Hey, I think we should do it this way. And then not so easy when you're working with an international building code, it turns out to get to that end result. And so thank you to the LGBTQ commission, who is one of the first groups to bring this forward and say, Hey, maybe there's a better way for us to do this. And can we look at this, too? The mayor and the mayor's office, this guy Stuart for all the help and gone through this the downtown Denver partnership one Colorado. And I want to give a big shout out to my colleague, Councilwoman Canete. You really helped me through this. We were partners in crime on looking at this issue and and navigating it. And she just has a wealth of experience that was awesome to be able to rely on. So that's we're amending it to make those very boring. Changes. But it's it's a it's a great change and a great build. And I think it's reflective of the inclusive city that we are, that we make the most simple thing possible as inclusive and as comfortable for every single person as possible. Tonight, when we vote on that vote on the. So with that other comments, Councilwoman. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to first, kudos to you. You really did put in a lot of work on this, as did your staff, Maggie. So thank you to Maggie as well and leading in many of the conversations with the business community and others. So thank you for your leadership. And, you know, you mentioned families. He also mentioned the the the the gender issue. I one community we haven't talked about as the disabled community. If you're a caretaker of a different gender than the person you may be a caretaker with and you need to use the restroom. The single store restrooms are usually big enough for you to use. Sometimes they are the disabled restroom and being able to go in there without anyone questioning you is an opportunity for that community. Have more inclusion. I think, you know, some people may wonder why the LGBTQ commission brought this forward. I was just like to do a little public education when we're up here, which is that right now in the state of Colorado, transgender people already have the opportunity to use the bathroom of their gender. If they identify as female, they have the legal right under our laws to use the women's restroom, vice versa if they identify as male. But we know that you can't always legislate a comfort level. You can't legislate the fact that sometimes our community doesn't always understand transgender members of our community. We have a lot more work to do to educate about the lives they lead, the very simple challenges that they face, and the many contributions they have to our community, just like the rest of us, with their employment and with their their their civic engagement. And so this creates just a choice. It's an option, right? So we're not really changing what was already a civil right that a community had, but we're creating an option for folks in our city. And I will just to to to call out the building code, folks. I think that many cities have taken this very simple measure, and they've done it through policy without checking with the building code. And I think that this is an example of how we take common sense steps, which is this is a building issue. It's about how you sign things and we fix the building code. And and I think we might be one of the first cities to have done that that way. So. So kudos to them for doing it through the, the simple and common sense way of, of the building code. So with that, I will be excited to support this tonight. And I think it demonstrates that while, you know, our community may have questions about inclusion, given some of the world events and some of the backlash we've seen against vulnerable communities, I think Denver has been here on these issues of inclusion, will continue to be here and your city will always be a place where people of all backgrounds are welcome and have access to the services they need, like going to the bathroom. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. This is the deja vu. We had the same process in committee where we all talked about this. And I won't repeat what my colleagues were eloquent in speaking, but it also with this new regulation creates what I refer to as diaper changing station parity. It is amazing in 2016, essentially 2017, how I will take my 18 month old into a men's bathroom and there's no place for me to change him. And so this requirement, gender neutral, now allows facilities to be in both stations and both of the restrooms. So it's great as a father. So now that burden is no longer on my wife. And so I when I made this comment, that committee, I received an email from somebody else that said, thank you for saying that, because that is something that we should absolutely not be having to deal with in 2016, in addition to certainly the greater needs that my count my council colleagues spoke about as well. So thank you from that perspective, as a father of a toddler, that ability that we my wife doesn't have that burden as much as she should. So kudos to all. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Hernandez, good to hear you talk like a daddy, because it makes me feel good as well, too, because I for for a long time, I raised my daughter and single dad. And when she needed to use the restroom. I'm sending my daughter into this restroom where I have no idea who the heck is in there, hoping that she comes right back out. And those of you who are parents either have a little boy or a little girl, and you send your your kid into the restroom. You have no idea who is in there. That's worrisome. And, you know, you start worrying 30 seconds in, you're like, oh, my God, are they okay? Okay. Now I get to actually go in being be at the sink while she's in the stall, making sure she's okay. Right. And so and that's you know, frankly, to be honest, this shouldn't be something that's strange or unusual unless you have. The little dude or the lady with the skirt. As on your door. Bathroom door is at home. Right? I mean, this is how we have it at home. Might as well do it this way anyway. So I think it's a great it's a great fix for all the reasons that Robin said. Councilwoman, can you just talking about for equity and making sure that we respect that? Absolutely. I'm just surprised that it took us this long to realize that it. So anyway. And plus, what if the lady doesn't want to wear a dress? What if she wants to wear jeans? And that representation, I mean, for crying out loud. Not all girls wear dresses. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr. President. Just a quick question. I don't see Jill here. He's right there. Where? Oh, hiding behind the computer term. Would it be possible under this change for some small businesses, some low volume businesses, and. Pardon the. Expression, to be relieved of the obligation to provide a men's in a women's room. Now, could they get. Away with just one and save costs? Does the building code require a small space to provide to restrooms? I'm wondering if this could actually save small business money. So I'm going I hope my technical folks correct me if I get this wrong. Jill Jennings Garlock, Deputy Director of Community Planning and Development. This change doesn't change the number of restrooms you have to provide. So if you have to provide under the code one man's and one women's, you still provide that. They're just one is they're both same gender neutral. So there still will be a minimum of two no matter how what the size of the business. Okay. That might be something worth revisiting. Thank you. Thank you. Just to follow up and clarify on that, there is a level where you're only required to provide one. And it's it's signed, gender neutral or the minimum is two. That's correct. Eric Browning The Denver Building Department. The quantity. Threshold for a. Single bathroom does not change. And that single bathroom, when it's provided. Will be required to be same gender neutral. Hmm. Thank you. Thanks for the clarification. All right. So seeing no other comments, madam secretary, raquel espinosa. I. Flin i herndon cashman. I can eat lopez. All right. New Ortega II Assessment by Black Eye. Mr. President. All right. Madam Secretary, please close voting and health results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. So Council Bill 1185 has been amended and now we have to vote on passing it. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. As amended. So, Councilman Cashman, can you please put accountable 1195 on the floor to pass as amended? Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 1195 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended. It has been moved and seconded and I think we already got all our comments out of the way. So, Madam Secretary, Rocco O. Great. Councilman Espinosa, you have another comment? Yeah, I had one question, actually. My still allowed to ask her, is. It just the the whole bill is up now, so go. For it. Jill, it's really just a clarification on the on the fire side. These minimal unobstructed widths. Is there a height, a vertical component? No, it's just a horizontal component. So if you had 14 feet or 20 feet of clearance, you can't then bridge over that gap. So the bridging of a street, for instance, would be set by the utility easements underneath that. So I believe Denver Water, for instance, requires a 24 foot clear over any utility. I can't say if Denver fire has something different than that. Okay. They're shaking their head now. This looked like it would be it would be applicable even on interior lots. And, you know, so it's not just true. It is it does apply to private streets as well. There's a minimum width in order to ensure fire trucks get access. Yes. So there we do have provisions, though, that will allow encroachment over these obstructed I mean, these clear these horizontal clearances. I believe so, yes. That would have to go through a process of approval by each utility and other provider. All right. It's just something that I'll probably follow up with you, because, sure. If there's a way to put development over the top of these things, somebody in northwest Denver will find a way. So I would like to follow up with you guys. Thank you to talk. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black by Espinosa. I Flynn, i herndon. I can I can eat. Lopez. All right. New Ortega. Sussman Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announced the results. Let's see. Sorry, Espinosa. No. Lebanese Lebanese counterpart, 1195, has passed as amended. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilwoman Canete, you have called out comfortable 1231 for a comment. Go ahead.

Resolution in support of H. 3115 "An Act Ensuring Equitable Representation in the Commonwealth". On motion of Councilor Flynn and Wu, the rules were suspended; the resolution was adopted.

BostonCC_10202021_2021-1081

All those in favor, please indicate by saying. I suppose the ayes have it. The docket has passed. It's been adopted. Madam Clerk, would you now please read docket 1081? Certainly. Docket 1081 Council planning will offer the following resolution in support of House Bill 3115 an act ensuring equitable representation in the Commonwealth. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the District Council from South Boston Councilor Ed Flynn. The floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you to the Council for co-sponsoring this resolution with me and my colleagues in the City Council that have done a lot of work as well on this important issue. This is an issue that both of us and our colleagues have spoken on and supported in the past, and we want to send our support again at this time. We know that different communities have different needs and that there are many different ethnic subgroups within a large racial group. Right now, state agencies are not required to collect. Disaggregated data on race and ethnicity and demographic data often do not reflect the diversity within a racial group. For example, our AAPI residents oftentimes don't have the option to fill out which ethnicity they are, whether they are Chinese, Vietnamese, Indian or other ethnic subgroups. And that data gets swamped together under one racial group. Despite the diversity within the AAPI community. 83115, sponsored by Representative Jackie Chan of Quincy, would require state agencies to collect and publicize data to major ethnic groups within the Asian Pacific Islander, Black or African American, Latino or White Communities groups. However, this bill also clarifies that individuals are not required to fill out this information. It mandates that people cannot be denied services for not choosing to participate. Any personal information is kept confidential and protected by state and federal privacy laws. Data that specifies ethnic subgroups would allow us to better understand the different needs between ethnic groups. And without that data, the needs of the most underserved groups are often rendered invisible. With the rise of hate crimes against the AAPI community throughout the state, but also throughout the country. It is critical that we change policies and support the AAPI community. Communities of color and immigrants. And as many of you know, I'm proud to represent a large AAPI community. This bill would be would be a meaningful step in creating better visibility, insight and understanding into the lived experiences of our diverse communities, which will allow government agencies and health and social service providers to better serve their population. I hope that we can pass this resolution today so that we can send our support for this bill to the State House and ensure that our communities are represented fairly in equitably. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Flynn. The chair now recognizes the at large council from Rosendale and co-sponsor Councilor Michelle Liu. The floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you to Councilor Flynn, as always, for your leadership on this and for the state representative for moving this forward again. This has been now refiled and truly represents the needs and urgency of community organizations and advocates who have been pushing for the disparities within AP sub communities to be fully transparent and revealed so that everyone's not just hidden underneath and average and invisible. So I look forward to continuing to support this and pushing for this at the State House. Again, I know it has faced some some challenges that are wrapped up in politics, but this is not about politics. It is about collecting the data as a city already does, as other entities already do, that allow us to fully understand and therefore direct resources to our communities in the way that are needed. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Wu, would anybody else wish to speak on Docket 1081? Would any councilors wish to add their name as a co-sponsor? Madam Clerk, please add councilors Arroyo. Councilor Baker. Councilor Bach Council Braden. Councilor Campbell Councilor Edwards Councilor Siby George Councilor. Flour City Councilor me here please add the chair as well and councilors Flynn and will seek suspension of the rules and adoption of Docket zero one excuse me 1081 All those in favor please indicate by saying I oppose nay, the ayes have it. The docket is hereby adopted. Madam Clerk, would you now please read docket 1082.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 555 East 8th Avenue in Capitol Hill. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from PUD 34 to G-MU-3, UO-3 (planned development to general multi-unit), located at 555 East 8th Avenue in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 12-21-21.

DenverCityCouncil_02072022_21-1536

I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced the results. Two of us. 12 Eyes. Council Bill 21 Dash 1526 has passed. Thank you to the member of the public who joined us on that one. And we're going to move to our third and final hearing. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 21, Dash 1536 on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 21 1536 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Ticket and queue has been moved and we've got the second there as well. The required public hearing for Council Bill 21 1536 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I see we've got Brandon Schaefer joining us. Certainly. Thank you, Madam President. And good evening, members of the Council. I'm here to present the rezoning component for five, five, five East Eighth Avenue, requesting to resume from PVD 34 to GMU 303. Again, this request is in District ten in Capitol Hill at the northwest corner of East Eighth Avenue and North Pearl Street. The site is just under 12,000 square feet in land area and proposing three zone to GMI 303, which would allow for residential uses as well as some limited commercial uses if landmarked as a historic structure, which it just was. These uses include office, not including dental or medical clinic, art studio and bed and breakfast lodging. Detailed the existing zoning in the next slide. But you can see here and largely this part of the neighborhood is generally zoned gmu of some variety, some height, at least five stories, 12 stories, three stories, most of which include the historic structure use overlay. The current zoning was approved in 1980 and was intended for development a low rise office kind of cluster. You can see the subject property outlined in red on the top left. That dirt is personal to this was to be renovated and converted to office, which it was the maximum height for all three of these structures or anticipated structures was to be 55 feet. And most of the requirements were largely focused on the future development of personal three, which is to the Southeast and is still currently used as a parking lot. As this part of the PD would be taken out of this part of the this party would be taken out of the former Chapter nine code. And in the new code, staff did analysis and determine that there would be no adverse impact on the remaining properties. This is also within that she's been Park Botanic Gardens view plan which at this part would allow for maximum height of 130 to 134 feet. However, the requested zoning has a maximum height at much lower at 40 feet. I'm Karen noted a number of adjacent landmarks and historic districts which you can see here. And existing land use as currently office as anticipated by the current beauty and surrounding land users include single unit, residential, multi-unit, residential, additional office and some parking users. Here you can see the subject site on the bottom left and the remaining property to be left in the pad on the bottom right. Recent sent information notice of this application and mid lease September and moved to planning board in mid December where this was moved forward unanimously and to today. We have received two letters of support from the nearby RINO's as well as a letter of support from the property owner that's remaining empty. Three four. Moving to the review criteria, we have three plans to look at. This request is consistent with a number of strategies organized by vision element that include creating a greater mix of housing options, ensuring neighborhoods offer a mixture of housing types and services, and promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. The request is also consistent with the general urban neighborhood context map and Blueprint Denver and with the High Residential Future Place, which talks about predominantly multi-unit residential uses with some compatible commercial uses and buildings generally being the tallest of all residential places in the general urban neighborhood. Context. Additionally, this request is consistent with the future street types in this area, with East Eighth Avenue mapped as a residential arterial. And this fits into all other areas of the city growth area strategy where we expect 10% of jobs and 20% of housing by 2040 . And this also is consistent with a number of other strategies and Blueprint Denver that speak to preservation of structures, rezoning properties out of the former zoning code and limiting the site, limiting the use of custom zoning. This is also in the East Central Area plan. These strategies also speak to preservation of historic structures and facilitating adaptive reuse of those structures. And the East Central Area Plan maps. You can see again mapped to future neighborhood context as general urban and a high residential future place. However, the neighborhood plan does give us a little bit more guidance on height with the subject. Property in this plan mapped is up to three stories. Steph also finds the request to be consistent with the next two criteria, resulting in lead informing of regulations and furthering the public health, safety and welfare through facilitating residential use of the property and allowing those limited commercial uses. I spoke to earlier staff friends to justifying circumstances for this rezoning. The first being changed or changed conditions. I. Capitol Hill has seen a lot of reinvestment and redevelopment since the property was last resolved in 1980, and alongside that, the property retained the former Chapter 39 zoning after the city adopted the Denver Zoning Code in 2010. Lastly, this request is consistent with the general urban neighborhood context, the residential zoned district purpose and intent statements. Therefore, CPD recommends approval based on finding all review criteria at the Met. Thank you. Thank you, Brandon, for the staff report. And this evening counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21 1536. And we have four individuals signed up to speak this evening and I have the first speaker as Brandon Shaver. And so I'm imagining that's a mistake or I wanted to give you the opportunity. Brandon, if you did sign up for public comment. I think I said my, my, my piece, but happy to answer any questions. Thank you. All right. Very good. Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Bruce O'Donnell. Hello again. Members of Council Bruce O'Donnell, 386 Emmerson Street in Denver, District ten. And as I said earlier, I've been working with the owner, Mr. Christensen, for a couple of years now on this rezoning. And when we started out, we met with the community and immediate neighbors and RINO's and also with CPD, and we got very clear signals that the only path forward or an important component of a path forward on a rezoning was that the building be protected. It was obviously not designated in any way. And so Karen Christensen embarked on that effort. And thank you for earlier this evening, approving the landmark designation as a companion piece to the rezoning. It's very important to the neighbors of the community. And we also have two letters of support from the Rose Capitol Hill, United Neighbors and also Neighbors for greater Capitol Hill are both in support of the rezoning, largely in part because of the landmark designation. This property has been zoned in a real goofy, old 1980s PD that was very restrictive and bound this property to unrelated properties on the east side of eighth Avenue and it only allowed office uses where in fact this is a house and so getting it resounded. The G three, as Brandon explained, is consistent with every plan we have. We in addition to the two and all letters of support, the third letter of support is from the Denver Employees Retirement Plan, or derp, which is the direct neighbor across eighth Avenue and remains in the old pub. They are unaffected. And with all that I ask that City Council please vote to approve the rezoning of five five, five. The State Avenue this evening is a companion legislation to the landmark designation, and I'm available to answer questions. Should you have any? Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Karen Christianson. And you'll have to unmute yourself. There you go. Oh, it looks like you are muted again. Oh, there you go. We can hear you. Go ahead. Okay. I'm not getting video, though. That's all right. My name is Karen Christianson. I'm the owner of five, five, five East Eighth Avenue. I currently live in the mountains, but I would like to make this place my primary residence because it's getting harder and harder at my age to live in the mountains. It is a lovely old home and I want to live here. So I request the council vote to approve build 20 1-1536. Rezoning 555 you state avenue to g dash m. You dash three with a u. Oh. Dash three overlay. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And our next speaker is Jesse Paris. And we'll have our producers go ahead and move Jesse over into the queue. There we go. Go ahead, please. Jesse. But. Yes. My name is just the opposite for Black Star maximum for self defense, positive action for Social Change as well as the East Denver Residents Council, the Unity Party of Colorado and frontline black males. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this rezoning, just like I was in favor of the landmark preservation of five, five, five East Eighth Avenue. So I am still in support of the rezoning as well. Like I stated earlier, it's going to be a multi-family dwelling though it says awesome as opposed to an affordable housing crisis and the occupant wants to move back into the Pueblo. And we saw from their consistency with adopted plans, uniformity in supply relations for this public health, safety and welfare means justifying circumstances, inconsistency with neighborhood context zone this intent. So it meets all five of the criteria for a rezoning and I'm in favor of it. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1536. Give it a moment for any questions. All right. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 21, Dash 1536. Councilman Hines. Council President, I. I want to urge support from my colleagues for this as well. I want to, um, I want to thank Ms.. Christiansen for for her hard work. I want to thank her also for reaching out. Two years ago, I we had we had these conversations right at the very beginning of the pandemic. Mr. O'Donnell even reached out before the pandemic started. But but unfortunately, by the time we were able to get our our meeting underway, that pandemic had started. So I hope some day that I get to meet Mr. Christiansen in person in three dimensions. But this is just such a great story. And I want to thank my colleagues for for designating this as a historic landmark, because as as Mr. Shaver mentioned, this is a growing, vibrant, new you know, there are a lot of historic buildings, but but there are a lot of them are going away in favor of some of the new development. So we can have development in our city while remembering where we came from. And this is just such an amazing example of where Denver came from. So I urge a yes vote and certainly I will be voting yes. Thank you. Council President. Thank you, Councilmember Hines, and happy to support this this evening. It's all of the rezoning criteria. And Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 21 desk 1536, please. Ain't I? Cashmere. I can eat. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I swear. I. Torres. I am black. I see tobacco. I collect. I. Herndon. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results.

AN ORDINANCE related to appropriations for the Human Services Department; amending Ordinance 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget; lifting a proviso; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_02272017_CB 118919

Thank you very much. The motion carries and the resolution will be adopted. The chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item into the record. Three Further Human Services and Public Health Committee Agenda Item two Constable 118 919 Relating to preparations for the Human Services Department and many audience 125207, which adopted the 2017 budget lifting it provides and ratifying confirming certain prior acts. The committee recommends the bill passed. Thank you. Consumer Back show. Thank you very much. During last fall's budget, we put a proviso and a hold on $125,000 until our Human Services Department created and presented an inflammation implementation plan that was based on recommendations from the North Seattle Human Services Summit, which happened in December. And I want to say thanks again to Councilmember Juarez for leading the charge on this. And in February of this year, Director Katherine Lester of our Human Services Department Prevent presented the results and recommendations from the summit, and that recommends strengthening organizational capacity of human services agencies in the North End, strengthening existing networking infrastructure that allows for sharing of information and resources for the public and support the planning and implementation of the 2017 Connections Conference. And the implementation plan will be on an interactive asset map in the Human Services Department website. We'll have data collected and transparent to the public, and we're going to create the website, or I should say Human Services Department is that will include all the above and lists the resources for North End nonprofits and for the public. So our committee recommends that we lift this proviso and provide 125,000 to the Human Services Department. Thank you, Councilmember Bagshaw. Councilmember Juarez. Thank you. First of all, we thank my colleagues for working very hard with me on this, and I know you guys give me a hard time about District five in the North End, but I appreciate it. I had a chance to look back and in February of 2016, a year ago, we were discussing, discussing, releasing additional funds to the Human Services Department for the State of the emergency. At that time, I pointed out the continuing deficit of resources for North Sale residents in their communities. I challenged HST to make a greater commitment to geographical parity and to identify gaps in our systems that are leaving people and people in need underserved. I'm happy to say that. HST And the mayor saw that not as a challenge, but as an opportunity. And together we turned that opportunity into the first ever North Seattle Human Service Summit, where providers came together to talk about how we can improve the Human Service Network in North Seattle. During the budget, I was able to, with the support of my colleagues in our community, set aside 125,000 for 2017 and 2018 to make sure that the ideas that came out of the summit had a real chance to become a reality. So here we are today to lift the proviso so that these funds can be put into action. This is a vote I am incredibly proud to make today. I want to thank the providers from North Seattle who put their time and energy to partner with us to make this happen. Jack Weber from Family Works. Catherine Crump from the Meridian Center. Lynn Lively from the literature Seesaws. Elizabeth Dole from Aurora Commons. And I say this right now, Siri, John of from Hunger Intervention, Shaun Foresight from the Seattle Housing Authority, Nancy Long from the 501 Commons. I want to thank the members of HHS, HST and Department of Neighborhoods and the mayor's staff for all their hard work, including Danielle Lafferty, Jane Kline, Karen Coe and Thomas Whitmore. I also want to thank Catherine Lester for her great leadership on this endeavor and her continued commitment to ensuring that all communities have access to the resources they need to stay strong and stable. Lastly, a very big thank you to Steve Lewis and the University District YMCA for taking on the big job of spending these funds to create the long needed asset map so that providers for survivors I'm sorry for providers to improve services connection, connection and delivery of services, and to make it easier for community members to know what's available to them. My goal is to use this new asset map to identify gaps in our service system so that we as a city know what type of investments are needed in the north and our north Seattle, and where they will be currently needed in the future. This is a much needed first step to understanding what a Health Human Services Network looks like for North Seattle and actually putting into practice a new and higher standard of access that this community has so long needed. So, again, thank you. Yes, that was a lot, but I had to get it out. I'm just asking for the what the vibration was. That was me. Thank you. Thank you. Very much. Council members, any further comments about this piece of legislation? If not, please call the role on the passage of the Bill O'Brien. I so want i. Bagshot Burgess. I. Gonzalez Johnson. Whereas I. President Harrell i. Eight in favor and unopposed. The bill passed in the Senate. Please read the next agenda item.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light and Seattle Public Utilities Departments; temporarily removing the charge of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilization accounts; superseding several sections under Title 21 that authorize and require the collection of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilization accounts; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_06012021_CB 120089

Madam quirky meeting you did. Thank you. Agenda Item two Council Bill 120089 An Ordinance Relating to the Sea, The City Light and Seattle Public Utilities Departments temporarily removing the charge of interest on delinquent utility consumption and utilize utilization accounts. That's the short title. I'm finished. Okay. Sorry. My script did not call for the short titles. I wanted to make sure I gave you the time in case there was a little technological hiccup. But thank you for reading the short title into the record. I moved past Council Bill 120089 as their second second. Thank you so much, President Petersen. You're the sponsor of this bill. So when I handed over to you to walk us through the legislation. Thank you. Council President colleagues, as I noted at our council briefing this morning, Council Bill 120089 would extend the temporary suspension of interest charges on delinquent utility account balances for Seattle Public Utilities and Seattle City Light customers during the COVID emergency. This will benefit customers who may be struggling with their bills from either of our city owned utilities. This bill is the third extension of this pandemic relief policy. It was on the introduction referral calendar May 24th. The three previous bills also went straight to the full council. We passed the previous ordinances in May and March 2020, September 2020 and December 2020. This relief bill would extend the suspension of interest charged through the end of this year. Thank. Thank you so much, Councilmember Peterson. Are there any other comments on the bill? Hearing no additional comments will part. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Councilmember Herbold? Yes. Whereas. Councilmember, whereas. It's. Lewis. Yes. Where else? Yes. Well, Sarah, I. Peterson. All right. So what? Yes. Council President Gonzales. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Will the clerk please read the short title of item three? Agenda Item three Council Bill 120087 An Ordinance relating to Appropriations for the Seattle Office for Civil Rights amending Ordinance 126237, which adopted the 2021 Budget.

Recommendation to receive Charter Commission appointments approved by the Government, Personnel and Elections Oversight Committee pursuant to Section 509 of the City Charter and Section 2.03.065 of the Long Beach Municipal Code.

LongBeachCC_02152022_22-0165

Thank you. Our next step is our next item, which is charter commission appointments, which is 26. Item 26 is a communication from Councilman Spinner, chair of the government. To be charter general. Mr. Mayor, your microphone. Yep. Thank you. Item 26 is communication from councilman super nature of the Government Personnel and Election Oversight Committee. Recommendation to receive Charter Commission appointments approved by the Government Personnel and Election Oversight Committee. Got some more super now. Thank you. As the clerk said, these appointments were approved by our committee and there are five individuals to fill spots on four different commissions. So we ask for your approval. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. And let me go ahead. I do have a motion and a second by County Councilwoman Allen. I'll give me additional comments before I read the commission names and. No, no Mayor, just congratulations to everyone. Okay. Let me. Thank you. Councilman Super. Now I want to go ahead and go through each of these commissioners. There's a handful of them into the Citizens Police Complaint Commission. I do want to congratulate David and Joel. David Ochoa currently works as a field representative for the Office of State Senator Tom Byrd and his previous experience as a congressional staff member in the office of Congresswoman Annette Barragan. David holds a bachelor's degree from California State University, Long Beach in political science and history, and is currently working on a master's degree in political science. For those who know David, he's also incredibly involved across the community and will be a great addition to the commission. Also to the PCC is Kenneth Kenneth Asher Kawamoto. Kenneth is a Council District two resident, and he works as an appraiser, specialist and field trainer for the L.A. County Assessor's Office. Kenneth holds a master's of public administration, public sector management and leadership from Cal State, Long Beach, Northridge Degree, a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of California, Irvine. And congratulations to Kenneth as well. The next next appointment is Eric Bowers. Eric Bowers is a council District One resident, and he currently works as a director of Public Affairs and Marketing for Coast Community College and served as Executive Director for the Coast Community College District Foundation. Mr. Bowers is a member of the California Community College's LGBTQ Plus Caucus and Public Relations Society of America. Eric holds a master's degree from Public Administration from California State University, Long Beach, and is currently working towards a doctorate in education leadership. I want to congratulate Eric as well on his appointment. And next up is for the Ethics Commission, Mary Ellen Mitchell. Mary Ellen is a council district four resident, and Mary served as executive director of Women's Shelter of Long Beach from 2015 to 2021. She previously served on the Human Relations Commission and on everyone's home, Long Beach Task Force. A Maryellen has been a member of the Finance Committee for the African-American Cultural Center of Long Beach and also served as a board member for the United Cambodian Community, UCC. Also on the Water Commission is Gina maguire. Gina is a Council District five resident. She's a 1967 graduate of Saint Anthony High School and became a transformative figure at the educational and educational institution. Gina recently retired to serving as City Anthonys president and CEO for 20 years and was awarded the keys to the city for her leadership and community development. She's really involved, of course, across the community, and she was one of the founders of leadership, which for those that may or may not know. She also was president of the Omega Junior League and has had a positive impact on many lives across this community. She has a B.A. in California from California State University, Long Beach. We want to congratulate Gina in excellent condition. I also want I think I may have missed that when I gave Eric Bally's bio, I didn't say that he was actually also rejoining the Civil Service Commission. So I just want to be clear that Eric Fallis is being appointed to the Civil Service Commission and that includes all of the commissioners. A huge congratulations to all of them. Any other any other council comments? Seeing none. Then if we could have, Madam go to any public comment or then go to the rock office. If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on this item, please use the raise hand feature or dial store nine. They basically. Your time starts now. Good evening. My name is Steve. Q I'm a resident of the third district. I often speak on city council items of late. And I'd just like to say, just as a general public comment, as an American, as someone who not only believes in freedom of speech, but has. Often defended it. Please understand that I just as a matter of operational prudence, it's my policy and one within my rights as an American. To just say two things hopefully make use of the time, make it worthwhile listening to, let alone putting on the public record. And in my own personal case, while that may seem chaotic and at times. Uh. Highly specific or greatly meandering. I'm kind of always making the same argument. And it's kind of for a moment like this. We're at a stage in human history and specifically a stage in American history. Who? I'm going to steal a line from the Long Beach artist Rudy Dion. It's a very tender epic, but that one, it's a very tender time. And when I see, I know I won't say who, but when I see, you know, old men, businessmen, uh, I getting excited about the prospects of the war. Be good for business. So rubbing their hands, I mean, you know, it's usually kind of inversely proportional to the likelihood of that person actually manning a post on the border of Ukraine or in the case one of my friends who was in Armenia last December. Um, actually seeing a church that you would. You married one of your friends and been taken overtaken by by the various with Russian help. It's a very kind of tender moment. I'm somebody who shortly after September 11th, I did something really kind of creative. I went to my advisor in college and I told him, Hey, you know, whatever you need, I'll do. I was young and I, you know. I just wanted to help. Uh. I'd like to suggest there's more than one way. Thank you. That concludes public comment. I think that was likely for general public comment. So we'll take that a general public comment for that section. But let's go ahead and do the. Roll call. Vote for this item, please. Councilwoman Sandy has. A. Councilwoman Allen. All right. Councilwoman Price. Councilman Sabina. Hi. Councilwoman Mango. Hi. Councilwoman Sara, I. Council member oranga i. Councilman Alston. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. Hi. The motion is carried eight zero. Thank you. Is there any additional general public comment?

Adoption of Resolution to Endorse Declaration of a Climate Emergency and Request Regional Collaboration on an Immediate Just Transition and Emergency Mobilization Effort to Restore a Safe Climate. (Public Works 001)

AlamedaCC_03192019_2019-6622

Our next item that was pulled from consent is it's 8:00 and we're still in consent. Who? Hello. This is item five G and this is the adoption of a resolution to endorse declaration of a climate emergency and request regional collaboration on an immediate and an immediate just transition, an emergency mobilization effort to restore a safe climate. So hi there. I'm just going to let it be known that when we come to public speakers, we have a whole bunch. So you're probably getting 2 minutes or less, but just start consolidating your arguments and. Hello, are you presenting this item? Madam Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Patrick Pellegrino de. I'm the city's climate action coordinator, and I work in the Public Works Department. All right. Nice to see you. Also dressed up. Yeah. So the latest science and recent wildfires have shown us that climate change is real. It's happening now. Closer, friends, we can hear you. And its impacts are likely to be severe. And some commentators have called our current moment a climate crisis. So the resolution, before you responds to that crisis by declaring a climate emergency, this resolution shows Almeida's leadership in climate action and also demonstrates the community's resolve in addressing climate change head on. And while our federal government has shied away from the bold action that is necessary to surmount this challenge, cities and local governments are stepping up to fill the gap. And Alameda is an example. We are stepping up and developing a ambitious climate action resiliency plan, which will put forth strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building resiliency to climate change. And that plan should be concluded in the next several months. So with the declaration before you, alameda would join its peer cities, some of which have adopted a similar resolution in addressing climate change with the gravity and urgency that it merits. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Are there any and clarifying questions at this time? So we go to our many speakers. Any clarifying questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah, we start our audience. So this is clearly a worthy item and I'm all for it. I am going to ask you to hold your applause. Just virtually applaud. The reason is when we have so many speakers, it just takes more time. It's also a little bit intimidating to some people for whom public speaking is not their favorite thing to do. We have four, five, six, seven, six. Could be your job after this. 11. Sorry, 12. We have 12 speakers. So when we have 12 speakers, we add 2 minutes each unless. You vote by four to lower. In a session. Unless you vote by four of you vote. It is a council. Okay. With 2 minutes. Each? Yes. Okay. All right. So 2 minutes each. I'll try to call several speakers at once. Don't feel like you have to take your whole 2 minutes, but that's just try to keep it moving because we've got a full agenda. But this is, as I said, very important. All right. In this order, we've got Christy Cannon, followed by Joseph Cohen, followed by Lauren Isley. I hope I'm pronouncing your names correctly. Correct me if I didn't. So, Ms.. Cannon, hi. Hi, I'm Christy Canning. Mayor Council Member. Staff I'm very skeptical of declarations which can often end up being pieces of paper that nobody pays any attention to. But I think Patrick stated it well. We have a sense of crisis and emergency. I've spent a lot of time talking to my neighbors and people on the West End in front of Tony's house at the farmer's market. And people are concerned. I would say there's a sense, a strong sense of unease. And to see leadership like this from the council. I think would really be. A strong statement that Alameda will support. Thank you very much. Thank you. Joseph Cohen is next, followed by Lauren Eisley. Hello. Thank you, Madam Mayor, this is. This is Pauline's antiques. Does everybody know Pauline's antiques in Alameda? Used to be. Is there anybody that doesn't know Pauline's antiques in Alameda? Pauline's antiques no longer exists. However, Pauline's property exists in Pauline's property, in my observation, would make a phenomenal Alameda Climate Action Center. Oh. Oh, yeah. And so it's 7000 square feet that can be used for the following purposes. It could be used as for retail products to cover costs. Could be used for education for children. Could be used for environmental groups. And there are many environmental groups fighting for this cause. It could be used for environmental movies. Right around the corner from the Alameda Movie House. It could be used for new technology to sequester CO2, which is possible to pull down from the air and stop our planet from raising that two degrees that we've all heard about. And it could be used for. Your city goals of the the essence of the seas rising and doing great disaster to our island. So I see this center as being something that could be critical for all of us to act within as a context for where action could take place of physical action across from the children store , where the kids go in, they can point and say, Look, mommy, a climate action center like that. So I'm trying. What I'm trying to do is get people stoked up in the 30 seconds that I have left. 22. So you're doing that. So I didn't know what I was going to say. I still don't know what I'm going to say, but I said it anyway. This is something that's really required, I think. And this could be and this could be a prototype for Climate Action Centers anywhere else and all other places within our world. Thank you so much. Our next two speakers are Lauren Isley, followed by Amos White. Hello. Good evening, Mayor Ashcroft. Council members and staff are Laura and I, Zell, for the record. And I was I wanted to get up here in particular and to say that I really applaud all of you for your vision and your leadership and your compassion for all of the members of your community here in considering this emergency declaration. I've been working in the Climate Resiliency Field for over 15 years now in the Bay Area, and I'm so glad to see Alameda coming to the table and also for seeing Alameda coming into the regional conversation about resilience. And that being said, I just want to be sure to encourage you to really consider the ethos and the the the vision behind this declaration when you're looking at approving or considering development projects in the future, and in particular, how those development projects impact our infrastructure, our transportation systems, our emergency services, and the vulnerabilities of particular developments relative to sea level rise, which is our biggest concern. In addition, I encourage you in the future, as you're looking at the different versions of the Climate Adaptation and Action Plan, to really scrutinize that plan for its comprehensiveness, for its effectiveness, and for its ability to be implemented and funded. Because the eye can see that your determination and your consideration is here. But words in a paper only mean so much unless they can actually be act upon with actions and policies and procedures and plans. So thank you very much for your support and your leadership. Thank you. And we have Amos White, followed by Kathy. Dana, followed by Carolyn. Carolyn Choi, Mr. White. Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and Council. Thank you. My name's David. So I'm a resident of Alameda and steering committee member with CASA, A Community Action for Sustainable Alameda. I speak on behalf of Costa's Climate Emergency Subcommittee, which worked with Councilmembers Knox White or Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember Brody to put this resolution before you. And we're really excited to have this before the city of Alameda. As an island city, we applaud your leadership to put forth this resolution. Alameda is climate emergency declaration. It comes at a time when we most need to focus our positive energies and policies on local climate solutions. And from the from the audience tonight, if everybody can stand up, I know you're not speaking tonight. Anybody here on the issue of climate emergency declaration, please stand up and represent alameda. Ty students. Thank you. Those wearing green. I do want to recognize them and thank you all for your support on behalf of CASA. As I said, we gather here tonight to urge you to pass this resolution that will declare a climate emergency and launch a citywide push to end greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The resolution follows an alarming warning from scientists who say that the world must rapidly transform its economy in order to avoid even worse consequences from climate change. Incidents of extreme heat damage, damaging storms, floods, smoke emergencies that we've all experienced. These are just some of the facts and things that we really hope that this emergency can put us all on a footing to begin to address and have a further conversation. So we ask your support on this resolution tonight and we're watching with enthusiasm and really encourage you to vote yes on the resolution. Thank you. And for the earth. Thank you. Kathy Dana, followed by Carolyn Chow. Is Dana, are you here? Okay, we put her slip at the bottom. I'm Caroline Choi. Choi Troy. Right. Sorry. And Caroline. Troy is followed by Zoe Moore. Followed by Jessica Robinson. Um, I'll make this quick. My name is Caroline Troy, and I'm a junior at Almeida High School, and I've been a part of Casa, and I run an environmental club. I was really distraught to hear that by the year 2050, before I or my peers even turned 50 years old, El Nino will experience so much sea level rise. That Bay Farm Island where I currently live will be nearly underwater. The small window of time that we were given by climate scientists to reverse that sea level rise is closing on us very quickly. According to the IPCC, we are less than 12 years away from being unable to reverse our mistakes. But Almeida is proposing to do something the climate emergency resolution. And I believe that is really powerful. I believe that the climate emergency declaration is a perfect response to the climate crisis that threatens all of us because we should be panicking over the state of the earth right now. And so I want to inform City Council that I'm excited that we're looking at passing our city's climate emergency declaration. And I speak for the high schoolers of Alameda when I say that, I'm excited that our city council is making steps, however small they may be, towards protecting my and my generation's future. So thank you on behalf of the students and the planet. Thank you very much. I remember about applause. Just virtual. Don't Dems don't do it for real. Okay. Zoe Moore, are you here? There's Zoe and Jessica Robinson. I see you said be ready to come up and you will be followed by Isabella McCracken. Hello. Hi. You can raise the mic, Kenny. Yeah. My name is Zoe Moore and I'm also a junior at Alameda High. I'll also make this quick. I support the state of climate emergency declaration declaration. Climate change is very real and potentially more harmful in Alameda as we are an island. Projections have shown parts of Alameda to be under water very soon, very sooner than I had expected. And this shocking information is frightening to many students at our school. Our community needs our city government to take action to deal with this scary reality. And as an island city, rising sea levels are an issue very close to home. I'm excited to see policy implemented, to try to make Alameda as sustainable as possible, as a step in the right direction. And I hope that we will lead other cities to do the same. Thank you. Thank you. And Jessica Robinson, followed by Isabella McCracken, followed by. K. Yang Lee. Or maybe nice. Something like that. Hello. Hello. Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft and City City Council members. My name is just. Robinson, also known as Miss Alameda Recycle Woman and now Resilience and I have dedicated ten years of my life as a community action for Sustainable Alameda Volunteer CASA helping the city of Alameda and the community move toward zero waste and sustainability with the intention to help address climate change. I have held a vision for many years that Alameda will lead as a as an example in ways of innovative, sustainable, innovative innovation, addressing climate change through our programs and community engagement. My vision is we will continue to lead as a collective, working with grass roots efforts and collaboration and full. Support from. Our local government to show the rest of California. And the nation what a special island Alameda is and what we can do when the will is there. To be resilient as we draw down our carbon footprint. I do believe we can stand among leaders in addressing climate change, and I'm proud to have had the opportunity to be a part of this community and to make this vision a reality. Thank you for your time and your service. Thank you. Isabelle McCracken, are you here? She is. And. Kay Lee is after that. Hello. My name is Isabella and I'm a junior at Almeida High School, and I support the climate emergency declaration. We can't change the poor decisions made decades ago without regard for the impact on the planet. No one can. What we all can do. Though, is everything possible to correct those mistakes. It is owed to the future generations that we leave them with a thriving planet. So if we are going to live in a society that does not harm the environment. We are going to. Have to make some massive systemic changes. We will have to invest money and time into. Renewable energy and reducing our energy dependency. But we, the students here today, we are the ones whose everyday lives will be affected by this. But if we don't make these changes within our lifetime. A significant. Amount of Alameda will be underwater. So me and all the students here today are proof that our generation, the leaders of tomorrow, the ones whose lives will be affected the most by these decisions, want this declaration to be enacted. Now, all we need is confirmation by our city that they will. Support the needs of the. Future generations and see climate change not as something that will one day affect us, but as something that is already impacting our everyday lives. This is an important investment for the future of Alameda because I am confident that it will be more cost effective for us to move towards a city with zero emissions now than to deal with the consequences of the entirety of Bay from Island being underwater within decades. The students here today and all over Alameda are the ones who will be reaping the consequences of your actions. And we are telling you right now what. Actions we want to see done not only for our future, but the future of Alameda. Thank you. Thank you. So don't be shy about moving up toward the front when you hear your name called. Just keep things moving along. Hello. By the way, high school students, I'm a little biased because they went down me too high. But I know a lot of HS students too. You're really good speakers, so. Yes. Hello. Hi. So my name is Chi Hoang and I'm a student at Alameda High. It's okay. First of all, I want to thank you all for working to help Alameda move towards a sustainable and zero waste environment and in favor of the climate emergency resolution. I thought I would suggest some solutions to help Alameda to become an environmentally friendly community. I am so encouraged to see Alameda starting to implement waste bins with all recycling landfill and compost bins. Although it might seem like a minor issue, it is crucial that we start to implement trash cans on the streets and in schools that have all the following recycling, landfill and compost bins. Sorting trash correctly is a first that we can take to help reduce landfill up, which can help slowly reduce greenhouse emissions. To get more specific, if the climate emergency declaration passes, a smart way we can utilize the federal funding is to subsidize businesses, more specifically restaurants with biodegradable to-go boxes, since most of this waste comes from restaurants uses of plastic. Hopefully these are some ways that we can help, you know, to become an environmentally active community. Thank you so much. Thank you. Charles Addams, followed by well, Cathy, Dana is my last speaker, but I think she may not be here. So Charles Addams. Thank you. Students have filled this room before and alamy. The government has passed environmental resolutions before. The actions taken over the last decade have not been in line with any of the rhetoric. Alameda Municipal Power is known throughout California as a leader in fighting against rooftop solar. Rooftop solar provides a consumer with the cheapest power per kilowatt hour available and provides the greatest environmental benefit because it doesn't destroy undeveloped land, doesn't require new transmission in an age of increased wildfire, threat like even wind farms do, and is the only clean technology that creates on island jobs. Now, while carbon tax is needed, federally, net metering is a local method of counting for the environment and economics. PGE continues to credit rooftop solar at retail. The surrounding counties. Marin San Francisco Sonoma take bold steps to credit customers above retail and credit. Tell Americans that just 27% of the top rate and is spreading misinformation. Campaign Against Solar Technology. Most homes in Alameda could produce 100% of their annual kilowatt hours through rooftop solar. A policy would be to reinstate aggressive net metering. Additionally, formula change developments at Alameda Landing and the upcoming Alameda waterfront are antithetical to environmental protection. These formula developments notoriously contribute to a plastic throwaway culture destroy small businesses, destroy community self-reliance. But they provide business models designed to maximize traffic. This there is no bike path or token small business that you're going to put next to these malls that are going to alleviate this business model. You have to know these guys. Their model is Emeryville. The same people. Passed anti-Chinese door legislation. San Francisco, Berkeley have done this. Tax single use plastics. These are real policies. And reversing the mistakes seems to require different policies than I've ever heard considered in in this council. Thank you. Thank you. That's my last public speaker. So we're going to close our public comment. And we have a resolution to endorse declaration of a climate emergency. Vice Mayor Knox White. Thank you very much for speaking. I just want to recognize the youth leadership that that showed up tonight. I'm constantly tonight it was Alameda High last weekend. It was sorry. Can we turn this up just a little bit? It's up at the max. Okay. Sorry. Usually pretty really close yet anyway. Last year. Last week, it wasn't at all high. You guys all continue to not only represent, but represent your generation exceedingly well. And I'm really impressed. And I just want to thank you for coming. It's very moving to have you here and very meaningful. I want to thank Councilmember Odie, who joined me in helping to work with Costa to bring this resolution forward. I also want to thank very much our staff at the Public Works Department, Liam, Patrick and Aaron, who worked very closely with us to make sure that what we brought forward actually worked with within the 18 months of climate action planning that the city has already been undertaking and will be coming forward later this year. You know, I have mentioned this before. This is really the first time that the council is actually providing any input on that climate action plan and our goals. And I think that in in the hopes that we do pass this tonight, I wanted to highlight that the most meaningful thing here for me is we need to move as quickly as possible to zero net emissions no later than 2030. This is the council's declaration that this is an emergency and we are setting for the city our goal of net greenhouse gas emissions at 2030. Some of that might come from the state, from state changes, etc.. And we're going to, you know, as we go through this process, we're going to identify what we think that is so that we can identify at some point in time how we're going to get to that. But it's my hope that we will pass this with that language and that expectation. I also want to understand that the expectation, the Climate Action Plan, may come out with us with a different goal, but we that is not the beginning. All right. Sorry. It's not the end. It is the beginning. Once we once we pass that plan, which I have heard a little bit about and I'm very excited about, and I think our staff has really done, from what I've heard, a crack job getting to where they are. We will then start the conversation about, okay, what next? Climate for Alameda is an existential crisis. We are the only island city in the bay. Sea level rise puts it puts all of our existence at risk. And, you know, we should be climate leaders. It has taken a number of speakers and it's taken us a number of years to get to here. When I was campaigning last fall, I talked a lot about how 44 or so years ago when we got a new public works director, the city's official position was this is a regional issue. Sea level rise is a regional issue. The state will save us. We don't do anything. So through leadership. I wanted to recognize that as well. I really want to also just quickly recognize Damian, Herb, Ruth, Amos, Sylvia and David Teeters and many others who met with me and talked with Jim about it. To really put this together, to really come together. I think our goal and it seems that we're reaching it tonight if we pass this is for the community, our staff and our elected officials ought to be on the same page in saying that, hey, Alameda is taking this seriously. We're going to be on the same page. We're all here to to show up and work towards it. And my hope would be four years from now, Mr. Adams will show up and say, you know what, I've heard a lot of words in the past, but you guys really actually started putting the pedal to the metal and making some change. Lastly, I'm going to just wanted to reflect a quick comment. Ms.. Cannon, our first speaker, talked about words versus actions. And I think one of the places that this this resolution does something different than the other ones does is it starts to require that all staff reports that come forward from this day forth need to identify what the climate impact of the staff recommendation is. Right. So we're not. So we need to start thinking about that in every single recommendation that we have. Back to Mr. Adams point. You know, it's going to be a little bit of a learning, right? It's always easy to shoehorn things into a climate and make the case and whatever else in our community and our electeds and our staff will work really hard to keep each other honest on that as we go forward. So anyway, I just wanted to thank you, thank you for the speakers. I will look forward to asking my colleagues to join us in voting for this. Thank you. Thank you. Who's next? I'm going to. Councilman Brody. So I'll be brief because the vice mayor said a lot what I had to say, not to mention what the the speakers, Mr. White in the audience had to say, as well as the students. So I appreciate the opportunity to work with you. You're really easy to work with. So thank you for that. I just think this is something we need to do. Some people might say, Well, why do you declare an emergency? Well, for exactly the same reasons why the vice mayor mentioned so. Our staff, our city identifies that this is one of the overarching goals that we will consider every time something is brought to the to this body and that it's kept in the forefront of our community. Because I don't have to really go into the the why? Because I think everyone gets it right. You know, we wait around and we say, well, the federal government will take care of us. Well, okay, they don't even believe this exists. The state the state is working. But, you know, they they take a while to get things done. So we have to do this on our own. And I think one of the students, speaker, said, I mean, they feel we can be a leader in other cities will follow and we don't have the luxury of waiting, you know, like another city, say, a Stockton or Pleasanton or Dublin may have, because we are here on the front lines of sea level rise and we will be impacted. Well, I think we're being impacted now, but we will see significant impacts before anyone else does. So I think it's super critical that we set these goals because if we don't have something to shoot for, we don't have a goal, then we're not going to get anything done. So in you know, in one sense, there's a bit of a dread because it's happening. But in the one sense, I'm really excited that we're actually being being one of the first communities to be out there and make this bold statement and make this declaration and tell everyone, this is an emergency. It's an emergency for us. And not only are we going to say it's an emergency, but we're going to start doing something about it. So and I think we owe it. I mean, my generation, our generation, I think we owe it to the students that came up and spoke to make sure that we leave them an element of that they can live with. And whether it's being able to find affordable housing, whether it's being able to have an education. I think it's also critical to make sure that we actually give them a physical Alameda that's still here. So I'm glad that we're doing this and I think CASA for all their their work. I got the memo. I wore the green and the blue. So I did get that memo. And I hope that my colleagues and I have a lot of faith in them because I know that they value our environment and value protecting Alameda. So I hope that they can support this as well. Thank you. Mr. de Councilmember de SAG. I just want to briefly say that, you know, for many people, year 2050, everyone is looking at it with great trepidation. But the thing to think about is that, you know, 2050 when the water supposed to rise at some level that. You know, it's very difficult would be very difficult for Alameda. 2050 is 31 years from now. 31 years ago for me was all for everyone. It was 1988. And as I look back 31 years ago, I kind of feel like it happened at a snap of a finger. So what that tells me is even though 2050 seems like a big number 31 years away, you know, I'm still going to be alive this year. And it's going to happen when like with a snap of a finger. So I think it is right and fitting that we declare this climate action emergency. Thank you, Councilmember Vela. So I look forward to supporting this. But I also think that we have a lot of regulations and ordinances on the books. And while I appreciate that we're going to be identifying the impacts on staff reports moving forward, I think we have a lot of work to do looking at ordinances that are on the books that I think absolutely contradict what we're saying we need to do here. And I think that part of that is, you know, yes, we should be looking forward, but we also need to look at what we're currently doing and implementing because some of the stuff that we have isn't actually helping people in in an affordable manner do the upgrades that they need to do and things like that. And I think we can start with our permitting office and our design review process where we're we seemingly value kind of the process and weigh it down looking at these things as opposed to helping people reduce emissions by reducing consumption. And so I think that's something we can do as a city and we should be doing. And I think, you know, we should start at city hall and I think we'll see a lot of that in our climate action plan. And I think that there's been a very robust conversation from the community, from staff, from council in terms of how we go about doing that. So I think that this is a nice way to introduce the Climate Action Plan that's going to be coming forward and to keep us on track. So thank you. Thank you. And before I call for a motion, I just want to comment a couple of things. All the high school students who spoke. Wow. Just wow. You are not only are you good speakers, but the content of what you said. I mean, adults in the room. Were you where they were when you were high school juniors? I certainly wasn't. But it gives me such hope that you get it. You get what we have to do. We've got to sort our trash. We have to consume less. We have to use products that aren't harming the earth. And so I guess, I don't know, did you learn it in preschool or something? But you're growing up with that and these are our future leaders. Just last Friday was honored to be invited to speak to the students. They did the climate strike. Actually, students around the world walked out and I addressed the group at Crown Cove. That march was organized by a couple of and canal freshman. And I, I know I was in that together as a freshman, but it really it gives me hope. It should give all of you hope. And I also want to thank our concert group in Alameda. I see a lot of you here in the audience. And I say all the time, you you really are kind of the sheepdogs nipping at our heels and getting us to go in the right direction. I went to Davos. I know how sheepdogs work and that, and I know I see with Abby. And I see I'm going. Blank here and. I call on you when I when I need an input or I'm considering something. Well, what should I do? What do you think? And and you always lead me in the right direction. So a Debbie Ryan, that's what I went blank on for a minute there. So anyway, thank you for bringing this resolution forward. Nice staff report, Patrick. And with that, I'm looking for a motion. Who's going to race to be first? Ackerman. Oh, of. Approval. Right. Don't be shy. We have a motion by Councilmember Odie, a second by vice mayor. Mayor? They're not quite all in favor. I the motion passes you. May I? But. No, no, no, no. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So we let's. Let's play by the rules. Yeah, that works. That works. But we got to keep things moving because people it's core to date and we're just finishing consensus. Yeah. Quality nine. Yes we spring forward. Okay. If everyone could leave as quietly as possible. Oh, I see some of my hands now. STUDENTS Hello. We are going to move right into the next in this. Do we need a plan? No. Okay. We are going to move right into the regular agenda. So we have I'm first step item six A and six a is the adoption of a resolution adopting, appointing or not going to adopt him appointing Vadim down the cove as

A RESOLUTION declaring the City Council’s and the Mayor’s intent to consider strategies to ensure that all unreinforced masonry buildings in Seattle are seismically retrofitted.

SeattleCityCouncil_12132021_Res 32033

Agenda Item 28 Council Bill 32033a resolution declaring the City Council's and the mayor's intent to consider strategies to ensure that all unreinforced masonry buildings in Seattle are seismically retrofitted. The committee recommends the resolution be adopted as amended. Thank you so much for coming to hand it over to Councilmember Herbold to address this item. So much so little background on the issue first. In 2017, the city's unreinforced masonry policy committee released final recommendations, which note that there are over 1100 unreinforced masonry buildings in the city. And these buildings pose a risk because occupants of them are likely to be injured or killed in a major earthquake. The cost of seismic upgrades is a barrier for building owners. The report suggested that the city worked to focus first on the 77 buildings with critical vulnerability. Those include hospitals, schools and fire stations. The 2017 recommendations estimates a total cost to building owners for all 1100, you are rooms of over $1,000,000,000. So finding a way to finance this work is a really important component to developing a program to require seismic retrofits. In 2020, after city lobbying efforts, the state passed and the governor signed into law something called the Sea Pacer program. This is a program that provides a financing financing mechanism to help owners of commercial and multifamily buildings cover the costs associated with energy efficiency and seismic retrofit. The PACER program is is well, the state basically authorizes counties to create the C Pacer program. So King County has had to enact it because the funding mechanism is related to the function of property assessments. As we know, that's a function of county government. So King County has just recently done this, which is great news. And as a result, that program is anticipated to begin accepting applications in early 2022. Since early 2020, I've been working with stakeholders to craft a resolution that would provide guidance to city departments in their development of a phased mandatory retrofit program for you arms. I had hoped to pass the resolution last year. However, the work of the Office of Emergency Management and the Seattle Department of Construction is inspections necessary to fulfill the requirements that are contained in the resolution was not possible given the 2020 focus on addressing the emergency impacts of COVID 19. So today is a culmination of a year's worth of work with stakeholders and the executive to agree on the reporting parameters and timelines contained in the resolution. Additionally, included in Mayor Durkin's proposed budget and supported with the final passage of the Council was funding for a full time position to facilitate and coordinate the work necessary to develop a final program to address unreinforced masonry buildings. I just want to, before we call for the vote, I want to give thanks to a SAP, which is otherwise known as the Alliance for Safety, Affordability and Preservation. It's a broad spectrum of concerned stakeholders, including market rate, affordable housing developers, property owners, historic preservationists, engineers and neighborhood associations. It is they that have come together to develop these creative solutions to the threat to public safety and the rich legacy of our region's built environment posed by the impact of future seismic events on our unreinforced masonry buildings. Creating a pathway as contemplated in the resolution will require that we continue to work together. And I look forward to that work next year. Thanks. Thank you so much. Councilmember Herbold, are there any additional comments on Resolution 32033, agenda item 28? Hearing no additional comments. Will the clerk please call the role on the adoption of resolution 32033? Item 28. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Mesquita, I. Peterson. Hi. Strauss. Yes. You're both. Yes. Whereas I council President Gonzalez, I aid in favor and then oppose. The resolution is adopted and the chair will sign. It will please affixed my signature to the legislation on my back squished down. Will the. Sorry, Judy. You are. Unmuted still. Will the group please read item 29 into the record? The Report of the Community and Economic Development Committee Agenda Item 29 Council Bill 120241 An ordinance relating to human rights, including protections against discrimination based on citizenship and immigration status. The committee recommends the bill pass.

Order for a hearing to utilize American Rescue Plan Act federal and state COVID recovery funds to create housing options for returning citizens. On motion of Councilor Louijeune moved for substitution On motion of Councilors Louijeune and Worrell, rule 12 was invoked to include Councilor Bok as a co-sponsor.

BostonCC_04272022_2022-0547

Thank you, Councilor Edwards. Mr. Clarke, please read docket 0547 Duncan m0547 Council's Louisianan. Worrell offered the following order for a hearing to utilize American Rescue Plan Act, Federal and State COVID Recovery Funds to create housing options for returning citizens. The Chair recognizes the Council of Illusion Constitution. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask to suspend Rule 12 to add as their co-sponsor, Councilor Bok. Seeing and hearing no objection. Counselor Bok is added as the original co-sponsor. Thank you. So this talk really grew out of hearing that we had a two weeks ago regarding returning citizens and had the office of returning citizens here and advocates here who themselves are formerly incarcerated folks who were talking about some of the hurdles and challenges they face upon reentry. This is also a national reentry week. And so thinking about how we can be use the ARPA money towards equitable recovery. We had a really great hearing that was really led by our advocates and the Office of Returning Citizens, and that was a hearing order co-sponsored by Castro and Councilor Fernandez Anderson, who will also hopefully be teaching me how to swim. But what we're trying to do here is really think about, you know, how we can be using our Opra money to help those who are often forgotten and who it is too easy to forget when we are talking about housing, you know, we are as a city council, a body that cares deeply about housing being a human right. But we also need to think about housing as being healing for populations who have not had the luxury of stability, of of having a place to call home. And there's already really great work that we heard from happening. Leslie Cradle Leads, an organization called Justice for Housing that celebrated a report that was issued last week called Far from Home that really detailed the the issues that formerly incarcerated and justice involved folks face when it comes to finding stable housing. She's been working very creatively with the Boston Housing Authority on getting vouchers for formerly incarcerated folks, and they've run a really successful pilot. So this is about supporting and creating that work that's already being done by those who are really centered in this issue. And so I want to thank my council colleagues who were there. I think, you know, council was someone who mentioned that we should roll this into this the discussion about ARPA money. So really happy to do that. I'm really happy to engage in conversations that, you know, Mr. President, you were involved in as well. So just grateful to for my colleague, council colleagues and the ideas that really came out of that hearing that were really led by the folks who know what it's like to be housing place, housing instability. So really grateful that we can have this conversation as part of that for recovery. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Jan, the chair recognizes council, world council. Overall, you have the floor. Thank you, President Flynn. And thank you to my co-sponsor council. Council. And this is a continuation of the returning citizens hearing, which, if you haven't seen yet, is probably one of the most powerful hearings that I have been since on this council. And it's important that we create stability and help protect the focus of individuals while they're trying to reestablish themselves in society. How can we expect an individual to focus on workforce development, job hunting, or their job when they're worried about a place to stay? As we are making investments with ARPA dollars, providing stability and investing in people should be our top priorities. There are plenty of barriers when it comes to housing for returning citizens. Therefore, I believe that it's important that we explore what more can we do to make this transition back home smooth. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. We're all the chair recognizes counsel. You have the floor. Thank you so much, Councilor Flynn. And thank you to Councilors Lujan. And we're all for including me on this and for the hearing. That's Bonds as Counselor Allegiance and this conversation, as I've mentioned before. You know, our real hope on the ARPA side is we're going to have a hearing on Tuesday, the third next week at 2:00 to kind of do an initial intro of what the administration's proposing for the 350 million. And then my intention as the committee chair is to have a series of hearings focused on kind of like policy areas in which we might spend the ARPA dollars and really want to put council proposals alongside administration proposals and also really get into the weeds. And one of the things that came up in the in the returning citizens hearing is that we're all very excited about the idea of spending a bunch of money on housing. But it really matters that this population be able to access some of that housing, and that's not something that's going to happen by accident . There needs to be a real program design. And so I think that this is it's absolutely an appropriate conversation for us to have in the COVID Recovery Committee. And I want to make sure we're having it on the front end, not after we've already authorized housing funds. And then we find out that none of them are eligible for help in the folks. I will just say personally that I went and spoke with the with a whole group of returning citizens as part of the office's work last year. And everybody's questions were about housing. I mean, and it's just like with any population, we know it's the fundamental us. Stability. And that's really what we're seeking. So looking forward to this conversation and to putting it side by side in the larger housing conversation for all of us. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel. Bork, the chair recognizes Counselor Baker. Counsel Baker, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for saying my name on. And I appreciate people thinking about ARPA money in the way that we should be building assets with ARPA money. I'm actually involved in a project that I think is in Brian's district itself, already a design building, which would be the first floor, would all be job training, and then the subsequent three floors would be set aside for returning citizens. I believe we need to build these projects. These projects. We have to be ready for them. There's a project. On on on that's being talked about that is ready with some city infusion we could get the thing built but we also have to think about it more than just housing because the returning citizen is going to need more than just that key into the door. They're going to need support where to go to find a job, how to how to do this. How to do that. Because you've been incarcerated, you come out, you have to almost relearn how to get on your bike again. So it's it's it's more than just a discussion around housing. But I'm thrilled that we're having the conversation about using ARPA money for real purposes that will be able to point to and I think we have to be urgent about this because it's all going to be gone soon. So. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Baker. Mr. Clarke, please add Councilor Baker, the chair recognizes Councilor Flaherty, council fire statement. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. Please add my name. Thanks to the makers, the original sponsors. Quick housekeeping note the last. Whereas the Z typo says by providing through the makers, through the chair to the makers, it should say by not providing. And then lastly, when we have the hearing, just want to make sure that we're sensitive to obviously returning citizens, but we're sensitive to particularly residents in public housing. I'm more of alma residents, children and seniors, and that we're raising the issue of of sorry type offenses when we're thinking about placing individuals in housing and that we just give thought and concern to, again, those most vulnerable residents and be judicious around sort of the supportive housing, giving folks a second chance, but being cognizant of not putting a sort of a sorry situation next to a young family or an elderly. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel. Clarity, please. That counsel filed his name. And before I continue, just want to ask. Consultation through with counsel for charities. Question about that. Probably an update that we might have to file at some at some point. So. But for the sake of. The last year has been that. By providing. I do think it should read through the chair to make as it should read. Um. By not providing I think if that's. I think that was the intention. So um, and if they would make that change and I in training on that thank you counsel clarity for bringing that to our attention and thank you. Counsel. So you will provide an update, I guess, an updated version. Thank you. Counsel again and thank you. Counsel. Clarity. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Please. Please let me know what anyone else like to add their name. Please. Mr. Grant. Pleased Councilor Braden. Councilor. Councilor me here. Councilor Murphy. And please add the chair. And talking 0547. What we refer to the Committee on Boston's COVID 19 recovery. Mr. Cork, please. RE Docket 0548, please. Duncan Number 0548.

Recommendation to to request City Manager to work with Office of Equity to schedule a future presentation before the City Council on the Equity Toolkit, including an overview of case studies and examples on how to apply it.

LongBeachCC_04212020_20-0349

Great. Thank you. I've also had a request to move up item 27. So, Madam Quirk, please read that item. Communication from Council Member Pearce. Council Member Urunga. Council Member Richardson. Recommendation to request City Manager to work with Office of Equity to schedule a future presentation on the Equity Toolkit. Councilmember Pearce, you obviously. Thank you, everyone. And I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for the other item related to the Office of Equity Toolkit and COVID. I figured I'd save my comments for this part. We actually drafted this item before the COVID crisis hit us, really to try to highlight the work that the city has done over the last several years around Equity. Our Office of Equity and our Health Department have done a lot of work in the community and with city staff already. They released a equity toolkit a couple of months back that the council has not yet had an opportunity to look at. And it really highlights the fact that Councilmember Richardson just mentioned, which is equity is when everyone has what they need to be successful. Well, equity is treating while equality is treating everyone the same. We want to make sure that we promote fairness and it can only work if everyone starts from the same place and receives the resources that they particularly need. And so I think the COVID situation definitely highlights the fact that not only is it race age, and we know that some of our nursing homes have been the location where we've had the biggest outbreaks. And so these are examples for us to take to heart and really demonstrate that we as a city, as we are coming back and doing recovery, needs to have a full understanding of the toolkit, which really is fantastic. If you guys haven't had a chance to look at it yet, it really talks about what burden and benefits there are. How do we understand the data, community engagement, decision making and implementation? Accountability in a ways out of several questions. And they give examples for policymaking, how we do our budget priorities. And so my request today is that as staff come back and do a full presentation on this toolkit so that when we have other items come forward, WHITE Councilmember Richardson has brought forward we all already have a shared understanding of what that toolkit is and how we can use it to ask questions as we are drafting policy and giving staff direction as well as how we are crossing our budget. And I think it's a particularly important time to do that. So I thank my colleagues for signing on. I know that there was a lot of support for this item previously, and I know we move quickly to get it on the agenda. So I appreciate everybody's effort and look forward to coming back with a full presentation for. And I urge your support. Thank you. Thank you, Governor Pearce. You didn't. You also just sent a Q in on the motion, please. We have a recorded and then camera angle. Very glad to look at the motion on this side of this. And it's very much needed at this point that we know what we're getting into in this presentation and what we mean by this issue. So thank you. Thank you. We have a motion and a second and we're going to do a roll call vote, please. District one. And. District two. I District three. District four. All right. District five. District six. II. District seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. I'm going to go for items 21 through 25. I'm going to ask if people can just queue in for the motions. I'm going to do. I'm going to take unanimous consent on the votes for these. And so I'll just go through these and let them and watch their presentation. We'll start and do the presentation like we typically do in the council meetings. So item 28 and 20. Can I get a motion in a second motion by Councilor Richardson, seconded by Councilwoman Zendaya's? Unless there's any objection, we'll take that as unanimous consent.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Pike Place Market, authorizing a renewal of the agreement with the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority commonly known as the “Hildt-Licata Agreement,” for a term of ten years.

SeattleCityCouncil_03182019_CB 119476

Three part of the Finance and Neighborhoods Committee Agenda Item eight Council Bill 119 476 relating to the Pike Place Market, authorizing renewal of the agreement with the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority, commonly known as the HILT Lakota Agreement for a term of ten years, committee recommends the bill passed. Councilmember Beck. Thank you very much. And after all of what we've been going through over the last couple of hours, I've got four items. We'll try to get through them quickly. The first is the Hilt Lakota agreement that it comes up every ten years. It lays out the rules and regulations and stipulations regarding use and priority of the Pike Place Market space. And at our committee last Wednesday, I was very impressed. And Mary Beth Corella was there. She's the executive director of the market, as well as her staff, as well as a couple of vendors who talked about just how well the process went. They spent a good portion of the last year discussing the process, the new agreement, and it was very clear that the groups had worked together and there was much more positivity than there was ten years ago. So I want to say thanks to all. And finally, thanks to Kenny Pittman of our Office of Inter-Government Relations and linguists in our central staff who helped shepherd this ordinance through. So we recommend adoption of this renewal. Very good. Any other questions or comments? Here. Okay. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. John Gonzalez. Purple Johnson whereas. Let's get to I. O'BRIEN So what? Gordon Harrow. I ain't in favor. And unopposed the bill passed and chair of the Senate. Please read the next agenda and you can read the short title. Agenda item nine Cancel 119478. Amending Ordinance 125 724, which adopted the 2018 budget, including the 2018 three 2024 Capital Improvement Program. The committee recommends the bill pass.

Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Accounts Via Property Tax Bills. (Public Works 02741)

AlamedaCC_06162020_2020-8010

That evening, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council and with Accord Public Works Coordinator, I will keep this brief this item for you asked council to move forward with the collection of delinquent integrated waste account your property tax bill. This is the last step in the process conducted annually to resolve the delinquent accounts that began the process in January, following at least two years worth of collection attempts made by the city franchise hauler Alameda County Industries. The city sends a series of letters to property owners who then have until June 30th to resolve the delinquency with our city finance department. Otherwise, the outstanding amount is collected. The Property Tax Bill. Staff is recommending moving forward with this process and that report. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Court. Any questions for staff? To the motion. So move. Was that councilmember data? Yes. Okay. It's a move by a councilmember. I'm sorry. If we could quickly just make sure nobody on the zoom call is make you. Thank you. Do we have any public comment on this item? Thank you. Just making sure. All right. Yeah. Thanks. I'll get this by the end of the day. By the end of the agenda. Um, so we've had a motion. Do we have a second? Ten. Councilmember available second. So it's been moved by Councilmember Desai, seconded by Councilmember Vela. Any discussion? Councilor Brody. Just real quick, I mean, I was a little leery about doing this given all of the financial pressures facing our residents under COVID. But I asked staff and was informed that if we don't do this by June 30th and we're not allowed to do it for another year, so I will reluctantly support. But I'm sympathetic to those that are impacted. Right. Any further comments? Okay. Hearing then maybe have a roll call vote, please. Councilmember Jason. Hi. I. Hi. Yes. Hi. Mayor, as the. Hi. That carries by five eyes. Thank you. Thank you, Staff. Nice to see you. And then we will move on to item six. Be Madam Quick.

A proclamation welcoming the 2014 Denver County Fair, a big batch of tradition with a side of NOW!

DenverCityCouncil_07282014_14-0605

Mr. President. Communications. Madam Secretary, do we have any communications? None, Mr. President. Proclamations. We have two proclamations this evening, and we're going to start with Proclamation 605. Councilwoman Montero, will you please read Proclamation 605? I will. Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 605 is welcoming the 2014 Denver County Fair. A big batch of tradition with the side of now, it reads. Whereas the first Denver County Fair in over a century was held in 2011 and was such a huge success. It has become an annual event and the Fourth County Fair will be held at the Denver National Western Stock Show complex August 1st through third 2014. And. WHEREAS, The Denver County Fair is a true reflection of all that makes Denver a special and unique place. The Fair promotes the vibrant diversity in our city and is a place where citizens can celebrate all things Denver. And. WHEREAS, The Denver County Fair honors the fine traditions and values of America's county fairs, providing the time honored, friendly competition for that blue ribbon for the best garden produce, preserves, pies, handmade crafts, home brew, chickens, goats and more. And. Whereas, Denver's four H Club youth will be exhibiting their award winning creations and animals competing for a chance to win ribbons and awards, encouraging their successes. And. WHEREAS, The Denver County Fair also brings the traditional county fair into the 21st century, there's a blue ribbon competition for composting vegan and gluten free creations, speed texting, poetry , new cannabis and hemp categories. Robots and homeopathic remedies. And. WHEREAS, activities this year include food trucks, daily live demonstrations, competitive eating contests, live local music and entertainment, local shopping in the heart of Denver at the pavilions. And. Whereas, Sunday is Viva Denver Day, it will celebrate our city's vibrant Latino community with themed events that celebrate this amazing cultural group. And. WHEREAS, The Denver County Fair is a venue where people share history and traditions but also exchange new ideas and innovations in the heart of Denver, which is forging a reputation as a bustling creative capital for the 21st century, but which is also rediscovering the benefits of locally based, produced food, backyard farming and urban homesteading . And. Whereas, with Colorado's pioneering spirit for innovation, the Denver County Fair is quickly becoming a model for other fairs throughout the country. This year, the Fair launches its new state of art competition software, a new technology that would be licensed to eager county fairs nationwide after its inaugural in Denver. And. WHEREAS, the 2014 Denver County Fair generated approximately $1.5 million for the local economy, and it's estimated that the 2014 County Fair could increase that by 20%. Now, therefore, he proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council hereby enthusiastically welcomes. The fourth annual Denver County Fair extends its best wishes for another spirited, successful year and encourage everyone to get out and enjoy the fair in section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest. And a fix the seal of the county, the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Tracy Will and Dana Kane, co-founders of the Denver, the County Fair. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Your motion to adopt. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation. 605 The adopted. Second. Has been moved, and secondly, comments from members of the council. Councilwoman Montero. Thank you, Mr. President. It's my honor to be able to present this proclamation tonight. The Denver County Fair actually has roots in Council District nine, and I'm so very, very proud of it. It's such a unique. And it's. Characteristic of the river north and all of the urban farming and the different culture that is coming together in the Denver community. I also am really excited about Viva Denver. That's this Sunday. It includes I really want to see this, a lucha libre Mexican wrestler. Is it a wrestling match? Or maybe they're just going to show up a match. Okay. And I saw papaya toss, bilayer, folklorico and a pinata bash. So that is a new addition to this year. This this particular county fair is also gaining more international attention. And I was telling my my colleague, Charlie Brown that The View and Jimmy Kimmel actually mentioned our our county fair on television. So we're getting more attention. I'm not really sure why they mentioned it, but maybe you'll share that with us. So anyway, I just want to encourage everyone to get over to the National Western Stock Show complex this Friday, Saturday and Sunday and come and enjoy the county fair with us. And I encourage all of my colleagues to please support this. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Monteiro. Do we have any other comments from members of council? Councilwoman Sharon. Thank you. Council President Herndon, I think Judy did a wonderful job on that. I just want to say quickly that the soap opera toss sounds like there might be a lot of sticky fingers. Hee hee. But I wanted to add my name to the list of co-sponsors for this wonderful proclamation. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilman Lopez. Mm hmm. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I am really excited about the Denver fair. I think it's it's cool where it's at. I went last time and it was it was pretty awesome because I think they had like a geek section for me. It was like a sci fi section, wasn't it? Their last time it was really, really cool. There's always something there for everybody in Denver. The fair is starting to become a big symbol of Denver, kind of a microcosm of Denver, everything in Denver and who we are. And I think the more we have this fair, the more we attract more people to celebrate who we are, whether it be in suburbia or something else. I never thought this would somebody on my life, but but it's pretty cool. I hope they have very good local grown honey for those up years. I got to say, though, speaking of honeys, this is probably the hottest Denver fair poster I've ever seen. Who made this? This is awesome. It's really cool. This is. This is who we are. I mean, this is somebody from could be from West Denver or the north side or it might even be from from your neck of the woods, councilman. So it's really cool. And this is exactly what Denver embodies. So I can't wait to to go over there. Mr. President, you're smiling at me way too much. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. We have any other comments by members of council seen on Madam Secretary. Roll call. Montero I. Nevitt I. Ortega, Rob Shepherd. Sussman Brown. Hi, Fats. I can eat lemon lime Lopez. Hi. Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary. Please for the vote. And now the result. 12 by. 12 is proclamation. 605 has been adopted. Councilman Monteiro, is there anyone you'd like to bring up to the podium to accept the proclamation? Yes, Mr. President, I would like to bring up Tracy Whale and Dana Cane. I'll see you. Okay. I just wanna say thank you so much for giving us a proclamation that really appreciated. We've worked so hard over the past four years to really make this thing a go. And we've had some bumps and but we've gotten through them and we've persevered. And we're just so excited to be able to, you know, put on the 2000 2014 County Fair. We've got 12 stages this year. We have 220 events throughout the whole weekend, jam packed with all kinds of music and dancing and all kinds of good stuff painting, speed, knitting, best cheerleading, all kinds of labor competitions that people can also get involved with on the spot. We have the new iHeart Denver Pavilion, which is going to celebrate all things Denver. And we also have unicorn rides, which I don't I know there's no county fair that has unicorn rides. We also have inflatable land, carnival and Midway Games. Scooby Doo is coming. Councilman Monteiro mentioned the food truck roundup, which we're extending the hours for that, too. So we're really looking forward to really having a great event. Councilman Lopez coming in on our poster and that's that's designed by Marc PENNER Howell. He's designed all of our posters up until now. He also designed our 2015 poster, which I brought with me to give you guys a sneak peek. And no one's seen this. This is the first time. So don't tell anybody. We're also going to unveil the fair to. Oh, I see. But they're pretty settled. They're and so yes, there's you know, so, you know, like I said, we really want to be a reflection of Denver and who we are. And we're really beautifully diverse, cultural, you know, destination and the world is watching us, which is really amazing. So thank you so much. I really appreciate. It. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for taking. Thank you for asking. Thank you, Councilwoman Ontario, for that proclamation. Our next proclamation is proclamation 624. Councilman Lopez, will you please read Proclamation 624?

Recommendation to receive and file a report on Park Equity in the City of Long Beach. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02202018_18-0127

Thank you. Thank you all for. Thank you all for coming out. Thank you. We we will go back to the item on on parks and so per the the other motion. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Dave. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Thank you, guys all. So we will go ahead and go back to, I believe it was item C 21. No, I'm sorry. Yes, that item. I just lost it. Madam Court, can you read the item? Item 37 Report from Parks and Recreation and Marine Recommendations to receive and five Report on Park Equity in the city of Long Beach Citywide. Okay. Thank you. I think we've we've had folks have discussed the item. So we are going to hear a staff report. Mr. West. Maybe that maybe not the 30 minute version one, but somewhere in between, I think. But we do want a staff report. I know you guys worked hard on this, so. Mr. West, merry night. So thank you, Mayor, and members of the council. We will try and get through this as fast as possible. And I apologize if some of the information is disjointed as we're going to skip around a little bit. Before I start, I do want to thank the members of the team that have stayed, the members of our commission that have stayed because they did put a lot of work into this item. And I really appreciate it, especially those who are woken up at the middle of the night to open a shelter for victims of a motel fire, a long term living motel fire in the middle of the night. So the staff is very tired and I appreciate them staying tonight. We're here to have the opportunity to present an overview of what we do. There was a report that was given on July 18th of last year that included a focus on one area of our programing tonight. As we began to gather the data needed to respond to the many questions and requests made that evening, it became very apparent that before a plan is to be proposed, it is critical that we first provide information that tells the entire story. Then you as a policy body can decide if change is needed. If so, what direction you would like to see that change take place and what kind of a plan you would like to be brought back based on the information provided tonight? There were a number of requests made on July 18th, and I recognize that our report that responded to each and every one of those requests also begs more questions before a final plan can take place. So our task was to respond to the requests that were posed, to look at the big picture research. Other agencies looking through an equity lens. Compare our current programing. And I believe the report that we submitted answered all those questions. That report also included input from four of our committees that from the Parks and Recreation Commission. We'll touch very briefly on Park Equity and what that actually means. And according to the National Recreation and Parks Association, it's ensuring all people have access to the benefits of local parks and recreation, no matter the color of their skin, age, income level or ability, and have access to programs, facilities, places and spaces that make their lives and communities great. Although equity is different from equality, both aim to promote fairness and justice. But equality only works when everyone is starting at the same point and needs the same things to succeed. And as we know, that's not the case in our very diverse community. So before we can establish where we are offering programs, it's important to look at a baseline of needs. So the map that you see is our 2017 Social Needs Socio Needs Index shown here as an aggregate of six indicators at the zip code level, which include poverty, income, unemployment, occupation, education and language. The darker the color, the greater the need for services. And it could also be said that those areas are also areas in our community where there's a lower ability potentially to pay for programs and services and where transportation and access may be a barrier. Throughout this presentation, then we will look at our programing and its distribution to those areas of highest need. The south, southwest, central and northern areas of Long Beach, as we've talked about, the majority of our programing falls into two categories free and fee based. The July 18th Report only addressed our fee based programs, which is largely our contract classes. It did not include any information on free programing, which is the vast majority of what we do and where the city's financial investment is placed. These contract classes are essentially individuals and small business operators utilizing our parks and facilities to offer programs and services to the community in lieu of operating a brick and mortar shop. So tonight, we're going to focus on those two programs. First, a little bit, though, about what we do. This last year, we served close to 1.4 million individuals in our programs and services. We offer a large variety of and a robust array of programs and services. From youth sports to afterschool, adult sports and enrichment for seniors. We take care of basic needs, such as our free summer lunch program, our year round meals for seniors, after school care during the most vulnerable time for children. Our enrichment activities and sports at home promote health excuse me, healthy lifestyles. So here are the free programs that we offer. Many of these are year round. A comment was made earlier that we only program three months of the year and that is actually incorrect. Our adaptive program is year round. We have afterschool programs, we have free aquatic programing that is running year round. We have our senior programs, year round. Teen programs are sites that are enrichment afterschool programs and our youth sports sets year round. These are not just drop in sites, but they are heavily programed activity sites. We have homework help, field trips, arts, music, dance enrichment and fitness programs for our youth. Our seniors have mobility and fitness programs, music, dance and arts, cultural arts, safety workshops, meals, financial assistance workshops, social clubs. Our teens get life skills, job readiness and mentorship programs just to name a few things. As we look at our free programs, part of the story that needs to be told is the locations where we have available for these programs. Our neighborhood, community and regional centers are the main fixed assets that we have at our disposal for programing. And as you'll see, there is not necessarily an even distribution of these assets. And as a city that is greatly developed without a funding stream for either construction or operation of new facilities, this is one factor that directs our program locations. One note that is important to make is that we have five regional centers that host a variety of activities. We also have one senior center which is focused solely on senior programing during the daytime hours. Some of these specialty facilities we also have in our community, in addition to the senior center, is our nature center, our homeland cultural center. And. And like without the specialty facilities, though, our distribution of fixed assets square footage is shown in the graph above. 64% of our facility space is in the southwest, west, central and northern areas of our city. Those same areas that have been identified by multiple studies and plans in our city as areas of need. For this report, there are four facilities located in Council District four. Two of those are included in what we call the central part of the city and the other two in the east part. In addition to our city owned and operated facilities, we also work very closely with the Long Beach School District and offer many programs in their facilities as well as local churches in the community. We've made a concerted effort to be creative, especially in areas where we are lacking our own facilities, to use other options and expand our abilities to serve the community. This is a breakdown of where we offer our free programing. Recall that we have about 64% of our facility space in the southwest, west, central and northern areas of the city. And we also have close to 65% of our free programing in those same areas. We also need to be sure to tell the whole story. We have many more recreational assets in our city besides community centers. And although these assets and amenities are often only located in one area of the city, they serve all of our residents. We have our beaches, bays, lagoons, marinas that offer unlimited hours of free recreational opportunities. And as mentioned earlier, our homeland cultural center that offers both free and fee based programs from cultural arts and performance activities to classes and events that celebrate our diverse community. Our nature center is also a beautiful oasis in a large urban setting that allows our residents to get away and unplug and connect with nature for free all together. In 2017, Primm offered over 111000 hours of free programing to our community. 65% of the hours of free programing were offered in the southwest, west, central and northern areas of the city, as those areas have the highest need for those services. In 2017, over $6 million of the general fund was invested in our preview, sorry, in our free programing. And that is the breakdown by Council District. So last year, 75% of our general fund resources on free program were spent in the southwest, west, central and northern areas of the city. So as you can see, the facility assets that we have directly correlate to our ability to offer programs and services and line up with our investments and hours of free programs. Skip a few slides. Here's a map of where our. Facilities. Our community centers and our regional sites are located. As we were asked on July 18th to overlay our programing with some of the current programs or plans we have the West, Liverpool, West, Long Beach plan, the downtown pedestrian masterplan and the six three plan. And again, if we overlay with the 2017 Social Needs Index, which again is income, population, health issues and other social indicators of need, you can see again that we're leveraging the city's resources greatly in the areas that are of need. So we're gonna look at our fee based programs, which is our contract classes, individuals and small business operators, and 51% of them are Long Beach residents. As with any business, they are driven by supply and demand. The operators want to operate where there's a demand and customers who will pay for their services, not unlike any brick and mortar business. A little bit of history and background during the 2007 and oh eight economic downturn, as well as the budget reductions of 2011 and 2012. A lot of our programing was discontinued and we regionalized some of our free programing so that we would have an economy of scale. Our regional centers have multiple rooms, and so it takes less staff to operate those facilities and we can get more activities in those facilities. As we looked to economize and move through a concerted effort, our programs and services to the areas of most need. We also looked at then how do we supply recreational opportunities throughout the city? A concerted effort at that time was made to offer additional contract classes in the east and southeast portion of the city so that there were recreational opportunities throughout the city. Oftentimes then we use the facilities for our contract classes where we do not have free programing because in the majority of our regional centers, the hours are taken up by free programing and we do not want to eliminate those programs. Here's just one comparison. During the July 18th Report, a comparison was made between fee based programing offered at the Small College Estates Park and Council District three and the large regional community center in Council District one. As was accurately pointed out, there were 50 hours of a week of fee based programs offered at colleges, states and none at Cesar Chavez. However, if we look at the free programing at those sites in 2017, there were only 810 hours of free programs at colleges, states and almost 4000 hours of free programing at Cesar Chavez. So when we look at the opportunities of the future to bring more fee based programs or contract classes to some of our regional sites, opportunities would generally be in the evenings or weekends as the weekday time periods are often filled with our free programing. The July 18th report asks that we and the Commission take a deeper look at leveraging our limited city resources and community assets so that we obtain a fair and equitable system that guarantees every resident the same opportunity to thrive regardless of zip code. As you'll see, our general fund investment for free programing, which is concentrated in our highest areas of needs, is almost 17 times what we devote to our fee based programs. The city's resources towards fee programs includes 65 full time and 661 part time staff supplies, marketing and program related costs . And this does not even include the substantial investment to clean and maintain these facilities. On the other hand, the investment towards fee based contract class programs covers the costs for one and a half dedicated staff and the printing and mailing of the Recreation Connection brochure and the $294,000 cost is completely offset by revenue. We were also asked to look at the capital investment by districts. So we looked at the last five years of major capital investment, and this includes facility upgrades, refurbishments, playgrounds, sports fields, enhancements and investments to the ranchos. And 70, 70% of that CHP investment has been in the southwest, west, central and northern areas of the city. This does not include Tidelands investments because Tidelands are restricted and can't be used throughout the city. However, most of the Tidelands funds go towards our specialty areas such as the beaches, Pier's Marinas, Lagoons, harbors and seawalls. And very little of tidelands goes towards park and park facilities. A lot of discussion centered around the way we activate our parks. So in addition to what PRM does, we have many community organizations and residents who pull permits on an annual basis each week to activate our parks. Last year, over 2200 permits were pulled for different types of activities. In addition, we continue to work with our community and our organic community based organizations, and we have over 100 current partnerships that also positively activate our parks. Last year alone, our youth sports organizations activated our parks over 142000 hours with positive play activities and opportunities from youth from all over the city. We do want to activate our parks. And as such, we work with our commission, and our commission has a fee waiver process that is an incentive for community based organizations to utilize our parks. The City Council has given the authority to review, set and waive park fees to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Last year, 70 requests for fee waivers were received and only 12 were denied. Those 12 were denied because they were unable to provide an access to the Long Beach community. There are several. Also, we were asked to look at the use of underutilized parks by waiving all or a significant portion of fees for community programing and events . The Commission felt very strongly that there really isn't a definition for underutilized parks that they could apply to the fee waiver process. There are several categories of parks within our system, some sort of large bordered geographic, broader geographic areas by design. Others are active with sports fields and facilities and restrooms and have parking, while some parks are meant to be passive and serve just the immediate neighborhood needs. So accordingly, our parks are utilized and activated in different ways. And as such, the Commission did not feel that there would be a logical way to make the determination of what would constitute an underutilized or low programed park. Taking a deeper dove. Deeper dove, though, into the question of fee based programing, which is one component of what we do. And again, these are generally small businesses, and the instructors often desire locations where there is an ability to pay PR and does recognize that there's a desire to move more of these programs into areas of the city that have not traditionally been successful in the past. And we have continued to look at ways to do that. Although the majority of the contract classes are offered in the east and southeast area, that does not mean we have not tried to offer them in other areas. Over the years, multiple classes have been offered, particularly in the Southwest and western areas, and have been canceled due to lack of registration, participation and interest. However, we continue to look for ways to focus offerings in these areas. First, we will continue our longtime practice of incentivizing instructors who provide activities in these parks by waiving the six or $8 administration fee per participant. This incentive means greater revenue directly to the instructor, and the instructor can use to directly benefit from that or potentially lower their participation fee, which is often the barrier for some residents in these areas. Also, all new contract class instructors are asked to start their relationship with the city by offering their classes in these areas. Some have been successful, successful doing this and some have not. As we keep exploring options, we have also conducted targeted outreach to our current instructors who live in some of the areas that have less offerings, hoping that they would be enticed by the convenience of offering their business activities closer to home. Another option to consider if the Council would like is to lower the city versus the business partner. Split of revenue. Currently, the city retains 35% of the participant fee to cover the cost of advertisement registration insurance. We could lower that to 30%. Understanding this would decrease the city's overall revenue by approximately $46,000. And ask the instructor then to lower their fees by 5%. Funding could also be added if the Council would like during the upcoming budget season to transition some of these fee based programs to free programing in lower income areas where the fee might be the barrier to participation. If this is the direction the Council wants to go in, additional staff would be needed to coordinate this new form of programing, including targeted marketing and outreach that is needed for the success of this type of programing. Finally, as was mentioned earlier, we have created in our testing an online survey that is going to provide greater data to us from our constituents as to the types of programs desired, as well as the willingness to pay, how far folks are willing to travel, and the threshold for cost of fee based programing. How we are testing this survey to make sure that the responses that we are getting give us good data and then we are going to be rolling that out citywide very shortly. Prem does have a very robust marketing program that includes all facets of social media, as well as the publications that you see here. And last year, over 700,000 pieces of marketing materials were distributed to the community marketing our programs. If more targeted marketing is desired, additionally, funding and resources would most likely be necessary to accomplish that goal. Finally, we were asked to look at program through an equity lens, and so we have done extensive research in this area. As you may know, the city is in the process of creating community wellness equity indicators through the Office of Equity and Evaluation of Programs and Services Citywide. This work will be finalized this spring through the city's newly trained 40 member community facility cohort, several of whom are from PRM and will engage the community in the development of policies and programs. Once completed, the Office of Equity and would look at the areas where disparities exist and work with city leadership departments and the community to design policies, practices and programs to address these disparities. Staff has worked with the Office in Equity and also done additional research to find other models where an equity lens has been used for programing and CIP resource distribution. We have only uncovered a few cities who have been doing work in this area. Minnesota and Portland and Seattle are doing some of this early work. However, they have very little data so far on outcomes. But for example, here is a minnesota model that could be something we use here in Long Beach. As you can see, funding is distributed based on community indicators. So it is again best to wait until those are finalized here in Long Beach. Of note is that also funding is distributed based on facility space and amenity location. As you have seen in tonight's very quick presentation. There are definitely some inequities related to our distribution of programing facilities in the city. However, changing the location of our facility assets is certainly not a short term option, and that's why we have outreach to the school district and other facility sites. So in summary, I want to thank the Commission for their dedication to the department and for staying and for their time and input on this presentation. I also, since this is my last opportunity, I want to publicly thank the women and men of the PRM team for their many hours of work on this report, but more importantly, their dedication every day to the members of this community and for the service that they provide. I believed it was important that you were provided a solid foundation of information from which to build upon your future recommendations to the department. The data in many areas speaks for itself and demonstrates that we have been on a good path. Obviously there's room for improvement and with greater investment in some areas, more can be done and the conversation does need to continue from here. Pierre M will continue to be part of the great work being done through the Office of Equity, and we will bring forth recommendations that may be necessary as a result of those outcomes. I do believe that an investment of over $6 million and over 111 hours of free programing is much to be celebrated. This has been a great opportunity to show the true magnitude of what we are doing. And although I cannot take credit for this great path as these accomplishments and these decisions were made before I joined the team, I have been proud to serve with the men and women who are making this happen every day in this community . That concludes my report. Where and I know that the the the the makes the motion of absolutely go to the public purse which will do but I just wanted to just you know to Marie, I know I've already told you separately, but I just want to again wish you the very, very best. And we're very fortunate to have had you. And you're just a fantastic addition and a great leader for the team. And just thank you. And we will we know you're not gonna go too far, but just appreciate the service that you did to the city. So thank you. So, please, if we can have the the public, please come forward and then we'll go back to the motion. Mayor Garcia and city council members. My name is Randy Zorn and I am the executive director of Partners of Parks. Partners and Parks is the 33 year old nonprofit that supports the Parks Recreation Marine by raising money for programs and facilities in the parks. Recently, the Park Partners of Parks Board approved a new strategic plan that has a heavy emphasis on supporting equity in the parks, including emphasizing programs for youth, teens and seniors. One of those programs that supports our mission is through the Youth Scholarship Program. Over the past several years, Poppe or Partners of Parks has helped low income families with registration fees for classes in summer and summer camps that are offered in the Recreation Connection catalog in order to be eligible. Families need to meet specific annual income guidelines of 125% of the federal poverty level. One year ago, we received a donation of $3,200 from the Long Beach Judicial Partners, and they are the management group that operates the Superior Court building. In addition, we received a grant from the Rudy and Daphne Monsour Foundation for $10,000. With these funds, we are able to provide scholarships to 52 low income children, with 13 of them taking multiple classes and or camps for summer 2018. We will be working with the ramp program in the parks to identify families in need and will support and fund nearly 100 children, doubling the number served from the previous year. Partners in Parks is working closely with Parks Recreation Marine on securing additional grants for teens and senior programs. The grants will target those community members with the greatest need by working closely with Parks, Recreation, Marine staff to meet the need for the safe after school activities and reduce social, social isolation of seniors. In addition to our focus on youth and seniors, Partners of Parks receives annually financial support of $38,000 from Signal Hill Petroleum for movies in the parks. The movies are held in every council district's parks, and there were 27 parks where the movies were shown last summer. Pop strength comes from the long lasting partnership we have established with Parks, Recreation and Marine. We will strive to augment city resources to serve all communities using the parks, but will continue to focus on those who clearly have a higher need. We believe that our efforts will continue to increase equity and access to all long beach parks. Thank you very much. Thank you, Randi and Randi, thank you, of course, for everything that you guys do. I remember when I met you when I was 17 years old, coming into Cal State, Long Beach, and you were in charge of my orientation. So I thank you for that and for everything you do now. Yes. Next speaker. Yes, thank you. My name is Kathleen Irvine, 539 Daisy First District. Thank you, council members and mayor. I do want to say that I recognize that there have been a great improvements in the park since we first moved to the first District. When I first went to Cesar Chavez, it was basically a lot of kids rolling around on skateboards inside and scratching graffiti on the windows. And there has certainly been an effort by parks. I appreciate the data that has been submitted. But I think that as Councilmember Lina said, that we need a little bit more definition because programing is one thing. But if you are in the parks and see what's going on, it's really not enough to say there are free hours because what the children are doing or what the seniors are doing is not necessarily what I personally would call programing. One of the issues I had was a yoga class that was supposed to be for seniors this summer at Cesar Chavez. So a number of our seniors were very excited about the yoga program, and we went only to find that it was actually had been turned into a small children's yoga program. And the yoga instructor. Herself on her first day was told that this was what it was going to be, even though she'd been hired as a senior. So there's a big difference. And because of that, she wasn't happy and then the seniors weren't happy, and we had to walk across the lawn and do it over by the freeway instead of inside where the seniors were. So it was really a very bad experience, and she did not want to work anymore, even though she was getting paid. So that kind of thing, maybe it's going to take like more time or more programing or something. But that kind of thing is very discouraging to people who want to contribute, who want to teach. So I think that I would like to see a lot more definition about what exactly those many thousands of hours of programing entail. I appreciate the hard work that went into just gathering the data, and I appreciate all that the Commission has done for us in the past. They certainly supported many of our programs and we do appreciate what they've done so far. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Jim Dan. I live in the first district also. A couple of issues I'd like to address is one, again, going with the hours that are actually in the park and how you're counting those hours. Let's just take Cesar Chavez, for instance. There is any number of day. There's probably 15, 20 big guys working out maybe six, 7 hours a day. Are you counting each of those guys for every hour that they're pumping iron? That tends to be a little intimidating for the senior program when they try to go into the facility and then they're not really accosted. But there's definitely some intimidation factor there. A couple of issues with it would be is that that park, for instance, should be opened on weekends. Families in that area are working hard, certainly five days a week, six, sometimes seven days a week. If the park were open on the weekends when the family needs it the most, it'll eliminate a lot of the homeless situation. There's camped out on the back side. That might be something that could also be addressed. Mayor, you started the idea of a gateway garden. That was a fantastic garden. It still is to this day. It's the first complete ADA garden. Yet the park system has not addressed that and has not encouraged the use or programing with that facility at that park. And I don't want to keep bagging on, you know, that park. I think that the staff there does a good job with what they're told to do and the limitations of that. Case in point, there's been the cell shed improvements. The enlargement of the AMPITHEATER. We're trying to activate that through Shakespeare in the park. The symphony has partners with us, but yet a year later, we're still waiting for six sprinkler heads to be placed so that the grass that was provided by grants, not by parks from the district , can flourish. It's struggling. It's a year later. And, you know, we're not you know, we're drought still. So that would be something my note that should have been addressed a long time ago. Going to Drake Park. Drake Park can be so much better than it is. I think that the staff that's there does a great job. It's what it is. Again, I don't see how the numbers from the money applied to that facility. Councilmember Price, I know is surrounded by wetlands. Beautiful part. I work for the city. I'm in your area all the time. Not as much as Mr. Super Nice, but your area quite a bit. I'd like to see that if the money from the city is also going for that district park and tidelands money because it's surrounded by Tidelands also is it's kind of double dipping. Maybe some of that money can be pulled away from there. Since time the moneys would be applied only to Tidelands, which basically we're talking new restrooms and everything else as he built over there and could be diverted over to less fortunate. PARKS Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. D.A.. Next speaker, please. Hi. My name's Mariella and I live in District one. I originally actually this topic came to mind from Kathleen about last summer. It had to do with the municipal band, and I remember looking at why we didn't have the municipal band play in our district, and that's how it all started for me at least. And what I ended up finding out was even though I. Just learned that there's. Programing year round, I was more of a participant during the summer. And from my experience, we as a mother of two toddlers, I was constantly driving to the east side for programing, for movies, at the park, for concerts and so on, so forth. And what I ended up doing was tallying up all the the calendar by district and so on, and found that three of the districts had 52% of all of those events on the 100 days of summer calendar. And so for me, I look at that data and it's really difficult to sort of reconcile how that data really shows what the experience is from this perspective of a district one mother or child or District nine or or any of the other districts that maybe don't see that the kind of programing that might be at Eldorado Park, Ride, Whaley Park, or that the concerts that you see in other parks, because from my perspective, I see that the numbers that map may have shown more like I think I saw in the youth programing district one had 4000 hours and then District five had or district I think. It was five had 10000 hours of youth youth park. Hour. So for me it's like those are the kinds of numbers that matter because it's impacting our children, it's impacting how whether a kids are playing. So, yes, we might have access at Travis Park. Was it 3000 or 3000 free hours? I can assure you that if from a experiential point of view that those kids are not get they're more like babysitting than they're actually taking a class that I would take my child to and learn and have a regular recreational activity that's of use and of purpose. So when we talk about equity, it's not just in the numbers, but it's also on the experience that you're providing this children's. From my experience, I take my children all the time, my two daughters all the time to the parks, museums and so on. And I can assure you that in my district, District one, those 3000 hours or whatever was a child says Cesar Chavez, aren't actual. Program hours. Of that provide the same equal type or I don't even know the words at this point but the same recreational and educational opportunities that I would see at a park on the east side. So I would challenge the the Council and Parks and Rec and I really appreciate all the work that's been put into that report, but I would challenge them to find creative ways to make it more equitable for children across all of Long Beach as opposed to just a handful that it feels like it is. Thank you. Thank you. And we have three speakers left and then we'll close the speakers list. Yes. I just want to share a few things that I had seen from. First of all, the park system is one of my favorite things about this area. I love it. I've rehabbed my shoulder on some of the outdoor exercise equipment that's there and everything, but something I wanted to just share is that something that I'd notice was really good for community engagement with Park Systems and in other places that I've lived had to do with like a chili cook off or a or a barbecue type thing, obviously coming from Texas to kind of lean that way. But one of the things I would do is like have a have the police department have one, and they would kind of judge between the fire department, the police department's barbecue or chili cook off where that kind of a fun competition kind of thing. And then another thing that I had was in Austin was something called ERs birthday party and it was, you know, you were from the from Winnie the Pooh. It was like depressed and all that kind of stuff. Like another way for community engagement. I know if this is feasible economically, but maybe they have something toward the end of the month, a birthday party for everybody that maybe didn't get a chance to have their birthday celebrated and that kind of thing. You can engage with people, make sure everybody's connected and all that kind of stuff. Just some thoughts. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Honorable Mayor and city council members. My name's Kirk Davis. I'm a ninth District Council resident. I'm also finished serving a two year term as the co-chair of the Coalition for Healthy North One Beach. Working together with the Health Department in the Heal Zone and the Kaiser Foundation, we were able to put exercise equipment in and out and park. We also give free classes and yoga Zumba and we totally support the park program. When I first saw the report on Park Equity and I noticed you talked more about classes and programing, I live in an area of the city, a Hamilton neighborhood that has no greenspace. That is the area between Atlantic Cherry, Artesia and 72nd Street. There's no open space. There's no green space in that area. I've worked with Steve Neal and we've been working with residents in. And identifying areas that can be used for green space in our area, even just for our little for walking places, places where we can go out and walk your dog feel safe. We've also been looking at options and I hope the City Council can also consider it as joint use parks in with the school district in the schools for after school is out of session and on the weekends people will use some of the green space on the schools and it just shows that being able to sit in a green space, an open space that's not your house is healthy for you and have the fresh air, have the ability to exercise close to your house and really enjoy those kind of things are things that can really help us to be happy and to live longer. And thank you. Thank you so much. And our last speaker. Hello. My name is Angela on the piano. I was in the office working on this item with the wonderful staff of Councilwoman Gonzalez. And the reason I. Enjoyed it so much. Wasn't just because all of us. Were together working hours on this this item. But because it hits home for me. My six nieces and nephews have lived in central Long Beach. They've lived in North Long Beach. And they currently live in West Long Beach and they have never received any information regarding whether there were programs that were free at the parks or if there was any fee based programing at those parks. And it wasn't until I started working here where I actually connected them to these things. And the fact of the matter is the free programing that is offered, it is not really adding value to their lives. It's free movies, it's it's coloring, it's it's these things. It's not it's not. In. The east side of Long Beach, I saw I saw resume development. I saw a math development. I saw I saw reading like. Root. Things that would actually add value to their lives. And if it's if it's the fact that it's limited resources that's affecting that, then this city council needs to finally switch funding over to library services and parks. The time is over. You know, the police department receives 48% of the city's budget in I think it is 4.2% for library services and parks. That is unacceptable. Um, I wish and I hope for my nieces and nephews to one day live in a city where they can go to Admiral Kidd Park and receive help with their resume, receive help with math because I know they truly need it and but think thank you for all the work that you have done. Honestly, you are an amazing individual and I want to thank you for that. But there is disproportionally disproportionate. Funding. In this city, and we really do need to look at the way that we fund the parks and libraries. So thank you. Thank you very much. That concludes the public comment. Thank you, everyone that spoke and returned back to Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. So I'm going to hit the refresh button here and I want to say thank you as well to Marie. And I know it doesn't seem like I'm grateful, but I am absolutely grateful to Marie and her staff. I worked alongside them even before being elected. And I know what a hard working group and team that you have on so many different levels, management all the way down to our park staff, whether part time or full time. I know that the work that they do, they love it and we are going to continue to support them. But what I'm asking here is just for support and I'm asking us to challenge ourselves because I don't want to put this out and everyone sort of roll their eyes and laugh and think, it's just us complaining because it's not complaining. It really is something that many of us are passionate about. You know, we have I've talked to you know, I see David here from the Park Commission. I appreciate it. And Randy and Karen and our residents from, you know, various areas. And what resonated with me in talking about, you know, the need for more park programing was that they said, you know, that's what we need. We need more programing. We need more opportunities for our kids to engage. You know, these are neighborhoods that many of you know, some of the students are eligible for, for gang activity. They're going to be either in a gang or they need some somewhere to go after school to support them. And this is what it does. But I think it can go a bit further. So I think what we need to do first, before talking about a plan to come back, I would like something to come back in about, you know, that six month time frame regardless. But I think first and foremost is we need to provide we need more data even more than we currently have, because what we have is just a current flat data of what we're existing, what is existing in what we're currently doing. But I would like data on that survey that we're that is online right now. It's a survey that basically asked questions to residents on what they want to see in their neighborhood. I know oftentimes, you know, we say, well, there's high unemployment in this area. We need resume workshops. Well, I don't know if our residents actually want that. They might need it, but I don't know what they actually want. So I think our, the, the data on the survey that we have would be good. I also think just some other touch points I talked about maybe a roundtable that we can sit and discuss, maybe a part commission meeting that we can take outside of a normal part commission location and take it to the communities that really want to see these programs and talk about, you know, what we can do to formulate a better plan for park program and activities. But, you know, many of our residents as well, you know, the ones that are actually activating the parks like Willmore and building healthy communities, they've been denied permits, they've been denied waivers for their permit fees. And I think that that's not a really good and inclusive and welcoming environment when they have to go to the Park Commission multiple times throughout the year for many of their events that they do on an annual basis. And I know the Parks Commission is just doing their job, but it's very cumbersome. These individuals are not just volunteers. They're working 8 hours a day like we are, and then they're activating our parks on top of that. So they're really the ones I can speak to my neighborhood. They're really the ones that are doing the work and activating our parks the way we really want to see them, you know, putting in summer concerts. Winton Willmore I saw the Willmore Group this past year. Welcome over. I want to say we had thousands of kids at Drake Park, thousands, not only the lighting was put up, you know, but the programed area was, you know, had snow. There were music elements for the kids. My kids went out and enjoyed. You don't get that. Otherwise, if we didn't if Willmore didn't do that, we wouldn't have had anything during the holiday season for these kids to go and just have a good time and enjoy their neighbors. So I give a lot of my gratitude to these community members. And if we can ease it a little bit better and make it a little more streamlined on the Park Commission side, if there's some barriers that we can, you know, lessen to be able to create a better environment, that would be great. One of them, I think, was included in here, and I really like to see that I had suggested originally a multiyear contract, you know, but I know that that might be a little difficult because there's so many different nuances that might take place. But we have community groups that I feel that have been vetted, that we know they've been in place for 20, 30 years. I think maybe we can give them a break in that sense in creating a multi-year contract and then also providing waivers to these individuals. You know, as much as we can, I don't know how that will affect our bottom line, but I think that there's room there to to explore what we can do with these specific groups. We also talked about promoting existing programing, and we need to push even more so in this in this equity lens, because right now we're printing and we're mailing out an awesome booklet. And when you look through this booklet, it's all Eastside activities, you know, and I have a child too, and I have to go to, you know, storytime or wherever. I have to go all the way to the Eastside, which I have a car. I can do that. That's no problem. But it makes it very cumbersome for for many of our residents to do that as well. And I think just being able to have other mediums in different languages, you know, of course we talked about that. But social media, there's awesome things you can do on Facebook to target certain zip codes so they receive information. And I think we can just do better on that side. And then I talked about the survey results. But if there's any other way to obtain information, as I mentioned before, I think, Maria, you mentioned or you gave us a report about a year and a half ago. It's in 2016, and it basically showcased all of the residents in our zip codes 90802 and 90813 that were attending some of these classes. And when you when we say that there's low interest in areas in some of these programs, I would have to disagree because a lot of these, if I'm looking at it over 63,000 90813 years and 9080 tours will say we're attending classes in 2016, which is great. That means that there is interest. We just have to sort of reassess to see where we can bring the classes and programs in our neighborhoods. And as we mentioned to just a close up, you know, the contract classes are just pulling the numbers. You know, we have in the Southwest and in uptown, we have the most facilities. We've said that in this in this in this report, we have the most facilities because the open space plan dictate dictates that our areas of need should have more facilities. And we do. But even with more facilities, we don't have park programing. And that's that's the issue here. Out of the contract classes, there are 41.7 districts. 41.3% versus 58.6% for two districts. I just think that there's, you know, something wrong there, considering we have the most facilities and our summer programing, our free programs, a lot of them are are a lot of them are in the summer. So that's three months. And so, again, I know that's I'm dumping a lot. I'm sort of saying everything, but I think I know where we need to reassess. I'm going to ask that in that six months, we obtain as much data as possible, survey results going out to the community. I'll I'll engage. Absolutely. Our partner of parks. I'll engage our community groups. I'll engage, you know, the Park Commission to sort of look outside the box, go to other areas, obtain that data, and then come back in six months and come back with a really good policy and plan where we can sort of reassess and shift. That is it. And I thank you very much again for all of your work. Murray, we do certainly appreciate you. And I know it's probably been my office that's given you the hardest time. But again, I just I really appreciate you engaging us and having the chance to sit down with you personally. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilmember Pierce. I yes, I want to thank everybody that's stayed tonight and those that have stayed for other items. I really appreciate your efforts. And again, Maria said it earlier, but I know that you have put a lot of time and energy into this and just short term and Long Beach. And so I appreciate that and all the staff that are here that make our park so great. Thank you. You know, I I want to say I appreciate the data. I think that one of the challenges that's here is that, yes, it's not a one size fits all. And, you know, I want to take the responsibility and I'll ask, you know, my colleagues to do the same in meeting with my neighborhood associations. I you know, I've knocked on almost all the doors in my district probably four times now. Just as we do turn out for our budget meetings, we always make sure that we're going door to door, making sure that we're doing the survey with all of those constituents that might not know that it's out there. And so I you know, I have to say, I just had my briefing this week and the survey wasn't brought up. And so it's not a tool that we're using to push out. And I think it would be helpful to have that as a tool for the office outside of just city staff. I do want to ask, how are we working with the schools and getting that survey out as well? So as I said, right now we're testing the survey. It's out limited because we want to see what comes back and to make sure that we are asking the right questions. And so once we have that data back, that's when we will push that out. We will be asking all the council offices to distribute the survey via your emails, your listserv, your websites through the schools. So we'll be using all of our marketing avenues once the surveys are ready. Okay. I just thank you for that. It's helpful to to know that it is just a pilot survey. I also want to make sure that we're you know, at my next community meeting, when we have a roundtable of folks that we're identifying, this is a topic that we're talking about. I know that when you look at the resources in my district, we have underutilized parks, which I'm assuming in my district would be the arts park that's consistently locked Miracle on Fourth Street, which we took away programs. And so it has it listed as a community, not a community center, but something similar is also listed as a site because we do still do youth sports programs at Miracle. And Fourth, we do. Okay, so we've got Miracle on fourth and then it's not in my district, but it's next to my district, Crossman village. And so looking at those places, I know that I, Bixby sometimes were booked to the to the max and it's hard to get other classes in there. And we have high participation. And I know that we've had a challenge with getting programing in our passive parks or underutilized parks. I hope that out of this process, through the survey and through community building, that we can identify what programs that neighborhood needs because a kid can't walk from Fourth Street, where a miracle on Fourth Street is over to Bixby Park. And I think that's a challenge. And some of the equity piece is that you have families in these higher poverty areas that are working two and three jobs and don't have the luxury of driving their kids to the park for the day or don't have the luxury of paying somebody to drive their kids to the park for the day. And so it it does mean that kids might not go to the park if it's not something that's right next door. And so these neighborhoods serving parks, while it looks like there's no programing and that's fine from the outside, it's not okay for having our youth get the skills and the tools that they need. And so I'll take on the challenge on myself as well as on staff on how are we really engaging with residents and getting them meaningfully engaged so that it's not just about spending money on the West Side or central Long Beach, but it's identifying the right programs for that community in particular. And so I look forward to seeing this come back. I think that looking the studies that you guys are the cities, Minnesota, Seattle, I think it's a good place to start, which is what I was referencing earlier. And so I do appreciate that. I do want to echo the comments around. The fee waiver denials. I know I've had a couple folks come to us. And so having a real clear understanding, the statement that you made that they don't have a nexus to the Long Beach community was not true for those that came forward. Maybe it's because we thought they had enough money and they could pay for it. But these are a lot of groups that invest in our communities, that invest in our youth, and they're trying to do a service for us. And so I know that there's a balance in between covering the costs and making sure that services are available. And so any new opportunities that we can identify to make that more accessible for folks is really important. Again, I really, really appreciate you and all the team. I think that your programs are so wonderful in Bixby Park and I want to make sure that we have that same quality at the other parks in my district as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you. Thank you to the staff. I really appreciate you. To get to the meat of it. Some of the things that I think would be valuable in the next version would be a separation between adult and youth programs, and then also a comparison to where the youth in the city live. In the nineties, when I was in Long Beach Unified School District, there were over 90,000. Participants and students in. Our schools. Today it's somewhere under 70,000. And so when you have a 20% drop in students, you also probably have a migration of where those students are. And I would also be surprised if we had any less programing considering the volume we have today. So I'd be interested in seeing that. I'm really proud that 65% of our free hours are offered at non specialty facilities. I think that's remarkable. And if the communities that have the programing want to provide input on the types of programing, I think that that's really valuable because when free programing is offered and not utilized and I'm not just saying on one part of town, but on my side of town as well, it could be better programs for the things that are important to the students. And so we definitely need that feedback. With 100 Days of Summer, I think it shows a skewed outcome because a lot of our council offices use one time funds to supplement that. And so I think it's important. Well, I can understand the perception that some areas have significantly more programing than others. Part of it is because our council offices have put up that money, whether it's for a snow day, whether it's for an additional concert in the park. So keeping that in mind, I think it's important that on Slide seven, it's a lot about being served. But I don't know that this could represent duplicated numbers. I'd be really interested to. Know our high utilization, and I've said this a lot about Eldorado Park. It's one thing to say we have 400,000 visits to Eldorado Park a year. It's completely different to say we. Have. 300,000 visits of people who come for one day and 100,000 visits that are broken out by monthly visitors, weekly visitors. And now with the dog park. We have some people that are there every single day. And so we need to know and understand our high. Utilizers of the system. And then better adjust for that. And then also what percentage of our utilization of the system is non Long Beach residents? Our sales tax and property tax dollars supplement these programs. And so I appreciate that some of our contract programs have a different price for a resident and a nonresident. But as we look at fee changes for the fall that come into this next budget cycle, maybe the same should be said of our entrance fees to. Eldorado Park and the Nature Center that those that are Long Beach residents should not be experiencing a fee increase. Where those that are coming to our park for a single day are feeling that. More. On Slide eight. I noticed that you addressed. The wrap. Program. Is that in. Partnership with the schools or do we apply as our own grants section? So that is in partnership. We utilize school district facilities and we put some general fund money into that, but it is largely grant funded. Thank you. I knew that it was a grant funded program for the school district, but I wasn't sure if we applied separately and were competing with the school district or not. On Slide. Nine, I think that it would be very valuable to see the number of participants by these areas. And I think it's great that you talked about facilities where free programs are offered, but a lot of programing is also offered in open space. And one of the things that I think that this definitely under under represents is. The amount. Of open space available for free programing and program programing as. Well. I see that. My district doesn't have the most space. I think that it's very telling to see that District six actually has the most square footage of available space. I think that that is a testament to the work that Mr. Andrews has done over the last 10 to 12 years to add additional space. But I think that. When you see this. And add on another set of sections for acreage or square footage of. Open grassed space or fields. Then you'll really see how underfunded the infrastructure of the fifth District is. Why a third of our trees in our parks are dead. Why all of the roads in Eldorado Park. Are in ill repair, while the facilities in our park system in the fifth. District are at an all time low. Because as infrastructure money was separated across nine districts, we were each getting approximately 12%. But that's not really fair. When 35 to 40%. Of the streets in the city and the trees in the. City and a lot of the parkland in the city is in one district. So then you wonder why in that district. When I was elected, it was so far behind in infrastructure repairs. And when you look at the $200 million infrastructure need plan that was presented in all of our first year of of of election in 2014. You'll see that because of the expanse of space, it costs more to repair. And it has. Been longer since it was repaired. So I think that it's important to also add that in because. Our side of town doesn't only serve. The east side. The east side goes all. The way up to the center. And when you look at the city, really, that the airport kind of. Serves as the hub of the wheel. And there services over at Wardlow Park and Pan-Am Park and. Others that are easily accessible from North or central Long Beach. And I think that goes to be said. And then I think that for the last component of my last question, it would be what free programs are currently being offered at the schools. I think that it's time we do an evaluation of the amount of programing. The Parks and Rec program and the tax dollars of the City of Long Beach provide on the school campuses versus the amount of programing that the schools provide in partnership to us. And I say that because we have done. When I say we, I mean you really it's all of you and the staff that have taken the brunt of. Of the reprograming of our park space for our sports leagues. And since we don't have the same types of reservation systems available, what you have is an equity not based on what the city is doing. We're equity. We're applying park rental availability equitably. However, when I read the reports on how many fields some of these leagues have, they are in a reservation system that is not fair and equitable. It's an online system through Long Beach Unified that's really based on your availability to be at a computer at the moment that the field's become available. Which then puts some of our our schools and our teams and a lot of our parents that are working parents at a disadvantage when they're also the coaches of these teams. So we need a better system. I'd love to see. A. An opportunity for us to put together a public private partnership or maybe it's just a public public private partnership where we would be able to manage. Those facilities and or throw them into the same system. That we're using to distribute parks, but ensure that they're. Maintained appropriately because they've made some investments. And finally, I think that. It wasn't mentioned here, but when I look at the infrastructure opportunities. I think that it's often important to know that when we talk about the capital improvement budget and you see where the money has gone and come from, and when you compare this project list to where a majority of the land is , I think that it just. Shows how underfunded the Fifth District has been. And I think that we need to have a plan to fix that immediately. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I'm glad we were able to continue this this conversation. I want to just say thank you to Parks and Recreation and Marie for for the great work. Marie Knight, you've been great to work with during your your tenure here. And has your department has been completely responsive to my office. And so I just want to thank you again publicly for for your work, but also for your amazing team. The numbers don't I mean, I think I think the data here is is very clear, at least from my perspective, and has given me an opportunity to assess what we need to do to improve programing through programing or for programing in in my district. I try to try to come to this this council dais week after week and for the last five and a half years or so with a citywide view, not just, you know, what's best for my district, but what's best for the entire city. And oftentimes that makes that means making sacrifices and concessions because, you know, it may not make sense. I can recall just a few weeks ago, Parks and Recreation Marine brought forth recommendations to even cut afterschool programs in my district. And I'm looking at the data here and the free programs here. You know, it's I have zero afterschool programs in a district now. Had I known that had this information a few weeks ago, I may not have been so readily and willingly. I may not have been willing to to to to concede at that point. But I understood I looked at the data and the usage and the utilization, and it wasn't there because we have other amenities. I think also this this this looking at this from an equity lens and made it very clear that that some areas of the city were woefully unrepresented under programed in and in some cases underdeveloped. Over the last several years. I know I have focused on developing green space in my district and that has been the focus. And because of that, you know, I think we're we're looking at at least almost eight acres of new recreational or active green space available at Davenport Park and then Molina Park. I think we're going to have to have a real hard conversation if we're looking at being equitable, at how we program those parks moving forward. Because the data here shows that, you know, the kids in eighth District are or are last in all in every category. And so I thank you all for for bringing this this this this report forward, because it's going to really, really reinvigorate me in terms of making sure that we have equity for my district, we programs. And I want to also mention that, you know, we have parks where, you know, my my predecessor once brought forth a an idea to put a skate park because it was more equitable to put a skate park in and in an area of the district and, you know, ran into a buzzsaw because the residents didn't want that type of programing in the district. And so I think it's also important to understand that, you know, we assess and understand and have a good understanding of where our residents are and how parks are utilized because not every park is necessarily going to be utilized or wants to be utilized for for active recreation or programing. You know, they certain areas of the city that are that are that that would prefer quality of life and serenity. And I know we're doing a lot of work to to do that is particularly with our wetlands restoration project with the forest. And that brings me to exhibit E in the staff report the comparison when we look at major projects from FY 13, FY 18. Just can you can you help me discern how. We how? District eight in district nine, the first women's project is actually allocated or counted. So we took the total for that project and we allocated it evenly between the two exhibit E. So you allocate it evenly between the two? Yes, that's not right. It's because about like 90% of that project is in District eight. I mean, I'm just trying to help you balance the numbers a little bit so that that, you know, I have some questions with how we reach that, because if it's it's not a 5050 project , it's if you look at that, you know, I'm sorry, geography and it's late of the project. Most of it is is district eight before as well as project. So I was I had some questions about that. And then lastly, again, you know, I'm going to be reinvigorated. I'm I'm happy to to see more data come forward in the coming months. I don't know that that's going to tell us anything differently than what we have in front of us here today. This is very comprehensive, in my opinion, and gives me all that I need to to understand where we're going. I would just just implore upon my my colleagues, you know, we do know that we are and maybe we're moving forward with some some some tough budgetary times. And and, you know, again, I've you know, I don't know if it's it's I think we all have to to look at a city wide view and and and and understand that that, you know, there are nine council districts, but we have a responsibility to the entire city and and not just one district or our our specific district, if we're fighting just for for for resources or extra programing for for one district or two districts, that's that's going to put us in a space where I, I just think we're we're not going to going to agree. A lot of what I see here from this data has been played out in over many years. You know, and I don't I don't see necessarily that it's it's our Parks and Recreation Department has has work to to be equity an equitable in terms of the distribution of resources. I think it just kind of plays out the way it plays out with Greenspaces. But we do have some challenges. And when I look at senior programing, District eight has zero senior programs. Right. But District eight is actually programing senior programs through our district budget and through private donations. And we will be addressing that moving forward in budget cycles in, in conversations with our city manager in Parks Recreation Marine Department because, you know, where is my staff? Actually, my, my, my city council district staff is actually being utilized to, to to help run these programs several hours a week. Right. I'm starting to wonder whether or not that should be a park recreation Marine staff actually doing that. This is this is it's an area that we do need to address. And so it's late. My eyesight is going. I'm glad we had this conversation. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Arango. Excuse me. Thank you. Here's his concern, Belinda. No. He does say that. He got to scroll up. I don't. Know. Oh, you know what it did. Okay. Mason Richardson. Thank you. So. So I'll. I'll just say, Murray has been great working with you, and I think we didn't want to see you go. That's why we asked you to. We all hold you as long as we can tonight. But it really has been a pleasure working with you. And I wish you all the success. And Steve, you're going to have to pick up this conversation and keep it going because I don't think it's going to go anywhere. Lena, thank you for for staying on top of this issue. It's an issue that does impact all of us. And I like a lot of the comments because we're all learning tonight, and that's why data is important, you know, but Rome wasn't built in a day. So I want to acknowledge the progress here that the progress behind the dias and the progress that I do see in this report, you know, equity is making resource decisions based on need. And so, you know, when you see a zero, whether it's in this space of a contract class or afterschool programing, whenever you see a zero, no matter what district it is, we it should raise a red flag because there are people in that community need to be served. So in general, people with the least resources in terms of people, the least resources, in my opinion, should not have to travel the farthest for contract classes. So I do think we need to do more to make sure contract cases are rooted in the community, in communities that really, really need that one. Just bring attention a few things. So slide number 14. So you got on slide 14. Let's see what I'm there. Okay. Now I see pools as three, five, six, seven, nine. Are we talking about. Or we thought. Were pool were pools and. So those are city and school pools. Oh, city and school. Okay. I was going to say, I don't have a pool. Okay. So you do. All right. So, Jordan, you mean the Jordan high pool. Gotcha. Okay, now, what about this map on slide 19? I don't know if this is supposed to be a district boundary or not, but district nine doesn't go in. And Bixby Knolls that color? No, those. Are by zip codes. Okay. All right. That was a little confusing. Just wanted to clarify if all the numbers are skewed that way or what. Then slide 23. Okay. Actually, Councilman Austin brought this up. I was just curious how the 12 million was calculated. Well, correct that. Yeah, yeah. There's no problem because it doesn't. I mean, 16% isn't really an accurate reflection of the investment. I mean, you know, there's been a lot of. Yeah, we're very happy, very pleased with Highland Park Community Center, the investments that we're making. But this number just seemed a little bit skewed. So thank you for acknowledging that. And then what I'd like to see, you know, I didn't think I saw it, but just access to open space in general. I know that my district has 1.7 acres per thousand residents, whereas we have, you know, some dishes with ten. Right. And so Kirk, who spoke earlier, dressed like the need to place focus on the open space as for in terms of like park development. So as long as we can continue an equity conversation there and then I acknowledge the the conversation in the last few pages looking at equity based models, you know, obviously the angels in the details. But I like I like the fact that you, you know, you were brave enough to actually throw it in there that some people do program their parks based on equity 50%, you know, by one metric, 30% by another metric, 20% by another metric. And I'm okay with exploring something like that. And then finally, one thing that I think we should talk about should be a part of Park Equity is the. Way that our. Parks Commission is actually structured. It should at least have one district representative on each district should be on the park commission. That's something we should we should look at. We don't it's not based on district. We should have at least some voice from every single district on that commission. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman lingo. Thank you, Mayor. The angel is in the details. Hmm. Never thought about that one before. Anyway, the devil's in the details. I mean, the devil manages. It's all the details are always tough to deal with anyway. And that's neither here nor there. It's getting late. That actually one of the things that that I look at in terms of programing is and it was mentioned somewhat by my I remember Gonzalez is is getting the word out it's getting that communication is letting people know about what programs are available at each of the parks. Yeah, I know I have a few of them in my part. Admiral Kid and Silverado, which are the two largest ones that have a lot of activities going on in here. But I think that there's also they're underutilized to a certain extent because there's not enough people there. I mean, there's there's a language barrier there. And that's why I'm always pushing the language access programs that we need to get off the board and start really implementing as an institutional wide type of program for everything that the city does. Because communication is is one of the most important things that we're about. And we don't get the word out to people about what we're doing for the city. They're not going to understand what's taking place, and people are going to misunderstand what we're doing and think that we're trying to be, you know, pull the wool over their eyes and and that we're not being transparent. That's not true. I mean, we're trying to be transparent. But if we had the right form of communication with them, the word is not going to get out. So I would love to see more of an opportunity about getting them getting the word out to our residents, especially in those parks that have a lot of programs that that they can be utilize, including those that are for a fee and making those also available in in areas where maybe the contractors may not want to go to, but they need to go to, because that's where the probably the need is. And whether it's the poor store or that's part of the contract, so be it. I know when reading some of these evaluations about why we have fee programs more towards the says because people pay well you know maybe sometimes we should look at a waiver or wait at the parks and recreation park and make the same classes available like the yoga class that we talked about earlier for poor seniors and making it more affordable for them so that they can continue. You to receive that type of service? Yes, a couple of questions. There were I was looking at the the slides here and nowhere in any of these slides that I see, Tanaka Park is Tanaka Park deactivated is not working anymore. Is it closed up with what's what's what's not the park or do you know where it's at. So I do. In Tanaka Park is a passive park, so we don't have programing at that park that's intended. We have multiple passive parks that did not show up in this report. Throughout the city we have 170 parks in the city. So many of them are intended to be passive and they're not programed. Okay. So that that would also explain then what the definition of a park with the the Christmas tree lane, daisy the day parade. That's correct. I could see that. Okay. I mean, that's basically it. I my my big peeve would be making sure that that survey that you got going out there is readable, that it's easy to use, and that it's also includes language access issues such as being able to have it in to garlic and mountain Hmong and. QMI The major languages that are that are present in Long Beach so that we could get a more accurate picture as to what communities of interest would have in it. Absolutely. And in the shortened presentation tonight, if it were. They longer. Presentation, you would have heard that we are working with our language access coordinator, city staff and looking at opportunities and options for the greater promotion of our programs and activities. Okay. And then finally, I do want to lend my voice to your congratulations and your and your new in your career change from Long Beach to Huntington Beach. So you're still on the beach somewhere. Staying at the beach. Good for you. And I wish you well and much success. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Spinner. Thank you. And let me echo my colleague's sentiments, Marie, thank you for your service to our community. You've done a great job. I'd also like to say to my earlier comments, this isn't the first stint Steve Smith has said, I'm sorry that everybody calls you Steve Smith at one point. Okay, I just made the mistake. He never told me that, Mr. Scott, is that this is not his first stint. I want to remind the audience that it's 1120, so I'm sorry if I'm stammering, but we worked with him as an interim before and he did a great job then. And I have all. The confidence in the. World in him doing this. My idea behind let's get this wrapped. Part of it is what I think Sir Winston called perfectionism leading to procrastination. I'm looking at the 100 days of summer. Come on, let's get it together before we hit this thing. So that was part of my motivation for saying, let's bring this back quickly, deal with it, work it out. I'd like to commend Parks and Rec staff. Just I just think you do a great job. I have a unique district in that I do go from the east side to the west side. So I think the way staff works at out, for instance, I'll tell you, Whaley Park was mentioned, we have exactly two municipal band concerts in Whaley every year. One of them is on a council meeting night, so I can't even attended. But we bring about the equity I'm sorry, equality in this and that. Stearns Park has a movie night and the Long Beach Community Band plays at that or is a part park the same? We just work it out and maybe my office funds a little bit of it, but I just think there are a lot of practical fixes we can bring to this. Also to Councilwoman Mango and her point about infrastructure, this is huge. Can you imagine if the fifth District still had the nature center, which is the fourth District now? She would have all that funding to worry about, too. So we put a lot of effort into that, and I don't think you can separate infrastructure from programing. I think I see the Supervisor Stearns Park up there. Thank you for being here so late tonight. All right. So we have a riff on the Stearns Park Community Center that has compromised. We may not be able to use the facility more. Okay. There goes programing because of infrastructure. So two cats, one woman, Mungo's point, you can't lose sight of that or you lose utilization of your parks. There's probably another point I made, but I'll defer. It's getting late. Thank you. Thank you. And to close up, Councilwoman Gonzalez. I just wanted to say thank you to my colleagues. I know sometimes it's difficult to challenge our thought, like I'd mentioned, but I think that we're on a good path. We have a good discussion that we've had here and various different opinions. And this is absolutely a city wide approach, you know. Otherwise, we would have just had data for one district, but we had it for all. And if there's zeros in any of your categories, this is a chance for us to really, again, bring that forward as the new data comes back. So thanks again. I know everybody's been waiting for the next items to come up. And I just want to thank everyone for entertaining us tonight and appreciate that. Well, thank you very much. I want to, of course, think again of park staff, our Parks and Recreation Commission. I know it's David out there now. I got my glasses on, so maybe there's others that I just can't see. But thank you to all of them for their great work. And I, I just wanted to point out one piece of the presentation, which was the commission has done a lot of work on trying to get the fee incentives to go towards Long Beach residents versus, you know, folks from other communities. And you've done a lot of work on that. There's been a lot of improvement in the process. And so we want to continue and encourage you to continue that because I think that's really important that our our local taxpayers should be receiving the benefit of those free glasses. So so thank you for that. And please cast your vote for the receiving file. I think this receipt and file includes a report back in about, you know, 4 to 6 months. Right. Okay. Thank you. Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Moving on. I think we have 13 items left. So let's start with item 32.

A RESOLUTION requesting the Seattle Department of Transportation provide quarterly reporting to City Council on implementation of the One Center City program.

SeattleCityCouncil_06112018_Res 31814

Agenda item seven resolution 31814. A resolution requesting the Seattle Department of Transportation provide quarterly reporting to City Council on implementation of the One Center City Program. The committee recommends a resolution be adopted as amended. Just from our brian. Thank you. This is legislation that originally came up in our discussions around the convention center suite vacation. I want to thank Councilmember Gonzales for her work to suggest that we do a resolution that would require Seattle Department of Transportation to do regular report back to the Committee on Progress on some of the investments that need to be made to address some of the congestion we anticipate in the coming years. As part of one Senator City, we took this resolution to committee, and through the work, essential central staff added in addition to the investments they're making as part of the convention center work. Although the short term investments they're planning to make. So we will have a regular report back on a couple of dozen sets of investments in the coming year or two to see how we're making progress on that. Thank you, Councilmember Gonzales, for your leadership on this. Very good. Any further comments? If not those in favor of adopting the resolution, please vote i. I. Those oppose vote no. The motion carries and resolutions adopted and chair will sign it. Please read. Appointments. Agenda Items eight through 13.

A bill for an ordinance approving the Service Plans for the creation of Hurley Place Residential Metropolitan District and Hurley Place Commercial Metropolitan District. Approves two separate service plans for the formation and establishment of two Title 32 districts: The Hurley Place Residential Metropolitan District and the Hurley Place Commercial Metropolitan District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-28-18.

DenverCityCouncil_09172018_18-0944

Councilman Flynn, will you please put council bill 944 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 944 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded and the public hearing for Council Bill 944 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. Council members Michael Harrigan again with the Department of Finance. Council build number 18 0944 is for an ordinance approving two service plans for new metropolitan districts supporting redevelopment of the site known as Curley Place in the Rhino Community. The districts are called the Hurley Place Residential Metropolitan District in Hurley Place, Commercial Metropolitan District. The service plans are being submitted for City Council on behalf of the Noto LLC pursuant to the requirements of Special District EC Section 30 212001 and more particularly 30 21205.52 or 4.56. The service plan contains the District's purpose, powers, requirements and financing plan. The District shall be responsible for compliance with the city's municipal code rules, regulations and other applicable laws. The District shall ensure that the District's public improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the city and all other governmental entities having jurisdiction . Is anticipated that the Shirley Place Residential Metropolitan District will ultimately include all residential property located within Hurley Place and the Hurley Place. Commercial Metropolitan District will include all commercial property located within Hurley Place, within the birthplace place development. The new metropolitan districts will be responsible for coordinating the financing, acquisition, construction, completion operation and maintenance of all public infrastructure and services within and without the service area, including without limitation street and sidewalk improvements, parking infrastructure, water, storm drainage detention, sanitary improvements, sanitary sewer improvements, landscaping, irrigation, public plaza and traffic safety controls and improvements. The new metropolitan districts will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the authority's granted in the Special District Act, including the imposition of up to 50 mills plus rates, fees, tolls, charges for debt and district operations and maintenance. Once the district imposes a debt mill levy, the district's operations and maintenance mill levy cannot exceed ten mills. The new metropolitan district will be authorized to impose up to five mills for regional improvements at the direction of the city. The total estimated cost of the public improvements necessary to serve the contemplated development are approximately 28.1 million. In order for the new metro districts to have the fiscal wherewithal to provide funding for the upfront costs of the public improvements needed in the service area, the new metropolitan districts will have the ability to issue debt and impose a debt service mill levy. Hurley places his plant is a residential and commercial mixed use development. The project will support and enhance the existing development within the Rhino neighborhood by creating a new iconic entertainment and residential hub in the center of the community. The development plans include a mix of creative office, restaurant, retail, hotel, entertainment and residential uses for a total of nearly 1 million gross square feet of development. Approval of the service plan establishes the following There are sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area. The existing service in the area is inadequate for present and projected needs. The districts are capable of economically providing sufficient service to the area within the proposed boundaries. The land and proposed development to be included does and will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The facility and service standards will be compatible with the facility and service standards of the city. Staff recommends approval of the service plans. The applicant, their representatives and city staff are here tonight to respond to any questions regarding this council bill. Thank you very much for the presentation. Your PowerPoints are almost as compelling as your colleague Andrew Johnston's. Thank you. We have six individuals signed up to speak this evening. If you signed up to speak on this one, if you would please come to the front bench. I do apologize if I mispronounce your name. I think we might have a few of these in our system incorrectly. But I will start with Bernard Hurley. Go ahead. Good evening. So. Thank you, counsel, for allowing us to present. I mean, Early Place is a development that's located between 38 basically and 36 between Arkin's court and Del Gainey, one block down from Brighton Boulevard to include the New River Promenade. And and so we've got mixed use of residential. The residential we have we're taking advantage of the up zoning and the overlay and providing the affordable units. We're taking advanced advantage of the the overlay and and and using community benefit. I think that we have an opportunity to create a truly iconic part and sense of place that doesn't exist in that side of Reinoehl right now. And I believe that with the team that we have together in our plan, I mean, there's 13 acres of greenspace surrounding this project. So between the Reinhold Park, the six and a half acre linear promenade park, and then the green space that's in the private development that's on Chestnut, I think that this project is going to be iconic and impactful for the city for years and create a sense of place to bring people together and also create a lot of services that are lacking in that part of. Ryan All right. Now, as in we've got 65,000 square feet of retail and other services as a part of our development, as well as a large plaza area that opens up to the river and the river promenade and the project interacts specifically with that promenade. So thank you. Thank you. And again, I apologize on this next one. If I get this wrong, Tom, go screw. Good evening. It's Tom George with the law firm. Spencer Fein. Might not have gotten. Fully translated in our system, but. Go ahead. That's a new one for me. I just like to say thank you to city staff, particularly Michael Carrigan and Andrew Johnson and also city attorney's office for the work with us. And I'm here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you very much, Mark Tompkins. Good evening, Mark Tompkins with Stray Advisory Services. I'm an adviser to Mr. Hurley on this project and I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you, Michael Persichetti. Michael Persnickety with RBC Capital Markets. We're financial consultant. And just here to answer questions. Thank you, Kirsten Beck. Hi. My name's Kirsten Beck with Foster Graham, and I'm here to answer any questions. Thanks. Thank you very much. And our last speaker is Jesse Paris. Good evening, members of council. My name is Jesse Paris. I was on a 2842 Josephine Street, which is an Albert Brooks district, and I am also a candidate for our large city council 2019. I had a few questions in regards to this development. I was overheard that this is going to be a mixed use residential. I want to know what is the and my level for this affordability? Is it going to be 30 to 60? Is it going to be 60 to 90%? What do you consider affordable? Um, something about services. What kind of services will be rendered at this property and also where the local Arnaud's notified? Because the last time I was at this at a city council meeting, I was told that these metropolitan districts had not notified the local Arnaud's of what they were up to. So I just need clarification that this Metro Politan district notified the local Arnaud's. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilwoman Ortega I do have one. And this sort of applies across the board to all of them. But Michael, you might be able to help answer the question, if not maybe somebody from the team in terms of how the financial team is picked for any of these meet districts. Is that handled separately by the people requesting the approval from council to create the Metro District to, you know, put it on the ballot and whatnot? Or does a city play any role in any of that in any way, shape or form? So so the city plays a role in reviewing the the application that comes before us. And then we and then we also engage the city's financial advisor for that. But the initial kind of financial team for for the applicant, that's a completely private decision made up by the property owner. Okay. So somebody from the team, can you give me an idea of the total square footage we're talking about for the proposed development at this location? Mr. Hurley. Maybe there. It's approximately a million square feet. Okay. Yeah, because I mean, I was just looking at the one that came before us, and that was. I don't believe they were approved for 50 meals. Maybe I didn't hear that correctly. But this one is and clearly the amount of square footage on this one is a lot more. Almost 400,000 square foot more than the other one. So. Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. At a finance committee. The slide deck showed these artists studios with some of them being some of the ones that are on the private property being mirrored in the public, in the parks. Right, in the parks area. And there was some discussion about these being sort of publicly available artist studios to sort of and but there is no mention of that in the service plan. The service plan doesn't doesn't include the area outside of the property lines. There is some language that manager finance can sort of add area. And so I just want to know, you know, you know, are the artists studios, in fact, part of this service plan in a way that I don't quite understand? Councilman Espinosa That's a really easy question to answer. So as part of the 38 and Blake overlay, the value incentive that we are providing for the commercial height provides for community benefits agreement. So it's terrific about this project. This will be the first community benefits agreement that we will be entering into and we will have as artist studios as part of that. So we've worked in conjunction with Parks and that's why it will be on the promenade, because Parks would like it to be located on the promenade. And so all of the requirements with respect to the artist spaces will be something that is part of a community benefits agreement with OED. So how would that sort of legally be captured? And the service plan has defined boundaries in the exhibits, and these sites are not included in those limits. So it's part of the property owner. It's a developer's agreement that we're required to do because again, this is part of the 30th, an overlay, incentive overlay. So as part of our requirement to be able to get the additional height for the commercial property, we have to enter into this agreement directly with the property owners. So there will be some participation with the district once it's formed, but it will be entered into between the developer and the an EADS in order to be able to implement that 30th and Blake overlay incentive. So in theory, it's the developer is privately developing these improvements on city land and district money is not essentially being used. That's exactly right. That's exactly right. And originally, the artist spaces were going to be located on this property as part of the plaza that then would obviously feed into the promenade. And again, that was conversations with parks and kind of the spirit of what we've been working with the entire time, which is really cooperative nature. And so the parks request was to have this as part of the promenade, to activate the promenade, which was an easy request. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Michael. On this one, the regional mill levy, it doesn't specify any projects that the city envisions levying this for or asking the district to levy it for. What do we have in mind for this? At this time, I'm not sure what we have in mind for it. I imagine it would be some kind of cooperation with the the city, the Greenway Park or the Promenade Park. But, you know, I'm not sure exactly what. What what discussions have gone? I don't know. Somebody from the development team. Is there a specific project that the last one that we did? The reason I was questioning that one was we had a specific project that were already that we had already funded. And we were asking the new metro district to provide a mil levy, a levy for that. Here we don't have a specific project for 25 years. We have this authority to ask the district to levy an additional five mills to provide revenue to the city for some undefined future need. Is that am I reading that correctly? Yeah, I think so. Did you give some comments? Yeah, it's. It's it's the ability to be able to enter into a future idea, to be able to. To levy those bills for a to to be determined. It's interesting. Okay. So we're creating with these metro districts, we're creating future financial capacity for city projects as yet undetermined. But but it is an IGA so the idea has to have terms with although the service plan says we don't need an IGA if we don't have one, we simply take the revenue from those five mills into the city rather than flowing them through the district. Okay. That's that's interesting mechanism. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn saying no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 944 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Brooks. Yep. Thank you, Mr. President. And Councilman Flynn, I don't know if you're going here, but, you know, we just approved with the bond this entire the rhino promenade and this this this development actually is going to go in conjunction with that. And I think what I like about some of the metro districts is as we can live, we if if we do decide to go into an idea. And so you don't need an HCA, but we can levy both. We can use both mechanisms to fund your development and to fund what we're trying to do some improvements on to our development. So that passed the bond pass overwhelmingly and this rental problem promenade was actually on the first tranche of dollars that would be spent. So that's one of the reasons I'll be supporting this. The other reason that I'll be supporting this is if you seen again, I always say, you know, you you need these mechanisms to fund infrastructure. And if you saw this area, if anyone's ever been to Blue Moon, this is the area of which Blue Moon is in. And Mr. Hurley owns Blue Moon and the welcome in. He doesn't own that, but the welcome in that whole area over there, it is in desperate need of infrastructure and we need to activate that river. And so this entire project does that. Ms. Hurley does not have to activate the river, but it's part of his vision and it's part of the neighborhood's vision. And so we want to see that happen. But even even more of why I'm supporting those are the I think the criteria for me in funding a metro district. But one of the things that Mr. Hurley did not talk about is his support of formerly incarcerated individuals in the eight or two or five neighborhood. And I personally know of several that he has hired from the community in his company, Family, Environmental and you know, you know, his work with Impact Empowerment Group, led by Haroon Cowans , has been great, but my hope is that we see more of that, right? We see more of that with this development. We see an incorporation of formerly incarcerated individuals who were gangbanging in this area and now part of the economic success. And so I appreciate you hiring folks and I hope that we can grow its capacity. And I hope that many other business folks and developers in the city recognize their ability to connect folks with the economic success of the city. So I'll be supporting this. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Excuse me. I'm also supportive of this. My historical note for the evening is that, if I recall correctly, Denver's first Catholic Church was built down here, and I think it was flooded out and then moved up to where Sacred Heart is now in Larimer Street, the the issue of the regional levee and the promenade. Councilman Brooks, if I recall, the promenade was funded in the bond issue. So it strikes me that this additional capacity to have a third party, a metro district, taxed its own property up to five mills is a bulwark against the city incur incurring cost overruns on the project or the infamous scope creep that we've seen in a lot of projects. So to have to have that five mills authorized with no project in mind strikes me as a little prospective protection against city overrunning on the Promenade project. Nevertheless, I do support this project. I'm familiar with the area having worked on the the A-line project and and think it's going to be a great project and I fully support it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, I'll just add I'm very excited about the activation of the river have. He spent so much of my life along it. So thanks for bringing this forward and look forward to seeing the final product. I'll be supporting this tonight with no other comments meant. Oh, Councilman Brooks, right at the deadline. I just had to say one more thing. The the Hurley in the team is is going to take advantage of the affordable housing incentive overlay. The incentive overlay is a ceiling of 80% am I but allows you. To go below that. We have folks going in at 60% am I by 30th and Blake. And so I just want to encourage you to use that 60% that 30% and come talk to the city, put that affordable housing plan together because this neighborhood needs it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. No other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call. Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Herndon. Can each. Lopez. Hi. Ortega. Sussman. Black. Hi, Mr. President. I am secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 11 eyes. 11 Eyes with a name shown up on the screen. Oh, no. Okay, I'll fix that. Okay. Thanks. 11 a council bill. 944 has passed. Councilman Flynn, will you please? What council? Bill? 820 on the floor.

Recommendation to request City Manager to provide an update on how Long Beach residents can utilize the Mills Act tax savings and how this information can be posted online.

LongBeachCC_02042014_14-0086

I'm tennis communication from Councilwoman Jeri ships here. Councilmember So Long Island. Councilmember I'll ask them to the recommendation to request the city manager to provide an update on how Long Beach residents can utilize the MIL Zack tax savings and how this information can be posted online. Good. Councilmember Lipski. Wait till everybody is exiting exits. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. And I want to thank my co-sponsors on this. The Mills Act Historical Property Contract Program has been in existence for quite a few years, and it allows qualifying owners of historically designated property to receive a potential property reduction and to use that savings to help rehabilitate, restore and maintain their buildings. And as we know, in Long Beach, we have so many neighborhoods where we have properties that that are of historical significance that need to be rehabilitated. And that is very costly for property owners sometimes to do that without some kind of tax relief. The Mills Act is a state tax relief, but there's also federal tax relief available if the property is qualified at at the state level, the Mills Act is probably the single most important economic incentive program in California for the restoration and preservation of historic buildings by private property owners. It was enacted in 1972, and local governments go through a process by which they contract with the property owner to have a formalized agreement. The city of Long Beach had this in place for many years and stopped doing it in 2006, and I believe we probably have maybe only 30 homes. I may be incorrect. Mr. or Amy, I think you have the figure 30 homes right now that are eligible for the Mills Act incentive. One of the things in talking with city management that has come up is that, you know, and they certainly can speak for themselves, but in the briefing I had, some of the objections were is that it takes away property tax revenue from the city. It costs the city of Long Beach to have staff to audit the property owners to make certain they actually did do the rehabilitation to qualify for the tax incentive. Additionally, that city has not completed an audit and needs to do so on the existing owners that was standing. Some of these turn out there. That withstanding, I would like to go ahead, make a motion to request the city manager to go forth to indicate to the City Council how we can restore the Mills Act within the city of Long Beach. And I make that motion understanding that perhaps maybe city manager can comment on that, that there is concern about the auditing and the cost audit. And I would suggest that perhaps we have the city auditor take over that function for auditing since it's a concern to the city. So actually what I do, Mr. Garcia, is just wait and if we can maybe hear a staff report and then get the public input, then I can make a motion. Okay. That was the motion or no. Okay. So I'm just. Waiting and waiting to hear staff report because I see Mr. Westhead. Nodding up. And what we're going to do is we're going to hear staff report, we're going to come back to conservatorships for a possible motion to hear from the public. So, Mr. West, Amy Borek. Vice Mayor Garcia, members of the City Council, we do have the Mills Act, the ability to implement Mills acts. And as the Councilwoman Ships said, we did pause the program in 2006 because of some discrepancies related to the program. The issue that we have with the program is that under previous iterations, units within a single building, condo units within a single building could apply for Mills Act contracts. But if the entire building does not apply for the contract, it's very difficult for the city to understand what its historic improvements were made for that portion of the building. We have three multifamily buildings that are that have condo units in the Mills Act, but those buildings are not entirely in the Mills Act. One of the buildings is, for example, the Villa Riviera. We have a number of condo units in the Villa Riviera, but not the entire building, which makes it extremely difficult for us to assess what value those folks are making to the overall improvements of the building when the entire building itself is not not under Mills Act contracts. So we are looking to audit all of the existing contracts we've completed, all of the single family contracts. There are 31 single family contracts in the city. We've got about 200 condo contracts that we're in the process of going through right now and auditing all of those. We are trying to understand what improvements we're committed to by the property owners, whether those improvements were made, and whether they did in fact receive the appropriate tax credit if they received the tax credit. But it did not make the improvements. Clearly, there is an issue with that. And so that is what our audit is. It is less a financial audit and more of a physical inspection audit. So I would suspect that it would be appropriate for other types of staff to work on it as opposed to the city auditor. Additionally, once we complete the audits of all of the multifamily projects, we would then come up with a a series of changes that we would suggest to the ordinance, and then we would bring that ordinance back to the Cultural Heritage Commission, the Planning Commission and the City Council. If I can. Here. I'm a little puzzled, though. Why have we stopped issuing contracts in 2006? It's taken eight years for an audit to be done to see whether or not these are valid contracts. What spurred what spurred that audit? It's been very difficult for us to get access to all of these locations. We do need to get the property owners access permission to access their facilities, their condos. And so it's been a little challenging for us to do that. Well, my concern is the city of Los Angeles has a very detailed website and a very aggressive program on the Mills Act because they've reached out effectively to owners of property. They're encouraging them to contract with the city of Los Angeles because they understand how it helps specific neighborhoods. So I'm I'm I guess what I'm questioning is that can we not go for it? And I recall maybe Councilman Lowenthal can chime in on this. I think when we passed when we discussed the whole issue about implementing the cultural. Heritage. Historic preservation aspects of our planning. We talked about two things. We talked about reinstating the historic preservation officer position, and we also talked about reinstating the Mills Act. And I think I forget what year that was, but we didn't do it too long ago. So I'm just wondering why we can't embark back on the the Mills Act program, clean it up and make sure it operates the way it needs to, but at least go forward and offer it. Because we are talking about having homeowners and I understand about the condo situation. But, you know, certainly that's something that I think the city attorney could assist on in cleaning that language up. But I, I don't understand the reluctance to not just go ahead and reinstate the mills and program so that the homeowners can take advantage. Of. Under the current guidelines. I would not recommend to reinstate reinstatement of the program. And that's the purpose of of us doing this has always been to clean up the program and reinstated. When do you think the program will be cleaned up? Because, again, we cut this off in 2006. When we complete the audit and we understand what value has been derived from that. And then we'll be working on the the changes to the municipal code. And do we have a time frame on that? Probably this summer. Probably went probably this summer. This summer. All right. I'm going to hold off to hear the comic Councilor O'Donnell. I just actually I was just going to help council memberships. We kind of move this along and get get what she's looking for. Do you feel are you okay? No. No. I want to hear from the public about why we need to reinstate it. Okay, that's great. They're here. Good. Kotsenburg. DeLong, you know what? I'm going to wait to hear from the public, too. And then Travis suggestion for maybe how we can move this along a little sooner. And because we're a long can hear from the public first. Of course we can. Okay, great. I'm going to open this up for public comment. We'll come back to the city council. So please identify yourself for the record and come forward if you want to speak on the Mills Act item. Good evening, Vice Mayor Garcia and members of city council. I'm the public. I'm John Thomas. I've had the pleasure to represent Long Beach charities this evening and Bluff Heights Neighborhood Association, both our which have been very instrumental and watching and monitoring the progress since the Mills Act was postponed or sustained in 2006, just not to generate some of the most recent history. But in 2010, you might recall, we worked really, really hard with the council, the Cultural Heritage Commission, the Planning Commission and staff to adopt the city's first general plan element, the historic preservation element within HP. There were a number of recommendations, kind of taking a pinpoint on the city of Long Beach as history as it relates to cultural and historic resource preservation. We are also a certified local government because we have a commission, because we have an ordinance that would allow landmarking, facilities and organizing the Historic Preservation Office within the city's planning office. Both the Certificate of Local Government and Historic Preservation Element both recommend and in the HP actually says reinstate the Mills Act. Now we understand because we've been along for the process, that there were a number of perceived issues with the original function of how we were doing the Mills Act, most notably the multiple units. And that's just that's absolutely correct. I know that staff because Long Beach Heritage, since my involvement in the last six or seven years have been monitoring other cities City of Los Angeles, Santa Ana, Guard, Garden Grove, Fullerton and Orange and Pasadena. Looking at all those different cities and kind of developing a hybrid approach, and I, I heard a staff report to the Cultural Heritage Commission back in January where I think the staff has gotten to the point where working with the consultant, where the audit is underway, we're looking favored typically of reinstating a new Mills Act process that would do three things that I think are important, which monitor this leakage of property tax, which I think was one of the principal reasons. In 2006, the program was abandoned. In Los Angeles, they cap it. They cap how much property tax can be up for grabs, if you will, on an annual basis. Secondly, the audit program, it's a cost recovery or fee for service. If you charge an administrative fee to implement the Mills Act, that implementation fee ought to go to the audit process estimated for that that number of years, which is ten years. But at the end of the day we are very supportive of reinstating the Mills Act. It is a critical element and tool for historic preservation. In Long Beach we have over 140 landmarks. All those are coming due at some point in time owned by individuals or corporations where they're going to need the financial opportunities of the Mills Act. Thank you very. Much. Thank you, John. Mr. Garcia, can I ask him a question? Sure. Go ahead. You mentioned that there was, like you said, had a cap. And how much was it? I'm just curious. I believe it's 3 to $4 million. It's a just every year. And if we did something in Long Beach or Spring, a different size city, what do you think a reasonable cap might be? You know, Mr. Councilmember, I believe that it would be difficult to estimate at this point. I know that just in Bluff Heights alone, we have about 12 owners of homes that would like to get into the pool of the Mills Act. And because we've been without a Mills Act for some time, there's a lot of people that I think would stand in line to seek the initial opportunity. I do know that the Cultural Heritage Commission has agreed that looking at some sort of performance based objective where the initially the very most architecturally significant buildings might receive the opportunity for application first, and that might go hand in hand with assessing the need for the Mills Act for those properties, are they close to them or by neglect, are they, you know, in a in a tough spot in terms of maintenance? Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Mr. Vice Mayor and council members. My name is Barbara Sinclair. My address is on file. I am currently the acting president of the Wrigley Historic District, and we as a group and with the support of the Wrigley Association, would like to ask you to put your full support behind the reinstatement of the Mills Act in our historic district, as you probably all know, is pretty small. And Wrigley is is not an area of mansion style homes or large high dollar homes. We have very modest homes in our little district. And, you know, we're working people there and we're there because we understand the importance to the city of preserving our rich architectural buildings and homes. I myself live in a Cecil Schilling home. And it it kills me that there are so few of his buildings left in Long Beach. And in fact, the woman for whom this house was custom built in 1935, the school she was the principal of has since been torn down after a long fight, you know, with the Cultural Heritage Commission trying to protect it. The value of protecting these homes, I think, gives a unique boost to the issue of pride of place. I know where our area is, places in the middle of a a pretty rough neighborhood. And I like to think that the neighbors and our concern for what the place looks like and how much we care about all of Wrigley makes a difference to people who may just be passing through or may be tempted to throw something on the sidewalk. I think that the care of these places is critically important to Long Beach. I think it has a lot to do with Long Beaches character. I think we have become known as a city that does protect its historic places and its historic architecture in the downtown area and near the beaches. And I would like you to make every effort to make sure that that continues and that people who are willing to take care of these properties are given some help in doing so. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Thank you very much. Honorable Vice Mayor, I have to say, Foster Garcia and City Council. My name is Karen Clements. My address, 1330 Knoxville Avenue, District three. And my comments are because I think I'm the one that's been here the longest with preservation in 1977. The ordinance was passed in November, and it was a hard fight to get the ordinance. I was on that first committee. We weren't a commission then. I was on the first committee and we set about trying to decide how in the world to address first things first. This survey was first, and after this survey, the most important item on our agenda were incentives. Because how in the world would you ask someone to to do the unthinkable, adding up money that they didn't even know they were going to have to add up because of stroke properties? You don't have an answer. How are they going to care? And and now that we have an ordinance, somebody cared, we thought. So that was a real tough fight. And it took. Us a very long time to get any incentives. And now we have the Mills Act, or we did have the Mills Act, which because of the. Fees that are involved with restoring a property, the C of A. And the. And the property. Fees, it's it almost evens out if they get a tax incentive. And I just want to encourage you to remember that you. Care about historic properties. You did write an ordinance. You also care about sustainability. We're a green city, and you also care about affordable housing. All of these things are accomplished with the Mills Act and it was a hard struggle to get it. Let's get it back. Thank you. Q Next speaker, please. Hi. My name is. Steffi Han's address. 2149 Kallon fifth District. I'm also a realtor with real Remax real estate specialists here in Long Beach. I specialize in historic properties myself, my clients, my friends. We all own these homes and we all spend a lot of money restoring and preserving them. Improving the property improves the street, the historic district, and ultimately the entire city, and also helps increase our property values and hopefully revenue. To the city. Los Angeles, Anaheim. And Orange have implemented this program to great. Success. And I really believe that the reenactment of this program will greatly further improve. The city of Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Good evening. I'm Emily Stevens, and I'm a resident of Rose Park. And many here can speak better about the Mills Act than I can. However, I didn't want it to go by without mentioning to you that if you are looking at it from a financial aspect, the people that are incentivized to renovate their home move into these neighborhoods and take on that burden and do a good job doing it. They fill the job of the police, the fire department. There are so many aspects of that financially that the city will benefit from. So when you look at a cost of a program like this, I think that it would be very difficult to assess monetarily what the residents are doing when they renovate the home and they move into a neighborhood and try to renovate it to a historic capacity. But they are actually bringing alleviating services from other parts of the city. That was all I wanted to say. I do support this. I hope you do it real soon. Thank you. My name is Kathleen Irvine. I'm the president of Whitmore City Heritage Association. I live at 539 Daisy Avenue in the First District. And I know from personal experience with my 1905 bungalow. That. The amount. Of money that you would get from the Mills Act Four if it was reinstated, will not make up for the incredible amount of money that you will put into a historic home. That being said, I appreciate that it's being brought. Up and I encourage you to. Speed the process along because we all understand that it takes a lot of money. But far more important, I think, is that it stabilizes our neighborhoods. In the first District, there was at least 50% of our homes are owned by absentee landlords. It is a rental city. And I think that if there were. More incentive. For people to actually preserve these homes, instead of just slapping a coat of paint on and flipping it, that it would stabilize our neighborhoods, it would stabilize our city. And of course, everybody talked about the character and all of that. We all know that. But I really feel that it would also. Encourage more families to take on that burden of. Renovating a home so that we have more families moving in instead of this horrible flipping of homes of our old homes. That's it. Thank you. Thank you, Kathleen. Next speaker, please. Good evening, all. Norman took my wife and I owned two properties on First Street, one on the 1600 block and one on the. 2700 block of First Street. 2003. 2006. My wife and I made two trips to this building here when the Mills Act was still available to us. And wasn't going anywhere. I know that today. And we're many, many years later, and I would really like to know exactly how many single family dwellings we're talking about. And unbelievably, condominiums. Within units that are not the. Whole building. Why can't you. Get access to those places to find out to do your audit? But I know that today my wife and I are spending our children and our grandchildren inheritance. I restore old cars. I'm a retired longshoreman. I restore old cars as a hobby. And my cars are beautiful and immaculate. The buildings that we owned in Long Beach are the same way beautiful and immaculate love. We spend a lot of money on them and if there's anything we want would get out of that is some kind of break and taxes. Only because I've made a commitment to my old cars and these old buildings. I live in San Pedro, but I love Long Beach. I grew up in San Pedro. I made my living in San Pedro and in Long Beach as a longshoreman. I'm spending that and my pension on the beautiful. Buildings that we own at Long Beach. So the sooner the better that we get the mills back in place. So the individuals like myself and my wife. Can maybe get a little bit of a tax. Break for us in the last part of our our years, that if I'm talking to you all personally tonight, I would ask that you immediately pressure the office to have this happen now. Thank you very much. Thank you. Speaker. Hmm. Good evening. Thank you. My name is Christine. Velma. 901 East 37th Street in California Heights. My husband and I were the recipient of the Preservation Award from Long Beach Heritage last year, and we've offered our home for the great homes of Long Beach Tours and twice for the California Heights Neighborhood Association. We are very fortunate to own a home by renowned architect James, our friend. When we purchased the home in 2006, we were also able to purchase the original furnishings. The home had never been touched. We bought it from the grandchildren. It had one coat of paint on the interior and exterior. Everything in the home is original. It was a dream come true for us, but it's been a labor of love. So we purchased it in 2006, right before the markets turned. I immediately got in my application for the Mills Act and it was pretty promptly returned to us in the fall of that year. And it's been devastating for us. People that preserve architecture do it because they know that architecture is art and art is worth preserving. Art tells us who we are and it tells us where we've come from. But this is an expensive endeavor. We began by chipping away at the things that we needed to do restore the electrical, redo the plumbing, remove the fixtures, and have them re chromed, rebuilt, scraped, pushed apart everything delicately with a kid glove. The home looks much today as it did then. We have changed nothing about the home. But however, our restorations have slowed down tremendously and now we're kind of at the point where we're just trying to maintain the house. So for example, on December 23rd, our gas line went out and my husband on Christmas Eve dug up the line and that was our gift to each other. So people in this audience that know and understand the expense of maintaining a home. Know what it costs, but they know why we do it. We do it for love. We do it for passion, but we really do it for the future. So please, as we think about Long Beach going forward, please consider supporting people that support this cause for Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next speaker. Hi. My name is Sasha Witty. I live at three, two, one, four East Second Street. I am the current president of the Bluff Park Historic District Neighborhood Association and have been for the last few years. This is one of the items we get questioned about the most frequently. When is the Mills Act going to be reenacted? Why hasn't it been reenacted? My partner and I live in a 1913 home. It's certainly a labor of love. We demoed out upgrade to from 1913 to 1960 standards to current electrical and plumbing a few years ago. Found out our second floor was collapsing into the first floor. And needless to say, our kitchen is put off long term until we can kind of recover those costs. So in my personal life, I also work as interior designer, primarily residential, and I would say I work on a lot of historic properties and I work on a lot of contemporary properties. There's no comparison in the cost to upkeep, maintain and bring up to date a historic home in comparison to newer construction. And I would just say I'm so glad this is before the council, and certainly it would make a big difference towards promoting and preserving these wonderful historic structures that make such a difference in our historic neighborhoods of Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I, Tonya is the longest seven district resident address on file. I just want to thank you for bringing this councilmember, for bringing this to the agenda. I think ever since people have heard about this, that it may possibly be coming back, there's been a lot of excitement in the community. The sixth and seventh District is not downtown. We're not the fanciest neighborhoods. But I'll tell you that any hope to. Be able to save the. Homes that we see as beautiful I think is a plus. I hear loud and clear from staff that it is difficult, extremely difficult to do from their perspective. But anything worth doing is difficult. And I've heard loud and clear from the community that they want this and that they wait long enough. Anything that you see when you drive down the streets, especially in the beautiful seventh District, Councilmember Johnson is is is an asset to the entire city. And when we get recognized for historic homes and buildings as a city, it brings not only recognition to us, but, quite frankly, visitors and money. So I think in the long run, we win. I hope that this passes. I hope that we get this done quickly and that we don't wait another eight years. Everyone wants this and we have enough resources in the community. A lot of the speakers that you heard tonight to be able to help you figure those things out, the the the barriers, the the the blockades or whatever you want, the excuses. But there's so many people here that want to I think we have the brain trust here to get it done. So thank you. Thank you so much. Speaker Wendy Horn 3214. East Second Street. Third District. I'm speaking on behalf of Long Beach Heritage and we emphatically support the reinstatement of the Mills Act. We are all about the passionate identification, restoration, protection and preservation of historic properties, iconic and within the historic districts. So anything that can be done to expedite that, we would support strongly. We feel that's a minuscule economic impact compared to the vast gains that you'd have in growing your cultural artifacts. Then as the co-owner with Sasha Whitney of our home at three, two, one four East Second Street in the Bluff Park Historic District. It was the. City council that approved my ability to move that home from across the Long Beach Art Museum in 1989. And at that time, they were extremely supportive, as I assure you all are, of historic preservation in historic districts. And I worked very closely for two years with then historic preservation officer Ruthanne Lear in the moving and restoration of that home. 23 years later, my that old, we still have quite a bit of work to do and we have also gotten some awards and recognized. And it's a wonderful property. We're enthused, we're excited. We love living in a historic district and everything it represents in this city, and we are excited to hope that the city would reinstate that. I too had applied and was told at the time. I think there was about 40 people on the. Waiting list and they weren't even accepting. Any more applications many years ago. So we definitely are supportive and would encourage anything that you could do would be a great incentive to us. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And our final speaker. This is done. Let's move ahead. Let's advance. Look at linger in the past with old buildings that are dilapidated and if they were updated would still. Look old fashioned. Because renovation means doing the new. But building again means making it even more new, maybe functional. I recognized one building in particular the brick rubble on Ocean Boulevard and Alamitos that has some historical value that I haven't been able to ascertain. Architecturally, it's really unique. But it is really one of the best offerings. The historical sites have to really offer something Lincoln preserved. Now, the ranch, the ranch that we have with tours, tours and that sort of thing, that's kind of nice. And I think the art museum is a nice building, too. But what you haven't seen are the rest of the buildings. And interestingly enough, not one picture has been shown. These buildings that are going to be renovated, changed, changed to a new will generate more revenue. The bill. Let's bill. Let's not sustain the old. It just doesn't look good. Architecture advances its modern. Let's not Long Beach be an old fashioned community. Let's advance and certainly some buildings. I would I would surmise most of the buildings are just not beautiful. And by making it trying to make the more beautiful, you discover the fact that it can be rebuilt. Probably a lot cheaper. And if not cheaper, more beautifully. Thank you. We have one more speaker. Please come forward to the last speaker. The one to get behind the. I just wanted to get the previous speakers name if it was on file yet. Mr. Dunn. Career? Dunn. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. We're going to go and take it behind the rail over here. And we're gonna start with Councilmember Lowenthal. I want to thank all the speakers that came forward, especially those that have been working on historic preservation for quite a long time, from the neighborhoods and and those who served on the Cultural Heritage Commission, i. The questions I had, I think have been answered. And then council memberships get asked about what year the element was. The historic element was passed, and that was 2010. And I think that had been excuse me answered as well. So I wanted to thank Council membership scheme for bringing attention back to this council. On this item. I first became aware of the Mills Act when I lived in a loft in the Kress Lofts, which at the time we had not qualified for the Mills Act yet. But certainly that building being one of the newer buildings, having come back online through adaptive reuse, we were looking forward to that and appreciated how oversubscribed the program was that it was oversubscribed because I believe we have well-intentioned homeowners that would like to preserve as much as they can of their historic homes. From there, I moved to another historic neighborhood, Rose Park, and the home is a 1917 home. So it is a labor of love. It's very difficult, but certainly worth doing. And so I want to thank you council memberships for bringing this council back in. Focus on the issue. It has been quite a while since we've discussed the Mills Act, as you mentioned earlier, but the topic remains very popular in the second district. And as we heard from Councilmember Yarrawonga, it's popular all throughout, regardless of which district we live in. But if we just look at the intent really of what we want as a city, what residents want, I think we do want the same things. We live in communities like this because of its history. And one of the speakers earlier indicated what history really meant to us. And preserving that, it tells us where we came from and it informs us really where we're going. And so I appreciate that if if my memory serves me, we approved the element in 2010, which I think Amy's confirmed. And at that time we committed to reestablishing the Mills Act program after evaluating contracts and implementation from the last program. And I think if we look right at language from the element, it says the city will reestablish the Mills Act program for owners of designated historic properties and will implement a program to inspect and monitor existing mills, act properties and to review new applications to ensure that proposed projects meet the Secretary of Interior Standard for Rehabilitation. So I can appreciate some of the original concerns associated with that loss of revenue to the city, especially given the last decade of budget cuts and positions eliminated in the city serving on the Budget Oversight Committee. That point is not lost on me, and I recognize that many of council's directives here are heaved upon the shoulders of development services with an expedited timeline. I, for one, am guilty of that. And you can you can smile, Miss Burdick, because, you know I am guilty of that. We do put that on you and we everything needs to be yesterday. But I'm concerned that that we and our consultant are still evaluating properties at this point. I had hoped to see recommendations for a new program by now. I don't know the details of what goes on in those evaluations, but it's been a long time properly performed. Improvements provide a return on our investment in the form of higher property values, which in turn leads to increased revenue coming back to the city. I'll just talk about Rose Park. Rose Park today is not what it was 11 years ago when we moved into it because of the work that homeowners have put into it, with or without the Mills Act and it has raised property values, I can assure you, just from my own personal example, it really has what my neighbors have done through blood, sweat and tears and hard work has assisted the entire neighborhood. So we know that to be true. So in that regard, I think we will make up those lost revenues through increased property values, perhaps changing of hands of these properties, although many of us, you know, would like to stay forever in our homes, it's a reality. And so in that regard, I think that's where we make up this loss, this anticipated loss. And so I'm not insensitive to it, but I do know we will make it up if we do support neighborhoods in bringing these properties up and raising the entire area's property value. In some, the mills act as a useful tool for preserving our city's heritage and a return on our collective investment. I firmly believe this. And so, Councilmember Lipski, I'm happy to support a motion that you put forward. I'm delighted that you asked me to coauthor this with you and. Honored to do so. But I will take your lead. I would like to see us move forward in a direction where we can make good on the original intent of our 2010 historic preservation element. Thank you, Counselor DeLong. Thank you. You know, I have a few questions. First, Ms.. Broder, could you just take a minute and describe how we've used the Mills Act in the past to just tell us what the benefit is to the residents, perhaps what the cost has been to the city. Just give us a quick overview of the program when it was enacted. I don't have the financial numbers in front of me of the of the potential tax losses that the city has has incurred because of contracts with the Mills Act. It is a clearly a benefit to a property owner of a home that does require significant improvements. They do receive a discount and state and federal taxes for the work that they put into their property. It is clearly not a 100% rebate and the property owner does get does bear a significant burden of those improvements. But it is meant as as it was stated several times tonight to incent property owners to maintain their properties or to restore properties that have fallen into disrepair. We do also have folks who purchase properties in historic districts, and they know of the possibility of a mills act and they try to forestall improvements until they know that they can get some relief from their property taxes as part of a Mills Act contract. We do believe that there is a value in reinstating the contract, the contracts. What we do need to do, though, however, is modify the ground rules under the contracts to deal with some of the the issues that we've had with the program in the past. And that's what we're in the process of doing. The City of Los Angeles does have an annual cap. There are other cities that only allow a certain number of applications that are per year. So it's not necessarily a dollar amount, but it is a number of applications that they're willing to accept in a year . So we're looking at different models to see which one would work for Long Beach. Once we do that, we do have to calculate what the potential financial impact is. But again, as as Councilwoman Lowenthal said, it is very likely that a lot of that impact could be made up in increased property values over time. Okay. So, for example, if I if I bought a home for $500,000 and I put $200,000 into it, what would be the financial benefit to me and what would be the impact on the city? It's based on your property taxes, not the value of the improvements that you put into it. So let's assume that the value of the property went up to $200,000 for my additional investment. The value of their property went up. Bought it for 500,000 that my tax base, I bought 200 into it, which added $200,000 for the value. So now you have an assessed value of 700,000. Yes. Okay. So you're paying taxes on $700,000. You get a portion of that rebated. I don't know, portion. Of the incremental 200,000 in value. If you've made $200,000, yes, you get a portion of the value of that. So a portion of $200,000. Yes. I apologize. It's based on the 700,000, the total assessed value of the property. Okay. So is it possible that I would pay less taxes for this home that was worth 700,000 than I paid property taxes when it was only worth 500. I can't answer that. Right here, right now. Okay. Can we just about how did the program work before? Was it first come, first serve? Do we have any caps, any limits? How did we determine that? A property qualified for a mills act? It was first come, first serve. You had to be either a in a historic district or a designated landmark. And those contracts were entered into based on some some very general bullet points of what the property owner was going to do in terms of improvements for those homes, for example, a home. And then the property owner would make the improvements and be able to take a credit on the property taxes. And what was the and how is the amount of that credit calculated? I don't have that that information in front of me. I'm sorry. And how many homes are currently covered today under the Mills Act in Long Beach? Individual homes, we have about 31 individual homes and we have almost 200 multiplex condo units that are also covered by the program. And what are your concerns regarding the multiplex units? I noticed in your opening remarks you think they shouldn't be covered or is it the way we're covering them today? Doesn't make sense. The reinstatement of the program. The way we're covering them today does not make sense. Because. If you have a six plex condo building and three of the two of the property owners do not participate in the Mills Act, but four of them do, and the entire six owners agree to improvements to the building. It's very difficult to determine the value of the credit that should be derived for each of the individual property owners. If some of them did not, you know, did not have a Mills Act contract. If someone restores a window in their unit or there's a lobby that gets restored and that's covered under common area maintenance charges or an ATO, it's very difficult to ascertain the level of the improvements that were made that should have been historic in nature. That should have been just your condo reserve, that should have been applied to the individual property owners. So your recommendation being a multi-unit property that all the units need to be applying for the Mills Act? All the units need to apply, but the applicant would be the away and not the individual properties. So theoretically, the, the the majority of the of the improvements that would be derived from a Mills Act contract are within the common area are or are for the benefit of the entire building like reroofing a historic roof, you know , dealing with foundations repointing the brick facade that benefits the entire building as opposed to just individual units. And is that more in line with how other cities that have viable programs are working? Yes. Okay. Well, I. Guess what I'd like to see is, you know, sometimes I think we look for the perfect answer and it takes us forever to get there, if at all. I guess what I'd like to see us do is come up with some kind of a pilot program with the understanding that may not be the perfect program and put some appropriate caps and limits on it so it doesn't get out of control. And then based on the experiences with with getting that program in place, then we can grow it, we can evolve and we can modify it over time. Now, I'm sure the Council can come up with something along those lines, but the other alternative is to request staff to come back in 30 days or some timeframe with some recommendations for putting a pilot program together for the Mills Act. Shift your thoughts on that. But I guess from a staff perspective first, I'm sure some other folks here that would like to see something done. I guess, Amy, what is your thoughts on that? I don't really see the need for a pilot program. I think the answer is to just continue to move into the implementation of making revisions to the ordinance. How quickly can you do it? As I said to Councilwoman Chayefsky, I think we should be complete with all of our work by summer. Yeah, I guess for me or other council members, I have to say, I think that's too long. I don't see why we need all that work to be done in order to put a program in place. But what if some other members but if we can't do it faster than I think we should put something in place immediately. They can continue to move on the council membership scheme. Thank you, Mr. DeLong. And if I can, for the the public explained about the calculation of the property tax, it is actually a very convoluted property tax situation about what the benefit is. For instance, the city of Berkeley gives the example on a condo with the assessed value of 250,000 and current taxes at 3125. Once the calculation is made of the historic property risk component, what they call the capitalization rate and the property tax component. This person now is, instead of paying 3125 in property taxes, is paying 1135 for a savings of 1990 dollars. In Berkeley and other places, as a ten year contract is ours, a ten year contract situation. It's a rolling ten year contract. As a ten year contract. And so at any time both either the city of the property owner can cancel it. And there's also a 12.5%, I think, penalty if in fact the property owner does not continue to do what they're doing. So I'd like to make the motion based upon the discussion. Certainly the city of Los Angeles, you might know, and I think Ms.. Bardach mentioned this, they have just reassessed their Mills Act program. They have come up with some new conditions. They've put a cap and a timeline on when people can make applications. They've also increased the application fee. I don't know what our application fee is. I know Mr. West had expressed some concern about not being able to fund staff to. Follow this program. But I do know the city of L.A. does charge 250 for single family house and I think 1450 for a multiple dwelling unit. So perhaps we could look at that as well. So on that, I'd like to make the motion to direct the city manager to report to the council in 30 days how the city, how we are going to reinstate the Meals Act savings program in the city of Long Beach. The second second there's been a motion and a second. Councilmember Austin. Thank you. And I'm glad you make the motion before my comments, because I think most of my questions have been asked. You guys asked them some very good questions. I was sitting here actually reviewing the City of Los Angeles Store Preservation Program and their Meals Act. I believe it was stated earlier that they set aside up to $3 million a year and I rent a million a year. And then there are caps on on the assessed values of the the homes that participate in the properties that participate in the program. And so I'd like to see something like that included in anything that comes back as well. So I'm going to support the motion I signed on. I think this is great for our neighborhoods and any the benefits are going to far outweigh the costs or liabilities to our property tax revenues here. The city of Long Beach. So I'm happy to support. Thank you, Councilman O'Donnell. Yeah, I think I think it's all been said. I was just curious as to the cost of the program. And I think you when you come back, there would be some recommendation included. Is that correct? You mean in terms of implementation? Yes, sir. So we would if we were to do a cap, we would then try to do a calculation to determine what the fiscal impact would be on property tax revenue for the city. Right. And with a recommendation of some potentially. Yes, I would absolutely recommend a potential annual cap. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor DeLong. Just one more question on if the city attorney or maybe Mr. Thomas, but does anybody know how that calculation is done on the on the income tax savings was done on the net increase or maybe has a home covered by property tax savings? You know, Charlie John, do you know by any chance it's okay? Mr. Don Berkeley actually has it up online and they talk about it as if it's a income property. They do recalculate gross income, less expenses, net income, capitalization rate. And did it say how about on a personal note? Because I think it's probably more work. On a on a personal property. Yeah. Yeah. No, it does it does have it's it says the property valuation is determined by the revenue and tax code. But I guess whether or not, you know, you get a benefit where your rates are actually lower than what your initial value because that wouldn't make any sense to me. So it seem to me that you would just get a credit toward your incremental value. Do you know. I believe that it was stated correctly that it's a total assessed value as it's reassessed on the home or the income property or multiple residential property. Generally speaking, Councilmember DeLong, it's roughly 50 to 63%. We've we've studied this over the last several years, depending on the calculation methodology and the unique tax code, it's generally in that range . I think Councilman Ski's testament to about 1900 dollars out of. 30,000 or something. He's probably right in that 63, 65% of. 60, 65% savings. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to make just some brief comments. I think this is great. I want to commend Councilmember Sheepskin, but also consumer Lowenthal and Austin, who brought this forward. I remember before joining the council even I also live in a historic building and there was a lot of discussion about the Mills Act and the people in the. Building, I. Believe, lived there because we love it's its historical nature. It's an incredibly gorgeous place to live in the temple lofts here in downtown Long Beach. One of the I believe to be one of the best landmarks we have in the city. And there's a lot of I think there's a lot of opportunity for this to be something. There's an opportunity for us to help a lot of people. But more importantly, a lot of good a lot of these homes and buildings restored back to their glory days. So this is a great thing. I have one question I'm assuming that is broadcast in your review of of where we're at and what you're bringing back. You're going through a best practices review of what L.A. is doing, and everyone else is basically correct. Yes, sir, that's correct. Okay. And conservatorships cases, Anaheim. Right. Okay, great. Well, then we have a motion on the floor. There's no other community, no other council comment will take a vote. I mean. Yes, Mr.. Her motion carries eight votes. Yes. Great. And we'll go ahead and take the next item. Item 11 is communication with the office Councilwoman Jeri Ships and council member Gary DeLong with a request that the city attorney provide a review of the city of Costa mesa, civic, civic openness in negotiations, ordinance and the feasibility of a similar ordinance being adopted in the city by the Long Beach City Council.

Recommendation to adopt resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2022 City Salary Resolution to include a Lateral Police Officer Incentive Program. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05032022_22-0481

Motion is carried. 23 Report from Human Resources Recommendation to adopt a resolution amending the fiscal year 2020 to City Salary Resolution to include a lateral police officer incentive program citywide. There's a motion and a second is for public comment on this. A public comment. Mr. Murdoch added, You need to give any update here or. Just that we have two items in front of you tonight. Both are to able to attract. Individuals coming from other agencies into our city. We are doing everything we can to try to increase hiring. And so this is one of our items. This one in particular. Is a an incentive to bring over lateral police officers. It takes about a year and a half to almost two years from the time you train and recruit a police officer to the time that they can serve on the streets. And so if you do a lateral where you're bringing. Someone in from another agency, that can be done in a matter of, you know, of weeks, essentially. So this is a $15,000 incentive. And it's also structured to make sure that that employee stays with us at least a year and try to make sure they have a long career here in Long Beach. So we're very supportive of this and ask for your approval. We have a motion in a second. Councilman Austin, did you have a question? I just had a really quick question regarding the the benefit of the lateral. Can you explain what it costs to to go through a police academy and to train an officer? We don't have those exact costs right now. But I think it's a it's pretty costly and timely to put somebody from the beginning of the academy through the process. And so I think this would be a way to really expedite the process, like Mr. Modica said, and give us another tool in the tool chest for recruit recruiting experience candidates. Well, I don't have costs. I can talk a little. Bit about the process. It takes about a year for you to go through a recruitment. Process, through civil service, to create the tests. To create the list. We then do an extensive, extensive background on anybody who's coming into our to our organization, which includes going out and talking to anyone who, you know, they've had contact with and really understanding that person's history. You do that as well when you do laterals. But you can do it in a in a more compressed. Timeframe. You don't have the long. Recruitment and then you put them through an actual academy. And then after the academy, you also have field training. And so that person goes does not go out by themselves into the field. They actually work with an officer to train them and they do that for an extended period of time. And so altogether that is a very expensive model that we have. And this actually is a very efficient way to bring on officers quickly. And my follow up question is, what do you say to someone who says that we may be getting somebody else's discarded officer or somebody who didn't cut it in another department? What kind of provisions are we putting in place to ensure that we're getting quality? Yes. So we would put every officer that's. Doing a lateral through an intense review process. Just like we would any new employee. But in this case, you're actually able to really. Delve into their background because they've been an experienced police officer. And so we have a number of tools that we use through our process to make sure that we understand that person's background. And then we are able to make selections based on, you know, what, what type of officer we're going to want to have in our in our in our organization. We still put them through training. We still do things in language. You want to make sure they know about our culture. We want to know that they know our training programs. And so a lot of officers also get trained as they come on so that we make sure that they're consistent with our policies and practices. Thank you very much, Senator. Second, there is no public comment, so please cast your votes.

AN ORDINANCE granting a utility easement of surface and subsurface rights to King County, through its Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Wastewater Treatment Division (“King County”), to maintain an underground overflow pipeline and channel for the King County-owned reservoir within Discovery Park, which serves the regional wastewater facility, to meet federal guidelines for a potable water supply separation in the event of an emergency shutdown and backup of the incoming water supply.

SeattleCityCouncil_07222019_CB 119569

The Report of the Civic Development, Public Assets and Native Communities Committee. Agenda seven Council. Bill 119569 Granting a utility easement of surface and subsurface rights to King County Commission recommends the bill passes amended. Councilmember Bagshaw. Thank you. And on behalf of Councilmember Suarez, we've got the last three items. So we are going to go quickly on this. This is a Discovery Park ordinance that grants a utility easement of surfing and subsurface rights to King County. They will maintain the overflow pipeline and channel and Discovery Park. We amended the ordinance in committee to adopt Attachment one Version two, which stipulates that the city will be responsible for maintaining any natural causing disturbance to the easement. So if there is an earthquake, it's ours. This amendment was agreed upon both by the city and the county, and the committee recommends a do pass recommendation on this. Very good. Any questions or comments now? Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Macheda I O'Brien. I Pacheco. I so want I beg John Gonzalez Herbold i President Harrell high eight in favor and unopposed. Will pass and share with Senate. Please call the next agenda item into the record.

Resolution Recognizing National Purple Heart Day 2022. On motion of Councilors Flynn, the rules were suspended; the resolution was adopted.

BostonCC_08102022_2022-0967

0967 Duncan 0967. Councilors Flynn and Murphy offer the following resolution recognizing National Purple Heart Day 2022. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The Chair recognizes Council President Flynn. Council President Flynn, the floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Arroyo. And thank you, Councilor Murphy, as chair of Veterans Services as well. August 7th just passed to his national Purple Heart Day. And that day is a national day that we honor. We remember we recognize the service and sacrifice of a Purple Heart recipient. And that is a person that was wounded. In service to our country or it's a person that was killed in service to our country that that person shed blood shed blood for our country. So it's a it's an important day for us to remember, to think about those disabled veterans that were wounded, those veterans that were killed in action also. And to remember their family and to remember their sacrifice and their heartache and their pain. Losing a loved one, losing a son, losing losing a daughter. That veterans coming home that might be a Purple Heart recipient might be still suffering from. Various wounds that he or she received in combat. And it might be having a terrible impact on that person's family, their spouse or their parents. They might be engaged in the VA medical system, in mental health counseling for the rest of their life. So it's important for us to remember the incredible sacrifice and service of our Purple Heart recipients on this day and honored to partner with Counselor Murphy. But I also would like to suspend and pass this resolution today so that we can recognize those that are recipients of the Purple Heart in their family. Thank you, Counselor. Thank you, Mr. President. Flynn. Counselor Murphy. The floor is yours. Thank you, Counselor Arroyo. And thank you, President Flynn. And as the chair of Veteran Military Families and Military Affairs, I fully support this resolution in declaring August 7th as a national Purple Heart Day. President Flynn already quite nicely summed up the importance of this resolution. But still to know this day offers Americans a special opportunity to say thank you to the nearly 2 million brave men and women who fought for our nation's freedom and bear the physical scars of war. It is the ultimate sacrifice for our country. And I applaud such recipients of the Purple Heart Award and just want to say thank you that we suspend and pass. I hope our colleagues join us in that. Thank you very much. Thank you, Counselor Murphy. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Seeing no one else. Would anyone else like to add their name? Mr. Clarke. Please add. Councilor Baker. Councilor. Councilor Braden. Councilor Fernandez. Anderson. Councilor. Clarity. Councilor. Laura. Councilor Lui. Gen. Councilor. Rail. And please add my name. Oh, hold on 1/2. Councilors Flynn and Murphy seek suspension of the rules and adoption of Docket 0967. All those in favor say I post, they make. The ayes have it. Docket 0967 has been adopted. Mr. Clarke, if you would, please read in to the record docket 09680968.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Office of Housing; creating a new Fund in the City Treasury.

SeattleCityCouncil_11222021_CB 120200

Agenda Item 23 Council Bill 120200 An ordinance relating to the Office of Housing Creating a new fund in the City Treasury. The Council budget action was approved by the following vote Council members Mosquito Purple, Gonzalez Suarez and Lewis Morales and Strauss in favor and Council member Peterson abstaining. Thank you so much. Are there any comments on Council Bill 120200 Agenda Item 23. Any comments on agenda item 23 Seeing no hands raised. Will the Court please call the roll on the passage of Council? Bill 120200. Agenda Item 23. Student. Yes. Strauss. Yes. Herbold. Yes. Whereas I. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. For Sarah. Hi. Paterson. Hi. Council President Gonzales. I nine in favor and unopposed. Thank you so much. Council Bill 120200 Agenda item 23 passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please affix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? The clerk please read the title of item 24 into the record.

A resolution by the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex officio as the Board of Directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget, imposing Capital Charges and Maintenance Charges, and making appropriations for the 2021 Fiscal Year. Approves the 2021 Work Plan and Budget for the 14th Street General Improvement District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-10-20.

DenverCityCouncil_11302020_20-1268

13 Eyes. Resolution 1267 has been adopted. Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District. Councilmember Flynn. Will you please put Resolution 1268 on the floor? I guess I will. Thank you. Madam president, i move that council resolution 20 dash 1268 be adopted. Dagen. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for resolution 1268 is open. May we have the staff report? Leaving board members once again, I'm Michael Kerrigan from the Department of Finance, Capital Planning and Programing Division. I'm here to provide the staff report for the Denver 14 Street General Improvement District and request approval for the District's 2021 budget and work plan. The district is 22.66 acres in size and is located along 14th Street from market to Colfax and generally includes all persons along both sides of 14th Street. It was created by council and approved by the electors in response to the 14th Street Initiative to create downtown Denver's Ambassador Street. The initiative began in 2005 and visualized 14th Street as a promenade and major gateway to the downtown area. The plan contemplated streetscape enhancements and related public infrastructure improvements. Stakeholders included private property owners, public officials and business organizations participating in the establishment and conceptual design for 14th Street. In 2019, City Council approved the formation of the 14th Street G80 and the creation of the District Advisory Board. The district was established to acquire finance, operate and maintain street improvements. The district's creation ordinance calls for the JD to end to annually at least to at least annually pass a work plan and budget. The District Advisory Board, after a notice and hearing, recommends to the Board of directors the proposed workplan and budget, including maintenance charges and capital charges before you tonight in 2021. The district plans to continue maintaining district amenities, including but not limited to tree planter and flower pots, landscape maintenance, signage, repairs, trash removal and sidewalk landscape and sidewalk lighting maintenance. The work plan, budget and charges include total revenues of $555,816, which is comprised of $248,306 in maintenance charges in Banner River Banner rental revenue plus $306,010 in capital charges for the repayment of debt used to fund the capital handsomeness along 14th Street. City staff has reviewed the 2021 Budget Work Plan, Budget and Work Plan and recommends it for approval. Beth MALESKY and Mark Katz are also here on behalf of the district to answer any questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Michael. We have three individuals signed up to speak. The first one is Beth Moisi. Any evening. I'm here on behalf of the 43 General Improvement District and available to answer questions. Very good. Thank you, Beth. Next up, we have you, Michael. And Michael Eric Michael Carrigan here to answer any questions regarding the 14th Street. All right. Very good. And Jesse, you're up next. So many members of council are. Watching at home just to watch. Your parents and I live in district eight and Christopher have this district and I represent the Denver now black star salute for self defense positive African-Americans social change as well as the party of Colorado and Mile High knows that would be the next November in 2023 . I had a few questions for Michael or Beth. I want to know which is General Improvement District, where these funds are going to be used for because I heard something about trash cleanup. And it is my understanding, with several people's understanding, that our unhoused may be treated like trash if swept every night and day. So is this money going to be used to sweep undesirables from the 14th Street Promenade? The smoker. Please answer that question. I would greatly appreciate it. All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. All right. CNN, the public hearing for council resolution 1268 is closed. Comments by members of council. CNN. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. CdeBaca. I. Clark. All right. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hines, I. Cashman. I. Kimmich I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Resolution 1268 has been adopted. Council is now convened as the board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District Council member Flynn, will you please put Resolution 1269 on the floor?

Recommendation to approve the use of Sixth Council District Fiscal Year 2015 one-time infrastructure funds in the amount of $ $11,444.03 to fund the City of Long Beach cost that includes public safety for the 10th Annual Cambodian New Year Parade in the Sixth and Fourth Council District.

LongBeachCC_04052016_16-0315

Okay. Item 17. We've done 16. Have we? That's correct. Okay. Items item 17. Communication from Councilman Andrews Andrew's recommendation to approve the use of Sixth Council District Fiscal Year 2015. One time infrastructure funds in the amount of $11,444 to fund the city of Long Beach costs. That includes public safety for the 10th annual Cambodian New Year parade. Thank you. I myself. I was you. There's a slogan. And we always have heard of where you were. Young or old. You know, Abraham Lincoln said, you know, and the best one is said is a house divided cannot stand. And we all stand by a Cambodian community. You know, there's a parade. It's the 10th year. And we definitely need all the help from all our, you know, community and our constituents and mostly on the diocese. You know, we got the fact that they put something together that was a long time coming. And I would just hope that most of our colleagues here would be a part of it. And I would just like to let the Cambodian community know that we are behind you and hope that you do the right thing in order to make sure that we keep our Cambodian parade, you know, as active involved as it has been for the last ten years. Thank you so. Oh, good. Is there any more comments? From the diocese examined comments from the public. Public comment. I see. No. Vote on. I'm a yes. Motion carries. Item 18.

A MOTION confirming the executive's appointment of Natasha Rivers, who resides in council district five, to the King County cultural development authority (4Culture) board, as an executive at-large representative.

KingCountyCC_04152019_2019-0057

Council Councilmember Caldwell's has moved approval of the March 18th minute scene. No discussion. All those in favor. Please say I oppose. Nay, the ayes have it. The minutes are approved. That takes us to items five and six on today's agenda. We'll take those up in order and ask Ms.. Crocus Zoghbi to join us. The first motion is confirming the appointment of Natasha Rivers to the King County Cultural Development Authority, or for Culture Board today. This is the first of two appointments to the For Culture Board that provides cultural development activities within King County. Natasha Rivers, who was appointed by the executive Constantine is the first of the two and I'd ask Lia to make any additional comments I have already stolen, and then we'll ask Ms. Rivers to join us. Thank you. Councilmembers Lia crackles Oppie Council Staff Yes. So just a little background about the board. Culture board for Culture is King County's cultural development authority. It was developed or created in 2002 to administer King County's arts and heritage programs, and it is governed by a 15 member board of directors. And directors are to have a demonstrated commitment to and knowledge of cultural resources, be active and experienced in community and civic issues and concerns, and have the ability to evaluate the needs of cultural constituencies in the region. As a whole, directors are to represent a range of talents, experience, background and viewpoints related to cultural development. And directors must be residents of King County in order to be chosen to reflect the geographic and cultural diversity of the county. Last year, the Council made changes to the For Culture Board appointment process, which state that nine of the 15 positions are now directly appointed by county council members. All appointments must be confirmed by the Council. By Motion Board members serve four terms of three years and may serve up to two consecutive full terms. And today the first appointment in front of you is the For Culture Board board appointee Natasha Rivers, who lives in Renton in Council District five and was appointed by executive Constantine. Miss Rivers is a demographer for the Seattle Public Schools and is an adjunct professor, instructing it on human geography, immigrant America, population, geography and race and ethnicity in the American city. She is also a board member of. For Seattle Children's Theater and other civic organizations. Ms.. Rivers appointment appears to be consistent with the requirements of County Code and the for Culture Charter and bylaws. And she is here with us today. Thank you, Mr. Words, if you join us at the table. Yeah. Good afternoon and welcome. Thank you. I I'd give you an opportunity to just offer a few introductory comments before I ask colleagues if we have any questions for you. Yeah, I think she covered a lot of it. So I work for this yellow school district for about five years and serve on several community boards in the arts and also, you know, Urban League for Metropolitan Seattle Team Child. And I write fiction. I have a lot of interests. But essentially, I think I was invited to be on this board because of my interest with the arts, the demographic changes in the city. My efforts in terms of equity and inclusion in the workplace and also on community boards. So it sounds like a very apropos background for for culture in the work the agency is doing. Thank you. Councilmember Garcia, do you have a question? Yeah. Yes. I'd like to just mention a little something about demography. We we have been cited really well here at the county by demographers. And we have, I think, about four or five on staff. And something that's of interest to me is trying to find out why the county does not dis aggregate Africans from East or West Africa from African Americans. We have a demographic I don't know if it's a policy or not to put them all together. So my only question to you is, is it relatively easy to aggregate something like that out of people of African descent, but distinctly culturally, historically different? So that's a good question. And my dissertation was actually a little bit on. That. African identity, African-American African identity, and looking at migration trends of recent African immigrants and how many integrate. But for the school district, the way we distinguish that is usually home language because we have a lot of programs that are targeted towards African born versus African-American students, but they're still grouped into an African American category. And I think that to do with race and funding and things like that, yeah, I thought that there was something going on at the city level where they were trying to desegregate that data. But as far as school district, we just sort of point out languages and resources that need to go to those communities. And how do you see those skills? Because I, I, I mean, I'm excited about the fact someone with your background has that. When you say you're you are interested in art, is it from the writing perspective or the research perspective or both? It's all really. So for the college business theater, it's in terms of performance art and who has access to those shows. But I'm also interested in local artists getting the opportunity to have their art shown or just understanding, like for the access for all. When that comes maybe back up in terms of, you know, funding and outreach and who's involved and which arts organizations receive funding. I just want to be a part of that discussion. So that sort of drove my interest. Thank you. Yeah, that's helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.. That's fantastic. I was actually in an event last night that shakes with a bilingual Shakespeare presentation, and it was maybe more engaging than Shakespeare. An English Council member of the Guild, Councilmember Dejean. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh, jokers. Thank you, Dr. Rivers, for being with us. Can you just speak a little bit about you do have such an eclectic background in terms of social you know, social sciences and then arts together. Talk a little bit about, from your perspective, how you see the importance of the arts in terms of achieving maybe some of the greater outcomes that we'd like to see with things that we may normally think about as human services or education or outcomes. How do arts and culture play into helping to achieve success, if you will, broadly defined in your view? Okay, that's a good question. So I grew up in Seattle before it became kind of a popular city. So inner city Seattle went to Seattle public schools and low income. And I think exposure to the arts specifically, specifically at the Seattle Children's Theater was really eye opening for me. I think it created a space of inclusion, just that all the kids of that. Room. We're experiencing the same show. Because I do think there's sort of like a set of standard things you see on TV and you read about there's like a standard set of beauty and what's politically correct, what's incorrect. But I think something about just raw being on stage, having that shared experience and the light goes down sort of exposed me to a different area of interest that I think once everyone has sort of equal access to that sort of lived experience and exposure to the arts, it does sort of open up your imagination and what you think you can do and how you relate to someone else if you're all laughing at the same thing or seeing the same show. So I think for me, definitely, I mean, obviously now I serve on the College of the Theater board. So it had an impact on me when I was going through K through 12. Thank you for sharing your personal experience. I think that a number of us have had that connection in different ways. For me, I was in theater as well, but for me it was with my son who has a series of developmental disabilities and challenges and watching him engage in theater with other kids and just be part of the experience the same as every other kid there, despite the fact that in some situations that's not possible or doesn't happen anyway. So I appreciate that. Thank you for sharing that experience. You're welcome. Councilmember up the grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just waiting for the right time to make a motion. Motion is in order. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd move the proposed motion to 19 0057 be approved. Thank you, Councilmember. Approve has moved adoption of that. We give it do pass recommendation of motion 2000 1957 for the remarks Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Rivers. I have to say right away that I am totally taken with you for many reasons, but one of which is that your ideas from UCLA were miners too. And so we're both Bruins. But seriously, so you have. Just like Councilmember Bell did, she said a really strong and eclectic background. I really appreciate that you are serving on a board right now at the Seattle Children's Theater. And I see you also received board leadership training with Arts Fund. Yeah. Have you had any direct involvement with Fort culture in other ways? And not until so. I guess over the last couple of years I've been getting more involved with them. I think over this last year for the board members that I, I mean, board meetings that I could attend and I have attended had a one on one with Brian, who's the new executive director. He and I both went through the Leadership Tomorrow program, different years, but basically the same training. So I feel like it's what the delay in the appointment. I still been able to have an active role and learn what they've done over the last two years. So it's been in that way. But yeah. Well, thank you for applying. And I think it's a really strong appointment by the executive council member. Got it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had one quick question of our staff. When you were mentioning about the terms of the board, you said that board members can have two consecutive three year terms for a total of six. My question to you is, does that hold the same for the three ex-officio members from the county council who are on the board? No. So the ex-officio board members serve one year terms and you can serve one one year terms and you can serve three consecutive one year terms. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember up the Grove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know Dr. Rivers mentioned her professional work has been in Seattle. She is a resident of South King County in District five. And I had the chance to sit down and we had had coffee together. And I'm interested in people's backgrounds, but I'm also always interested in boards like this and people's personal attributes. And I found Dr. Rivers and Natasha, if I can use first names to be someone who's just very accessible is the word I thought of later, someone who's thoughtful. He's obviously a very positive and kind person. And I think with agencies like that that interact with a lot of organizations and a lot of individuals, people in those leadership roles, I think need to have those kinds of attributes to connect with the community. And I think that's going to be a huge, huge asset also. We talked a lot about issues related to equity around the changing demographics in the county, around how do you ensure that everyone is served by the agency? And it's obviously a topic that's near and dear her heart and and she's given a lot of thought to professionally and personally. And so I'm excited about her appointment. Thank you. Say no further remarks. I might ask the clerk to call the role. Just about there. To Councilmember DEMBOSKY. Councilmember Dunn. Councilmember Garcia. Councilmember Cowell. Councilmember Lambert. Councilmember article. Councilmember phone. Right where? Hi, Mr. Chair. Mr. Jerry Rogers. Nine eyes and no nose. Thank you. By your vote, Musburger's appointment will be taken up at the April 24th full council meeting with the due pass recommendation. And I would suggest we put this on consent. Yeah, it will be on the consent agenda. You're welcome to come if you wish. But you're not expected or required to in any, any way, shape or form. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks for your time. Mm hmm. And that takes us to our second motion with a for culture appointment today. Motion 2019 103. This is King Chasm, who I'm nominating for appointment to the board. And I'll turn it over to Ms.. Krakow's up for introductory remarks.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Public Utilities; declaring certain real property rights to be surplus to the needs of Seattle Public Utilities; and authorizing the General Manager/CEO of Seattle Public Utilities to execute an easement agreement with Little Green Valley, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; Nancy J. Gleason; Ron L. Nickell aka Ronald L. Nickell and Sandra Flint Nickell, Husband and Wife; William H. Flint; The Heirs of Charles Eugene Flint; and Joan H. Zimmerman, allowing the use of certain City of Seattle property in the north half of the southwest quarter of Section 5, Township 22 North, Range 6 East, W.M., in King County Washington for access purposes.

SeattleCityCouncil_09302019_CB 119639

Bill passed. Sure. Sign it. Please read the next agenda item the short title. Agenda Item seven Council Bill 119 639 Related to our public utilities, tackling certain real property rights to be surplus to the needs of Seattle Public Utilities Committee recommends the bill pass. Council Member Herbold. This is legislation to authorize the public utilities to grant an easement for access across portions of the Cedar River water pipeline right of way to serve adjacent properties that would otherwise not have driveway access. Granting this easement would resolve a property owner lawsuit and allow for some minimal compensation to the city of easement rights of 30 $500 . Thank you. Any questions or comments that please call the rule on the passage of the bill? Mosquera I. O'Brien Right. Pacheco I so want I beg SRA Herbold I was worst sorry President Harrell high eight in favor and an. Bill pass and chair of Senate. Please read the report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. The Report of the Housing, Health, Energy and Workers Rights Committee. Agenda Item eight Council Bill 119 631 Relating to the satellite department authorizing General Manager and Chief Executive Officer of satellite to execute the Northern Grid Funding Agreement, authorize seeing the execution of supplements, extensions and amendments to such agreements subject to appropriated budget authority and ratifying confirm research

A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and ATP Oilfield Services, LLC concerning on-call maintenance of oil and gas wells located at Denver International Airport. Approves a contract with ATP Oilfield Services for $2,500,000 and through 12-31-22, with two possible one-year extensions, to provide on-call roustabout services for Denver International Airport oil and gas wells, including labor, equipment, and associated supplies to maintain, plus corresponding flowline, gas lines, and tank lines to adhere to all federal and state environmental and safety regulations, as required for regulatory compliance regardless of well status (201948714). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-18-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-16-19.

DenverCityCouncil_10282019_19-1073

Thank you very much. I'll do a quick recap. Under resolutions, Councilman Sawyer has called out Resolutions 1073 and 1074 for questions under bills, for introduction. No items have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first items on our screen? And, Councilman Sawyer. Go ahead with your questions. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to just be talked to the airport quickly about these two oil and gas contracts. I just want to clarify a couple of things, if you guys don't mind. Thank you. Hi. Rachel Marion, director of government affairs for Denver International Airport. Hi. Thanks. Thanks for coming tonight. I appreciate it. Just wanted to we sort of went through this in committee, but I just want to make sure for everyone watching at home this evening that we just clarify exactly what's going on with these contracts and what's happening as they come through. So can you just kind of talk a little bit about what these contracts are and what they're doing? Sure. So we currently have 76 oil and gas wells on airport property, most of which existed prior to the airport being built on that land. And what these contracts do are they fulfill our environmental and safety regulatory obligations. So checking on them daily to ensure that that leaks aren't happening and then responding in the case of any sort of emergency. What these contracts do not do is enable any sort of oil and gas production at the airport. Okay. And so the requirements that are in place, we are. Can you just explain we are required to have these contracts. In place. Sure. So on the federal level, we have Environmental Protection Agency, EPA requirements. At the state level, we have code CC, which is the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission requirements. And we also have Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment requirements with regard to all of our existing oil and natural gas wells. Okay. And so as long as we keep any oil wells that could potentially go back to being active, we are required to maintain these these contracts as active. Is that true? Correct. Okay. And so these contracts are for how long? The contracts are for three years with two one year extensions. One of the contracts, the existing contract expires at the end of this month. The other expires in December. So we're bringing them on to the same schedule. But it's three years with two one year extension options. Okay, great. And so there's just to clarify then there's no option for us to have these contracts not continue forward. We're required to have these in order to maintain these 76 wells on the airport land. Correct. So these contracts are necessary for us to meet our environmental and safety regulatory requirements as required by federal and state regulation. Okay, perfect. Thank you very much for clarifying. I really appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman, to our Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Hello. Hi. How are you doing? Great. How are you? I'm all right. Thanks for coming. So I have a few questions. So there was one example last. So the last actually couple of questions. When was the last time we extracted anything from these wells? All of our wells have been shut in since May of 2018. Okay. And there was one instance of a leak identified between May of 2018 and today. Is that correct? Correct. No more than one. No more than one. And then prior to the leak that happened earlier this year, the most recent leak was in 2014. And do you know how much leaked in the in that the 20. The one the recent one? I do not I do know that as a result of these contracts, we were immediately responsive and there were no incidents of environmental contamination after the leak was identified and remediated. Okay. How much would it cost to permanently close? I'm sorry. There's 76 wells. Four or five have been permanently closed. Is that right? We're in the process of the the correct term is plugging and abandoning. So we're in the process of plugging and abandoning five wells this year. Okay. And how much would it cost to plug and abandon all wells? The most recent estimate we have is $9 million to plug in, abandon all of the wells. Okay. Final question. I asked you this and I'll ask you again. If you if the if ten does choose to consider resuming production from any of these wells. You will give us the opportunity to discuss that in advance. Is that correct? Yes, absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Hinds. All right. Seeing no other questions on that item. That concludes the items to be called out this evening. Our 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 an item out for a separate vote. Councilman 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 in bills and confine on final consideration, be placed placed upon final consideration, and do passed in a block for the following items. Oh 19 Series ten 6610 6710 6810 7310 7410 5010 5910 6510 7510 7610 zero seven 1061, 1063, 1069, ten, 60, ten, 72, ten, 64, ten. Well, just second. I think we got off track here, Madam Secretary. I saw I've gone from 1069 to 10. 48. Am I missing? Did we miss out on that? Mr.. Yeah. So we should have 1069 1048 1038 1039, 1049, 891 and 1019 to conclude that list. Okay. Do I have to say I'm or can you say. All right, so we got them all, Madam Secretary. Yes. Thank you. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Raquel Black. I see. Tobacco, i. Flynn, I Gillmor, i. Herndon, I. Hines. I. Cashman High. Commission I. Ortega, I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close voting and note the results. 1339 As the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight, there will be required public hearing on Council Bill nine five for designating 2288 South Milwaukee Street as a structure for preservation.

A MOTION acknowledging receipt of King County organics market development plan prepared in accordance with 2019-2020 Biennial Budget Ordinance, Ordinance 18835, Section 102, Proviso P2.

KingCountyCC_11042019_2019-0353

Thank you. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation in motion 2019 429. And can we put that in consent? We'll put that on the consent agenda for at the regular course. That takes us to our next item, which is about how the county can play a more active role in expanding and enhancing the market for compost that is produced using the organic materials generated by the county within the county. This report was required as part of the 2019 2020 budget. And again here Rose is here to brief the item as well as. I am still here. Tomorrow's Council staff propose motion 2019 0353 What is the chair noted acknowledge receipt of the King County Organics Market Development Plan in response to a budget proviso. The materials for this item begin on page 335 of your packet, but I'm actually going to start on the following page on 336. So as I noted earlier in today's committee's meeting committee meeting, the Solid Waste Division is responsible for the disposal of waste generated in the 337 partner cities and the unincorporated area under the county solid waste system. Partner cities manage curbside collection of garbage, recycling and organics within their jurisdictions and in general contracts with private haulers to provide that service. While garbage is transported directly to the Cedar Cedar Hills Regional Landfill for disposal, recyclables and organics are taken directly to processing or compost facilities where materials are prepared for sale to manufacturers and other users. And I will just note that in order for mature materials to be effectively recycled, there must be a market for the end product. Approximately 1.03 million tons of organic materials were generated in King County, Snohomish County in Seattle in 2018. And this refers to things such as yard waste, food waste, wood waste, and 55% of that is attributable to King County, according to a consultant report requested by the Solid Waste Division. There are three composting facilities that accept and process organic material from residents and businesses in the region Cedar Grove, composting in Maple Valley and in Everett and Lenz Enterprises. So in the 2019 2020 Biennial budget, the council risk restricted $500,000 to be expended, only to develop a plan to expand and enhance the regional market for compost that's produced during using the county's organic stream. And to pilot the recommendations in the plan and also included in the budget is a linked proviso that withholds $250,000 until the executive transmits the plan to the council. And it also required Salt Waste Division in the development of the plan to consult with other county agencies and to consider best practices, procurement policies use in development and site rehabilitation projects and agricultural subsidies. Moving ahead to the analysis portion of the staff report on page 337. So in response to the budget proviso, the executive transmitted the proposed motion in front of the committee, which would acknowledge receipt of the King County Organics Market Development Plan. The plan notes that the division contracted with Cascadia Consulting Group for Market Assessment and Best Practices Research hosted two full day organic summits and consulted with county agencies to inform the recommendations in the plan. The proviso requires the executive to include a set of recommendations, and these are divided into three areas in the plan. One Enhance and expand the local market for compost to reduce wasted resources and contamination. And three, expand regional organic material processing. Table one on page 338 provides a description of each of the recommendations in the first area, which seeks to increase the purchase of compost in the region. And the plan notes that at this time only recommendation one B, which can be found in that table, would need new budget authority and that all other efforts will be paid using existing appropriations. The transmitted supplemental omnibus under consideration by the Council includes funding. Four to support recommendation one B moving ahead to page 340. Unless there are. Questions at. Table two on page 342 provides a description of the single recommendation and the second area of the plan, which seeks to minimize contamination. When plastic and glass are disposed improperly in organics collection bins, the resulting compost can become contaminated if processors are not able to remove the plastic and glass fragments. And the plan notes that contamination reduces compost quality and can hamper market marketability and impact value. The recommendations in Area three seek to aid in the development of additional composting processing infrastructure, and the plan indicates that in 2018, the King County and Snohomish County public health agencies permitted organics facilities to process 530,000 tonnes annually, but that they only process an estimated 470,000 tonnes, which represents an 85% which represents 85% of permitted capacity. The current plan notes that in order to reach the county's zero waste goal adopted in the Strategic Climate Action Plan and the 2019 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, more processing capacity will be needed in the future. In addition to divert more organics from disposal at the landfill. Table three on page 341 provides a description of the recommendations in Area three, and I will conclude my remarks in just noting that with the transmittal of this plan, the funds encumbered by the proviso can be released if motion 2019 0353 is approved by the Council. That concludes my remarks. I'd be happy to take any questions. We also have executive staff present. Questions. Council Member Dombrowski. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the excellent and easily understandable staff report. Tara, I really appreciate it. I wanted to start, Ms.. Chair, by thanking the Solid Waste Division for their strong work in preparing this report. It's comprehensive and responsive on this important area of county business, and I think it identifies some really important goals for us, including making sure we have adequate capacity to handle this waste stream and the importance of the waste stream in terms of keeping it out of the landfill or whatever disposal method we end up eventually going to . Councilmember Lambert I had one question, Mr. Chair, and that was, I think, in the proviso, if memory serves me correctly, in addition to asking for the study to for capacity and uses and there's some great creative uses in here that are very pro-environment and environmentally friendly. But we also asked them to actually pilot some work by acquiring a product and putting that to use. And I maybe I missed that, but did they do that and how did that go? Yes. So I would refer you to page 338 of your packet. Okay. The first recommendation noted there is to provide technical assistance to King County agencies to increase compost use in county projects. And included in that effort is the intent to have a universal compost purchasing contract that agencies could then pull from. So does that answer your question? That sounds like a go forward method, but I believe of the of the restricted funds, we wanted some of those to actually be put to use today, you know, currently to acquire product and put it to use in the field. And I'm wondering if and I see Pat nodding his head, maybe would he be the guy to ask for more detail on that? Or I would just note that many of these are in various stages of sort of planning and implementation and of course specific questions. Executive. Yeah. I wonder if. Mr. McLaughlin if the chair permit would have any examples of any early successes for putting this product to use in the field. And he's bringing back up. Yeah. And I'll have to go there. Probably not. That's that's a softball. I have no idea what the answer is. So I think that's been being I think the project being put to use. But I am truly curious as to how it's going. Yes. Thank you again. For the record, Pat McLaughlin. It's my honor to serve as your director of Solid Waste. And I'm accompanied with Josh Marks, who's really been our project manager on this feat. And we have indeed experimented with some materials that I'll I'll let Josh speak to this to not just to consume more material, but to actually find complementary ways to manage the environmental impacts of of managing waste. And I'll let Josh talk a little bit about the materials and the impacts of the pilot testing, which has led to a funding request because we see an opportunity to actually expand it. Thank you, Ben. Thank you, Josh Mar, for the record for the Waste Division. Yes, we've been engaged in a number of activities to develop the plan to buy more compost. To date, we haven't actually purchased piles of compost. We've been working to create programs and partnerships, so we've been working with many of the agencies within the county. So the Parks Department and. Roads, as well as the permitting agency to develop different approaches so that we can purchase compost. And as was mentioned in the staff report, we had a summit where we sought input from a number of stakeholders from the region. And really the two takeaway messages from those summits were that King County government could and should be doing more to purchase compost. And so we need to figure out what does that mean. We don't currently have universal material specifications for compost and there's limited and lack of awareness among project managers about opportunities for compost. So we need to build those relationships, develop those opportunities before we actually are on the ground buying compost. And as I mentioned, we do have a project to study the the benefit of using compost in the sense our waste division operations and that's applying compost to closed landfills and attempting to or measuring the GHG benefits of doing so so that we are going to be doing. But we as was mentioned in the staff report, we need additional funds that are in the omnibus. And so the last sentence of the ER number two says the pilot must include a program whereby the solid waste agent purchases compost for county use. So we haven't done it yet, but we we are doing it. Is that how we're complying with this? Yes. So our intention. With with. Funding provided would be. That we would go after we actually, I think a request about $560,000 that would help support the application of some of these materials on some of our closed landfills to model greenhouse gas emission sequestration. There is some pretty interesting study and there's a great video on it with respect to greenhouse gas sequestration and working compost into ag lands. And I would encourage you to work with the department, National Resources and Parks Farmland Preservation Program to see if we could pursue that as an area of cooperation. Yeah, we've we have actually done some onsite testing. We've in partnership. With Cedar Grove. Have. Applied some of their what they refer to as overshoots, maybe reject material that they don't have a market for. And we've been able to apply that up at Cedar Hills and do measuring and comparative results to other types of cover materials to understand the potential benefits. And we'll continue to explore those those options going forward. So if I may. Mr.. I'm still a little confused, less concerned about why when we aired 500,000 and said that it should it must include a program whereby the division purchases companies for county use. How is it that we are releasing these funds without them? The notion was there use some of the money to buy to test the stuff but that that hasn't yet been done and understand you are going to ask for some money to do that. But I mean, help me understand. And we project. That we will have that again. With funding. Appropriated. We'll have that complete by the end of the biennium, consistent with the proviso. Okay. So we're on a path. Absolutely. That okay. And just if I can, I'll be done then. Mr. Chair, the comment was made well, not just to, you know, buy it for buying sake or something like that, but one of our challenges is that the region is producing so much of this compost. Folks are really good about not putting it in the garbage bin. One of the thrust of this work was to have some demand created and to actually buy it so we don't have it piling up in Councilmember Dunn's district and the issues that arise from that. So we are trying to create a market to increase demand, to keep it out of the landfill and put it put it to use. And that's why I'm excited about some of the work you've done here in the proposals. And I just want to give you my encouragement to keep going in that direction, because I think it's a pretty exciting opportunity for the county to expand its role and make this market work thing. This Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the compost. Also gives us nothing. So how are you going to capture the methane that's being put off by the compost? Well, the private sector manages composting currently, so Cedar Grove manages in a rollback condition. And so there is no methane or very limited methane production in anaerobic condition. So that's anaerobic. So why does smell so bad then? Are the neighbors complaining about this now? Well, I would just say that the degradation of organic material is has odor. That is correct. But most that odor doesn't it come from methane production? The methane isn't that partly what creates the smell? I don't have a scientific explanation for that councilmember. And then also in number one, A, so there's a lack of uniformity in the specifications. So when you're looking at using these facilities, this compost in different places, having a lack of uniformity will make a difference whether it's going to be used in the roads or the parks or at your top parts of your landfill. So how are you going to get a more uniform specification out of this? So in partnership with the Sustainable Purchasing Program, we're developing specifications and we're using in the Department of Transport, the Washington State Department transportation specifications as well as others to to develop specifications that are that are used in different kinds of applications. Thank you. For the discussion. Council upthere. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this is following up on Councilmember Dombrowski is kind of getting my head around the the difference between the expenditure restriction and the proviso. But, you know, it's it's been a while. I understand that the expenditure restriction was on the development of a planned 250,000 and there is a separate section in the budget that had the 500,000 and it said that's for developing recommendations and piloting. Did the development, the recommendations cost 500,000? Did all that five per k get eaten up before actually implementing a pilot? I don't say that like a bad thing necessarily, but is is how much of that 500 K has been spent and I don't have a number of time how much was spent. We can provide that to you. We did spend significant dollars working with the consultants to develop the reports. But again, I think to address the question of why or why not. And we purchase complex. We need a place to put compost, right? I mean, there's always division isn't hasn't been in the business of of using this amount of compost. So we need to develop those markets. And that's what the initial efforts are all about, is trying to find those markets with our partners. And once we've developed that and there's confidence and willingness to use it, then that material can be applied. I mean, it's expressing a little nervousness that if the appropriation said here's half a million dollars to develop some recommendations and go pilot them, and then if it comes back, okay, we spent most of that just on developing the recommendations. Please appropriate more money to pilot it than either we got our budget way off or in terms of our estimates in advance of how much to appropriate for that or maybe it hasn't been spent. So I'd be interested in seeing this sort of a rough we can provide some greater clarity over the financials to address that concern. Are you are these folks back in? Are you at the SA Waste Division because you're shaking your head like you've got some knowledge or are you just commenting that they had check? Oh. Okay. All right. Yeah. I want to echo, if I can. We're going to go to the notion. The reason that language is there is and we put it in the SA Waste Division because we couldn't put it in another, you know, function. But the notion was start, bind some hysteria, deploy it, test your test, test the markets, put it in those stormwater cleaning facilities to save the salmon, get out there and do it. I we would never spend $500,000 to prepare a study, and I know you didn't. At least you better tell me then. Okay. I'll look forward to that same information that comes more up to go ask more in terms of the breakdown. Councilmember Lambert So how are you going to go about removing the contamination that is in the collected organics? And as you know better than anybody, China said that they won't accept any. Any impurities over 2.5% and our garbage is at 10%. So organics that you probably have a lot of, you know, garbage that have been thrown at it because you can put in your pizza things and such. So how are you going to remove the contaminants? And many countries are moving away from composting to an anaerobic digestion. So like for instance, Germany, which I happen to think is ahead of us environmentally, I know that some people don't think so, but I happen to think so. So do the contamination. They are not finding people wanting to purchase their compost. The report, very well done by our staff does talk about the costs of the equipment on order to do that. And the only way that I know to capture the methane is an enclosed facility, and this is not an enclosed facility. So your answer earlier that you don't really have to capture it because it's not there is confusing to me. So anyway, I think I think there's a lot of things that we need to continue to look at. Thank you. Colleagues. Are we comfortable moving the subcommittee committee today? Councilmember Caldwell's. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I moved a proposed motion of a 2019 0353 be given a do pass recommendation. Councilmember Cole was moved to give a DU Pass recommendation to motion 2019 353. See no further discussion. Would you please call the roll? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Council Member. Belted Chief Council Member. Dan Vasquez. Councilmember Dunn. Councilmember Gossett. Councilmember Nancy. Council member of the Borough Council member Ron, right there. Mr. Chairman. All right, Mr. Chair, the vote is 790 noes to excuse. By your vote, we've given a do pass recommendation the motion 2019 353. And we'll put that on the record. Of course, we'll put that on consent on the back of the course of action. That takes us to item seven in today's agenda. Our final item is regarding the county's 2020 legislative agenda. The county, as the other three, the state are, is a creature of the state and therefore often issues we wish to address or work on behalf of on behalf of our constituents are impacted or on some occasions even limited by state policy.

Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the successor Memorandum of Understanding with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_10042016_16-0913

Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilmember Pierce. Councilwoman Price. Councilmember Superman here. Councilwoman Mongo. Councilman Andrews. Councilmember Muranga. Councilman Austin. Vice Mayor Richardson. Mayor Garcia. I'm here to thank you. The first item for the council meeting we're going to take up is item 19. Report from Human Resources Recommendation to adopt resolution approving the successor memorandum of Understanding with the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Citywide. Mr. WEST. Mr. Mayor, council members, we have a very great staff report to present right. Now on the status of IAM in city negotiations. It's going to be presented by our human resources director, Alex Vasquez, and her assistant, Ken Walker. Good evening, honorable mayor and mayors of the city and members of the city council. You have before you proposed Memorandum of Understanding with the applicable resolution between the city and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. I am I am represents approximately 2700 employees and seven different bargaining units. The city and IAM have had over 18 negotiation sessions since October 2015, including a mediation which resulted in a tentative agreement which is before you in the M.O. you. I am agreed to no raises during fiscal year 15. And the term of this contract is through September 30th, 2019. The following are the major provisions of this proposed MRU, a 2% salary increase in October of 2016, a 2% increase in October of 2017. A 2% increase in October 2018. The elimination of a floor award and skilled pay. We also were able to reach agreement to work together to mitigate the increasing costs of employee health care for plan year 2018. We also agreed to additional meet and confer sessions regarding changes to the overtime policies, and we also agreed to establish a Labor and management committee to discuss an avenue for non carriers to secure seniority points towards classified employment. The proposed animal. You also has a meta provision that links these bargaining units to the other miscellaneous bargaining units in the event that those in bargaining unions receive a greater wage increase. It's requested that the City Council approve the attach resolution and approve the IAM. And will you? I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Councilwoman Gonzalez. I just want to say I'm glad we were able to come to this point. I know it was really tough. And I think I am for, you know, of course, coming to the table every single time. And I know our city staff did an amazing job as well in coming together. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you. I completely agree with Councilwoman Gonzales. And I want to thank our city staff for working on this. I think it was a great resolution. And I know I want to thank Mr. Suarez for coming to the table and working with city staff to get to this point. I think it's a good resolution. Thank you. Okay. Any public comment? Seeing no public comment to close it out. Go back to the council, councilman Austin. Yes. Thank you. I just wanted to remark and say this was a long, arduous process. The collective bargaining process actually prevailed this time. I think it's a fair agreement, one that I'm happy to support. I want to congratulate, first and foremost, the employees who are the face and worked very, very hard on behalf of the residents to make Long Beach what it is. And so I want to salute them and congratulate them on getting a contract. And I also want to congratulate our city staff, thank them for their hard work and efforts to hammer this agreement out. Like I said, it was long overdue. It was an arduous process, but I'm glad we're at the finish line. Good. Good job, everybody. Thank you. And Councilmember Gringa. One word, an L.A. kaanapali. Thank you. And then I'm just going to add, before we go to the vote, I want to begin by thanking the members of the IAM and all the hardworking rank and file employees that are members of the union up and down our entire organization. Special thank you to Mr. Suarez or we've had many conversations since you came on board. I think at the end of the day, it's important that we remember that all of our employees deserve fair compensation and that they're treated with respect as well as for treated for the hard work that they do every single day. As a reminder or IAM employees are the women and men that are working in our libraries, that are cleaning our parks, that are fixing our sewer lines, that are ensuring that ah, trees and maintenance are being done, that are making sure that this community is a safe place. They're all and they're involved every single day to making Long Beach a better place. And so I just want to thank them all for their hard work and again, for reaching an agreement with the city. And so with that council members, please take your vote. Motion carries. Thank you and congratulations. And thank the AM as well. And. With that will go to item. I'm sorry. There's a there's a hearing and then item 14.

Recommendation to adopt minute order to grant an application from Mary L. Johnston for a widow's pension.

LongBeachCC_08032021_21-0752

Councilman after motion carries at 30. Communication from city attorney, a recommendation to adopt them in order to grant an application from Mary L. Johnston for widow's pension. Get a motion in a second place and there is no public comment. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Thank you. That concludes the agenda. Now we are going to go back to our budget presentation and our hearing. Budget presentation, please, Madam Clerk. It's a report from Financial Management Recommendation to conduct a budget hearing of the proposed fiscal year 2022 budget for the capital improvement program citywide. Mr. MODICA. Thank you. This is our second budget. Hearing and traditionally on this day we go through. The capital improvement program. So the first. Day we normally give the. Overview of the entire budget and then now we're starting to dove a little bit deeper. We have a robust capital improvement plan. We know how. Important infrastructure is to all of you and your residents. So we will have Eric Lopez go through that. We are planning to have a. More focused study session just on infrastructure and kind. Of our longer term infrastructure later in the month. And so we'll be talking about that a little more as well. If I can turn now to Eric. Thank you, Tom. Andrew, honorable mayor, members of the city council. So I'm here tonight to present to you our proposed fiscal year 22 cap budget I to our residents present here today or those watching from home. Thank you for joining us tonight. I want to begin by first just highlighting some of the great work that the public works team has completed this current fiscal year. So we have some pictures to demonstrate that work. On the top left hand corner, we have our new Granada Beach concessions, a stand and play area. To the right of that, we have our new Atlantic Palms Bridge Community Center, our first year round shelter that opened this fiscal year. We're actually going to pause 1/2. I think we did not do 23. So I wonder I wonder what the agenda aims for. So if I can have the clock, please. I'm 23, please. It'll be a quick vote.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; approving a 15-year franchise to construct, operate, maintain, replace, and repair an electrical light and power system in, across, over, along, under, through, and below certain designated public rights-of-way in the City of Lake Forest Park.

SeattleCityCouncil_07132015_CB 118425

The bill passes and the chair will sign at the report of the planning land use and Sustainability Committee. Please read. Excuse me, this is the Energy Committee. Please read item six. The report of the Energy Committee Agenda Item six Council Bill 118425 relating to the City Light Department approving a 15 year franchise to construct, operate, maintain, replace and repair an electrical light and power system in a crossover along, under, through and below certain designated public rights of way in the city of Lake Forest Park. The committee recommends a council bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember Salmon. Thank you. This bill will approve the newly negotiated 15 year franchise agreement between Seattle, Adelaide and Lake Forest Park. City lights out electricity to other municipalities and neighborhoods outside the city limits. And when it does the terms as specified in the franchise agreements like this one, the Energy Committee recommends that the Council pass this bill. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the Bill. McCarter, i. O'Brien Okamoto. I. Rasmussen. I so want I back show Gordon Harrell I am president Burgess nine and favorite and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Finance and Culture Committee. Please read item seven, eight and nine. Well, we'll take them one at a time.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the Central Waterfront Project, authorizing the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement concerning funding for the Parks Central Waterfront Piers Rehabilitation project (K732493) between The City of Seattle and the Friends of Waterfront Seattle; authorizing the Director of the Seattle Department of Transportation to accept non-City funds on behalf of the City; amending Ordinance 124927, which adopted the 2016 Budget, including the 2016-2021 Capital Improvement Program (CIP); changing appropriations to the Seattle Department of Transportation and the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation; revising allocations for certain projects in the 2016-2021 CIP; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_07252016_CB 118730

The bill passed and the chair will sign it. Next matter place. Agenda Item ten Council Bill 118730 relating to the Central Waterfront Project authorizing the execution of a memorandum of agreement concerning funding for the Park Central Waterfront Pier's Rehabilitation Project between the City of Seattle and the Friends of the Waterfront. Seattle. Councilmember worse. Thank you. This allows the Department of Transportation to accept they feel fine. I can never say that word contribution from their friends to the waterfront for the redevelopment of Pier 62 and 63. When this project is done, there will be additional public space on the waterfront for all of Seattle to enjoy. The Friends of the Waterfront have already been working diligently to bring new programs to the waterfront, including their Hot Spot program is bringing free concerts to the waterfront park. This investment in a public asset in public amenity is a great example of how this city can work with local partners to leverage city investments and build what is truly needed and desired for the community and of course, all of Seattle in the Waterfront. The committee recommends that full council pass this bill. Any comments from any of my colleagues? Please call the role on the passage of the bill O'Brien. So on. I. Burgess. High. Emsa i Johnson whereas I verbal President Harrell I eight in favor and unopposed. Bill passed in the show it agenda item number 11, please.

Recommendation to conduct a Budget Hearing to receive and discuss an overview of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2022 Budget for the Capital Improvement Program. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_08032021_21-0731

Thank you. We'll go ahead and I'll go back to the budget hearing. Okay, Eric. Okay. Let's try this again. So let's go through some of our accomplishments and think in the team that worked really hard to deliver our current Y 21 projects and investments. So I just wanted to highlight a few of those projects and, and just pay tribute to our very hardworking team members that make this a reality. So I talked about Grenada and the and our Atlantic Farms Bridge Community Housing Project. Next to that, we have a playground renovation that we did at Eldorado Park, our Golden Grove, and that was one of a couple of improvements below that to them. In the middle of the of the slide, we also have in an improved Golden Shore, Golden Grove outdoor event center that we were able to renovate great space for outdoor events. Then to the bottom left, we have one of our many street improvements and then to the the bottom right hand corner. We have one of many, many curb ramps that we were able to complete this year. Overall, we are proposing a total capital improvement program investment of 146 million. We this consists of a merger of a variety of different sources that are listed on this slide. The investment in our ccap this year is an enhancement from from last year. And we can talk a little bit more about that in future slides. Within our capital improvement program budget. We split it up into different categories and we call these investment categories. And as you can see from the chart, the largest investments this year are being made within our mobility program, our public facilities program and our utilities program. For the airport and for the airport in Fy22 we are proposing an investment in improvements for accessing the terminal and for rehabilitation of the airfield runways. The total proposed budget for this program is 1 million. But in our Beaches and Marinas program, we're proposing an investment of 1.75 million spread about various uses. We're actually going to highlight some of the projects in this program in the later slide. We put out the Tidelands projects together in a slide so we can share some of those proposed projects. The mobility program represents one of the larger investments. We are looking at investing a total of $60 million in our city's roads, alleys, sidewalks and curb ramp improvements. A lot of this funding comes from not just local sources, but also from state and county sources, including gas tax. SB one measure. R measure and property and property. In. But some of the example we just wanted to show an example of of a local street improvement project the before and after the these these projects truly do make an immediate impact within our residential neighborhoods and our just our city overall that we are very proud of. I also wanted to show a before and after of one of our curb ramp improvements. And in our effort to improve accessibility, we've actually been able to implement over 600 curb ramps this year alone. That's on top of thousands of others that we've been able to complete in the last few years. One of my favorites. We've been talking about dirt alleys for a while, and we're getting to the point where we're addressing just about all of our dirt alleys. Here we have a before and after representation of a of an alley that been repaved and just a significant change from from one to the other. Overall in our mobility program, we're looking at add $59.79 million in investments. We laid out the sources on the left chart and the uses on the right. Those are the different categories that represent one or a multitude of projects within those uses. As for our for our local street programs are actually our top three investments are. Let me talk about top four investments this year that are being proposed is for our interior corridor enhancements program, our arterial street rehabilitation, residential street improvements and our ADA curb ramp improvements. Those four major uses represents a majority of the investments as part of the EMOBILITY program within our CHP. Every year we make progress on the infrastructure investment plan that was unveiled an FY17 1718 this year when we started on our plan, or at least the streets and roadways, sections of the plan. This was our red. And every year as we complete segments, we start converting them into green. And as we work on improving those, they start converting. So we made a lot of progress, but there's still a lot of work to do. The remaining red lines are projects that we still need to find complete. And on the right hand chart, I demonstrate the progress we made on our major streets, residential streets and alleys programs . So a lot of good progress, but some work remains that a team is working extremely hard on. Or Residential Streets. Our Residential Streets program is actually one of our one of our more busy and and I'm going to say effective programs. We have a great residential street team that's every year of finishing segments that are consistent with our investment plan. So we continue our work. At this point, a lot of our f y 21 residential streets are already designed and program for construction, and our engineers are focusing on the next set of streets and planning and designing and getting them ready for construction in FY 22. Within our parks program, we're proposing an investment of 1.6 million. Spread out. Spread across three different categories. And for our public facilities program, we're proposing an investment of 21.6 million. And we have a variety of sources that comprise this amount. And two main uses are our facility improvements and our energy efficiency improvements. And I'm actually going to highlight some of these projects. So for public facilities, we have listed we have proposed specific projects for this year, our police department, academy building renovation, our Queen Mary improvements, critical infrastructure reserves, citywide EV charging city on solar energy efficiency retrofits . And the other is listed on this chart. For our utility program. The largest investments are made for water and gas and sewer infrastructure. But we also have measure W and measure W revenue this year for capital improvements. That's going to be $3 million for FY 22. And as you know, the measure W was passed by the voters in November of 2018 and has been identified to be used to construct new stormwater devices that clean water. When one of our primary examples of such projects are eligible for Measure W projects as the Lbps Mast treatment facility, and we show a couple of pictures of that project that were in the slide. I also wanted to note that our Long Beach Energy Resources Department is proposing an $11 million investment through the city's pipeline infrastructure. And the R. And our Long Beach Water Department is proposing a $46.8 million investment through our city's water and sewer infrastructure. One of the highlight of some projects within our Tidelands Cap and Program and just AB32 funding. I wanted to show a recent project on the left hand side of the slide that we recently completed solar installation, solar canopies, that we're doing more solar now than we ever have. And we're and we look to continue that investment to the right Tidelands project that we wanted to highlight is the junior lifeguard facility that we are proposing to rebuild and we are targeting to start construction this coming fiscal year. For our Tidelands funded projects. I listed those projects in the chart to your right. We have a great number of really exciting projects that are being planned, designed or constructed there as as you know, Tidelands Funds is a it's a source that can only be used within a certain geography state defined tidelands areas within our city. So when we have available tidelands funds, we, we investment within those defined tidelands zones. For AB 32. We've been we've been investing on our citywide EV charging infrastructure. That investment is set to continue in fiscal year 22, as is our investments in citywide solar and energy efficiency, improvements at our city facilities, where we're also looking at making some early de upgrades into the Queensway bridge lighting. And we're looking at investing in our partnership with SCC to really encourage more people to transition to green energy sources and to take advantage of a lot of the programs that exist out there that just some people don't know about. AB32 is it's a represents a city of projects that that public works has been focusing on, especially in the last year. And we have a great team that's doing just amazing job at delivering these projects. So thank you to that specific team as well. Now I want to take a moment and highlight a measure A and the investment has allowed in our city's infrastructure. Everyone should be familiar by now with our infrastructure investment plan. And we've been able to to complete just over 70% of all the committed projects. And we're working hard to complete the remaining ones. What the projects that we're looking at completing this, this, this next year include the North Health Facility, the Alamitos Branch Library, our Eldorado Park Artificial Turf Field, and our recreation park playground, just to name a few. And these are major projects are all underway and very exciting to have the opportunity to deliver them. I do want to add a note that we are currently working on the next five year infrastructure investment plan, and we're planning to come back to this body and present some of the details. A big part of that obviously is the anticipated federal funding. And we want to talk about funding strategies to address some of the needs. And I will get into some of our needs in a couple of slides. Major accomplishments. We continue to be able to do a lot with the funding that's approved each year under Measure A, from community centers to street improvements, to park improvements and even stairways and accessible pathways out in the park system. We've also continued to deliver playgrounds and more curb ramps and and facility improvements. The most recent playground that we completed would measure upon this is the cherry part of playground that we were happy to unveil just a couple of weeks ago. The FAA 22 measure a proposed budget or recommend they are recommending to allocate 6.3 million to the mobility program, 1.2 million to the parks program and 14.13 million to the Public Facilities Program, which represents a total measure investment of 21.63 million. Our our investments continue to add various the specific projects we mentioned the PD academy earlier but we're also making investments to fire station nine. Some of our facilities that would needs that have been identified in our facility conditions, assessment curbs and sidewalks, arterial streets, programs alleys and and many, many other more enhancements. Since the inception of Measure eight in 2017, we invested a total, including the FBI 22 proposed budget. We're looking at an overall investment of just under $160 million. And it's truly hard to imagine where we would be at without this funding source and without them. The many projects that Measure A has really allowed us to propose, plan, design and deliver. Total estimated investments. We do have some projects that are that will require additional funding so that we can complete our commitments within the spending plan for our measure. And we're working hard on those. I wanted to spend just a moment on our unfunded needs, and as Tom mentioned earlier, we will be having a study session and we'll get deeper into some of these needs, our funding opportunities and potential strategies for funding. So by bottom line, we have more needs in our city than we have available budget. And every year we try to balance our needs and available budget and and really push forward projects that that are ready. And also, I think we do work really hard to try to bring in additional state and federal funding, and we're excited about the opportunity to be able to continue to do that, to address some of our many, many, many unfunded needs. Challenges and opportunities that we've identified. We do have our our new payment management program. It's been revised. We're working to release the information and the maps with the what the latest and greatest information on our streets. Having that data is going to be key in helping us plan, program and execute the that are the many street improvements that that that are in the works. We do have the ADA settlement agreement that we continue to focus on and we're working really hard to make sure we meet our commitments. We also have the benefit of our facilities, conditions, assessment and and the and the data that allows us to evaluate our investments within our facility that we didn't have before. So we're looking at releasing those final reports later this year and to updating those reports every ten years so that we know exactly what the conditions of our facilities are, and we can use that information wisely. Measure W Investment Plan. Measure W has been a really beneficial funding source as we continue to program the investments to help with stormwater water quality enhancements. And we're working on, on, on our investment plan that we can use to guide us throughout the next few years. And as I mentioned earlier, the next infrastructure investment plan does lean heavily on state and federal funding, which we are expecting and hoping that those funds are significant. So it can truly help us make a impact in addressing some of our many needs. So that concludes our presentation and we're ready to answer any questions. Thank you. Is there any public comment on this? There is one public comments and I can say. There's no more public comment on this item. Thank you. Before I turn this over to the council, I just want a couple of comments. First, I want to thank the public works team and Mr. Lopez for putting together a good CFP presentation. Always does. And I want to just add how I know I say this almost every year that, you know, for me this the CFP and the infrastructure work is some of the most important work that we do every year. And I think there are very few things I'm for. For most of the folks that I talk to that that rank higher oftentimes, then please fix my street or please replace my kids playground, or please take a look at the alley . These are the kind of bread and butter issues that we as a community, as a council should be focused on consistently is how we're producing for our residents as it relates to playgrounds, for the kids street, for the streets that are safe sidewalks, for to walk down in their neighborhood, trees that are trimmed. And I'm just really glad that we're making progress, even though we know the need is is so great. I just also want to just add that once again, I want to just uplift like I try to do every year, just the importance of of measuring. And you see it throughout your presentation. The investment that voters made now twice is transforming the city and has led to more investments in infrastructure than has been has happened in the last generation. So that's something we should be proud and celebrate and would not be possible without the people of this community who now twice have have now have invested back into into their city. One a note. One of the a lot of investments that I appreciate that happen. I'm focused on a few things. The first is that map. I think we've obviously meeting. We made a commitment to the voters to get that map done. And I know we're almost there. And so I look forward. I believe in a month or two or a month or two from now, we're going to have a study session specific to infrastructure and about kind of what's next. I understand. I know the Council Committee on Infrastructure is also, I think, digging in and doing some of this work. And so I look forward to that conversation and I look forward to finishing that map, which is an important commitment we made to the community. Also want to note that there are a few things that I enjoy more than replacing or installing new playgrounds. I believe that in the last few years we have probably replaced or installed close to maybe ten playgrounds using measure funds. They range from smaller playground sets to these just enormous, incredible new playground sets that we put in at places like Los Cerritos Park and Drake. We just opened one at Cherry Park with Country Ranga just a few weeks ago, all measure funded. And I want to encourage you, Mr. Lopez, and your team that as we plan for the future. Beyond the swipe at the next five years to prioritize playgrounds for kids in this community. And there's very few, very, very few things that we do where I get more positive feedback from parents and neighbors. Then we put out a new playground in their park. And so I just I'm hoping that that is a big focus for us moving forward. I also want to just note for the council that we have an enormous opportunity in front of us with this infrastructure bill that is getting bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate and in the House. I've been somewhat involved in it as a advocating on with throughout through the US Conference of Mayors and some of the conversations we're having with the White House and some of the the the infrastructure infrastructure groups I've had a chance to participate with with Secretary Goodridge on some talks, fought for the Port of Long Beach and getting resources there. We're coming up with some some asks as it relates to to road money and street money and playground money. And I think what's really critical is that we have an opportunity to get probably the largest federal investment in infrastructure than we've also had in a generation. And including in that will be also will be infrastructure investments that we've never had at levels around public transit, around broadband. Closing the digital divide around some some climate infrastructure and the very basics that we need in this community around roads, bridges, ports, airports. So. We're going to we're about to see a massive infrastructure investment in Long Beach and across the country. And I plan to be very involved and engaged in ensuring that we get that across the finish line, but then also making sure that we are investing it in where it needs to go in the city. And I would encourage us as a council, there's a lot of. A lot of items that come before us and a lot of interest, I think, on this body for issues. But I would challenge us that we should that this issue around infrastructure, we should spend a lot of time talking about and investing the time that I think our residents are asking of us. This is a huge issue. And so I'm really looking forward to these next few months where it's all going to be about infrastructure and how we spend those resources. So thank you, Mr. Lopez, for for the presentation. And I want to thank you, Mr. Modak, also for for making sure that we're getting these measures put in place. Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I think you guys have almost said all that I wanted to say, but not quite. I do want to thank Mr. Lopez for a great presentation. It's always encouraging to see that we have the opportunity to invest in our infrastructure. And the city this year was $146 million, and that's going to keep people work working. But also it's going to do a lot of good in our city. You know, I think the mayor here summed it up. I think we all are sitting on the edge of our seats and anxiously awaiting information coming from DC around the infrastructure bill that is matriculating through Congress right now. And obviously how we plan and what we. What we do in the future will be driven by that quite a bit. You know, I do love playgrounds, but I honestly, I think if you talk to too many of the residents in our in our city, you know, the pulse is around residential streets and alleys. That work is is transformational. That work is greatly appreciated. And and obviously, there's still a lot of need in the city. Measure A was a great shot in the arm. And it gave us the ability to to actually be working toward improvement. But it's not enough. And so I'd like to and when we get to that point, have that the conversation and, you know, I'm going to be a hard advocate and going down the gantlet to make sure that, you know, every street, every neighborhood in this the city is is a place where everybody is proud to live no matter where they live. In the city, our neighborhoods are all communities matter. And and I think whenever I can see residential streets, curves, sidewalks, alleys being repaired, I know that I'm doing tangible work that's going to make a difference for the long term interest of our city. So I would make those comments, but understand that that that's where I'm going to be coming from for for the foreseeable future. When it comes to infrastructure dollars. I'm looking forward to, you know, obviously digging into the rest of the budget presentations that we have, but to the the team, the staff, Mr. Lopez and entire public works team, I just want to say on behalf of the residents of the eighth District and I know many, many others, thank you for the aggressive work that you guys are doing. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. Great presentation. Eric knows my favorite topic of all time is infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. I have to agree with Councilmember Austin that the pulse on the street is streets, streets and sidewalks. Streets and sidewalks and playgrounds are great. And I have a two and a half year old and playgrounds are fantastic. And I love meeting all the other moms and dads at the playgrounds. But when I'm at the playgrounds, the complaint I hear from parents is my kid can't bike on the sidewalks because they're so broken in our neighborhoods. And so I think that there's this intermediary and it's interesting to hear the parents because like when a sidewalk is cracked a little bit, it's difficult for a child to walk on and to learn to scooter on and so on. But when the sidewalk is cracked a lot, it's now become a skate ramp. And so while the neighbor kids all love it, the person whose house it's in front of does not. And the fact that I have multiple. Skate ramps in 90808 that are in excess of nine inches from where they initially started is just a testament to why we have $600 million in sidewalk need and sidewalks, our health sidewalks, our seniors sidewalks, our children sidewalks are everybody. During the pandemic, I know we saw people walking more than ever before. And to continue that, we really need to provide an inviting place to walk. I would even say the one thing I miss most about living in the seventh District was the width of the sidewalks. The sidewalks on the seventh district are two squares wide versus one rectangle, and that makes it a more enjoyable family walk at night. And so as we discuss and implement sidewalk repairs, I think that's something important to consider. This report is great. I think it would be interesting to dove into at the Infrastructure Committee the determination on priorities based on now that we have a full understanding of street repair need on residential streets, street repair need on Ontario, arterial sidewalk repair need, and our public facilities. Then we need to say, okay, what's the total cost? What's the percentages where we go from here? How do we make this happen and how do we deliver for the community now? Because people need those things now. And as we've seen during the pandemic, the cost of materials is increasing at a rate so quickly that we would be better off borrowing money and repairing them today, then experiencing continued increased costs over time. So I look forward to bringing an item back on that in a couple of weeks and hearing more from the community on what their priorities are, on how we would make sure that the percentages of funding allocated really meet the needs of what our community needs today and tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Superman. Thanks. Thanks for the presentation. And I just. Want to make a comment on the PowerPoint presentation. We didn't receive the PowerPoint until mid-afternoon. And I just I. Want to refer to the streets and roadways map on page. 12. So if anyone out there sees that we have a few inaccuracies, just rest assured will address those. In fact, the director and I have a briefing scheduled for tomorrow at 2 p.m.. Sounds like we planned it, but I was just looking. And so also on page 30. Of the presentation. References the pavement management system. So there are updates to this map that. You're that you're seeing in the presentation and. We'll get all those straightened out tomorrow. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman. Councilman Sorrell. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I want to thank Mr. Lopez for the presentation. It's really helpful for me as somebody who's new to council to understand. And I do appreciate the visual images because it's the friendly illustrate. You know, how bad it was before and how much it's changed. I always appreciate being able to share that with residents when changes are, you know, improvements are made in District six. And I also want a distinctive public works team for all their work on all of this. You know, it's you know, it takes it's every day that, you know, we you know, the moment we leave our house , you know, we step on the sidewalk and, you know, so we, you know, have a lot of public works things that are in front of us. And I do want to just add to this conversation about yes, I think in addition to streets and sidewalk, playgrounds are important. I think it's important we really look at improving all of them because there are neighborhoods that are very dense where they have no yard. And the only source of area for young people to have physical activity and even to play is at the playground. So I would just add to that. Yes, playgrounds, too, in addition to the streets and sidewalks. You know, I also want to mention that when I think about streets and sidewalks, I think a lot about concrete. It's just it's a lot of pavement and concrete. And I want us to think about to how do we green these areas, right. And how do we ensure that while we want to create these smooth sidewalks for people to recreate, and that we're also conscious that it does create urban heat and it just gets hotter and hotter. Right, as we're trying to address climate change. So love for us to be able to consider that as we're going through these planning and now ways you can green alleyways and other other you know walkways. So and I'm just a question around the unfunded needs so you have all these streets and road improvement. And so I see $1.77 billion and it has a 2021. Is that just the last time it was calculated as far as the amount of money it would take? It's on page 29. So if you can help me understand these numbers, because it's a lot of money and I just don't know if it's the latest of these state indicate they're the latest estimates. Councilwoman. So the 1.77 billion number is the cost to that. The amount that it would cost us if we were to fix all of our streets within a five year period. So it's just it's just meant to give us an overall sense of the scale. Obviously, the solution is going to be a multi-year effort beyond just five years. But, you know, the study focuses on just, you know, a just a snapshot, a five year snapshot. Okay. As well as these others like the alley way paving, is it within kind of the period of like that's the estimates as well, just wanting to understand this. Yeah. And I had to go back and check the detail. Some of these are five years. Some of them are within a ten year. So I can follow up with the team and give you kind of the the time frame associated with these. But usually it does hover between five and ten. Okay. Thank you. No further question on the item. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Excellent presentation. There are some wonderful projects on there. I was just commenting to the city manager, the playgrounds that we've put in all throughout the city. The pop of color. It just screams fresh, new. It makes people feel good about their city. And I think that's that's really important. And it to me, like I said, it doesn't matter where in the city we put them in because we're stronger or better together. If we can enhance facilities throughout the city, so any time we put a new playground in, I get really excited regardless of where in the city it is because I think it makes it's a it's a sense of pride that people have about the areas where their kids play. It's just it's just really important to people because every single one of us who have kids, our only goal in life is to give them the best life we can give them. Right? And so when we live in a city that has newer facilities, we feel like we're doing a good job as parents, at least provide those to them. So I think that helps a goes a long way, like the mayor said. The project that I'm most excited about on this list is probably one of the cheapest projects we have and it's the with it that's going to go and Councilwoman Allen's district. I'm so excited about that. I was telling the city manager that has got to be the best return on our investor that we have as a city . It's an inflatable. And anyone who says that the beach doesn't serve the entire city and the entire region has not been out to see the with it the long line of kids waiting to use it. I mean, it's to me that the engagement of the beaches has magnified since we put the first women in and now we're going to put the second one in. So I think it's going to be great. The only concern that I have is I'm excited about the possibility of a federal infrastructure plan. As chair of the Port Transportation and Infrastructure, the Port Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I hope to really dove deep into what that means for the city. But. The streets have got to be a major priority for us. They are a core service. We talk so much about programs that are great to haves, but things like infrastructure. Our need to have roads are need to have. If residents are driving on major arteries in the city and crossing over multiple potholes every day to get to work. They do not feel like their tax dollars are being spent in the right way, even if we have amazing programs that people throughout the city are benefiting from. There's something to be said for the hardscape the infrastructure projects that appear permanent that make people feel like their city is taking care of them. And it goes a long way. It's kind of like the visual of the fire truck at the block party on 4th of July. Residents go out, they see it, they touch it. They feel proud of their city. It's the same thing with infrastructure. People are driving down the road that is paved and they're not driving over potholes. They have a feel good feeling about their city. They feel like they're being taken care of. It's a minor thing, but when they're driving over that pothole, they're reminded of all the things they don't like about their city. It's not just about the pothole, it's about the response times, and it's about the climate issues. And it's about, you know, services not being open and facilities not being open. They're reminded of all the things they don't like about their city when they drive over these potholes. And so I know it's I'm probably preaching here and on a soapbox that that view as our public works director, Mr. Lopez, don't want to hear. But we have, you know, infrastructure and public safety, in my opinion, are must haves for a city. Everything else is a great to have, wonderful to have. But if people are driving over potholes every day and they're paying as much taxes as they are to live in the city, we're not doing our job. And so I think about projects on major arteries. I know Councilman Mongo and I, we're probably just one example. Every council district probably has one. So I'm just using mine because I don't know what I don't know. And I know about my district. Studebaker We've been talking about Studebaker for six years. Thousands of residents drive every day to go to work a new Studebaker, and every day they're reminded of things they don't like about the city. So I really want to try to focus on getting the biggest bang for our buck in terms of infrastructure and where we can make the most impact with the. Limited resources we have. I hope the federal infrastructure. Package comes through, and I hope we can benefit from that in some of these major arteries. But if not, we've got to figure out how to close those funding gaps. Because I know Council Mungo has been involved in other joint use committee meetings where they voted to fund Studebaker. We sued Caltrans. We have some money there. It just seems like we can never make up that that difference. And so I would love to see that happen. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Urunga. Thank you. And I'm really pleased with a lot of the discussion that's taking place today, because obviously it's highlighting a lot of the needs that we have. And I want to thank staff for being straightforward and transparent in bringing what we really are and what we need. Very pleased and very happy that the mayor has brought a focus to playgrounds. As I celebrated the ribbon cutting of a new playground at Cherry Park, I also had the this unfortunate incident that happened at Admiral Kidd Park, where we had a playground just completely destroyed. Devastating to their community doesn't mean it's over. It needs to be replaced. And I would like to see if we can somehow put out a fast track on their playground, because obviously all my clients are members here. Too, too. All nine of us are focusing in on Andy and explaining that we need playgrounds for our communities, where our kids go play. And and it makes for a great neighborhood where there's a there's a park and a playground. And obviously, the devastation that we suffered in National Park in the West Long Beach area is it's just I can't I can't express the the heartbreak and the devastation that I feel for for the loss of that park. So I really want to have an opportunity to fast track a playground for that area as soon as we can. It needs to be replaced. The the the void that that playground made to the West Palm Beach is just just a devastating. That's not to say that the only priority we have. Obviously, there's a lot more. But second to me, and that's very important is about the allies. We I had a lot of very allies in my district. Fortunately, we've gotten to fix quite a few of them. There's still a number that that need to be fixed. And obviously, it's important for this virus to be fixed for one major reason. There's no only reason at all. It's access. Access to our facilities, to our trucks, to pick up trash and to be able to have access to other parts of the streets as they go through the alleys. That's what they're for. And then finally, of course, I would just mention right now down in terms of our our potholes and streets, you know, when any community that you drive into and you see a nice. Nicely paved streets with freshly painted signs and and roadways. It makes you feel good about that city. And if there's anything that talks about what kind of city we have, it's the condition of its streets and sidewalks. And obviously, that's that's something that we were for the most. I mean, every every council member has its issues with streets and sidewalks that we all try to prioritize. But we can't unless we work with you with with the with our city management entirely and trying to prioritize that. And I know you had a difficult job of saying, you know, you got nine, nine bosses here, if you will, and each one of them has its own needs, his own his or her own needs, and wanting you to prioritize that particular project. So I know the difficulty that you're confronted with. However, it's it's about the city as a whole. And we want to make sure that our city is the cleanest, the most mobile that you can use in the region. And that's our goal. Our goal is to make Long Beach a better it could possibly be. And the only way to do that is by prioritizing what we want to do, and that's to keep our our streets paved straight and safe and. With good playgrounds. So that's my that's my emphasis going to be trying to get that, that playground back up and going. And let's let's try to work together and see if we could find something as soon as we can. I appreciate that. Yes, sir. I did want to just get kind of an update to the whole council, and that was a devastating fire. I think a lot of you saw it. It was arson. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what happened there, but it was a total loss. We are moving immediately to just. Clean the site and we need to just find the resources to clean the site and put it back to a sand area. And then we're looking to do some temporary. Fixtures just to give people. Hope that. That is going to be a site, again, you know, very quickly. And then we do need to prioritize finding money for that for that playground so. That we can get it restored to what it was before or. It doesn't need to be exactly restored to what it was before. We're looking at all kinds of different options. Thank you, Mr. Morgan, for that update. Thank you, Councilman Allen. Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I also want to thank Mr. Eric Lopez for this presentation. I had the privilege of attending last Tuesday's meeting at Mark Twain Library with Councilwoman Sorrow, and I saw a bunch of my residents that were there and very active in the budget process. It was really great to see all the staff see our city manager, Tom Baraka, our budget chair, Councilman Austin, all out in the community just interacting with these residents in the roundtables and really listening to their priorities. So that was just great to see. I also agree with all of my colleagues about the importance of the roads and the alleys and all of the playgrounds. So I don't know if you can see this big smile that I have right now underneath this mask, but it's big. I do. I agree with you, Councilman Price. I love this water playground. I don't know. It looks like it's the size of a football field. And I know that children and kids all over the city are going to enjoy that. And then when I look at the end of the basketball courts and just all of the things that's happening here, it's just it's just really exciting. I do have one question for you with regards to the convention center. Can I get some type of analysis at some point in the future on what the outlook of the maintenance needs are for the convention center and then how that is going to be funded? Because I don't see that here, but it doesn't mean it's not here. So I'm going to ask that. And then one other question. Can you, Mr. Lopez, go into a little bit more detail about, on page 44, the bikeway and pedestrian improvements projects and what they are going to look like. So let me answer the first part and. Then turned to Eric. And yes, we can certainly dove more into the convention center. One of the things that we spent. Measure on is really getting data and. Analysis on all of. Our city facilities prior to measure. We kind. Of had. To estimate or we had to go look at each. One. When it was time to do it. But we didn't have a comprehensive analysis and so we did. That with our streets so we could make database. Decisions on our streets. We did it with sidewalks, we did it with alleys, and now we are finishing up on our facilities. So we have gone through the convention center as one. Of our major facilities. It has in the $55 million range worth of need over the next. Several years for upgrades. Some of. Those are things like HVAC. Systems that haven't been touched since the nineties and need. To be improved so we can get into more of that. That's kind of what our discussion on infrastructure is going to be, is looking at the longer. Term things, not things that are funded this year. But what are our challenges and what are some. Of the opportunities? And Eric, if you can talk about pedestrian. Mobility, please. Absolutely. Thank you, Tom. And so for the bikeway and pedestrian improvements, we have 1.4 or 5 million proposed for FY 22. The this program is intended to help us repair and maintain bike corridors and for and to reduce future infrastructure expenses. So it is a maintenance type of program. We actually our funding for this consist of major measure of county measure R for Metro County Measure M, also from central and some air quality funding that we get. We have a series of locations of focus, including our Orange Avenue backbone bikeway, our Pine Avenue Bike Boulevard, our Pacific Avenue cycle track, our downtown walkable streets, the Atherton Street Bikeway areas, the livability initiatives. And we also use some of these funds for grant matching funds. So it's a multitude of uses. I And it does change year to year depending on some of our grants. So I'd be happy to give you more details on on that category, if you'd like. All right. Thank you, Mr. Lopez. Thank you. Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I really appreciate the comments of my colleagues and thought I would add to a couple of comments. A big thank you to Councilman Price. We talk about Studebaker. Studebaker has been a mishmash of funds and trials and meetings in places I'd never been to before. We've looked at technology that got us a grant to try something new on one piece of Studebaker, but not on other pieces. And so I think that Public Works has been really creative, and the residents are ready for it to be done. So we're very excited to continue to move forward with that. As for Councilman Ciro, she brought up an excellent point when you go to page 29, when you look at this. I noticed it during the presentation, but I'll bring it up. It doesn't have a total and I know why it doesn't have a total because that total is a scary, scary number. But I think it's important that we talk about it. This does not include parks and recreation needs unless it is a facility and the need list is $3.54 billion. And I think it's important for people to recognize that that is a very, very big number. I think the other thing that's interesting is when you compare it and I think this is a philosophical conversation that Councilman Price may want to lead infrastructure and it's up to her. She's the chairwoman. When you flashback to page 27 and you look at mobility, which is 6.3 million of the 21 million, so less than 25. Let's see, I have to use a calculator, but less than 20, 20, just over 20%, maybe 25%. But you look at page 29 of what the mobility need is. Streets and road improvements 50%. Alleys 30%. Sidewalk management, 17%. So 777 0% of our need is mobility. But. Only did that wrong. 66.3 divided by 21.63. Only 30% of our allocation is going towards mobility. And on top of that. Parks and Recreation is 1.2 million. That just seems like one playground. And I know that we've been working really hard to have one all accessible playground in the city, and I think it's current funding levels under 200,000 were a million short. To get to where we need to. And an all accessible playground is going to be more expensive than a typical big playground. And so I just think that from a philosophical standpoint, obviously our commitment to. The five year map was a priority, and maybe I should be making the division out of the final column on the right hand side to see where all that money went over time. And I know that there's a lot of different needs that really pushed Measure A, but if we want to fund things, I think the other thing we need to look at too is. Councilman Price talks about. Pride in your city. We started a signage program, and that program's now been unfunded for two years. It's great that the convention area or the Tidelands areas can get some signs of the airport, but the rest of our city has identity and entrance points. And Councilwoman. Councilman Richardson and I have a lot of entrance points to the city that the community was promised signage and pride, and it just hasn't materialized. And I think we need to make sure that's available. And then my last note is the county of Los Angeles just put out a notice that supplies necessary to make each HVAC repairs are not even available. I mean, the wait lists for what we need. If we plan to do something in March of next year. We should be ordering parts now because there's so many back orders. So I think we really need to get a comprehensive economic overhaul, look into our system. That and what I'm also hearing is overhead door repairs, the cogs and the wheels and the things that we need from certain countries are just not coming in because of backlogs and supply creation during COVID. And so if we can go into that and figure out what the truth is. Postpone some projects that won't have the materials necessary. And then lastly, I want to talk about private funding. We do not lean on our private funding partners enough. We have partners of parks. The moment that that playground burned down. Partners of Parks should have had a nonprofit go fund me up. And the Go Fund Me executive director from the organization. They usually put in 20 grand to get you started. There's a lot of opportunities out there that we're just not capitalizing on. When you bring in or really invest in your Fire Foundation or your Parks Foundation or your library foundation, the Library Foundation's an amazing things, but our Parks Program and Partners of Parks is sitting on a bench list of donors that want to give five grand each. For two, three, five years. And so if we don't give them the opportunities to put in the benches or name a field or name a playground after themselves. Hell, you won't give me $1,000,000. I will make it the Eric Lopez playground. I will make it whoever's playground so that we can give the children what they need and get to 3.54 billion because tax dollars alone are not going to get us there. Thank you. Thank you. So I'll just add my comments here before we go to public comment and wrap it up. So I agree with everything the council members have said. I think everyone has a good understanding of their districts and their needs. I think we all agree on streets and sidewalks. You know, one thing I will say is that, you know, I'm not a big fan of the two year plan. And I remember, you know, and I've got a lot of institutional knowledge. 11 years here. I remember when it was, you know, here's how much every district gets. You go to your community, you make a priority. You pave what it is and you get input on what's in design for next year. So people have some sense of what's going on. The two year plan, I'll tell you, I look at the streets in the city. I don't know any resident who looks at that and says, yeah, that's it. Secondly, I think you just used to go further. It seemed like, you know, the amount of street we will get. You know, I remember when as a half a mile man and went down to like a quarter of a mile, it just seems like it doesn't go as far as it used to be. Maybe as costs have increased, I'm not sure, but I'm not necessarily committed to the system that we have. I think what makes more sense is we've gone through in the last decade two different strategies. And I think we need to just, you know, be very, very clear about when we're starting a new process and when we're stopping . So people don't say the reset button doesn't get set over and over on residents. As I can tell you, we're just now getting to Artesia Boulevard. Steve Neal talked about Artesia Boulevard when he was sworn into office in 2010. And then there's 2021 and we're not breaking ground until Q1 of 2022. That's 12 years waiting on one corridor and South Street is the same story. Market Street is the same story. I mean, it's the same story in these corridors. So something's not not working. And we have to really figure out how we can be serious with the residents about what we can actually deliver. And so, you know, I like you a lot, Mr. Lopez. I'd love to see your thoughts on how we address that. And secondly, you know, you know, we're knocking out a list of things in in North Long Beach because everybody has a different understanding what need is. At one point, we need a library. We focused on that. We got that done. Prior to then, it was the fire station. We had a little one. Then we needed a one that was a decent sized, you know, the community center raining every year, the shelter, it's an emergency every year. The health center finally get in there. But, you know, a lot of those decisions are depend are determined by grown ups, adults who are saying this is the priority. And every time we prioritize what the grown ups need and all that time, it's hard to provide for the youth. I'm excited for all of the playgrounds across the city. They look great. I take my kids to these programs. We're trying to get to every signature program in the city. But again, my district and this is where I get to just got to speak up for my community. My district has more children than any district in the city and still has not built a new playground. And there is plenty of need. There's plenty of opportunity. I don't want to take away from what any other council member said about their needs, but at some point we need to deliver a playground in my community. Halton Park. Ramona Park. Prime candidates surrounded by schools and children. So we certainly need to deliver that. The second thing I would say is we certainly I'm almost done. I'm almost done. The second thing I'll say is the most important thing we can do right now together is advocate the Congress. Because all the hopes and dreams we just heard as of right now, a local street program is not included in the Congressional Congressional infrastructure plan. I'm not sure if you guys know that today it's not included in the program. And unless we get what our members of Congress and advocate, we need to advocate for those things in order to make it a reality. In recent months, you know, through through SAG and through FET ledge, we've had a number of conversations pushing this. Alex Padilla, MAXINE Waters and that. Barragan Lowenthal, Sanchez Schiff. We're pushing that. It's hard to advocate now because we can't go to D.C. It's almost you know, our advice from the lobbyists is don't even come. It's not even working. The the you know, the virtual lobbying is incredibly important. So we have to get creative in how we do that. Our fit led committee is going to continue doing that. We're going to advocate through our advocacy strategy and Dennis and everybody continue to focus on that. But that's the most significant thing we can do. It looks like Cindy is going to take it up very soon. Like in August, the Senate will take it up and then we should have the House take it up and finish it in September. That's the hope. So we have a little bit of a window to get to members of Congress and talk about a local road program, because right now it's not a part of the part of the package. So those are my generally my thoughts on this. And at this point, we're going to open up, see if there's any public comment. There's no public comment. All right. No public comment. So we're done with this. Members, please cast your vote. Motion carries.

A bill for an ordinance accepting the Future Places 2020 Plan Map in Blueprint Denver (2019), a supplement to Comprehensive Plan 2040, to reflect the change in the Overland Park Neighborhood in Council District 7. Adopts the amended Future Places 2020 Plan Map in Blueprint Denver 2019, a supplement to Comprehensive Plan 2040, to reflect a change in the Overland Park Neighborhood in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-10-20.

DenverCityCouncil_05112020_20-0228

Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 3939 as comfortable 107 has passed Council member say debacle you please put council bill 228 on the. Floor I move that council bill 20 dash 22 to 28 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and second in the required public hearing for council bill 2 to 8 is now open. May we have the staff reports? Okay. Thank you. Got the president council members Dave Gaspar, who's principal city planner with community planning and Development. Let me just switch out our presentation here quickly. With a blueprint. Denver Future Places 2020 Plan Map Amendment. And so with the new blueprint, Denver, there's two major ways to update and evolve the plan. Neighborhood Context and Future Places Map. And so one of them is how we're typically more familiar with, I would say, and that's with a small area plan such as an MPI plan like for Northeast or a master plan like the Stadium District or Lateral Heights. Those are three small area plans that were adopted Post Blueprint Denver in 2019. And we typically see slight map changes when we do a small area plan, such as those with the new blueprint. Denver We did propose this consolidated updates approach, which directs CPD to exploring it and approach to update the Future Places map on a regular basis. And so that's found on page 59. And in fact, we had an opportunity to do that right away here in 2020 with this proposal, which is in District seven. And so this could either be a CPD led process where we identify something that is amiss with the map and want to make a change, or could also be brought to our attention by city council. And they could lead the process to to update that, that map. And so I'll run through the city. The Council district led process will be very similar, of course, with the city, except the responsibilities more rely upon the council district office itself to engage the community. And so in this instance, District seven identified a possible map change in Overland Park. And I think this could be brought to this attention through neighborhood groups, business districts, property owners, etc., in this case. District seven really noticed it somewhat on their own. It was little bit too late in the Blueprint Denver adoption process, but they had heard for several years that property owners and residents in the area that may be that a more mixed use industrial designation made more sense. We just didn't catch it in the initial adoption of Blueprint Denver. So District seven brought that to CBD attention and we were able to utilize that as a pilot program to develop the process to do this annual update of the map outside of a small area plan. So what we have in front of you tonight here is this Future Places Map Amendment proposal in Overland Park, generally bounded by west Louisiana on the north and west, Colorado to the south, the right of the railroad, right of way to the west and Broadway Acoma Alley to the east. And it is a change from value manufacturing in the future. Places map to innovation flex in the future. Places map critical here. This is not a zoning case like you, just the last three cases in front of you. This is just a change to the map in Blueprint. Denver Right. So there's no entitlement that is attached to this directly. And you'll notice there on the slide that the change from value manufacturing to innovation flex is there both in the district, uh, column there and are adjacent. It's a relatively minor change. There is an important difference there, though. The Innovation Flex does allow residential component, which the value manufacturing currently does not. And so CPD has developed some considerations to to review a proposal such as this. First of all, the timing of future and recent small area planning in the neighborhood, very important that we're not trying to kind of circumnavigate the need for a small area plan. And timing is the first thing we want to review there. So there has been no recent plans done in this area and it is not identified in any of the near-term next NPI phases. Secondly, as I mentioned, you shouldn't circumnavigate that need first malaria plane. So we want to look at the scale and complexity of the request that is in front of us in this situation to maintaining the manufacturing uses that are in it. But it does not add additional places. So it's a it's a simple one for one designation, right? We're not multiplying and and making it more complex. The geography is about five blocks in size, which is not typically the size and scale that a small area plan would would require and appropriateness to adjacent future places. There is adjacent community corridor and center places that allow the mixed use residential development, which would be the new component of the innovation flex. Also when look at the overall impact on completing creating complete neighborhoods, meeting the equity concepts and citywide population employment projections in Blueprint Denver And so with complete neighborhoods, this does allow the residential component, the key equity concepts, the scoring is in the middle essentially across all of those different categories. Of course, any large scale rezoning zoning would be subject to a full equity evaluation and the growth strategy. There's new jobs in housing could be directed to this location, which is not included in a manufacturing preservation area. That's another key aspect here. This is a manufacturing district, but it was not included in the manufacturing preservation areas identified in Blueprint Denver. The third step is engaging the community on the proposed future place map change. So District seven hosted two community meetings back in November. Written notice was done consistent with the larger development review process. We had around 40 attendees at those two meetings and overall comments were very supportive. We did have an accompanying online survey, 19 responses strongly supported the survey. There was no dissenting responses and neighbor outreach district seven flier the area and in your packet Overland Park Neighborhood Association did send a letter of support. So at that point when we have that engagement process and we feel like we can move forward with this council, District seven submitted the future place map change to CPD officially and we incorporated it into our process of the annual report, which we are in front of the Ludy subcommittee in early March. So staff does find that that the blueprint Denver 2020 future places map amendment using an inclusive public process is consistent with comprehensive plan 2040 and the plan takes a long term view and staff recommends approval. Thank you very much. We did not receive any written comments this evening, but we do have one individual signed up to speak in person. So if you would, David, create a little space there. And Jesse Pearce, you are a. Oh, good evening. Members of council, those in the audience also watching at home. My name is Jessie, the sound person. I ran for city council at large last year and I got almost 15,000 votes with no money. And I'll be running again in 2023 to be your next mayor. And I'm representing for Denver Homeless out loud, black star action movies for Self Defense, Positive Action for Member for Social Change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado and Mile-High News. So all this is. A change in what is being displayed. For the Overland Park in reference to this comprehensive plan 2040. I guess I can support this. I see now that it's an opposition and I didn't see anything that made me want to question this so much. My question is what? Why is this so essential? And if this doesn't pass down, where. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilmember Ortega. Yeah. Dave, would you mind coming back up? How many property owners are within that five block area? I don't have an exact number on that. And Council District seven may have a better estimate. I'm not for certain. You know, we fly every single place, but I don't have that number right in front of me. It has been many months since we fired all of that, so I apologize. Are there any single family homes in the area or is it all strictly. Know it is. It's a fascinating part of Denver that looks like it. It sprung up before there were any rules. And so you have single family homes, you have warehouses, you have everything you could kind of imagine happening all in that area. And sometimes one of one single family homes, sometimes a row of four or five. Okay. But that yeah, that was one of the things that came up at the community meetings was people were people who owned the single family home saying, hey, we're not even allowed to do this technically under this. And this mapping does, you know, provide some residential options, not just industrial options. Yeah, I know. One of the challenges is if you're in an industrial area and you want to get a mortgage loan to do some upgrades on your home, your bank typically is not as excited to loan you money. We had that problem along the 13th Avenue corridor sometime ago before they had part of their area resold. So I guess I was just trying to understand what percentage of the property owners are actually on board. It sounds like you did an extensive outreach effort of the two meetings, generated 40 people, but just not knowing exactly how many of, you know, property owners are within that area, it's it's hard to really gauge what that yeah. The participation rate was. And there are also there are lots of parcels. There are some large landowners who own lots of different stuff over there. And, you know, I think that the it's always hard to get people to engage, especially in something that doesn't actually change anything on the ground. There's no change in zoning. There's no change in current uses. It does not change anything for them today on what they have at all. And so most of them got the information they wanted and then were like, This doesn't actually change anything for me. So, so didn't provide a lot of feedback beyond that. But again, we were satisfied that everyone who we could get to provide comments that we didn't have anyone saying that they were opposed to it. And it sounds like it just creates the opportunity for more flexibility in what can happen in the future by changing the the designation for this area. Yeah, the only thing that changes is on the future places map. So it is only things that could happen in the future and only with further action from this body for those things to even occur. So this is like a precursor that still, again, doesn't change a thing on the ground for any of these property owners today other than what they might come in front of us for someday. As this area continues to develop with the light rail stations and in the light rail plans that have been adopted, this is the space that was in the gap between the Evan's Light Rail Station area plan and the Broadway stationary plan, which had robust engagement of the community of what they wanted and built a vision that just had a gap because that wasn't an overland plan. It was two different stationary plans. Okay. The only other thing I want to just suggest is that if and when you get to that next phase of talking about changes in the actual zoning that allow something different to happen, that the railroad conversation and the safety issue is front and center in all of that. Because what happens is as the development occurs and abuts adjacent to the tracks, you start seeing all this density and those neighbors start screaming about what happens, what's in place if something happens to make sure our safety is being addressed. So it is our responsibility as a city to make sure we're addressing that by the sheer fact that we're approving zoning changes that allow high density to go next to the tracks. So. Absolutely. All right. Thank you, Councilmember. Are there any other questions? I don't see anybody. All right. The public hearing for Council Bill 2 to 8 is closed. Comments. Oh, did I miss you, Councilman Flynn? Yes, you did. I apologize. We will reopen the hearing so that you can ask your questions and do it appropriately this time. Go ahead. Thank you. I just want to clarify the way I understand in reading through the staff report. David, that the primary change that we're looking at here is to include among the future places in this area, the possibility of residential mixed in with the industrial. The light industrial. Yeah. That I just wanna make sure I'm clear on that. That is correct. The value manufacturing right. That's today does not allow that. The zoning today does not allow that. And so change would allow a potential support for rezoning. Until if this were not changed, if the mapping stayed the same, if someone came in and wanted to include a residential component in a rezoning application, we would have to say that that does not conform. Correct. So this is correct. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. All right. Now, any other questions before I close? All right. Public hearing for 228 is now closed again. Comments by members of council. This one's in my district and I talked to some of it during the questions. But again, just as a reminder, there are no this is no zoning change. There are no new entitlements that come with this. This was something that as we were going through Blueprint, which was a multi-year process, we got to the 11th hour and look down at the map and in the office and we said, wait, that's not right. And so we checked in with the neighborhood association with some of the business owners, and they all said, Yeah, that's not right. But at that point, it was too late to go back in to see Betty's credit. They said, Hey, if we're going to go back, we get that you guys are all saying that it's wrong and maybe it is, but let's have that conversation and let's have a robust process and give people the opportunity. And we don't feel like we have that time to do that now. So even if we get it wrong, let's get it wrong and then do it right. And and I appreciate your your, you know, walking us through the first of these, hey, we might have got something wrong. What do we do about that? The neighborhood association has been supportive. Again, no property owners who were opposed to this money and in strong support and many just wanted to know what was going on and got their information and then went on their way. And again, this is just an area that the default because when there wasn't a small area plan that specifically called that out, the default was to stick with what the zoning currently is. What the zoning currently is is not reflective of what is actually on the ground right now and certainly not reflective of the community vision that's been built in this area around the ovens and the Broadway stationery plan. This doesn't get us to the point where that vision starts to spring out of the ground, but that vision is closed without this change, at least to allow the framework that someday we might be able to see that vision come out of the ground. So I will be supporting this this evening, and I would ask all of you to support it as well. Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Mr. Jaspers for your work on this. You are one of the many Denver city employees that I have worked with in your capacity before I was even a candidate. So you and I conversed about Blueprint and who better to fix up the little guessing errors on Blueprint than you? Who was the principal liaison between the Blueprint Committee and the city of Denver? So thank you for all your work. Again, thanks to the city attorney's office as well. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. And I will say amen to that. And if anyone else finds a problem on their map there, there was a lot of hand-hold it needed. And you were very gracious in holding my hand through this process and helping figure it out. So thank you for all your work and your whole team who helped out with this. So I'm missing anybody. I don't see it. So, Madam Secretary, roll call on 228. Black. See the broker. Friends. I feel more. Herndon High five Cashmere High Kinney Ortega High Sandoval High Sawyer Torres High Council President. High I'm secretary Please close voting announce the results.

Recommendation to respectfully request City Council to support Proposition 1 the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014.

LongBeachCC_10142014_14-0818

Item 17 is communication from Councilman Austin Chair State Legislations Committee Recommendation to request City Council to support Proposition one. The Water Quality Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. Second, Councilmember Austin. Thank you. Yes, the state legislature committee met on October 7th and recommends this particular item for your consideration. I'd like to move to accept the recommendation of the committee, but don't get to say thank you and then get a quick staff report. Mr. West. Diana Tang. Mayor, members of the city council. In November, voters will have the option to vote on Proposition one. This is the statewide ballot measure for $7.5 billion in water bond funding. The city was instrumental in negotiating a couple of pieces of this this bond measure. First, we have 30 million to the arms. See, that is the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, of which Long Beach is the member. There's also 200 million available for stormwater funding through integrated regional water management plans and Long Beach as a member of the Gateway Authority and can apply for that funding. So if this measure does pass, the city will have will as well positioned to apply for funding in the water bond and it is for 7.5 billion. McHugh comes from Boston. Yes. And I want to thank our staff, support Diana Tang for her great work, particularly in supporting the committee and giving us all the great information that we need to make a decision here. The supporters of this measure include the Beach Water Department, as well as the League of California Cities, Governor Jerry Brown, both Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and a host of other responsible organizations. And so I would encourage your support as well. Thank you. Any public comment on the item? CNN members, please cast your vote. Watching Kerry's eight zero. Thank you. Now, I believe we have announcements, so we're going to go ahead. I want to begin by just doing some adjournment in memory of a few folks here. First, I want to honor the passing of someone very close to our City Hall family, and that's Luann Lawanda Reynolds, who was known to all who loved her as

AN ORDINANCE granting SMRE Marketside LLC permission to maintain and operate a pedestrian skybridge over and across Post Alley at the north margin of Union Street for a fifteen-year term, renewable for one successive fifteen-year term; specifying the conditions under which this permit is granted; providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_08172020_CB 119846

Agenda Item seven about 119846 granting s m r e marketsite LLC permission to maintain and operate pedestrians garbage in cross post alley at the north margin of Union Street for 15 year term renewable for one successive 15 year term. But find the conditions under which this premises guarantee providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions and disarming search and prior acts. Thank you so much, Madam Clerk. I moved to pass Council Bill 119846. Is there a second packet? It's been moved and seconded to pass the bill. Councilmember Peterson, as sponsor of the bill, you are recognized in order to address this item. Thank you. Council President. Council Bill 119846 would bring new permission to maintain the SkyBridge over post alley at Union Street at the south end of the Pike Place Market. The SkyBridge provides a connection between market side apartments and first half. Escort recommends approval, and our central staff expressed no concerns for this renewal. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, are there any comments on the bill? Hearing? None. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the Bill Strauss? Yes. Purple. Yes. Whereas. Yes. Lewis. Yes. Morales. Yes. Petersen. Yes. President Gonzalez. Yes. Seven in favor. Nine opposed. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the clerk please fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf? Okay. Agenda item eight Will the clerk please read the short titles of items eight through 14 into the record?

Recommendation to adopt a motion approving the FY 18 budget for the Long Beach Community Investment Company (formerly known as the Long Beach Housing Development Company) in the amount of $3,324,867. (A-7)

LongBeachCC_09052017_17-0738

Councilman Andrews. Motion carries. 1.7 recommendation to adopt a motion to prevent fiscal year 18 budget for the Long Beach Community Investment Company formerly known as the Lumbini Housing and Development Company, in the amount of $3,324,867. Eight seven. Any member of the public wished to make a comment on this item. Please come forward. Are you coming down, sir? Very good. Can I go down? Those bad guy. Okay. Well, one thing hit me on this. So they get my sign, right? Okay, whatever. Okay. One thing hit me on this. Soon as I get my life to one. Okay? Yeah. Okay. One thing that hit me on this that came to my mind is it says Long Beach, housing, development, community development, housing, development, housing. Because you're pushing for rent control and rent control is going to bring housing down. So that seems like a deception here. Just cause eviction, you can't get dope dealers out. You can't get molesters out of this communist agenda. And it's just bad for the people, period, is bad for the property owners. And that's the only thing that people know when they talk. And I mean, you're in the wrong you need to look. They taught me that when I was young. Look at people. Respect them. So the thing is, there's no Long Beach house and I don't even know how to spell. But they read me wrong just because of the things you doing. Said one of them to. Yeah, well, you talk. And you and this Karl Marx, you're the one that needs to be listening. Oh, stepping down. Come on. At least try to do your job that's eating up there and everything. So, you know. Oh, I don't even have enough to say. I'm really keen to get here. Get on your case, because I wish you would quit. That's what I wish you would really do. You're not a good mayor. You're socialist. You felt like you were a conservative. Whatever. You got people's money. The same thing Fidel Castro did. He took American, sir. So you see what? Yes. You were really kind. In the meeting at this time, that's not really pertinent to the item at hand, so it would make sense. To do it this way. I talked about a Long Beach housing development and a big development like that because, you know, rent control lowers housing, lessens housing. So that's what I'm talking about. And with that, I'm sorry to have to say about him. So why are you trying to talk about my seconds up? I like this guy. He needs to be out of here. I want to see him, Senator. Definitely want this to be the end of the road for you. Just like this. That Bill is the man at the end of the road. No more. No fouling lava, no foul on motel three, though. Go back to wherever. And by the way, you're the highest paid man in the land. Why you get so much money? You're a money man. That's what it seems like to me. So I'm through. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So you're sucking money out of this town. Make it for the people. Stop doing what you're doing. Let me put this back on me so you could see me telling you. Yeah, that's what I said. I ain't got no good lighting here. We got to get rid of this mayor. He's no good. That's what I have to say. Oh, man. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Say no more public comment. Please cast your votes. The motion case will next move to item 1.8 recommendation to adopt a motion approving the estimated transfer of $18,661,550 from the Harbor Revenue Fund to the Tidelands Operation Fund.

AN ORDINANCE relating to a pedestrian skybridge over and across the alley between University Way Northeast and 15th Avenue Northeast, north of Northeast 45th Street, and certain window protrusions over a portion of University Way Northeast; amending Ordinance 122202, updating the insurance and bond requirements; amending the annual fee and other terms and conditions of the permit; renewing the term of the permit to Limantzakis Properties No. 1 LLC; providing for the acceptance of the permit and conditions; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_02082016_CB 118612

Agenda item 11. Council Bill 1186 12. Relating to pedestrian skybridge over and across the alley between university way northeast and 15th Avenue, northeast north of Northeast 45th Street, and certain window protrusions over portion of university northeast. The committee recommends the bill pass. Councilmember O'Brien This is another SkyBridge lease. This is the alley behind KUOW, which some folks may be familiar with the dollar amount for the lease. The space is about $7,000 last year and like the other ones, it's adjusted automatically based on assessed property value. Thank you very much. Are there any further comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Whereas I. O'Brien so on. Thanks Shaw Gonzalez Herbold Johnson President Harrell I Aden favor and unopposed. The bill passes the chair will sign it agenda item number 13. Item 12. Jim Item number 12. Item agenda item 12. Constable 118 615 excepting various deeds and easements for street or alley purposes, laying off, opening, widening, sending and establishing portions of rights away, placing the real property conveyed by said deeds and easements under the jurisdiction of the College of Transportation and ratifying confirming certain prior acts, the committee recommends the bill passed.

Recommendation to receive and file a status update on the implementation of the Language Access Policy; and adopt resolution amending and restating the Language Access Policy. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_10062015_15-1009

Okay. Next item. Report from Development Services recommendation. To receive and file a status update on the implementation of the language access policy and adopt resolution amending and restating the language access policy city wide. There's a motion in the second. Mr. Senate Majority Manager. Mayor Councilmembers. This is a regular update that we're providing you on language access. It'll be provided by Development Services Deputy Director Angela Reynolds and also Tracy Calandra. Good evening. Mayor and council members. I'm about to introduce Tracy Kalinga, who actually does all the heavy lifting on the language access policy. We've in the last six months and the last year and a half about we've been working diligently to institutionalize multiple languages, called out in this language access program policy into this diverse community. It's as I've said to you in the past, there's it's somewhat complex. There's very many moving parts. And any time you start a new policy, there are some ups and downs. However, since we've been funded by the City Council, we've been able to do a lot of things. And Tracy will tell you all about them. Honor Roll. Mayor and members of the City Council on August 13th is when City Council actually adopted the language access policy, just to give you some historical points. And so as part of the policy, we come back every six months, as Angela mentioned, to provide an update to Council Fiscal Year 2015, council allocated about 250,000 to implement the lap. And since then, we've had a number of initiatives that have been successful in the implementation of the policy. First off, we've developed a directory of all the staff receiving bilingual skill pay in the lap languages that is now available on the city's intranet for easy accessibility. We do update that directory every six months. Also, Development Services has selected vendors to provide court certified translation and interpretation services to implement LAP. Thanks to the Technology and Innovation Department. The Google Translate feature is now available on every Web page. And moving forward, we're encouraging all departments to upload the previously translated documents onto their respective department web pages. In addition, oral interpretation and document translation continue to be available upon request for City Council and Charter Commission meetings. You can see that noted on agendas and minutes. The Technology and Innovation Department has also recorded outgoing messages in the lap languages for the most frequently used phone lines in our city departments, as well as the designated city staff who receive those phone calls. They do have access to the language line for interpretation services, and we're proud to say that language line is now available citywide . Development Services worked with the water department to notify our city residents about the language access policy. We sent out 150,000 newsletters to the households in coordination with the water department to notify about the lap the lap policy, and that was provided in all four LEP languages. In addition, staff receiving bilingual skills pay have received training on appropriate techniques and ethics with respect to interpretation and translation. And lastly, staff worked with the City Attorney's Office and the Public Safety Departments, and we crafted the attached resolution updating the lap to address the use of children as interpreters. That concludes my report. Thank you. Let me do any public comment first on this item. Thanks again, Mr. Mayor. Gary Shelton speaking. I have a I believe it's a one page handout going across you. The one thing that I'm going to continue to come down here speaking about is the value of Google Translate as a usable and reliable and humanistic failure. It involves consistent errors in gender and number agreement. That means in Spanish anyway, they have masculine and feminine nouns and they have singular and plural. It makes mistakes in making those agree. It has errors in syntax, which is sentence structure. So you understand what's being said. It has errors in vocabulary words that are used incorrectly without the proper meaning. It has errors in accuracy, so you simply cannot tell what's being said. What I've handed out to you is very plain. It's a, it's a screenshot from today. And there's two of them. There's, there's one at the top and one at the bottom. The vertical pink bars are because I was running out of ink. I was going to say it. So you can tell that it's not actually on your computer screen, but it's on a piece of paper. But mine doesn't have the vertical bars. But I want to draw your attention to where it says select language. I think I circled that in the upper right hand corner, more or less. And I want to draw your attention to the word right below that where it says jobs. This is on page one. This is the entry page of the city's website. And where it says jobs and if you opt for Combi, which is what the Bannerman is. Notice what it says for the translation of jobs. It says Steve Jobs. That's how insulting Google Translate is. I didn't bother with a screencap on the Spanish language of the same page, but when you switch notice right next to where jobs is in the top row, it's a department that has all the various city departments, including development services. And when you switched to Spanish, that had completely disappeared. It's not available. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening, Honorable Mayor and City Council. My name is Maribel Cruz and I'm a resident of the fourth District. I am here today on behalf of the Long Beach Language Access Coalition and the Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition, because this issue deeply affects people in my community. The city is now entering its third year of implementing the Language Access Policy, which was adopted back in 2013 and is now going on its second year of implementation. While our coalition recognizes the great strides that have taken place since this policy's initiation, we also recognize more work needs to be done to ensure the successful implementation of this policy. The Language Access Coalition has identified the following areas of focus. First, the city needs to improve its direct contact with limited English proficient residents. This includes public displays and signage in AP languages, which are Spanish, Combi and Tagalog. I have provided an example used by the offices of the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, which indicates how one can request translation services. The city needs to complete translated for lines and voicemails, use language lines for walk ins and callers of all languages. Make the city's single phone line accessible in all AP languages and have adequate front desk staffing. Second, the city should train all staff regarding how to work with sleep residents and interpreting should include the new restrictions on the use of children, family members and friends as interpreters. Third, in the future and ensure all departments fund language access as a line item in their budget. And finally, complete translation of vital documents in key city web. Translation Not just Google Translate. There was a time as a young child, I was my parents interpreter. I saw them struggle. And to this day, I see my neighbors and friends struggle to find adequate interpreters. This is why our vision is of a city that is both fully language accessible and welcoming to historically disenfranchized community members so that they can both receive necessary services and participate in their government. Thank you. Good evening, city council members. My name is John Victor and I am with the Long Beach Language Access Coalition. Tonight I'm reading a testimony by a Filipino community member I work with in West Long Beach. So I'm going to say another name. So that's not me, but this is him. My name is Julius Clark. Son and I reside in the seventh. District to begin. Not many people know how to access the city's resources. In addition, Long Beach has a huge population of people who possess English as a second language. Both of these reasons, but many people of color are at a disadvantage in participating in key decision making processes in Long Beach. This is why I highly support the continued implementation and need for language and access to be available through all city departments, not just City Hall. Thank you. So Julia shares the importance of language access for many limited English proficiency speakers not only accessing services in city hall, but across city services, from libraries to parks and recreation. And so many. More. With almost over 44% of the city's population speaking a. Language other than English, it is important to begin to delve into where there. Are gaps. In language access into city services. As the Long Beach Language Access Coalition, we are here tonight. Because. We hope that the city not only looks. To ensuring. The sustainability of language access. In City Hall, but across all city departments. I'd like to share a story. From my own experience as an immigrant Filipino. I moved to the Philippines. I moved to Long Beach from the. Philippines in. 1997. And one of the things that in reflecting. In this whole process of even language access they remember is. I never understood a lot of the signs. I would look up at the streets. I would look up. This was the first year when I came to the U.S.. And I didn't know what they meant. I just saw letters and. I would say to my Tagalog accent and didn't make sense. And now I'm here and you can speak fluently, but I know that there are many other residents. That don't have the ability or have had the privilege to come at a young age and learn the language. And when they come to a door, when they come to the street, they are unsure of what the sign is. They're not sure when they're at a park, when they're at city hall, when they're at the library. And and that's unfair. And as the Long Beach Language Access Coalition, we hope that that experience. Doesn't happen to other residents. And we hope that the city. Can support residents that come from all walks of life, from all. Backgrounds, so that they can access not just the source. Services. But also the resources that people deserve to have. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Thank you all for coming out. Take this back behind the rail now so we can go through the council comments. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. Thank you very much to staff for that excellent report and thanks to the members of the public who came out to express some concerns. It's my understanding that staff continues to try to find ways to enhance and and meet the spirit of the the policy and all the different things that we've asked. Councilman, I'm sorry I made a mistake. I need to go to the maker of the motion to speak first. Who hasn't? And then I'll go to you. So I'll sentence Alvin to remember where I was. We'll come. Right back. To, you know, he's. He reminded me. So I'm going to go to Councilman Richardson. I make the motion and then I'll go. Go, go. Thanks. Thanks. And I know it's going late, so I want to you know, and we know this routine because we do it every six months. So we're just going to kind of bang through some of these. First of all, I know that our staff does a does a great job. They're doing a lot. I mean, from this My Brother's Keeper, violence prevention. But all of it's really important. And it gets us to a space where we have a more accessible, more equitable city. So I just want to start by just acknowledging staff on their hard work every six months on this. So. So I wanted to I got the handout and I just shared it with staff because I just want to talk through some of these, you know, and I marked up some of them as Met as well. And I want to talk through these, see where we are, see if there are any changes that might need to be made that I can incorporate into this motion. And then I want to hear from the council if there's any, you know, anything else that they might want to incorporate. So I want to start from the bottom of this list. It asks for completion of vital document translation in key city web pages, not just Google Translate. And I remember I remember in the budget we did fund, I think it was like the top 25 pages of our new website. So can we get just have an update to just address the top 25 pages? We're going to have like a real translation, but not and everything else would have Google translate as I remember it. How, how how's that coming. Councilman Richardson? What we did not include in our report, which I would like to actually add right now, is we had about a $70,000 carryover from last year. We had we incurred budget savings that we were very happy about. And so with that and the $80,000 that was appropriated to language access policy for FY 16, we are going to continue to translate documents, utilize language line more throughout the city program, the remaining 16 frequently called phone lines. And that is a very expensive proposition and it's very time consuming as well. Make interpretation services available for public meetings. Conduct annual staff trainings on best practices for translating post notices about lap around the city and about lip services in the public areas of city facilities. I think that's on their list, including evacuation routes. And yes, I think you're correct. We talked about translating top access Web pages and it can be as many as, you know, we will will begin doing that and see how far the budget takes us with that. So those are all the things that we are planning to do and FY16 with the budget that we do have. Fantastic. So everything you listed, I would just assume that the timelines f y 16. Correct. Great. I'm satisfied with that. Next. So you mentioned that you are conducting training. I see a number of these items that the coalition is asking for reference training to, in particular one about how to how staff are training on how staff works with interpreters. And I know that that is a skill to develop. So I and so based on your response, we do have that. We are doing that. Yes. We've been working with a vendor to prepare a video that can train staff at their desk about that. And we will be rolling that out very soon. Perfect. And then the training on use of on it was a win when we got the chow interpreter restriction in there. Is that a part of that video as well. No, not at this particular moment, but it is incorporated into the policy. Okay. So I know it's in the past. How do we what I. Will say is, in order to develop that language, we met with all the public safety folks. Fire, police, who else? City attorney, city prosecutor, people that come in contact with the public a lot. So that's how we did that. I'm thinking you're asking about accountability for that. We can we can actually add that or do it as a separate piece of the video. I think we definitely. That would be good if we just made sure we check the box. So the what we do is in alignment with the policy and then under sort of making sure that all points of contact have access to it. I know that we just mentioned exits, entrance, entryways. This was just shared with us. This thing that says, hey, just point to the language. So you want to just elaborate on what we're doing in terms of our sign program. Councilman Richardson, what we've done is we we've averaged that we have about 180 public counters within the city. That includes all the floors in city hall, but also our parks and recreation sites, libraries, etc.. And so what we'd like to do is develop a quick and easy, almost like they do at Kaiser Permanente, where you have the four languages, English, Spanish, combined, Tagalog. And it explains that we have assistance in those particular languages, point to the language, and we'll find either a bilingual staff member who can assist you or another alternative, like we mentioned earlier in terms of language line. Great. And then in terms of the the fall, I know that in this recent budget and this might be a question for Mr. Mayor, the in the recent budget, we talked about going and having one phone number for the whole city. Are we are we going to make sure that that has the four languages accessibility as well? You know, that project is very, very early, so I'm not even sure where that project is, but I'm sure that this is as part of our policy. I'm sure that every kind of communication is somehow we're trying to incorporate language access when possible. Right. Based on these responses, everything on this list and with the exception of number four, which which I don't know that that's you know, I want to talk about this right now, but everything else on this item has been responded to. So my motion is to accept it, you know, accept this update and just to include the one provision about updating the video with the child and interpreters. So thank you so much, everyone, for this. And and that's my motion. Councilman Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. You know, first of all, I'd like to thank, you know, our deputy director and that's Angela Reynolds and her staff, Tracy Calandra, for their hard work on this policy because at last, you know, our council meeting, I have to see more emphasis on the implementation of these items within the next four or five months, and you got to meet that goal. So when I wrote the assignment back in 211, I knew that it would take, you know, a little time to implement. And I really, really excited to see the new additions to this. So I am also seeing the positive changes and I see the communications. It has instilled a new confidence in our community and I'm very, very grateful to be able to reach out to more of our sixth district, you know, a diverse community. And thank you again. Thank you very much. Now back to Councilman Pryce. Thank you. I'm not sure where I was, but thank you to staff and I'm glad we're moving forward. I'm just curious, maybe I would offer this as a friendly to Councilman Councilmember Richardson. The staff has done a nice job of updating us. Would you be open to having their council updates occur on an annual basis with maybe a written update to be provided to Council members and Language Access Coalition at the six month interval so that they are not making the presentation at council? I think it's a I think it's a fair ask what I would say, you know, if there was a big work plan initially and it looks like it's starting to become more narrow, it's fair. What I would say is I'd like to just I see a number of people queued up. I want to hear sort of some consensus so that the motion that we put out is, you know, a supported motion. So let's hear what the rest of the council wants to say on that topic. Councilman Durango. Thank you, Mayor. Good point, Gary. Know, Mr. Sheldon brought up a point that I was going to actually address, and that is the overuse of overreliance on Google translation. It's horrible. I've used to before. I've had people come to me and say, you know, this is this is a great product to use. And what I used it and I saw it, it was just totally in disarray. So I'm hoping that staff monitors that in a way that it doesn't get the message isn't lost in the translation. It certainly can happen. And and an overreliance on such a program would would do more harm than good in the community. And in regard to that, I heard a good thing I heard Mr. Reynolds say that they're looking towards the institutionalization of this program. And I think Councilmember Richardson I think that addresses item number four in that there's going to be institutionalization, there's going to be some funding behind it. And I would hope that every department would. Implement a program that goes towards that in the sense that. What was that? Okay. Okay. Stacy, that. As we go towards institutionalizing this program that departments will, in fact set aside some funds so that it can happen eventually. I think that's what you might have met maybe with some clarification on that. But I think we should we should have we should include it in there. I think. So. Just to respond, um, I know that a while back they did articulate like, you know, what is the total amount we spend across the city on, on language access. They had to break down on all of our. All of our. You know, what was it? Was it the skill pays and all that stuff? So if I'm okay with seeing it broken down by my department, like what people do, I just don't know what it requires in terms of staff time. So I'm okay putting that into my motion to evaluate it. So next time we hear back, we see if that's if that's possible. Yeah, I think it's important that mainly because it takes staff, it takes recruiting, it takes job announcements and testing to ensure that the people that we are hiring to provide these services do in fact possess those skills. And having been an English teacher back in the day and having been an assessor of Spanish and English language skills , I know that it is a skill. And you mentioned it. It is a skill. It is important skill. And unless you really know what you're doing, it's like I again, the the the message gets lost in the translation and we want to ensure that that does not happen to. Thank you. Vice President Joe. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I wanted to thank the staff for the presentation and Councilmember Richardson for his comments and support. I wanted to also share that I would be in support of having the written report and then a formal presentation annually. And as you said, unless there is a large item that needs to come forward, that that would be that would be something that I would be amenable to as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. I think that we've made great progress. I'm glad you're still interested in the single phone number of access. I think that as we talk about seniors and aging and a third of our seniors not speaking English, that that's really a key thing that I look forward to a report on. I'm also in support of Councilmember Price's idea behind moving this to a written report that I think has a lot of of value to the community. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. So I just want to follow up with Councilman Richardson. I mean, I think certainly if there's issues or ideas brought to the table, we can agenda visit and ask staff to come back. But since this is something that we we think about in terms of funding on an annual basis, I think it would make sense to do so. I want to I want to recognize and thank you for the tone and how you how we came to this. And I see that there is clear support for this. I think there I think we need to make sure that, you know, we have we had a larger work plan. It has narrowed. You know, I think we can maintain this focus. I think we're asking for a reasonable semiannual. Every six months we get an update. One of them is in writing. One of them's in at the city council. I think that's fair given the workload on staff. So I'm okay with that. Thank you. Okay. So the friendly is that the language access report would come once a year to the council in a in a public format. And then of course, six months would be a two from four from the from the city manager. There's a motion in a second on the floor, please. Member please go and cast your votes. Motion carries.

Recommendation to receive and file a report from the Long Beach Energy Resources Department on the recent spike in natural gas customer bills.

LongBeachCC_02052019_19-0102

Let me move up. I think we're going to do a timesharing on this. Where is what number is the what is it? Just the the issue on the on the Charlie Bills. Can we move that up and do that next? Communication from Councilwoman Price, Vice Mayor Andrews, Councilman Austin recommendation to receive and file a report from the Long Beach Energy Resource Department on the recent spike in natural gas customer bills. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Price. All right. Actually, I'm trying to just read the item. Okay. Councilman Price, thank you. And thank you to my colleagues for signing on to this item. We have our office has received a lot of correspondence from residents regarding the recent. Increase in the bill that the residents received. And and the and I know there's going to be a presentation tonight, so I'm going to turn it over to staff for a presentation on this. But I'm hoping during the course of the presentation, we can talk about whether any notice was given to residents, why notice wasn't given to residents, and because one of the things that we're hearing from a lot of the residents is had they received notice, they could have maybe modified their usage in the winter months so that their bill wouldn't have been as high. So if we can get just kind of a background on this and what we're doing to mitigate at this point, that would be great. Bob Dylan, director of Energy Resources. Well, actually, Councilman Eggleston wants to comment before we go to the staff report on the second. Yes. Before the staff report, I would just ask madam, my colleague, Susan Price. I mean, look, from the looks of at them, nobody's paying attention at this point. And I think this is a this is an issue that that that the public really, really wants to know about. I mean, maybe somebody is paying attention at home on television, but I'd like to delay this or. Well, it's the time it was on the supplemental issue, on the supplemental agenda, because it's actually a very timely discussion. The rates are going to smooth out. This was just this is just a report on the recent spike. And it's rare for third district residents, frankly, to come to council meetings, but they are incredibly engaged. We have correspondence from residents that we've received all day today as well as comments. Okay. Yeah, so I'd prefer to go forward, but if we want to do another study session or something on it. But my understanding from everything that I've read is that we expect the situation to be mitigated in the future months. And this was which I just we just want an explanation of what happened. Got it. Thanks. Thank you for saying that to. Me, too. We've all been getting the emails. I'm. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Downer. Yes? Good evening, Honorable Mayor. Members of the Council as a staff was directed to prepare a presentation this evening to explain the high increases in residential gas bills and business businesses as well. This is normally a very complex and convoluted discussion, but for tonight we've kind of simplified it so we can kind of get the message across and briefly explain what what occurred to understand, first of all, the commodity portion of the gas. Where does it come from for the state of California? So this depiction here shows pipe flows and gas movements. And it's noted at the top that California continues to depend on out of state imports for 90% of its natural gas supply . In Long Beach Pacific. We only produce 4% of the gas within the boundary as Long Beach that we consume. So we're heavily reliant on the markets outside of California. We call it east of California. And you can see the predominance of the gas tends to flow to the northeast into the Texas area. There are very few mechanisms to get gas out to the state of California. More specifically, we do not have a pipeline from Long Beach that runs to the border of California to receive this. Gas energy resources is 100% reliant upon the distribution and transmission system of the Southern California gas company to bring that gas to the L.A. metro area. And then we have four receipt points in the city of Long Beach, where we take possession of gas that we purchase and deliver to the residents and businesses within Long Beach. So there you can see there's about eight receipt points there. They're depicted along the border of California where SoCal Gas brings that gas in. And also on there, if you note in the red, there are four gas storage facilities that SoCal utilizes. Typically, you fill those up in the summertime when gas prices are lower and when demand is up in the winter and prices are higher, they supplement their system from these storage fields and also boost the supply of gas when the demand exceeds the capacity of the pipeline. You know, it's about 250 miles to the border of California. Takes a long time to get gas from there into the city. It's a lot easier than it is to get it there. So those storage fields serve a very, very useful purpose. What is the make up of gas in Long Beach or who consumes it? About 44% is consumed by residential use. 18% small businesses, large commercial industrial are about 23%, and our CNG usage constitutes about 15% of the gas that's consumed in the city of Long Beach. Good news for residential users is that since 1990, consumption of natural gas has basically dropped in half. And that's due to several reasons. There's building efficiency standards, appliance efficiency standards. So the average residential customer on a yearly basis in Long Beach uses a little over three thirds of natural gas. Back in 1990, they consumed about 600 firms of gas, and to approximate the therm is roughly 100 cubic feet of natural gas. It's a volumetric measurement. It comes as no surprise when you look at the utilization of gas by residents in Long Beach predominantly. Of the 313 terms that they consume. If you look far to the right of that graph, the last two months are pretty high. That's that's November. December. And if you go back 12 months, January, February, that's what we refer to as the winter heating season. And our residents consume about 50% of the gas that they consume on a yearly basis in those four months. So 50% of the gas in the average residential use is consumed in one third of the year. So that curve is pretty typical of residential use. Commercial industrial tend to be pretty flat. They use it for whatever processes they balance tends to be flat. Residential tends to follow this pattern. So how is the cost determine for SoCal or sorry for Long Beach residents? There's two two components of your gas bill that you're seeing at your house. There's the cost of delivering that to you. That's the transportation rates. But the biggest item in the item we're here discussing this evening is the cost, the actual commodity cost of the gas. So we only produce 4%. We have to purchase the gas that's here. We do that on a monthly basis from the natural gas market, that is gas produced from local producers and marketers . And we procure that gas at the best available rates. It should be noted that by law, utilities may not mark up the price of the natural gas commodity. So if we pay $5 for gas from the markets with the hubs, that is exactly the price of gas that shows up on residents gas bills. So there's a process whereby suppliers and marketers get together the last five days every month they develop and post what's called the so-called city gate first of the month price that comes out in the first of every month. Energy Resources, Inc. Those prices into developing our cost of gas. Our cost of gas is always lower than that price of gas that constitutes about 75% of the gas in the winter months that we sell. We purchase some spot market gas as well as we have a produce gas. So it's always slightly below that posted price. And this price is published the first of every month, an energy resources website. They've been doing this at least for the last nine years that I can trace back to. But every month and the first of the month that is posted on our website. The other component I mentioned was the delivery of gas to our customers. That has not increased since to October of 2016. So our transportation rate, the cost to maintain and move that gas through our system at those four receipt points to the residents and business addresses has not changed in that time frame. So here's where you go to find that price of gas. You go to either utility services or the energy resources website. You click under the information tab and it's how is the cost of gas determined? And this is what's posted every month. You can see the February price last Friday at 3 p.m. when prices posted, we published our price of gas. Again, that is per therm. That's what customers see on their bills. The cost of gas is is done by firms. You can kind of see and you'll see it in the curve earlier or later that the December price is extraordinarily high compared to the to the other months. So it's been said a pitcher can makes up a thousand words. This product makes up 10,000 words. But briefly, what this shows is that same so-called system that I described presented earlier. And what what's happening right now, the green arrows are the receipt points. This is where Southern California gas receives the gas from out of state suppliers and moves it through its system into the L.A. Based or L.A. metro area. And that's where Long Beach resides. There are numerous reasons you'll see red X's and partial red x's. There are a number of constraints and maintenance items that SoCal Gas is undertaking. Those items have reduced the capacity that's coming into the L.A. basin at this present time. And the. Limitations. I think most folks here are familiar with the Aliso Canyon storage incident that occurred in 2015. They had a leak at one of their largest gas storage fields. After that, there was investigations and restrictions placed on the uses of those. So those have greatly hampered SoCal gases ability to meet the winter demand in the L.A. Basin. If you look, the real story is in the lower left hand corner in those red letters. In last year, for instance, they could take in 3.2 Bcf of gas at those green arrows and deliver that to the the greater metro area . And they had 1.6 Bcf of storage withdrawal capability on a good winter day and not in excess of what a day. They take out 3.5 to 3.7 Bcf to meet a daily demand. So they had some cushion in September of 17. But if you look at today, that is 3.7. So as a commodity, markets grow when there's more demand than there is, supply prices go up. And that's the situation we're facing today. Just as a kind of a point of reference that they could deliver at that risk point was 3.2 and now it's 2.6. That's about a point six Bcf. That's billion cubic feet differential. That's 17 times the usage of the city of Long Beach. So that is a significant reduction that they have brought into their system. Or no longer have there. So we were up against and they are up against some significant hurdles to meet the demand of the L.A. base that. So what did this look like on a monthly basis? The first year you can look back and see in winter of last year, in November, we were at $3.61 a deck a therm or it showed on Thursday may be to you. And in December, it peaked at $6.38. So it was a modest peak. That's a historical graph that goes back to 2015, but certainly some of the implications of the storage limitations were shown then. Then this summer we had a very big heat wave in August and in fact on July 23rd, that price on a daily basis that you see reached now went up to $32. It will be off that chart for a daily spot price. So the electric consumer is the Uggs that produce our power. We're paying some astronomical prices for their gas to generate electricity. So here we are in November. Our gas is at $5.82 a therm. The forward looking curve showed it going up modestly to about the 6 to $8 range. No more than that. What actually occurred is when they posted the price on December 1st, that price went up to $13.85. So that is a significant increase that was not foreseen. And that's with the market supply, some of it going east back to the East Coast. There was a limited amount of gas and with the constraints on the so-called gas system to get that to Long Beach, this was the price that not only Long Beach but anybody purchasing gas at their local, the city of Vernon, any municipal and others that are transporting their gas are paying that same price. So it was a significant hit. So we looked at what would that mean to the average Long Beach resident? The average Long Beach resident customer consumes 44/3 of gas. That was in the month of December in 2017. So we plugged in and asked guesstimate what what is the impact with the higher price? It was about a $34 impact to those residents. Certainly, if you are a high or significant higher than the average residential user, your bill would predict to be larger than those seen by the average customers. So we saw this. It was a it was an increase, but certainly it wasn't an alarming increase. Nothing like what was observed back in 2001 when this number went up into the hundreds of dollars. Shortly thereafter, we put a fact sheet on the front page of our website that discussed the impacts of this winter pricing anomaly. We utilized social media. We have a Facebook page. With the press telegram that put this out. Now, mind you, the press telegram article went out January 4th, but many people had not seen their December gas bills. During that time, we briefed our call center representatives with the appropriate information. Certainly we anticipated those calling in where financial burdens and we brief them on how to respond and address those concerns. As I said, this is not just a city of Long Beach issue. This issue impacted the electric companies significantly. Other cities and municipalities were impacted that are buying their gas. And on January 11th, the California Energy Commission, a California Public Utilities Commission, held a workshop where they brought in Southern California gas companies to discuss this. And it was important to note that clearly these volatile and unprecedented things are under discussion. They want to understand what is going on with the so called system for this to occur. So it is being looked at at a higher level, at a state level. We just happen to be a customer of Southern California gas that was impacted. So there is some good news. January prices posted and came in a drop 40%. And then last Friday, they dropped another 40% down to almost normal levels. But we did go through the one time December peak because of similar conditions nationwide and those constraints on the so-called system. So we have offered assistance for any customers or residents that this has impacted. There are numerous options that we have. I'd like to know briefly, though, we've got a tally. Everyone says they've had a number, but it's about 1% or we estimate of 154. But any I can assure you, every customer was impacted. And that's the concern of us, is that. Yes, just because they don't call doesn't mean they didn't see. Hi. Hi, Bill. We have enrolled several customers into a payment arrangement, plans where they spread that one time monthly cost over whatever number of months they want. But one of the lessons learned is that we really are encouraging customers if this is going to be the norm going forward, until such time as no cap can remedy these restrictions on their system to participate in what we call our level pay plan and basically take 12 months worth of your gas bill and it's levelized and you pay a flat fee for 12 months. At the end of those 12 months, you'll true that up. And if if we over collected, you'll receive a credit. If there's a small balance, do they pay that small balance? This is a way to alleviate those winter. Well, we show that with 40% or 50% that was used in those four months, you spread it out over 12 consecutive months. Certainly there are some lessons learned here. And so in preparing for the 2019 season, we are going to continue to form our customers in advance whenever we can of any price spikes utilizing bill messaging, website and social media. One thing we also determined is that we can utilize LBE link that's there is a notification checkbox there that you check from Energy Resources. We will utilize that to put messaging out to our residents on that. And certainly a communications campaign for the 2019 winter season is well earned here. Everybody hears the messages from SoCal Gas on the radio on a TV. Better job when you hear that. For Socalgas customers, we essentially are a so-called gas. So what they're telling their customers to do, we need to in turn have our customers do, such as setting your thermostat lower, conserve where you can and and to sign up for the level pay plan. So on a customer's bills, there are tools to look at advances. We just need to do a better job of educating our residents on how to utilize that. And that far left where you see that first arrow, that is the historical usage of that customer for the last 12 months. So at any time you can go back, if we were in December this year, they could go back and look at their December usage if it was saved. I don't know what that number is under 44th terms or 33 thumbs. You would basically go over to the second arrow up in the upper right and just put in the new cost of gas that's posted on our website. You could look and estimate what your December bill would look like then knowing that the cost of gas. But this is something that I think a very small percentage of our residents know of and that we've communicated and how to make it effectively work for them. So clearly, we need to do a better job of messaging this information and in how to utilize that bill. Additionally, most of the meters at Long Beach, if not all our army, we take a read every 4 hours for a mile per second of data, so we actively know the consumption of our residents on a daily basis. We're exploring with our vendor who supplied us the software here of a means to take that data. And if we have information from our customers, I want to know when I'm at 50% of what my last year's bill was, can you alert me? And yes, we can certainly do that. We believe we could have the technology to do that. How we were going to put it on our Web page remains to be seen. But we we believe the technology is there and that we can alert our customers to this. And it's certainly a step that we're going to take to do that. So that concludes my presentation and I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Dow Johnson for Supernova. Actually, can I just ask. Absolutely. Thank you very much for that presentation. Excellent. And it answered a lot of questions for me. So if I'm if I'm understanding the presentation correctly, once we learned of the spike in in rates or in what we thought the customers would see if they weren't going to the energy resources website and checking the rates, we did put out some social media information. We did update the web page. So we did try to get some information out to the best of our ability at that time. Yes, that's correct. However, it would not have even been soon enough for customers to avoid what would occurred here, because you need to start this in September and educating them how to do it. Any messaging we would have gotten out through any EPA, even if I don't know how many people read local press or listen to our go to our social media page would probably not have been sufficient enough time unless they actually observed it. How we and we're going to utilize our Office of Innovation to help us. How do we message customers more timely? What's the best means to reach them? We do. Not everybody has access to a computer that has an email address. We have to figure out what is the best means in a more timely fashion to get this information. We can start earlier and hopefully that will be enough. But how do we get this message across? Yes, we can utilize the L.B. link or link L.B. and things of that nature, but it is a difficult task to try to reach out to 154,000 customers in one month and convey to them that your gas price went up this month. Now, mind you, that that figure that was shown there was for customers whose bill cycle started on the first day of the month and in and on the last day we have 22 billing cycles of our customers. Some started November 15th and went through December 15th. So half of their bill would have been the November prices and the other half would have been December and then the next month they would have had the second half. So it is a convoluted task to try to tie it all together, but that doesn't mean we can't do a better job of starting a program earlier. And if this volatility even has the remote chance of occurring next year, i we're going to do everything we can to start earlier. I. I love the advanced planning and planning for the 2019 winter season. In my personal opinion as a consumer, I think the best way to get the message out to all residents is to do an insert in the bill on the front of the bill. So a lot of times the inserts are behind the bill, but I think if there is a way to do it so that the insert is at the front of the bill, they have to look at the insert before they look at their bill because even the print that's on the bill, I'll be honest with you, I receive that bill every month. I've never read the special message that you have in the bottom. I just saw right now that you have something on there about tree recycling. Never knew that was on there. And so either we need to do a better job of telling people to look for the special message on their bill and that fine print or maybe put like a one page, you know, very simple, you know, program about this level pay program and why you recommend it. I think that would be really great. That's just my $0.02. And I think if you were willing we I know a lot of our offices do newsletters. If you were willing to write it, write a short article about this and how residents can participate in this level level pay program. I think all of us would probably those of us who wanted to would include it in our newsletters. And that would be a really great way to do outreach. I think doing it in the print media is very helpful, but I think for the East Side, at least if you don't do the grunion, you're going to miss, you know, a lot of people because many people will just read the grunion since it's so readily accessible for everyone and it's free, a lot of restaurants and businesses. So I think just thinking about how to get the word out best, it was a big hit. Unfortunately, my bill was not $34, which much higher because I live with two boys who do not understand the concept of turning out lights and not turning the heater on and all those things. And they are continuing to cost me a lot of money. And that was true for December. So I think a lot of residents found themselves in the same situation as me. But it is helpful to know that even if we would have gotten information out in December, there's nothing that they could have done to reduce their bills because the rate was already in place and they wouldn't have been able to adjust their own usage for that month and time to have a difference. So thank you very much for doing this presentation for us. It's very timely and I'm grateful for your expertize because I learned a lot tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Supernova. Thank you. Appreciate the presentation. And I have no doubt moving forward that this is. Going to be resolved. And you're going to Tracy involved in coming up. With a communication system. I just wanted to give you guys some credit for what you did do. Our office was aware of this issue, but we hadn't heard from a constituent. Our newsletter goes out every Friday at 1:30 p.m.. After we distributed the newsletter on Friday the 25th, we got our an email. One email. That's all we ever received on this issue. A week after that, we got a phone call and another email, but it was just reacting to the person. Who had originally emailed us because he posted it on social media. So. That Friday, I left a phone message on Bob Dole's office phone and said, hey, we need to talk about this next week. Thinking he would get it on Monday. He called me on Sunday and basically gave me this whole presentation. That we just saw here. Tonight. We already had a committee meeting scheduled for that Wednesday, and he got Tony Foster to show up at our committee meeting. And this is just days notice and went through this whole presentation at our committee meeting. Then last Friday, we went and published with. Your letter from your. Website and whatnot. That just showed me how nimble. Your management. Team is. So moving forward, I have no doubt that we can. Get the information out there. So thank. You. And not all of us get paper bills in the mail, but I think the council. Offices can really assist with this because. We all push the information out there. So whatever you hand off to us will. Make sure it gets in our constituents hands. Thanks again. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yes, thank you, Mayor. First of all, I want to thank Councilwoman Susan Price for bringing this forward. And also, I would like to thank Bob Dole and his team for being very responsive to my office and my residents when they ask about these price increase. So thank you for your informative memo that was released on Friday. Thank you very much to. Councilman Alston. So I'm glad we went through with this item tonight. I want to thank thanks, Susie, four for four for bringing it forward. And thank you, Mr. Dowd, for the very, very informative presentation. We've already have some ideas on and groups that we'd like to to engage in the district, but particularly our seniors who I think will get a lot out of out of this presentation because they've had a lot of questions. So thank you very much. And let me just add also so something we may want to consider because this was a lot of people are we have been shocked about this and kind of been, you know, stopped me on the street and people have been posting things on social media and so forth. I still think there's value in telling people what happened even after the fact. And I know that, you know, things are going to go back to normal, but a lot of people are just wondering what happened. And so I would encourage us to send something in the bill now that says you experience an increase. You know, during these months, here's why you experienced it. And and here is how, you know, so that they know that it wasn't because people don't know. They just think that we up their bill. I mean, you know, everyone I talked to just thinks that the city just basically decided to increase their their utility bill. And so regardless of that great presentation, that is that's what people think. So I think that doing a mailer and putting it on social media and doing all those other things, saying, here's what happened, here's why it happened. And well, we don't expect this to be a regular occurrence. It can happen in the future. And here's a way to prevent. I just think that would be helpful if that's something we should at least look at doing, because most people are, like Al said, are not watching right now. But it's the best way of getting to people is through that bill and then through our newsletters I think would be also helpful. Is are the recall public comment on this already. I think I did right. Yeah. And seeing no public comment on this roll call the. Councilmember Pearce. Councilwoman Price. Councilmember Supernova. Right. Vice Mayor Andrews. Councilman Austin. Councilmember Richardson. Motion carries.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and grant a Permit with conditions on the application of Mary's Long Beach, Inc., dba Hamburger Mary's, at 330 Pine Avenue, for Entertainment With Dancing by Patrons. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_03112014_14-0184

Go ahead. Hiring one involves the Financial Management Department with the recommendation received supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the hearing and grant appointment with conditions on the application of Long Beach. There is an oath required with all those who intend to give testimony in the matter of hearing. Item number one please stand. Have the clerk administer the oath. To you and each of you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in this course now pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God. Thank you, Ms.. Frick. Yes, ma'am. Members of the Council, Dennis Dakota, will provide the staff report on this item. Thank you. Assistant City Manager, Mayor and members of the Council. As the clerk indicated, this is a application for entertainment with dancing by patrons for Hamburger Mary's, located at 330 Pine Avenue. They have previously operated with the same permit at their Broadway location since 2008. All of the city investigative departments have reviewed the application or in are recommending approval. We would, however, asked for an amendment to one of the conditions in oversight by staff missed that hamburger Mary's was operating under a slightly different worded condition, condition number three under other conditions, and the clerk has distributed that full packet with the amendment . And we would ask that that change be made. City departments approve that condition. That concludes your testimony. It does. Mr. McKay. Vice Mayor Garcia. I'm going to make the motion to approve the staff recommendation with the amended condition as presented within second. Any member of the public would testify on hearing item number one. If so, please come forward. Identify yourself. Be mindful of the time. My name is Ben Rockwell. I live at 475 West Street here. In Long Beach. I would like to say of all the nightclubs in the downtown. Hamburger Mary's is one of the most. Quiet or one of the least egregious of. All of the nightclubs. As far as noise coming to the outside on the street and going by on the street late night, I have yet to hear any noise coming out from that nightclub like I do from other nightclubs and the first and 1 to 100 blocks of Pine Avenue. There is no noise emerging that goes out across the street. You cannot hear out across the street. And I would say that Queen Mary, I mean, Hamburger Mary's as one of the quietest best establishments in our city as far as noise goes. Thank you, Mr. Rockwell. Appreciate it. Any further comments? Okay. We have a motion in a second. Mr.. Mr.. Mayor, I want to say one thing before we vote. Just real briefly, I know that Dale is here, and I just wanted to not let the moment pass without saying. Dale, thank you for opening up a great establishment and for for all of us here on the council as well, it's important to know that this is actually the first business that has occupied this space on Pine Avenue since it was developed probably over a decade ago. Now, when when that department in that city place developed their on that site. And so the fact to have it actually activated on the 300 block of pine, where it's never been used before and sat vacant , is a great service to Pine Avenue, to downtown and to the revitalization that's happening in the Northern Pine Area. So I want to thank you for taking the the leap and making the investment in an area that is still developing. And I think it's that kind of of risk taking by small business owners to believe in the in the future of an area that's, you know, really getting our city and and pine in particular and downtown to the next step. So just wanted to thank you, Dale, for making that investment. Thank you. All the best. Appreciate it. Members have motion at no cost for million dollars. Hold on 1/2. I also wanted to share Dale. If this weren't one city, I'd be pretty bitter that you left the second district. So. But thank you. You are running a great, great establishment. And I concur with the speaker that the noise is really not audible outside and it's really something that demonstrates it can be done this way. So thank you. All right. Thanks again. We have a motion in the second one. Members, cast your votes. Councilmember Andrews, please. Thank you. Motion carries some votes. Thank you. All the best. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. All right. Now, if it's okay with Mr. DeLong, we'll go to public comment again. You have 3 minutes. Green light means you have a full. Yeah. When you see the yellow light, you have 30 seconds left.

Recommendation to request City of Long Beach to adopt the goal of Vision Zero to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries among all road users, including those walking, bicycling and driving by 2026 through the following recommendations: • Request analysis of corridors and intersections with high bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle injury crash rates to understand traffic safety issues and to help prioritize resources based on geographic areas and issues of the greatest need within 180 days. • Request City Manager form a Vision Zero Task Force made up of relevant City departments (LBPD, Public Works, Health and Human Services, Development Services), Long Beach Transit, Long Beach Unified School District and community members with mobility or urban planning expertise to develop an action plan with clear strategies, "owners" of each strategy, interim targets, timelines, and measurable goals. • Request an (biannual or annual) update be made available to the City Council and community members on the progre

LongBeachCC_05242016_16-0496

Item 35 is a communication from Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilman Andrews. Councilmember Richardson. Recommendation to adopt the goal of Vision zero to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injury among all road users by 2016. Will you move for me? Okay. There's been a motion and a second set of staff report. We have no staff report at this time, but we're happy to respond to any questions the Council has in implementing this. Give me 1/2. You want to find them? Can you log me out of that one? Is that the problem? Do you think? All right, let me try this again. Okay. There we go. So I just wanted to thank the staff for hosting Vision Zero some time back when they the team was here to present and share with us the different data from the different various cities throughout the country as well as throughout the world about the dangers of collisions between vehicles and moving objects and pedestrians. So this request is an analysis of our corridors and intersections with high bicycle, pedestrian vehicle injury, crash rates to understand traffic safety issues and to really help prioritize our resources based on geographic areas and issues of the greatest need. And to have this back within 180 days. Many cities have signed on to this. This is something that I think it's a great night to actually consider this and have the staff take a look at this and bring this back to council. On a night when we have adopted our Midtown specific plan, on a night that we have adopted our pedestrian action plan and things that are related to planning and certainly things that are related to making the public space as safe as possible and as engaging as possible for our residents. So I would like to thank my fellow colleagues for signing onto this item with me. Something that I know many of you may have been hearing in public discourse is the question of our use of the word accident. We referred to the term accident when it comes to collisions between vehicles, collisions between a vehicle and pedestrian, and the simplicity of that term. Is helpful for many reasons, but I think we are nationally at least having a dialog about whether it's the right term to use. And so one of the things that we hope to look at as this analysis comes back is to reframe those instances as truly just collisions and not to assign blame, but to really assign the severity of it, especially to pedestrians and those on bike, those on really on on smaller mobility devices. And so the severity of it needs to be acknowledged and understood, I think, as we redesign our city to be safer for everyone that navigates it. So I do wish to thank my colleagues for signing on to the item. As I mentioned previously, we hosted Vision Zero here. This was September of last year. We had Leah Sham, founder and director of Vision Zero Network, come to Long Beach to introduce this project to me in my office. This network will help the city and community leaders develop and share best practices towards safe mobility for all road users . Vision Zero is a road safety policy that builds safety and livability into our streets, encouraging cities to commit to building better and safer streets. Educate the public on safety, traffic safety, enforce traffic laws, and adopt policy changes that saves lives. The goal is to create a culture that prioritizes traffic safety and to ensure that mistakes on our roadways don't result in serious injuries or death. The result of this collaborative citywide the citywide effort will be safer, more livable streets as we work to eliminate traffic fatalities. And as many of you may know, we had a traffic fatality today or earlier this morning, late last night. And it's very unfortunate. Vision zero goals and strategies have been honed by elected elected officials, professionals and activists in Europe and are currently being embraced in progressive cities around the country. Cities like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C., Santa monica are currently undertaking major safety street safety initiatives inspired by the original Vision Zero effort in our quest to be a bikeable, walkable city. My goal is to have Long Beach among these cities. Given the interest and capability in our various departments, I know that we have the wherewithal to achieve this goal. We're already doing it. And with our commitment to the Bicycle Master Plan, the development of transit oriented development, pedestrian master plan, our mobility element and downtown, the goal of Vision Zero is a natural evolution for our city. It's the right time and it's the next step. Over the last 12 months, we've had 308 cyclist involved collisions districts one to and six having the highest number and initiative and eventual policy of Vision zero will help make that number much lower with the hopes of getting it to zero in ten years. If this item passes, which I encourage my colleagues to consider voting in favor of, I would like to encourage the city manager and the City Council to identify funds and applicable grants to make a long term strategic plan a priority as we go into the fiscal year 17 budget. And at this time, I'd like to turn it over to my co co-sponsor, Councilman Gonzalez. Yes. Thank you. Vice Mayor, I want to just extend my appreciation to you for this item, because it's very yes, it's very timely. But I think as we are moving towards a very mobile city with the addition of many bike lanes, the addition of many different elements to ensure that people are walking and biking and doing things other than driving, it's important that we're also adding a safety component. I really especially like the fact that we're requesting the city manager to form or to look about the feasibility of forming a Vision Zero task force to include the Long Beach Unified School District. Because many kids I hear of the stories that they're crossing basically Anaheim from the West Side to get to downtown. And a lot of them, you know, have that that's the their only mode of transportation. I think it's really important that we look at that as well and and see what types of goals we can work on to ensure that these kids are safe. Most definitely. And I appreciate it. So I look forward to hearing back a report on this information and seeing where we can go from there. But this is wonderful. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I'm glad that you asked me to sign on to this, I think is a great idea. I also would say that this is timely for a number of reasons. I know that the school district is, you know, getting out of school. And there have been a lot of conversations about safe routes and updating the safe route maps in particular. And in my council district. You know, a lot of discussion right now given that, you know, school bus, the last school the school busses has taken away. It's school busses. And it's a new focus on how do you walk across bridges, how do you walk through a neighborhood? And we're finding that routes that we took for granted are not are not safe for for young people. And we're working on this. But I think it's important that this plan and I think it's good that this plan is based on data and helps us to identify funding strategies based on data. One fact is that, you know, Atlantic and Atlantic Avenue on Artesia Boulevard was tied in 2015 for the most traffic accidents in our city . And that's right at the intersection of that's right by Jordan High School. That's literally the intersection of Jordan High School. So it says a lot that the city council is making a commitment to developing a plan to try to eliminate traffic fatalities. I would also say that it's timely and I think we need to take a look at the other plans that are that are happening in the city to make sure that all our interests intersect. For example, we just announced funding for Heal Zone, which is $1 million of funding in three specific census tracts. Well, this intersection is in that census tracts. There's a lot of organizing with youth around that. So with this task force, I want to make sure that there are links between place based initiatives and this citywide document. And then the last thing I would say is I would I think that involving the school district is important, but I want to make sure that that means youth as well and not just staff. I want to make sure that you have a role in this in this process. Again, this is this seems really important, really serious. And it has my full support. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. We have been talking about traffic and traffic safety for quite a long time. And I think that this item is is very important and it's a great time for this to come forward. We had recently had the adjustment in the crossing guards, which was an impact to some of our communities. I know that even today we received an email about the changes that have been experienced over the last several months since the crossing guard change came. So I'm glad that there'll be a citizen committee involved in this. I think data driven decisions is the way to go. I know that last night the chief. Communicated to our neighbors that one of our neighborhood groups about the increase in traffic collisions across the city and the state recently. And so now is the time that we get ahead of this. And so I'm really excited to have this come back to council. Thank you. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I, too, want to thank staff for their work on this, and I want to thank our traffic engineering department. They've just been phenomenal to work with. I think this item is great. I want to thank my colleagues who brought this item forward. This is an issue that's near and dear to my heart as I've been a vehicular homicide prosecutor for years dealing for in traffic fatalities for for many years exclusively. And I attend a lot of nits conferences and OTS events that that are focused on traffic safety. So I think this is great. And it's it's one of those things where it's kind of like impaired driving. There's actually a methodology to prevent traffic fatalities. It really is one of those tragedies that can be avoided if people take better care and we do a better job of designing around our mobility point. So I want to I want to thank my colleagues who brought this item forward. I think this is going to be a great discussion for us to have as a city. So thank you. Thank you. Is there any member of the public that wishes to address the Council on item 35? Please come forward. State your name. Good evening. Thank you, Vice Mayor, for bringing this forward and to your co-sponsors. A lot of great things were said about Vision Zero. I just wanted to add a couple of quick things. My name is Steve Gardam with Long Beach. Lisa Humm will be back in Long Beach in a couple of weeks. She will be attending the Heads Count conference, which is the state convening of pedestrian advocates. And so we're excited to have her back and be able to tell her, assuming this goes through, that we are now a Vision Zero city. I think when we look back on this moment a few years from now, we will compare it to the day when Mr. Penaloza came to town and told us we could be bold and become a leader in being bicycle friendly. We took his advice. We took that leap and look how far we've come and keeping the torch. And you brought up the point about calling things traffic accidents. When we have an intersection like Atlantic and Artesia where accidents happen over and over again. MLK in Seventh Street. Over and over again. They're not accidents. They're predictable. And we can fix them. So with that black lung, which strongly supports and urges you to create the task force and initiate a Vision Zero process. Thank you very much. Thank you, Steve. And thank you for all your assistance. Dennis. Dennis, turn. Let's try to make this a car friendly city. The present situation is intolerable with bikes going in the middle of the road and cars veering off the track, trying not to hit them. Testimony is the effect that the by situation. Is out of hand. I spoke to three police officers about this in Belmont. Sure. They said that the rain and the confusion. Would cause. Fatalities and that it was not a good situation to have bikes so freely use the roads. It just stands to reason. You know, if a bike is a middle. Of the road, you might hit them. You have to be totally aware of the situation. And awareness means no bikes in. The middle of the road, no bikes in busy streets. The routing of the bikes had been in busy streets, the most busy city. Excuse me, Miss Price. Misrata. The city. Busy streets. The busy streets have been a real problem. They should be. If there is to be bike allowance, then it should be done and not busy streets. What I propose is an alternate proposal to the Council. It's more democratic than having the council decide themselves. Let's leave it up to the. People whether. Or not they want a bike friendly city. Or a car friendly city. There are more cars. On the road the than our bikes. More pedestrians can be hit on a bike in the middle of the road. Let's investigate. Surely the present proposal is a good one. It's on the right track. But let's get it direct. Let's get down to the real facts. And the bikes. Pose a traffic problem. Thank you, Mr. Dunn. Anyone else. Okay. There's been a motion and a second and I will just throw out to staff as something that's being contemplated in the city of Santa monica is 20 is plenty. So four roads that are known for being thoroughfares, we're encouraging 20 miles per hour. Isn't that catchy? 20 is plenty. Thank you, members. Cast your vote. Councilwoman Mango. Motion carries. All right, Madam Clerk, I believe we are at public comment. Is that correct? Okay. I have nine speakers that have indicated interest in speaking on items, not on the agenda. Franklin Sims. If you're here. Here we go. Thank you.

Amends various sections of the Denver Revised Municipal Code by updating certain sections to address challenges experienced over the past two years; delete certain provisions that are now obsolete; standardize procedures between the Denver Revised Marijuana Code and the Denver Medical Marijuana Code; and harmonize sections within the Code by adding or amending sections to accommodate changes made in state law with regard to marijuana and medical marijuana.

DenverCityCouncil_02012016_15-0912

Thank you very much. Council President, members of the Denver City Council. I'm Stacey Lux, the executive director of the Department of Excise and Licenses. And I'm honored to be here before you today. Council Bill 912 is an omnibus bill of two dozen proposed changes that will ultimately provide clarity, consistency and codify excise and licenses existing practices for regulating medical and retail marijuana. The bill amends language in our general licensing chapter 32 and the Medical Marijuana Code in Chapter 24 and the Retail Marijuana Code and Chapter six and repeals the now obsolete medical dispensary code. The clean up changes in this bill will standardize language and definitions between the medical and retail marijuana codes and harmonizes the city's procedures and authority with the states. I appreciate your careful consideration of Council Bill 912 and remain available for any question. Thank you. All right. We've got five speakers, and I'm just going to call all five. Please make your way to the front pew so we can get through expeditiously. Vernon Hill, David Roybal, Nancy Grandees Jones and Elizabeth and Mike Elliott. So please make your way to the front pew. And Mr. Hill, you can go ahead and begin your remarks. Well, thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of City Council. My name is Vernon Hill. I'm a business owner and a resident of the Globeville area. And the reason I'm speaking to you today is I would like to clear up a couple of things over the last month or so. There's been a lot of discussion in reference to the marijuana issues in our area. And I've noticed through the media that there's been a lot of things said that we were more or less bashing the marijuana industry. That is not really. So what we wanted to do is we wanted to state the facts and let you be aware of the. Situation that we have been. Experiencing in our area. There are locations that are in our area that have been there and probably will be there. We're realist about this situation, and we do understand that this marijuana situation is going to be here for quite a long time. What we do want and what we would like to have from you is when you change these bills and you make up these rules and regulations for them that you think of us as. People that are living this whole. Situation. And what we would like you to do is give us the ability to have some control over what takes place in our neighborhoods. And as we move forward with this, we will do everything in our our our power to explain and give you an understanding of what we have to deal with with this situation. And as we move forward, not only do we want to see the the the medical marijuana and the retail locations in. This type of situation, to. Have rules on it is the real concern is to grow facilities. There are no buffers for these areas. For these types of businesses. As far as to grow facilities in these areas that will isolate them directly from the specific residences in the neighborhoods and. Stuff like that. And we would like to see. More of that information put into the bills. So that way there is some control over that. But the biggest thing is to have some type of teeth in this bill that will allow. Us to have some say so which that will allow us to. Have some say so about what's going to take place in our neighborhoods. And that's basically it. Thank you very. Much for your time. Thank you, David Roybal. Hello. It's an honor to be here. Thank you, Councilman Ortega, for bringing this courtesy hearing. I live at 2107. South Jason Street in a district 58. And in that area, we actually have 300 marijuana businesses, the most marijuana businesses. I'm originally from the Sun Valley. I live in the Sun Valley neighborhood from 1987. To. 2012. When the marijuana businesses first passed, they took over rapidly. We actually had a neighborhood stores there for 20 years. A&M, a good community store, had more than food, had more to offer. It got shut down, turned into a medical area. We actually had a reentry program for DACA in the neighborhood. They turned around, turn that into a medical area, medical dispensary. And it. Was actually two blocks from a. From a school. And the Sun Valley Coalition actually stood up about three years ago because we actually had. A marijuana grow facility. On the same block as the youth center. And one thing I like to just tell, you know, most. Areas that have the highest drug activity before marijuana came, those are the areas that, you know, the most medical facilities are. So people are still coming to the community for drugs. And if you see a the Denver Post. Interactive map, you can actually see where most of the the facilities are saturated. We have a you know, we have a lack of food. We have a lack of resources, healthy food stores. But we have so much so much of these in and. Of the Sun Valley coalition. Being a part of it. Since 2007, we never had a marijuana. Business owner come to the community group. We never had them bring in awareness, letting them know that they wanted to come here. And we, you know, we would love it. As communities that have more involved, me and some of the. Some of the stuff they give back to the community is discount medical marijuana. We don't want that. We want them to be a part of the community. And another. Thing that we had to issue. Some of the marijuana that was in dumpsters kids. Were finding and these kids were bringing. It back to the neighborhood. And there was a high possibility that some of it could have been contaminated. Could get people sick. And then plus, it's everywhere. It's everywhere in our communities. It's more it's more. More out to the youth. And I just hope. That, you know, that the the medical, you know, facilities. Could come to the. Community and try to make a good relationships, you know, so that way we can make the best make the best of this. So and to be part of the community, we don't want no discount weed. And that's all I want to share. I appreciate it very much. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Nancy Grandees Jones. Thank you council members and especially thank you to Councilwoman Ortega for giving us this opportunity, bringing the request for the public hearing. I am a member of the Globeville, Globeville Civic Partners, which I hope all you council members received the letter from the Globeville Civic Partners, which outlined our request some inclusions for the omnibus omnibus bill. And I just wanted to just give you a little background that I've had a commitment and investment in the GSA neighborhoods since 1975, when my husband, Bob, who's now deceased, purchased the meatpacking plant at 5300 Franklin that the city just bought back. We had the building that got repurposed into Project Angel Heart, and through my company we were a silver sponsor for the Globeville, for the Habitat President Carter Build. So we since 1975, have been committed to Globeville. The issue is the M.J. I call MJ OC. The marijuana businesses are embedded in a community that has a strong residential base. And so the omnibus bill needs to have more inclusions for community input through notifications and public hearings. And I think you have not I think I believe you have an opportunity to make course corrections in some of these regulations that previously did not have that inclusion for notification of R.A. and public hearings. The unique part about Globeville, Leary, Swansea, as you know, the residential communities, but the industrial areas where there are the grow houses without that 1000 foot distance protection, there has been a lot of investment by the residents, property owners, businesses and the city and county of Denver in the HIPAA, the Health Impact Assessment and the Geese Neighborhood Plans. I believe that City Council has an obligation to ensure that the omnibus bill aligns with the findings and the recommendations of the HRA. I've got lots of green stickies here of all the marijuana stuff and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. And. To safeguard the health and the quality of life and the business vitality in the GSE neighborhoods. So I would request that you please take into consideration what our recommendations are and any more that you might make to strengthen the community input in the omnibus bill. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we have an Elizabeth. Hi, folks. I appreciate that. Broncos resolution and Elizabeth P.O. Box 16545 in Globeville 80216. But it says Denver. I do have a business that I'm happy to eventually let people know about in Globeville, and I'm still being passed from person to person as I get a permanent home back in my neighborhood. I would like to speak in support of the effort and suggest a couple specifics. On page six, the results of investigation, decision and director. It is Strike MP, page six in item C one. The striking not less than five days prior to the date of hearing the director shall make known. It's striking that not less than five days prior to during the initial marijuana hearings of recreational hearings, I myself attended hearings where people had not or applicants had not met. The requirements for applying for licensing and the hearing essentially shouldn't have happened. So I'm not quite sure why that was stricken, because I think it was it's something that would support excise and licensing to have advance notice. So my apologies if I misread it, but it just seems like a housekeeping thing. In support of what Nancy was just saying on page seven, the reasonable requirements of the neighborhoods and the. The desires of the adult inhabitants, as evidenced by. And then there's a list of things like petitions. I would request that you add approved area or neighborhood plans and regional masterplan such as national western with the list where you stipulate petitions. Remonstrance is I can't say that word, have to look it up or otherwise and that this the neighborhood plans are aspirational but we need to move into an era where they are seen as implementing. I want to do a shout out to the National Western Center effort, which has outbid some of the acreage that could have gone to marijuana growers growth, growing efforts in the footprint of the National Western Center and ask going forward, that part of the discussions have to do with protecting the brand of the National Western Center as a neighborhood unifying asset in the neighborhood finalizing asset. And that some of that can happen under signage and advertising in in an omnibus bill. And so in in addition to that, I'd like to ask that. And I again, I tried to read this. I'm here predominantly as an affiliation with Globeville Cares, which is a resident based and neighborhood organization that nearly every event we've had in our park or community meetings has had between three and 600 residents from the area. It's always a reunion and there's a very definite change in atmosphere with the marijuana industries moving in. And I feel like the awareness, the concordance that you're creating with the ominous built with the state licensing is good, but I hope that the rigorous discussion will be in terms of public education, youth education and listings. Are we at the Red Oak anyway? So thank you for your effort and please consider the marketing as part of the the enforcement as well. Thank you. Last speaker, Mike Elliott. Thank you, councilmembers, for this opportunity. My name is Mike Elliott's. I'm the executive director of the Marijuana Industry Group. We primarily want to thank the people working with the city because it's been a really you all have a really great team put together. Of intelligent people working. On these audiences. We had a number of issues going into this that we managed to get a lot of them solved and a lot of them addressed through just open communication and working through a lot of items. So we do have one final concern, though, that it's our understanding it's going to be addressed through rulemaking. But I did want to highlight it just to throw it out. There is still something we've been worried about and it gets back to the public comment I made at the committee hearing, which was the current language in this proposed ordinance, would say that any transfer of ownership would be stopped for any disciplinary action. And our question was, well, how far does this go with any disciplinary action? Could it be something as minor as just having a camera pointed in the wrong direction? And after speaking with folks in the city attorney's office and the mayor's office and Stacey Loucks, of course, we're under the pressure now that this is really intended for the more egregious violations. And and so this is apparently going to be addressed in rulemaking, and we will be satisfied with that having it be addressed there. But this is just one of those issues that we just wanted to see how far that language would go. So wanted to put it on the record. But we definitely want to thank Stacey, Ashley, Marlee and all the folks of the city because they've been great to work with. So thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions from members of the council. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. Stacey, can you come to the microphone, please? And then Malia may have a I am an attorney question legal question for you, Stacey. Can you talk about one of the speakers discussed the public hearing process. And so for that specific bill are around IMAX zones, industrial use zones. Can you talk about the public hearing process and why you all decided to change it? The challenge that we're facing over here. Exactly. So in the proposed bill that you're looking at today, there's actually three kind of references to public hearings. The first one is that we're adding a requirement for needs and desires for medical centers. That's we've never traditionally done any sort of public hearing in order to open a medical center. So for right now, under the moratorium, that'll be for transfers of locations. So we now are adding the first public hearing requirement for medical centers. We're also codifying an existing practice, which is that we do do public hearings for transfer as a location for retail centers, but that's not an ordinance. So that's something that we're putting in the proposal before you amphitheater requirement is what Councilman Brooks is referring to right now in the code. If you are in a grandfathered grow location, if you're in an impact zone district, there is annual public hearing requirements to look at whether or not it's frustrating the comprehensive plan or violating kind of some of these have safety welfare aspects in the last year and some are that we've been conducting these public hearings. We've held over 100 public hearings and we've only had one resident show up. So what we're proposing is, is that tool, it's very valuable and I think will absolutely address concerns as growth happens, particularly in some neighborhoods where the neighborhood plans and the comprehensive plans are being traded. So we're asking that there's an absolute minimum threshold, ten signatures, then we'll hold the public hearings. But having 100 public hearings has been a significant resource challenge for our department. We think it's actually caused a lot of fatigue for registered neighborhood organizations, for people that are getting constant notifications, maybe about one location has multiple licenses, and these are getting multiple notifications. It's also there's a lot of resources for a city attorney's office, for a hearing, officers to have 100 public hearings where no one has showed. So our proposal is, again, not is to keep that tool, to keep the public hearing, but to have that ten signature threshold grant. And my next question is just we had another speaker talk about the five days and striking the five days. I don't know if you or Marley want to address that, but can you can you talk about why you put the five day, why you struck the five day? Thank you, Councilman. I think that might have been an earlier version of the bill. We've added that back in. Done. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I was actually going to ask some of the same questions just to clarify for the global civic partners. I read your letter very carefully today, and I believe that what Stacey just clarified actually addresses some of your bullet points about the hearings. No. Oh, man. Man, we're gonna need you to come to the microphone. Can you feel free to come on? I just need you to speak for the microphone. Out of the 100 hearings, I don't know how many were were held for Globeville, Elyria, Swansea. Hear the word on the ground and in the communities has been there have not been public hearings and notifications in Globeville, Elyria, Swansea. And I think it has something to do with the idea in IBI which that zoning which is used by right as I understand, and learning all these things. So it's so we're not afforded those public hearings that were part of the IMX. So I'm learning. I mean that's that that's my under. That was my understanding. So Globeville Elyria, Swansea does does present a unique situation that may not be in other areas of the city that have a lot of marijuana places, marijuana businesses and especially the cultivations. That is huge. Well, one improvement that will hopefully impact your community is that this bill is now going to require a needs and desires hearing for both medical and retail. And so in the future, if a medical or retail facility wanted to go into the neighborhood, there would be a needs and desire hearing, correct? Yes. And that the community would have input on that. So moving forward. But there's there's nothing. I may be mistaken. You know, I tried to read that bill spent many hours that there's nothing for public hearings for the renewals which were those weren't those 100 public hearings about license renewals. I mean, I don't know. So that I mean so that so that's one thing that we're really concerned about is renewals, businesses that have violations that we know about that. Thank you very much. There is one. I am zone district north zone grow license north of I-70. Nancy's correct. Most of the growers and north of I-70 are used by rights and I zone districts in terms of renewal hearings. Actually, one of the elements that's in the recommended, if the 24 recommended changes that we're bringing for you today is to give that director of excise and licenses the ability to call for a renewal hearing for exactly just what that's and that's not an authority that I have currently, but that's one that we're being asked for in this new bill. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Black, Councilman Espinosa. I don't know if there's anybody here from maybe CPD that can answer this question, but that whole discussion that just transpired there, you know, back when the zoning code was adopted in 2010, that predated much of what we're seeing now. And I would like to know what specific uses were in the use table that allows this as a use by. Right. In both a retail and a plant. Husbandry Council member actually had an answer. So I don't have an answer specifically for that, but this is a big issue that we said we want it to be taken care of in in actually marijuana committee and on February 8th. And so CPD hopefully that day, if they're ready, is going to present everything to us and dealing with all the uses before 2010 and some of the issues that we're facing now so that we can make some policy decisions on where to go from here. Yeah. And so to that end, I actually think the zoning is potentially a better tool. It comes it comes back to us on what we what we do to rule on a rulemaking side. So then my other two questions particular to to this. Is. What was the. Well. It's confusing about this renewal hearing is that all renewals are the nonconforming ones that require ten signatures. I mean, ten signatures. Exactly. That is just for the non-conforming for the for the growers that are licensed and non-conforming zone districts which are typically IMAX zone districts. So if if neighborhood plans are adopted in some traditionally industrial areas, then become mixed use areas, those locations would then be grandfathered and also subject to these hearings. Is there a distance requirement or is it just any ten people? Right now, we've we're are aligning it with liquor that you have to be ten people within the designated area. I believe the designated area is five blocks north, five or an R.A. that touches and overlaps within the designated area. So any member of the R.A.. The R.A. body itself. Okay. So I think. And then to that end, right now, it's an automatic renewal hearing. How can we ensure that neighborhoods continue to receive some sort of notification on these types of. Great question. We have a three part strategy. The first one is we'll put it on our website. All the renewal dates for all of the. Grows in the IMAX zone districts. Our intention is also to notify other council members who have these grows in your districts. And then the third piece we're looking at is the technological solution. If we can just send out an automatic email to the impacted areas, that one, we just have a little bit of trickery and we're working with technology services and kind of need to maintain a little bit of flexibility. So our two point strategy is to work with your offices and to have all the information available on our website. Previously it was an automatic hearing. Now it's any time, right? It's or is it some window? So it's a 90 day window before the renewal. Is there a way to extend that if per request or something like that? If we wanted to extend that window for the neighbors to be able to collect signatures. Yeah. It's no. Yeah, I might have to. We'll have to think about that. I think that idea is that it's 90 days before the renewal date. So he's thinking like more 120 days before the renewal date that the neighbors could submit. Well, it really I would much rather and I'm sorry I didn't think of this before, but I would much rather say any time after the renewal, you know, because what's going to trigger somebody to even inquire about that is an incident and a problem. And you can't time that in a 90 day window. And so if you start to have an operator that starts to go south, you would like to be able to sort of fire off a hearing if it's a community gets the ten signatures. Absolutely. So. So the bill has a couple has a lot of different elements. So with the Imac's grow facilities themselves, it's 90 days before the facility. Now those facilities have violations. One of the things that we're asking for in the bill is to give the director immediate summary suspension authority and to do renewal hearings for any of the thousand licenses, not just grow licenses, not just grow licenses and Emacs districts. So we feel that would be an effective tool as well for if there are incidents, if there are complaints, if there is that trigger, that we can hold a renewal hearing for any of our thousand licenses. Great. And then the last one, what's the rationale behind the transfer? I'm trying to figure out my own writing between the rationale behind the sort of loosening up of the transfer constraints, uh, for lack of a better term. Is that another alignment with the state or what is that. That is that the speaker the before we are really trying to tether the local and state licenses. There have been times that we've gotten out of sync with somebody supplied at the state for a transfer of ownership or transfer vocation, but didn't necessarily come in in a limited amount of time and apply with us. So we're trying to synchronize as much as possible, and especially if you're under significant disciplinary action at the state, if you're under a show cause of the state because of a major violation, we want to be able to have protections that you can't come in and transfer ownership into somebody else's name at the local level. We want to make sure that we have the same ownership on licenses at the same time with the state. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Stacey, if you could stay there for a minute. So first of all, I want to ask how. The complaints play a role in addressing odor or disposal of product. Not following the the rules of other types of complaints. So help me understand if that applies the same to all or just certain licenses. We track complaints on every license, so every license has to go through a number of annual inspections and compliance investigations. We also track complaints through 311 through the Denver Police Department, through the State MPD. So all that is tracked on the individual licenses. So we are able to see if any particular licensee or business is starting to accumulate complaints, then we can take the appropriate action. But we track everything and we have a pretty good data gathering. So with the changes in this omnibus bill. That will give you the authority to call a renewal hearing. That can happen anywhere, regardless of the HIV issue. There are no hearings for any license renewal. Okay. That's that's good to know. And the complaints all have to have at least ten signatures. Now, that is just to hold a public hearing for the I am ex the non-conforming gross. Whether or not that's the issue. There are ongoing issues with some of those things that we just talked about in terms of complaints being lodged with exercising license. That can be enough to call a show cause hearing or a renewal hearing. Right. We can hold a show cause any time. Absolutely. I think that's good to know. So I'd like to know that for any of those that came in after we adopted the regulatory framework for recreational. I attended most of those meetings, paid close attention, and thought we were doing a moratorium on everything. And when I realized that medical establishments were still being able to get their licenses and I saw the numbers and how they had grown, it just shocked me. So I just have to share that. But. For any of those that may still be in the pipeline. How does the fact that a community any and we're doing more and more these tied to our neighborhood plans that have health impact assessments how does that health impact assessment get factored in when you are issuing licenses? Is there some kind of overlap communication that happens and if it's not happening, we need to rectify that. That ensures that you all get to look at those recommendations and those concerns from those neighborhoods, many of which already have serious other issues, which is why they're trying to do these in the neighborhoods with their neighborhood plans. But the most direct way to consider impact studies and stuff like this. If it's about to attention during the public hearing, then that's can be something for contemplation. But if you're in a neighborhood that doesn't get a public hearing because your zoning is used by. Right. Zoning, that's a problem. So we need to correct that. And I know that's something we'll be talking about at our February meeting. So that's what I was just trying to kind of underline here. So. Okay, that's that's helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. Stacey, I have a question for you. So when an applicant submits a completed application on that application, do they need to specify if they are going to move into a preexisting building, if they're going to, you know, do construction or if it's a brand new build? And are those treated any differently? They specify with the planning department. So you go to the planning department to get your zone use permit initially, and then you come to our department to actually apply. And that kind of once you apply, that kind of saves that location as you go through the application and inspections process. So zoning looks at that initially. If it's a new location, as long as it has an address, we're able to accept the application. We don't treat it differently if it's preexisting. It has the same expectations for inspections, certificate of occupancy and has to meet all the same building code standards, whether it's a new build or whether it's an existing building. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. I'm sorry. Was that all you had, Councilman Gilmore? Yes, Mr. President. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? 912. Scene. None public hearing is now closed. Time for comments. Calvin Brooks. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Stacie Marley and the whole team for putting this together. This was those 24 adjustments that were making administrative adjustments. But as we had this in the Business Development Committee, it was quite clear that they were, you know, microcosm of some bigger issues that we need to address. And it just kept coming up. And so I want to thank all the folks who who testified today. Your words are not lost on us. We are we're working diligently to make sure that we're trying to get the right balance here, because it is clear in certain neighborhoods we are out of balance. And, you know, some of our neighborhoods that are in transition, some of our neighborhoods that have been historically industrial, that are right next to a school, right next to a residential location, we didn't think about that when we talk about zoning and some of it got passed, all of us. And so we really want to address those those issues. So, you know, and I think in the neighborhoods I represent, the IMX, there are IMX zoning locations there, but it's more I-and I be in An and B locations. Even though we can trigger a public hearing, there's no notification, there's no distance between schools and residential neighborhoods. And it's a it's a serious issue that we need to address. So excited that we will have a hearing conversation about this with CPD. CPD will give us a lay of the land in our marijuana task force or committee of the whole that we have. And we can begin to talk about how we might address some of these issues. So thanks, everybody, for moving this forward. I am fully on board with supporting this. This came through committee. We we had a lot of conversation about it. And some of the changes that I think we do want to make may may have to wait until another conversation. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to have a clarification for the viewing public. I think people in my district in particular are going to be pleased with the fact that in the future we're going to have a needs and desire hearings for both medical and retail, and it will be more similar to the way liquor license are issued. But that said, under our current moratorium, no one is applying for retail or medical licenses except for testing facilities. Thank you, Nathan, for pointing that out to me. But also in the coming months, I know you all have brought forth a lot of issues. David Roybal One of those issues is concentration of a lot of facilities in the same neighborhoods, and we are all meeting, you know, over these coming months to discuss a lot of the issues that you're bringing up. And we want to address them and we hear what you're saying. So we'll talk about zoning and location of ground facilities. We'll talk about zoning odors and again, the concentration in certain areas. So we are listening to you. And I think the bill that that we all look into is a complement to this, what they're doing from excise and licenses. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Ortega. Well, Councilwoman Black just gave my speech, actually. Thank you for making those comments. First, I want to thank everybody, including the industry, who participated with our excise and licensed team in shaping this. And I know this would not we wouldn't have as few people as we have here tonight, even with the weather. Had we not done that, this room would still be full. So I appreciate all of those efforts. And, you know, there are some things that we still need to work on. My hope is that we can do that within this timeframe before we make a decision on whether or not we extend a moratorium, whether I want to make sure we have a conversation about whether or not we cap the number that we have in this city because, you know, no place else has the same number of establishments that we have in Denver. And, you know, we thought we were capping them. I thought we were capping them when we brought forward the last group of regulatory bills on the recreational marijuana. But so I think this will be part of the deliberations that we will go through, ensuring that we deal with the issues that have been brought to our attention at the public hearings around. You know, odor and crime in some cases is is a big issue for communities that are next to some of these facilities. So I just want to encourage the ongoing participation from both residential communities as well as the industry. And thanks for for all the work that you all have brought forward. I think these are good changes and it will help, you know, ensure that we're doing a better job dealing with some of the issues that have been brought forward. And I know that because it is such a new industry and we've sort of been the lead city trying to shape this as we go along. You mentioned earlier that they got police next to schools. Well, what we know is when the state legislation passed, some of these places just started opening before we got a chance to deal with any of the regulations, including the state. And so that's why we have a number of nonconforming uses in various locations. And, you know, it's been it's been a lot of fast and hard and important work that's been done by the city as a whole. The legislative body, along with our administrative branch and the excise and licensing department working side by side with industry and communities. And so. Great job. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I want to thank you guys, too. I think it's a smart move to get this alignment with the state and to sort of figure, you know, use the lessons learned to come up with these changes. And I think it's a smart way forward. I'm not a big fan. I'll just say it right now. License transfers. Hopefully we can figure something out going forward about that. But I also think that zoning might be as much as people don't want to probably go there. I'm happy to go there. I think that I think we should look at it. We did some special carve out for six plants and 12 plants or whatever to sort of say, here's where it's appropriate and residential and here's where it's appropriate in commercial and industrial. So we have already the tools there. We just didn't layer them in in a in a manner that would allow us to actually have a a zoning hearing, you know, a public zoning hearing about whether this is the appropriate place. We just mapped it to an existing use. And and I'm jumping to conclusions. I look forward to having that conversation as part of the marijuana moratorium hearings, the committee of the whole. So I encourage you guys to stay involved. I know that I've seen you there because that's probably an opportunity to get a little bit more advance involvement on placement, concentration, density, size and impacts. So thank you. Thank you, counselor Sosa in the comments. 912. Scene nine. Madam Secretary, welcome. Ortega. I. Black eye. Brooks Clark. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Cashman. Hi. Lopez Mr. President. Kathleen Kennedy is back each. I thank you. I thank you. Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Now the results. 11 Eyes. 11 eyes 912 has been ordered published on Tuesday, February 29th, 2016. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill one changing the zoning classification for 3901 to 3991 North Cook Street. It required Public Hearing County Bill 39, changing the zoning classification for approximately 6756 Archer Drive and required public hearing on Council four zero changing the zoning classification for 668 to 670 Anchor Street. Any protest that counts against council bills 139 or 40 must be filed with the council offices no later than Monday, February 22nd, 2016. Seeing no other business before this body. Go Broncos. This meeting is adjourned.

Recommendation to Proceed with a New Development Strategy for the Enterprise District (Formerly Site B) at Alameda Point. (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC_10202015_2015-2169

Okay. Next item. And now 60. Recommendations three Yes. Recommendation to proceed with the new development strategy for the Enterprise District, formerly site B at Alameda Point. Good evening, Mayor. Councilmembers My name is Jennifer Short, Chief Operating Officer for Alameda Point. I'm here to talk about jobs and how we attract them to alameda point. We know this came up a lot as part of our discussion of the city project. A mixed use project was how do we balance the housing units at Alameda Point being built with jobs and really developing starting to develop a strategy for attracting those jobs? That's what this presentation is about. And we believe this is just this is honestly just one way that we're doing that. And I'll talk a little bit at the end of this presentation about other ideas and thoughts we have about attracting jobs. So the first thing I think before we go into too much detail about what we're proposing in from a strategic standpoint, I think we had some comments and questions that I think we're really good to kind of take a step back and really frame what is the policy framework for for why we're doing this and and what we're going to be trying to attract. And although I'm focusing on the 2014 zoning amendment, the reality is when this the reuse plan was approved in 1996, the focus was on attracting jobs because we lost 18,000 jobs on the base closed. That was what was the focus of the reuse plan. I'm five and half million square feet of commercial that is ultimately got approved as part of the recent project. And then the 2014 zoning amendment was very strategic about creating a vision for attracting jobs. And I mean, first and foremost, we zoned a lot of land for industrial uses that prohibited residential use, which is obviously the first way to to, you know, to to try to put yourself in the best position for attracting jobs. And then the second is we kind of created two areas. And so tonight we're really talking about the area here. There's the enterprise zone, which is the zoning. And that really focuses on new development of commercial jobs or, you know, new construction of commercial development that will attract jobs. The other area, which we're obviously we're talking about tonight and is the adaptive reuse area and creating jobs in some of our existing buildings, there are very few existing buildings we just talked about one which is really right here in that enterprise, the maritime area. But mostly the buildings here are not usable or not necessarily long term buildings. So the idea here really has been to focus on trying to attract new development, new construction to the enterprise zone. So what the zoning does and there was a lot of discussion and I think it's important to understand that this wasn't we just didn't say slap a zoning and say, oh, you just have commercial development in enterprise zone. There was a lot of discussion with the planning board, the city council, the community about this area and creating even subdistricts within the enterprise zone to address some key issues. But I can tell you overall, the uses here focus on catalytic commercial uses with spinoff potential, really focusing office R&D, light industrial uses with that create jobs, really de-emphasizing storage uses, things like that. But also this working waterfront, which we're not going to get into, we just talked about, but that really creating this district for here intended to be a working waterfront area because it is tidelands, it's actually highly restricted, as we already mentioned. So we started to break this area up into different areas where you've got these four districts, the really the district one being that primary area of being able to attract a larger major campus user, possibly for a light industrial office R&D campus. Then you've got this second district, which is still that type of use, but kind of recognizing that, hey, you're next to this town center area where you might have some residential, you might have some mixed use. You need to kind of tone down maybe some of these other industrial uses a little bit, be a little more sensitive to this transition with the town center, the district three, which is really the buffer area between what's going on in the enterprise district, in the residential area, really a recognition that we need to really kind of limit the kinds of uses have to be much less intense uses next to the residential area and then the District four, which is the focus on the working waterfront. So there was a lot of thought and this will frame essentially our approach to the next step in terms of trying to market the enterprise area to attract jobs , is using this policy framework that was approved in 2014 that builds off the reuse plan from 1996. That said, I do want to say that that zoning is really your regulatory hat, that the city council, the planning board where in terms of regulating uses. But I will say that we're you know, as we've talked about before, we said it is a unique situation where you also in this particular case where the property owner had. So even though these are kind of the policy framework that gives some flexibility as to types of uses you can attract here, ultimately the city council can be as particular as it wants about the type of use. And I will tell you, you know, my direction to Cushman Wakefield is that we are for especially the first deal, the first transaction. We want to be a catalytic use that attracts jobs. It brings a big name that does something to really start to put this area on a map that we think is going to have that potential to either attract a lot of jobs, great business to business sales tax, or to really start to create momentum for something more so that we can really capture the other jobs that we want. So I just want to mention that that you kind of this is the regulatory framework, but the property owner that you also get to be a little more picky and particular about what you want. And we will keep that in mind as we move forward with our effort here. Do you have any speakers on the side of the speakers? Right. Council members. Okay. So the recommended approach, I'm going to give you a quick summary on this. We can come back to this slide, but just want to summarize it first. You can be thinking about it as I go through a little bit more of why we're recommending this. But the idea is to essentially use an existing contract with Cushman Wakefield. They have an existing listing agreement which includes that the sale of land, which is what this would be in. So just to and I want to and I should have done this a little earlier, I want to kind of emphasize this is different. What when you're trying to attract a commercial user, they're going to be looking for improved land. And what the difference between kind of undeveloped land versus improve lamb is really infrastructure for a user to come in and be able to develop their campus. They are typically out in the market looking for a land that's improved so that they don't have to put infrastructure in, but they can come in, build their vertical improvements, create their buildings, and then operate their business. And that timeline is much more predictable when you are have undeveloped land, which is essentially what we have here because of infrastructure, that's a lot less certain. You have this idea how you are going to fund infrastructure than the construction of infrastructure and then getting into the development of the vertical. And that is that is atypical in terms of users come in and they typically are when they're looking at land, they're looking at improve land. So I want to just have you understand this. You understand kind of where we are and we've kind of created our strategy around the idea of reducing that certainty related to the undeveloped land that's out there as part of this area B area. So the recommended approach is to use existing contract with Cushman Wakefield, have them essentially act as our listing agent, which we already have a contract for them to do to try to attract users primarily to Area B, which is what they do all over the Bay Area, all over the world. But to link the marketing phases to the site, a progress because we see it as so important to be able to create confidence around our ability to deliver improved land to a user is to show the progress was site because site is what ultimately brings in the trunk infrastructure that we can kind of tee off of and use to build the infrastructure for site B. So we really think we need to link our marketing phases and our approach to the site progress. And based on comments we received, we understand them in there. You know, we we think that this and we'll talk about why we chose this approach, but there probably is a need for us to come back every six months, staff comes back, evaluates the progress that's been made, or honestly, the progress that hasn't been made maybe, and make an assessment and come to you with our recommendation as to whether or not to continue this approach or do we need a pivot, we need to change, do something a little different based on the signals we're getting from the market or whatever it is. But to come back with a six month update to make sure that we still think that this is the right approach. So why are we recommending this? I think the it's a different approach. We went out with a request for qualifications from developers. At the same time, we did the site process. In the case of site B, we did not get we got much less response. And when we negotiated them, they were willing to commit to a lot less and not because there was anything wrong with these developers. They were just responding to the fact there was a lot of uncertainty about the commercial market not wanting to commit to build infrastructure, pay for land when they didn't know what types of users were going to ultimately be there. And we decided to put that on hold until we got further along with site A, that's why we're here today. Back to you with that same strategy. So we did evaluate or that with a different, you know, with an approach and we did look at whether or not we should RFQ again from developers, what we're actually recommending today is not to do that. We think that going out again with an RFQ from developers is not the right approach. We think we think there would be kind of perceived in the market as, oh, you didn't get anything before, now you're out again, and that there might be a stigma associated with a second attempt at doing it with that same approach, which doesn't mean we can't do that later. We just think right now let's try a different approach. We actually think we should focus on end users instead of developers developer. We think with using a leasing agent and broker like Cushman Wakefield, we can focus more on end users, which doesn't mean we're going to ignore developers of a great developer comes in with a concept and they've got an idea and they're willing to commit to some things. We're absolute going to consider those proposals as well. But to focus less on just developers, we want to cast a wider net. Second, we think by using this approach it's more cost efficient. We're using a commission structure, which essentially means that until the city council votes and approves this transaction, Cushman Wakefield does not get paid. So they only get paid if they deliver a transaction of this city council approves. So there's a push for essentially a performance based structure that's built into this. There's no upfront cost to the city we may elect to enhance some of the marketing materials with our own dollars to do, but we're not committing to that and it's not required as part of this. So we think that this is cost efficient. And then lastly, we think it's flexible and that. You know, you're not running in. You're not if you did an RFQ and worked to directly the developer, you're most likely going to be looking at an exclusive negotiation agreement that's looking at a developed disposition or development agreement where you're committing to a single developer. And we think this approach creates more flexibility upfront, which doesn't mean if you find the perfect developer or the perfect user that you can't enter into those agreements. But it doesn't put us on that path immediately and potentially prematurely. So the proposed development strategy, as I said, is really linking. We're created three different phases which really tie to the site infrastructure and have assigned a, you know, started to put a schedule together based on the performance milestones in the site, a disposition development agreement. But the idea is the awareness phase. We honestly believe over the next 9 to 14 months, while the developer site developers closing on the property, getting all of their final design review and other improvement plans and other entitlements in place before they actually close on their Phase one property. We don't think that we're going to get a big transaction. It doesn't mean if there one comes our way, we're not going to take advantage. But we think of this more as an awareness phase where it's really going to be focused more on broker to broker. We're going to be do it kind of create an identity, stop calling it site B, which doesn't mean anything to anyone except for here in Alameda. Start branding and create an identity around an enterprise district. Start creating marketing materials, new collateral. Getting the word out and really starting to kind of create an awareness and a buzz within the community, but not overly. I mean, we will take advantage, but we don't think that it's realistic that we're going to get any big users at this during this period. The next phase is really tied to phase one infrastructure commencing using that groundbreaking as an opportunity to get the press out to Alameda, start to create additional buzz and excitement in the community about ground, actually be, you know, having some of these starting to get built and using that again to kind of expand, not just talking to brokers, but starting to really talk to end users, talking to larger developers, expanding, creating a newsletter, starting to do more marketing collateral. And then ultimately once you have at least a major phase of the phase one infrastructure for site A completed which you're looking at 18 to 48 months, then that's when you would really start to expect there. We'd be able to give a major user a lot of certainty about delivering land to them, and then they can start planning their vertical, the building of the buildings and their timeline, and we'd be able to provide them with much more certainty around those timelines. A lot of and we have our Cushman Wakefield folks here that can talk to you about this. But when we've had conversations, I have sat in on conversations with potential users out here that have asked us to look at land. And I've sat in on those conversations. And when you start telling them, Well, we've got to wait for the site infrastructure, which we think is going to be around this time frame, and then that will be this many months. And, you know, but it hasn't happened yet. I mean, you can see, you know, even when we're trying to kind of sell it, that they're from their standpoint, they're having to build a campus, possibly foreclose a lease or their leases up somewhere else and then promise to their operations folks, they're going have a place for those folks to land and commit to that and have an operate, you know, a building that's allowing them to move people in and operate their business seamlessly. And when you start talking to them about some of the uncertainty on these timelines and not being able to guarantee or to kind of really put us in a position to provide that certainty to them or more certainty they just weren't interested. You know what we're interested in? We're look we'll look at your buildings. But right now we're monitoring the land. And until we know that there's a there's more of a timeline on that. And I've seen that happen in a couple of situations. It doesn't mean we're not going to stop trying. I mean, we are going to continue to try it with that. But we think that we're going to have to be patient. We're going to have to be able to provide them with more certainty to really be able to attract a catalytic user out here. Lastly, I just wanted to kind of make sure that you, the council and the community understands the city of Alameda staff. We are not going anywhere. We're going to stay involved in all of this. We, Cushman Wakefield are taking direction from us. We'll be providing, as it says here, ongoing oversight of the effort will be participating in these key user and developer meetings, will be leading the transactional negotiations and then evaluating. I think very importantly, the progress. Is it working? Is it not working? Do we think we should change based on the market indications that we're getting and then coming to you and recommending any changes to that approach? Cushman Wakefield on their hand will be executing the marketing, the outreach strategy. They'll be the front line point of contact filtering, folks talking to people on the front lines, participating in the transactional negotiations, and then prior any input and recommendations to us. But ultimately we'll be the ones making those decisions and coming to you with our recommendation. Lastly, I just wanted to say that this is just one jobs. You know, this is to try to look at attracting job, new development and jobs in the new development area. We are not going to stop leasing and you'll hear if we get to it, the leasing update from that point. But we are we are going to continue to be leasing our buildings. And I think ultimately we'll be looking at some of our buildings that have been vacant for a long time. We've kind of exhausted a lot of the low hanging fruit, to be honest, in terms of those buildings are going to have to really start to be creative about trying to attract jobs. I was recently at a conference in San Francisco and got some we all kind of talked and got some ideas about how we might be able to looking at bachelor and listed quarters for jobs, some of those other buildings thinking about, you know, maybe bringing an architect in to look at the BQ to kind of could it be adapted for a tech user? Could there be some ideas that come out of that? So. Works we think we need. We can't just be doing this. We also have to be looking at some of those big vacant buildings in the adaptive reuse area and thinking about how we might change them and alter them to attract jobs. You've got Spirit's Alley there. You've got the existing ferry terminals. We think there's potential in both places, and we're going to do both at the same time. But we think it's important to move this along and start to implement a marketing strategy in this enterprise district area. So that's that's it. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Or remember Daisuke. Thank you. First off, let me make sure to say is that, you know, we appreciate all the work that you have done. It's important to say that because the last agenda item was a tough agenda item, but we nonetheless appreciate all the work that you Mesma Cano, the executive staff have done over the years. So let's make sure to. These are tough issues. Yes, these are tough issues. So the question that I have, I have two sets of questions. First of all, it has to do making sure that. People who we go through the quote unquote, end user strategy, pay their fair share of infrastructure related costs as well as and I think it's part of it. Their fair share of the sports complex and ferry terminal and I think this is important to raise, especially in light of the commitments that that we are looking at with regard to infrastructure and and sports complex, the commitments that site is making because the overall infrastructure cost for elevated point is $566 million or phase one, which included at the time site A and site B for phase one, the infrastructure cost was $183 million. So those infrastructure costs are predicated on some kind of land use and intensity of uses. So as we go forward with this kind of the virtual going forward with a developer was that they were committing to a land use and an intensity of land use. Now, we're not too sure. We're looking for people and they're going to kind of come on a haphazard basis and hopefully we get the best. So the question is, in this context, how are we going to make sure that whatever land use end user that we obtain is going to pay their fair share of infrastructure costs that are program for site B? Mm hmm. Great. Now, that's that's good as a question that's near and dear to my heart and one that I've had with staff. I mean, it's absolutely I think what we are, you know, and I'll tell you a different thing. There's our policy approach, which is what we're we'll plan on. Tell telling anyone who comes in is that there is a essentially kind of a flaw, and that is the the infrastructure burden. So it's about $1,000,000 an acre of land. And we expect to you know, I think I'm not going to say never because you never know if there's some amazing proposal. But I can't imagine I'm coming to you and recommending that you move forward with a project that's less than that unless we have a way of paying for the difference, you know, that we're clear on how that's going to get made up. But our intent is that that is essentially the burden that any develop, any development occurs in this enterprise district would have to pay. Now, that said, and just to make sure this isn't just me, you know, making sure this gets done, we've actually codified that in our ordinances and our development impact fee ordinance, which requires any development out here to pay a development impact fee that's essentially equivalent to that $1 million an acre. So if you know I'm not around and, you know, whatever this is happening, I mean, there's there is a kind of a failsafe kind of trigger that's in our code to ensure that that occurs . Now, I will say, and I don't want to put this I don't think too many people are listening and in terms of our negotiation. But what you know, our hope is that we would get land value in addition to that. But if there's a user, we don't think the market or the financial, you know, it doesn't look like there is value beyond that $1 million for infrastructure. The benefit of being a public owner is that you can write down essentially the value of the land to the value of the infrastructure. Mm hmm. I'm not suggesting that that's where we would start from a negotiating position, but you have that flexibility in the event that a really great user that we think is awesome, that can pay $1,000,000 an acre for land, but maybe not $1,000,000 an acre for land and $1,000,000 an acre for infrastructure. There's that flexibility and there are some policy considerations that the council could make. But those we would you know, we'd have to look on that at a case by case basis. And let me make sure to underscore why I think the question of making sure that people pay their fair share of infrastructure costs is important because one of the end of the day selling features of the whole program that we started in the past two years for Alameda point the end of the. End of the road benefit was that there will be a sports complex and that there will be a regional water ferry that we were going to, you know, make some sacrifices with a site, a developer and even city developer. But the sacrifices that we made on the land sale, you know, decisions that we come up with, we're going to be worth it because at the end of the day, we will have these these amenities. So that's why it's important that as we change our approach to site, be away from that developer driven thing it with which , you know, all our expectations were kind of, you know, calculated with regard to at least site B's pro rata share of the regional complex and water as we change our approach to site B that we not lose and mind that that that that the big benefit that we are all looking for. Okay. The second question, so I appreciate the fact that you said it's codified. That was a keyword. Yep. Second question is site B is a pretty large area. So we are there ways that we can guard against cherry picking? That is, people want to develop the site that's close to the water. But I mean, or is it just, you know, when we cast our net through the the this process that we're talking about? Well, that's just the nature of the beast. Yeah. No, I think it's a really good. And so I want to talk a second about cherry picking. And so I do there's a couple of thoughts I want to talk about with regard to cherry picking. Here's the site B or the enterprise area that we're calling. We intentionally, as you can see, we left off the land here. I mean, this you know, arguably, this is waterfront land we could have thrown into the enterprise district. And it doesn't mean that if some great user came along and the council made a discretion, they couldn't include it. But I will tell you, from a marketing standpoint, we are not marketing this land in part for the very reason that you're saying, which is we don't want someone to come in, especially earlier on when we're creating catalist and cherry pick our waterfront land. We would like to benefit from the value that this development which you know, when it gets started, we hope soon that we then benefit from this and deci and then try to really capture value and infrastructure dollars through the sale of this land at a future point once you've gotten things developed here. So I think that's an important point, is that we could have thrown the entire enterprise district in there, but we were selective about that for the very reason to kind of protect against the cherry picking some of that waterfront land. That said, we did include some because we think that is one of the attractions of the site is to try to be near the water, near the ferry. So to have that as an option also is to create, you know, have some land that's in the waterfront area. We did want to include some of that. So I wanted you to kind of think about I do also think that the logical place is when we sit down with the civil engineers and and with Cushman Wakefield is to actually start from an arc closer to Main Street, because that's where the existing infrastructure is. And you're going to be able to facilitate development upfront a little more efficiently by starting there and moving over. And the development requirements in the town center plan are a little more intense because of the type of environment we want to create near the ferry terminal things. So I think you're actually going to see and I mean, you can't predict. I mean, someone could come in, but I think we're we're anticipating we're actually going to start closer to Main Street and then move over because of the infrastructure. And then I'm looking at my notes here and out of my phone. I had some notes on that, I promise. And then I think the last thing is, is that ultimately the council decides. I mean, the ultimate you know, the city council decides whether or not this is a good deal or not. And we're and we're not going to you know, we're not going to create a development that essentially renders another part of a block unusable. I mean, we're going to have our engineers and our planners ever look at it and say, you know, this is a usable area, that that leaves the remainder that we can still use. We're not going to start to strand pieces inside that we can't then use. So we'll be very careful about that. And ultimately, the city council is the final arbiter as to whether or not we did a good job doing that. Thank you. But we're going to go around the and vice mayor. And. I find the slides actually quite succinct in describing what the approach is going to be. And I think that's really important to make sure that. We have a document and I, I would like to adopt this approach, but I'd like to have a term just like we have a develop a terminal development agreement. I'd like to have it have formalized description of what the responsibilities are of of our city department as well as our contractor, Cushman Wakefield. I'd like it to have the goals stated even though their stated elsewhere. I think you mentioned jobs. You mentioned the preference for a catalyst occupant and the end user occupant and that everybody who buys into this area is going to pay their fair share of infrastructure burden. That that's our goal out of here. And you mentioned the six months of reporting. I'd like that to be memorialized in a in in in this in this plan that you've just described. And we can go back and measure progress against those goals. We can also see that if we need to make an adjustment. And where that adjustment might be, especially if we're taking it to the site. And I, I think we should also tie it to the wider. A project because that's really going to be the first one out the gate and they're going to provide infrastructure that runs right across site B, they're going to open the ground up to put a water main and. I'd like to see a little more meat on how these efforts, whether they're short term leases or whether there's other action that occurs in this zone on taking advantage of the ground being open and that engineering being done to put that water main in that could raise the value of this land. I'd like to see what kind of latitude we have and in our lease revenues to do that as part of this the strategy and. Finally, I think it helps when we have things codified or otherwise described in zoning that we still mention in this plan and point to those documents. Because sometimes it's difficult if you don't have the institutional knowledge to remember, yes, it was part of this ordinance or yes, it was part of this decision on zoning. So I'd like to have those pretty much, which is spelled out in here, formalized in our own development agreement, because the city is going to be acting as the developer. Mm hmm. And on this, if I if I understand. It, always a little nervous about calling us a developer, but. Not. Intentionally. Functionally, that's what's. Creating a document. And I think. I think that's really important for the public to have. It's really important for us to have something other than a PowerPoint slides is as well-organized as it was. It doesn't carry the same weight to me is a milestone document. Right. I think that would I think if this is what you're asking, I think taking the essentially the concepts that are in the PowerPoint that you just mentioned and putting it in a written document official, I mean, it may only be, you know, 3 to 5 pages or something, but that kind of walks through these points and codifies, you know, puts them in a plan that we can upload to the website that people can see. This is our approach, this is what we're doing. And this is I think that we can absolutely do that. And I'd like it to be approved by the council so that future councils can measure and adjust. And also it's a conscious decision to do to adjust. To terminate or to expand. Is that the end of your column? Oh, that's. Yes, that's. It. All right. I remember. I don't have too much more to add that my colleagues haven't already stated. You know, the concern about the share of fair share of the infrastructure costs. I have that, too. You know, you look at it and if we if we went with one of our finalist from last time or we went out to do an RFP again, you know, then they would effectively take the land, land, make it themselves. And, you know, it could be eight or ten years and they get it for the price it is now. And now if we do it ourselves and we landbank it, you know, that we can take advantage of, you know, as the value goes up , when site air goes in and the we determine what goes in and some of that infrastructure is put in. And, you know, I think that's a smart move for us to be the land bank or as opposed to, you know, somebody else. So, you know, I'm prepared to support it and echo the comments that have already been said. Member Ashcroft. Here. I met Councilmember Desai. I spoke again. Those are. My questions. Right from the beginning. So I want to thank Mr. because this was actually on the agenda last time, and I sent her a long email before that meeting with lots of questions. And you did a masterful job, as always, of incorporating the answers. So I don't have to ask them. And I would just say that, yes, you convinced me that this is the approach because, you know, I had some some questions and I great presentation. I think the vice mayor makes a good suggestion that if you could turn it all into a document, that the council could say, you know , yes, we approve of this. And then it, as was also noted, it has the advantage of being that roadmap for the future. So we can because, you know, we're doing that now. We're referencing back to plans that were made. And it will it will help whoever is out there in the future doing this. So and good good work. Staff, all of you who worked on this. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so my questions go to Cushman Wakefield. Mm hmm. This there's a conclusion that this is cost efficient, but I didn't see the numbers of how much Cushman Wakefield has been paid on any project or overall or anything about the contract we have with them that's not attached here. And I think that that's critical information if they're going to be a key part of the strategy. I think that we should actually put it out and see if my understanding well, before I go there, in your paragraph, you have said that they were involved in the VF outdoor campus. I thought Joe Ernst was part of that. Mm hmm. So they, in that particular case, before they were working for us, had we're working worked for Joe as their broker and helping Joe attract the outdoor so they have clients all over. And then we did an RFP, we did a request for proposals for leasing agents and property managers two years ago. Mm hmm. And that and we, the city council at that time selected Cushman Wakefield and PPM Realty to be our exclusive essentially broker at Alameda Point, which includes. So that is a contract that we have executed with the city already. That includes land sales at 5% commission. Okay. So I think a report like this needs to include how much money? Cushman And like what the contract, first of all, what projects they've been involved in and how much they've been paid. Because I don't think the statement can be made that it's cost efficient without numbers. I don't know how much the city is paying Cushman Wakefield or what they've paid for two years. Do you know how much the city has paid Cushman Wakefield The last two years? We can ask them to provide that, but the next report actually does document all the leases that they have been involved in since they came on and since that RFP. And the costs that they've been paid. So you can. As that. In may be able to estimate. John McManus of Cushman Wakefield. And first, this is John McManus with Cushman Wakefield. First, can I correct just one comment? We represented B.F. Outdoor on a contract. We did not have the listing on the land that at the time Lehman Brothers and Mr. Ernst controlled through a partnership. We we represented B after that transaction. Just for clarity, I know that's important to make clear to everyone. We have a contract that was negotiated with the city attorney's office after we were engaged by the council. It goes back almost two years ago now. I believe it runs through 2018. I can't tell you what month of 2018, but it runs out. The city does have some provisions if they're not happy with our performance, to come back to us and we can look at those. But it calls for there's a lease schedule that is 5% of the value of the lease for years, 1 to 5 and two and a half percent of years, 6 to 10 tonight. Mattson, for example, was represented by Sorry It's Getting Late by Transwestern group based in Walnut Creek. And so half of those fees would be paid to them and half would be paid to Cushman Wakefield. So what we would need to do is take your totals and then break out what we've paid to other firms. That will be the case in virtually every transaction we do. There's going to be an outside broker. There's not an outside broker. Those fees are reduced per contract with the city. On sales, the number is 5% of the value of the transaction. Again, those numbers, those those fees are split if it's an option to purchase. And let's say that the the the commission on the sale is $10 and you've paid us $6, then we would only be able to charge you the $4 remaining, the net amount that was left and all that spelled out in the contract. And certainly it's in the files. And so so I appreciate that it doesn't really so so what I'm looking for, I think the contract needed to be included I think the dollars so for and I appreciate you just brought up Mattson because I didn't know that you were getting paid for mats and mats and has been an existing customer here. So you didn't. Go find them. They re actually, I think staff help move them. And yet Cushman Wakefield is getting paid. Do they get paid the same amount, the same percentage, whether or not they find the tenant? Yes, they do. So. The. The schedule that I quoted to you, is it 50% if it's a renewal? So if it's a tenant that stays in the same building, then the fee is half of what it would be if the tenant comes in and relocates or comes. Back as a new. Lease. But Madson has a new lease. So they will be they'll be getting their full commission. They'll share it with the other broker. And that's the standard industrial industry practice for for this type of thing. And so there was a lot of time that they spend actually touring mats and working with mats and they actually assist in the lease negotiations. They actually do quite a bit of work with the tenants. We don't do that work. They do all the frontline work in terms of touring them, talking to them, looking at the buildings, going through the numbers, making making recommendations to staff about, you know, the term and whether or not they think the amount of investment is consistent with the term. All of those things they look at. Okay. So what incentive do they have to find us new tenants? Because when I look at the stuff that comes to us, it's an existing or it's Joe Ernst bringing companies to us. And I think we need. I think we need. So can you tell me what tenants Cushman Wakefield has brought us separate from George and separate from existing tenants? Right. Speed would be an example. I don't know what I can say about things that are in process that aren't on the agenda. Probably nothing in the last two years, right? Speed in the last two years. Right, speed, help me out here. Building 40. Yeah, yeah. Winery 43. Fred Grandy. Now, Brooks was was PM before we got here. You're right. Universal Studios. Restoration Hardware. Can you tell me about Universal Studios? What is that? That was the Steve Jobs movie that got filmed out in Building 530. Okay. So that's of. That was I guess we can say it now. It's released. When they were in there, we were. Actually in our next item on the agenda, the staff report list that. Yeah. But it doesn't specify which ones they bring and which ones are just leases. And that's so in regards to that, working with Cushman Wakefield, I think their needs for me, I would like to have seen more information and I am not comfortable agreeing to continue using them because I think we do need to be attracting. I love that Joe Ernst seems to be a lead developer for our community right now. However, I think it'd be nice to reach beyond him and I would like us to. I'd either like more information in regards to this, or I would actually think that I'm comfortable proceeding thinking this is a big project. It's a lot of money that goes to this company and we need to make sure we're being broadcast and advertise wider than existing customers. And Joe and George and I appreciate that there's apparently maybe three or four in the last two years that are from outside. Right. And I guess just to say, I mean, we did we agreed with you that when we were trying to decide what to do with the base, there was a decision to kind of we were working with PPM Realty to open it up, take a look. We didn't do that. We'd cast a wide net. We had some finalists. Ultimately we decide and the council decided that Cushman Wakefield in their expertize and I'd be happy to have Jon talk to you a little bit about some of the other deals and things that they've done in the Bay Area. But when we evaluated them at that time, we felt like they were highly qualified. You know, Jon, it's not just about attracting tenants, but it's about working with them, getting the leases done, you know, selling, you know, when you're trying to work through some of these deal issues and trying to help them understand the issues that I'm going to point presents, I will tell you that, you know, all the people I work with, John McMann, is one of the people who is raising issues that we've we've now sorted out so that we can market the land and understand the complexities out there, very smart and intelligent and comes, you know, rolls up their sleeves and problem solvers. And honestly and I'll make the point that, you know, that goes a long way in having someone do that. But I'm happy to maybe he could talk a little bit about what other deals and things he's done in the Bay Area. So let me was there an RFP? Yeah. Choosing them back then, two years ago. Okay. So then I was not part of the council. I appreciate that. Some of you were. I was not. And I would appreciate having the background information of how they were selected and and ideal and also what tenants they have brought. Because I really do think we need to be casting a wider net than what's happening right now and and how much money they're being paid. And I think it's a fair comment that I kind of made some assumptions about the relationship we have with Cushman Wakefield, that people kind of understood that. And I could've done a better job at explaining the background on why we why we've been using them for, you know, and the back story on that. So, so my concern with this plan is that I don't feel like this from my position that there's been sufficient due diligence in committing to using Cushman Wakefield for this big part of site B. So given that it's going on midnight and we still have one more agenda item I hope we'll get to, I am prepared to make a motion to proceed with the new development strategy for the Enterprise District, formerly known as Site B at Alameda Point, and following the the specifications that were set forth by the vice mayor, because I think he articulated them very well. Oh. You can go. I'll second that with a comment. You know, I appreciate the, you know, bringing rights for Alameda as a home run. I mean, it's nice to hear about, you know, Steve Jobs and all that kind of stuff. I mean, whatever. But that's a home run. And, you know, that's a company that's going to be a leading edge company that hopefully will grow. And it's along that alley where Joe Ernst is doing so. So I'm confident tonight for the same reason I was confident two years ago. You know, when you know, when I heard about the things that you had done at Alameda Point and for Alameda. So I'm comfortable with moving forward. Oh, Vice Mayor. And I think one of the things that I alluded to was a measurement measurement of progress toward the goals. And I think that's where some of the questions that the mayor asks can be answered. And if we start with the responsibilities with the staff and with Cushman Wakefield and then the measurements, what are the key metrics that go with those responsibilities versus the goals? Whether it's the a number of of new ten new inquiries that are brought in, the number of new commitments, whatever those might be, those can be measured and reported. And I think. When you what I'd like to see in this plan that's it's formalized and we get another shot at some of those details that allow us to basically judge performance of ourselves and judge performance of our contractor. All right. And you seconded, right? Okay. And without more information from about Cushman Wakefield, I can't support moving forward with them at this time. All those in favor. I am opposed for the reasons stated. Thank you. So. Four in favor, one opposed. And six h. Report on leasing an Alameda point. Oops. One again. Yes. Hello again. To. That. Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Annette McCollum. This leasing report actually the that the impetus for it was just to kind of do a check in with you guys about where we've been, where we how where we've been and where we are now.

Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Alameda and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) regarding the Construction of a Replacement Seal Haul Out at Alameda Point; and Final Passage of Ordinance Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a 60 Year Lease Agreement and Approve a Temporary Right of Entry Permit with Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) for 0.73 Acres of Undeveloped Upland Real Property and 3.4 Acres of Submerged Lands Located along West Hornet and Ferry Point Streets at Alameda Point. [Requires four affirmative votes] (Base Reuse 819099)

AlamedaCC_03172015_2015-1427

lease agreement and approve a temporary right of entry permit with Water Emergency Transportation Authority. 4.73 acres of undeveloped land real property and 3.4 acres of submerged lands located at West Hornet and Ferry Point streets at Alameda .00. Good evening, mayor and city council members. I'm Ninette Mercado in the Community Development Department Base Fees Department. Tonight is the second reading of the six year lease with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority for its maintenance and operation center. And I just wanted to briefly remind you about the project and then go over that, briefly discuss the MRU and then try to address some of the issues that have come up in the last two weeks to help with the discussion. This project, just a reminder of this product is approved. It will mark the first new construction to occur at Alameda Point. The proposed project would provide maintenance services such as fueling engine engine, oil changes, concession supply and light repair work for the Wheaton Ferry boats operating in the central San Francisco Bay. In addition, the proposed project would be. The location for the. Operation activities of Weta, including day to day management and oversight of services, crews and facilities. In the event of a regional disaster. The facility would also function as an emergency operation center, serving passengers and sustaining water transit service for emergency response and recovery. That that project will bring 100 new jobs to Alameda. 50 new jobs to Aida. We will be. Paying a basement of $5,125. Instead of paying the development impact fee, which would be $714,640 for Rita. They instead will construct $2.5 million in infrastructure included in the master infrastructure plan for Alameda Point. A. The final approval of this lease tonight will give way that only the real estate right to develop the property. We will go through the planning board for use permit and project conditions. It currently is scheduled to go to the Planning Board on March 23rd. At that meeting, the planning board will make land. Land use will determine nice conditions related to the hours of operations, truck traffic, building design, etc.. To. Get into the heart of the second reading was conditioned on the city entering into a memorandum of understanding with we to the large. The outstanding issue was the seal. The existing seal haul out which we are, which is in the heart of the wider project development area. And so we had committed verbally to design, construct and fund the seal haul out and the council wanted more teeth to that. And so we went back and negotiated a memorandum of understanding what that what that M.O. you does is it establishes a $100,000 holding fund, which will be earmarked for planning, design and construction of the new seal hall out of the. Parties will meet and confer. To determine a site for the proposed hall out. We will design the hall out and go through the appropriate city approval processes. We will be the lead party responsible for all third party permitting for the new hall out. And we will commence construction of the new hall outside on before August 2016 and prior to the demolition of the existing hall out in connection with the construction of the project. Unless we to has not obtained all the permits issued by governmental agencies other than the city, we shall continue to diligently seek and obtain the third party permits. Upon receipt of all of our third party permits. We shall promptly commence construction of the new steel hall out during the earliest available, applicable environmental work window for construction within San Francisco Bay. That is not less than 90 days after receipt of the third party permit take into consideration the contracting process that we to has to go through. Upon completion of the construction of the new hangout, we have agrees to maintain the structure in good order and repair. If the city determines that we too is unable to commence construction of the new hall out, the city has the right to take over the project and use the site in the holding account so we can self-help if we believe that there is some stalling or anything that's going on. After a meeting on March 3rd. A member of the. Public referred me to a biologist or an expert in the field of harbor seals. I've spoken to Dr. Sara Allen, the Oceans and Coastal Resource Program with the National Park Service. She's not sure that she's going to be able to be a consultant with us on this project, but she has referred us for the names of several of her colleagues. One of the things that she said was. There are many. Biologists who can speak all over this issue. But the most important voice on the issue is the National Marine Fisheries Service, of which we too has had a sign off on the project. She says there are lots there are not a lot of examples of what we're trying to do. And the results tend to be anecdotal, which is why it's really important to have the determination from. The National Marine. Fisheries Services at their biological opinion. She says that their goal is to try to create a resilient ecosystem in the San Francisco Bay Area, considering all the environmental, economic and community concerns. So they're the voice that we can rely on for for making these kinds of decisions. So finally, I want to talk about some of the questions that came up during the last two weeks. And one in particular was about noise. And what I want to say is that when we went through its mitigated negative, negative declaration, it was determined that construction and maintenance dredging would result in a temporary increase in noise, but that noise would not exceed the applicable city noise standards with the exception. And if they were doing dredging after 7 p.m., therefore as part of the mitigation, construction and maintenance dredging will be limited between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturdays when construction noise is exempt from the noise limit. Set the municipal code for Alameda. And with those. With those mitigations, both are considered less. Than significant impacts on the city. There were questions about the public process that we. Went through, and most of the public. Process was part of the permitting in order to move the project along. The only meeting outside of the meeting that we had in March or two weeks ago that they've had in the city of Alameda was in November 2010 meeting where they presented conceptual plans of the project to the planning board. After that meeting, there were several newspaper articles and several blogs that presented information on the project. So there was an opportunity to kind of get the community engaged and or to to notify the community of the upcoming project. Finally, the issue of fueling was asked and. As we mentioned before. We will install aboveground storage tanks and the fuel lines will be underground and run to a pump station at their piers, on their floating piers. These lines will be permitted and built according to state standards, which include. Double walled pipes. So it's added protection. We also. Will have a skiff. Onsite, which will be able to boom and contain any potential spill on the site. They will be required to have an oil spill response plan, which is certified by the Coast Guard. And I thought that it would be for further reference for our council that we will be adjacent to the merit ships, which. Are also fueled above water. A barge brings in the fuel and it's pumped into the ship's mirrored in it. In the case of mirrored, each ship has boomed prior to fueling and the Coast Guard is notified that fueling operations are taking place on site. Marriott also has an oil spill response plan. And we've been extremely fortunate to never have an oil spill in the last 18 years. But I'm going to knock. On wood just in case. And then the other part of that is, fortunately, adjacent to the ships and. Adjacent to the mirrored. Mirrored ship. And to Aida is one of our long term tenants, which is in our environmental services. And you heard two weeks. Ago that they were the ones that were called out for the oil spill in the estuary. They actually played a huge role in protecting our coastline when the ASCO Busan. Had its wreck. So they kind of voluntarily protected the shores of Alameda and received. A proclamation. Several weeks later. So we do have that. Local resource as well. So those are all at Alameda Point. And so that's. Is there another staff member that's going to be presenting at this point and. Are you okay? Yes. We will have a representative from their staff to come and speak. All right, so what council? Do you want to take questions? No, not at this point, yes. Remember I said two quick questions. One, and this is in response to an email that I received today. And I think I know the answer. But just for public clarification, this is the maintenance facility. This is not a ferry terminal. It's not a ferry terminal. Correct. Okay. And then the other question, I think at the previous meeting, I may have attributed some comments to you about the relocation of SEALs to the breakwater. I think those weren't really from you. Okay. So I want to apologize for that. Thank you. That's fine. I swear. Just a question on the of the construction noise you address, but the operating noise, um, I understand that that's part of the planning process where the use permit is discussed. I didn't talk about the operating noise, but that was also included in the mitigated negative declaration. And they they were there was no significant impact on that. I only discuss the two that had the had considered an impact and needed a mitigation but the rest of it now. But those could be a topic at the planning board. Yes. Yes. Permit is discussed. Okay. Thank you. Remember Ashcroft. And with regard to a couple of emails that I also received ahead of the meeting, there was reference made to the fact that at the ferry terminals which indeed use we to vessels parking has been a problem. So two points, if you could clarify for me. We're not talking about parking for ferry passengers at this facility and then I'll just throw out what I know, which is that we the and the city are very actively working on solutions to the ferry, parking at both the Main Street and the Harbor Bay ferry terminals. I know because I've been involved in a couple of meetings and I was also heartened to hear that the Transportation Commission is soon going to consider a range of parking alternatives and solutions for the Harbor Bay Ferry. So even though that's separate in a part, people hear the term, we don't tend to to lump them together. But that's not something that we're considering tonight. But just so the public who's listening knows those issues are not being swept under the carpet, they're being addressed. And questions that any other members have questions. Okay. All right. I had questions. Could you clarify? Is my understanding that to approve the list tonight, it requires four votes from council? That's correct. That is correct. Our city charter requires that for a lease over a year, which this is, it requires four votes of the city council. And within the MRU and regard to the hall out, for instance. When that comes back, it would be mutually agreed upon for council. How many votes for that require? Madam Mayor, the you that is before you. There are actually two separate items, action items before you in this item that we've been talking about together. One is to consider approval of the memorandum of understanding with we have related to the hall out that requires three votes of the city council. The other action item is the second, the final enactment of the ordinance which would approve the lease with Aida. And that requires four votes. And in regard to rent at some date in the future, there appears to be. But is what is determined a mutually agreeable site? Would it require three votes from council to agree or four votes from council to agree? McNamara I'm not sure that that would even come back to council. The idea is that the parties would, through the EMU, there would be agreement as to where the site would be, if there would need to be an amendment to the EMU that would have to come back to council and that would require three votes. But I think the authority is for staffs of both entities to be able to work that out through the process of getting permits from the various agencies. So so then can you clarify? It would not be in regards to when staff works through a process and works through a process and determines what they think is an appropriate place for the hall out. It does not come back to council for agreement or any vote at that time. So it's strictly between reader and staff to determine the what they think is a mutually agreeable location. Primarily. And then, of course, whatever, whatever pruning or whatever. Permitting process. Required, then they would have to agree to it. It would not necessarily have to come back to the council. Would it also involve whatever consultation we did say with the National Marine Fisheries Service? So even though parties, I understand from the lease refers or from the EMU refers to the city and Rita, it would also be their consultants, is that correct? Right. We really I mean. We want to get this right. And so we don't want to just tear down something that serving a population and then and put it just anywhere. So we do want. It kind of. But my question goes to right now, and we heard this on the prior item, we this allows the public to come and weigh in when an item comes before council. And I want to clarify that. If this vote if this lease is approved, then I actually the the NYU does not require four votes. Only requires three. And then from that point forward, if the menu is approved, then the item does not come back to council the public there. Their path of input would be to communicate with staff, but it would not be on an agenda item here. But the determination by council, is that correct? That? That is correct. Okay. And then in regards to these other issues that I appreciate you sharing are not part of the lease. For instance, the the design of the building, for instance, the height. But it looks like that will be determined through the ironing board. And then does that come back to council for approval? It would only come back to council if somebody peel the planning board decision and then at that point, how many votes would require to approve the design of the building? Council acts by three votes unless specifically required by charter to act by four. So it would be three votes. Thank you. And then so in regards to transportation of fuel, since that item is not addressed specifically in the lease, I want to clarify again that that if it ever comes back, it would require about three votes of council, not for it to prove, for instance, any issue regarding storage of the fuel or transportation of the fuel . M.R. Unless there's something in the lease that would have to be amended, unless the lease needs to be amended, that would require four votes. If it is something else, it is part of the menu or part of some other permit or whatever that might have to come back to the council. It would be three votes. All right. Thank you. A member, Daisuke. Just a quick clarifying question to when it comes to a planning board appeal, because that costs a lot of money. Sometimes council members appeal a planning board decision and bring it to city council for four decisions. So if there are concerns at the planning board level about design related issues and a council member could take it upon herself or himself to appeal, it would save money. However, at that point, regardless, it's still three votes as opposed to four. The only time. Correct. All right. Number Ashcraft. And just for clarification, Ms.. Marcano, I think if I recall reading the lease for the last meeting, those items of the fuel storage and and, you know, how the ships are fueled and the protection from spillage and response planning all are all contained in the lease that we voted on. The lease document is talk specifically about the types of the storage units and things like that. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. And and I would just add that I think, you know, these council discussions are very useful for helping to work out the. Kind of going to be clarifying question. Correct. Yeah. So I mean, this is what we're going to continue to do. Well, are you asking the question? It's well, we'll have that opportunity. Remember? I'm sorry. Just one more. Can you tell us what the property's zoned for right now? Excuse me. What's the zoning of the property? Isn't it commercial maritime use? Open space. Open space? It's in the tidelands. So it's maritime open space. So there are limited. But limited uses. Limited uses. And this is one of the they use. Okay. If I could get some clarification from Wheater, if you don't mind. On the seal, haul out. You know for certain you'll have to get a permit from D.C.. I think, Mr. Conley, they'd like you to come up so you can. Speaking to the microphone in. Someone. Thank you. Kevin Connolly, Water Emergency Transportation Authority Planning Manager. The question is from the assistant city manager here. Yes. Okay. I'm going to answer that question right after I answer the first question about the zoning. Enterprise for zoning district requires. That's what it is. It's not open space for zoning. It's enterprising person. You speak in the microphone, please. Utah. Yeah. Can you kind of explain to us what that means. Please? You can ask the plan. I it's not fair to ask him. I think someone from city. State. Yeah. To explain what enterprise zoning means. Yes. Okay. Ms.. Ms.. That possibly. Expert. So there's actually two parts to their project. One of them is in the piers, the piers in the water and some and it's adjacent. It's in an open space district. Adjacent to or used to call. Enterprise Park. There's the fueling station, which. Is an enterprise for. Which is for maritime commercial businesses. And so it's actually within state lands. And so there are a lot of uses that aren't allowed. In that area. But this is exactly the type of use that's consistent with the zoning for the Enterprise for. District on the fueling part of. It. Thank you. I'm sorry, miss. Could you clarify that you were speaking in regards to the fueling station falls within this enterprise zone. And what about the building? And then what about the ferry or the ferries for that? Well, the actual part of the piers are in. The water. And. And the zoning is for the zoning. For the actual buildings when the. Open space district. So the whole thing is in the open space district of the. And an open space includes buildings. Yes. We can and we can. That's what we were just looking at, the zoning map. But the fueling station. Is within the enterprise for. And then in regards to where the ferries will be. What is that? It's how is that treated? It's within the. Water portion of the property. And I'm just I just don't. Know off the top of my head what the property. Is exactly how the water the submerged property is zoned. But I think it will just we'll have to look at that. I just don't know if that got my head. Members. Did you have any other questions? I do. In regards to our attorney or counsel, in regards to enforcement of an MRU versus a lease. What are the differences? For instance, if the if there's an issue with the haul out that's in the mail, you as opposed to having that language in the lease itself. Well, the M.O. you provides, I think as Ms.. Mercado identified and in the M.O., you for the fallout, that the way it is structured is that the widow will have to put $100,000 into an escrow account. And they are committed also to doing various to getting the permits and identifying the site and constructing the hall out and utilizing that $100,000 toward completion of that. And they have to do it on a particular deadline, and they are not to begin construction and pull permits until they have accomplished that. And if the city believes that they have failed to meet those deadlines and they are not adequately and diligently moving forward, the city can go ahead and do what Ms.. Makana calls self-help and go ahead and and complete the project itself and utilize that hundred thousand dollars. So those are fairly substantial ability to to be able to enforce those obligations. The lease itself is a property. Right. And it's, you know, complicated as to what the default provisions would be and the requirements that you have to go through to enforce a lease. But ultimately, you can terminate a lease and, you know, take the property back and pursue whatever remedies there might be at LA Equity pursuant to the lease. So if this if if we do has issues completing the hall out for whatever reason, then the city can do self-help and step up and utilize this $100,000 to complete it. And if it takes more than $100,000, then what does the city do? Well, the MCU doesn't really doesn't have language about if it costs more than $100,000. But what we do know is that we can go. To our. Partner and amend the MCU. I mean, I think that I mean. If we're self helping, that means that they haven't fulfilled their obligation. But I think what they have committed to is help is getting the the hall out there are putting the hall out in place. Okay. And what if there's not a mutually agreeable location for the hall out? Does the project still continue? I think finding a location has to be the first order of business that we need to work on, because in order to design and figure out what it's going to look like, we have to find a location. And one of the. Obstacles that we've. Had or the reason. We don't have one now. Number one is because we. Don't own all the water. The seaplane lagoon is still owned by the Navy. It's not even on our lease. And so we couldn't put something in the seaplane lagoon. So we're just trying to figure out a logical. Location for this whole layout. And and I think. We're going to be. Working with biologists and experts to figure out. What makes. Sense. And if we if it makes sense that it goes into the seaplane lagoon or if it goes under the piers, we've just got to figure out where, what side, what makes sense. I mean, I talked to Dr. Allen today, and one of the things that she talked about is that we need to determine why the SEALs are coming to this location. Are they coming for foraging or are they coming for recreation? And that that actually informs where you going to put your call out? However, it would not be considered a breach of the lease to not complete a bridge to not complete an additional the new hall out. The list does not speak to the hall at the MO you speaks to the hall loud and what we but what the MRU does say is that the only delay that the city will allow them not to build is for the third party, not getting the third party permitting. So everything else, they should be moving on. We should be moving on together. The only the only thing that we're really giving them any kind of a pass for holding up is if they can't get these permits from AC, DC or whomever else needs to weigh in on it. Right. So. But since that's since the fallout is in a separate NYU and not part of the lease, the lease continues. Separate from the more you separate from the hall out to two documents, two different parts of work. That is correct. I don't know if this helps or not, correct me here, but the idea is if potentially you approve both of these documents tonight and for some reason, so the lease goes into effect and Rita has to begin to pay their lease payments and they are expecting to begin doing construction, but they can't begin the construction until they have satisfied the requirements of the EMU and the hall out. So the city will have leased the property, will have a tenant, will be getting rental payments. But frankly, if we do doesn't build this building, we're still going to get lease payments and have a tenant out there. Thank you. All right. We have speakers that. Yes, yes. Oh, and I'm sorry. Rita. Good evening, Mayor Spencer and council members. My name is Nina Rannells and I am the executive director of the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority. Thank you for hearing our item today. I'm here to thank you for your consideration of the item and your support. We have worked with the city since 2008 on this project. First, in looking at and identifying a site for it and then working through the various planning and development environmental permit consultation processes and in working to secure funds to actually ultimately move to construction. It's been a long conversation and we're really excited to be here today. This represents a significant milestone in the in the process and in delivering this project. It represents a very important part of our operation. It's a key component of our core infrastructure that will support our services that we provide to the city of Alameda and the residents of Alameda and surrounding areas. With your support tonight, we are prepared to move forward quickly on work to establish a new and lasting steel hall out. As outlined in the memo U. We are a proud partner with the city in providing ferry services to this community. And when we transition when the services transition from the city to us in 2012, we've done a significant amount of work since then to secure significant funds, to implement projects, to rehabilitate and improve those services, including adding over $2 million annually in operating dollars to support the system and to provide actually service improvements, as well as about $50 million to support rehabilitating the terminal sites, gangways ramps, bicycle parking, parking lots, as well as more. Most importantly, about $45 million to invest in the four boats that that we inherited two of them money for two of them to undergo mid-life overhauls. And we're in the process of going out to bid to actually build two new boats, to replace boats that have met the end of the end of their useful life. We are your partner. We love providing services to your community. We are committed to the city of Alameda wholeheartedly in what we do every day. And we thank you for your support tonight and look forward to moving forward with this important project. Any questions for to. At this point, council members. Thank you. Right? Right. Then I'm going to proceed with calling the public speakers. I believe this is Captain Ray Shipway and then Mark Klein and then Andrew. And this livecast. Yes. He's in the back. Mayor Council members. My name is Raymond Shipway. I'm the regional representative. California Regional Representative of the International Organization of Master Mason Pilots United Inland Group. I represent 350 members in our specialized fleet, but that big title just means I'm the head of the complaint department. I have several things that I have to do in conjunction with being head of the complaint department. And I. One of the most enjoyable things I got to do was was advocate for the funds from the Federal Transportation Administration. We were able to go two years ago to Washington, D.C., as we do every year for an event called the Sale End, where we actually advocate for items that are necessary for the maritime fleet. And when I go back there, of course, I'm California, born and raised in San Francisco. I did 20 years as a tugboat driver here in San Francisco Bay. That's where the title came from. But the idea that we can go back there and advocate for for big ticket items and shipping and all that sort of stuff is great. But I went down there and became I had to use the term maverick, but I visited our local delegation who were very responsive and very receptive to the idea that we needed to do something for our folks local here. So on behalf of my members and the folks that work for the WTA and and the and the hardworking staff and crew that put together all this program, our hard work in, in getting those original funds and helping out with with this program is a matter of pride for myself. So I thank you for allowing us the opportunity to come before you and speak. We look forward to putting this together and and making a good investment in Alameda and talking to you folks about ferries is is like preaching to the choir. I was here in 1998 when we had a real contentious thing going on between who was going to provide ferry service between blue and gold and Roger Murphy. And if you all remember that, I kind of got myself in the middle of that as a guppy. So, again, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Please, if you have the opportunity to support this, I thank you. Aren't clean. My last council meeting, I spoke and said a verbal promise wasn't enough and we should have something in writing. And you now you have a signed memorandum of understanding. So I thank you for that. And. Few days ago, someone asked me if I could dig up an expert to help plan a seal haul out. And I inquired at the Marine Mammal Center and from an official when he came back with a name. Sarah Ellen. So I hope you can work some something out. And that would. Maybe work. Of course, one should always recognize that when you're working with. Wild animals, nothing ever is guaranteed, but hopefully something can be worked out. Just as a final note. I must say, if I had known about this a few years ago, I would have opposed the present site for this project. The site would be better as a park, and it seems to me that the estuary side, which is more industrial and with its ferries going in and out anyway, would have been a better location. But that I know that train has left the station and that's just my $0.02. So I hope it goes okay and we get a hold out for the SEALs. Thank you. Evening, Madame Mayor. Members of the council. My name's Andy Slick. I'm going to be wearing three hats tonight. First is, I'm a long time resident homeowner of the city of Alameda. I'm also a representative for the Carpenters Union here in Alameda County. And for the sake of time, it's starting to get a little late. I'll be speaking on behalf of the Alameda County Building Trades Council. So I feel and the council and the Carpenters also feel that this is a good project. It's a good example of cooperative labor management in the building of the project. There's going to be a project labor agreement in that. It's always a pleasure to be up here speaking with an agency that values working families, as we do does. And it's a partnership that you as the council, should look at moving forward when you're looking at building out at the base and the commitments to working families and project labor agreements. So this is the type of project that the base needs that Almeida needs to move forward. So I would encourage you to implement police and the right way and move this project forward. Thank you. Michael McDonagh and then Alex Knox. And then Marcel. There is all our. Thank you. Madame Mayor, council staff Michael McDonough, president of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. You know, this sounds like a great project for Alameda. I'm excited that it would be the first breaking of ground at the new Alameda base that we've got out there now. I think it's good for business, too. There's 100 new employees. There is new infrastructure. And the maritime industry is one of the most important industries we have on the island. And I think this is a good extension of that. And so we are all for it at the Chamber of Commerce. Commerce and urge you to approve this lease and the IMO you tonight. Alex Knox. Madam Chair, City Council, City Staff My name is Alex Knox. I'm the director of Community Relations for Richmond Mayor Tom Butt. And I know you have a lot of speakers on this. I don't want to take up a lot of your time, but I am here to support your adopting this lease agreement with Wheeler because I see it as one of the the many exciting opportunities and initiatives where we can see mutual benefit through regional partnership. You know, I know we do spend a lot of a lot of time developing this project with the city of Alameda. And we have also spent a lot of time with we are developing our expanded ferry service in Richmond and. Part of why I'm here today is because in order for us to realize our goal of having very service enrichment, we need this maintenance facility to go forward. If the tables were turned, I think the kind of proposal that that's before we do it today would be something that the city of Richmond would be really excited to. To look at the jobs, the additional emergency preparedness it provides for a transit increase, public access, bay trail upgrades, the sidewalks, lighting and your main street ferry terminal . All all elements that I think are very attractive. In order for us to continue these exciting regional cooperations, we need to we need to be able to take these big steps. And this step will lead to another, which will ultimately lead to another. And in that we can realize a more robust transit network in the Bay Area that serves all the cities and all the residents. And if approved, I would hope that the city council and the city staff will move to. Move this project forward in a expedited manner, because we really do believe that this this could help us all quite a bit. And with that, thank you. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for coming tonight all the way from Richmond. Appreciate it. Marcel. And then Chad, Rick Smalley and then Leslie Cameron. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Preston Dula and I'm speaking on behalf of Marcel. He had to leave early. I'm. I'm a carpenter. And in the union. And my life has been building community improvement projects. I've dedicated my life to that. As well as a long time resident in Alameda. And I'd really like to encourage you guys to promote this project with this project forward. Improve the IMO you and please let's put some residents to work because I'm one of those residents and I really want to support this community and make a better life for my family in this type of projects. That helps me do that. Thank you. Q. Good evening, Madam, or Member City Council and Chadwick Smalley, Capital Projects Manager with the City of Richmond. Just to reiterate an Alex Knox message, we're very excited about this project. We understand it's critical to the expansion of the regional transit system that we have operates and we encourage the City Council to approve the lease and more. You we feel strongly that a 30 minute high quality transit ride from Richmond to San Francisco is a deal changer. I mean, it's it's a big it gets folks off the I-80 corridor, which today is is a mess and it can only get worse from here. And so the regional environmental impacts of this project are significant. The environmental benefits of this project are significantly significant to the city of Richmond and the entire region. So we just want to ask for your support and voice. Thank you. Lastly camera and I'll be Carrie Thompson and then Phil Holt. Hello, Madam Mayor. Vice Mayor, council members and staff. My name is Leslie Cameron, and along with my husband Alan Cameron, and my business partners, Bill and Vicki Elliott, we own Bay Shipping Yacht Company, a shipyard here in Alameda celebrating 21 years this April. I also serve on the board of directors for the Alameda Chamber of Commerce and the working water waterfront cohort. There are a lot of exciting things happening in Alameda these days in the maritime industry. A new job, opportunities for our youth, and a maritime focused program starting this fall at the College of Alameda. So we are very excited with the prospects of Aida coming to Alameda with their maintenance facility, along with the new jobs and millions of dollars that they will invest right here in Alameda. We wholeheartedly support and welcome them here. But most of all, I'd like to say to all of all of you that I'm confident with your leadership abilities that you'll come to a collaborative solution which will be good for all, including the harbor seals. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for Alameda. So please go for the win win. And welcome, Rita, here. Thank you so much. Good evening, Madam Mayor. City Council members and staff. My name is Carrie Thompson. I am a resident as well as a past president. Of the Chamber of Commerce. And I don't know about you, but I was living here in 1989 in the earthquake. And I really like the idea of having we to here that we would have our own emergency transportation authority here in Alameda. As any of you who were here then do, remember the challenges that it was to get across the bay to San Francisco or to other points. So I do encourage you to approve this project, this MRU. And I also want to remind you that as a business person and we're adding jobs to the local economy. The other thing we're doing is we're we are reducing, hopefully, the traffic congestion that we all are so frustrated at. Going out through the tube, across all the. Bridges, and hopefully we can keep those jobs here in. Alameda. Thank you. They'll. And Irene Dieter and the Richard Banger. Madam Mayor. Council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I urge your strong support for the wider project. Without further encumbering it, I think I. Bring a balanced. Perspective. I've been a member of at least a dozen environmental organizations. I'm a member of the Nature Conservancy. People that know my background would understand when I say that some of my best friends are or were seals. Seriously, though, I do have a special affinity for marine life in general. But also found several businesses, one of which was a commercial diving contracting business. I've been involved in shoreline projects like shipping terminals and docks and bridges, etc., from Alaska to New Zealand. And I'm always concerned with trying to minimize negative environmental impacts from these projects and always looking for effective ways to mitigate. And there are always pros and cons to all of these projects. I think the positives, positive benefits of the wider project far outweigh the negatives and the fact that Rita is willing to spend $100,000 for a new seal hauled out. Is more than adequate mitigation for that impact. I urge you to move this project forward and not impose requirements or with further delay it or otherwise further impede its progress. And I just want to end with thanking you all for your service to the city. I know it's a tough job. Hello, Mayor and council members. First of all, I'd like to thank you so much for actually having the contract in place with WADA. Thanks to Vice Mayor Materazzi for leading the charge on that that we have something in writing. It's definitely a reassurance. And tonight I'm speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club, who has a few concerns with the EMU that we're hoping that you really look at closely before moving it forward. And mainly there are two clauses in there that kind of contradict each other. Section 2.4 says that Waitomo will demolish. Excuse me. It says that prior to. Demolishing the harbor seal haul out that they will try to build a new one unless way to have not obtained a permit. So that means that. The hall out may get demolished before the fields have a new home. To take that into consideration, please. But what contradicts what's puzzling is in the city right to construct number 3.1. It says that if Wadah is unable to. The inability of waited to to commence construction is solely due to the inability to obtain permits. Then the city will take over the project. Well, if wait a can't get the permits, why will the city be able to get the permits? Why would the city ever want to take that? In my misreading that or something, Marilyn saying no, but that's what it looks like. It says solely due to the inability of wader to obtain all permits. Then the city will take it over. So please. Between number 2.4 and 3.1. If you could look at that, it seems like the 3.1 doesn't need to be there in back to the site selection. It says that the parties shall meet and select a location, a mutually agreed location. And tonight, we've heard that the National Marine Fisheries Service will be the guiding light to that. Unfortunately, sometimes our regulatory agencies also missed the boat. They are the ones who said that the SEALs could haul out on the Rocky breakwater, too, which is doesn't make any sense. They did not do their due diligence in their last paperwork, and many wildlife experts know that. So with that, I'm hoping that the site selection, the tiebreaker to that is the city council itself and that the public actually can weigh in on the site location. Thank you very much. Richard Banger and then Rachel Campos and Travis Wilson. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the city council and city staff and to the waiter staff that are here tonight. When I first started following this project a good four years ago, I after wasn't long and I started wondering if it was ever going to happen. But here we are. And after a number of years, I started taking an interest in the harbor seals, and I realized that their their presence there wasn't just an anomaly. Turns out they aren't there year round. So if you go there in October, let's say, or even September, you might only find one or two. But it became apparent to me that it was a regular hall out site. And in fact, last year there was a harbor seal pup that was born there and we found there. So I'm glad that this memorandum of understanding has been finalized. Could there be some improvements in the language? I suppose so. But I think at this point there's a public perception that. A whole lot will be built that is so strong that. Failing to execute is not an option anymore. I think it will happen as far as consulting with different agencies. I mean, it's already been pointed out by Mr. McConnell that there's only anecdotal evidence on constructing a fallout for Pearl Harbor SEALs. So I would just caution against studying this to death. I mean, you know, you could mimic what's already out there, only make it build it to last 30 years, you know, couple of beams and and something that looks more or less like what's out there now and pull it out and anchor it and the SEALs will make their way up onto it. So I would I would caution against studying it to death as far as where it goes. You're you're pretty well constrained by the traffic, the Marine traffic lanes. And so, I mean, obviously, you're not going to put it out in the. Barry Lane. There's a limited number of places you can put it, and I can I can point to where the limited spaces are that you could put it. And one last thing. I, I don't want to. Be managing this, the staff's discussions with Wadah. But I do think it would be important if if you gave direction to the city manager to bring back some sort of report in a couple of months so that at least the community felt engaged in the process. So I don't have a specific proposal, but I would like to have it brought back at some point in the next couple of months and touch base with the public. Thank you. You mean Mayor Spencer and members of the City Council? My name is Rachel Campos de Ivanov, and I am the Alameda resident. I'm also a huge supporter of the ferry, improving our public transportation infrastructure. And I absolutely love that there are going to be some new union jobs that are out there. But I also really appreciated that you guys on the city council have listened to the public protests and have ensured that there is language that will ensure that we are getting the call out, that we have been jumping up and down and trying to fight for. I completely agree with Irene Dieter and Richard Bangert that there could be some improvements to the language. But I also appreciate that Mr. Mackinaw has, you know, is also listening to the public and is taking action to make sure that those concerns are being heeded. But I also would encourage you guys on the city council to please remain vigilant and provide, you know, accountability that this is constructed within Alameda and that the public is brought back into the process because there are some sensitivities around this particular project and feeling as if it has sort of come in under the radar. And we haven't had the opportunity to have our voice heard until it's a little bit too late. So I would please recommend that that the public, as you know, continue to be a part of the process through the planning board meetings as well as, you know, with the building out of this all out. So thank you. Thank you. Hi. You might remember I was here a couple of weeks ago in support of this project, and I have changed my mind to. We don't know enough. I know. I know you don't like delays, but that's why we do second readings, right? We might change our minds. Let's pretend. Hear me out on this. Let's pretend I have a measure of public sentiment right here. And it says that Alameda in general, we've done the survey. We figured it out. Alameda think that that piece of coastline down to internal high is, in fact, a natural area worth preserving. It's blank, but we'll pretend. And if you have that, you know, if it's true, then as stewards of our city property, you can't really you can't really approve this. Right? That that piece of property is then worth more than the rent and the commerce we're going to get from it. And you are you are risking it by leasing it. The whole thing we know, as Sara Ellen will tell you, you you can't just take little pieces out of an ecosystem. You're going to threaten the whole thing. It's fun to talk about a seal haul out and and draft language about it. It's something that we can control. We can control that hall out. Right. We have no idea what's going to happen naturally to the nature. I didn't hear any CEOs come here and testify a couple of weeks ago. Right. I mean, the fact is, we don't know. So so we can risk that piece of land or not. And the question then, I think really is, does the public think that that piece of coastline is worth preserving? And we don't know. And it bugs me that we don't know. It bugs me that that we don't have a better way to ask the public that direct question. Right. It's not like it's not the same thing to have hearings in San Francisco and count the number of people who don't show up. That's not the same thing as asking them, do you want to preserve this piece of coastline? And I know that Mr. De Saag, you are so. I feel it. I am also so sensitive. About the number of times you're asked to delay. It happens all the time. This has been going on for a long time and a lot of people have done a lot of work. And I want to know why no one has asked the public this question. I could have been on a ballot by now. I would like to delay until we ask those questions. If not, you're going to guess right. And if you do believe that. People don't value that piece of coastline, then yes, you should leverage that piece of land. And if you believe they do. You have to not do this. And if you don't feel confident in your guess. Please do something tonight that can be reversed later. Thank you. Bobby Winston and then Terrace Hall. And those are our last two speakers. If you want to speak on this item, please submit your slip. And a mayor. I'm Bobby Winston. I am the owner of Bay Crossings. I have been involved with Wheatus since the very beginning and Alameda resident and I am just delighted that the prospect of this maintenance facility being here in Alameda, it's a boon for the region. It's a boon for our community. I think you should know that one of the things that figures to be involved with is a thing called the working waterfront cohort, which has been created with the College of Alameda that seeks to do something about the terrible lack of vocational education. This project will be an important part of that. I honor the environmental concerns. I sincerely do. But the bottom line is this is a boon for this community, and it should be welcomed with open arms. So thank you. Grace Hall and then that choose our last speaker unless there's any more slips. Hey. Good evening. Madam Mayor and City Council. And I appreciate all of the work you've done on this project, and I'm really in favor of the project, so please understand that right off the bat, one of my. Concerns is that I am a multi-generational alum. Maiden, and I haven't. Been brought up to speed on this. Uh, on this project. The first I heard about it was at the end of last year, and then all of a sudden it was located down next to the Hornet. That aside, my concern in reading through the piece is, is that it does seem that you fixed the four stories in the lease agreement. That seems to me that it's bypassing our our. Planning board process. So that was. One of my first concerns. And if it's part of the lease agreement and. The city does citizens of. Alameda decide we do not want a four story building there? Because if you take a look at the rendering, it appears that most of the other buildings in the vicinity are two and 2 to 3 story. And I wasn't even. Aware of the continued, you know, our plans. In the future of maintaining all of the maritime activity out there. So that was one. I'm concerned about the planning board process and if we don't meet the four story requirement that we'd be in breach of half of the lease. Another thing I noticed in the lease was the hazmat tanks and that the the safety measures around. The. For the fuel tanks. The only stipulation we have is for a double walled tank. Any of the other safety requirements and measures I guess are up to WHITTA and the sole responsibility of the tenant. So that was a concern. And then. Lastly and of course very, very. Important to me is the whole seal all out. I am a birder and am just so excited about, you know, our. Bird sanctuary. And maintaining the beauty of our coastline through Alameda. It's been it's been a big part of my life since I've been very, very young. So I'd just like to know, is there a measure for a metric for measuring the success of this hall out? We keep talking about this new location, but I think someone mentioned it is what is the metric for success here? Is somebody to talk to the SEALs? Are we going to measure it across one season? Is it, you know? So that was a big question. How are we measuring that success? Um. I think that was it. And thank you for listening. Thank you. There being no further comment slips. We'll begin with member comments. Member Ashcroft. May I? Thank you, Mary Spencer. Thank you to everybody who stayed to help inform this discussion. As I sit in, listened to all the comments, first of all, I do think this has been a very collaborative process. And you can see that the council and the staff listened to suggestions about the SEAL fall out. And kudos to Ida for coming up with an MRU that addresses that, not only in my view, but hundred thousand dollars for that effort. What I'm trying to look at is the big picture taking into consideration all of the efforts to bring funding into our city for this project. And it's something that we as a council struggle with all the time. Our budget we're going to be you'll see in the next couple of minutes we're going to be doing budget hearings. There's never enough money for all that we want to do. For years, we've struggled with the former Naval Air Station, closed in 1996. It's 2015. We have some very robust leases, thanks in large part to Mr. and Mrs. Marcano, who helped measure help manage those efforts. But we really should be excited about the efforts to bring funding, federal and state funding to our island for this project that is serving water transit. We are an island. We say that all the time. We're an island. One of the ways that we'll get people on and off the island and not make them go through the tube over a bridge. I'm an island to an already crowded freeway is by water transit. And we want to we need to support that. It's how a growing community that is an island we're reminded of that all the time is going to grow both in an environmentally and community friendly way. And then there's the added benefit of the emergency operations center, the water based emergency operations center that will service in the event that our roadways, bridges, the tube are somehow impacted or impaired in an event like an earthquake and creating maritime jobs. You know, it is a struggle. We never I think we never win this struggle of trying to keep our public informed of all that is going on. But ever since we began talking about the redevelopment of the Naval Air Station, we have talked about preserving its maritime character. We and only a number of other communities, I mean, Oakland and Richmond certainly and in parts of San Francisco have a working waterfront and bay shipyard. I don't know if people really understand if you know, we're the main street ferry terminal is you see their big structure but I went to the opening ceremony when they they introduced this working waterfront cohort in conjunction in partnership with the College of Alameda. But let me tell you a little bit more about the people who are going to be getting jobs as a result of this program. These are the formerly homeless near and dear to my heart. Some of you know, I'm a former probation officer are people who've had a criminal past. But, you know, they're they're out now, but they're looking for a job. As the district attorney of Alameda, Nancy O'Malley, district attorney of Alameda County, happens to be an Alameda resident. She was at that ceremony because she is one who knows that if you don't find people who are down on their luck, who've had brushes with the law jobs or the the formerly homeless are on the verge of being homeless jobs. They're going to get into trouble. They're going to burden the system in so many other ways. But right here in Alameda, in partnership with Bay Shipyard in the College of Alameda, we are doing something about it. We should all be proud of that effort. I'm as concerned about the environment as the next person, and I do appreciate that we have the birders and the SEAL watchers and all of you, and I wish I had more time to be out there, but but I will get out and see them. But bear in mind that one of the things this project is helping pay for is the continuation and the realignment of the Bay Trail around that area and a park. So we'll get people out in a much nicer environment to get out and watch and just recreate in in a park. And I think that we as a council always need to take into consideration all the different competing efforts, interests and weigh the balance and come out with the best possible project. And I, I think that we've worked long and hard on this one. I'm very excited to see this facility come to Alameda. And I appreciate staff and we time in coming to what I think are two excellent agreements that I'm prepared to support. Thank you, Mayor. Any other member comments? Member, Brody. Go for it. Okay. I'll try to be brief. So. Just the takeaways for me on this. This is an exciting project that kind of helps us take advantage of our situation as an island. We can. Also respect our heritage as a maritime center with having a maritime industry here. That's what the properties designated for commercial maritime use. It's perfect use of the property. I'm excited about the jobs. The project labor agreement is also very important to me and I do want to thank Richard and Irene for I know last week, you know, I did the balancing test and I came out with a different balancing test than you did. But I want to thank you for your perseverance on this and making sure that we we have an agreement, we have a written agreement, and we don't have to trust somebody's word. And I appreciate that. And I'm glad that we found a way that we can have a win win. Minute. Vice Mayor. Thank you. I think the MCU is good because it puts what was a verbal agreement in writing. It also provides both staff of Weeden and Alameda with the guidelines to go forward. And I owe your attention to 4.1, which talks about. Time is of the essence for the lease. And I think Mr. Mercado hit the nail on the head that time is of the essence in selecting the site, and I would like to have that reported back to the council and not take a couple of months. Use every effort to bring it forward with consultation with the biologists as soon as possible and then as far as the list goes on. It is a judgment of this council based on all as a representative body, based on all the interests that we have for preserving the community and the ecosystem with our best efforts on the float. But we're also bringing jobs to me to point, which is a key priority for me. I think it's a key priority for the city, its first $50 million project, which most of that is a cost of building it. Most of that is labor that goes into it. It pays people jobs, pays people who are working two jobs that allow them to live in the Bay Area. 10,100 new jobs, $2 million worth of infrastructure, housing, parkland, a new water main and Bay Trail realignment. So I'm properly prepared to support both going forward tonight. Again, with time is of the essence as far as getting the provisions of the memo you met. Everyday. Thank you. Thank you very much to the members of the public who came out not just tonight but two weeks ago on this matter. This is an important matter, given the magnitude of the jobs and the, uh, just the way that it's positioning Alameda in terms of the regional transit network. It's also important in terms of how we move forward with Alameda Point, not just in terms of affecting the built environment, but also making sure to treat the natural environment correctly. And that natural environment does include wildlife, not just on the old runway, but also in the waters in and around Alameda Point. So we understand the magnitude of this project. Because as a council, you know, we deal with a lot of issues that come before us, not just here in Alameda Point, but throughout the city. And as each and every issue comes before us, city council in conjunction with staff and in conjunction with all the previous commissions and boards . What we are tasked to do, among other things, is to evaluate what threats and risks arise when projects come as well as, you know, what are the opportunities. We have to evaluate the threats and risks thoroughly. And we also have to come up with the right and the best mitigations to threats to the environment if and as they arise. So the question then is, has the city council and has the process leading up to tonight as each of the members exercised basically the term of due diligence? And is there a framework in place, i.e., the lease agreement, as well as a memorandum of agreement, to move forward and to embrace the opportunities that arise, but also protect us against threats and risks should they arise. I think the city staff has put together a proposal that all of us in Alameda should embrace. It is something that moves us forward, not just economically but also environmentally. And I just want to make sure, to reiterate one point that I said last at the last meeting. What I said then was that, you know, this is a city staff and this is a city council that's willing to listen and modify accordingly. And we work well together at within. On this day as as well as we work well with the community, we're not here to just shove things down the throats of people. You know, we're here to get the work of the public done to move us forward as a community. Not just having blinders that just look at jobs and and our economy, as important as that is. But also, we look at the natural environment, do what we can to protect it. So as I indicated as well at the last meeting, okay, if we need to improve how we're going to deal with the harbor seals, then then let us do so. And we've done that. And it's important for me to mention this because I got to say, I mean, we three of us on council here. Council member Odie. Council member as he Ashcraft and myself. I mean, we get really castigated in the press. I mean, the way in which we got castigated in the press, basically calling us people who don't care about the harbor seals. It was incredible. I've never seen something like that. And I've been on the council for a long time. I got to tell you, I've. The way in which we are castigate in the press. It was very, very. Not very happy. But, you know, there are times when, you know, you get good news in the press. So, you know, as council members, you know, you have to balance it. But you've got to understand, members here in the public as well as those watching in the in the in the through the Internet or on television. Now, this is a council and this is a staff that's doing its level best. And we're always open to modifying things, but we're going to move forward. And, you know, if there are questions that people think that there are unknowns, I think that that's a valid question. But I think that question has to be balanced against, well, was there a framework in place that treat unknowns right now as well as treat whatever might happen down the down the path? And I think we do have a framework in place. I think I've read the lease statement, I've read the environmental sections, which is section 12 of the lease. You know what? Can't can unfortunate things happen like in the oil spill. It could happen. Unfortunately, we live in a life where there are threats and risks and threats. But the question is, as a council, have we done our due diligence to be able to deal with those as they arise? I mean, think about it. We're building a new gas station right outside of the Webster Tube coming into town. Now, this is I mean, think about what that means. Think about that. Even setting aside the fact that we're building a gas station, that we have gas stations in town, all cities. Of risks and threats. The question is not simply do we do nothing because there are risks and threats. The question, the real question, I think is are we putting in place the right processes to deal with those as they are as they arise? But at the same time, embracing what opportunities there are with regard to improving our environment or improving. Our our economy. And I think we struck that balance. I want to thank, you know, wheater for making the investment in in the city of Alameda. I want to thank the representatives from Richmond for taking the time to coming out here. But know that we had a facility will be built in Alameda. And I want to end it by this way. I really thought that what Leslie Cameron, owner of Bay Shipping Yard, said was not only great, but I think that alliteration was great when she said win, win and welcome Wieder. Indeed, I think that's what tonight is about. Win, win and welcoming Guido. So I, i to appreciate the project and the work that's been done to date. However, when I heard at the beginning of this meeting that this issue, that the last public meeting prior to the last council meeting was way back in November 2010. And that was the planning board meeting that there have been no meetings actually reaching out to our community, showing them what we're talking about. We have a project going on right now, a site A, and Joe Ernst has been going around this community with drawings, reaching out multiple places. We haven't had that here. And I agree with the speaker in regards to. Our ecosystem there, the natural area that we haven't heard really from the community. And I appreciate that we have had representations or speakers on behalf of the unions and we leader coming out here and encouraging. And the jobs. But I my concern is that we haven't done our due diligence in regards to reaching out to Alamitos when meetings take place in San Francisco held by WETA. They're not advertised here. I personally am very active in our community, as I know many of our speakers that came tonight who honestly did not know and do not know very much about this. And they have questions and I think they have a right to have their questions answered prior to the approval. That doesn't mean that it would have to. It would it would create a delay for the project. It doesn't mean that after by giving the community an opportunity to weigh in on a project and have meaningful discussions with our community, it doesn't mean that we'd end up necessarily at a different place. It means that our community has an opportunity to hear answers to their questions and concerns. We had a speaker that brought up that the site would be better for a park, that they would have preferred this to go to the estuary. I think the public has a right to know why. Why that location? In regards to the MRU for the SEALs, I have concerns in regards to the location. I'm not sure that it is as simple as just being suggested that you can just build another hall out and the seals will go there, that they'll return. And I also don't know. I think the SEALs are actually the surface of the ecosystem there. And when we have 12 ferries coming in every evening, making noise, being refueled, leaving in the morning, what impact does that have on the habitat? And not just the SEALs, but everything else that's there. I don't think that's been addressed. And we did have a speaker at the prior council meeting speak to protecting concerns about the campground. She had thought about that. We would have that campground as an option in the future. Well, we may have the campground, but it's going to have. 12 ferries coming in every evening and leaving in the morning and who knows what else. Damage to the ecosystem and and and I don't think it's appropriate to have one standard for Joe Ernst to to go around and communicate with the public. And a completely different standard as in the last prior meeting was November 2010. Here we are or a year later. Being asked to approve a project with no other meetings with our community. I think it's a serious problem. I think that we can do better and unfortunately we have. This is city land, by the way. We have very little city land. When a private developer owns land. We we have less input on what will happen there than when it's Alameda land. This is Alameda Ann's land. This is not council's land. This is not Wieters land. They don't own the land. This is the city of Alameda, this land. And that to me is a serious difference. Then I think it's even more incumbent upon council and staff to engage the community in this decision. And so the other issues that were raised in regards to the fuel tanks, the height of the building, the success of the sale out of the hall, out, how will that all be measured? I think those are all questions that the public deserves answers to before the lease is approved. After that, it will be too late, as it was already explained to us earlier. Thank you. We have a motion. I will move. Man City Council. We need to do it. And we should do them separately. And you should do the M.O.. You first. Okay. All right. So I will move that council, authorize the city manager to execute a memorandum of understanding between the city of Alameda and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority regarding the construction of a replacement seal haul out at Alameda Point. Second. All those in favor on. This. Issue. As well. You had your hand up. Yes. I have a friendly amendment, if you would consider it that. A staff brings through the city manager a report on the status of site location. In in a timely fashion so that we have a ability to track the progress. And if it gets out of hand, we know sooner rather than later. And I would actually say that I don't think that that needs to be an amendment to the memorandum of understanding is in that direction that we give to. That is where. We also give staff direction. Okay. That we can do that. Okay. And that we in addition to authorizing city manager to execute the reference memorandum of understanding, we also give staff direction as to what he said. Report out. May I ask what the maker of the motion. We don't have any. I'm the maker of the machine. I'm sorry. Then the amendment person who made the initial proposal regarding time the proposed amendment. Like to be sure that staff has clear direction on a monthly basis. On a monthly basis. I would ask that you not do that. I would ask that you look more at a bi monthly basis. We already have monthly reports on side. We have the budget coming up. The staff is overwhelmed right now with the reports and we just agree to come every two months with this. And I actually think there was a speaker who suggested that very thing every two months. So would you? Well, we only have so many people on staff. Understood. Thank you. Okay. And I know our brilliant city clerk got that all down. Right. Okay. Another comment. There's a second. Russians point. All those in favor. I oppose. I oppose. Madam Mayor. Oh, you know, I'll make a motion that we accept the recommendation and direct the city manager to execute the lease. I think it's actually final passage of the ordinance with the second reading. I'll second the vice mayor's motion. You're not going to make him read the whole thing, are you? No. It's fine that you're enacting the ordinance. It's fine. Thank you. All those in favor. I those I oppose. The mission. Pass. Motion passes. Two one. Then 60 introduction of ordinance, approving a lease and authorizing the city manager to execute documents necessary to implement the terms of 24 month lease with Advanced Roofing Services. California Corporation for Building 612, located at 1450 Viking Street at Alameda Point.

Recommendation to receive the results of the ballot tabulation from the City Clerk, the tabulator, for the proposed Mosquito and Vector Control Program (VCP) Benefit Assessment District; and If a majority protest does not exist, adopt resolution approving the Engineer’s Report, confirming diagram and assessment, and ordering the levy of the VCP Benefit Assessment for Fiscal Year 2019-20; or If a majority protest does exist, the City Council cannot take action on the resolution. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07162019_19-0683

Eight and nine. Motion carries. Keep going back up to. We have three other items. Item 32 Madam Clerk. Report from Health and Human Services recommendation to receive the results of the ballot tabulation from the City Clerk for the proposed Mosquito and Vector Control Program Benefit Assessment District. And if a majority protest does not exist, adopt a resolution approving the engineer's report and ordering the levy of the VCP benefit assessment. Or if a majority protest does exist, the City Council cannot take action on the resolution citywide. Thank you. I'll go ahead. I know that the city staff had asked, wanted to see if the if people wanted to form a better control district, had asked the community if they were interested in it. They are not interested. They don't want to form a vector control district. And so we won't be forming one. And that's and that's okay. So I don't know if you want to. Go ahead. Madam Clerk. The results of the ballot tabulations show that the total percentage of yes ballots weighted by assessment was 45.76%. The total percentage of no ballots weighted by assessment was 54.24%. There is a majority protest. Okay. Thank you. Any public comment on this CNN district to receive and file? District three. II. District four, District five. I'm sorry. Councilman, do you have a comment? I just thought it was important that this does not impact. 90808 which is already covered by L.A. County. But I'm an I. Okay. District six. District seven. District eight, district nine. Thank you. Next item is item 34. I'm sorry, 33.

Amends the Denver Zoning Code per an “omnibus” package of substantive, clarifying and corrective changes through the entirety of the code. Amends the Denver Zoning Code per an “omnibus” package of substantive, clarifying and corrective changes through the entirety of the code. A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-18-14.

DenverCityCouncil_03242014_14-0102

Okay. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for council, though one or two is open. May we have the staff report? Miss Pop. Good evening, Michelle, of Community Planning in Development. Also here with me as Tina Axelrod and Michael Flaherty. So we're presenting a package with lots of changes to the Denver zoning code for clarifications and also substantive changes. We began in November by releasing a public review draft. So before we began the formal adoption process, we spent a lot of time with the community to walk through all the changes. We presented info items to planning board to the City Committee, which were then posted on Channel eight for folks to watch. And we hosted office hours, attended I and C really just to have that input before we began any formal process. In January, we, we did begin the formal adoption process. We went to the planning board and had a public hearing and that was approved unanimously, recommended approval unanimously. Based on that initial public review process, we actually took a number of things out. One, we needed more time to work with the community on the changes. We also found some new changes that we added based on public feedback, and those are all reflected in the package that you received. And we do have some comments of support as well for the package. So we've organized the text amendment into these groupings and we'll walk through just a summary, some highlights of the text amendment. Not not each change. You have each change in your packet, I believe, and I'll start with group one, which are design standards, and these are located in Articles three through nine of the Denver Zoning Code, and they include building forms and supplemental design standards, alternatives and exceptions. So a few examples here of changes we're making that are minor. We allow window wells to encroach into required setbacks three feet. If you have a setback. So a lot of times this is your single family home. The code also regulates the dimension that's running parallel to the home and limits it to four feet today. And we're proposing to increase that to six feet. And that's based on feedback from developers who have a new window product that they want to install. So this is a great, great change for that. We're also adding a number of graphics to our commercial mixed use sound districts. So you'll see here on the left page, this is the shop front building, farm and shop front. In the code today, there's one building that you can look at and it's a box. And it's sort of confusing that you actually can build a lot of different things under shopfront. So we added these graphics you'll see at the top a townhouse product. Single family, yes. You can construct single family in the main street zone districts using the shopfront building farm and on on down showing various building formats. This was based on a lot of feedback from folks using the code, not understanding that illustrative. And so we're providing more illustrative that actually look like buildings you might actually construct and see on the ground. Group two are general design standards, which which apply to all zone districts. This is Article ten of the code and its includes parking and loading, landscaping, fences and signs. Some changes that we're making in here that are substantive. One is to the bicycle parking requirement. So in 2010, we added bike parking requirements in the Denver zoning code. There's an exception, however, if you're doing a change of use that you're exempt from adding bike parking. When we were looking at this, we thought, since it's so easy to add the bike parking because you can put it in the right away if you don't have room on your lot, etc. It was important to actually still require that bike parking, even if it's just a change of use. So you'll see here this is a very old building. It has a new cafe in it. And you can see that bike parking has been accommodated for this building. A flexible use of accessory parking. This is a great addition to the Denver zoning code. So this is an office building you're looking at. And then at the end of the block, there's a very popular restaurant in Low High. And what they're able to do under the Denver zoning code is lease out those parking spaces for that office building when the office building is closed. So folks are really liking this provision, especially restaurant owners. However, they want to have some assurance from the city that they have approval and the only way to do that is to require a zoning permit. So this change actually came from them. They want to come in and obtain that zoning permit so that they have proof that they have approval before they enter into any private agreements with property owners. We're also eliminating references to valet, which is regulated by public works. Another change is we have when you're within a quarter mile of rail transit and you want to do surface parking, we restrict you to 110% of the minimum parking required in order to encourage structured parking and more active uses at our station areas. We are proposing to change this provision such that we would allow one space per dwelling unit even if it exceeds the 110%. This came from a developer working in the urban center neighborhood context when it was only three stories, so they couldn't quite build the structured parking and they also weren't able to get one space per dwelling unit under that 110%. So we feel that this this minor change still maintains the intent of that standard. Additionally, we are adding senior housing parking reductions to the Main Street Zone districts, and we're extending the 25% reduction for required parking when you're within a quarter mile of transit to the industrial and master plan zone districts. So the map on the screen, if you can see it, there's some IMAX around this station area and they don't have the allowance to for that 25% parking reduction. But the property just to the east, which is in the urban center, does so this just kind of evening, the playing field. We have some minor adjustments to fences, adding some graphics here to help understanding whether you can have a four foot fence or a six foot fence and where. And more importantly, in the master plan zone districts, we are allowing a six foot fence between the primary structure and the primary street when the primary structure is orienting toward open space. So this is a unique condition in our master plan zone districts. This came from builders working in Stapleton, primarily where the open space actually functions as the primary street. And the street, which in the zoning code is called Primary Street, is functioning as a side street. So this kind of just allows us to recognize that unique condition to the signs. We're adding an allowance for projecting signs and this is pretty exciting today. You have to go through the part of adjustment variance process to get these great pedestrian oriented signs. So we're going to add these to the mixed use zone districts, and they'll include all the limitations that you see in the Golden Triangle Zone District today, which which allows projecting signs. And I'll now turn it over to Tina. Hi. Tina Axelrod for community planning and development. Pick up with the next group which deal with allowed uses in the code to this is you'll see these provisions in the use tables and articles three through nine and then in article 11 which has all of our use limitations. Again, just highlighting a few of the changes in the package. One is revisions to the allowance for certain nonresidential uses in residential zones, provided that the use goes into an existing business structure. This has been on the books for a long time. Recently, I think we've seen a bit of a resurgence in people applying for this use, and it's brought out a number of of a need for clarification. For example, we never really defined what a business structure was and wasn't. So this amendment does clarify that. It's a structure that was originally constructed for 100% business use, not mixed business and residential and not churches. And that's how we've been interpreting it and applying it over the years. But to get it into the code just makes it clear at this point for for everyone. We've also added back more clarity to how much you can expand the existing building structure, if at all. And you'll see in the photograph this is pretty typical. Might have a small office building on the corner of what's otherwise a residential zone will allow you to do minor modifications to the building, put in new doors and windows , do things that essentially are nonstructural or increasing. You cannot increase the volume anymore. I mean, the whole point is to accommodate reuse of the existing structure, not allow you to morph into something two times bigger than what you were originally. Another highlighted change that a substantive change is a wholesale package of changes to make it easier to establish small scale breweries, distilleries and what's the other one? Wineries in are manufacture under our manufacturing uses in more places in the city under a set of controls to make them feel like an act like more like other uses allowed in our mixed use commercial zone districts. We will allow these. So for example near residential zones, just like a restaurant or bar or another land use with the potential for impacts on surrounding neighbors, we've added limitations. If you're going to put in a new craft brewery, you're going to operate under the same limits on hours of operation , on outdoor uses, again to mitigate potential impacts. So that's a major change. We had a lot of. Interest from the industry last year and the year before to accommodate the growth that we're now seeing. And this will take us even further. Another new use that's been added to the code is a new type of home occupation. These are home businesses, businesses you can run out of your house under a certain set of limitations. We are clarifying that a new type of permitted use would be food preparation. If you want to run a catering business and use your home kitchen and assuming you can bring it up to other types of codes and safety regulations that are out there, you can do that out of your home and not have to go to a commercial or commissary kitchen to do it. A point of clarification. You cannot sell the food from your from your home under this type of business. The next group has to do with changes to parking requirements. And just this is just focus on the amount of parking required. We had a few changes here. We revised some parking requirements for high schools to better distinguish them from middle schools because as you can intuitively know, there'll be a greater demand for parking spaces for students who are old enough to drive and are high schools rather than our middle schools. We reduced the minimum parking requirement for Artists Studio that use had been combined with a number of more intensive or a number of uses that have more intensive parking requirements. And upon further study, we determined that we we were requiring or over parking artist studios. So that's been reduced. And similarly lodging within a campus district like putting a hotel on the campus of a college or university. We had this scenario occur, had a lot of discussion and reevaluation of what the park bicycle parking demand and how can be accommodated there. So you'll see a reduction in bicycle parking as a result of that study. Group six is all of our zoning procedures. This is Article 12 of the code. And you'll see from the list that the changes have touched a number of different procedures that obviously we use every day. So we had revisions to zoning permit process, administrative adjustments, rezonings, a few fewer GDP's regulating plans, compliant uses and structures across the whole gamut. I'm just going to hit and highlight a few of these. Again, we're here to answer any questions later if you want more detail on the rezoning side, something close to home for all of you. We clarified and and codified the charter authority for any individual council member to initiate a MAP amendment to the code. So if you'll recall, very recently we've had a number of requests for resolutions from the entire Council to initiate a rezoning sponsored by one of one of you. That was a process step that was pretty unique post 2010 because we've kind of inadvertently removed your right just to bring it forward on your own initiative. So we had to go through that resolution process. This will clear a path for any of you to bring forward without having to take that additional step. And you've got the charter given right. We just unintentionally made it harder for you through the zoning code and other rezoning changes. Again, you see a lot of these. So it's it's important for you to realize some of these changes before a zoning rezoning application can even become a rezoning application and move forward. There are some minimum requirements and one of them is a minimum land area. So you have to consolidate enough land for to in order to ask for a certain zone districts in our code to move forward. We've taken a hard look at this and we continue to evaluate our minimum area requirements. But for this package, here are some of the changes that have come out. One thing that we saw over and over was the minimum area requirement is kind of getting in our way of moving land from old code to new code. Our goal overall is to try over time to get us to get all our land into the new code and operate under one code. But we have a lot. Of former Chapter 59 zone lands out there. Some of them are very small and wouldn't necessarily meet our minimum area requirement. We didn't want that to create a false barrier to getting re zoned into the new code just by virtue of the fact that they had waivers or conditions or so. We've eliminated the minimum requirement. They still get evaluated for plan, consistency and all the other criteria that you're familiar with in others. For other rezonings to other zone districts, you can see we've reduced or eliminated the minimum requirements. Again, based on reevaluating what we were trying to do, we're trying to implement our plans. Some of these zone districts operate at a much smaller scale, even an individual property scale still consistent with what their intent is. So where we could we eliminated it. Administrative adjustments are a great tool in our code for folks to seek some variation from strict application of the zoning standards on a case by case basis through a staff review, rather than having to go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. So here with this package, we've added a new area where property owners can ask for an adjustment, and that's on some of our narrower residential lots on this interior setback lines to be able to ask for a or decrease in setbacks no less than three feet. But yes, maybe if they have a five foot or seven and a half foot requirement, some reduction there, again, has to be based on a finding that that reduction would be or would result in a more in a in a setback that's more compatible with what's already in the neighborhood. So that's a great change for homeowners. Then our final group of changes, Group seven were two, Article one, which has our general provisions and of most interest here are zone provisions. We made some changes to the allowance on the creation of flag lots and you can see from the picture what we're talking about is this type of zone lot where you have a narrow flagpole between where really you're putting the main use of the land and your access to a public street. Then we clarified what these really were meant to do. It never had an intent statement, so it was never clear why we allow these in the first place. Generally, they respond to some historic or a subdivision pattern that was created that resulted in especially deep lots that now 20 years later or 30 years later. Don't quite respond to market demand. So we have put some limits on it to assure that true to the intent, we're only capturing or allowing these things where we have those especially deep lots and we do have them. We have them in Southwest Denver, we have them in Central Denver, we have them in Northwest Denver. So with all that, what we're asking you to do today is to take this package of zone amendments, hold them up against the review criteria for text amendments, which I'll briefly go through and hopefully at the end of this evening be able to make a final decision. You must find that the package taken as a whole is consistent with the city's adopted plans and policies. Staff's finding in this case is that this entire package is consistent with the plan, that that these amendments will assure that we remain flexible and responsive of current and future land use needs in the city. The second criteria is that it further the public health, safety and general welfare staff again found bombs and fines. Getting my verbs mixed up that these changes again help to provide clarity and predictability for facilitating planned and desired private businesses, changes in industry and redevelopment. And that through these amendments, we continue to consistently attempt to implement our adopted plans. And finally, the last criteria that the package results from regulations that are uniform, we do find that the regulations will result in uniformity in the treatment of buildings and land uses within the same zoned district and that overall bigger picture. The amendment includes improvements to assure greater consistency in the application of zoning regulations, which of course improves this, improves the city's ability to administer and enforce the code uniformly. With all that, CPD recommends approval. And of course, Michael, Michelle and I are here to answer any more specific questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Tina. We have two speakers this evening and I'll just call them out one after another. Joel Noble. Good evening, counsel. My name is Joel Noble. I'm president of Curtis Park Neighbors and I live at 2705 Stout Street. You have a letter in your packet from Curtis Park neighbors supporting this omnibus text amendment and laying out several the many reasons why we believe you should support it as well. Broadly, this is a package of bug fixes. My computer science person, someone asked me in a local paper, what's what's going on with this? I said, it's it's bug fixes. It's the little things that haven't worked right that they're putting all together rather than dealing with 1 to 1, one on one and passing in Curtis Park. Some of those fixes allow very important things like row houses that are on corners. There's something called the primary street determination, and the short edge of your property might be your primary street. And rather unexpectedly, that's the edge where you're happy, where your doors have to be. Even though for a row house going along the side street is where you'd want all the doors. So that's fixed in this four hour context. The bicycle parking requirements are very appreciated. Right next door to us in on Welton Street are the commercial mixed use districts. There's been some confusion about all the different building forms and do I have to pick one and I have to stay with that forever? Well, the this set of amendments simplifies the building forms pretty dramatically. There's one provision in here that specific to Curtis Park. It was referenced just briefly in the presentation in 2010. We worked really hard to make sure that the zoning that we got allowed accessory dwelling units. And it does. And in 2011, people started trying to build them and said, oh, this isn't working right. Because we have exceptionally narrow lots. And the problem with the the out of the box provisions for accessory dwelling units is they have something called a bulk plain. And if you own exceptionally narrow lot and you have a bulk plane, you can build a garage with a hallway on top of it. So since 2011, we've been saying, you know, could we do this? We have a strong desire for building accessory dwelling units so that people can age in place, so they can move family here to live with them, but not to close with them. And and also to increase the affordability of the neighborhood. Central city neighborhoods throughout the country are becoming more popular and prices are going up. And if we have the ability in a compatible way to have some smaller units, those smaller units will inherently be more affordable and keep the mix that we so treasure in our neighborhood. So after presenting a letter to CPD asking for this and then responding to their requests for a photo essay, demonstrating that this was in fact continuing an existing pattern of what were called carriage houses in the neighborhood. They agreed. And as part of this, that's specific to Curtis Park. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Noble Sekou. Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou. Founder of the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense, an advocacy group for poor, working, poor and homeless people. First of all, we like to commend the city planning department for taking on this task. And at the same time, our concern is that because it's so overreaching, okay. And there's so much stuff in this, if we just get real honest about this. We can have a show of hands that will say, hey, I read this thing and I understand all the implications of this thing and therefore I'm going to vote for it or I'm not going to vote for it. See, that ain't gonna happen because nobody had time to do none of that kind of research. All right. And this thing is so broad. All right. And outreaching that we need to look at the details of this thing before we vote on this thing. All right. Which means that sometimes we got to slow down and do our homework. You know, kind of like what we tell our kids to do. Take your time, do your homework. Get it. Right. All right. Because there are some pieces in this that are missing that a glaring. Because when I looked at this thing, I was like, where is poor people in any of this? Where was the outreach in getting us involved in this process where we could even learn that this even existed? See? And there are some things that need to be strengthened in this thing, especially when it comes to those accessory units. All right. The poor people need. So we have a place that we can go. So when there's an economic downturn and somebody needs to move into a family, then they don't have to go to a whole bunch of this. And then we one bureaucratic mess. So it's okay for them to move a family in and create a permanent structure for them to have without it being. No, Ms.. De none of that in there. All right. None of that in terms of how does this work. All right. So to step up and to vote for this thing without doing the research and getting to the fine details of this thing would be a huge mistake. Huge mistake. And then there's a cost involved. And then all of this involves how do we engage poor people in the city in the process of doing some of the work that was under construction being part of public work? Do this, do that, do that. And we're all now talking about being all of Denver because we're all included. But there was no outreach for poor people in this. There's not one poor organization on this list of community organizations that was contacted to represent poor people. So now we're out there picture like we don't exist. What's up with that? Come on. Real. I know we can do better than that. If you don't use your position that the bully pulpit to advocate for that, to win the mayor and the city departments come in here and do that and ask for the outreach of including everybody in this. Then we're we're missing our duty because we're supposed to represent everybody in the city. All right. Not just some classes or privileged groups, but everybody got everybody involved and engaged in this. Because in order for this thing to work, everybody needs to feel a part of this thing. Your time is up. So I want to thank you very much and thank you. Okay. That concludes our speakers now questions from council. Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Madam President. I have questions, I think, for Tina. Tina, on the slide, one of the slides you put up, it was about eliminating the maximum area for R0. And I'd like to have that put in more context for me. Where are you stuck? Because I presume that we have changed much. Of what? Anything that fell under the new zoning code wouldn't still be called R. Oh. This is a diff. Okay with me. Are you done with your question? I don't want to. Please go ahead. Okay. So in this list, R zero is the zone district that the R stands for residential. The it's actually not R zero. You got me. This is r o. It's actually a letter, not a number. So R0 stands for residential office. It is not the same as R zero under former Chapter 59, which was a single family zoned district. R o and the new code is a residential office, so it's a higher intensity residential zone that also allows office uses. We have that allowance under R for R three and the old code, and this is a continuation of that policy in the new code. So not the twain shall meet. Thank you so much. I was getting confused there. The second question I have, I don't know. Let me ask you. And then Mike might need to chime in. Has concerned the domestic employees not counting toward the maximum number of people in the in the household. And I see that there's a reference to moving a definition in to or from Chapter 59 wasn't into this. I'd like to know what is the definition? And I put it in the context that one of the most frequent complaints we have is too many people in one house. Are we aggravating the situation by this? These are not homes. Ordinarily, that would be considered hiring domestic employees in the usual sense. So Michael's looking up our definition of domestic employee, which was carried from former Chapter 59 back and back into the Denver zoning code. It had been overlooked and it was brought to our attention through a number of zoning reviews in the intervening years. It had been a policy under the former code not to count domestic employees who live full time in your home towards the total number of unrelated persons who come live in your household has nothing to do with with really, you know, what is a household? There are limits, as you know, on the number of unrelated people who can live in a single household. So we realized during this package review and the collection of of changes that we had discontinue the policy, if you will, that had been in place for many years by being silent on it. So therefore, if you had a live in help or caretaker domestic help, it would have counted towards your three or four maximum unrelated. And we didn't want to ding someone from that. The definition, again, pretty much straight from the previous code, is a person or persons living in the household of another, paying no rent for such occupancy and paying no part of any household utilities where such person or persons perform household and or property mount maintenance duties for the general care, comfort and convenience of the household occupants. Today, answer your question at this point or did he need more? A domestic employee does not have to receive compensation. It does not talk about comments. It just talks about that they're not paying rent. It's not like a tenant. So whether they receive compensation in money or or some other means. We don't speak to that. But the point is, they're not on the same level or treated legally as a tenant would be who is expected to pay rent of some sort. Madam President, can I ask Mike then? Mike, can you tell me from an anti-choice standpoint or any of the regulatory reviews, then if a person says there's just too many people in that household and indeed a couple of them are being claimed as domestic employees, but you just really believe that maybe that's not quite the case. How are you going to handle this, or are you. The definition that is now in the Denver zoning code gives us a little more back background to clarify exactly what the status of that person is, whether that person is a tenant or a rooming and boarding person in the house versus somebody who's actually not paying rent and exchange for living is providing household domestic service. So I kind of get that the intent of that definition is to clarify just what that person is doing and to try to give us something to test against the relationship of that person to the rest of the household. Thank you. You're welcome. But is that the last question? Okay. Thanks, Councilwoman for Councilwoman Connie. Thank you, Madam President. My first question was about the house facing open space and the fence on the side. So you mentioned that this idea came from Stapleton, where we kind of have, you know, the main housing type in the city that faces open space, the commons, I think they call it. So let me ask this change only applies to the new zoning code. It's my understanding that portions of Stapleton are still in the old zoning code. So can you clarify for me how much of Stapleton is still in the old zoning code? No, I can't give you that number here tonight. Sorry, I have to get, like, a sense, like significance. Yeah, it's significant. There are significant portions that were not rezone to the new code. However, they're under a completely different set of rules, so they don't currently experience this problem. We inadvertently created this problem when we wrote the new zoning code. Okay, that's helpful. That's what I was trying to go. Second question is about we have a staff summary, which is, oh, it is from you guys. Okay. I was just thinking it might be from our staff, but page 16 and I don't remember this being one you mentioned in the presentation. So it's about trailer courts and trailer parks. So it talks about limiting the continuance of nonconforming trailer courts and it gives some conditions where you then I think the correct words to state is lose you lose your ability to continue non conformance. And so some of these make sense to me, right? Which is if you increase the number of trailers, right, you're adding if you reduce the space between trailers. But the second the second half does not make sense to me. So if you replace an older trailer with a newer HUD who've trailer, which to me sounds like a really good thing to do, we penalize you by losing your status. Same thing if you replace an individual trailer with a newer one that's placed in a permanent foundation, which I would think is probably much safer and much more likely to hold up to weather events and other types of flooding or other things that might put a family at risk. And so explain to me why we would discourage folks from upgrading mobile homes by their park, losing its zoning status. That that's confusing to me. Okay. Let me try to step this out. These provisions only apply to preexisting mobile home parks or trailer parks. We do have those in the city. They became non-conforming in 1956. So there has been an established policy set by councils starting back then with no change in the interim that that is a use that we don't want to see expand or grow more permanent than it already is existing on the ground. If you accept the premise of the policy decision behind the treatment of trailer parks in Denver, and that's we're taking that as a given, then anything you do to a trailer park or the individual trailers and the trailer park to make them more permanent or to upgrade them. So essentially they're they're not replacing a like for like but replacing an old trailer with something that's going to last a long time, goes against the grain of the policy decision that we'd prefer not to see these trailer parks, mobile home parks continue in perpetuity in the city of Denver. So that's why C and. D. Are are limited in terms of you can replace an old trailer with another old trailer or essentially pre HUD trailer and they do exist on the market out there. But we don't we see that a distinctive change in the character and duration of that use. If you replace the old trailer with something that's now certified and manufactured to last a good number of decades beyond today and similar, when you tie them to the ground and create a permanent foundation, you've just added, for better or for worse, more life to that. Use that again. If you take if you start with the premise that this is something we wanted to phase out of the city, that's how we got to these limitations. I don't want to cross over to my friend and comments, but I guess I mean question for you and it's not as tongue in cheek as it sounds because I just want to make sure. So the idea is that will phase out trailer parks by allowing them to crumble around the people living in them. I mean, that's kind of I mean, it's like. We've been interpreting and applying these standards unwritten for decades now, and we've got a long history of that. So we wanted to bring it up. You know, it's a little more transparent with more clarity to the park owners and to others. We had a big case where it came up in the last year where there was a lot of confusion. So that's our hope now just to, you know, bring into the light what we've been practicing as zoning policy and rules for decades now. That's all the questions. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Rob. Thank you, Madam President. I had one question, but I want to follow up on the issue that Councilwoman Kennedy raised, because I think it's valid. It's not a discussion I recall having, but we basically do allow HUD approved manufactured factory homes, and that's not particularly regulated by any zone district. We do allow those in the city in a lot of those. A lot. You can you can put a manufacturer. Still do have to have that that individual lot which can be a constraint to some people. But is a source of affordable housing as a product type. Right. They are good. Products. You have the land or you get the land and it's in a single family. Whatever you can, you can use a factory built home. There's no prohibitions on that from zoning or building in the city. Okay. And I assume existing trailer parks are in various zoned districts throughout the city in the new. I will let Mike respond to that. And I know generally where they I don't want to take. They are, they there's probably somewhere around eight or ten that I can think of. And they're in a variety of districts ranging from residential to business. And I think there's one in an industrial zone. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So, Mike, my question that I had On my Radar tonight is on page two of the staff report on primary building forums. It's right in the very beginning, talks about I'm looking primarily in the districts, the zone districts that I have in my district, the new RH zone. It talks about replacing the upper storey step back with an upper storey setback. And for the life of me, I don't know the difference between those terms. It's where you measure from. So a setback is measured from a property line or a zone lot line and a step back is measured from the building phase. So a step back of 15 feet as measured from where that building starts. Right. You go in 15. A setback would be measured from the zone lot line, which is probably some distance from that block. So basically what you're doing then is removing the upper story step back because I'm assuming the the lower storey, the first floor is at the setback. And if if the upper storey has to be at the setback, you're moving the step back. So what was happening? So the step back works well when you want to create one plane, but when you have a home that modulates down the zone lot as it moves to the back yard, the step back was still forcing this 15 foot break in the wall. So if you measure it from the setback, you still get it when it's close to the property line. But as you opt to move your building away from your property line for architectural reasons, you're no longer going to provide that same. Oh, I see. Yeah. I wish I had an illustration. I apologize. Thank you. Yeah. Councilman Ortega. Thank you. I have several questions. So let me start with the first one as I've gone through this document. I'm trying to clarify whether there are any new categories. We have this cheat sheet that was provided to us some time ago. For those of us who were not involved in the rewrite of the zoning code that is supposed to help guide us. And so I'm trying to figure out whether or not there are any new categories to add to this cheat sheet. No. Okay. Great. That's good to know. So on the setback the and particularly for properties, you know throughout north and where we have a lot of. These houses and carriage lots in the back. So you have properties that sit right on the zone lot. And so I'm trying to understand how either adding on to a house or replacing the home is affected by these. Changes. I know. Some time ago when I was on the council before. If a home that sits on the zone lot burned down, it could be replaced in the same exact place without having to do the set back. But I don't know what the case is. If you just want to expand or as you know, we are seeing lots of scrape offs throughout northwest Denver and trying to figure out if in those cases are able to build right up to the zone lot or if they still have to have the setback. So one of the big differences in the Denver zoning code from former Chapter 59 is that the required set back distance from the side property line decreases as a lot is narrower. So we have a gradient of setback requirements. We also have work carried forward from former Chapter 59, which allows enlargement of a non-conforming structure. When that non conformance is the side setback, that building can be legally expanded when using the non-conforming setback dimension. Okay. And then the protection for non-conforming structures carries through for any residential structure in a residential zone district. If it's accidentally damaged or destroyed, it can be fully replaced to the extent that it was standing. Non conformance can't be expanded over what it already was. So in the same footprint. Yes. Okay. All right. Madam President, I have two more. Do you want me to continue or do you want to call on others and then come back to me? Go ahead. Okay. On the flexible parking issue, help me understand if this only applies to office buildings or is it where it's shared parking ? And you use the example of my old office building actually that was in the picture on 16th Street, across the street from the old Wenger's mortuary, which has lots of businesses in it now. So what I'm trying to understand is if it's another commercial use that's not an office building, how are you all making sure that you're not competing for the same parking? There's actually a review criteria in there or a performance criteria in there that talks about how you can't be using the same pool of parking because that's required parking for someone else. Yeah. So there are I don't I don't have the language in front of me, but there are provisions in there that, that speak directly to that so that we're not creating parking problems with this allowance. Great. Okay. And then my last question has to do it's actually with the GDPR and then the regulating plan. And on page 16, it looks like there are proposed changes and the language isn't clear. That helps me really understand what these changes mean and what they're doing. So I want you to walk through what the changes are to the GDPR and then also the same to the regulating plan. So this is on page 16 of your summary document at the top of the top of the page. Two substantive changes to general development plan provisions are described. The first one, it says it deletes the requirement for a subsequent regulating plan if an approved general development plan does not include designation of primary streets. So we thought we had a bright idea at the beginning of the day that we might want to use the regulating plan in cases where you've got a general development plan. It's unclear in the general or just not specified in the general development plan which of the many streets that might be laid out in that GDP is under zoning terms of primary street because once you know what your primary street zone that line is, a lot of zoning standards attached to that, like setbacks, like bill twos, like transparency and entrance requirements. So we thought at the time that maybe it would be a good idea that if you didn't specify that in a general development plan, that we should require a tool in before site development, that you would you would take to designate on second and third and much discussed. So let me just make sure I heard that clearly. Sure. So you're the leading the requirement for a regulating plan only if a GDP has been approved for that site. One of the few places where we where the code required a regulating plan was this scenario one of several play scenarios under which we would require regulating plan. So we're just deleting this as a mandatory requirement because we did find in practice that it didn't it wasn't necessary. We had other tools that could step in and designate the. Primary streets, most likely a site development plan where you're really we're beginning to lay it all out and that this was adding an unnecessary procedural step and taking time that didn't need to be taken in the development process to do this. The second substantive change was just to clarify a clarification that we do have some instances in the preparation of general development plans where the city steps in as an applicant, often to essentially represent numerous land owners of smaller properties or where it would just be unrealistic to expect them to come to the play to do a general development plan. So for example, the federal Decatur General Development Plan that just has gone through the approval process, the city was an applicant there and represented a lot of the smaller landowners through that process to lay out a master plan for the infrastructure of the open spaces and some of the key connections and parks improvements and drainage improvements. It was unclear and a little bit difficult in the new code to to understand what that meant when it came time to approve the GDP. Could the city kind of in their representative role, just sign the GDP? And that would be if they were the applicant and we didn't need to go the hundred and 50 individual landowners to sign the GDP when in fact the city had stepped in to that role. There's a lot of outreach involved. And under former Chapter 59, we saw and under our rules and regulations that we had never required those 150 people who were never applicants to sign off. But it was unclear in the code. So we just wanted to make it absolutely clear and aboveboard that the GDP's executed by the applicants and not by all the owners in this scenario. So I'm sorry if that's confusing, but in practice, in the short answer is it removed a procedural barrier to a practice of the city. Being an applicant which had been in place since GDPs were adopted, that we inadvertently took away. Okay. Can you speak to the regulating play? Sure. So also on page 16 of your summary, we have a few changes, one substantive change in a few, just usability and clarification changes to the regulating plan procedures in Article 12. One thing which is we have in all our zoning procedures in Article 12, when it comes time to make a final decision, there's typically three choices you have as a decision maker. You can approve it, you can deny it, or you can approve it with conditions attached. Well, that last approved with conditions attached was missing from the choices that the final decision maker on a regulating plan had. So that went against the grain of of giving that option to the decision maker. So we just put that back in for the or put that in for the regulating plan. So just to make sure I understand what you're saying correctly, you're attaching those conditions to the actual free zone. No, this has nothing to do with the rezoning. This is just the process of reviewing and approving a regulating plan, which comes after a rezoning and typically before site development, where it lays out more specifically the range of choices you have to implement. This already approved zoning you have on the ground. But just to be clear, the regulating plans are, as I recall, with one that came forward between the applicant and the community, wasn't in agreement with the city. I don't know what you're referring to, but all regulating plans that we've approved through the process described in the zoning code are between the landowner, developer and the city. It's a binding agreement or a plan between those two parties. So the provisions that are in the regulating plan have the effect of enforcement? Yes, they do. They're regulatory. Okay. So that was just a clear, you know, to give that option to our decision maker. And then the other changes were just clean up, essentially. You can see them listed there. Did you have any specific questions on the floor there? No, I just remember we had one regulating plan that came forward that was part of a rezoning. And that's what I remember. That was it was a condition. Two of the research hall. A regulating plan. Yes, you're right. There was a. Case it was an agreement between the developer and the community, as I recall, that. So the neighborhood didn't like it? No, that was what I. Remember was that it didn't have the effect of of law or enforcement, because in in this particular case, the community had had basically worked these things out that they wanted to see incorporated, but there wasn't any way to ensure that they were enforced. And if the land had been sold, there was no way to ensure that those provisions carried with the land to a new purchaser. So there's a bit of mixing of of of things there. But some of what you're saying, you're absolutely right, some of which you're portraying is a little off from the sequence of events that happened. There was a rezoning, there was a condition. It was a rezoning with a condition. The condition was prepare a regulating plan prior to site development, according to the Denver zoning code. That's all it said. So that was packaged with the rezoning. And so you did see that condition. But what you didn't see were were the final specifics of the of the details of the regulating plan. I think as a courtesy, the applicant at that time brought forward where they were in the process of preparing the regulating plan, which is pretty far along. So you got a taste of what is in a regulating plan. The requirement for the condition arose out of the fact that the zoned district, as it stood, didn't fully implement our adopted plans. And the regulating plan condition was a tool that we had available for our use to assure a better fit between the ultimate rezoning and the and the limits of that zoning district. An implementation of a recently adopted plan. Okay. So I'll. I'll just let everybody keep going. Thank you. And see if I have additional questions. Good choice, Councilwoman Shepard. Thank you, Madam President. So I don't know where it is in this, but can you me to the part about the the spirits and the the small scale manufacturing of spirits, wine and beer. Okay. So in your summary document, which might be the easiest place to see the summary of those changes, it's on page. Okay. Page ten. This was a substantive change described to Article 11, which has ah, which was a part of the group Newsies. So you can see under primary uses industrial manufacturing and wholesale. Number one, that whole list of changes there relates to the effort and the codification of a greater allowance for small scale wineries, breweries and distilleries in the city. We did that through a variety of paths. We created new definitions of essentially what a small scale type of operation would be and the least impactful of that smaller scale. We could fit into a definition of custom manufacturing along the lines in terms of productions of what a brewpub might produce in a year that small but without the food and everything, just the production side, that small scale of a brewery became a could be fit under custom manufacturing. And then we made sure the custom manufacturing was allowed. And so in districts to allow this use where we allow Brewpubs, for example, we looked at we have three levels of manufacturing uses custom, general and heavy . Previous to this proposed amendment, the only way you can get a full blown brewery, winery or distillery was to go into the heavy manufacturing use category, and that's only allowed in a very few parts of our city that are zoned industrial. So by carving out small scale operations, fitting them into the definition of custom manufacturing and general manufacturing, distinguished by the amount of production we could allow the more places in the city. So that's one we did. And then where. We. You know, acknowledge that we now could have a brewery winery distillery that may want to operate in our smallest neighborhood. Commercial are our twos or threes where we have some of that embedded in residential neighborhoods. We added limitations similar to how we treat restaurants, bars, whether it's an outdoor patio or, you know, any type of entertainment. They're subject to the same limitations on ours. Their lighting has to be turned off at a certain hour. And those types of things, if they want to do an outdoor tasting or seating area accessory to a brewery, distillery or winery that's acknowledged as an as an allowed accessory use. But you've got to go through the same process that a restaurant patio or outdoor eating area, you might have to go to the boa if it's really close to a residential use. Otherwise we'll limit you on hours and placement and and other things like that. I'm assuming for the places that have a tasting area that there's no food requirements. Yeah, this is different than an outdoor eating area which we have listed separately. So this will just be an outdoor seating slash tasting area. So, you know, I'm not sure, you know, there's a particular place that's operating in my district that might fall into this category. Now, I'm not sure if it would, but operates more like a bar excuse me, operates more like a bar, but doesn't have food on site. Food trucks come sometimes. There's. Sometimes the food trucks are not located where they should be. And then there's these, you know, conflicts between protected zone districts. The food truck slash food service thing that customers are wanting, you know, and it gets hairy. So I'm just wondering if you can enlighten me on any more so that because typically people like to eat when they're drinking. Yeah. Well. This category of yours that we've sliced out of the heaviest of of production facilities is all about production. And it can have, as an incidental or secondary use, an accessory use. It could have a tasting room inside. It can have tours, it can do all that. It could have a seating area. It could also move those functions outdoors subject to these limitations. We're dealing with what happens on private property with these zoning changes. So food trucks that are allowed through other combination of policies and rules on the street in front of it are not going to be affected by this at all. Okay. That's kind of what I was trying to clarify or, you know, or food. Yeah. If they want to serve food, then really you're we're looking at a combination use of restaurant slash, bar slash manufacturing or a brewpub. If you're brewing beer or, you know, it becomes another use once you start serving food. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to ask a general question now. We were talking about signs. I forget I'm not bringing it up when we were actually talking about it in committee, but we weren't talking about the sign code and looking at those horizontal signs. Do we have to address the mural signs now? Because a lot of those are are actually violations of the zoning code when you do a mural sign. But they worked back when because you can see the evidence of them on our walls and they're actually pretty catchy and they're vintage and other vintage is cool. Again, we may want to reconsider that. And also because I have a district where mural art is also a cultural thing, where the signs are cultural and where they create a sense of vibrancy, a sense of place. And you go to L.A., you look at Latino urbanism in L.A., and that's what it's about. So there's a few different flavors when I hear the term mural, right? So there's pure art where there is no logo, there's no signage that's allowed. Zoning doesn't get involved, right? If you're doing our zoning, it's not a sign, right? As soon as you start to incorporate signage, there are provisions in the code, so it gets treated like a sign at that point. There's one section specifically about art that incorporates a logo and that has its own set of provisions. If you meet that, that's your set of rules. But then if you're purely just a sign that's also artistic, you start to follow all the sign code provisions. As you know, we hope to do an overhaul of the sign code, knowing that there are many parts of it that are broken. This was one sort of minor fix that we did in the you know, until we can do that. But I think that would be part of that package is looking at when it's more artistic or culturally relevant to a neighborhood, what are the rules and regulations for that type of sign? And I think that I mean, that's that if I may add, you know, that is what is missing. And I think that's where we are. We don't get it right and we don't adapt to the culture in our city. And I think when you look at some of these other cities, what makes them that city is that culture. Right. And you look at some of these districts, you know, I would rather see a mural sign, if you will, and some crappy plastic signage just hanging off of a building. I think it's much more tasteful. Right? I don't disagree. Thank you. Thank you, councilman. Councilman Brooks. Thank you. I have two questions. And I don't I don't know who wants to take this one. We have one of the most complicated to two areas, very, very complex. One, I think you're you're kind of getting to the D. S zoning in here. And the other one is a larger conversation about four storey zone districts, which you don't have in the city. But was that ever a part of the conversation at all? And here's why. As we're looking, there is a certain rezoning in the Skyland neighborhood, and it's in a residential area, and I'm sure you guys are aware of it. And the neighbors would support a four storey, you know, zoned district, but they want support of five storey. But in order to get to five. So you got to do, you know, so the so you got to do the five story. And so I just have wondered, has there been a demand for that in the communities and development community at all? It's definitely not the first time we've heard of a desire for fourth story, and we've been having some creative conversations among staff about different ways to achieve that within the construct that we have in the Denver zoning code. So, you know, we'd love to if you want to reach out to our office to talk more about specific cases you have. So there's some innovative ways for us to do that. That's what you're saying? Yeah. Okay. I just want to be on record for saying that. And then the little bit more complicated, the DEA zoning is some pate, I think it was page seven and we went work with Kari Buckey before he left. We miss him. On this issue, the city has zoning between 18th and 22nd on Welton, which is it's very confusing for some of the individuals who are coming and redeveloping there. And I see that you you did some work here, minor kind of interior parking, landscaping issues. But the issue that is still not clear because it's coming from the old eight zoning is whether kind of developers or anyone who is trying to, you know, do any kind of new build has to come before the planning board for a review of their new build. And I went round and round with Kerry on this issue because it's not codified in the new zoning. And so I'm just wondering if if we get that taken care of. Yeah, I think you might be referring to a supplemental set of regulations, the proposed square design standards and guidelines. So we recently and it doesn't come before council because their rules and regulations we added a map to that document that shows these properties are subject to this document and it talks about the planning board process and the various design guidelines. So it's been clarified and well, we should get you a copy so you can take a look at it. And when did you guys clarify this? I think it went to the planning board in December oh, 2013. Yeah, I think it was the city attorney. I think Carrie actually brought it to our attention in relationship to a project that was happening. And the reason I brought it up is because there's, there's two others on districts that are similar to it. And I was just wondering, did we take care of all of them because we're going to come up to this issue again somewhere else in the city. So. Yeah, and we look forward to the, you know, whatever the rewrite or whatever that is for the Arapahoe Square zoning, looking at all the various documents that those property owners are subject to and streamlining and finding ways to make it as clear as possible. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing now and ask for comments by members of council. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank staff for one thing, your staff report for addressing my 1258 pages. Of zoning. Code was very concise. And I also want to say that I. Was able to. Attend the planning board hearing, I think it was early February and and listened to it was maybe their meeting after the hearing. I don't know. But I listened to their. You know, Joe testified it was a hearing. I listened to their discussion of it. And I want to say what a terrific job the planning board did on delving into all the details. Staff is noted that they talk about flag lots, but they also talked about tandem houses. They really picked up on things they were hearing from community outreach, from the board of Realtors. I think they did some of our. Work. In a way. They they really did that. Now, other things have come up tonight. There's always going to be things that we're going to want to delve into further. But they did a terrific job. The other thing I just want to talk about is I think in not every case, but I think in a lot of this you are seeing changes that people on council brought to the attention of planning board, like the projecting signs. You know, that was a little too late for the Argonaut on Coal Fax or the new Office Depot, you know. And they had to spend the time and the money to go through the Board of Adjustment. But I was really glad to see that in their high school definition, I think might be another one and the parking requirements there. So I really appreciate this. The other piece that actually sort of not troubled me because council should have the right to bring forward the rezonings. But I really like the policy when rezoning a larger area of doing the proclamation so that people know that we're doing it and there's just a little bit more notice. I understand that it's not required for an individual property, something that is sort of quick and easy. Totally support that. But when you're looking at a broader group of people who may have different opinions, I still think that's good policy, if not mandated by the court. So I look forward to supporting this and hearing the rest of the discussion tonight. Thank you, Councilwoman Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Madam President. I really appreciate the work that's been. I think there's a lot of things that are being caught in this one. I do want to follow up with as an issue, I mean, as we're starting to see these, I really like it. I really think it really picks up the the spunk and the funk of local communities. I really like it. You go up and down Federal Boulevard, you go down Morrison Road and you see that right? And I rather see that in plastic banners and also because it doubles as a graffiti prevention tool. Right. And their jobs. Right. And it's a way to express themselves. I've seen, you know, we're able to get folks off of the street instead of doing this late at night on some empty fence without permission. Imagine being able to pay somebody to do that. And I know there's a lot of businesses that would rather pay to do that kind of art. Does that have their logo on their wall, on their own wall, rather than have to buy a $10,000 sign and keep it lit? It's not efficient. It's not energy efficient. Right. So I think we can it's a win win win. The second thing I do want to speak about the trailer parks. I really I like the ordinance language that exists because, you know, we have a better standard of living in the year 2014. And some of these trailers are not the kind of trailer parks that you see in other communities where they are double wides, where they are security find it was were well-planned a well-planned site. These are just feet away from each other. And in a lot of cases, they're turning into too many slums because nobody can fix them up. Why? Because they don't make those trailers anymore. They don't make the parts anymore. Some of them are made of asbestos. You can on the side and on the bottom, so you can't even touch them. I've took in so many folks around the trailer parks in our area. This was all initiated because folks who live in the parks are fed up with what they're having to live with and what they're stuck in. And what we have to be able to do is create a high level of standard, a high standard of living for all incomes. Right. I think single family homes, duplexes, apartments, all the other forms that exist in our code that are allowed are a better standard of living. We've had to see Parks shut down because of the units, because of the because they're not safe. Because they're not healthy. Right. Doesn't mean that we go around saying, okay, you got to get out. Got to get out, got to get out. But as we progressed decades from now, those things should be pretty much I mean, they're already outdated, but they should no longer exist. That standard of living should no longer exist really low. It's not safe. And imagine if a fire breaks out. We still have tornadoes in Denver. God forbid something like that hits. There's nowhere to go. There's no basement, there's no bathroom, there's nowhere to go. And we've always heard about this nationwide. You see trailers being thrown around like toy cars. And that's what most of them are. They're still considered vehicles. And some of these cases, they're being sold these homes when they're really being sold a vehicle without a title. And it just creates a situation where an area deteriorates, the standard of living deteriorates, and people's health and safety deteriorates along with it. And so, yes, it's a hard decision. Yeah. Does it make us look kind of bad doing it? Does it? Maybe it's a kind of getting the bad guy saying, Oh, no more trailer parks. Probably. But better than being in a city that still has that kind of living, that standard of living, that's not safe. That's not secure. And watching folks, their health or their lives disappear because of it. I'd rather be the bad guy and say, hey, look, you know what? Trailer parks shouldn't exist anymore in Denver. We have a better standard of living than a person who says, you know what, we're going is going to turn a blind eye on what's happening in these trailer parks. God forbid there's a fire or some kind of disaster and we lose lives because we didn't do anything about it on the front end. So I think there's a better standard of living in Denver. We have to keep that. We can't let that undermine. And also because we can't let trailers be the cop out for real affordable housing in Denver. That's all. That's all I got to say about that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Leavitt. Thank you, Madam President. I won't belabor this. I'll just take a moment. I just want to thank the folks at CPD for the fantastic amount of work that went into putting this together, as well as previous text amendments and previous text amendments and previous text amendments and previous text amendments. When we passed the new zoning code in 2010, it was a gigantic document. We all paid an enormous amount of attention to it, focused on it, worked and worked it over for months and months and really years and years. And since then, CPD has kept faith with the knowledge that what we passed was the right thing to do, but we probably didn't get it exactly right. And so rather than simply sort of live with the document we produced CPD without all the fanfare of the, you know, passing a new zoning code has kept at it their nose to the grindstone, getting it writer and writer and writer every time. So that's not glamorous work, but it is a work worth acknowledging, at least, you know, when you guys come here and just want to know that I thank you for it. I also want to thank people in the community who have continued to focus on this and spend. I mean, the good folks at CPD, they're to be applauded, but they are paid for the work. People like Joel Noble aren't paid a penny. And we really appreciate the kind of work that he and others put into helping us get it right. So here's to getting it right, even though it's a long and sometimes tedious and boring process, but it's worth doing so. Thank you, Madam President. Here, here. Councilman. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you very. Much, Madam President. Just a couple call outs. I'm very supportive of the parking reduction for senior housing. I think it's very common sense. I think, you know, some seniors are very active and still able to drive, but many choose to give up their their cars when they get to the point of transportation. That's public and access on the the trailer park issue. I just want to since I raised it, I think it's important to bring it to closure. So I recognize that what you've proposed is implementing a policy that, you know, it was passed by council many, many, many, many years ago. And I don't disagree totally with that policy. I certainly, you know, think that there are places in the state of Colorado where trailer parks are an affordable place for people to live in, you know, decent homes that are well-maintained and newer. And I've been to those places, you know, not far from our borders, and I've been to them in other cities in Colorado. And so I'm not one who believes that by definition that form of housing is substandard. I also recognize what Councilman Lopez has pointed out, which is that in Denver, you know, we do mostly have substandard , you know, parks. And I don't think that we should be apologetic and I think we should be aggressive in enforcing health and safety in those locations. I don't think preventing folks from putting new housing or a new new a new trailer in is necessarily the best way to aggressively protect health and safety. Right. I would rather see I would rather us take a different approach. I would rather us say we have a major priority on, you know, the health and safety of folks in these living situations. And our job is to go in and aggressively close down any that are any units, you know, or any parks that are substandard . It's to aggressively help to rehouse people in the affordable housing we're building and to plan for those sites future in terms and work to negotiate. Right. We can buy out you know. Owners if they do so willingly. We have an urban renewal authority, and that's what urban renewal authorities in many cities do, is they go after these really tough places and they work to, you know, purchase the land. So I think all of those would be better ways to go about this than preventing the inclusion of of new units. I recognize, though, that, you know, we're pretty late in the game here. And this is one piece of a very, very large package. So it's not a large enough piece for me to vote against it. But I really do think that that there are better and more more direct and more humane ways to go about it, because certainly at this point, if this has been our policy for years, it's clear to say that the deterioration is in part a result of our policy of not letting people upgrade. I mean, if you refuse to let people upgrade, you will get downgraded. And so. So I totally am not there on this piece, but it is one piece of a very, very large omnibus package. So I will support it. And then I will also commit to learning more about how we can address this more head on than than with this kind of approach. So thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. Councilman Keach, thank you for bringing up that issue. I think it's an important one that we need to continue to have conversation about. We know that they've been grandfathered, but that doesn't mean that they haven't continued to exist since they were grandfathered. And what I have seen with those that I'm aware of is that most of them have been allowed to continue to deteriorate. So we do not want to create that environment that perpetuates that, you know, denigration of those communities because in most cases are very low income and we should be having provisions that address the ability to replace that housing. Either that or we should say if if we don't want them in the city, we should relocate and rebuild or do something else on those sites and be serious once and for all about whether or not we support them, their existence. And if we do, then we should allow a little bit greater flexibility that ensures that people are living in in a more safe and habitable environment. I want to thank staff for answering the many questions that my office had throughout this process. I appreciate the efforts on some of the provisions related to the regulating plan and the GDP that you all have worked to try to address to make it a little bit more clear and easy. There is one area that we did not talk about that I would like to begin a conversation about, and that's about the issue of micro-housing. And I know that it is a way of ensuring that we do have affordable housing. It's not going to be for everybody, but it just gives us one more potential tool we have to talk about, you know, where are the ideal locations? You know, are they on business corridors? Where where would be the most ideal locations for them? But I think it's it's the kind of housing that's starting to creep up all across the country. It is very affordable in those cities. In most cases, they don't have parking there next to transit or rail. And so I think this is something that we should begin to talk about. And I would love to get together with your folks and some people who are doing this in major cities across the country. So with that, I will be supporting these changes tonight as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. I would just like to add I would like to ditto what Councilman Levitt said about all the hard work of the planning departments and zoning and everything. It's a major accomplishment. I'd also like to add my thanks to the Land Use Committee because I know how hard they worked on it and to their chair , Councilwoman Robb, who we can always depend upon to ask the questions we can't even think about. So thank you very much, Councilwoman Robb. And to her Vice-Chair Councilman. Councilwoman Monteiro. Good. Good job. Good work. Okay. I think that we are ready for the roll call. Excuse me, I brown. But I Herndon. I can each layman i as Lopez, Ontario. However, I Ortega. I Rob Shepherd. I am president. I close the voting, announce the results. Surveys are only. 12 eyes fill one or two does go past. Because. Congratulations. You get in 2011. Yeah. I've been getting a little punchy. On Monday, April 21st, Council will hold required public hearings on the three zoning map amendment bills ordered published this evening. These are proposing changes at 2157 Downing Street, 32, 26 West 19th Avenue, and 1205 through 1275 Osage Street. Any protests against these bills must be filed with the council offices no later than noon on Monday, April 14th, 2014. Seeing no other business for this body, this meeting is adjourned. I doubt it. Denver eight TV. Your city. Your source. Denver. Eight on TV and online. Stay connected to your community. You.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing, and adopt resolution continuing the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area assessment for the period of October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016; and authorize City Manager to extend the agreement with the Belmont Shore Business Association for a one-year term. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_09222015_15-0960

Item two. Report from City Manager Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the hearing and adopt resolution can continue in the Belmont Home Parking and Business Improvement Area Assessment for the period of October 15 through September 16th, and authorize the city manager to extend the agreement with the Belmont Shore Business Association District three. Staff Report. Vice Mayor Lowenthal Members. Of the City Council. The staff report will be provided by Mike Conway, Economic and Property Development Director. Thank you very much. This item is the annual approval of the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area Annual Report and Ongoing Assessment. On August 11, 2015, City Council approved a resolution granting approval of the annual report and set today's date for the public hearing. The recommended action on this item continues the assessment for another year. There are no proposed changes to the basis of assessment nor significant changes in the proposed activities. Therefore, staff requests that City Council receive the supporting documentation into the record, approve the resolution, continue the levy of the assessment, and authorize the city manager to extend the agreement for one additional year. This concludes my report. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. Thank you. Vice Mayor. I have moved to approve this recommendation. Belmont Shore is a stellar example in the city of Long Beach of what a successful business improvement district can do to energize a business corridor. Recently, Second Street has attracted notable restaurants such as St and Second Nicks on Second and Simmons's. Additionally, we have had a great balance of local retail as well as nationally recognized chains. The Belmont Shore Business Association hosts many family friendly events like Stroll and Savor the Chocolate Festival, the car show, which we recently had, and of course, the annual Belmont Shore Christmas parade. I want to recognize Deedee Rossi, the executive director of the Belmont Shore Business Association, and President Mike Sheldrake with Polly's Gourmet Coffee for their dedication to this business district. I also want to acknowledge the diligent efforts of our city staffer Jim Fisk for his hard work in supporting this organization. Their collective hard work and that. Of the SBA board clearly drives the success. Of the Belmont Shore Business District, and we thank them very much. I'm happy to approve this recommendation or move it forward. Thank you. Councilwoman Price, is there any member of the public that wished to comment on hearing item two seeing none. Members Cast your vote. Councilwoman Mongo. Councilmember Richardson. Motion carries 9080. Thank you. That is all we have for hearings. Next is our consent calendar items four through 11 and item 16. And is there any member of the public that wishes to address the Council on consent? Motioned by Councilman Austin and Councilmember Richardson.

A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and HNTB Corporation concerning on-call geospatial support services at Denver International Airport. Approves a contract with HNTB Corporation for $700,000 and for three years, with two one-year options to extend, for on-call geospatial support services including airport geospatial surveying, data management, data analyses, modeling, surveying and scanning, civil engineering and cost estimation at Denver International Airport (202054609). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-29-21. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-26-21.

DenverCityCouncil_11082021_21-1244

Council member Sawyer has called out Bill 20 1-1192 for a vote. Under pending, no items have been called out. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screens? Thank you. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put council resolutions? One, two, four, four and one, two, four or five on the floor for adoption? Yes. Council President and I move the council resolutions 21, dash 1244 and 21, Dash 1245, be adopted in black. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council on Council Resolutions. One, two, four, four and one, two, four, five. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. These are airport on call contracts. You know, we see these almost every week come through from one agency or another. So, as you know, I disagree with the use of these without proper reporting to us. So going to vote no and don't need to take anybody else's time up. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolutions 21, dash one, two, four, four and 21. DASH one, two, four, five, please. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. No. Torres, I black. I see tobacco. I cry. I swim. I. Herndon. Himes. All right. Cashman. I can each i. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One May 12 eyes. One day 12 eyes. Council Resolution 20 1-1, two, four, four and 20 1-1, two, four, five have been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens? Councilmember Cashman, would you please put Council Bill 1192 on the floor for final passage?

Consider Authorizing the City Council to Direct Staff to Submit a Complaint to the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding November 8, 2016 Election Mailers. (Mayor Spencer)

AlamedaCC_12062016_2016-3632

Consider authorizing the City Council to direct staff to submit a complaint to the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding November eight, 2016 election mailers. We do have speakers on this item. All right. And I had this is a referral I brought. And unfortunately, there were two election mailers that were sent out during this last campaign season that did not include any identifiable information as required by the state of California. And I contacted the FEC in regards to making a complaint, and I was informed that there are the mayors have made complaints in the past that council members have made complaints in the past. And and given our form of leadership here, it's I can't make a complaint as mayor without council voting to prove that. And the complaint is simply and it's actually very simple on their website. It's a dropdown menu and identifiable mailers. You send them copies of it and then they look into it. So it doesn't require any staff time in regards to doing any independent investigation at all. But I, I would like to be able to submit the complaint as mayor. And I think it's actually very important because many of you may or may not know there are many rules regarding finances in any campaign that require us to report all donations, $100 or greater, and all expenditures and in a timely manner. And unfortunately, when mailers are sent out with with stamps is what happened here and not identifying who is sending them out, that circumvents all of the purpose behind having these campaign requirements of how to run a campaign. So that's why I brought this referral. And also I know in the past and I've attended some of the meetings that the League of Women Voters has put on in regards to campaign finance in our city. Other cities have adopted some measures for that. And unfortunately, if we have people that are sending out mailers with only stamps, nothing identifying them, then there's really no . It. Would circumvent any effort on our behalf to do any campaign finance reform. So I think it's very important that we as a council send that message that we do expect everyone to comply with the California state law and report expenditures that occurred during a campaign. That's why I brought this. And, um, we do have speakers, so I will call on our speakers. Brock, Dale Lott, Elliot and then Jim Sweeney. As we've seen in the recent election, the American public is losing confidence in their elected officials. In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission, ruling that freedom of speech prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court in that case have been extended for profit corporations, labor unions and associations. This ruling has had an extremely detrimental impact on participatory democracy in the United States. A recent study by Princeton and Northwestern University's has concluded that the U.S. is dominated by a rich and powerful elite. To quote from the study, multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass based interest groups have little or no independent influence. A recent survey by Bloomberg shows that 78% of the American public believes that Citizens United should be overturned. Our own island community has recently suffered a similar fate of unscrupulous campaign spending by a group fascist, facetiously named Alameda in the United. The funding for this PAC comes predominantly from off island unions and developers. During the past election, Elements United sent out a massive number of mailers which were filled with false and misleading statements about Councilman Tony De Saag and in support of Melia, Vela and Marilyn Ashcraft, who I am sorry, is not here tonight. In just a few days prior to the election, the worst of these mailers was sent out with the heading pay to play with a picture of our councilman, Tony de Saag. There was no required attribution as to who produced this mailer, and it was sent using a first class stamp to hide its source. This is clearly a violation of California law. I have filed a formal complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission. I would urge the city council and all concerned Alameda to do the same. Then the irony of this dirty trick is that Tony de Saag is the sole candidate who refused to take contributions from special PACs, and thus he lost his reelection to two candidates promoted by these slick fliers. As a resident and a voter in Alameda, I would like to know whether council members Vela and Ashcraft will publicly denounce such dirty politics. More important, will they recuse themselves from future council votes in matters which directly benefit those who perpetrated this distasteful and harmful tactic? As a body. The Alameda City Council should likewise sanction those found guilty of this lawless activity. In closing, I would like to thank Councilman Dave Sorg for his service to our city. His integrity and truthfulness will be a severe loss to our city government. Thank you. Thank you, Jim Sweeney. That's me. And I'm happy to finally get to address you tonight. I think that the previous speaker. Did a wonderful job of state, putting us in tune with the state of the election process. I think that and I. I think that it's up to us. And our at our level to do our own thing. To take care of this critical thing. We have an avenue of redress. And I think that it's critical that we take this necessary step to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. There's a fair election required by law. And that time is of the essence in order to ensure that timely examination imposition of penalties for any transgressions are implemented. And I think and I think that you as a body, not staff and with all due respect for staff. I think that you should do this complaint as a body. And speak for on behalf of all our citizens. And Tony was mentioned very well by the previous speaker. I just like to mention that Jennifer Rohloff. Was also a victim of this type of of. Action. So. This is a critical thing. It's it's not unimportant. They're chipping away at our freedoms. And we can't let them do that. It's money. But we can fight money and we've got to keep fighting money. So I humbly request that you do the complaint. Thank you. Thank you. Patricia Gannon. Good evening, Mr. Spencer, your council and staff. I'm Patricia Gannon. And first of all, I would like to thank Bear Spencer for putting this item on the agenda and giving us the opportunity to speak to it. I and I would hope that Council would follow her lead and support her and unanimously vote to file an official complaint with the federal SPCA and take some action. This kind of behavior has no place in our election process, and we in the media need to make a strong stand to. Put it to an end. Thank you very much. Thank you, Susan Sperry. I'm here, frankly, because. Frank sent me. An email or through Facebook or whatever about the agenda. And I was I have been terribly upset with the election. I know agency about what? Who said what? And I got the fliers and I was just furious. And so I expressed my anger to Frank and I talked to Jim and Tony. And I just think that it was not only an insult to Tony, it was an insult to all of us. And I was very glad that you let me know about what was going to go on. And that's why I'm here. And I would support any action that would investigate and complain or whatever. And about the individuals who sponsored those terrible fliers and who were those individuals that were funded with the money that I feel? Was terrible. Anyway. Thank you, Noel Folsom. And he's our last speaker on this item. If you want to speak on this item, please submit your slip. I'm here to commend the mayor for bringing this item up, and I hope you'll take a positive action. I'm 84 years old, and I think Tony Danza made a good decision when he when he voted against that senior housing. I would not want to live under the landing path of aircraft at the Oakland airport. I think that was excellent and well explained. And the people that sent those fliers out, I don't think Marilyn wanted to face the music tonight. But she should be chastised in the new councilman elect Villa. I don't know what. What rock she crawled out from under. But. But her. Her flier was scurrilous. It was absolutely filled with lies, and it was villainous. So I'm hoping that she does hard time. I've never seen her at any council meeting. I've never seen her serve on any board or commission of the city. So I don't know what she thinks she's going to achieve on the council. But I don't think it's very much and I tell you this, I will work very hard to see that she serves only one term . But thank you again, Bear Spencer, for bringing this up. You're welcome. Thank you all for speaking this evening. Comments from council members. Remember De. Well, thank you. Thank you very much for the residents who took the time to come out and share their thoughts on this item. I do want to thank Mayor Spencer for bringing this matter forward, because I do think it is important for the city council to air this out on behalf of the residents, not because, you know , my name or my face was on these fliers, but as Steve Crystal, a West End friend of mine, said, that in this past election, what you saw was a certain level of odious news, the likes of which we had never seen. For many years. I think maybe the last time anything like this came close would probably be in 1982. But I don't even think 1982 in that mayor's race. I think it was Amy Stone and and Rich Garrett. I don't even think that level that that 1982 mayor's race, you know, had this level of negativity. And so I do think that it's important for the city council to make a statement that says that, you know, that kind of politics might be fine for the bigger cities like LA of the world or the San Francisco's of the world. But here in the city of Alameda, amidst a city of 75,000, you know, we we have certain values when it comes to civic engagement and that we're going to affirmatively support those values. And that's why I think it's important to join Mayor Spencer in sending us a statement to say to complain about this level of negative mailers that came out, particularly about the ones that didn't follow the noticing, require rules. Member, Odie. Thank you, madam. I just have a question. The city attorney. So. I'm not sure what we're being asked to do here. Well, if I can try to explain just a little bit. First of all, the city and the city attorney's office does not have any jurisdiction on this issue. This is the Fair Political Practices Commission, which is the state body that administers the Political Reform Act and administers election issues like this one. And I think as one of the speakers, Mr. Gallup said, he has filed a complaint with the FPC. Others have, too. And in fact, in the package of materials that he provided, the Fair Political Practices Commission has notified him as of November 30th that they are going to be investigating. So the way the FEC works is you can go to their Web site, anyone can, to make a complaint about what they believe could be an improper election activity. The FEC has two different kinds of ways you can play. One is anonymous and one is a sworn complaint. If you do a sworn complaint, which apparently Mr. Dunlap did, then the FEC lets you know within 14 days whether or not they're going to investigate and then they investigate. I actually contacted the NPC myself when this referral was put on the agenda and they advised that they had received complaints and they had received sworn complaints. So as far as what this body may be doing, I mean, it would be just kind of adding your voice, I guess, to a complaint that's already being investigated by the FEC. And they will investigate what the procedures are and we will or won't hear what the result of that was. They have ability, if they find there were violations, to assess fines to if something is really egregious, to go to the district attorney and ask them to consider doing some criminal actions, ending on what it's all about . But really, the city doesn't have any authority to do anything. We don't have any local election. Policies, if you will, that some cities have adopted that, you know, we might be able to take action, but in this case, we have none. And so it's properly before the NPC. So, I mean, we could do nothing today and it's still going to be investigated and there's still going to be a resolution and a response and an investigation and all those other things you said. So then logistically or how is this going to happen if we approved it? I mean, is someone going to go log into the site and say, I mean, how's that going to happen? I mean, is is are you going to do that? Well, it's whatever council would decide tonight, if they want us to take some action and if they want the mayor to just do it, if they want the attorney to do it, if they want the council. To hold it there. Anyone any one of us could do it now, right? I mean. So I guess I'm a little curious on why. So I tried to explain that and I'm happy to. I'm trying. Can I finish my. And it's my referral. Thus I'd appreciate it, but I do. Want to make my comment. Okay. So I want to make my comment. So. So. I guess listening to the city attorney, you know, I understand there's a lot of anger over the election. You know, I'm still not over the presidential election. Probably never will be, but. You know, if I think maybe a more constructive use of our time would be to do some type of resolution that condemns this type of negative campaigning, because, you know, this is not the first time we've seen this, you know, council member matter. You know, I thought it was bad when it happened to you two years ago. And, you know, I was a campaign manager in 2010. And, you know, with all due respect to my my colleagues comments, I think that was probably one of the ugliest elections I ever I ever saw. And you were the victim of a lot of that negative campaigning. So you being. Vice Mayor matter SC when you were running for mayor and you know, that was. 5060. I don't remember the amount $70,000 poured in by sun cow. You know, there was stuff said about Malia Vela on the Internet, you know, that people were going after her job and you know how long she lived here. There were people attacking Maryland, Ashcroft's family on the Internet. There are people attacking my children on the Internet. So there was negative campaigning. There was charter money that came in from out of the city to attack Measure B one and do negative mailers on B one. I mean, that's something I want to condemn. There was money that came in from Virginia and from Internet companies to attack Measure K one. And then here we have this, which I condemn just as strongly. So I think, you know, it sounds to me like we want to just pick the messages and pick the people that were targeted and complain about those without, you know, looking at the big picture. There was a lot of negative campaigning that went on in this election. It was really unfortunate, and I'd like to see us do more as far as making a statement against that instead of picking out just one thing. And it's happened before, you know, Frank's been the victim of it twice. So, I mean, I think this is kind of, you know, it's kind of. And I want to say silly, but it's really not going to matter what we do. So it's going to be there's going to be investigation. And if people have done things wrong, we'll find out about it and justice will prevail. So it just seems a little bit odd that we're just picking one aspect of negative campaigning to go after when there's there's so much other stuff out there. So I'd like to speak to that because this is actually I've brought this from a specific requirement under the. They require that mailers be identified. It's not just negative campaigning. In fact, that is not the issue. So I want to make sure that that's clear. This is a violation of the PPC. And I know that because you're the eff PPC. Sorry, I. It. I would appreciate if. You could just. Finish my comments. Thank you. I would appreciate if you allow me to finish my comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Became the FPP. Sorry, this is my referral and I'd like the opportunity to explain it. I think that that is appropriate. Allowing actions when you're done. So we have other council members that will be I will be calling on first. So let me finish my comments. I am bringing this specifically and it's unfortunate that the title didn't specifically say this. It's consider authorizing the City Council to direct staff to submit a complaint to the FEC regarding November eight, 26 unidentifiable election mailers. And it is the and an identifiable part that rises to something that you can make a complaint to the PPC and that specifically circumvents all of the rules regarding campaign finance, keeping track of all the donations, who's sending out what, what the costs are. This is not a content based. This is actually because they use stamps and they didn't identify themselves. And all of us that are candidates, we file regular reports in compliance with the FEC monies we raise and how we spend them. And to me, it is very important. I appreciate the speakers and actually all the emails we received on this issue that do understand we are speaking specifically about a violation of this unidentifiable mailer. And that's why I think it's important that we speak. And I would prefer unanimously that we send a very clear message that we do require in our town that all mailers satisfy the FEC. And I cannot send that. I can do an individual report, which is. But we have members of our community doing. However, I am mayor and I think it's important that council and that I as mayor speak in this capacity that that we make a strong statement that the Council does not support an identifiable election. Mailers, which is why I brought this vice mayor. And I think this. We refer to is about negative campaigning and illegal campaign in our apparent what appears to be illegal campaign on. Material being mailed out. Having been on the receiving end of it. I know it's no fun and. I like the idea of the council taking a stand on negative campaigning and should you know, I think we have to speak out on it. I think we've all spoken out at some point individually on it, including and I just don't know how or what we can do about the the personalization of comments on the Internet, which in this campaign I think of were were pretty bad and they were bad in 2014 and they were worse in 2007. And so we have a building trend here. I do think it's important for the city council, not the mayor, not council member, Frank matter or any individual to to tell the state that we have a problem here, because if we don't do anything, shame on us. So I'm in agreement with filing a complaint and doing the follow up. So the it we don't just throw it out there and then go on our way and wait till 2018 because having whatever the fact is, whoever the candidate here really kind of doesn't matter. It's that somebody went around the law. Is the way this appears to me, and I think the rest of the standard is on us, as council member already said, is to talk about, oh, what is it that we what kind of conversation, what kind of resolution can we say when we talk about campaign reform is what do we say to help? I'm not going to say enforce civility, but remind people that we need to be civil and we remind people that we stop. You know, put this little heart logo. Here is. Stop. Personal characterization. Stick to issue. So I would support filing the city council, not the mayor, but the city council filing a complaint. I don't know how how that can be executed, but I would support voting for that and. Following up on it. And we can assign, if we don't want to take staff time, assign a council member to follow up with the SPC to say where is the complaint, what is your investigation, say and and have it a report out at some point. So I think this is we have to start chipping away at what has become an ugly environment or people who volunteer to do this. People who. Enjoy the fact that they can talk to their members of counselor, the members of the school board. And if things start getting so personal, it's it's going to change the dynamic in in in the way that Alameda acts as a city and in a very bad way. So I think we have to make a stand here. Thank you. Before 1030, I need to have a motion to consider the remaining items. Nine B force referral, nine C Campaign finance reform. And that requires four votes. We have no speakers on either of those. Is there a motion to hear those? I move. Okay. All those in favor. I know. Motion fails. All right, so then we'll just finish up this item. Any other speakers will remember, Audie? Just one quick comment. I mean, I know you sound very firm in your determination that it was against the law, but. I mean, if you look at the political advertising, disclaimers, mass mailings, it has to be more than 200. So I guess we'll find out if there were more than 200 sent. So, I mean, I'm not FBC, I don't know. I guess we'll find out. I'm going to abstain on this. I think it's kind of a waste of our time, but I'm not going to vote no on it because I believe we do have to send some message against negative campaigning. I'll move that the city council of a complaint and follows up to see what the results of the investigation are. I'll second that. All those in favor. I. Epstein or. Abstain. The motion carries 3 to 1. One abstention. Thank you. And the other? Yes. Would you like to approach the mike and you Oti? Wouldn't you want to know who. Broke the law? I'm sorry. Not out. I'm sorry. Actually, it's okay. Well, look. We're gonna find out. So you. But wouldn't the council want to know? So wouldn't this affect the way. He has been? I'm sorry. He has already weighed in. That's his vote. And I need to continue. I'm sorry. We can. You can follow up with him separately on your own. I appreciate that. Next, any council member communications on any matter, not on the agenda. All right. And we will be a moment of silence. We're going to adjourn. We're going to adjourn in memory of the victims of the fire warehouse in Oakland. So if we could have a moment of silence. And and Arnie Fong. Thank you. A moment of silence, please. Thank you very much, everyone, and good evening. Meeting adjourned.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the Economic and Property Development Department (EP) by $45,000, offset by the Sixth Council District one-time infrastructure funds transferred from the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW) to support economic development efforts by supporting the establishment of a Property Business Improvement District for the Pacific Avenue business corridor.

LongBeachCC_06062017_17-0440

Motion carries. Okay. Thank you, madam. Item 17 Communication from Councilman Andrews. A recommendation to increase appropriations in the General Fund and the Economic and Property Development Department by 45,000, offset by the Six Council District one time infrastructure funds to support the establishment of a bid for the Pacific Avenue Business Corridor. Thank you. First of all, I want to start by thanking my fellow council members for putting this business improvement effort in prior years. I've seen incredible improvement along the A9 with the Midtown bid. And I would like to see the same along the Pacific Avenue. My staff is my staff has prepared a brief presentation regarding this item. Will you be. Honorable mayor and members of the City Council? The item before you is a request on behalf of Councilmember Andrews to transfer funds from the Capital Projects Fund and the Public Works Department to the General Fund and the Economic and Property Development Department. The purpose for this allocation is to aid in establishing a property business improvement district for the Pacific Avenue Business Corridor. A brief account of the six districts efforts to establish improvement districts goes back several years. Funds were initially set aside to assist in the formation of Business Improvement District along council districts six major corridors. Beginning on Anaheim Street, the Midtown bid was widely favored by business owners and unanimously passed by city council in 2015. The midtown bid has been active for a year now and is a great success. Our goal is to replicate this approach and accomplish the same along the Pacific Avenue corridor. Pacific Avenue is an integral hub in the Six Council district that houses many small businesses and connects South Wrigley to the rest of Long Beach. Pacific Avenue has great potential to thrive and be a bustling source of small business activity. But the area is plagued with challenges of crime, blight and deteriorated infrastructure. Among the communities, stakeholders and patients have shared dialog regarding the formation of a property business improvement district and an effort to improve the conditions of the area. Upon recognizing the need for such an initiative along Pacific Avenue. We want to make this permit a priority. Establishing a business improvement district. Some low income communities are, in fact, recommended by the city's economic development blueprint. Moreover, the results of a 2009 assessment of Los Angeles bids indicate that the implementation of business improvement districts can reduce the occurrence of violent crime in its surrounding neighborhoods. Tonight, Council District six is requesting Council support and increasing appropriations in the General Fund in the Economic and Property Development Department to aid in the establishment of a bid along the Pacific Avenue corridor. That concludes my staff report. We will be happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you. And I am asking my colleagues to please not move aside. No questions. Okay. Councilwoman Gonzalez? Oh, yeah. I just want to say congrats to Councilmember Andrews. I think this is wonderful that you're revitalizing the corridors and you're doing such great work here. So keep it up and any support we can offer. Absolutely. Thank you. And I'll just chime in and say, you know, good luck with this. They really make a big difference when redevelopment ended. You know, we formed one in North Long Beach, still figuring it all out, but we're leaps and bounds ahead of where we were. So good luck with that. You have my support. So is there any public comment on this item saying please cast your vote? Motion passes.

Adoption of Resolution Adding Additional 2015 Regular City Council Meeting Dates. (City Clerk 2210)

AlamedaCC_05052015_2015-1627

Adoption of resolution, adding additional 2015 regular city council meeting dates and council. This item is before you tonight because we on staff have been trying to spread out the big beefy items among various agendas, but there have just been a lot of them. And one of the things that's prohibited on a special meeting is introduction of an ordinance. So an item such as Site A that might involve an ordinance couldn't go on a special meeting night because we would have to have it on a regular night to introduce the ordinance. So what we were looking at is potentially adding an additional meeting the second Wednesday of the month. So you'd have the first and third Tuesday and then the second Wednesday for your regular meetings. This would be done through the end of the year with still going dark in August and basically staff is really just trying to get through the big items that you're facing, like the city manager recruitment site a the budget. And we know we've had a lot of extra special meetings lately, but this would just be once a month and it could be canceled if in fact there aren't sufficient items and that we we could keep it down to the two regular meetings a month. So really, this is open for discussion and we really just we're trying to get out of here earlier is the main goal. So with that, I don't know if Liz wants to add anything or no. I think Laura pretty much has covered it. We we recognize that we've been going late. There's a possibility of going late. And we wanted to give you the option of adding more meetings so you didn't have to do that and sort of adding meetings on the fly. So this is just a recommendation. And we'd you know, we're open to the discussion. New member. ASHCROFT Thank. You. So when I first read this, I kind of cringed at the thought of adding more meetings because you have no idea. We read hundreds of pages of material, it seems like every every month, every couple of times, a few times a month. And I know it's hard on staff and it's hard for members of the public to come out for extra meetings. But I've talked to some staff members, including our amazing city clerk, Laura Weisinger, and I'm convinced that at least in the near term, we need to do this because as both our interim city manager and city clerk noted, we do have some some meaty big ticket items coming before us. And we don't have to go all the way to December with these Wednesday meetings, if it looks like, you know, we came out in July and we just are you know, it's smooth sailing. We don't have heavy agendas. We can always vote to go back to our two Tuesdays a month. But I think for now it makes sense. So I, for one, am going to support this resolution. Thank you. Any other member comments? Ben Brody. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm actually not going to support this. I cringed when I saw it and still cringing thinking about it. We had four meetings in April, as well as a closed session that lasted, I think, 3 hours. And then we have four meetings scheduled in May. And I realize that, you know, we're all new working together and we're working out some of the kinks. But, you know, the message I, I take from this from staff is, you know, we could be as a council and I say we, including myself, you know, more efficient in the things that we do, more efficient in our comments. You know, we talked about road diets. Maybe we should go on a speech diet during some of our comments because, you know, a lot of the things add up. And now the mayor, you know, is giving the courtesy to the public to go over 3 minutes. And, you know, I hope that the public, you know, respects that courtesy and still stays within the 3 minutes, because if you if you have 30 people talk and they each go over a minute, that's one minute. You know, if we have five I mean, that's 30 minutes more to a meeting. If you have five agenda items and, you know, we all talk an extra 2 minutes on those those five agenda items, that's another 50 minutes, I think. So, you know, Oakland, which has a lot bigger problems and a lot longer agendas, has four minute caps on on what the council members can say. And, you know, some of us are our attorneys and we're trained to, you know, argue our motions in a short period of time. And, you know, I think the message I receive is let's try to be a little more efficient and let's try to be more respectful of the chair and her ability to and let her run the meetings. And I think we can we can maybe revisit this in three months if we're still having having these issues. Yeah. The member comments. Member de SAC. Thank you. From my vantage point, there are several questions. The first question that I asked was, you know, what can we do to make sure that the public is well-served? And I think the public is well-served when our staff is fresh and on their toes from meeting to meeting. So from that vein, I am open to the what's put tonight. So I'm fine with it, but and I'm even fine with moving forward with it. But by the same token, I wouldn't mind hearing what the Sunshine Committee has to say about this, but I think we can still move forward. So if they want to chime in, let them. Vice Mayor. Thank you. When I was on the council before we had our because we had redevelopment and there was the element of reuse and restoration authority which handled issues the base. The base is still being looked at for development. So it didn't go away, but the meeting went away. I'm for this as long as we don't start the second Wednesday of the month in May. Because we already have too many meetings in May. Not too many. But the necessary meetings may, I think, to pile on would be counterproductive. But I do think until the base is substantially under the rest of the city, that it is appropriate to have set aside an additional meeting a month. To address the timely discussion and also to allow the public to be able to participate at a reasonable hour. Again in these issues of of base development, as well as the complex running of the city that we have now. So. So I appreciate vice mayors saying reasonable hour because my concern is that we will be here after 11:00, at least three days a week and probably more. And I, I would be the council. Is that something that you would entertain, that we would set a time of being done by 11:00? Yes. I thought you were going to ask if we might try to do what our counterparts in Oakland do and limit ourselves to 4 minutes. And my concern is being done by 11:00. I mean, I think that might help us do that. Not that. It's unfair. I'm sorry I asked a specific question. I'm looking for agreement by council that we would be done by 11:00 if in fact, we are looking at being here after 11:00. I do not plan to support this. I would agree with member ODY that this needs to go back to open government then because I think we do have a problem in regards to public. These are to be public meetings. Our public has already had the opportunity for years to know that we have these meetings on set dates and these would be additional dates that they may very well have other commitments on Wednesdays and not knowing and not and have their schedule ready to go without being able to participate in these meetings. And in regards to the coming of ordinances at regular meetings. I don't think it would be appropriate to bring an ordinance on a Wednesday where we have not normally had a meeting in that. Again, I think it goes to public participation and I would suggest it goes back to the open government then for approval for their feedback. I think that's what they're about and I agree with the member Odie on that. Yes, the mayor, I'd like to actually thank you for your comments motion that we tabled this for 60 days and send it to the Open Government Commission for their comments. Sarah Second. I'll second that. Any discussion. I think that scaling up for 60 days eats up any value that we're going to get from adding extra meetings. So, you know, I do think that if we don't have to and I have to introduce ordinances at these Wednesday meetings, I see there's plenty of other activities. And just in the normal course of running the city that we place here and having the ordinance introductions to at a regularly scheduled meeting. I think we can live with that. This provides us with the with the initial debate, the ability to be able to hear initiatives among our many council referrals, to hear the follow up, which I'm checking off the boxes because we have a bunch of council referrals that hit at the beginning of the year that are about due for their their follow up and response from staff. So we need capacity. And I think that if we have these meeting dates scheduled. We'll be able to use them. Anna maria. I just make one clarification. The idea of this resolution is to make these regular, regular meetings, which would then allow for ordinances to be introduced at them. I mean, we can always add special meetings like we're doing. In fact, tomorrow is a special meeting. But this the intent of this resolution is to make these added meetings, regular meetings. Madam, every underscore my point is, and I think the point the mayor was making is Tuesday night's city council night. That's the regular meeting. These are add on meetings. And I think this council can choose not to introduce ordinances at the ADD on meetings so that we can have people in the normal normal course of time come to a meeting where there's an ordinance to be introduced. Like I said, there's plenty of other city business that doesn't require introducing an ordinance that we could fill these meetings with and have people get out of here at a reasonable time. May I come in? Member Ashcroft Thank. You, Mayor Spencer. I actually wouldn't want to tie staff's hands, especially because I think in the near term there may be the need to hear ordinances at some of these special meetings. Again, this wouldn't start until June. And then we're talking about June and July. We go dark in August and we can see what happens from there on out. But I, I do agree with the vice mayor's initial assessment that this at this particular point in time, it would be a good idea to add this additional meeting per month. Member, Odie. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean it. If someone wants to propose a compromise that we just do this and June, July and then reevaluate it, I mean, I could probably support that. I just think adding six more meetings at it for the rest of the year. You know, we're already meeting enough. We need to be a little more efficient in getting through our stuff. Do we need just procedurally, do we need to vote on the motion before us because it's been moved and seconded, or does it have to be withdrawn before we can consider? I mean. I can outright. I don't think the votes are there, so I'll just withdraw. Do we have ever met Amir? I want to say that the compromise idea that Councilmember Brody mentioned is a good incremental steps. It still it it satisfies the desire to schedule regular Wednesday meetings, but in a limited manner for the next June and July and allows us to retrace our steps and move accordingly. And at the same time, I think it allows for substantive input on the part of the Open Government Commission's less than saying Commission, should they so choose. We have a motion. So I'll make a motion that we are scheduled to meet the additional meeting date on the second Wednesday, Wednesdays of June and July, and evaluate scheduling of the rest year. At the end of the July meeting. A second. All those in favor. I, I, i. Say. Motion carries. Could we get some clarification on whether or not the ordinances can be introduced? Because that is that was one of the intent was to be allowed to introduce ordinances on these meetings. I personally think that makes sense for these two extra meetings that we're considering. I don't see why we would tie staff's hands at this point. So I think it's unfortunate that wasn't asked before the vote on the motion. Right. So personally, I don't think it's appropriate to do it. So I move and I agree. I move that we do not unless there's. Legal ramifications is an exception in that we're compelled to take an action by ordinance due to time that we don't introduce new ordinances at the additionally scheduled. Those are the regularly scheduled Tuesday meetings. Oh, second. All those in favor. I oppose. No. Motion carries. Thank you. Four, two, one. All right, next item 60. I like hearing to consider adoption of resolution establishing an integrated waste collection, ceiling rates and service fees for Alameda County Industries for rate period. 14th July 2015 to June 2016.

AN ORDINANCE related to the operation of open-air tour vehicles; creating a new Chapter 15.66 in the Seattle Municipal Code; and amending Sections 15.91.002 and 15.91.016 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_04252016_CB 118663

The report of the full council and Adam one council bill 118663. Related to the operation of open air tour vehicles, creating a new Chapter 15.66 in the Seattle Municipal Code and in many sections 15.90 1.002 and point zero 16 of Seattle Municipal Code. Councilmember Gonzalez. Thank you. Council President before us this afternoon is Council Bill 118663. It is a piece of legislation that went through the Gender Equity Safe Communities Annual Americans Committee, and its purpose was to provide some legal clarity and a law that would prevent open air tour vehicles from both providing narrating while driving from the same person. So we we've had a one meeting, two meetings to discuss the particular policy issues that were proposed in this Council bill. We have several amendments that we have made to the open air tour vehicles, legislation to narrow it in specific ways, to address the specific issues related to distracted driving and dangers related to tour vehicles and guiding us through those various policy amendments and changes will be Council Member Burgess, who I want to thank for his leadership on on crafting the specifics around the policy changes and putting forward amendments that we will be considering in a substitute bill. You are there. I'm sorry. Councilmember Burgess. Thank you. First, I had a question for the clerk. Do we have the correct ordinance on the agenda, or do I need to move the substitute? Okay. There's no need for. No, that's okay. Just a mirror. Okay. So this legislation, the correct version in front of us, modifies what was originally submitted to the council. It narrows the scope of application to open air vehicles. It limits the size of the vehicle to vehicles carrying 16 or more persons, including passenger and the driver or staff members. It broadens the legislation to cover any vehicle that's operating on city streets, whether or not the tour begins or ends in the city. It broadens the definition of the prohibited activities to include tours near narration or entertainment while driving and operating on city streets. It imposes either criminal or civil penalties, including the possibility of the issuance of citations, much like moving traffic citations. And then perhaps very significantly, it shifts the responsibility from the driver to the tour operating company that is penalized if there's a violation as opposed to the driver. Thank you. Councilman Burgess, are there any further comments about this legislation? I just if I could add to that in terms of input that we got from community, we we heard from many different folks who own tour tour vehicles. Many of the operators within the city of Seattle who already operate open air vehicles. Had no objection to this policy direction. They, in fact, are already in many ways following the high safety procedures by having one person do the narration and one person do the driving. And so we we I want to thank those folks who came to both of our public hearings to provide us with public testimony about how this particular piece of legislation, both in its original form and in its amended form, would help increase safety of those who who come into our city and and and buy tickets to go on to these tours. Well, I want to thank the two of you and your committee for grappling with this legislation. We know we want it to be inclusive of those small businesses or medium sized businesses that run these. But we've had some tragedies here which really warrants our legislators getting on top of these issues. So thank you for that process and for presenting this legislation at the. Any further comments from my colleagues here? Again, please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Thanks. John Burgess. Gonzalez Herbold Johnson. Suarez O'Brien. O'Brien Sewell. President Harrell I. 9 a.m. favorite unopposed. Bill passes and Cher was cited as an item number two. Please please read the report.

Message and order authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) in the form of a grant for two charitable donations, awarded by the Frank R and Elizabeth Simoni Foundation Inc. to be administered by the Police Department. The grant will fund training initiatives for the Homicide and Youth Violence Strike Force Units.

BostonCC_06292022_2022-0802

The grant will fund a comprehensive inter-agency agency strategy that connects law enforcement, employment, education, public health and youth development agencies to reduce youth violence in the Commonwealth and Dr. Number 0802 message in order authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expand the amount of $15,000 in the form of a grant for two charitable donations awarded by Frank R and Elizabeth Simone Foundation, Inc. to be administered by the police department. The grant will fund training initiatives for the Homicide and Youth Violence Strike Task Force Strike Strikeforce units. Thank you. The Chair recognizes counsel, Florida Chair of the Committee on Public Safety, Criminal Justice Counsel. Clarity. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. The Safe and Successful Youth Initiative is a Youth Violence Prevention and Intervention Initiative that is funded annually by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services. The council has already passed the annual grant program, which was used to complement the grant funding distributed through COVID Recovery Violence Intervention Grant last October as sueh a lead agency, the Boston Public Health Commission coordinates referrals through community organizations to provide transitional services following outreach and intensive case management. They're also able to offer a behavioral health counseling plus education and employment services. Each year, the case managers enroll over 120 young adults to this program, and they also arrange supports for partnering organizations. The docket in front of us today is a $50,000 supplemental grant, to which 26,500 was distributed to the program's partnership. Community organizations. An additional 10,000 was dedicated to individuals assistance for jobs in the form of work, boots and tools plus transportation to and from behavioral health and medical health appointments throughout the city. The four case managers were budgeted for approximately 11,500 increase in personnel, along with charges of 2000 were committed towards purchasing air purification devices and PPE. Since the award period ends tomorrow, June 30th, I'm asking this body to suspend in pass doc in 0801 as it pertains to zero. Docket 080. This docket has grant funding from two charitable donations that were awarded by the Frank R and Elizabeth Simone Foundation to be administered by the Boston Police Department. This grant would fund training initiatives for the Homicide and Youth Violence Strike Force. As chair of Public Safety, I'm asking the stock to be suspended and passed so we can expeditiously spend this one $15,000 grant. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counsel. Firing. Mr. Clarke, before we. Before we vote. Please let the record reflect that counsel and O'Hara's present counsel of clarity seek suspension of the roles and passage of Docket 0801. All those in favor say I am opposed. Say no. The ayes have it. Docket 0801 is passed. Council five receives suspension of the roles. Passage of docket 0802. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. The ayes have it. Docket 0802 has passed. Mr. Clerk, can you please read Docket 0803, please? I can. Number 0803 message an order authorizing the city of Boston to accept and expend the amount of $6,460 in the form of a grant for the federal fiscal year 22 senior companion program awarded by the Corporation for National and Community Service to be administered by the Eight Strong Commission.

AN ORDINANCE authorizing, in 2019, acceptance of funding from non-City sources; authorizing the heads of the Executive Department, Department of Education and Early Learning, Seattle Police Department, Seattle Department of Transportation, and the Seattle Fire Department, to accept specified grants, private funding, and subsidized loans and to execute, deliver, and perform corresponding agreements; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_11252019_CB 119667

And then where there might be an amendment or a comment. I'll pause and we'll get through it and hopefully have a package. So we'll do that. So having said that, read the short title for items three and four and just three and four. The report of the Select Budget Committee Agenda Items three and four Cancel 119 677. Authorizing 2018 accepting of funding funding from non cities versus committee requirements both House Council Bill 119668 and many Ordinance 125 724, which adopted the 2019 budget, including the 2019 through 2020 for Capital Improvement Programs Committee recommends the bill passes amended. Okay, we're going to vote on these individually, starting with number three. Any questions or comments? And again, item number three comes bill 119667. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill Pacheco. So what? I beg John Gonzalez. Herbold, I Juarez. Mr. O'Brien. President Harrell. Hi. Nine in favor and unopposed. Bill passed and chair of the Senate. Any questions on a generic number for please call the role on the passage of council bill 119668. Pacheco I so want. I beg your. Gonzalez Herbal Juarez. I must get to i. O'Brien i. I. 9 a.m. favorite and opposed. Bill passed chair of the Senate. So please read items five and six. Genomes five and six clerk file 314 436 2020 Proposed Budget Committee recommends that the file be placed on file clerk file 314 437 2023 2025 Proposed Capital Improvement Programs Committee recommends that the file be placed on file.

AN ORDINANCE relating to gender identity and all-gender single-occupant restrooms in Seattle; amending the definition of “gender identity” in Sections 14.04.030, 14.06.020, 14.08.020, and 14.10.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code; amending the definition of “place of public accommodation” in Section 14.06.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code; amending Section 14.06.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify the right of individuals to use gender-specific facilities consistent with their gender identity; and adding a new Chapter 14.07 to the Seattle Municipal Code providing for all-gender restrooms in City-controlled buildings and places of public accommodation and prescribing enforcement procedures.

SeattleCityCouncil_08102015_CB 118455

The bill passes and the chair will sign it. The report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee. Please read item six. The Report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee Agenda Item six Council Bill 118455. Relating to gender, gender identity and all gender single occupant restrooms in Seattle amending the definition of gender identity in sections 14.0 4.030 14.0 6.020. 14.0 8.020 and 14.1 0.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code amending the definition of place of Public Accommodation and Section 14.0 6.020 of the Seattle Municipal Code, meaning Section 14.0 6.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code to clarify the right of individuals to use gender specific facilities consistent with their gender identity, and adding a new Chapter 14.07 to the Seattle Municipal Code providing for all gender restrooms in city control buildings and places of public accommodation and prescribing enforcement procedures. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember Harrell. Thank you very much. We've asked Councilmember Godden to lead us through this discussion. She's been running point on this from the committee's perspective. So I'll defer to Councilmember Jean Gordon. The member Gorton. I am so very pleased today to bring this before the council legislation that will do two things. It will bring Seattle up to national best practices in terms of language that we use around gender diversity. And it will bring all gender restrooms to Seattle to create a more inclusive city. Any single small restroom throughout the city will be required to have an all gender sign. I will note that there is flexibility around the signage so as not to put an unnecessary burden on businesses. Everyone, regardless of gender, deserves the ability to meet their most basic needs. All gender single bathrooms are practical and help ensure everyone has access to a quality life. The small step represents acceptance and freedom for many, and I am so proud. Seattleites are dedicated to pursuing equality and eliminating inequality wherever it exists. And we urge passage of this. Thank you. Questions or comments? Councilmember Hill. I'd like to thank Councilmember Gordon for her leadership on this legislation. I am very proud to support this. I want to thank the LGBTQ community leaders. The commission for not only pushing the issue, but sort of talking about the larger issues and to why. To me, this is much larger than restrooms. I read something that Senator Jamie Peterson wrote about, I think today on in Olympia, his resolution about anti-bullying. I think what this recognized is just a larger conversation about acceptance. I think many of us and I literally mean that many of us grew up at a time where we were teased, we were bullied. We were harassed. And I'm hopeful that our city becomes a city known for its compassion and known for its inclusiveness. So for me, it's a it's a symbol of more than just restrooms. It's a step toward this conversation that is long overdue. And then from a practical standpoint, on the restrooms, one thing I brought up at committee is small restaurants, for example. Sometimes they'll have a fancy picture of one person or one gender and another one. And so maybe the city could do some creative things going down the road to come up with like a sticker or something to make it very easy. So we're going to be creative on how we certainly ease the impact on small businesses. But I'm very proud to support this because it's, again, a part of a larger discussion of inclusiveness that again is long overdue. So I'm very proud to sponsor and help support this legislation. Thank you. Council members want. Thank you and thank you to all the council members who worked on this. I'm very happy to have the opportunity to vote for gender neutral bathrooms today. I firstly, I think it is important to recognize the tireless work of all the LGBTQ rights activists who struggle and daily responsible for what we are voting on today. Thank you so much. Some of you are sitting here in this room. I really appreciate it. And I also appreciate a lot of the effort by all of you to connect LGBTQ issues to worker issues and pointing out that they are interrelated and fighting for one requires fighting for the other. You all have also helped me organize a town hall earlier this year about ending hate crimes on the LGBTQ community. And after that town hall, we were very happy that the mayor created a task force that many of you were part of, and you've helped push for many important recommendations to make Make Seattle a place that is welcoming and accessible and affordable to LGBTQ people. Gender neutral bathrooms definitely provide a basic level of dignity that all people are have the right to, trans people have the right to, otherwise the rest of us take it for granted. But for the LGBTQ community, it hasn't been provided as a right. And I think that's extremely critical that we restart on that basis. And as Marsha Barger put it very eloquently, we just want to get go, go to the bathroom and do our business. I really appreciate that. I really appreciate the humanity of what you said. And to be able to go to the restroom without facing verbal abuse or worse should be a basic human right for everyone. We also recognize that it's only a small step, and the far bigger demand of the LGBTQ community is to address the whole spectrum of rights of the LGBTQ community, including having a city funded community center that will be a safe place for LGBTQ youth and homeless people to go to. Thank you. Thank you. Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Berkshire Garden i harrell. I. Lakota. I. O'Brien. I. Okamoto. I. So want I am president Burgess I Aden favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. I know many of you are here for the Select Committee on Affordable Housing. We have four items to go and then we'll be finished. The Report of the Housing Affordability, Human Services and Economic Resiliency Committee. Please read item seven through the first semicolon.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2391 South Sherman Street in Rosedale. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 2391 South Sherman Street from U-SU-B1 to U-TU-B (urban, single-unit to urban, two-unit) in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-3-18.

DenverCityCouncil_05142018_18-0325

On the wall you'll see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put Council Bill 325 on the floor? Gladly. Mr. President, I move that council bill zero 3 to 5 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 325 is open. May we have the staff report? Thank you, Mr. President. And Council. Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 2391 South Sherman Street from U.S. Sub one to You Tube. The property is located in Council District six in the Rosedale neighborhood. It's at the corner of Wesley Avenue and Sherman Street, across from Rosedale Park. And the vacant Rosedale Elementary School property is 6250 square feet, and there's currently a single unit house on the property. The request is to rezone from U.S. sub one, which is urban neighborhood context single unit zoning with a 4500 square foot minimum lot size and in one indicates that accessory dwelling units are allowed on the property and the request is to rezone to the YouTubes Zone District, which is still urban neighborhood context to unit zoning with the same 4500 square foot minimum lot size. And the request is to allow for the construction of a duplex on the property. As you can see, the property is surrounded by the same UCB one zoning except for the park across the street, which is OSA. But if you notice, one block to the north and one block to the south are the requested YouTube zoning. You can see in the surrounding area, it's mainly single unit houses, but there are a mix of two unit and multi-unit residential properties immediately around it as well. And then you can see the mixed use development on Broadway, two blocks to the west. The subject property is the top left photo here. Then you can see some of the other surrounding houses and the park and school playground across the street. This went to the planning board on March 21st, where it received a unanimous recommendation of approval. There was one member of the public speaking. I went to the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee on April 3rd, and we received no other public comment on this application. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three adopted plans that apply to this property. First is Comprehensive Plan 2000, as described in the staff report. Staffers found that the proposed rezoning consistent with these four strategies from the plan relating to infill development and providing a variety of housing types in neighborhoods which the proposed YouTubes and districts would be compatible with. Blueprint Denver from 2000 to has this property with a concept land use of urban residential, which calls for a variety of housing types, from single family to townhouses to small or large apartment buildings. Consistent with the proposed two unit zoning, there is also designated as an area of stability, which calls for maintaining the existing character while accommodating new development. As I mentioned earlier, there is a mix of single unit two unit and multi-unit in the area, so the proposed rezoning would be consistent with the existing character. Both Wesley and Sherman Street are designated locals, which are appropriate for the requested zoned district. The Evans stationary plan is from 2009. It also designates the property as residential, which again calls for a mix of housing types, including single family duplexes and row houses, again consistent with the requested zoning of two unit. The plan also calls for an increase in the amount and variety of housing, which the proposed rezoning would do by allowing a duplex on the subject property. So staff finds that the first criterion is met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. The proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the YouTube Zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and facilitating additional housing in the area which is needed. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by the changed and changing conditions in the area. There's been investment along Broadway. The city has invested in new streetscape elements along Broadway, and there's been significant private investment along Broadway and in the larger Avenue Station area that has changed the character of the area and increased the need for additional housing, which justifies the proposed rezoning. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. The proposed rezoning would facilitate development consistent with the urban neighborhood context, description and the purpose and intent of the YouTube zoning district. That staff finds all five criteria have been met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. So if you could make your way to this front seat. And first up, we have Will Cryer, followed by Chairman Sekou. Everyone. We just wanted. To come up and kind of. Give a little background. So could you introduce yourself, say your name for the record. Thank you. Sorry. My name is Will Crier. We are. And my wife, Kelsey Crier, where. Residents at 2391. South Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado. I just wanted to say kind of thank you. We appreciate that this process exists and we had the option to even pursue changing the zoning on our property to kind of pursue something that would help our family. We've I've lived there since 2012 and she's moved in since we got married. And we love the neighborhood that we're in and are hoping to stay there for a long time and think this would kind of enable us to to make that more of a longer to term solution. And one of the things, Scott, in the Planning Department, for all the help from the Pre-Application process all the way through to today, and that was really merit. So thank you. Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou. Yes. Good evening. My name is Sherman Sekou. I represent the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense, focusing on poor, working, poor, homeless, senior citizens and youth. We support this ordinance change and. You know, it's moments like this that I really am encouraged and excited about the process of how we go about doing these changes. This because we sit here and we do the corporate changes for the corporate folks and you know, that's an enduring process because there's a lot more unions involved. And then we have every day for regular folks, working folks that want to improve their property, that will have an effect, that will improve the neighborhood and to help us . Attack this housing shortage thing. Even if it seems small, it's significant. It really is the small ones that when you add them. Up are. Really more inspiring because they come from. The hearts. Of the people who not only want to change their property, but they still want to live there. Why they make it open to invite other people to enjoy that space. So we want to thank the leadership of Councilman Cashman, and I'm not going to do it like I did Ben Franklin down there where he has to do a disclaimer. But thank you so much for bringing this forward and leadership for bringing this forward. I just have one question. And that would be for smaller projects, housing projects like that. It seems to be there should be an expedited process that they can go through that ain't. As onerous. As those of the corporations who are built building bigger units so that we can get this thing on the table, move it forward, and then they can begin the process of having that satisfaction, of seeing the project underway without having to spend a whole lot of money before you even put one shovel of dirt in there to get this thing done. And so I would ask that city council kind of look at that in the subcommittee meeting and see how we can cut some of the red tape for the smaller folks so they can move the project forward. Last but not least. We have a special guest tonight, my cousin Gregory. He's a security guy, so he's came here. This is his second assignment. I forgot to mention he was here with my family and outstanding young man, and he's been helping me to watch the clock. So he's my official clock timer. So I'm going to quit now. And Gregory, thank you so much for being here and get to know these folks because they're outstanding citizens and they are worthy of your protection. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council? Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I think your microphone might be off. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you very much. So how far does the the radius of the Evans Station plan extend? I believe this property is just inside the boundary. Is that correct? Yes, it is towards the edge of the boundary of the even stationary plane. Okay. Do you have any idea how far does it extend up the hill to to grant? No, I do not believe it does. I think this is basically the edge of it right at Grant, actually. Okay. The other question I have is so this is a corner site, the current residence, while it has the Sherman Street address , has its primary entrance facing. Is it westerly there? Yes. Does it matter to CPD how the units would be situated on this site? No. When they go through the building permit process, they would work with our development services division to meet the code and situate the the building on the property. But I think it could face either Wesley or Sherman. All right. And then there was one once the speaker at the planning board. What was. Yeah, it was a neighbor who lives in the neighborhood. He said he was not necessarily opposed, but was concerned that some other neighbors may be. They have concerns when the 2010 rezoning went through. There was, according to the speaker, pretty significant discussion with the neighborhood about the appropriate zoning. And he was concerned that some members of the neighborhood may feel like the zoning was settled in 2010 and would be concerned about a change at this point. And he said he was not personally concerned and we haven't heard from any of the other neighbors at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Seeing no other questions, the public hearing for Council Bill 325 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Cashman. Thank you again, Mr. President. And I do need a disclaimer for our previous speaker that this was no leadership from council. This was brought forward by the applicants themselves. The reason I ask about the the Evans Station plan is for me that was an important part of this for my colleagues. If you. Drive. Lincoln and Sherman between Evans and Yale, Duplex is not an unusual use at all. There are literally dozens on those blocks, including several on the block that the applicants on which the applicants live. However, I don't take up zoning lightly. And so it was the the fact that this remains in the the Evans Station plan that that tilted it for me. So as I say, there's plan support. It's a common use in the area. I appreciate the fact that it adds additional housing to to our stretched inventory and also. I would just put forward that for those who might be thinking in that neighborhood of extending the duplex use and onto blocks that which it's not a common use, I would think that plan support would be more questionable. So I do plan on supporting this this evening. I appreciate the staff's report. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President, I. I'm supportive this I have something very similar in in my district and I can speak to this in 2010 when we did the rezoning, a lot of the angst, a lot of these properties, especially ones like this with this two unit zone district people were very wary because of the time and because of the era that we were in. We were just coming out of a recession, of moving to them, graduating, taking it to a two unit. And so and because also because people didn't know what the form was going to look like, they didn't know if we were going to bounce out of the recession in order to do this. They thought it was going to probably very expensive to do. Tune in. So what they did is they said, well, maybe we should do the ADA use. And I think that B one is the ability to do an EDU in the back and they're nodding. Those ideas are just as expensive as building another unit. And so in a lot of ways, it was a lack of foresight on Nas. But but also because it was new in the conversation. Had this been the case? Now what we know now, if we knew then what we know now, some of these designations, these these B ones, these D ones did end up being ada2 unit because they are, in fact, another unit. It accomplishes the same thing here, except the fact that but the need to you at least the property owner would have to live in one of them or the one or the other. So this allows that this zoned district is absolutely appropriate for that area. I remember seeing the map in that area, Councilwoman, and it's a lot like mine and it's a if I can think of that. BLOCK It's very similar to some of the ones that are in my district where we haven't seen those ideas come to fruition because they're actually pretty expensive to build. You could enter to build, build, say, to say to unit, and it's almost the same cost and you're able to do a lot more with it. So and then it fronts the street. So anyway, I'm supporting for that reason. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Seeing other comments, I'll just add that, you know, I appreciate, Councilman Cashman, you focusing in on the plan support. I think, you know, based on the information presented, this this application does meet the criteria. We're lucky that the Evans stationary plan hits this part, and I don't know the rest of Rosedale because that's not my district. But right across the street in both directions is and there is no neighborhood plan in Plot Park. And the neighborhood plan in Overland is over 20 years old. And I think it really highlights the need for us to continue to put funding and effort towards getting every single neighborhood in our community a neighborhood plan. Because if you're not within that circle of that, there isn't that, you know, low that real low micro planning effort that's happened. And I do think that that could lead to a lot of confusion when there is a plan here and across the street there there isn't. So but again, tonight, I think it's been demonstrated that the criteria been met and we'll be supporting this. Madam Secretary, roll call. Cashman. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Sussman, I. Flynn, I. Gilmore, Herndon. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. Nice. Nice.

Recommendation to adopt resolution approving a list of projects citywide for repaving and resurfacing that are proposed to receive Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account funding in a total estimated amount of $10,661,747 in the Fiscal Year 2023 Paving Program. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05242022_22-0611

Great. Item 32. Item 32. Report from Public Works. Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Approving a list of projects citywide for repaving and resurfacing in a total estimated amount. Not an amount of 10.6 million. In the fiscal year 2023 paving program. C2 I. So customer mongo. Is one to thank the public works team for working hard to expand our capabilities and capacity. This is a big step forward. It's not enough. We need to give you more money. We need more streets to be fixed. I specifically am looking forward to, as I know, Councilwoman Prices, Studebaker and the residents are still looking forward to Wardlow and Canaan, which isn't on the list. But thank you for all that you're doing. And I overwhelmingly support $10 million of additional streets. Good news, Councilmember Price, I'm going to turn it over just briefly to our public works director, just to kind of I think this is a significant item that is going to bring a lot of good to a lot of neighborhoods throughout the city. Just give us a brief report. Sure. Councilmember um. Members of the council this we bring this out every year as one of the requirements from our state funding source. We identify projects that are going to be part of the pavement plan for the coming year. Although all of the projects are outlined in the staff report are part of the current citywide infrastructure investment program that we put together as part of the measure a plan. So these streets are some that our residents have been waiting for. Some of them about five years. So we're happy to be able to get into this next set of streets and to have more money to be able to do so. So we are making more investments on streets. We are doing more to maintain our current streets with our crack and slurry SEAL program. And we continue to do that with both a combination of in-house staff and contractors support. So we are really excited about this this funding source. I do hope it gets bigger, but it does allow us to repave quite a bit of streets. And thank you. And I just announced to all to my residents in the eighth District there a total of eight residential streets in the eighth District in North Long Beach that we'll be getting some tender, loving care. We appreciate that, Councilmember Price. Yes, only because I know I will get asked why I didn't ask what is the status of Studebaker? We're working hard on the design for Studebaker. Studebaker is one of our four major arterial streets that we're committed to putting in the funding together and and getting that project off the ground. So it is in design. There is some additional funds that are required. We are diligently working to put that put that funding together. We're applying for federal funding opportunities, state funding opportunities, in addition to Priscilla, to to allocated some of our own local funds to be able to make that happen. So it's one of the priority on side that that will be coming. And we are we are hoping to have that fully resolved and funded in this coming fiscal year so that we can have our implementation plan and to communicate to the public for that. How short are we? If you now. I don't know from the top of my head, councilman, I know where I know we're a few million off, but I don't have the exact number. I'll had to follow up when she gets. Between that information. So if. That sounds about right, I gather. More than eight already and the project is going to be around 16. There's some money. It's yeah, we have we have about 16 I believe are already allocated and we need a few we need a few more. Five more. Give or take. I need to verify that number. So one of the things that I've been telling residents and I just want to make sure that it's accurate, is that before we're in a position where we can apply for any grant funding, our local or county or state dollars or federal dollars, we need to have the project be designed, fully designed and shovel ready. So you said that we're in the design process. How far away from us are we from having us be competitive for grant? For that project? I believe we're approaching the 60, 70% design point, which makes us very competitive. So we're at the point now where we were I believe we already we were able we obtained an $8 million grant from Metro. Yeah. So it was about an $8 million grant. So we have some grant funding on hand and we're pursuing additional funds. Okay, thank you. Council member of Super Nine. In case the point wasn't made, I'd like to just put it in my bid to get Studebaker to speak on behalf of the residents between Seventh Street and Wardlow. Thank you. My my favorite quote as chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee was it was definitely not a talking point that was written down. It just came out. And I said, what is a girl got to do to get Studebaker paved around here? And I think Mr. Lopez took that to heart and is working on it. But it affects multiple council districts. And we have we get asked about it a lot. So that half of the council tonight. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Chair. All right. Well, thank you. And thank you for that that report. This is good news. SB one that has provided a lot of resources and for for us to do a lot of good work in our city. So hearing that, is there any public comment on this? No public comment. Hearing. No public comment. Members list, vote on this item, please. In this case. Thank you. Thank you so much. Let's go to item number 33.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, adopt resolution continuing the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area assessment levy for the period of October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to extend the agreement with the Belmont Shore Business Association for a one-year term. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_09172019_19-0908

Congratulations, Tom. Next item, please do hearing item one. Report from Economic Development Recommendation, receive supporting documentation into the record and conclude the public hearing. Adopt a resolution continuing the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area Assessment Levy and authorize the city manager to extend the agreement with the Belmont Shore Business Association District three. Thank you. There's a motion in a second, Mr. Goodhue. Public comment? No. Okay. Do we have a report on this, Mr. Moti? We need to hear a report in order for this hearing. Mr. City Attorney, do we have to have a report on this or can we just. We do need a brief hearing. Okay. Let's go ahead and do that. There is an oath required on this. So if you're going to be, can you please stand and raise your hand? Do you and each of you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Yes. All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Economic development director John Keisler and Eric Romero, economic development project manager, will do the presentation today. Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council. The Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area, also known as a bid, was established by the City Council in 1983, allowing for the levy of an annual business license assessment to be paid by businesses located in the bid city of Long Beach. Long Beach contracts with the Belmont Shore Business Association to manage the bid and the Belmont Shore Business Association Board of Directors serves as an advisory board to the City Council on matters related to the bid. State law governing parking and business improvement areas requires an annual report be submitted to the City Council by the Advisory Board for the bid. The annual report describes boundaries, proposed activities and budgetary information as well as well as the method and basis for the continuation of the assessment. The 2019 2020 Annual Report proposes no changes to the boundaries or the method of living assessment. The proposed activities will focus on marketing and promoting the district, businesses, special events and community and business outreach to continue the assessment levy. State law requires that a public hearing be held on the proposed program and the annual assessment. At its September three, 2019 meeting, the City Council approved a resolution granting approval of the annual report, declaring the intention of the City Council to levy the assessment and set today as the date for public hearing. The City Council shall here and consider all protests against the assessment program and boundaries as proposed in the annual report. The recommended action on this item receives supporting documentation and to the record, concludes the hearing, adopts the resolution, continuing the assessment and authorizes the staff to extend the agreement with the Belmont Shore Business Association for one additional year. That concludes my staff report and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you. I think there's no other comment from any anyone here from the from the assessment district. So we're gonna go ahead and take a vote.

AN ORDINANCE related to cable television; authorizing the Mayor or his designee to enter into a new Cable Television Franchise Agreement and an agreement regarding additional public benefits with Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink; authorizing the Chief Technology Officer to enter into other agreements for the purpose of implementing or administering the new franchise; increasing appropriations in the 2015 budget of the Department of Information Technology for costs incurred in processing the franchise application; and transferring cash received for processing the franchise application; all by a 3/4 vote of the City Council.

SeattleCityCouncil_07132015_CB 118411

The Report of the Public Safety, Civil Rights and Technology Committee Agenda Item 13 Council Bill 118411 related to cable television authorizing the mayor has designated enter into a new cable television franchise agreement and an agreement regarding additional public benefits with Quest Broadband Services Inc DBA CenturyLink authorizing the Chief Technology Officer to enter into other agreements for the purpose of implementing or administering the new franchise. Increasing appropriations in the 2015 Budget of the Department of Information Technology for costs incurred in processing the franchise application and transferring cash received for processing the franchise application all by a three quarter vote of the city council. The committee recommends the bill pass as amended. Thank you, Councilmember Harrell. Thank you very much. So this legislation basically grants a cable television franchise to Quest's broadband services, doing business as CenturyLink. And the last time a cable franchise was actually negotiated and executed is in 2006. In the term of this franchise is ten years. And so what should occur after this approval is CenturyLink will either build, overbuild and upgrade its network to close to 100,000 households or more. In Seattle, the city negotiated a franchise agreement that basically will bring about a new fiber broadband provider to the service to the city and receive substantial public benefits that will help the community. And let's talk a little about those public benefits. And I also want to acknowledge Mike, Matt, Matt Miller and your team for negotiating this deal as anticipated by the new cable code changes passed earlier this year, CenturyLink will again be another competitor in our market. They will mean we will maintain our franchise fee revenue that, you may recall, will be about 4.4% franchise fee on cable television, television revenue and about $0.12 per prescriber per month. And this is consistent with other income and providers. Now that's revenue we use for our technology matching funds. I talked about during the briefing making sure that underrepresented communities, seniors, other lower income individuals have access to technology. And so that's an incredible public benefit. We also this particular channel we're televised on as an example, Seattle Channel and other public educational and governmental programs are are paid for by this this income stream. And of course, we have a guarantee that discounted pricing will be for lower income households and seniors. During these many discussions we had during this legislation, we I'll just quote a portion of the code that says a significant portion of the total households to which a cable operator offers cable service shall be households that fall below the median income level as measured by a census block group. Data. And the reason why that's critical is we don't we do not want a provider coming in here in sort of cream skimming on certain affluent neighborhoods and neglecting our lower income neighborhoods. And we have asked the director to establish a rule to respond to the council's policy direction, to make sure that we we meet underrepresented communities. And as this rule develops, a definition has occurred in that a significant, significant portion, we are saying, is not less than 30% of the total households and the cable operator operators service area . So we're actually putting math behind our commitment to the lower income areas that we want to serve as we continue to examine the feasibility of a municipal broadband network and a lot of attention and discussions around that, we have been trying to pass legislation to change basically outdated rules and regulations to open up the market. To incentivize competition, which is great for the consumers. Better service, lower prices. Just by way of context, in 2012, you may remember that we passed legislation to open up our excess capacity of our own fiber optic cable network that provides high speed Internet services. In 2014, we made several changes to the historical administrative code, allowing making it easier for providers to enter the market and remove some of the historical barriers. And through that, we've been able to reach neighborhoods that we were not able to reach before. And then in 2015, we modernized the cable television franchise code, basically allowing more competition and eliminating the concept of franchised districts. We believe that that was an outdated method by which we do business, and this again, would encourage competition. So I think we're heading into to a good direction. Our policy is intact. I'm trying to make sure we serve all communities and realize the benefits of having this kind this this kind of competition for our consumers. The committee recommends passage of this ordinance. Thank you. Questions or comments? Please call the role on the passage of the bill. Lakota. Hi. Brian Okamoto. I. Rasmussen. I so want. I. Picture. Hi Gordon. I. Harrell. I am president Burgess nine in favor and and opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Is there any other business to come before the council? Councilmember Lakota. Yes. Like be excused August 17th. Of August of July. I mean, July 17. I'm sorry. This is I think it's, um, we're looking at August. August 17. Yes. Okay. It's a second. All in favor of excusing Councilmember Lakota on August 17. Vote i. I. Opposed. Vote no. You have lots of friends. You almost always have me choosing a wrong date. I just want to make sure. Any other business. Thank you very much. We are adjourned.

AN ORDINANCE relating to Seattle Parks and Recreation (SPR); authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 3638 34th Avenue South; authorizing acceptance of a recording of the deed for open space, park, and recreation purposes; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_08092021_CB 120140

Agenda item Southern Council Bill 120140 related to Seattle Parks and Recreation authorizing the acquisition of real property commonly known as 3638 34th Avenue South. The committee recommends that the bill pass. Thank you, Councilmember Horace. As chair of the committee. You are recognized in order to provide the committee report. Thank you. This is again was in front of us on August 3rd in our community. And Seattle Parks and Rec has land banked almost an acre property in the North Rainier Hub Urban Village since 2011. This is to meet the goal of providing a large park for a growing community which historically been underserved. This park site is nestled within a series of affordable family and senior multifamily housing projects. We've been doing many of these, if you all recall, throughout the lease the last couple of years. This acquisition would increase the size and improve the utility of the park. The committee recommends council pass this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Any comments on this bill? Okay. Will the clerk please read the roll call? The roll and the passage of the bill. Lewis. I. Morales. I must, however I so want. Yes, Strauss. Yes. HERBOLD Yes. SUAREZ Yes. And Council President Pro Tem. Peterson Yes. Eight in favor and then opposed it. Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Will the court please to fix my signature to the legislature on my behalf? Item eight will please read the short title. Item eight into the record.

AN ORDINANCE relating to land use and zoning; amending Chapter 23.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code at pages 99, 98, and 100 of the Official Land Use Map to rezone land in the Uptown area; amending Sections 23.30.010, 23.45.517, 23.48.002, 23.48.005, 23.48.020, 23.48.021, 23.48.040, 23.48.055, 23.48.085, 23.48.620, 23.58A.042, 23.58C.050, 23.84A.025, 23.84A.042, and 25.05.800 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and adding a new Subchapter VI to Chapter 23.48 of the Seattle Municipal Code, consisting of Sections 23.48.702, 23.48.705, 23.48.720, 23.48.721, 23.48.722, 23.48.723, 23.48.724, 23.48.730, 23.48.732, 23.48.735, 23.48.740, 23.48.745, 23.48.750, 23.48.755, 23.48.780, and 23.48.785, to rezone areas in the Uptown Urban Center.

SeattleCityCouncil_10022017_CB 119055

Agenda Item seven Council Bill 1190 55 Relating to land use and zoning in any Chapter 23.32, said Mr. Code Page at 99, 88 and 100, the official land use map to rezoning land in the uptown area. The committee recommends the bill passes amended. Thank you again, an issue that came through my committee. So I'll just sing a couple of bars about uptown and then ask if any of my colleagues have anything they'd like to weigh in on. I'm really pleased to bring this bill in front of you today. It's the result of a lot of hard work by the Office of Planning and Community Development, Jim Holmes from that department in particular, as well as several dozen folks that are still in the audience today. Thanks for hanging in there. Land use nerds. I really appreciate it. We, I think, have brought forward a really good set of amendments as part of this legislation. And one of the things that I think is really unique about the Uptown neighborhood is how often we heard from folks about their interest in more affordable housing, particularly affordable housing related to the arts community. This is a community that has really been rooted in the arts and cultural district that I hope we will adopt shortly after this, as well as we've we as a city have spent a lot of time intentionally trying to support and continue to see more artists not only doing work in the area, but also being able to live in the area. The changes would implement our mandatory housing affordability program, which would create a lot more affordable housing in the neighborhood as a result. We've also introduced some parking maximums to encourage the use of transit in the neighborhood. We've incentivized arts and cultural spaces and space for school bonuses, including our pre-K bonus. And we had a really spirited debate within community about a whole lot of different issues. But I think that they all got resolved in a pretty well oriented fashion. And I want to say thanks to many of those folks who came not all into the several meetings that we had here at City Hall, but then also the really hot night that we had up in Uptown at Uptown Cinema and then again here today. So excited to bring this one forward. I don't believe there are any amendments, but I look to see if any of my other colleagues have any other comments. Yes, please. Can I just one question to Councilmember Johnson. I know that there was reference made earlier about an amendment that had been pulled a couple of weeks ago, and that was assuring now that the buildings at 85 feet that any setbacks would occur at six storeys or 65 feet. Is that continuing to be accurate? That is my understanding, I believe, and I'm looking to scan in the audience to see if Spencer Williams from my staff is here and he's not here to give me the thumbs up that I'm that I'm saying the right thing out here. But I think multitasking the best that I can. Councilmember backs onto the best of my recollection we we hung things at 65 feet and we stopped there. Right. And that's my understanding as well. There was a question that had come up earlier. I just wanted to confirm that that was accurate. But I'm sure we will hear from Spencer if it's wrong. But in the meantime, I really want to say thank you. This has been four years of work. I don't see Jim out there, but Nathan Torgerson, thank you for all the work that your shop has done and much thanks. Councilmember Johnson. Your staff has been tremendous and I really want to acknowledge Spencer and Amy, Patty and Jerry, all who had worked in on my team, Alberta Black has worked very hard in reaching out to the community. The legislation really takes important strides in doing what we were trying to accomplish and really building on the Uptown Urban Design Framework. Debbie FRAUSTO is here and Rick Hooper and Nancy Sjoberg. Thanks to all of you for your good work and others from that community. I'm also really thankful, Councilmember Herbold, for your bringing through the art and culture overlay district. That's going to make a big difference, not just for Uptown but also in Belltown in South Lake Union, as we are working to combine those neighborhoods in no small part because of the work we're doing around Seattle Center. It's going to make a wonderful difference, both in the vibrancy of all the neighborhoods, but the excitement and being able to get there without your single occupancy vehicle, the more innovative mobility strategy. And again, I want to acknowledge the good work that the community has done about making that happen. I understand that there is more art and culture going on in uptown than any neighborhood north of San Francisco. I'll take that. I'm not sure that we've exactly had the count, but I like the approach. Also, members of Ward Street Alliance. Nancy, again, thanks to you for your help and to the Bayview community. I know that there was a lot of worry about that, the impact of shadowing on Bayview and there was, of course, debate about, well, it's already the tallest building. But considering what that building is used for, for some of our most vulnerable citizens, I've I believe that we're going in the right direction to have the 65 feet in that lot right in front of Bayview. So the rezoning obviously is not the end of the day. There's more work that we will be doing. But recognizing too that this is just the first step and I'm as your D7 representative, I'm really committed to making sure that this works and that the work, the additional work that we're doing now around Seattle Center is going to make a big difference in your lives. We want to make sure that it works smoothly and it works for your benefit. So thank you again. Thank you. Councilmember O'Brien, I saw you pulling your microphone closer. Yes. Thank you. And I won't reiterate many of the point. I agree with Councilmember Bagshaw. One of the points is this is not the end. There's ongoing work to be done. And I want to speak specifically to the and the property adjacent to Royce Street. That has been a piece of ongoing discussion about whether the appropriate height there is 65 or 85 feet. I support a well designed building at 85 feet at that site, but I've chosen not to bring an amendment forward today. I understand that there is ongoing conversation between the Bayview property and the property owners of the one that's subject to the up zone. And I just encourage that those conversations continue to happen. There are other processes for that to hopefully be resolved, and I want to just commit to folks to stay engaged as a councilmember on that and look forward to that. Community can have conversations. I don't think that the conversations were ripe enough to take action today, but I suspect with some good work on both sides, there could be a resolution that meets a lot of folks needs, and I look forward to supporting that if that opportunity comes back to the council. Excellent. So, yes, please. Councilmember Herbold. Just very quickly. We'll be talking about this a little bit more in the resolution that follows. But I wanted to thank you, Chair Johnson, for bringing forward the amendment that increases the floor ratio to to allow for the development of art spaces. This was one of the recommendations of the Creation, Activation and Preservation Report that came out of the Arts Office. There's three different ideas to encourage and activate our artists space in Seattle. And this is one one of those ideas and very important to the arts community and the conversations that we'll be having as it relates to the resolution, I think are a good example about how our inspiring are aspirational goals can actually work with the regulations that we put in our in our land use code about physical spaces. So thank you for bringing that forward. Thanks. Matthew Richter does great work. Happy to have carried his water. So we do have some technical changes. I missed that in the beginning. So there is a substitute version five in front of you. So I'd ask for your support and move amendment, but I'd move to amend accountable 119055 by substituting version five for version. For. Further discussion. All those in favor please signify by saying I by any opposed. Okay, we've got an amended bill in front of us. So I'd move to pass Council Bill 119055 as amended for the discussion. Okay, I've seen that and asked the clerk to please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Whereas. O'Brian. So what? Major Gonzalez Herbold Hi. Johnson. By seven in favor, nine opposed. A bill is passed and the chair will sign it. Congratulations. Uptown. Let's move on to agenda item number eight.

AN ORDINANCE relating to historic preservation; imposing controls upon the University of Washington Canoe House/ASUW Shell House, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the Table of Historical Landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

SeattleCityCouncil_12172018_CB 119414

Agenda item five Council Bill 119414. An Ordinance relating to Historic Preservation Imposing controls upon the University of Washington Canoe House, ASU Double Shell House, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the table of historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code. The committee recommends the bill pass. Thank you very much. So the University of Washington can you house. Also known as the AC UW Shell House built in 1918. The original building was part of the naval training station on the UW campus during World War One, and it later served as the Shell House for the UW Rowing from 1918, where it was used in til 1950 to house the UW powerhouse and Olympic gold medal winning rowing team. 1948 London Olympics. I am very pleased to be able to nominate this and as many of you know, the book Boys in the Boat has an opportunity once again to be filmed here at the University of Washington. And having the Shell house in that area as part of the movie is something I hope we can accomplish. So we recommend moving forward with this landmark designation. Very good. Any questions on the Council bill that please call the rule on the passage of the Bill O'Brien. Hi. Bagshaw. Hi. Gonzalez Herbold. Hi. Johnson by President Harrell. I six in favor and unopposed. Bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the next agenda item. The full agenda item slowly. Agenda item six Council Bill 119418 An Ordinance relating to Historic Preservation Imposing controls upon the Japanese Language School, a landmark designated by the Landmarks Preservation Board under Chapter 25.12 of the Seattle Municipal Code, and adding it to the table of historical landmarks contained in Chapter 25.32 of the Seattle Municipal Code.

A bill for an ordinance making a rescission from and an appropriation in the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Special Revenue Fund; transferring cash to the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Capital Improvement Fund; and authorizing an appropriation in the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Capital Improvement Fund. Transfers $1,750,000 from the Parks, Trails and Open Space Operating Special Revenue Fund 15828 into the Parks, Trails, and Open Space Capital Improvement Fund 36050 and appropriates the transferred amount to be utilized for the land acquisition of properties along Sand Creek. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 1-19-21.

DenverCityCouncil_02082021_21-0039

Thank you, Councilman Ortega. All right. Seeing their hands raised on both of those will move on to the next item. It's Council Bill 21, dash 0039. Councilmember Black, will you please put Council Bill 21, dash 0039 on the floor for final passage? Yes, Madam President, I move that council bill 20 1-0039 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and we've got the second from Councilman Herndon. Questions or comments by members of council. Council sayed abarca. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to call this one out for a vote and go on record as a no for this one. I've been an opponent of using our dollars for the eminent domain related to this acquisition, and so just want to go on record as a no. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. So, you know, no other hands raise. Madam Secretary, roll call it. Ibaka No. Clark. I. When? I. Herndon. I. HINES. All right. Cashman. I can h. I. Ortega Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres I black. Eye. Madam President. I and I'm secretary closed the voting and announced results. One night to hours.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2208 North Bellaire Street in South Park Hill. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2208 North Bellaire Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-11-21.

DenverCityCouncil_08022021_21-0522

Councilmember Torres, will you please put Council Bill 5 to 2 on the floor for final passage and move that Council Bill 20 1-52 to be placed upon. Final. Consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for council bill 5 to 2 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I see we have some here. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Ed Henry. Yes, I am with CPD today and before you today we have 2208 North Street and the applicant is currently zone US U c which is a single unit zone district and they are requesting to change course to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. So it's currently located in Council District eight in Herndon in the South Park Hill neighborhood. So the site itself is a single unit, residential. It's just approximately over 6000 square feet. You can see City Park there to the west and it's between 23rd and 22nd Avenue. So the current zoning as you as you see, it's surrounded by us, you see, which is a single unit zoned district and you do see some open space which is at City Park. Um for the land use its current. It's currently single unit residential and it is surrounded by single unit residential in this area. And as you can see on the top right corner is the subject property. But you can see that in the close proximity there is a one story, two two story structures. And this went before the planning board in April and it was approved unanimously and has before you today as a present we have received two comments of opposition and those comments were around noise, the placement of the ADU, such as the setbacks, the height, as well as several visual impacts that can happen by the placement of the detached ADU. And you all received a response letter from the applicant that was responding to a lot of the concerns found in the opposition. That was by Bruce O'Donnell. Then he submitted that about Friday and I sent that over to you. Um, and so now whenever we're dealing with a rezoning case, we look at a specific review criteria that's found in the Denver zoning code. So the first one is consistency with adopted plans. And so we're really focusing on three plans here, which is a comprehensive plan, 2040 blueprint, Denver Land Use and Transportation Plan of 2019 and the East Area Plan of 2020 that was recently adopted. Um, there are several strategies found in comprehensive plan 2040 and that's specified in the staff report. And I would jump into your blueprint. Blueprint classifies this area as urban, um, which allows for small multi-unit residential and low intensity mixed use buildings. Um, and within the future place type classification, it's classified as low residential, which is predominately single into uses and accessory dwelling units are easy to use, are appropriate, and below street is a local street, which is primarily served by residential uses. As well as when we look at blue print, they have their specific policy that addresses AIDS, such as policy for funding the language in built form housing, which is the diversity housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units in all residential areas. When we jump when we jump into the east area plan, the east area plan classifies this area as low residential single unit, which is predominantly single unit uses. And it does call that accessory dwelling units are appropriate. And when we look at specific policy and strategy language in the plan, policy six does talk about accessory dwelling units and appropriate locations as well as implementing and adopting city policies for the expansion of aid to use. And when we look at specifically Section four, South Park Hill, it talks about integrate accessory dwelling units in appropriate locations and then for the rest of the criterias are specified in the staff report. Therefore, CPD recommends approval based on all findings of the rubric right here have been met. I am available for any questions you may have as well as the applicant should be online. All right. Thank you. This evening we have it looks like. Seven speakers who are joining us and they are all joining us virtually. Our first speaker this evening is Tess Dougherty. Hi there. Good evening. Thank you for letting me speak tonight. Since I wasn't able to speak at the general public comment session, even though there were 3 minutes left. So I would just I just don't quite understand how that works. It seems like you're taking 3 minutes away from the people. But I was I wanted to talk about the the zoning and how it relates to gentrification and displacement. I'm in favor of this aid to you. I think we need to be providing more, you know, options and making it easier. I think the planning process needs to be easier and the criteria need to be updated to reflect the needs of the city. I don't think that that's been done and I'm still curious what is being done, because we've heard you all discuss how they're out of, you know, they're not effectively meeting the needs of, you know, of the city to protect people from displacement. And I'm I'm just curious how much of the history people in Denver know about displacement and the proposal, the recent proposal of the arena for the satellite area campus? Well, when the area campus originally came to be, it displaced, forcefully displaced people. And so when we're in these zoning, I would like to be hearing more of the the historical context that y'all are making these decisions from, because this city of Denver has a history of displacement. I mean, it goes back, you know, over 100 years. And and like that is a feature of this city. Zoning is displacement. And it doesn't feel like that is is at the center of your conversations about zoning. So thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Carol Kraft. And we have a dick crack. And so, Carol, if that's you, if you could, please raise your hand and we'll get you into the queue. But our next speaker is Carol Crack. Or there's a motley crew as well. So whoever is, Carol, we need you to raise your hand so we can bring you into the Q place. We're here all together. So it's Molly and Carol. Christine. All right, go ahead, please. We're the ones who own the property. My mom is. And so we're the ones making the request. All right. Thank you for joining on this evening. Sure. I mean, we can tell you if you want to know a little. Bit about what we're planning on doing, I'm not sure if you know. But so my mother, who's lived in the house since 1975, is wanting to age in place. And so it was her idea that we explore the option of building a very tiny adu in her backyard so that. My husband and I, with. Our son, would move into the larger house and be able to take care of her so that she can age in place. That's our. Intention. We're available for any questions, too, of course. Do you want to make the request? Yes. I ask that you grant us the variance. All right. Very good. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move on to our next speaker. We have Luann Erickson. Hello. So I really hate doing this because Carol is my next door neighbor. And it it is difficult when you put neighbor against neighbor. But what I have my situation is that I'm retired and my investment is my house. That is my legacy for my children and my grandchildren. And I'm looking to protect that investment. I'm looking to continue to have as much privacy as I can. The placement of the lady you shared with us right now is really an issue for me because it will be very close to space that I use on a regular basis. The front of the ADU would be where I can see it, not only from the outdoors but from the indoors. So that interest in and out of the location of the. The zoning requirements don't really define how you get access in and out of this unit. If it's placed where they shared, the closest way to get to the front door would be basically on my driveway. And, you know, making the gate into the fence that exists right now because there just isn't room on the property on that side of the residence. So I said a letter. There's a number of issues, but what I'm finding is that the zoning requirements, when you're trying to do a new build on to an existing small law, not where there's an existing two car garage that they're trying to convert or one of these very large lots that we have within the neighborhood. The neighbor that is closest to them, which just happens to be me, is the one who was impacted. And so what could be a very good thing for Carol ends up being a very not good thing for me, because I'm going to have to figure out how to spend money to try to undo the damage of privacy and noise and other issues by the creation of the. Are you basically sitting five feet from where I spend my time in my yard? So although, you know, I. I understand what Carol wants to do and I applaud it. As it currently stands. I just can't support it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Our next speaker is Geoff Baker. Hello. Good evening, counsel. My name's Jeff Baker. I live at 2422 Tampa Street. And I am here in support of this. The crack family actually hired my company waiting for you to help with the build of this. A little back story on the crack family. For over four decades, Carole has lived in the house. Molly was raised in the house. And Carroll wants to age in place, which is a perfect example of what blueprint Denver is outlining. And we built or have designed a very small area that started at 480 square feet and 17 feet tall and was reduced after Logan's comments to 396 square feet and 16 feet. And this. I can't see a better reason to build one of these. This is exactly what Denver needs. Carroll is going to be able to stay on the property that she's been in. Molly and her family are going to get to move back into her home that she grew up in. And it's not going to change the character of the neighborhood. This thing is teeny tiny. There was outreach done. There was some support for it. There wasn't comments submitted because Carol does not want to get into neighbors arguing with each other. And then I'll address a couple of the concerns that. We ran mention so that the lot size is actually a medium sized Denver law and pretty standard for for most of the the bicycle aid use built on them. And there is um minimum lot size requirements in the code. The height and sun blocking that she's concerned with is addressed by the bulk playing in the code. Um, and the concern about the, the electrical feed and connection that is all addressed with utilities coming off the primary house. Um, access to the edu on the property is not outlined in the code, but the north side where she's describing has never been used in over four decades as a primary access point to the back and actually has a permanent fence there with no gate. That doesn't mean you can take it down, but that is not where there will be access. There's a driveway that goes all the way up on the other side. And as far as I see, yes, there will be a sea and many split unit which is similar to running an AC unit and the five foot buffer between the property is addressed by the set back requirement. I understand that that's too close for comfort for lou-ann, and I apologize for that. But that is what the code is. And we ask tonight that you support this and that you approve the reason of this property so we can build this adorable little cottage for Carol. Thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker is Rachelle Subfloor. Good evening, members of City Council. My name is Rachel Floor and I live in the Five Points neighborhood in Denver. Bruce O'Donnell, myself, are assisting the Craig family with the rezoning application. So I'll try to keep this short and to the point, try not to repeat. Too much information you've already heard. So first, the proposed rezoning was recommended by approval, by planning board. And. As it meets the rezoning criteria for. An 80. Map amendment. Second, it has plenty of planned support from citywide plans such as. Comp Plan 2040. Blueprint Denver 2019 Blueprint. Denver specifically speaks positively to the addition. Of ideas and most, if not all, residential neighborhoods, as they are a low intensity approach to. Diversifying the housing stock. It is also supported by Housing Inclusive Denver, as well as the land use and zoning goals and recommendations of the East Area Plan and the Parkdale Neighborhood Plan. And overall, they just add to the much needed housing stock allowing for development that is also in character with the neighborhood. In addition to the neighbor outreach conducted by Jeff Baker with a. Do for you and the homeowner. We reached out to local Arnaud's back in December 2020, including a phone call with Greater Parkhill. We informed them or them and the other several RINO's of the homeowners plans. To build a granny flat. And. Of the proposed rezoning as well, which would allow them to do so. We invited them to meet with us virtually so we could share more information if needed. The Arnaud's did not reply needing any additional information, nor did they hold a position. For these. Reasons that they meet the criteria. I ask that City Council members. Please vote yes on this bill for the. Rezoning of 2208. Miller Streets. And I am able to answer any questions about the application itself. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Our last speaker is Jesse Perez. Yes. Good evening. Member of the council. Those watching at home, those that are out of town full time. My name is Justin with some personal representative for black staff to move to self defense, positive action, Memphis, Memphis, The Times as well as the Unity Party of our auto and Frontline Black News. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this 82 request tonight. It meets all the criteria that is specified in Blueprint Number and Comprehensive Plan 2040. So I have no choice but to vote in favor of this. I also live in Council District eight, which is good for this district and Northeast Park here. I supported 80 youth when I ran for city council at large in 2019, almost 15,000 votes with no money. And I continue to continually support these 82 requests throughout various parts of the city. We need more housing lost their aging mother to aging in place. I'm in favor of that. We need to have more of this across the city. We need to support our seniors and allow them to age in place in the communities that they. Have helped to build and grow and say over the years. So I'm in favor of this rezoning. Please pass this to. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill five, two, two. I'll give it a moment. Seen no questions by members of council. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 522. Councilmember Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. I, I just want to say I believe the criteria has been met quite clearly, and I would urge my colleagues to vote in support of this. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon and I agree the criteria have been met and we'll be voting in favor of this rezoning. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council. Bill five two. Two. Herndon, I. Hines Cashman. I. Canet. I. Sandoval, i. Sawyer, i. Torres, i. Black. I. See. Tobacco. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 12 hours. 12 eyes Council Bill 21, Dash 522 has passed. All right. Moving on to our second hearing this evening. Councilmember Torres, will you please put Council Bill five, seven, seven on the floor for final passage? I move that council bill 20 1-0577 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.

Consider Directing Staff to Create an Autonomous Code Enforcement Division to Enforce All Building Code and Health and Safety Laws. (Councilmember Vella)

AlamedaCC_11192019_2019-7443

Consider directing staff to create an autonomous code enforcement to. Isn't to enforce all building code and health and safety laws. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Vela. So go ahead. Councilmember development. You take this one. I'll keep it short. So we've heard from constituents on a number of different issues, whether it's smoking in public concerns about after hours, construction issues related to other health and safety issues. And oftentimes, we're referring them to code enforcement. And then code enforcement is saying, you know, that's not something that we do. And so really, this is just about seeing collectively and we've talked about this tangentially related to other issues, but it often comes up relative to tenants issues where where we've heard from folks saying that they were reporting things. There was nobody to report them to or there was no record of it. Or our own building staff basically saying, you know, we focus on building inspections and not not we're not capable or trained in in the general breadth of code enforcement. And so several other cities were part of the LED abatement. JPA and several other cities are also in the taking steps to create their own autonomous code enforcement units. Oakland has one. Berkeley has one that they are making a little more robust. Emeryville will be putting or is considering a special ballot measure to fund a new code enforcement division. So I'm asking that council give direction to staff to put a proposal together about what that would look like. And also, I was told that there was some sort of past policy that we were not enforcing commercial. Commercial construction violations. The way that we were residential, that there was some sort of council policy to be a little not that we weren't enforcing them, but to be more lax. And so if that's the case, if there's some sort of existing policy that that come back to council for consideration. Um. Thank you. I actually would like to just ask Mr. Thomas to address that last the reference to. Or do. You. Yeah. If Andrew wants to address the last reference and then I can address the rest of the. Okay. And just if you could, is. There there is an existing council policy about code enforcement priorities for planning and building, and we will definitely bring that back when we bring it back. Eric will talk a little bit about that. It does not prioritize residential over commercial, but it does set priorities of some things over others. But that will be part of our report. Okay, thanks. Any other council comments before we hear from the city manager or should we hear from the city manager? Why don't we hear from the city manager? Mr. Levitt, I don't see its time. I have no idea why that went on. It was not on purpose. But Mayor Maras, Craft and City Council Andrew Thomas and myself are working on a report to come back to council. First quarter of 2020. And in that one is to go through the history and tell you what the priorities are. I think those priorities were set, as I understand it, 10 to 15 years ago. So to at least lay out what the priorities are and then also bring forward a plan of how we can move forward, how we could prioritize in a budget, a potential budget that would go with that. Sounds good in city attorney Did you want to add anything about code enforcement? I certainly echo my colleague's view that it is, you know, and I'm looking forward to working with both of my colleagues, both the city manager and the planning director on bringing back to the council a robust report. And I as I've indicated to the council previously, laws that are not in force are not laws that are effective and effectual. And so I look forward to working with the Council and my colleagues to ensure that we have adequate enforcement of our laws. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions or should we hear from our speakers? Councilmember Rudy. I'll wait till. After your time. Thank you. Okay. How many do we have? Three speakers. Okay, so three speakers. You can each have 3 minutes. Toni Grim, Nelson, Lag and Holly Lim. Eric. Okay. Graham. Good evening. I'm here to ask the council to approve this referral. I'm speaking as a member of an advocacy group, a well-known advocacy group. The seniors and disabled renters. And we have noticed an increasing problem of habitability lately. This is not surprising because we have. So many older buildings in our. City. But I also like to speak to the quality of life problems that all residents have in all buildings, whether they be commercial or residential. When codes are not enforced, it's not just problems of smoking and noise codes that are being violated, but also accessibility problems, which especially does impact seniors and disabled people. So I ask the Council to approve this referral. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Graham. Next in. Line. Hello. Hello. Good evening, Mayor and and council members. My name is Nelson League. I'm the Alameda resident and I'm also the president of the board of directors of Filipino Advocates for Justice, also known as FHA, as a representative of an organization serving Alameda Communities for the past several years, I'm speaking to express our support for Council members vela's Council referral to strengthen core code enforcement. FHA has been supporting Alameda residents through a multitude of housing issues since the attempted mass eviction and for some of the Central Avenue when tenants landlords ordered construction during illegal hours as a harassment tactic. When we surveyed Alameda renters recently in a large scale research project earlier this year, we observed that it was actually not uncommon to see renters lived through shockingly poor living conditions ranging from burnt out parts of their buildings to falling plasters to holes in the floor enough to see the downstairs unit. Well, we have always advised tenants to report these problems through through the usual means. Many of the community members have expressed discouragement due to in part of their what seemingly is a lack of response from code enforcement and other agencies. The recent complaint was made by the residents near and above the clubhouse bar and spinning bones reflect the types of concerns we've seen from vulnerable community members living in uninhabitable conditions. In Alameda, Councilmember Member Vela's proposal to transition building inspections into a new unit for universal code enforcement will significantly increase the city's ability to enforce existing laws in a timely and effective manner. I am confident that it will also have an outstanding impact on Alameda, tenants health, living conditions and overall well-being. Our organization applauds and supports this council applauds the support this council has demonstrated for renters this year, and we hope that will continue through. Thank you. Thank you. Holly. Lynn Holley them. Okay. Good evening. My name is Holly, and I'm an Alameda and living in a mixed use building on Park Street. I've talked to many of you about. The. Situation. That my neighbors and I. Have been going through for the past year. I'd like to offer my support for the council referral. To create an autonomous code enforcement division. There have been. Multiple times. Throughout this year. When the construction downstairs for an upcoming restaurant has really affected the health. And just the. Quality of life and well-being of. Myself and my neighbors. Especially when the construction went after hours. So I just kind of. If you can. Oh, shoot. I was going to play something. For you that happened on a Sunday from 9 a.m. to 10. P.m.. This was what? The noises. All day on a Sunday. My neighbors, I had filed five code enforcement. Complaints about. After hours construction at another a neighbor next door who filed code enforcement complaints. Nothing was really done, except we'll just talk to the owners. And so we felt like we were not only experiencing construction noise six days a week, nearly nine months, but we were also, you know, when the time was for us. To rest, we couldn't rest. And not only that, over the past decade. Residential tenants in my area. Have made numerous attempts. To report code violations related to the noise, nuisance, unsafe behavior and illegal actions of our commercial neighbors, particularly from the clubhouse bar, from smoking to noise nuisances like disposing of glass bottles loudly during their closing at 2 a.m.. Unfortunately, all of our reports have not been given the responsiveness needed to enforce the laws. As such, residents. Help right to quiet enjoyment and quality of life have been impacted. Most currently I'm impacted by the restaurant noise. The noise cleaning goes till 12 sometimes. They woke me up at midnight. Last night and at. Times the noise wakes me up at 530. So through the last month I've been kind of on very little sleep. And so because of the situation with the construction, I just feel like it kind of landed nowhere. So why should I even talk to people about anymore? Being raised without remedy. I think a lot of the residents feel like. We're headed to a place of partial, constructive eviction. In our near future. Many of us can't live like this. Lack of sleep. Just all. Of this stuff isn't really healthy. For a. Lot of us. And it's been going almost a year now. So please. Support this. Council referral. For me personally, my health depends on it, and we'd like to keep Alameda residents like me and my neighbors safely in our homes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. That's the last of our speakers. Yeah. Okay. So, um, council, we've heard from the city manager and the city attorney. What direction do you want to give? Can I say my question. That you may not share to the. Author? So I think I heard the city manager and the I've got to get this title right. Planning, building and transportation, direct your proposal. I mean, is that an acceptable. Or is there something more you want besides that? Or is that acceptable? Or. Well, I'd like a proposal to come back about specifically addressing the creation of the separate unit and also to hear back on this specific policy of council priorities. And then with that proposal, funding mechanisms, because if we just hear about here's a proposal and we don't have the cost estimates and funding with it, it's going to just delay implementation. And again, through the chair, I mean, is that something that you guys. That's consistent with what we're planning for? Thank you. And Councilmember de SAC. Yeah, I'm not quite understanding the need for a completely new part. I can't, can I? I mean. Yes. That makes a lot of sense. So what we're talking about, we haven't decided this for sure, is that it would be a separate division of planning, building and transportation. There were reports specifically to Andrew that that's my concept that I'm that we've been working on even before this referral. I tend to have in other organizations had code enforcement separate. So it's not through a building official, it's through actually their own supervisor that would report to Andrew. They would take on a lot of the complaints and then the the code enforcement officials would report through that individual to Andrew, I see that as autonomous. I don't know. I just think that if there's something broken with the current regime, then we fix it. If they need more funding for more staff to to respond to all the concerns, if there is a order of magnitude increase, and then we fix that. But that's a separate question from performance. Performance means how did we respond to problems as they arose and did we satisfactorily. And even there, I'm not convinced that. I mean, you know, it's your professional judgment. The thing that I'm concerned, though, is I don't want to see an entity whose. Whose reason for existence is to go after small mom and pop landlords. I don't want to see that. I want to see I want to make sure that tenants are treated fairly as well as landlords. But the tenure that I'm hearing here is, is that they're seeing this as something to go after those guys. So that's a concern of mine. Okay, so hold that thought. I actually like. That's fine. But I still need to make a motion because it is now 1126 and we voted to go to 1130. We've got the rest of this and one more council referral to go. Who wants to make a motion? I move again. Sorry. 1158 I was going to say 1145. I think 11 4511. 1145 yeah. That's my motion. Okay. Secondly, okay. Motion second four 1145 all in favor, I. Okay, five. Let's go quickly. So, Mr. Thomas, I mean, can you just talk briefly, briefly about I'm are we going after mom and pop landlords with. This. Permit. But the response because it's my referral. Uh, it is your referral. I would go to him, but sure you can. Okay, go ahead. So the intent of this is not to go after mom and pop landlords. The intent is to make sure that there is that there are habitable units and that when there are habitability issues or health and safety issues, that there is a mechanism for addressing it. Right now, we have we're under the old model where we have a building official who is trained in very specific things. That does not necessarily extend to all of the health and safety issues that may exist. And right now, it means that we're directing people to call the police department when it's not necessarily under their purview, and that might not be their best use or we're directing them to building inspections. Who where our inspectors do not feel that they are properly trained or in a position to address this. And most cities have therefore created an independent and separate unit that also trains staff to do this. And Mr. Thomas, you can chime in, but that's what I'm looking for. I first of all, I think this is we we've been talking about this report before your referral came. From my perspective, I'm relatively new to this role with this big long title, but my feeling being in this role for this last year is we have a code enforcement division in the planning building and transportation division, which was designed, shaped and funded, and the funding is key 15 to 20 years ago. You are adopting new laws. We are being asked to do different kinds of code enforcement. It 15 years ago it was very much designed as a small little unit that deals basically with building code violations. What I'm sensing is this council is saying, hey, we've got more than just building code violations. We have other kinds of violations. We have to rethink how we how we design our code enforcement unit, how we fund it. And that's, I think, where we want to kind of come back with is some some ideas, some thoughts, some adjustments. I kind of agree with you, Councilmember de Salgado, though, I think there is a question like I mean, every we just dealt with two code enforcement issues just today where we enforce code and immediately the call went to the mayor and, you know. To fix it, spent. A bunch of time on the phone. I mean, the more code enforcement we do, the more complaints and issues. I mean, yes, some people are going to be happy. Other people are not going to be happy. So it's a delicate balance. Yeah. Vice Mayor Nuts. Right. Okay. So I would like to thank Councilmember Vella for bringing this forward. My understanding from talking to staff is actually just something that I think everybody's been talking about with staff. On some level, I am uncomfortable with the council directing the the form that this takes. I would I think it and maybe this aligns a little bit with Councilmember de SAC. It sounds like there's a conversation around the policy that exists about what we do, code enforcement, and then we should have a we have a direct report whose job it is is to structure the city and be accountable for making sure that they're following through on the on the on the and on the implementation of that policy. It clearly it's not being implemented, right? Well, it may be implemented right. It may be that we just have a terrible policy or a policy that's not right for today. My proposal would be would be that we ask for that policy to come back. And then once the policy is adopted, that the city manager, you know, just come back with a report on how he is going to ensure that that policy is implemented in the way that the majority of the council is asking for it to be enforced. So. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Councilmember Valley, did you have some of that? Well. I think that that just delays what's already been worked on. And it sounds like staff already has something that. They're working. On in line with what the proposal is. So I don't want to add an extra step or an extra council meeting when we don't have to. Councilman Brody, thank you. I guess maybe I heard a different discussion than my colleague here, because I think when Mrs. Vela presented the item, I think her concern was I mean, later, Andrew, you talked about it was that commercial was was not getting enforced and residential was so it to me if residential was then we would already have enforcement against quote unquote small mom and pop landlords. And what I think we did with our tenant protection in our just cause is kind of remove the fear that tenants have to actually speak to their landlord about it. So in my mind, that would kind of reduces code enforcement because instead of being afraid of being evicted for complaining about a broken window, you're not going to code enforcement. You are actually not having the fear to talk to your landlord. And I think the story we heard from Holly was a commercial landlord that was doing construction or a commercial tenant doing construction, not a mom and pop small property owner. So I'm not sure I got the same, you know, the same reaction. I mean, I think that given that the author of the referral is okay with the direction or the, the, the, the proposal that staff has put together on how to respond to this, I would be willing to to move forward the the referral based on the expectation of the report that our planning director and our city manager said they would provide. So let me jump in here, if I might. That's okay with the. So so we've heard from the city manager that he and planning director and all the other titles are working on a report with the city manager, city attorney to come back to the council in the first quarter of 2020. That will look at the history of code enforcement and bring forward a plan in the budget to be able to to revamp it, to bring it up to the needs of today's residents and businesses. And I think, Madam Mayor, also making sure that whatever we do, that there's consideration given to the city attorney to make sure that whatever what what's being structured is, in fact, going to make us better at enforcement, especially with the creation of the new prosecutorial. Because he also mentioned that having a code that of course it is. Disagree with that. Disagree. Yeah. I'm a strong believer that the enforcement arm and you you work together but there should be a separation between prosecute. Well we're we're waiting for the report to come forward. Let's not let's not get too much. I want to say one thing, though, and I've met with Mr. Muslim and her neighbors. I think something that we have to be careful of is achieving that balance. When you're talking about a mixed use building, that is a mixed use and there is a zoning and it allows restaurant. And we've also if you've been on social media lately, you've seen a lot of talk about businesses that are going out of business on Park Street. And we and we heard about the need for small businesses and supporting mom and pop and independently owned businesses locally. So let's make sure we achieve that balance. And I want to make sure that we also hear from the business owner, because I have met with the owner of Spinning Bones and and this is a new restaurant and it deserves a chance and shouldn't have to pay for the transgressions of the clubhouse bar. That sounds like it should have been dealt with more effectively with code enforcement. But I just want to make sure that we don't this isn't all or nothing. And, you know, no side has the corner on the market of of truth and justice. We need if we truly want a vibrant community and a downtown district and walkable, you know, homes and businesses and all that, we've got to we've got to address that and not just say, you know, businesses bad anyway. But I like I like what's been brought forward. I think there's a good plan in place. I thank my colleague for bringing this to our attention. So have we got that motion to do? You made that? Yes. Okay. So that was you who moved, right? Councilmember is the move by Councilmember Odie? What is the motion, Madam Clerk? I said. That's okay. It is to essentially adopt what the city manager had put forward and with the assurance that. Yes. The council prioritization. Yes. Move the move the move the referral. With the plan that the director of transportation building and. Whatever. Yes, let me. Right, Andrew. I'll call you. Andrew had 1135. And your name. Is manager together with. Along with the city. With city with Councilmember Vela's addition at the end after I asked her the question. Okay. So it's been moved. It's been seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor. I opposed. Abstained. Okay. So that passes with four affirmative in one abstention. Okay. Now we are moving on to council referral nine be. Consider requiring new construction or renovation of publicly accessible buildings with at least one public restroom to provide at least one safe, sanitary, convenient and publicly accessible baby diaper changing station. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Phillips.

Recommendation to adopt resolution in opposition to Proposition 6: Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Initiative which will be considered Statewide by voters on the November 6, 2018 ballot.

LongBeachCC_09112018_18-0816

Motion carries. Next will be moving to item 24 with the clock please. With the item. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to adopt a resolution in opposition to Proposition six. Voter approval for future gas and vehicle taxes and 2017. Tax Repeal Initiative, which will be considered statewide by voters on the November six, 2018 ballot. Thank you. To not only report on that to me. Okay. Could I please have any further comment? Mm mm. Well, we've made it this far. Carolyn Byrnes Long Beach Taxpayers Association, also part of the newly formed Long Beach Reform Coalition. We're finally getting it together. So I don't have my orthopedic boot on today. I feel that that's an accomplishment. But unfortunately, my friend Tom is wearing his matching designer orthopedic shoe. We've been pounding the pavement. We've stood out at the veterans stadium many a Sunday at the swap. Meet the auto swap, meet the motorcycle swap, meet. Gathering signatures to support this measure to go on the ballot. To remedy the actions of 120 people in our state legislature. Who made a decision for the citizens without considering what the citizens wanted. This is a very expensive proposition. I mentioned the number earlier, $779.38. I think that this one might backfire on you all. It has been predicted because of this particular measure. The citizens are. A much more inclined to vote in the upcoming election. Which also has on the ballot your four charter amendments. We're campaigning heavily against those amendments. We don't mind tying the two together the four amendments and the gas tax. And we do feel that we may have some measure of success because of the gas tax. So go ahead. Make your vote 8 to 0 to support a no vote on the gas tax, because we're going to make it in big letters with our new political action committee and we're going to find the dickens out of it and shame you for what you have been doing. Please stop it. Thank you, Max Baker. Hi. Tom Stout, supporter of the gas repeal. If any of you up here would like a poster and your city employees, I would be more than happy to supply them at no cost. Or if you want some honest literature with honest information on it, I'd be more than happy to supply you with that, too. As Carol mentioned, we were fighting to repeal this gas tax. I spent many hours at the Long Beach Automotive and motorcycle swap meet. We gathered over 2000 signatures there from people that live all over the state of California, because you need to have a different form for each county in L.A. and in the whole state. We are ten different counties from Northern California to San Diego and probably the most hated people that we spoke to at that. Was Governor Brown and the state legislature who put this tax on them, and it was done by bribery during the middle of the night. Governor Brown gave $1,000,000,000 to four legislators. Four people got $1,000,000,000 of taxpayer money to go from a no vote to a yes vote. That is theft. That is bribery. Governor Brown says that's politics. Well, that may be politics to him, but that's bribery to everybody else at the car show. I've done a number of them and I have signs on my car. And 99% of the people are pissed at people like you that want to put this tax on the vast majority of people that are either low or moderate income. They can't afford another tax. They're already paying to hire rats, but that doesn't seem to bother any of you is along as you get a little bit more money to allegedly do some good work for the residents. The bottom line is it doesn't happen. No matter how much money you get, extra money, it frees up other money. And that other money seems to go in your pocket. Just like when Marjorie passed, everybody got raises. Not just a one time raise, but a compounded raise. And management. I still don't understand how you have a union. Hell, you're supposed to be management. You shouldn't be able to bargain. It's pathetic. So what's going to happen? I don't know. Every 99% of the people at the Belmont Shore car show that took information was really upset. And they weren't upset with me for trying to pass it out. There were a couple people. It was surprising. One guy said, I can't vote yes. I'm not in favor, but I can't vote yes because I work for public works. Another Long Beach firefighter came along and said, I'm in favor of. Yeah, I'm for. Yes, repeal it. Thank you. So, like I said, show some good conscience and do your job and don't try and tack somebody out of California. Maybe that's the best thing to do is move out of the state, sell what property you have, and try another low tax state. Even the weather's not as good. Thank you. Okay, next. Bigger. Good evening. City Council Members Vice Mayor Andrews and Distinguished City Council members. My name is John Wright, policy manager of the L.A. County Business Federation. A grassroots organization with more than 70 business organizations represent 390,000 players, ten .3. 5 million employees in Los Angeles County. We were in it to win it with Measure and we're in it to win it with. This has to be won. We're in it to win it to keep transportation funds in Los Angeles County, because that's where our jobs are. That's where our infrastructure is at. That's what moves our economy. Those are the things that some mentioned that the cost of for a two car family of $700,000 a year for such a measure. Imagine when someone hits that pothole and they have over $1,000 worth of damage to their transmission, to their suspension. A little bit more than that, maybe up to 2000, depending on how the make and model of the vehicle. All those into consideration, what's the cost worth not doing us. That's what's affecting our job security, affecting our roads, affecting our infrastructure that we need to protect. What city lobbies in L.A. County in general? Because this is what's going to be needed to fix the 710 Freeway, to keep the maintenance and keep the roads smooth and clean. Because if you're going to have higher zero emission vehicles or near zero emission vehicles with newer technology, they want to protect that investment. They don't want to see it being bumped and messed up because of crappy roads. And I live as a Long Beach resident in the seventh District. I live right at 37 Linden and I see that every time I even ride my bike with all those potholed road roads right in front of petroleum couple right in front of the bacon barrel. Because I see that every time I ride my bike I got to repair that tire. I can swerve all I want to. But guess what? I'm still going to hit that pothole because that paving needs to take place and that's what this funding will do. This isn't perfect. There is no such thing. But at least we're doing something. And that's what needs to take place. I urge for your support of this particular vote. And have a great evening. Thank you. Expedia. Hi, America. Gonzales. I live in the second district. And I just want to say I'm an absolute support of this measure. I feel like the gas tax is really just the first step in what we need to maintain our infrastructure. It's been neglected for decades upon decades, upon decades, and we're now barely taking the first step necessary to get to where we should be in 2018. So if we don't show our support for it now, we're going to lose it and the streets are going to fall into further disrepair. Now, to kind of echo the cycling aspect of it, I bike everywhere to school, to work. That's what I do. Between Cherry and Redondo on 10th Street, it is a war zone for me as I'm fighting cars and potholes across that. But it's my hope that because of this tax that will soon be repaired and I will only have to. Fight cars on that road. So please support. This. I hope the community comes out, understands all the negative externalities the cars produce, and how we're only trying to correct that and put us where we should be now. Thank you. Thank you very much. I need a more public comment now. Would you please cast your vote? Okay. Now she. Carries with. Us. Thank you. Now we've got a second coming. Right. If anyone have any comments, please. He's come up. Please state your name. 3 minutes.

Recommendation to declare ordinance approving and adopting the official budget of the City of Long Beach for the Fiscal Year 2017-2018, creating and establishing the funds of the Municipal Government of the City of Long Beach and appropriating money to and authorizing expenditures from said funds for said fiscal year; declaring the urgency thereof, and providing that this ordinance shall take effect at 12:01 a.m. on October 1, 2017, read and adopted as read. (Ordinance No. ORD-17-0020) (A-17)

LongBeachCC_09122017_17-0748

Motion carries. Thank you. Item 24, please. Item 24 is a report from financial management. Recommendation to declare ordinance approving and adopting the official budget of the Long Beach of the City of Long Beach for fiscal year 2017 through 2018. Creating and establishing the funds of the municipal government of the City of Long Beach and appropriating money to and authorizing expenditures from state funds for safe fiscal year, declaring the urgency thereof and providing that this ordinance shall take effect on October 1st, 2017. Read and adopted as read. Is there any public comment on this? Please come forward. Very good. I'm suggesting, again, as I referenced earlier, that you really get some guidance relative to the bioterrorism, notwithstanding the comments from a well-intended lady speaker earlier there referenced a situation where, quite frankly, it's a city we're doing the job in the first place. A lot of that wouldn't have been necessary. But but. A well-trained Eagle Scout troop could have addressed those issues. I'm talking about bioterrorism. I'm not going into the specifics of them because I'm not planning I don't want to plan any ideas, but that's an entirely different world. And again, it goes back to the fact that, again, the classic example came up 3 to 3 weeks ago. It's not that you don't know. You don't know. You don't know. And I would strongly suggest you reach out and get some experts in that field and get some guidance. Right now, as I pointed out. The police department fully can't grasp how to deal with the broken window paradigm, let alone bioterrorism. So I think you should take the needed steps. Spend what money you have to if you have to get out. Since consultants are work with the federal government zero in on specifically that. Don't wait for it to happen. As too often is the case. Just like you waited too long. Why do we had all these power outages? You didn't zero in on the electric companies to see and find out they were skimping and not bringing everything up to code. As a result, many buildings were out of power. Now, that's not a catastrophe, the first order. It's something they can work through with a good group of Boy Scouts to help solve that immediate problem. But I think you have to come into the 21st century. Spend some money, find some experts to guide you through that. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. And so first, just before you begin. To talk. About. My time. The moment you get off topic, let's talk the time for a moment. The moment you get off topic, this exercise is over. Okay, so I order. Time out. You let me explain this to you the way this is going to work. You have 3 minutes to speak. You can speak and say what you want to say, but you need to remain on topic. There is an opening public comment at the beginning of the meeting, a closing public comment at the end, and you can speak on whatever topic you like, but this one just stick on this particular issue . And that way you can get your 3 minutes. Okay. So now it's time to start. Yeah. Anyway, so given that it's a law in which you need to start reading the Bible so you can be fair. Remember what you were taught when you were young. Okay. Now, as far as dealing with this term fiscal year, we need the budget and everything done right and we need the many money spent right. We need the money spent for the people, money spent for the city. Not all this finagling help. The homeless are not going to go off and just say anything. This is real. That was real to do for the people. The people really need it. I keep on hearing about these bills for the homeless in everything I do for the people. Every time you ask Where's the money going to go to? Yeah, somebody says, okay, we'll figure that out. The third time I heard it was $225 million bills before, and I heard it. And like I say, hey, I guess I am about to go off topic because you need to quit now. I'm about to quit this off topic. Quit. Ginny Pierce. Thank you for your time. So, members, please cast your vote.

Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications No. R-7187 and award a contract to E2 Contracting, Inc., of Irvine, CA, for construction of the Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment Facility Phase 1C Wetlands Project, in the amount of $2,689,210, with a 20 percent contingency in the amount of $537,842, for a total contract amount not to exceed $3,227,052; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_01182022_22-0069

District nine. Motion is carried. All right. Item 29 for your. Report from Public Works Recommendation to award a contract to E two contracting for construction of the Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment Facility. Phase one C Wetlands Project for a total contract amount not to exceed $3,227,052. District one. Move your rank of second to the very highest council meeting. Rank anything. I yeah. I'm also worked on the reverse amount conservancy was able to acquire $2 million to go towards this project. Very happy to see that it's moving forward with the wetlands component to it. Thank you. In fact, the councilwoman said they are. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you to Councilmember Dunga for supporting this awesome project. I'm really excited for this project and everything that comes with it. It's been, you know, again, a long time coming, but I think it's going to be one of the most fantastic things that we have in Long Beach. So I'm really, really happy to see this project moving forward. Thank you, Councilwoman Ciro. Yeah. So just out of an abundance of caution, I work for ANSI, who provided the funding for this contract. So I would like to recuse myself from voting on this item. Okay. I think you have to exit the meeting. Do I hear? The second reason for the last meeting. So tonight, Councilman Austin, I just want to throw my support behind this item. This is something that I have also worked on with the Gateway Cities Council, the government, as well as been a long term member of city council. This is great to see us putting more investment toward stormwater infrastructure, but at the same time continuing to develop parks basically along the L.A. River. So congratulations to to the city, to the residents, and happy to support this. All right. Interesting. I'll offer my comments and support. This is a project that touches every district along the river. There's opportunities not only to clean our clean our water and have a more sustainable system. It also helps us to add some natural wetlands and some of those things. Our staff has a photo that they'd like to show if that would be a good time to pull it up. Thank you, Eric Lopez. We'll pull that up. And just a real quick rendering. This is a wonderful, wonderful project. The council talked a lot about parks and open space. And this has been a great partnership to be able to take land that is currently not a usable open space and turn it into something beautiful. I. Council members, I'm showing the renderings on the map or on the screen as part of the previous action. The actual treatment facility is already under construction, and tonight's action will have kicked off the actual construction of the wetlands. That's going to be across the street from the facility that's adjacent to that to the river. This was a former private development parcel that we acquired with grant funding support that we've been working to to empty. And now we'll be ready to demolish the site improvement and create or restore some wetlands with visitor serving amenities, including a walking path. So I'll go through some of these renderings to just show the the proposed project and and what we plan for the area to look like once we complete the work. And that concludes that customization. All right. Thank you. They look incredible. Look forward to seeing this project and all the enhancements along the river. Let's go ahead and go to public comment. There is no public comment for this item. Fantastic. Whatever. We'll call the district one. High District to. High. District three. I district for. All right. District five. I. District seven. I. District eight. Hi. District nine. I. Motion is carried.

Recommendation to refer to Hearing Officer the business license application denial appeal by JP23 Hospitality Company located at 110 East Broadway Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90802. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_04122022_22-0399

Thank you. With item eight, please. Report from Financial Man Financial Management Recommendation Refer to hearing officer the Business License Application Denial Appeal by JP 23, Hospitality Company located at 110 East Broadway Avenue, District one. Okay. Let's go to staff report, please. Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. The Department of Financial Management determined it was appropriate as well as required per our duty given by the Long Beach Municipal Code to deny the business license for JP 23 Hospitality, Inc. The business owner followed the process afforded within the Long Beach Municipal Code to appeal. The action before you is for the City Council to consider whether to hear the entire case or refer it to a hearing officer also allowed within the Long Beach Municipal Code. It is staff's recommendation that you refer it to the hearing officer selected by the city clerk's office. And that concludes my report. Both myself and Deputy City Attorney Art Sanchez are available for questions. Thank you. We're going to go to public comment. We see 11 speakers, so we got to 90 seconds. So could Steven Tillet, Jacob Pusey, Carla Curtis, Melander come forward. I'll read the next few just so they can be ready. Samantha Perez. Anthony Hale. Eric Williams. Gurjit Badel. Michelle C, Jackie Cordova, Perla de and Zwei Roybal. So starting with Steven Tillett, you have. Four men, okay. Good evening. Members of the council. I would say, Mayor, but so why I'm here. My name is Stephen Killing. I'm the executive director of a nonprofit called Elad, which stands for Effort, Love, Action and Determination. I'm originally from New Jersey. Ten years ago, I met Mr. Keller. And ever since I've met this man. Things have changed. Not just for myself, but almost everybody around him. What he's able to do in a community. To help that community. Is who he is. Now, I know that you guys don't know him personally. And what he's entrusted me with as the executive director of a nonprofit is to be able to reach out to different communities. Sort of like a liaison. And I do this for him without pay. And I do this because Mr. Pools and Carlos, one of our biggest donors. With the caveat that we do work in the areas where he has businesses. So what we do is we come in and we attempt to make a relationship with all of you, with the police, with the Recreation Department, which we have reached out to a friend of mine. Her name is Ashley Gazette. I'm sure some of you probably know who she is, and she can vouch for the fact that months ago we reached out in order to try and help, because Eli's focus is the youth of the communities. We believe in helping the youth in the different communities. So with time running out, I'd just like to say, I don't know what your process is, but I do know who this man is. And I can tell you he is exactly the type of business owner that you want in your community. He is exactly the type of man that you want to have a business because he does ingratiate himself into the community. That's part of the family. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Jacob from DeKalb. Hi. Good afternoon, city mayor. Mayor Garcia. City Councilman. City Councilwoman. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to speak on behalf of the 70 employees of JP 23. My name is Jacob Carver. I am the founder of JP 23 Hospitality Company. Being born and raised in Montreal, Canada, it was always been my dream to open an entertainment venue in the city of Long Beach. Four years ago, that dream became one step closer. I saw potential in a rundown location that was closed for many years. Here I am for nearly four years later, surviving and trying to hold on to that dream. I spent nearly $3.5 million in that location, and many 18 hour days have passed. For the past four years, we in the restaurant industry, if you don't mind, or if my staff stand up all the 70, that's just a fraction of the people that work at JP 23. Now we at we probably endured one of the we probably one industries that were hit the worst during the pandemic. At what one point I was given, I was going to pull the plug on the whole project and I decided to go through with it. Now here I am confused why I was having difficulty entering delays and trying to get my business license first and then now the entertainment permit. This is an entertainment venue and I can't operate without an entertainment permit. Why? We were denied a temporary entertainment permit as the municipal code allows us to have. So now wait. Why? Okay. Hardworking people that include. Why are we going to the snap? How to stop a finger, get rid of all these jobs, of all these hardworking people that include single parents, students, all walks of life. Sir, your time has expired. I just ask for this hearing to be heard in front of city council instead of the public officer just to have a fair chance at us. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Curtis Millender. After. Curtis is Samantha Perez, then Anthony Hill. Curtis. Good evening, counsel. My name is Curtis Melander. Really quick. I met Jacob ten years ago. And Jeff, I know he's been a big factor in my family's life as well as mine. So I know all his employees and everybody else. He's a big service to everybody. So I just want to, you know, make sure to accept that we get a fair shot. So thank you. Thank you. Next to Samantha Perez and then Anthony Hill and then Eric Williams. I'm say Samantha, not here. Okay, Anthony Hill, you're up. Okay. Anthony Hill. Not here. Eric Williams. Hello. Good evening. I'm Eric Williams. I bring a lot of entertainment to JP 23, and I'm an artist myself. I've made records with Dr. Dre and everybody back in 87. So. That Dr. Dre shook night area that's overweight that's just in the past now that the puffy era the the the type of business the type of entertainment he's trying to bring is this clean rap, this clean R&B. And that's what we've been doing lately. You know, is is has been not one problem. And I've seen I don't been through the the ship ignite the death row era. I didn't seen all of it. But this guy JP 23 that the club is bringing clean entertainment and that's all I have been since I've been going up there. So just like the other guy say, I just want him to get his shot because I it's been it's been it's been okay since I've been seeing it. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Gurjit Ba Dal, then Michelle C, then Jackie Cordova. Good afternoon, City Council. My name is Gurjit. I'm actually a dear friend of Jacob. I've known him for about nine and a half, ten years. Also, just like you can tell, he's a very supportive friend. Also, I eventually started working with him. He helped me start a marketing company in the past year during COVID. I also had a hard time with COVID, with my personal business. I was a wedding photographer and that went under and Jacob supported me and helped me put me back on my feet. So I'm very grateful to him in that aspect. But over the last year and a half, working with him and seeing him, how he is with the staff, his family, you know, he is a very caring person, does care about his business, puts his all into it, is very transparent, who has his heart on his sleeve, knowing what's going on. I also like to say that, you know, we're a community and a lot happened in the past few years with COVID. We should look at supporting the businesses and businessmen, putting money into Long Beach if you know, there's some process that wasn't done the way that was supposed to or not. I know Jacob's done everything in his power to try to get the the licenses and whatnot. But, you know, as you can see, many businesses have gone under during COVID. I want to say that we are a community. We should help each other. And, you know, instead of trying to stop his business and operation, we should advise and let him know the right processes and what you guys would like us to do to help get this business back to the track that we're looking to. All we're trying to do is bring, you know, beautiful entertainment and a beautiful bar to the city of Long Beach. So I hope that you guys would give him a fair chance. Thank you. Thank you. Next as Michelle sees and Jackie Cordova and then pro. Hello, everyone. My name is Michelle Castillo. I am from the Hashemite Nation. I come representing my elders, my Hashemite elders, and also my tongva elders. Just a reminder that you are on Tongva land. And I'd like to acknowledge my ancestors. We are community. This. These women behind me. Our community. The men with us are true community. I am a land protector, a sacred site protector and ocean protector. And I stand with missing and murdered indigenous women. What's going on with JP 23? They made a mess in Orange County, California, in Fullerton. Rape people were drugged. People are getting beat up at that club and now they're coming into precious tongva land. Hashim Inland, the land of my ancestors. And the same mess that happened in Fullerton is going to happen in the city of Long Beach. And I'm just here again representing the elders of Long Beach and asking you to please deny their license. All my relations. Thank you. Next is Jackie Cordova, then Perla de Way, Red Ball. Thank you. Good evening, Community. I am Jackie Cordova. I am a mother of Santa Ana. I am here for our daughters. I'm here for the protection of our women and children. I am here as a voice for the missing and murdered indigenous women of this tongva nation. For several months, we have been standing up and raising attention to the 40 plus allegations of sexual assaults, drugging, kidnaping and rape stemming from JP 23 Urban Kitchen Restaurant Bar in Fullerton. Our latest protest was held at the Fullerton Police Department for their lack of safety concern for our safety. We stand with the victims. We believe them. We give them courage to come forward. April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, an annual campaign to raise public awareness about sexual assault and educate communities and individuals and how to prevent sexual violence. We demand an end to rape culture. We came tonight to warn Long Beach about JP 23, hospitality company trying to establish business. We demand safety for our children, for our businesses and our communities. We urge you to fully investigate these applicants as they come forward. Thank you. Thank you. Next, this property. Good evening, Long Beach. My name is. Burleigh. I also am a mother in Santa Ana on August 2nd, 2021. Our news broke out that a 22 year. Old student. Was brutally raped. And left naked in. A parking structure down the street from JP 23. She had only been a JP 23 and didn't have that much to drink, so it was suspicious as to why she couldn't remember anything. I decided to pull up to the first rally that was outside. As a mother of a 25 year old young woman who has also been a victim of. Sexual assault. And a mother of a Navy veteran. I understand this kind of violence. So I'm here to warn Long Beach about what's about to break out if you allow this man to open business. 40 plus people have come forward, women that have had half a drink at his bar and not remembered where they have been. People that have walked into a room. Full with condoms and tampons and pads and. Undergarments. So I am pissed. But my anger is not just mine. My anger comes with 500 years of age. Thank you. Robert Gribble, our final speaker. Hello. My name is José Wrobel Castle. My traditional name is out there. We all wish we were. It means one that people know before they meet her. The reason I bring up my parents and my last name, my mother is Roy Rosemary Roybal. My father is Richard Dean Cassell. The reason I bring them up is because they met here in Long Beach many, many years ago. I'm here to stand together and in support of the 40 women. Are survivors. I'm a mother. I'm a daughter. I'm a big advocate for my w. I have a tattoo on the side of my head to let women know that I am a safe place for them. And so I am standing here for that reason tonight to use my voice as an entertainer. As an entertainer, as a mother, as a daughter, as a sister, as an ex-wife. And as a grandmother, I stand in support of these women. And I ask you to please reconsider this, because if this has happened in Fullerton, I can guarantee that it will probably happen here as well. And we don't need bad business like that, especially if I'm going to show up in the entertainment business and accidentally bump elbows with folks like that. It's not a good idea. So I ask you, on behalf of the women that have survived this and other women that haven't come forward to please stop the madness and google my w if you guys want to know what it is. Stands for murdered missing indigenous women. And it also covers our children and our men. Thank you, Councilwoman Zendejas. My name's Samantha. Perez. Sorry, I was. Do I still have time to talk? Were you seen around? Okay. Yeah. Okay. I think you're on the list. Yeah, I'm definitely on the list. Go for it. Okay. So my name is Samantha Perez. I'd like to. Just give a. Little quick background. I started working at JP 23 in Fullerton. I just want. To you know, I'm a woman. I'm also a mother. I started working at JP 23 in Fullerton when I was 21. He gave me an opportunity. I was a college student. I worked there for probably about four years. I paid my way through college working there. And no. Debt, which is always nice and flash forward to graduating going into a different sort of industry. Human Resources. I now came back to work for JP 23 because this is a family owned establishment and it's unfortunate. I worked at other bars in Fullerton and it's unfortunate that this happens in college towns, but it has nothing to do with Jacob as a person. It has absolutely nothing to do with our bar. We employ 60% of women. He makes sure every night that we're getting walked to our car by bouncers. I it's okay. I don't want anyone to assume anything based off. Of what you've. Heard, because I am a woman and I have a child, and it has absolutely nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the city and the way that all of the bars are necessary. If I would have anything to do with the bars, it has in my opinion, it's unfortunate that college towns that this happens, but that somebody who's just a really terrible person and has horrible morals that is going to take advantage. Of all women. We do our best as a woman. I've done my best to make sure that all of the women in our establishment are safe. So I won't tolerate that. This is my main goal. Even in Long Beach. I do want smart and sorry I'm a woman. I'm going to make sure that, you know, all the women stay safe. Leaving are that woman. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Councilwoman Zendaya's, you have the floor. Thank you. My smear. Obviously, I am not in the business of denying, you know, business license to people. You know, one of the things I pride myself in is to uplift our businesses that are in existence. I want to thank everybody who who came out to to do their public comments. I really appreciate that. But I really would like to ask city staff if you could just go step by step on telling us or identifying why this business was denied. And also, if you could also clarify what this is for today. Today we are we are making a decision whether to refer this to a hearing officer. And if you could please, you know, reiterated in your words, please. Council member. Yes. This evening. The item before you this evening is to refer recommendation of staff is to refer the item to a hearing officer to hear the item. The denial of the business license. If council chooses to do that, then it would be sent to a hearing officer to be heard. A decision would be rendered by the hearing officer which could or could not come back to council, depending on whether it's appealed by either the applicant. So that's what's before the city tonight. If the city were to choose not to send to a hearing officer and and hear it as a council body, you could do that. But that would not happen this evening. It would be rescheduled at a future date. Thank you. Can you give us I know you can't give us too much information, but can you give us what has led to this decision to deny the license? Oh. Or is that part of because it's not part of what we're talking about in the item tonight. So Councilwoman, to answer your question, the I guess basis for the denial of the business license application for GP 23 Hospitality Company was based on violations of the municipal code and I don't want to get too specific, but operating without permits issued to the city I guess is at best basic, as I can put it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Allen. Yes. Thank you, vice mayor. I just think tonight's item is pretty simple. It's just a referral to the business appeal to a city hearing officer who will then make the recommendation to the city council. All right, that's that's the way I'm seeing this. This location, JP 23, was in my district before redistricting, and I also live very close to JP 23. And I know that we have received well over 100 emails regarding this this location. And it's a lot. It was a lot. So I know that District one is now handling that regarding, you know, just just different various complaints, which are is concerning and also the fact that, you know, I'm a big supporter of businesses. There's no one that's a bigger supporter than me. And but, you know, there are rules that have to be followed. Everyone should be abide by the rules. And having proper permits and and things like that are seemed like pretty easy to do and all the businesses I've owned in the city. So I don't know why this this operator hasn't done that, but nevertheless, I think it's going to be I look forward to hearing seeing the recommendation from the city's hearing officer. And I also appreciate everyone that spoke tonight to. Thank you. And if I could just clarify that it would be sent to a hearing officer. The clerk maintains a list of independent hearing officers, and it's selected randomly. So it's not a city employee who's a hearing officer just for the public. It is a hearing officer that is selected to hear the matter and then would render a decision. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. I was away when this item was was presented in the restroom, but I wanted to just just get a sense of what the process is. So to go to an independent hearing officer, the hearing officer will make their recommendations. Will it come back to the city council? Thank you. Councilmember The answer is it could come back to the hearing, to the if it's appealed, if the decision of the hearing officers appealed, then it would come back to the city council. Okay. And maybe I just need a little bit more because, you know, I've been downtown. I've seen this business obviously operating for for some time now, a few months. And, you know, I do respect the the investment that anybody puts into our city. I want to want to kind of I don't know if we need to do that tonight, but at some point kind of walk through, you know, how somebody can can invest as much money as they have and then get to this point right. Where the city is potentially. So just just briefly. Councilman Aspen, I just wanted to clarify. So what is before you tonight is decision whether or not to refer this matter to a hearing officer. Ultimately, the city council is the trier of fact in this situation and in its referral of the hearing to a hearing officer. That hearing officer will conduct the hearing. They were rendered decision, I believe it's 15 days following the termination of the hearing. That decision will be put on council's agenda and counsel will have an opportunity to review the findings of the hearing officer and its decision and make its own decision based on its review at that time. So I just want to make sure that's clear regarding the business and the amounts that have been expended and all and and the councilman's point about, you know, how would you get this situation? I don't want to get into the specifics of that because I think it does go to the merits of the matter that is being appealed by the business. Thank you. Okay. So we've heard from city staff the recommendations in front of us is to begin the process by sending it to the hearing officer. Whatever that decision is, can be appealed back to the city council. So there's still due process here. My I encourage the operator through this process, be a good neighbor, build goodwill, get in front of the community and help build support to help make your case here. Because I think there's a lot to be said about investment here, but quality of life is incredibly important. Members, please cast your vote. Motion is carried. Nine zero. Thank you. 11.

A bill for an ordinance authorizing a cash transfer from the City Council Special Revenue Fund to the General Fund and making an appropriation in the General Fund. Approves a cash transfer of $143,146 from the City Council Special Revenue Fund and an appropriation in General Fund Contingency to meet a portion of City Council’s 2020 mid-year reduction target. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-2-20.

DenverCityCouncil_06222020_20-0504

Nine eyes, three nays. Accountable for 95 has been introduced. Ladies and gentlemen, if you could, please, so that we can get through the rest of these. Thank you. Councilmember Canete, will you please vote count about 504 on the floor. Yeah, I move that council bill 20 20504 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Questions or comments from members of Council Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. Can you clarify what this is for real quick before I make my comment? I'm sorry. Who are you directing your question to? To you. You called out. It's the special revenue. So this is part of our. This is our. Furlough. No, this is not. This is part of your budget. Anything you didn't spend last year, if we don't vote on this, it goes into the general fund. This puts it back in your office budget for this year. Okay. And so does this have any connection to the dollars that we were supposed to sequester? Will we have to sequester this once we get it back? No, this is moving in. Councilmember Gilmore has our budget and she's flagging me as I'm going to. We'll let her answer that in case. Thank you, President Clark. Councilwoman CdeBaca, this transfer is a portion of the special revenue fund that was allocated for the 4% sequester from the central office. And then it's a portion of Councilwoman Torres, my office, Councilwoman Sandoval's office. The 4% that city council was sequestering was $7,979. And so this is a portion of some of those offices using their special revenue fund to use that for the 4% sequester. So like your office isn't included in this because I believe your office well, you aren't participating, but so the other offices there may be taking that 4% out of their services and supplies. And so we won't see that come forward. Awesome. Thank you very much. I wanted to clarify that because as you all are looking at your budgets, take a look at what city council budget is for us to operate 13 offices. There's a reason why some of you don't get callbacks or responses on email, and it's because our executive branch of government keeps our branch of government. That's supposed to be the check and balance starved so that we can't respond, so that we can't do these things. And so we were asked by the administration, even though we're not required to furlough, we were asked to furlough and to set aside budget cuts. And this is part of what some of those offices had decided to give or not give up. I chose not to because our office receives the highest volume of everything that happens in this city, and we need more staff than we currently have. We don't need to be cut. And so I wanted to explain that to you all and make sure that you understand that balance. Government requires balanced budgets and independently elected branches of government should have can measure its size budgets. So pay attention to that as you guys are scanning this information because it's critical. Thank you. Thank you. And I apologize. Thank you, Councilmember Gilmore, for stepping in there, Councilman Hines. But thank you, Mr. President. Just to echo Councilmember CdeBaca point, the woman in the front to the BlackLivesMatter shirt, I'm sorry that I did not respond to you. There is me, one person who is sick and one person who took voluntary furloughs this past week. And so and that's it. That's that's all we got. So just to councilmember said about this point, we are we are very lean and we try to do as much as we can with what we have. But but we are very lean. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call on 504. CdeBaca, I. Flynn I. Gilmore I. Herndon High. Heights. High. Cashman High. Can I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer I. Torres I. Black I. Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary. Please go to voting and note the results. To. Advise by his council. Bill 504 has passed. Councilmember candidate, will you please vote? Council Bill 508 on the floor.

Recommendation to adopt resolution pursuant to California Government Code Section 3505.4, authorizing the implementation of the terms of the City's Last, Best and Final Offer, described in the October 24, 2018 correspondence to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), detailing the Scope of Service on the Airport Security Division and Long Beach Police Department Integration. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05212019_19-0512

Thank you. We're all here. So we have two items not on the agenda. We're going to go back to the item that we were on and then we will be moving on to the last item which had a time certain at sometime after 630. And so, Madam Clerk, can you please read the last item that we were on? Item 22 Report from Human Resources. Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing the implementation of the terms of the city's last, best and final offer described in the October 24th, 2018 correspondence to the IAM detailing the scope of service on the airport security divisions and the Long Beach Police Department integration citywide. Okay, so I think, Mr. City Attorney, we're back on the item 22. So we actually believe we completed public comment. Yes. Okay. And the staff report is all complete, correct? Yes. Okay. So there's a there's a recommendation by staff. It's on the agenda. Is there a motion on this item? We had to wait for council. Okay. If there's there's a motion or a second on this item. I don't think we need, chef. I think some people are asking, do we need a staff report again or no? No, you don't. Legally, you've had the staff report and public comment and then you continue to till later in the meeting so you can proceed with council discussion. Okay, well, let's go to those. Go to that. Go to any council discussion then. I'm sorry. I just got to. I got to follow the city attorney's rules, and I believe that they're we already had a public comment and the staff report. And unless there is a request from counsel to do to have the staff report again, I know we're short. We can do that. So why don't we do the staff for one more time? Right. Thanks, Dana. Alex Vasquez. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. This item is regarding the airport security and the Long Beach Police Department. Integration is a brief overview on this item and the city is proposing that we implement this integration between airport security and Long Beach Police Department. This item was presented to Council on April 23rd, 2019. The council at that time requested to postpone this decision point until May in order to implement the City Council. A city council action is required. We'd like to give you a brief background about the airport security and police department integration and result in the 911 attacks, there was a nationwide emphasis on airport security. The city first proposed integrating airport security in the police department in early 2002. The rationale for this integration. Was because post-9-11, federal oversight drastically expanded airport security requirements. And although state law requires security positions at the airport to be granted peace officer status, their core duties continue to be continue to focus on regulatory compliance. Part of the rationale is also to ensure the city addresses inconsistent and non standardized training and creates a single chain of command with law enforcement oversight and supervision. We also look towards best practice. And what we found is that other California public regional airports have an integrated airport security with law enforcement divisions. For example, Sacramento International, San Jose International, the city of Los Angeles. World Airports. Oakland International. John Wayne and San Diego International. Some of the expected benefits we hope to gain with the integration of the airport police, airport security and police department function again, a single structure, chain of command, better coordination of both resources and personnel, including supervision , training and deployment of staff, consistent and appropriate training standards and continued safety and security of passengers and other airport stakeholders at the Long Beach Airport. I wanted to give you a briefing about the reorganization process. The city is required to complete a meeting, confer process with the impacted bargaining units. The results of the meeting confer a process that we conducted are as follows. We met with Poppy, who represents the police officers, and that process was completed and they agreed with this reorganization. We also met with IAM as they represent the special security officers or CISOs, however, that meet and confer process resulted in an impasse. And we also completed the fact finding process. On April 23rd, the City Council received and filed a fact finders report. However, action is required in order to implement the integration on the IAM because our meet and confer process resulted in the impasse. I just want to quickly recap that the IAM meet and confer process. The city and I am did meet and we had approximately we had ten meetings that were held over months. The parties were unable to reach an agreement in October and on and on October 24, 2018, the city declared impasse and provided Iam with our last , best, final offer. On November 21st, 2018, the IAM requested the fact finding process and the fact finding hearing was held on February 8th. The fact finder issued an advisory recommendation on March 5th and on March 15. This. The Fact Finder report was made public. The City Council has the option to consider the Fact Finder recommendations, and the City Council, by resolution can impose the last, best final offer. I also want to recap some of the impacts on the employees. There are no changes to the employees salary or seniority as a result of this proposed action. There is no change to their bargaining unit and the SOS will retain peace officer status. The CEOs will also receive the necessary training to carry out their duties. In addition to the core curriculum proposed, the CISOs will also be eligible to request the following post certified courses that are listed. In summary, the Fact-Finding Fact-Finding Panel recommendations. I'm sorry. The Fact-Finding Panel consisted of three panelists. The IAM represented, the city represented and a neutral representative. After hearing both the IAM and the city's position, the panel found in favor of the city with a vote of 2 to 1. The panel's recommendation was that the city was within its rights to implement the final proposal. Staff recommendation is to adopt by resolution a resolution pursuant to California government code 3505.4 authorizing the implementation of the terms of the city's last best final offer described in the October 24, 2018 correspondence to the IAM detailing the scope of services on airport security division and Long Beach Police Department integration. We'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. And Mr. City Attorney, I know there was a request to hear those. Again, I I'm inclined to allow the three public comments that were made to go again, if that's okay with you. Mayor, if the public comment has been open and closed, if you if you reopen the public comment, you can't limit it just to those three people. You can reopen the public comment, period. Okay. Well, I'm going to just to ensure that everyone's hearing the same information, I'm going to reopen the public comment period. I want to begin by inviting the three folks, if they would like to, to speak again. So honorable, mayor. City council members. Those. I just showed up. Good to see you. First off, my name's Salvador Vasquez, 55 West. Well, I'm the president of the. I nine for seven. I just wanted to make one point that's very important here is city management and H.R. are representing the airport that they just presented. Those are international airports. By no means is at Long Beach Airport. That has also been currently performing that duty for decades. And as Brother Suarez has indicated before. Per the city the city meeting confer to give them post certify training. Now they want to take it away. So our concern is you're going to have an airport that our officers are going to have to train Long Beach PD and to the public. Speaker that you guys have missed the concern we have that people or the PD is already stressed in regards to the support they have for the streets, yet they want to pull resources from them and put it in the airport. They already have people there in the capacity. As a matter of fact, the airport has been underfunded. There's 27 allocated budget, a position. There's only 11 to 12 officers there. They they misrepresented that last time we're here. It's just concerning to me that they would fast track this, put it on an agenda on Friday, not even give us enough time to have subject matter experts here to actually properly represent the interests of your constituents, the people that elect and vote for you guys, as well as all those that serve and fly into Long Beach. That's a concern to us. Now, this unit is standing before you to ask the city council not only to think about the workers that are being harmed, but also the fact that these workers, these as a source, prefer as a place where the same uniformed do the same job at a lower cost to the city. Just just let that sink in at a lower cost to the city. Now, one more. The thing that's more important than anything else is the fact that these officers are going to have to train their replacements, do their job. Imagine the issue that's going to have with transportation, those people flying in there when RC has always had to train the people that are going to replace them, do their duties. Think about that. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker Wayne Zimmerman, resident at Long Beach. I'd be interested in knowing what the issues of impasse were. Can the city respond? What were the issues that caused the impasse? Mr. West. I know those. I know. I'm saying. Mr. West, you want to respond to that? Because it's a negotiation. We met approximately ten times over a year. And I think the big impasse was the union did not want to work under the police department. Well, I think. Okay. Alex, you want to respond? I think I think well, Mr.. Mr. West, I think part of the question is we we reached through the impasse process, through the through the negotiation process that that your staff went through. Ms.. It's Alex didn't comment on that. So the two primary issues of disagreement were the training for CISOs and the continued ability for the CISOs to make red light stops. Thank you. And thanks to. Our honorable mayor and city council. So I just wanted to put emphasis on the issues that we're concerned about, that the training of our special service officers in Long Beach will go down from 660 hours down to 30 or 60. I like how they they play around with the truth that they're going to still get training. The key word is that they got a request to see if there's budget available. For training. I want to put I want to put a spotlight on that. And I want I want you all to realize when you guys. What's the word? Motion to put it after to wait for the recess. I want you to look at all the city employees that came after work on their own time and how respectful that is to us. Good day. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I'd be curious to to know if it's public information. The homeland security and federal money from TSA that is really up for mistakes because for many people in the community, this isn't a security issue as there's never been any attack on a on or on the premises of the airport. For many people in the community, this seems like a money grab, you know, in an area where crime rates are going down. It seems like this is an opportunity to integrate a otherwise independent division of security in relation to the airport, to a the police department that wants extra police officers. That's great. However, you shouldn't be using the airport as an opportunity to do that. You know, you should maybe police the the high schools that are being attacked right now, you know, poorly high Cabrillo High, where students are being attacked while they're moving around the streets. Maybe you can dedicate those 20 extra officers that you want these special details that are just sitting around instead of going out to the unions, you can go after the real criminals, which are the people on the streets, the gangs, the gangs who are using this opportunity, you know, to burglarize our homes. And with the opioid crisis going on right now, that's not at the airport. I wish we had an airport in the Wrigley area. I wish because then maybe you guys would dedicate some extra officers and extra substation that way to police instead of trying to use this as an opportunity to, you know, I know the airports increase in Long Beach Airport is a great airport to fly through. Never had no problems, never had any problems with the CSO moving in or moving out of that airport. However, I know that as it's an increase in airport and there's increasing traffic, what is now, what is it? 15 is a 17. 12 what's now 12? You guys take it over. I know in a decade or two they'll be 30 and in another decade or two they'll be 50. So I see the game. I see it's the same thing you guys are doing at the harbor. It's the same thing you guys are doing it the blue line. You guys are trying to take opportunities to to use security as opportunities for job security. And that's not what your job is. Your job is to police the streets and make sure our communities are safe. Now, making sure that 20, 30 extra of you cops, police officers will have the opportunity to have a job at the expense of union members. So city council people, you know, you know what the truth is? They're going after the unions and they're going after, you know, ample opportunities to take federal money and homeland security money. That's not security has nothing to do with this. Thank you. Thank you. And last speaker, please. Good evening, Mayor and City Council Robert Fox, executive director of the Council of Neighborhood Organizations. I oppose the merger of the airport security with our police department on some practical grounds. Number one, if it's not broke, don't fix it. Number two, every time we do this kind of a takeover like we did with the blue line, we supposedly added 51 officers to the force when in fact, they were dedicated only to the blue line. And we're still 200 officers short. So our budget of the city of Long Beach has never been police specific as it should be. I think that's a real critical issue here. We're adding on a responsibility to the police department, which is already understaffed, and all you're doing is changing out really qualified security people who are specifically trained for the airport with people who are not specifically trained for the airport. And I believe that that is a dangerous combination for this city. We have a wonderful airport that we spent a lot of money on modernizing, and it's wonderful to fly out of. I've never had a problem and we've never had a security problem in the city of Long Beach, on our airport, on our streets. We do. So I'm suggesting that we. Rethink this. Besides which, I think it's insulting to the citizens of Long Beach to have such short notice on such an important issue. We had to go around, grumble around trying to figure out, you know, what this was all about. And, you know, if we as neighborhood activists and leaders of our communities have to scramble to find the information. How much more difficult is it for regular citizens to get this information? These are the people we serve. So I'm wishing that you will reconsider this idea, postpone it, perhaps do some more research on it. I personally would support the airport and saying precisely the way it is. They have a good grip on it. Their training is impeccable. We've had no problems in personnel whatsoever, whereas in our police department we have. I hate to tell you that. So I would suggest I'm not trying to bash the police department that you've got a 100% sterling record versus. Hmm, I don't think this is a good idea. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. That that concludes. That concludes public comments. Let me go to close public comment. Mr. West, you have something? Just one thing, sir. I just want to make it clear that there's nobody's been replaced. I just want to make that clear. Okay. Okay. So let me let me go back guy who was trying to get through through the process here. So there is a motion proposed by staff on the floor. Is there a second on this motion? Okay. If there's no if there's no second if there's no second on this motion, then then the motion will not move forward. You need a second for the special. Said there's no second on the motion so. So I'm just I'm just want to say there is no second on the motion. So slow motion. We're moving on to the next item. There's no second on the motion. Okay. Our next item is. 710.

Order for a hearing to discuss the initiation of a study that assesses life insurance need for low-income residents.

BostonCC_05182022_2022-0636

06360636. Councilor Fernandes Sanderson offered the following order for a hearing to discuss the initiation of a study that assesses life insurance needs for low income residents. Thank you. The chair recognizes Counsel Fernandez and to send Counsel Fernandez Anderson. You have the floor. Hello again. Thank you, counselor. President Flynn. So I'm getting a little bit chatty this afternoon, and I know it's going to. It's going to settle down, so I offer you this order. Due to both historic discrimination, merit out of perspective, black and brown holders of life insurance, and ongoing disparities in those who have coverage today. So black people have often been charged higher insurance rates for the same policies that others receive at lesser price. Due to this ongoing legacy of discrimination and a degree of distrust has developed. And many in the in the black community or black and brown community tend to overestimate the cost of life insurance. Black women are least likely or at least likely group to be insured, despite being largely responsible for raising a good percentage of the family units that they are a part of. Life insurance is an important financial resource to pass down. Those without it are in distinct disadvantage in terms of generational wealth. For these reasons and more, I offer this order to initiate a discussion in regards to the life insurance needs of poor and working class communities. And I guess I'd just like to say that, you know, it's also a really good idea to have to set up as a family to set up your financial portfolio. And for poor families, they often face this challenge of not being prepared. Unfortunately, we've all, I think, quoted the research here that black and brown people die in Roxbury 30 years sooner than their counterparts in Back Bay. And so oftentimes you see a lot of like sort of fund raisers, last minute go fund me to bury their loved ones. I think that this is it would be a really good idea to just do a study just to sort of assess the need in Boston and how we can support our poor and working class families . Thank you. Thank you. Counsel Fernandez Anderson. Is anyone else looking to speak on this matter? Would anyone else like to sign on to this matter? Please raise your hand. Mr. Kirk, please add Council of Royal Council. Book Council. Braddon Council. Kolkata Council. Flaherty. Consultation Council here. Councilor Murphy, please have the chair. Dawkins 0636 will be assigned to the Committee on City Services and Innovation Technology. Mr. Clerk, please read Docket 06370637.

Recommendation to receive and file the Quarterly Report of Cash and Investments for the quarter ending March 31, 2020.

LongBeachCC_12152020_20-1151

Thank you. Let's take item 34. Item 34. Item 34 is a communications from city or a recommendation to receive and file the quarterly report of cash and investment for the quarter ending March 31st, 2020. Thank you. I'll turn this over to City Auditor Dowd. Thank you very much. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you, Mayor. The Council. And welcome to the new city council members Allen and Sarno. I wanted to also thank Councilmember Austin for pulling this item last week. I think most of you have seen that our office submits this audit on the council agenda on a quarterly basis as a requirement of the city charter. And Councilman Austin had some questions last week. And so I appreciate him asking me to come back this week to give a little presentation on what this item is that you see each quarter and that the new council members will see on the council agenda every quarter. And it's an often it's an unimportant audit that our office does and oversees on a quarterly basis. And if the if I could have the next slide, please. So our office oversees the performance audit of the cash and investment balances of the city of Long Beach. And as of May 31st, this particular quarter, the city's cash and investments portfolio totaled approximately $2.1 billion. And we perform these audits. They're all conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Next slide. And as I mentioned, the city charter requires the office of the City Auditor to verify the cash and investment balances every quarter in the city Treasurer's office and provide a written report to the City Council. Next slide. The purpose of the audit is the audit and cash investment balances of the city of Long Beach include verifying cash and investments with the outside depositories and evaluating the City Treasurer's compliance with the California Government Code and the city investment policy, which is adopted by the City Council. Next slide. There are pooled cash and investments and the city's pooled cash. It's a grouping of the city's available cash for investments. And this larger amount of money involved allows the city to earn a higher rate of return than if each fund were by itself. These pooled funds are not needed for operations and are invested by the Treasury Bureau. Thus, the interest income earned from the pooled cash investments is apportioned to the funds based on the ratio of daily cash balances to the total of pooled cash and investments. Next slide. The audit objectives are to reconcile cash and investments to the amount and description recorded on the city's books with the outside depositories, and to evaluate the city's compliance with the provisions in the California Government Code and the city's investment policy. Next slide. An example. Of. I should back it up for a second. The scope of this particular audit, just like to clarify, was for the quarter ended March 31st, 2020, and a sample of the following procedures that are performed are to obtain an understanding of the internal controls surrounding the city's cash and investment process to obtain confirmation of cash held by banks and investments held by the city planners, city treasurer's safekeeping agent and other custodians as of March 31st, 2020, and reconcile them to the city's books. Additionally, to compare the investments listed on the City Treasurer's Investment Activity Report and at March 31st to the types of investments authorized for the city in accordance with the city's investment policy and the relevant precisions provisions of the California Government Code. Next slide. And then there's always a section in the report that talks about the results and conclusions and gives an opinion that, based on the results of the audit procedures performed and adjustments made, cash and investment balances recorded on the city's books materially agree to the amount and description with the outside depositories, and that the city was found to be in compliance with all other relevant provisions of the California Government Code and the city's investment policy. And that completes my report. Thank you. There's a motion to receive and filed from Councilman Austin, the second by Councilwoman Mango. Councilman Austin, any comment? I just want to just thank our city auditor for for giving the report. I think it's her office plays a very important function, a vital role in terms of checks and balances in our local city government. And I just wanted to pull the item in and point that out. It's a very good report. Thank you very much for all the work that you're doing in your office does. Thank you. Is now. Thank you. Thank you. And there's a second by councilman mongo. Any comments, councilwoman? No. I just appreciate our city auditor and the excellent work that she does. And I think it was great that we had an opportunity for a presentation at this directory meeting of our new council members. Thank you. Thank you. With that rock over. Councilwoman sandy has. I. Councilwoman Ellen I. Councilwoman Price. Councilman Sabina. Hi, councilwoman mongo. Councilwoman Mango. Councilwoman Sarah. I. Council member Oranga Azam and Austin. Order. Vice Mayor Richardson. All right. Motion. Cade. Councilman. Mongo, I thank you.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Civic Innovation to create a Citywide Basic Needs Security initiative, known as “BAND Together Long Beach,” to enhance the coordination and delivery of food and housing security programs.

LongBeachCC_06092020_20-0494

Great. Thank you. We have one final item that is part of this COVID 19 package, and then one will be moving on to the next set of items. This is the item ten, which is related to basic needs. And so, Madam Cook, can you read item ten? Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Zendejas, Vice Mayor Andrews, Councilmember, your UNGA recommendation to request city manager to work with Health and Human Services and the Office of Civic Innovation to create a citywide basic needs security initiative known as B and T and together Long Beach. Thank you. And I'll turn this over to Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to do a more full sort of presentation here, but obviously, you know, there's been a reprioritization of my focus. And this the proposal here is to acknowledge that right here in this moment, while we're facing three crises, the city has a role in providing and expanding for the provision of basic needs within our city. We know that in this moment we have more shelter capacity than we've ever had, which it's always been a touch, you know, touch and go discussion on where the shelters go. But in this moment, through this crisis, we have more shelter capacity we ever had. We've seen unprecedented levels of care and giving and food security, people coming together, uniting, figuring out how to just help people put food on the table. And in this moment, the city has a responsibility. And that responsibility is to leverage our tools and our resources to package these things in a way that it is easy to access in a way that is simple to access. Put a front door on all the things that are happening. The front door could mean a simple phone number. If you're hungry or you need shelter, call one phone number. A front door could mean a digital dashboard that highlights the capacity to meet food security and the level of hunger . Our capacity to meet shelter security with the level of need for shelter in a way that the broader community can be engaged, the philanthropy community can engage, the food security and housing security community can be engaged. And this is this is something that I think we're uniquely positioned to do. I know that mostly food security has been taken care of by, let's say, Wik or county or federal or state resources, Cal Fresh and all those things. Well, so our workforce dollars and we do that here in the city of Long Beach with Pacific Gateway, we take federal resources of state resources and we put a front door on it. So it's easy to walk in. You have a one stop job center where you can engage all these programs in one place. That's what we should be doing. Nothing is more important than ever given all that we're we're facing right now, that the the public sees and understands that their condition, the way that they access food, whether they get shelter, their head is is a top priority. I know that it has been, but we need to reaffirm that. We need to reaffirm that in the way we package and the way we discuss this. One thing I'll say is I came up with this name, you know, the basic needs band together or didn't have any brand and together it took VA from basic indi from need and said band together we can call this whatever we want to call it. That's not as important. What's important is making sure people can access these resources. We have the resources to coordinate and that we can continue to fund and support food security and shelter within our city. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is. In the house. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Councilmember Richardson, for for this item and for allowing me to co-sponsor this item. As you know. I it's it's just been really difficult with COVID 19. And I'm very, very proud of the city leaders, our community leaders, our volunteers who have just come together and realized that food insecurity has been one of our biggest, biggest, most critical need in this city with COVID 19. And I think that it's very important to understand that a lot of people are are losing their jobs and and don't have a lot of resources, whether it's for they're trying to decide between food and rent and stuff. So I think something like this is very important. I'm really excited for this program and to see how we can make the program like this work. In times like this, when when the community comes together, I think great ideas come out of times like this. So moving forward, I'm really excited to see how this program is going to elevate our city even to a higher level. So thank you for letting me be part of this. Mr. Andrews. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much, ma'am. You know, I think that this is a great item. You know, I know the city has been pulled in many, many different directions. And I must give credit to every single legislative staff that has worked in each council office that was out in the trenches, like my staff, 11 old door to door and taking owners about their way and needs when the call back was about councilwoman. And I want to thank you also. And I started with, you know, and we started a great food relief fund that in Midtown went from 1000 and that matched 95 various donors in the organization. Now this department would have have is really available in various languages and for those who still grapple with the digital divide. And I want to thank you for all of. You know, the church has been a nonprofit organization, the community religious and stepped up to the plate during this crisis and had an amazing work and put in the rapid and the rapid response with the grant fund. They basically have support the Latino community. And I want to thank you very much for that. Thank you very much, Mayor. Thank you, vice mayor. Next up is Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I want to thank you, Councilman Richardson. I know we talked about this long before it became an agenda item and some of the things that the Fifth District just talked about for years. And we're really able to be operationalized during COVID. The fifth District is home to thousands of fruit plants, fruit trees that produce large quantities of fruit that often get spoiled or wasted. And one of the things that we were approached about several years ago was how do we as a city harness all of that food? We have community gardens on the east side that donate over £60,000 of edged apples and fruit a year to our homeless shelters. But during this crisis, we were able to work with our churches to do drop off food drives, encouraging those who had an abundance of fruit from their home trees to donate them at our local churches that were then packaged with people who didn't have fruit trees dropped off, necessities including but not limited to rice, pasta, soup and all of those things, and put together packages for hundreds of families across the city. I am in lockstep with hoping that we can continue these efforts beyond this time. Not only is it good for the community that we serve to have fresh fruits and vegetables available to them year round, but it's also really good for our community in terms of the depletion of rodents. When you don't have fruit on the ground for them to eat, you don't have rodents that are overfed, then you don't have coyotes and so on and so forth. So this has been something that's been really able to get a kick start during this crisis, but has been on the brink for many years. And so I'm glad that while we have the momentum, we look at this as a as an opportunity to hopefully institutionalize within a lot of our partners the ability to keep systems like this going long term. Thank you. Council Member Councilmember Councilmember Pearce, I don't know if you were queued up for the last item or did I call you or is this a new queue up for this one? Not good. Thank you. Okay. Sorry about that. Okay, then that concludes council comment, will. Before we do the roll call vote, I just want to add just very, just very grateful to all the council members that have been doing these drives. I've seen been seeing some of them out there, including the community community groups. The whether it's food. Finder or the the our labor and union partners, brothers and sisters that are out there putting these drives together. They've been amazing to see. And so just thank you to everyone involved in these food and these food drives. And I think focusing on food security and food access is really important. I just want to thank the council members that have this board in front of the council today. So with that, if we can do a roll call vote. District one. I. District two. District three. District three. District. High District for. I. District five. II. District six. I strict seven. I. District eight. I. District nine. All right. Motion carries. With you. Good question, Chris. That concludes all of the COVID related items. So I want to thank everybody for their for their patience on those. Obviously, COVID continues to be a serious crisis in our city. We're going to be transitioning now to the next set of items and will be starting with item 28, which is the framework or reconciliation item. And then on to the PCC item, which is item 26. And we also have the local emergency proclamation, which is item 29. And so those will all be reviewed within the next section of the meeting. And so. And Mr. Mayor, this. Is. Mr. Mayor. This is Tom. There is one other COVID item. If you wanted to take it now or do it later, it is the street sweeping item number 23. You know, since we're I think I think folks want to move to the next set of items. So why don't we just have that item? Is it just a report back? So we'll just put that item at the end of these next few items. That's fine. So why don't we go ahead and move to item 28, which is the framework for reconciliation item?

Approves the designation of 200 Block South Lincoln Street Historic District as a Landmark Historic District for preservation in Council District 7. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves the designation of 200 Block South Lincoln Street Historic District as a Landmark Historic District for preservation in Council District 7. IF ORDERED PUBLISHED, A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS ITEM. REFER TO THE "PENDING" SECTION OF THE FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AGENDAS FOR THE DATE. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 4-20-16.

DenverCityCouncil_05162016_16-0272

This is a designation for 200 block of South Lincoln. My name is Karen. I am with Landmark Preservation at the CPD. This landmark designation was proactively submitted to us from the community. Three owners of the does three owners within the designated property submitted it to us. When a property is landmarked, it is designated as is. There's no requirements to improve it or to restore it to a particular time period. Any changes would go through design review. That is an objective process and it's not frozen in time. You can make changes to it. You can work on the interior of the building. We don't regulate paint color or anything like that. But within a historic district, demolitions are discouraged. There are also benefits to being listed in and being a designated property. In general, property values are higher in historic districts than in the surrounding neighborhoods. This is based on the economic power of heritage in place, which is a 2011 study done by History Colorado. And they compared property values of historic districts and then the property values of those around it. They looked at historic districts in Denver, Durango and Fort Collins and found that property values are stable or higher within historic districts. Also, if you are in a historic district, you have the availability to use the Colorado Historic Preservation Rehabilitation Tax Credit, which basically means if you are rehabbing your particular property up to 20% of the interior and the exterior repairs would be available for a tax credit, and I know that there are multiple owners within this district that are anxious to take advantage of this tax credit. So for this, the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed it and recommended it be for it to city council. It then went to Planning Board and they also recommended it to come to City Council by the ordinance. City Council should give due consideration to the written views of the owners as well as the public hearing for the designation. The application was submitted to us in February. And when it comes in, land preservation staff does a thorough review and we actually do research on our own to verify that the information is accurate. Paucity permits from the 1890s to verify that the information within it is accurate. At that point, then we set a public hearing and put it before the Landmark Preservation Commission. It went before them and they approved it to go forward. It went to planning board as well is the plan committee. It went through first reading and we're currently here at the second reading. We went through and did all of the notification that was required. The registered neighborhood organizations sent out all the legal notices and put it on our website as well. The applicants did a tremendous amount of community outreach for this particular designation. They've been working on this for several years. There were multiple community meetings with John Olson from historic Denver. He participated in one. I then went this past fall and met with the community as well to answer any questions that they might have for that. So what we're looking at is the 200 block of South Lincoln. It encompasses the addresses from 201 to 246. It's on either side of the street in general between Cedar and Alameda. There are 15 structures within it all would be contributing to the historic district. The period of significance for this is 1889 to 1895, which is encompasses the time period in which the buildings were constructed. So in order to be designated according to the ordinance, it must maintain a historic and physical integrity. And then it must meet two criteria and one of the following three categories, and it must also relate to the historic context or theme in Denver. So this if you're looking at the historic physical integrity, well, you look at seven different qualities the location, the setting, the design, the materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Basically, the idea is, would you recognize this when it was constructed in 1895? Would you still recognize it today? And this historic district has excellent integrity. There are a few alterations to the properties, but those are almost all primarily in the rear of the building as they have been added on to over time. And overall it's in the same location. It's still along a historic thoroughfare. It retains its workmanship. The setting and feeling are also there as well. So after passing the bar of being maintained or meeting its integrity, it then has to meet two out of the three categories. So under history it meets it as having a direct association with the historical development of the city. This is just a map of the area. The blue lines there show the historic trolley lines of the area. The district is outlined in yellow. The little red is already an individual structure, and then the two brown sides on either side are existing historic districts. This district and its growth correlates with the growth of Denver in the 1890s, up until about 1893, when there was the panic of 1893. And the country went from from gold and silver to just a gold standard for our currency. Because Colorado was so highly reliant on the silver industry and the mining industry, there was a downturn in the economy, but this particular area was started growth prior to that, and it continued a couple of years after the panic of 1893 . It coincides with the growth of Denver as the city began incorporating other smaller towns to the south. And it also tax there's all of these trolley lines were developed in the 1890s and so the growth of this sort of reflects as people are able to commute in to downtown. So this area is sort of a reflection of the growth of Denver at the time. The historic district also meets two criteria under architecture. It meets it under the embodying a distinguishing characteristic of an architectural style or type, which is the queen and style. This district is sort of a queen, a quintessential queen, and they have asymmetrical forms. They have corner towers, they have varying wall textures that are seen in the village board or the barge board and the gingerbread detailing in the shingles on the gable ends. They have decorative chimneys and brackets as well. It is also significant as the work of recognized architects. There are two primary architects within this historic district. William Lang, who designed the Molly Brown house as well as the Castleman Mansion, designed most of the properties that are on the west side of the road. And these are slightly smaller versions of these mansions that he built. And it sort of reflects that you had a different group of people living in this part of the town that's a little farther from town and also sort of reflects that the economy then had a downturn. And so you were building slightly smaller scale versions then the Molly Brown house. It's also believed that this is the largest intact group of living homes in Denver. So this is a great collection of his work. There's also F.h. Perkins, who was an architect. He left after the panic of 1893, but he did design several homes on the east side of the road. He was noted in California and he's also noted in Washington. Several of his buildings are Seattle landmarks. This property, this district also meets it under geography as having a prominent location or being an established and familiar orienting visual feature within the contemporary city. Since I started doing this and talking about it, I've had a lot of people who come up to me and said, Oh, those are the tower homes or those are the turret homes. This is something that people are used to seeing as they're driving into Denver. It's sort of the entrance into downtown. And since it's such a large collection of Queen Anne Homes, it's very noticeable and it's orienting to the community. They recognize this. As part of the ordinance. It also has to relate to historic context or themes. So it relates to the growth of Denver, to the early streetcar development into late 19th century Victorian architecture. At the Landmark Preservation Commission there were a ten minute presentation done by the property owners and the applicants. There were 11 public speakers, ten were in support and one was in opposition at the time of the Landmark Preservation Commission . There were eight letters of support within the application itself, plus 19 letters or emails received by our office at that point. We have since received one other letter that is not in support of this and it should be in your packet that was emailed to you. So when the Landmark Preservation Commission reviewed this, they felt that it met the historic and physical integrity, that it meant history to under architecture and one under geography, and that it related to historic context or theme. The Landmark Preservation Commission voted unanimously, unanimously to forward it on to city council. Thank you. We have 14 speakers on this one. I'm going to call up the first five. Make your way up to the first pew. Anita Lynch, Terry Garrison, Chelsea Wyatt, Charles Brannigan and Carolyn Bennett. You five can make your way up. And Ms.. Lynch, you may go ahead and begin your remarks when you enter. Good evening, council members. My name is Nita Lynch. I live at 2 to 7 South Lincoln Street and I'm one of the owners of that home and I'm also one of the three applicants. When this application was unanimous, unanimously approved by the Land Landmark Preservation Commission on March 15th, one of the board members even stated that it could serve as a template for other district request. Extensive research, thoughtfulness and outreach was done in preparation for this request. Of the 15 houses included, 14 of the owners are in strong favor of designation and one is opposed. I do want to address some items maybe of misinformation that could have been presented to council. One is a question of did indeed William Lang design the houses on the West Side? I spent hours and hours and hours of research at the library on the history fifth floor, going through the great big, huge books, making copies, cross-referencing the building permits. And it is clearly documented that William Lang did for sure design at least eight of those of the nine houses on the West Side. One of them, we have not been able to find who the architect was. And further, it was mentioned that F.h. Perkins, who was a famous architect, particularly in Seattle now, because he has a number of buildings there that is designated, that are designated, that he was the architect of some of those on the east side. Another thing that might have come to council as not a correct statement is a question of are these clean and houses? They clearly are. They meet the criteria of turrets and the steep pitch roofs. All of this is documented and explained in the application. And also the Molly Brown house is a queen. And the Queen Anne's were eclectic. There was not one single type of queen and. The applicants have worked diligently to achieve the goal of preserving these buildings. And we have overwhelming support from owners, nearby businesses, neighbors which include our West WISCH Park Neighborhood Association and the Baker Historic Neighborhoods Association. We fully recognize that there must be a balance between property owners rights and the rights of other neighbors who strongly want these homes preserved. And it is important to balance change with the respect and preservation of historical architecture and history. I believe that the balance tips in favor of the latter. I urge you to approve landmark designation for the 200 block South Lincoln Street Historic District to honor and protect the block, special place and Denver's history and architectural evolution. Thank you. Thank you, Terry Garrison. Possibly me. I'll be at Terry anyway. I'm Terry Gulliver. Oh, I live at 227 South Lincoln with Nita Lynch, my partner. I'm also a co applicant. Nita did all the work for the application for our house individually and obtain designation for that. Some time ago, the point of this application that's before you now is for the integrity of the district. The cluster of 15 houses was two famous architects built in a period of just six years. At the end of the 19th century, individual owners have spent a lot of invested a lot of money in maintaining and in some cases, rescuing these buildings from. Pretty awful fate. And we have we have one member in opposition. I believe that most of the points of that opposition are actually addressed inside the application that you had before you. And some of the other points may be addressed by other speakers here tonight. I would ask you to support the application on its merits. Thank you. Thank you. Jesse, your wife. Hi, everyone, and thank you. I own the home. At 233, South Lincoln straight and I am the sole member. Who's opposed. There used to originally be eight out of 21 homes that were opposed in this group and minds the unfortunate one stuck in the middle. So mine's the unfortunate one that couldn't be carved out or excluded. According to landmark preservation, current regulations, which I recommend be strongly changed to be able to exclude those of homeowners who don't want to be included in this type of block. This was my first home purchase. This was a huge mark of pride and represents hard work paying off student loans, which I'm sure everyone is familiar with and is a huge amount of my personal net worth and eventually potentially my retirement. I'm in opposition to choose 72 because this is a bill that forces historic designation on something that's not the community's home, not the neighbor's home. It's my home. First, it places additional restrictions on the home. It reduces the number of contractors that I can actually use to those who may be able to understand or want to work on historic homes. And as we all know, the cost of construction is only going up. It also takes additional time for permits to go through for anything that I would like to do to the home. The current time for landmark preservation approval is an additional three weeks for anything that I'd like to do to the outside. This was something that actually cost me personally, financially, an extra $3,000 in just the last month, because I was told by John Olsen through extensive conversations I had with folks as well, that a desired step out door to an upper deck that already exists, I would never be able to do I'd have to stick with the Juliet balcony. That's a window that's broken now. So that's a property improvement. That would be better for myself and my renters, and it's something that I would be unable to do if this had been passed ahead of time. Forth. This not only limits development, but can actually limit the pool of buyers for folks potentially largely reducing value. There's a home at two 3 to 9 Elliot Street that had a published article on it in Denver describing how the seller actually lost 300 to $400000 in resale value upon this gigantic nation. And the Supreme Court has already said as well, if you restrict property rights, you largely reduce value. You don't encourage it or increase it. So that's been stipulated different ways. I've suggested several other options to the Landmark Preservation Company or commission for excluding my home and having it left out. The response was that the current regulation says that this has to be a contiguous block. That's a landmark preservation rule, as far as I know, and maybe it's time to change that rule. When I offered another viable option that one neighbor has already taking advantage of for applying for individual designation on their homes. The Landmark Preservation Commission mentioned in their deliberation that this the case for historic to. Acquire. Several homes actually. Was to. Apply individually. So I urge you to consider that. Thank you. Charles Brannigan. My name's Charles Brannigan. I live at 2105 Lafayette Street in a house designed by the architect William Lang. Who you've heard of today. I'm William Lang's official. Biographer. I think. And I've researched him and his career both in Nebraska and Denver. I'm also the creator of the Lafayette St Historic District, and I am prepared to give you some ideas about why landmark preservation is good. First of all, take William Lang. He was Denver's best presidential architect of all times. And the proposed district includes a perfect collection of. His middle class buildings. As opposed to the mansions that he's better known for. Lang began his architectural career as a grocer in Albion, Nebraska. Somehow he became an architect. In 1885, he moved to Denver and hung out there, single as an architect. And over the course of the next the next decade, he and his draftsmen built hundreds and hundreds of houses. He met and met an untimely end. He died in 1897. When he was hit by a train. He had red hair, blue eyes and a gold cap tooth. I got that from his autopsy report. This landmark designation accomplishes many good things. When we moved into what became the Lafayette Street Historic District, we were considered urban pioneers by the police. Gunfire was common. There was a chop shop up the street from us, which was eventually gobbled up. By the hospitals. Our house was in relatively good condition compared to. Most on our blog, but the water in the dog's bowl froze in our dining room in the winter. Some of our neighbors protected their motorcycles by parking them in the living rooms. The landmark designation stabilized our neighborhood and made it to hospitals. Couldn't gobble up more land. There's been a steady influx of stakeholders who see this landmark protected district as a place that to achieve the American dream. State tax credits have helped with renovations. Property values have increased tremendously. Crime is down. Landmark designation started at all. Why do we protect landmarks? They give the city a sense of identity which is missing. When the bulldozer challenges Denver's heritage. I encourage you to support the landmark application for this this district. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Carolyn Bennett. And as Carolyn comes forward, I'll call the next three speakers John Olsen, Simone McGinnis, Karen Hinkle, Anthony Hinkle and Lucia Browne. You can go ahead and get your remarks. Hi, my name is Carolyn. Myself and my husband Eric are fairly recent to the neighborhood. We purchased 2 to 4 South Lincoln in April 2014. After many years of looking to get out of the suburbs, we appreciate the architecture of the neighborhood and are honored to own one of the homes that are on the block that is up for historic designation. The history of the area was a huge appeal to us and the history and architecture of these unique homes is worth protecting and saving. We feel honored to be one of the owners who have the opportunity to buy here and hope we can maintain that for others. We understand the responsibility of living in a uniquely historic home, and we want to respect and maintain its authenticity for future generations to appreciate. As we do, we are in the process of renovating and we would have no reservations going through the historic approval approval process or the extra time it takes. We want to get it right. We would value the knowledge and recommendations of the historic society and would not want to do anything that would alter the authenticity of our amazing Victorian home. We would like the protection of this designation so that no one could come and destroy the character and historic value of these homes. For selfish reasons, we fully support the historic application. Excuse me. Thank you. John Olsen and Mr. Olsen, you have 6 minutes. All right. Thank you very much. My name is John Paulson. I'm the director of preservation programs at Historic Denver. We're a private, nonprofit. Advocacy organization, and we're at 1420 Ogden Street in Suite 202. I'm here to express my support of the Landmark District Designation Application for the 200 South BLOCK of Lincoln in Denver, Colorado. The application brought forward by residents on the block is for 15 properties in a contiguous geographic area along both sides of the street. Currently, it is thought to be the most concentrated block of William Lang design houses in Denver. Eight, possibly even nine of the 15 houses are laying design, but all are various interpretations of the Queen Anne style. Built between 1889 and 1895, Lang was one of Denver's most prolific architects of the late 19th century and the architect of historic Denver's very own Molly Brown House, a Queen Anne style building. In its own right, though, it's very different from the. Elegantly muted style that we find here. The neighbors first brought their hopes of designation to historic Denver way back in January of 2013. They were seeking our assistance and our advice. The very first outreach meeting for neighbors took place in March of that same year, and I was privileged to attend this meeting to. Outline that. Outline the district designation process and answer questions, as well as pass out informational sheets related to the responsibilities of owning a home in a historic district. Further outreach was conducted by the neighborhood through the spring and summer of 2013. An application for district designation was submitted. To the LPC later that year. However, that application was ultimately withdrawn on the recommendation that the applicants conduct additional outreach to ensure that all affected property owners had all the necessary and accurate information to achieve this goal, the applicant group hosted several additional gatherings to which all property owners were inviting, leading a very proactive effort. Additionally, handouts and summaries of meetings have been mailed, emailed and or hand-delivered to every household and owner in the district. The handouts and discussions targeted common questions about the effect of historic designation. One of those relates to property values and historic districts confirming that they tend to go up, not down. The assertion is conferred by both a local study of three historic districts in Denver and as a part of the economic power of heritage in plays published by History. Colorado as well. As several other. National studies. And the value of these districts is due in large part not to the individual building components, but to the collection of. Buildings as a whole, providing both. Stability. And context. Historic. Denver wants to commend the neighbors who have worked diligently and patiently to. Achieve this goal. The overwhelming, overwhelming support for this district from the owners and nearby neighbors is a testament to their dedication. A historic district, like a zoning district, does not require unanimous support. However, this district has demonstrated tremendous favor from its residents. We are very pleased with the application and believe a historic district on South Lincoln honors an important part of our local history, fosters our city's unique identity and character, and supports economic vitality. It is a pleasure to support this work to protect an integral piece of Denver's history. Thank you for your consideration to vote in favor of creating this district. Thank you. Simon McGuinness. Hello, council members. My name is Simon McGuinness. I am the. Owner of 223 South Lincoln. This property is also my first. Personal property ownership. I was immediately. Drawn to the beautiful architecture in the neighborhood and it was about eight years ago, 2003, really rough in the area. At that time. But it was definitely something to. A vision. For the future and invest in. And I just couldn't believe anyone not wanting to protect that and having an opportunity for anybody to come in and get rid of any of those buildings. Is. A little. A little hard to handle. So I didn't write anything down, but I just wanted to come in and say that I support this and I hope that. You all do as. Well. Thank you. Karen Hinkle. Hello, everyone. My name is Karen Hinkle. I first bought 243 South Lincoln Street in 2000. I was a flight attendant with the United Airlines. I couldn't afford a house in Denver. However, I could afford. This house because it had two rentals in it. I lived in one, I rented out the other two, and I was able to afford a house. And that's how I bought 243 South Lincoln. And I lived there for three years in and then the house down the street went on the market at 209, South Lincoln, the single family house. And I was thinking, well, I've got these rentals now. I add to my income, I can buy this house too. And I did. So that's how I ended up with two houses, and I could only afford them if they had rentals. I was a flight attendant. We didn't make a whole heck of a lot of money at United Airlines, even though we had a lot of fun. So that's my story and how I ended up on Lincoln Street. People told me I was crazy to buy on Lincoln Street. I looked at Lincoln Street. I've traveled all over the world. I grew up in Nevada. And I said, You call this a bad neighborhood and the house. I just love the house. I didn't care. Where it was. And it's not a busy street. I don't care. I've spent years fixing it up. I don't have the big money to go in and totally redo everything. So I've been doing it slowly. However, I just did refinanced. So I put up new gates and new fences and painting everything. It's going to look beautiful soon as it stops raining. So I take a lot of pride in it. And my neighbor Grady, who's lived across the street from me since 1976, proposed that we become a historic district. When I first bought there in 2000, then I. Looked in. Awe how our block was really, really trashy when I bought there. I mean, the police were in our alley every other day, sometimes twice a day, people peeing in the front yards and, you know, and it was like, I didn't care. I had a house and it was beautiful. And and slowly over the years, people have moved in and fixed up. And then in the downturn, which actually was kind of good for us, people died there of foreclosures where flippers came in and they actually did very good work flipping these houses where they're still historical. They're still they created a house that invited people to move in. And so now we have a good concrete group of people who live there and who support the designation of being a historic district. And it's unfortunate, I think, that Chelsea doesn't support us because she's our neighbor. You know, she's also our friend. And I would hope that she would see that this this is going to be good for us. I agree. I think so. I agree. I support. Personal property. Rights 100%. However, in this instance, I think the whole is is takes precedence over the individual because it is a whole block. So I urge you to support us to become a historic district. And then next time you drive down like this, Hinkle, and say hi. It remains minutes thank you and I to work for you tonight. It was a lot of fun. Anthony. Anthony Hinkle. Good evening, everyone. My name is Tony Hinkle. I live at 209 South Lincoln, along with my charming wife, Karen. And I just wanted to say, you've heard a lot of arguments, mostly for, I think that the for far outweigh any negative impacts. I think that the. Benefits to individual homeowners as well as the. Population of Denver and everyone who drives up the street and notices all those homes. I think the benefits far outweigh any any detriments. So I'm totally in favor of this, and I hope you are, too. Thank you. Q Jay Brown. And as Ms.. Brown comes up, I will call the last four speakers. Carey Samuelson. Cherry. Gordy Grant. Adrian Brown. Charlotte Winsberg. In any good beginning remarks. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Lucia Brown. I live in the Baker. Neighborhood at 132. West Fourth. I am the immediate past. President of the. Baker Historic. Neighborhood Association as of last Tuesday. Also, the western side of this block is also within the boundaries of our neighborhood association. In the year. 2000, I was involved. In. Getting historic designation for Baker. I was assigned a couple. Of blocks and I had to research all the homes on that block. And back then, Debbie Ortega was our councilperson and helped. Us get it, get it through. And it has worked out wonderfully for Baker. Our property values have gone through the roof, no pun intended. When we're talking about houses. There's no need to fear. Of any values going down in this location. That's for certain. Had we not received the designation, we would have seen wholesale. Destruction of the houses. Which is now happening on the western western unprotected side of Baker in our neighborhood. So designation allows future generations. To enjoy the beautiful. And representative homes of the 200 block of South Lincoln. And I do encourage you. All to support this. Designation. Thank you so. Much. But my thinking was Brown. Kerry Samuelson. I hate speaking in front of crowds, so my presence up here should be evidence enough that I support this this designation. My name is Carey Samuelson, and I'm here to voice support for the Landmark District designation of the 200 block of South Lincoln. My husband and I own and reside at 214 South Lincoln Street. I'm a Colorado native. My parents are natives. Their parents are natives. My mother's side of the family moved to the state. During the silver rush. My great uncle was actually the mayor of Fairplay. Most of my relatives settled in Castle Rock, where four generations of my family graduated from Douglas County High School. I know Colorado. I am part of this state and I have spent my entire life watching it change. I still remember when County Line Road was a dirt roller coaster. I still remember when the star of Castle Rock could be seen for miles and miles because there wasn't an outlet mall or a suburbia maze blocking its view. I also remember what a pain it was that only one grocery store existed in town. I remember when my mom cut her arm on her windshield wiper and we had to drive 4 hours to find an emergency room which would stitch up. Good things come with growth and good things can come at a cost. As I say, you can have your cake and eat it too if you want. Convenience. Perhaps the forfeit of the small, quaint town you remember from your childhood is inevitable. I have seen the benefits of growth in Denver. I did not grow up in the city and I don't have the same childhood memories of Denver as I do of Castle Rock. But my husband and I have lived in the city for over ten years. I'd be lying to say we don't enjoy the new and nicer restaurants that have accompanied the growth or the fact that by person parks are clean and safe. But it's no secret that there are quite a few more people in town. It takes a long time to keep down Speer Boulevard. It's nearly impossible to find a quiet tree under watch. Read a book at Wash Park on a Saturday afternoon. It's crowded. This is an unavoidable cost to all of the great things we are enjoying, enjoying about our growing city. I'm willing to accept the pains of growth in Denver. I am not willing to define the. Potential removal and destruction. Of our city's history and beauty as one of these growth pains. We purchased our home because it's stunning, because the care and attention that went into its construction does not exist in homes today. Prior to living to our home on Lincoln, we lived in a similar style home in the Baker neighborhood, which is under historic designation. This designation did not prevent us from purchasing the home, but rather. Compelled the purchase. Much like Castle Rock. Denver will never be the same once. A Cowtown is now one of the fastest growing cities in the nation. As a Colorado native, I am a dying breed. Every everyone I meet is not from my state and they don't know the Colorado I once knew. And they crowd the parks and they jam up the roads and they cheer for teams other than the Broncos. I guess I accept this, but I do not accept one of them tearing down the gorgeous home next to me to build a modern cement spaceship. The block on which I live is beautiful. There is no reason not to protect the beauty of the older homes in Denver, if possible. The 200 block of Lincoln submitted. Miss Samuelson. Thank you. You did a great job, though. You do a great job. Next, we have Jodi Grant and Ms.. Grant, you have 6 minutes. Good evening, members of City Council. My name is Gurney Grant or Gertrude Grant, and I am one of the three applicants for this historic district. I want to thank the landmark staff and historic Denver staff for their help and support. But I also want to thank Karen Henkel, who started this process, and Nita Lynch, whose drafting and diplomatic skills have brought us thus far. I bought 242 South Lincoln Street in 1977 when I saw it from a bus on my way home from work. I also co-own 246 South Lincoln with Doris Bird, who is here tonight. We bought it a few years after I bought 242 because it was only four feet south of our house. And the thought of someone playing loud music late at night was disturbing to folks who work 8 to 10 hour days. I'm also a member of an LLC that bought 213 South Lincoln a year ago to save it from demolition because it sits on a large lot and was in deplorable condition. The four LLC members are working hard to save the House. In 1977, I was the youngest owner on the block. Now I'm almost the oldest. I bought my house because I love the fancy woodwork both inside and out of my house, but also the houses across the street and the other houses on the block. Since 1977, I have witnessed many challenges in the block drug needles, in the bushes, in front of my house from a drug dealer who lived across the street. Bullet hole in my front living room window when former gang members lived across the street, intoxicated men across the street celebrating there in their boxer shorts on a porch roof after a successful garage sale where some of the discards from our alley were sold to homicides in the block, a porch across the street collapsing after the intoxicated men removed the support columns in their jubilation for the roof. Now people are improving the houses and I welcome the change. This group of 15 houses presents to today's passers by and I hope for passers by for years to come. Examples of the 1880s and 1890s Queen Anne style architecture built for families of different size and of different incomes. They were all built within a short span of six years when the Broadway trolley was extended down to Alameda. The houses on the West Side, most of them, those wonderful torte houses, were built on small lots for working folks who could take the trolley in to downtown Denver to work and shop. The houses on the east side are a little larger on slightly larger lots for people of slightly higher income. And all those had staircases down the back for a maid's room into the kitchen. But they were also built so the residents could take public transportation into downtown for work and shopping. In this one single half block, viewers can see the contrasts and yet the similarities. There are similar front setbacks, front porches, some with fancier brickwork than others, and none out of character. Owners of 14 of 15 of the houses support this historic district. Both named both Baker and West Watch Park. Neighborhood organizations support it. Numerous letters in your file support it. I hope you will support the creation of this historic district. Thank you very much. Amos Grant. Adrian Brown. Good evening. I'm Adrian Brown. I live at 132 West Fourth, and I share my house with my lovely wife, Luciano. I wanted to make two points. First, in response to the concerns, Speaker was while I was president of the Beacon Neighborhood Association, which just before in fact was registered as a historic district, and there were opponents and vehement opponents who really were concerned. There are none now after the council and the residents took this important but dangerous step. So I can offer that comfort to the opponents to this. But I also want to point out. What a wonderful. Opportunity these residents have given the city in offering their homes to be a cornerstone on a very busy road. And I applaud them for doing that, because otherwise it would be denuded of these historic houses, as Broadway has been. And we lost all of those wonderful mansions because it was a main road. And single family homes particularly ceased to be viable on there. These people have done a wonderful job for us as citizens and for you as the council in coming forward to make this happen. And I certainly hope you will you will support it. Finally, you in doing so, I think you also make some sort of a commitment to at least think about ameliorating traffic on all of our main roads and from this all the way through to our freeways. I think this council and subsequent councils need to take a long, hard look at the livability of of the houses along major thoroughfares. And you make a wonderful step in approving this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Charlotte Winsberg. My name is Charlotte Winston. I live at 590 South Sherman. Not. Not on the famed Lincoln Street block here. Batting cleanup and going be kind to you because you have heard so many wonderful things about why you should support this landmark district. And I can't think of anything I could add that would improve it. Everybody almost everybody in this town recognizes those houses because everybody has driven up and down Lincoln and many don't. And they there's dependance. Those of us who live in all Victorian homes treasure them deeply. And I wish my block could meet all the criteria for designation as well. But I want to hold you. Why don't you just all raise your hands and vote yes now and then you can go home. Thank you. Thank you. Mrs. Lindenberg. That that concludes our speakers. Now, time for questions of counsel and I will I'll chime in first. Chelsea, you want to come back at the podium? I'm curious. How long have you owned the property? I've owned it since 2012, and it was a lot more affordable. So I'm curious, you know, this they they mentioned that this process has been going on for a couple of years. And I thought I heard you say that you weren't at some point you weren't the only one that was against it. Did you say eight of 21? I wanted to make sure I heard that correct. Yeah, there were eight of 21 in the original 2013 application, and this has since been carved up so that there aren't any additional opponents. There also are two opponents who were on the east side who sold in that time frame. So they've decided to reapply. And now I'm the unfortunate one stuck in the middle. So of the eight. So the other seven that were against it. The other the other seven you were saying were carved out. They were either carved out on either side of the historic designation because it apparently still has to be a continuous block or those two sold. Okay. And if you could just and I apologize, I had to cut you off because the 3 minutes is up. But you could just kind of some kind of summarize what your what your concerns are and why you're opposed to this. So unlike some of my neighbors, I'm a young person and I have potential, you know, young family needs for growth. I may want to expand the back of the house. I may want to make modifications to the house. I love Victorian homes and that's one of the big reasons why I bought this as well. I would never demolish the home and I don't think any of these homes, which are all largely valued over half a million dollars now is in danger of being demolished, except for potentially 213, which has already been purchased and is being lovingly restored. I don't know that this is something that needs to be an application for all of these homes. I think that individuals can do the applying. Great. Thank you, Mr. Olsen. Yeah. I'm not sure if you were a part of the original application, but I'm curious if you were if you could explain why I went from 21 to 15. Because in the original application, Chelsea was saying it was 21 home, but then it was done again. And just to the 15, I'm curious what the reason was for that. Well, you know, it was based. On. Some reevaluation of the what style of homes were being a part of it, as well as the geographical aspect of getting all those homes together. So there were some homes to the south that were were decided that they did not. Fit necessarily with the. The type of architecture so that were taken out. And also they were, you know, Chelsea is correct that they were opposed. And so because they were on the edge of the district or at the edge of the proposed district, it was possible to take that out and still have a very viable, historic district. Her situation is that she's in one of the Lang homes right in the middle of the district. And from a standpoint of, you know, in terms of how districts are formed, they're formed in a contiguous way, especially for a district of this size. It needs to have a cohesiveness to it. And her home fits all of the criteria. And so it needs to be included in that as a part of the district. Then I do understand, but I'm just curious if it the optics of eight out of 21 homeowners are opposing versus one out of 15 certainly goes better in your favor. So I was just curious what the real reason was for the shrinkage. So if you say it's it had a little bit to do with architecture or was it just because, you know. The ones on the ones on the edge. In terms of I believe in and we're not a co-op looking on this one. Of course we support it. But, you know, the three applicants were their reasons of, you know, why they're there. Certain homes are included or not included. But from from a standpoint. Of initially it was trying to get as much of the. Block as possible. And then after, you know, having that outreach and then realizing that there were some opposed, it was a relatively easy factor to be able to carve out those edges to the district. And then, you know. There were some aspects of a couple of. Sales did happen. So, you know, everybody that's involved now. As much as. Possible. You know, is for that particular district. Okay. And in terms of the you know, in terms of the outreach, the original application in 2013 was put forward there. And because of the opposition that came forward, it was the role of the neighborhood in the role of historic Denver and really even the role of the Landmarks Preservation Commission to do even more outreach to show them because. They're some of. The reasons for the opposition were based on inaccuracies in what they thought the district would actually mean. And in that conversation, we were also able to have, you know, some clarifications of that, why that was occurring. And so when the new owners came in and when the owners that were a part of this, they understood everything you could possibly understand about being in historic district. This is over three years of doing, you know, outreach. And I had several discussions early on with Chelsea about those, you know, issues in terms of, you know, what are the responsibilities and what are the benefits. Unfortunately, a number of those things that I offered in terms of additional advice were not taken up by her. And I you know, in the in her testimony talking about, you know, what I was saying, what is allowed and what is not allowed. I advised her to contact both the Landmark Preservation Commission, as well as just the city, from a permitting standpoint to figure out what would be allowed and what would not be allowed. Like when she's talking about putting additions onto the back, those are very much allowed as a part of historic district. So I feel that those are fears are on fire. I absolutely understand that. And I just wanted to question about the the downsizing and I got my answer. So thank you. I appreciate that. That's all my questions. Councilman Flynn, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. Gurdy, would you mind coming back up for a second? Thanks. I used to take the Zero Limited also all the time, and I wanted to thank you for bringing this forward because one of the nicest parts of the commute on up from Broadway station to Civic Center was passing through this part of Lincoln Street. But I notice that you also own two other houses to the south of this district, to 58 and to 60. That's correct. And the reason for not including those is exactly what we've been exploring here, the lack of contiguity because there's a house in between. Is that one of the properties that. The Queen Anne's and the houses, the one house in between 246 and the two houses that I own is in. It's owned by an absentee landowner and it's an incredibly bad shape and I think it will probably be demolished when it's sold. Okay. Thank you very much. Kara, can I ask a quick question? I guess that's. Can I ask a quick question? Because everybody's wondering that I notice that there are some historic districts that also that lack contiguity along a block face and are some like Wyman that actually has an exclave or an enclave of non historic within it . What is the rule that prevents us or prevents landmark from considering not including a a certain property or otherwise along the block? We generally like to have historic districts that are contiguous. There are cases where it's not. Sometimes those were cut out. Sometimes they were for political reasons. They were often designated a while ago. So I personally don't have a history of why they were done. But in general, it's preservation policy. It's part of the landmark ordinance and part of what we look at here in Denver. But it's also overarching preservation policy that you try to have something that is contiguous, that doesn't have what we call a donut hole, which is something in the middle that's missing or that has not just cut in and out. It's something we try to avoid. Okay. But we haven't been able to avoid it all the time in the past. It has. But does that reflect a change in the policy or could that happen again? I mean, it could happen. And again, when you're looking at something that's a district that's this small and you start cutting things out, you lose the continuity of a district that's only two faces of a street. If you're looking at a larger district, you can still maintain the continuity and the history of it a little bit better . So a non contributing structure might be carved out in a larger district. Yeah, well, it would oftentimes just be non contributing. It would still be within the boundary of the historic district. It would just be determined, non contributing. These all were built at the same time, so they would all be contributing structures. I think that's on this problem. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa. Just maybe a question for John and possibly for Chelsea as well. What is that? And I feel bad because I'm a licensed architect here. Yeah. What is that? What does that turret form that. What is the official name for that thing. For the turret. Yeah. I mean, it's. It's a. Turret. All right. Yeah. All right. That's exactly what it's called. Yes. Question for Chelsea. Is your house one of the turret houses? My husband's one. Chelsea, we're gonna we're going to need you to come up to the podium, please. I have a loud boom, but sometimes not that much. My home is one of the targeted homes. I also, in my letter of opposition, question whether these are all Queen Anne's. There's other impacting factors like Queen Anne's are usually would a lot of these are brick that don't meet Queen Anne architecture whatsoever. And this is the first time, Kyra, that I've ever heard that it was a possibility to have the home excluded. I was told through and through, including at the landmark preservation hearing on 315 that that was not an option. So that's very shocking information. But so here's the question for you, Chelsea. All right. So did you know that you can, in fact, do additions? There's this looking I've been exploring the aerial maps. To the back. I have been told that some things that I actually do want to do that I've now gotten permits for, including renovating the deck or doing a window to a door conversion to my upper deck to make it easy to access and actually step out to the upper deck rather than winding a window and trying to crawl through which you currently have to do would not have been an option. So it's really in the how. It's not necessarily the what unless it's really sort of egregious, but you'll find that, yeah, these really want to use this opportunity to let everyone know and yourself that actually there's a lot you can do. It just has to be within reason. And then there's going to be an emphasis on one side of the building versus all sides of the building. You know, there's there's other, you know, caveats depending on the house and everything else. But it isn't as if people sort of bothered to take their ideas to the landmark commission. I think you'd be surprised how much latitude you have and being part of the district does in fact give you access to other financial tools that that don't that aren't afforded to people outside these districts. I think the other concerns of the time frame it would take for approval and the additional cost, I've been told by several contractors who I got to come. Over for the original door to. Window conversion that I'm trying to do. They won't even touch a historic home. It's just not within. Their contractors will tell you a lot of things that you know and a lot of it is and it's just I'm being asked not to be believed. Sorry. It is additional time, but with a little bit of planning, it makes no difference in the in the end result. And and I just speak to that from experience, having renovated the state house of this of this entire state. Give me some good contractors if it goes through. All right. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Brooks. Yeah. Just a quick question, Carol, or one. I wanted to allow you to provide feedback. After what Jose just said, that that was the first time she had heard from that. Did you want to respond? Look like you want to respond. You know, we it wouldn't be allowed to be cut out just simply because of the size of the district. It isn't something. So while it has been allowed in the past, it's not something that would have been an option here. And I don't know that the landmark commission would have allowed it to go forward as that. So while yes, it has happened in the past, it isn't appropriate for this historic district. Right. And so in the district, there are 15. Every house is a contributing structure to the district. Correct? Yes, they all are. And I'm looking at it here and I can't tell. Are there any empty lots in the district there? Not necessarily an empty lot. There was a house that burned down. And so that lot has been combined with the one that the LLC purchased, I think. And so it's just one larger lot. But it was basically a sister house to the one that's currently there and it burned down a hundred years ago. So can it be built on? Sure. Come on. If you want to keep going after that. Come on. Come on up. You got to come to the microphone, sir. We actually I purchased. Two feet of land from the vacant lot from my neighbors in order to further prevent the double lot from being split and also to add a walkway path from my front yard to my backyard which the property was lacking. So it is. Not. Formally a double lot any longer. It is two feet under, so 48 feet. So it's not you can't legally build on that. Okay. So is there a you know, in just all are in this district? I just I'm curious can you build anywhere in the district? Not that I'm aware of. No. Great. Thank you. Actually, I want to make the exception you could build out and on. So I mean that there's space there that theoretically could have something built on it just couldn't do a new stand alone as a usable right. But with variants, you could also look at that because we've done that in Ghost. Right. Any other questions to 72? So, you know, public hearing and now closed time for comments. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank all of you for sticking it out this late with us tonight. I. You know, whenever we look at these designations, you know, one of the things that always weighs heavy is property rights and personal property rights. And this one's a little bit different in that it's not a hostile designation, but there's one person who feels that it's hostile. And for that property it is. And so, you know, I think that does weigh. But I think in this case, it it is outweighed by what's going on here. I am a Denver native who always cheers for the Denver Broncos. And I, I remember as a kid trips up and down Broadway and Lincoln to get to downtown. And I remember this block from when I was a kid. And it's a block that I always look for as I'm driving and as I'm riding through this part of town. Because it is it's this place where all of a sudden you're transported in time. And it's just a very, very special place. And this part of town has, as Denver has grown and will continue to grow, has absorbed a lot of that growth. We have to light rail stations that are very nearby. We just approved, you know, a stationary plan for the former gate site, which is less than a mile away, and the Almeida site around it that has a development plan for a lot of density that's a block away. And I think that, you know, as we grow and as we change, we have to identify those areas where we can do that, where we don't just sprawl out and we have to be smart about that. And those areas are identified around those two light rail stations. But then we also have to find that balance in preserving the magic that is Denver and our history. And this is one of those places that I think is is a slam dunk for us. Preserving it is that gateway to downtown. It's also that gateway between a traditional neighborhood and neighborhood in which park that so many people think of when they think of Denver. And it's that gateway now between that and between multimodal development and a light rail station. And I think that we have an opportunity in front of us to preserve something that is very, very special. And we have a group of of neighbors who are so passionate about where they live and about this preservation that a group of them have come together to buy a house when it came for sale, to restore it , to protect it and to bring it back. And so I am I'm very excited to represent this group of people. And I, I will say to Chelsea that I will be voting to support this. But if you are lucky enough to still own this property for as long as Jersey has owned hers, I'm I am positive. And you can come find me and tell me I was wrong that you will not lose money because this is preserved, that this historic district where it's located, unfortunately for affordability and for other young people and young families who want to live there, it's not going to get cheaper and it is really going to be a gem by our city that that the value will will be tremendous, both to us as a city, to us as Bronco loving Denver rights and 2 to 4 generations to see what what the city was and how it how it grew up. So I will be supporting this tonight, and I strongly urge all my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I couldn't say it better than. Clark just said it. So I'm not going to add much except for to say Chelsea. I also am supporting this, but you do not have to wait as long as gurdy. I'm not calling you old Gerd, but it's 1970. Whatever was a long time ago. I would. I believe in personal property rights. I know your property is going to be worth more as soon as this passes. The tax credits are available. I, too, have driven down that street. I continue to drive down that street on my way to work every day. It's an important block to preserve in our city, and I know it will not be a negative thing for you. So I also will be supporting it. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I couldn't say it better than Councilwoman Black, but I want to and I just want to put out there that in my district, there are some. There's an enclave of historic homes that's not designated. But there are people in there who are faithfully restoring them to the mid-century modern style. And the folks who are doing that are realizing substantial increases in in their values compared with the few, unfortunately, that have been re re styled outside of the bounds of the mid-century modern cliff may style, they have sold for substantially less than the gain of the ones that have been faithfully restored. So I just wanted to echo what Councilwoman Black said, that I believe historic preservation in a district context will will only add to the value. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. I hope for your sake that Chelsea is not a hoarder and a cat woman. In 40 years, that could be a rough property. You're in one of the tenant homes and. And that matters. And that's unfortunate for you, but it's actually, in the long run, going to be fortunate for you. I would support it because that because I've seen this property over the course of 30 years, used to commute right by it every single day, and you don't not notice the turrets. What you did notice was the condition of that block, which was not good for a really long time. And when one person finally there was one person that always sort of maintained his house, but then when one person took one that was in that was very much neglected and started to transform it, that transformed that block. I don't know what you guys were all doing, but at some point it turned a corner and a domino effect occurred. And the profit that log went from from one of roof rental to one that that's achieving a potential that it had always been there. The nice thing is these are durable homes that are that are capable of withstanding neglect and then being brought back to life to their former glory, which is really tough to say for I mean, I can't say that for some. A lot of the new construction that goes on in in northwest Denver, a lot of people, when those things start to leak, are going to be coming looking for you to pay with their million dollars, provided you take care of it, asking for a real house, one that's got more than a 30 year shelf life. So that's the thing is it would really I, I respect the fact that they they basically insisted that you be part of it because because you you notice the pattern, you notice all those turns and your eye is drawn to it and it makes part of commuting up Lincoln wonderful. And so it's a sacrifice, but it's, it's, it's part of what makes Denver unique. And I'm going to be supporting this, but I do think that in the long run, you'll find that you can capture most of what you want to do. You can do it not as economically as you need to. And and you're going to have a very stable neighborhood, because that's what happens in historic districts, is is it becomes a known quantity and a very, very desirable part of town. So so I will be supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President, I. When I saw this come up, I just had a lot of memories. And that memories, those memories for me are living off a link, living right off a Lincoln Street on 664, South Lincoln. And I was when I first had my first apartment and 17, 18 years old, and that was it. And so commuting up and down, I remember walking every single day to school over at UCD, every single day going up Lincoln on the bike, walking with groceries and those. The thing about historic districts is as you know it when you see it. Right. And and this was one of those areas of town you come in from South Lincoln where you you know, it. The houses have a particular flavor to it. The block has a particular flavor to it. And, you know, I you know, I definitely understand your concern. It does it does bother me that this is the first time you realized that you were able to actually possibly opt out of it. You know, the question of how they were selected still remains in my mind, because I think there's probably some houses there that are probably left out that perhaps could be included in it. And when you drive down that, you just you just see it, you know it. And so, you know, I, I know that you have a great councilman representing that area. And, you know, I think, you know, any time you have any kind of issues running into permitting or questions about what you can and can't do, I think that's a just an amazing resource to have as that, you know, as it develops . But, you know, I, you know, I have a villa park Bab house on a slab. Right. And it's nothing like the house that you were in. Those houses are solid. They last for a very long time. And if you take care of last forever, I just you know, I'm supportive of the of the historic district. I am supportive of this moving forward for preservation. However, I do think that we should be, as we start identifying some of these blocks, that we should be mindful and very, very flexible with some of the residents. I had no idea that they're going to be buying into a historic district. Right. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll try to be brief and not be redundant. I live in a very old home. Mine was built in the late 1800s and just being able to do work on these older homes that have just incredible woodwork and just unique characteristics, it's it's a work in progress and it takes time and money to be able to do the kind of improvements that we all want to do on our homes. I also was very intimately involved in the Baker Historic District. The Lower Downtown Historic District and the Potter Highlands District, which are all some of the larger districts that we have in the city. And in every one of those districts, the property values immediately increased. And this was long before we saw this uptick in our economy and the impact to the housing market all across the city. These were neighborhoods that saw some real stability in knowing that, you know, the property next to them was not going to be torn down , particularly in the lower downtown district when we worked on that. We had a number of property owners who were reluctant to have their building designated as a historic building. But, you know, fast forward to today and everybody really appreciates the fact that those buildings were, in fact, preserved. And it's a thriving part of our downtown. I mean, you know, we've extended the downtown all the way to include lower downtown and beyond. And so I think the concerns that have been expressed about. Impact to property values are not going to be realized. I think you'll you'll see just the opposite of that, as we have seen in other parts of the city where these historic districts have been around for some time. And I don't I don't see John Olsen still out in the audience, but correct me if I'm wrong, but in these historic districts, you can actually access grants to be able to do improvements to your properties. And if you can just kind of shake your head to confirm that. That's correct, John, because we're in comment period now, not question answer, but yes. Yeah. Okay. So, you know, I think there are opportunities available to folks who have historic properties. And it's to that that very point. But this is a beautiful part of the city. And being able to preserve it for future generations is, I think, important. I regret the fact that we had some incredible buildings that were in our downtown when at one point our urban renewal authority was part of the the vehicle that was helping tear down and work with developers to do some of these buildings. And there was a big push from folks to try to save some of those buildings. And, you know, we're lucky to have a number of them along our 16th Street corridor and in other areas of downtown. So. For people who come to this city and to try to recall what once was in my neighborhood in lower highlands, which is drastically changing, you know, being able to see some of that preservation is is really important to just knowing the history and the culture of our city. So I will be supporting this tonight. And I just want to thank the community for all of the hard work that went into putting this together. It takes time. It takes a lot of energy. And for every one of you who were involved in shaping this, congratulations. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Sussman, you're at I'm getting ahead of myself. I have a much more pedestrian comment to make. Not so high minded as my council of people. Thank you for one of the most entertaining public comment period we've had in a very long time. I appreciate it very much. Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman, in the comments to 72. I will I will chime in briefly. One thank you all for coming out and sitting here in those chairs. I thought they were going to be here sooner than we got to this. But Chelsea and and being knowing you're the one lone opposition to this is come and speak your mind I appreciate you doing that. I didn't I didn't ask this question. But I imagine one of the reasons why you purchased a home was because of the charm and the esthetics is something that you really appreciated. And you even mentioned yourself that, you know, you wouldn't even consider tearing it down. And I understand your concerns, and it's easy for us to say we're property rights advocates when it's not our property and how we can easily just wave that magic wand and say, Oh, yeah, we should do this. I don't think it's a slam dunk as much as other people say this is something I will support. But I, I have concern about the optics of that and whether or not it was intentional to shrink the size to have a better view. I just think that that doesn't look right and doesn't sit well with me. I also think that we're a little naive to say you can accomplish all the things you want to do. It's not that hard. I respectfully disagree. I, I was looked really long and hard into finding an adaptive reuse for the Stapleton Tower, and one of the things we considered was historic preservation. And when I did some research and all the restrictions on that, and once you did, that gave me pause. And so that's something that I didn't want to consider, and that was just my personal opinion. So there will be some challenges and that's just the reality. But the greater good is that we'll have a beautiful collection of homes that show a part of Denver that can never be taken away. And I think that that's something we need to consider as well. But I just think it's unfair for us to just look at you and say, Oh, it'll be easy. You'll gain all this money back. And that's just not the reality of it. But we appreciate I sincerely appreciate your comments and sharing your thoughts. And I also appreciate all the other neighbors that worked really hard. And I know we love our neighbors and we all want to get along and sometimes we don't. But I, I can tell you, I really do get along. So I think that that's great. And no matter how this felt goes, I can I can imagine still be good. Neighbor So see no other comments, ma'am. Secretary Roll call. Clark is Vanessa Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. SUSSMAN Black. Brooks Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please, for the very nasty results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes to 72 is in place on final consideration and death penalty. All right, we've got one more. 311. So, Councilman Lopez, will you please put 311 on the floor for final consideration and do pass? Mr. President, I move that council bill 311 series of 2016 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. Call it up. It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing on 311 is now open. May we have staff report? We got quorum. Two, three, four, five. Give me. Do you got. Me? Do you extend it. Got eight. Go ahead. We have seven. I can count. It. So I am Karen again with Landmark Preservation at CPD. This is for 1250 Welton Street, the Emily Griffith Opportunity School for landmark designation as a structure. And I will try to move through this quickly. So this is 1250 WELTON It's also known as. 1261 Glenarm The applicants are Denver public schools who are the owner. So this is an owner supported designation as well as a start. To my birthday just got excited go ahead you got. Oh he's excited about the owner supported. Yes so it is an owner supported this is for the entire block and it is divided into contributing and non contributing areas. The contributing areas include the 1926 schoolhouse as well as in 1847 and 1956 editions.

Recommendation to adopt resolution authorizing City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into an agreement with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), to accept and expend funding in the amount of $10,800,000 for the Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment (LB-MUST) - Phase 1 Project from the Safe, Clean Water Program’s (Measure W) Regional Program Transfer Agreement No. 2020RPLLAR02; Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund Group in the Public Works Department in the amount of $10,800,000, offset by Measure W revenue from LACFCD; and Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund Group in the Public Works Department by $10,800,000, offset by transfer of Measure W revenue from LACFCD funds from the Capital Projects Grant Fund. (Districts 1,7,8,9)

LongBeachCC_03232021_21-0252

All right. Motion carries item 16, please. Report from Public Works. Recommendation to adopt resolution to enter into an agreement with L.A. County Flood Control District to accept and expand funding for the Long Beach Municipal Urban Stormwater Treatment Phase one project districts one, seven, eight and nine. I do have a I do have a motion and a second. I do want to add the next three projects. And Mr. Modica, correct me if I'm wrong, but the next two or three projects are projects that have received funding through the L.A. County Measure and measure W And Mr. Modica, do you want to maybe talk briefly on each one so that the community knows about these projects? Sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We also have public works here to answer any specific questions. But Long Beach has been very, very active in Measure W. We were one of the major proponents for Measure M and Measure W to really bring additional stormwater resources to Long Beach to make sure that one city's upstream from us are paying their fair share and taking care of their stormwater. But then we also have solutions available to ourselves. So we're really excited to bring over $24 million to you tonight. One, you know, it's got to be one of the largest awards that we're aware of. The first project is for the Long Beach, Ms.. Project, which is a really innovative stormwater treatment plant down by the Drake Chavez Park and is going to be really a signature project to treat water, have wetlands on site, to fill those with treated water, and also to do irrigation. We're also able to do under a number 18 I'm sorry, number 17 is a stormwater retention basin to capture and filtrate water at scaling. And then we're also improving our Eldorado Lake projects with this money as well. So kudos to the entire team for putting this together and a real big investment in our water quality and also part of our L.A. River projects that we're constantly working on to improve the L.A. River. And that's the whole be must project. And any other questions? Eric Lopez and his team are available. Great. Why don't we go ahead and Madam Kirk will? Well, we'll vote on all three of these together. Do you want to read the other two items so we can all go round them together? It's all part of the same big grant program. 17 is a report from Public Works. It's a recommendation to adopt resolution, to accept and to expand funding for the gaming golf course at Willow Stormwater Capture Project, District five. And Item 18. It's also a report from Public Works to adopt resolution to accept and expand funding for the Eldorado Regional Project District five. Thank you. Well, with that, we do have a motion by Councilman Sun House and we have a second by councilman, mongo, councilman and Day House. Thank you, Mayor. I just really want to say how excited I am about the we must project here in the First District. This is such an amazing opportunity for both to address serious environmental challenges in our area, but also to, to, to it's an opportunity to develop this area. And it's going to be incredible having the wetlands space there for our community and to continue our Drake Charvis master plan in this area. Staff has been working really hard on this. So for that I'm very, very thankful for your continuous updates to my office on this and thank you for your hard work on this. I'm especially excited about the way that we that we can expand this project. And this is this is an idea that that is growing and that we'll we'll keep that in mind as well. And it really is going to become a regional leader in the L.A. River area. This is something that's built with growth in mind. And I can't wait to see all the amazing opportunities that are going to be created here, not only for ourselves and our residents, but but for for the entire county and staff. So I'm really excited about this. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. We're very excited about this project that's been in the works for several years and the community is very supportive. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson, did you have any comments? Oh. Comments supportive. Thank you. Councilwoman. Sara, was that just a motion or any comments? Now a motion. Okay. And, Councilman, your anger or those comments are just emotion. No, I actually have some comments. I'm a member of the Rivers Animals Conservancy, and we contribute some money to go towards a law which must. And with these gone with these contributions, now that we have it almost fully funded. So I'm really looking forward to the completion of that project. Thank you. Thank you. And I want to just congratulate the team. I think a lot of us were involved in Measure W and we were active supporters of that county measure, and it's producing some significant projects for the city as it relates to stormwater and water in general. And so this is a significant award for the city and we're going to see other projects in the future also receive funding. So we are we're excited about that. And so with that, we're going to take one vote. This is for items 16, 17 and 18 benefit. District one. I. District two. District three. District three, District four. All right. District five. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. All right. District nine. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. We will go back now up to item number 11, please.

A bill for an ordinance amending the Downtown Area Plan by establishing updated plan policies for the Central Platte Valley - Auraria District. Amends the Downtown Area Plan by adding recommendations for day-to-day decision making related to land use, intensity of development, mobility and connectivity, community benefits, sustainability, public investment, private development and partnerships for the Central Platte Valley - Auraria District. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-15-18.

DenverCityCouncil_06112018_18-0561

11 eyes. 421 passes. Thanks for your hard work on this. Now we got it. Got to. Right. Okay. For the last bill of the night. 561 Councilman, can you please put it on the floor? Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 18 20561 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right. It has been moved. And second, it hasn't. The one hour courtesy public hearing for council Bill 561 is open. May we have the staff report live? Thank you. Hello. Good evening. Members of City Council and Louisianians from Community Planning and Development. And I'm joined here today with my colleagues a barge, Sarah Course, Ellis TV and Steve Nally. We are here to present to you the downtown area plan amendment. This amendment is to the 27 downtown area plan, which covered the area outlined in Dash Purple. However, the 2000 area plan provided limited guidance for future development of Central Valley Area District, which is the area highlighted in yellow and is bounded by Area Parkway, Speer Boulevard and Interstate 25. There are also two additional small area plants that encompass portions of this plant area. Those are their area west stationary plant of 29 and the Jefferson Park neighborhood plant of 2005. The Downtown Area Plan Amendment will supersede these plans for the coverage of Central Valley Area District. Only the dominant existing uses within the plan area are the Pepsi Center, which is separate from village gardens by the consolidated main line and the light rail. There we have the two light rail stations and also along Water Street there's a downtown aquarium, the children's museum. And throughout this plant area there are a few commercial buildings, two residential buildings, and of course, the South Park River, shown in blue, an adjoining park shown in green. This plan area contains over 60 acres of surface parking. And on a more satirical note, in 2017, Denman won a national award for the worst coverage of surface parking, which of course, is not an award we care to receive as a city and to provide. To prove this point, the Street Blog USA use an aerial of this portion of the city. And this is an aerial of 1933 for the plant area. And you can see a multitude of train tracks here. You're shown here. You can see the the roundhouse railways roundhouse here. And what's probably the most interesting is that along Seventh Street, which is right here, what you see is a span, a bridge that span across the Hudson River and the train tracks connecting Water Street to Colfax. And so within this plan area, we've had an extensive 12 month planning process which included seven steering committee meetings, three public meetings, one public design charrette and two online surveys. In addition to, we've held multiple meetings with neighboring R.A. plan area residents, various boards of the downtown Denver partnership with the Area Campus Higher Educational Board and with the Urban Land Institute, just to name a few. We've also had numerous, numerous publications in our community planning a development newsletter and multitude of social media blasts, including Instagram, Twitter and Next Door. Throughout our public outreach, people told us that the assets of this plan area were the South River light rail stations and being part of the downtown. The public was, however, concerned that about this area's lack of connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, creating an opportunity for a great downtown neighborhood with an efficient and well-connected multimodal network was identified as one of the top priorities, and due to its industrial past, environmental contamination was identified as a threat to future development. And though the public saw this area as an opportunity for development of a great downtown neighborhood, they were also concerned that the future development may not realize to areas full potential. With each public outreach. There were a few common themes that came up time and time again. People told us that what they want to see are active streets with lots of retail activity, that is, cafes and retail spillover, as well as active public spaces and interactive features. And what we heard from the public was not only to activate the streets with ground floor activity, but also the riverfront. People want to see restaurants with outdoor seating along the river, as well as pedestrian plazas and promenades. And when we asked what would attract families to live downtown, we were told that access to affordable housing and access to daycare and elderly childhood education and two grocery stores were highly important regarding what new development should embody throughout this plan area. The main common themes were well connected pedestrian promenades and distinctive and iconic design and architecture. So these common themes and all other public feedback were then categorized into the five vision elements which were established in the 2007 Downtown Area Area Plan. Those vision elements concentrate on creating a prosperous, walkable, diverse, distinctive and green downtown Denver. The original focus topics under each vision element remain standing and appropriate to this plan area, and those are highlighted are in gray. But in addition to those, we've included new topics that are specifically applicable to this plan area which are shown here in bold. My colleagues, Ellen Sara, will dove into the vision elements in more detail as they go through the vision elements. They will be showing a series of mapping diagrams. And these programs show one potential scenario of how to implement the recommendations within this plan. They're intended to be illustrative, as many of them would require additional detail, study and master planning. I'm Alice, Stevie, and I'm going to talk about the first two vision elements. So the prosperous vision element is about increasing access to opportunity and a great quality of life in a neighborhood adjacent to the downtown core. So the main recommendation here is for mixed use development. So this provides a variety of everyday needs all in one area. So the red color on the map here is the downtown land use, which is mixed use. So the plan recommends a variety of uses that create an active neighborhood with active uses focused along the river and along particular streets, which we're calling active corridors. And those are shown in yellow hashing. So the amendment also promotes access to economic opportunity by creating an environment that encourages a range of businesses to flourish. So the walkable vision element is about creating a robust transportation network that prioritizes walking, bicycling and transit and is connected to the surrounding neighborhoods. To do that. It recommends extending the existing street grid from the surrounding neighborhoods. Then it recommends filling in those connections to create an intimate, walkable street grid. So the plan also recommends providing new connections to and within the plan area, including, you can see a new North-South connection here across the consolidated main line, the river and I-25, and then an east west connection over the river and I-25. So this diagram, as Lily mentioned, is an illustration of intent of a 20 plus year vision rather than a specific master plan. But one thing that I want to point out on here. So the Pepsi Center is likely to remain at this location. However, if it does ever relocate at some point in the future, this diagram indicates that the small block size that the amendment recommends should extend through the existing footprint. So some of the key streets and connections in this 20 year vision already exist, but they need to be updated to reflect the desired character and function of streets in the plan. So these include I won't go through all of them, but improvements to the 22/23 Avenue. So from conversations with the community, the amendment prioritizes improving this bridge over age 25, particularly for bikes and pedestrians. And that's shown in letter and on letter A here. It also recommends similar improvements to Water Street. Shown letter B and then it talks about a lot of general improvements to the streets themselves as well as the crossings of spirit in an area. So the vision for the amendment is to have a comprehensive pedestrian network with comfortable and convenient sidewalks and crossings on all streets. On top of that, there would also be enhanced facilities with additional right of way that's dedicated to things like pedestrian wayfinding, safety and esthetics. And these would be along key routes that we're calling priority pedestrian connections. So you can see there's a North-South connection here, and then two East-West connections, one on either side of the consolidated main line. Similarly, the plan recommends a company recommends comprehensive bicycle facilities throughout the plan area that are safe and comfortable for riders of all ages and abilities. And finally, transportation demand management or TDM. So TDM is a suite of strategies that aim to reduce automobile trips by incentivizing people to use other modes of transportation. Implementation of an extensive and effective TDM strategy is going to be a critical element of the success of the plan area. There will need to be a whole suite of TDM strategies. But I want to mention two key ones here today. So the first is removing minimum parking requirements and replacing them with parking maximums. And the second is providing excellent transit. So that means in this case, increasing transit service to and through the plan area. And it also means creating mobility hubs, which is a type of transit oriented development around existing light rail stations. So as these two examples illustrate, TDM includes a very broad range of strategies and they and they will have equally broad implementation approaches. For example, something like parking maximums will be implemented through zoning, while excellent transit will involve RTD, public works and the private sector. So part of implementing TDM will be figuring out how and where those efforts are coordinated. So that wraps up walkable and I'm going to pass it off to Sara to talk about diverse. Hello. I'm Sarah, of course. And I'll walk through the next three vision elements. So the next one is a diversity vision element, and it has the goal of creating affordable, equitable and diverse communities. This vision element has recommendations for providing affordable and market rate housing. Throughout the planning process, we heard it should be a priority to provide affordable housing and especially within the plan area. To achieve this, the plan goes above and beyond current affordable housing policies by recommending strategies that include allocating affordable housing within the plan area and encouraging the duration of affordable housing to go beyond the current time frame typically required. We also heard from the community that equitable locations of affordable housing should be encouraged to achieve this. The plan recommends dispersing affordable units so they are appropriately located throughout the plan area and to especially avoid any concentrations along the consolidated mainline or the Cmll or I-25. In addition to this, there was an expressed need to provide a variety of housing types to accommodate different household types. The plan recommends that future development should accommodate different household types by providing a variety of unit types and sizes. Lastly, the diversity of Vision Element recommends providing services, facilities and amenities to support families, seniors or those with disabilities. The next vision element is a distinctive city. The distinctive city vision element has a goal of creating distinctive places with unique characteristics and qualities that can be expressed through the built environment. Throughout the planning process, we heard it was important for future development to include a variety of building types and sizes, including higher intensity development, while also creating a comfortable public realm. To accomplish this, the plan provides recommendations for a variety of building intensities, which could be a combination of different building heights, mappings and forms to achieve a comfortable and human scale environment. To achieve this variety, the plan recommends new or updated zoning standards. For example, a new zone district could be created to implement the plan specific recommendations and to achieve the desired building intensity. The plan also gives direction for appropriate locations of higher or lower building intensities. The highest building intensity is more appropriate, closer to the consolidated mainline and near the two light rail stations. And the lowest intensity of buildings is recommended in areas that are adjacent to or near the South Platte River and existing buildings, especially those buildings along Aurora Parkway and Water Street. The plan encourages a variety of building intensities and densities, and in return for higher density, the plan recommends community benefits to be negotiated. The distinctive city vision element also provides recommendations for high quality design and through adopting design standards and guidelines. A well-designed urban environment is desired in this plan area, and design standards and guidelines will help achieve this. Some of the strategies that are encouraged in the plan include promoting a pedestrian oriented street frontage, promoting distinctive and human scale building design, minimizing visual impacts associated with vehicles, and creating streetscape landscape and public space standards that contribute to the character of the public realm. Lastly, the distinctive city vision element recommends future development to foster a relationship with the Southport River and to respect the riverfront. The Green City vision element has the goal of utilizing the plan areas, undeveloped space and mile of riverfront for the opportunity to create a precedent setting public space network. The plan recommends creating new parks and public spaces, enhancing existing parks, and ensuring those spaces can accommodate a variety of activities and programs year round. The existing plan area currently lacks vegetation outside of the river's open space, so the plan recommends creating a green public realm through enhanced tree canopy coverage and landscaping. Throughout the planning process, we heard it was important to provide and promote a variety of public spaces. To accomplish this, the plan recommends a combination of active and passive public spaces to be located throughout the plan area and especially along the riverfront. The plan also has a variety of recommendations for protecting the river as a natural resource, addressing stormwater and implementing green infrastructure. Lastly, the Green City Vision element provides recommendations for resilient infrastructure and environmental conditions. The plan recommends efficiently using resources, reducing waste, using resilient materials, and to build development with an enduring life cycle. Also, given the industrial past of the plant area, there are recommendations for the mitigation of contaminated soil, addressing noise and air pollution associated with the consolidated mainline or I-25, and strategies for best practices for mixed use development along the freight rail. All right. Just a few more slides. The amendment ends with the Moving Forward section, which lists the plans priorities that can be achieved through regulatory strategies, public infrastructure strategies and or partnership strategies. Lastly, within the moving forward section, the plan addresses community benefit priorities and these concentrate on environmental remediation of contaminated land and rivers. Inclusion of affordable housing throughout the plan area. Improvement to existing mobility and connectivity networks while providing new connections across the plan area. As well as improvements to existing public parks and trails while providing new parks and public spaces. Community benefits. Benefits also include activation of retail corridors and nodes and creating an equitable community that supports a variety of households. The Community Benefits Section is an important tool that will be used by the city in order to move in order to inform new zoning and or development agreements. We have three criteria for adoption of plants. The first is a plant consistency. As noted in your staff reports, the downtown area plant amendment is aligned with Denver Comprehensive Plan and with Blueprint Denver. The second criteria is that the plant is developed through an inclusive public process, which I address earlier in this presentation and which was covered in more detail in your staff report. And last and third criteria is the plant has developed a long term view and this plan intends to guide the development of this plant area for the next 20 years. We recognize that the implementation of this plan may take shape over many years and in multiple phases. And finally, we believe that the plan meets all three criteria and we recommend the plan for adoption. Thank you. All right. Thank you. This is a one hour public hearing, but we we only have six speakers. And I'm going to call them up to the front here and say COO, Jesse Paris, Devin Buckles, Peter Loewy, Tammi Dore and Reese Duggins. I called six of you. All of you can come up if you want to turn and say who? Your first 3 minutes. Sure. Mosaku Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Representing poor, working, poor homeless people, senior citizens and youth. Pray for me. Okay. And I'm a work with. This. Has a stamp on it. That says White only. Rich. Only poor. Not welcome. That thing is happening down by one of the largest educational institutions in the city, a rarity. Nobody sought to enroll any of the student government in their understanding of what is going on or their opinion. So when you tell me, you talk to people. What people? The people that are in the pictures on that screen. Look sick of all. What are people sick of? No, no, no. Who are you? Talk. Don't do. Don't do it. I'm doing it. This is the council. You address us. Go ahead. Addressing the Cats read Nick Plan. That's all it is. And you've got the head of the red necks here tonight, Denver Partnership. When you ask how many black businesses are downtown now? How many? When you ask how many black contractors participated in building downtown, how many angles take too long to get the mathematics and hold them accountable to bringing you the stats so you know what you're voting for in terms of the plan. Because if you cosign on this, in the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, you showed me any man or woman that has nothing they're willing to fight for. They're not fit to live. It's on the statue, 1957 out of City Park. And you're real good at quoting Dr. King, but doing nothing when it comes to being king, because you are a servant of the king. His name is Michael Hancock. Your man. Now, are you going to stand here and let him run this city and then make you surrogates to it? Are you going to stand up as the people's representative and fight for the right thing to do? If you approve this, then you have gotten in bed with the bed books. And if you get bit for real in 2019, it's your fault. Don't let them get away with this. Send a message to the mayor and send a message. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Beaucoup. Comes to Jesse. Jesse. Pierce, you're up. Jesse Paris Black Star Action Moment for Self-defense. Denver Homeless out loud. Again. This is just blatant, just non concert and considerate. Just no thinking on any of you guys. This part. This is straight up gentrification, communist side, ethnic cleansing. For the record. Oh, where are you? Campus used to be housing. Before it was a campus for collegiate. That was tore down and built into what is now the Aurora campus. So on the same around the same area. Now, you guys are planning on building more luxury housing that nobody can afford or very few people can afford. And you actually think this is a logical thing? There's no people of color here. There's no black people. There's no Hispanic people. No, no, none of those people are in the pictures. So if you are really trying to build inclusive housing and inclusive community and inclusive neighborhood and all this other jogging, I'll keep going around, at least get the pictures right. And then you have. The head of the downtown Denver Partnership behind us. The same people are behind enforcing the urban camp. A ban and passing in the first place. Yeah, this is nuts. Nothing about this that's inclusive. This is straight up saying white only. This is straight. They stay. Focused. They focus on the deal. Not you stay focused. Presidents stay focused. Stay is stay focused. You had a sold out and that you are in bed with these business developers. So are you city planners? Are you done? Are you going to be you're going to be focusing? Before I was really interrupted. This is blatant gentrification in 2019. We need a change. Seriously, we need to change. Everybody listening. We need a change. Current City Council is currently in bed with the business developers and the city planners and they have no quarrels or conscious about it. They're being bought and paid for. I say enough is enough of this and be ready for us in 2019. Thank you. All right, Devin Buckles. Good evening, Devin Buckles with the Greenway Foundation. Our executive director, Jeff Shoemaker, was planning to be here this evening, but he needed to attend a memorial service for a dear family member. So I'm here instead to share our message. Members of Denver City Council almost 150 years ago, settlers who were becoming permanent residents of then Denver City and the area felt that the adjacent waterways were of such importance to their lives and their future that the corps grid for the streets was platted to align with the waterways. Just over 50 years ago, these previously vital urban waterways had been abused and forgotten to where they were as polluted as the South Platte and Cherry Creek were, to the point where they were lethal to consume and dangerous to touch. There were no parks, trails, fish or trees, but there were 12 land landfill dumpsites along their banks, as well as the remnants of a coal tar processing plant located within the very site before you here today, the ghost of which, as we all know, recently raised its head at the very birthplace of our city. Today, over $500 million of environmental, recreational, flood control and water quality improvements. Excuse me. Excuse me. Can you guys have a conversation outside? Thank you. Go ahead. Okay. Have been invested into the South Platte River watershed, allowing it to once again be known as our community's greatest natural resource. As a result of this investment, within a half a mile on either side of the South Platte River and Cherry Creek and Denver. Property values within these boundaries are 40% higher than the property values outside the boundaries. This is just one indicator that investing in our waterways produces a significant return on investment for our entire city and its residents. This generational plan before you clearly speaks to these environmental and economic realities and has one common denominator a confirmation that we all love our river, our communities desire to maximize its engagement with our river has never been greater. I applaud the countless hours invested in the creation of this plan by all involved city staff, direct stakeholders, Neighborhood Act advocates, everyone. I applaud the plan's vision to connect downtown to the river and vice versa in new and innovative means. I applaud the plan's vision to pave the way for dramatic and much needed additional improvements to the South Platte flood plain protection measures, additional habitat enhancement and recreational opportunities. And finally, I applaud the new and bold and previously under realized vision for this mile plus of prime riverfront property that will further increase the opportunity for our river to once again be the best place to live and work and play in Denver. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you this evening and thank each of you for your service on City Council. The service may be under-recognized, but it is not underappreciated by the Greenway Foundation. Thank you. Thank you. Peter Lowy. Got to go. Peter Louis 215 Kearny Street. I put against on the card. But I want to be clear, I'm against. I have a lot of problems with the process and not with the product that's listed. Yes, absolutely. Those parking lots need to be redeveloped. I, however, don't have faith in the city and county of Denver of doing it in a way that would be as I think we don't have the tools to do it. And as a council, Lopez said earlier, this would be completely irresponsible. So. There. I read the entirety of the 96 page PDF. It's pretty interestingly written. There's a text part and there's a technical part, and the technical part is really well done. That was clearly done by CPD. And then there's the text part that was clearly done by the Downtown Denver Partnership, and it's really weird. It throws around a lot of buzzwords. It is in many times it contradicts what the technical part is saying. It's it's it's clearly written by two people who are going for two different things. Which and and this brings me to kind of the most important part. You open up the PDF page one. It says Downtown Denver Area Amendment. Prepared by the city of Denver community planning and development. And in the. Lower right hand corner, it says, in association with the Downtown Denver Partnership, which is a lobbying. Organization, I don't think it's just or equitable or something that an important city in the world or a city that wants to be important in the world does to have their largest lobby write the plan with them and then put and if you read the entirety of the report, there is something in the emphasize talks about implementation that says that this may require public private partnerships. So we have a plan in front of us that says that was written by a group whose partners you will invariably hire in order to do it. That's weird. I have no problem with that. I mean, I've worked in in. A number of of. Countries that we tend to call. Very, very corrupt. And this is probably the legal barrier of it. But I don't think that's the way that we're going to develop the Denver that we need. There was a couple of interesting points in the staff report that I hadn't seen. How would you get someone to move to downtown? They listed. Well, it needs to be affordable. You need to have child care groceries. However, in GDP's report on who actually lives in the current downtown, it is primarily white, it is primarily wealthy and is primarily single or childless. And so you have okay, we're going to turn this into downtown and then we're going to get all of the people already living don't to move there, which is, again, not the kind of people who came to the meetings. It's not the kind of people, look, we need these amenities and you're not going to get the kind of development that we need with a plan like this. Yes, absolutely. By all means, redevelop eventually. But you have to address structural inequalities in the city first. Then I'm okay with. All right. Thank you, Tammy Dorr. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of the City Council. My name is Tammy Dore and I serve as CEO of the Downtown Denver Partnership and the Office of Partnership. I'm here to express support for the proposed Downtown Area Plan Amendment. We have worked closely with the city on this planning process since 2017. I served as co-chair of the steering committee process when the partnership worked in 2007 with the city and over 3000 individuals to create the 2000 720 year plan. The future of this area was unclear. There was no impetus for development and no clear direction on what was possible. The development of our city, the advancement and growth of our population has allowed for opportunities here, and it served as a catalyst for a development plan. This amendment is timely and it directly complements the previously approved 2007 plan. I'd like to highlight and commend a few key plan component components. Lily already discussed the outreach process, which included the area, campus, neighborhoods, a wide array of stakeholders from every sector. Suffice to say, it was quite extensive and more detail is available on that. If you would like that from Lilly, I'm confident connectivity. This is a centrally located area, yet it lacks good connections to surrounding areas, in large part due to the South Platte River, I-25 and major thoroughfares, Spire Boulevard and the Aurora Parkway. The plan emphasizes the importance of enhanced connections for all modes of transportation, including emphasis on bike linkage as a key to success for the next 20 years. Density. Denver's rapid growth in the past decade has put development pressure on neighborhoods across the city. This amendment recommends significant dust density with a variety of building uses, types and heights to accommodate the growth. This is a growth in a smart and attractive way with two light rail stops in this area. It represents a smart growth site. Parks and Open Spaces. The amendment recognizes the importance of open space, particularly along the South Platte River, preserving and improving linear open space along the river. Enhancing current open space and adding new space enhances the overall network. Now, most importantly, I want to talk about housing. This plan emphasizes the importance of affordable and accessible housing in a high density area. Plan recommends going above and beyond the current city regulations. It proposes affordable and accessible units be spread out in different buildings and mixed with housing options. Varied housing options. The density proposed allows for greater housing opportunities for the city to address it again in a smart growth way. We ask for support and adoption of this plan by city council this evening. Thank you. Thank you. We stuck it. Good evening. Reese Dugan, president and CEO of Invesco Properties. We are an owner and managing member of Ilitch Gardens, which is in the plan area, and I just wanted to commend staff. I won't take a lot of your time. I want to commend staff for the hard work that we all did together for, I think about six months on this plan and not only staff, but our neighbors. I'm always amazed by the energy that neighbors and RINO's have in these processes, and it was six months of hard sledding for sure. So thank you all for that. Contrary to what some other speakers have mentioned tonight, I think those who do read the plan will see truly there is something in this plan for everyone. I live about a quarter of a mile from the site. So as a neighbor who lives close to this site, I'm excited for what this plan holds. I think it speaks to affordability. It speaks to diversity. It speaks to opening up the river. It speaks to Densify and Denver in a new way that I think we need to do if we're going to accommodate the future growth of this city. So with that, I'm going to wrap it up and I'm available for questions. All right. Thank you. This concludes our speakers questions. By members of Council Councilman, new mayor Tammy Ho. Question Tammy. Tammy, right next door. First, I just want to say I want to thank you for your leadership, for the downtown development. It wouldn't be half what it is today without you being there and the leadership you've given with all the people who represent the Downtown Denver Partnership. You've done a wonderful job, and I want you to know that we think you so highly of what you've been doing. Thank you, Councilman. Question on connectivity has been a big issue and and I see this as a natural expansion of downtown is really exciting. And we've talked about connectivity across some of the your areas. But I think one of the areas we've talked about in the past is is Spire Boulevard. And could you talk a little bit more about what I know we got a light rail going across it, but but with all of the residential growth near use gardens and what's going to happen there, how do we promote safe pedestrian traffic across Speer? Was that discussed as part of your group? This was discussed as part of the plan, and I might defer to Lily for that, for a technical answer. But what I would say is that we did discuss it in depth. In particular, I want to commend the plan in terms of how it actually talks about in more detail the descriptions of the street grid and how the streets will flow. It really helps paint a really strong picture of how you cross beer, what that feels like and looks like. But just as importantly, once you get across those thoroughfares, how it actually ties together because those connections can be smooth. But if as soon as you get to the other side, it it breaks up in terms of accessibility and intuitiveness. It's not going to be effective. Okay. There is a slide on that, I believe so. It will be safe. Improvements will be made. Yes. Okay. I just think that that the visual is really helpful. There's a there's an image that I think will very directly answer your question. Thank you. So do that. Just to be very specific, B-6 C does talk about the updates to the existing facilities that will need to happen so that the roads that already are there meet the character and function. So we call out Speer as basically to to have Speer function as a multimodal, a comfortable street for all users. There would need to be changes both along the street itself in terms of like wider sidewalks, sidewalks and addressing the feeling of walking right next to that kind of vehicle traffic. And we'd also need to the plan also calls out very particular attention to the crossings themselves. It needs to be there needs to be good, protected, safe ways that are convenient to cross, or we find people crossing against the lights or mid-block, which are both really dangerous situations for for everybody. So so the plan talks generally about how how streets should look and feel and intersections should look and feel. And that does apply to the streets that are within or adjacent to the planned area that already exist and end with many things. This will require further study to get into this very specific engineering drawing level type detail. That sounds very sorry. Mr.. Mr.. BLAIR Sure. What about the connectivity? We've heard a lot about the development of the commercial area near the Bal High Stadium and what's going to happen over there. Is this going to be a connectivity to what we're talking about, the downtown area plan expansion? I mean, it's not part of the expansion, but it seemed like a natural flow of of activity there. Yeah. But what we're proposing is, is basically a connected street grid throughout. So it will be connected to, you know, throughout the plan area. But then obviously Mile High Stadium is just outside of it. So one of the recommendations that we make to existing infrastructure is that Walnut Street connection that that is pretty, pretty tough to walk along from. The the light. Rail station to the stadium. And actually Public Works is already working on a project to do some short term improvements to make that better as soon as possible. My last question is on, Mr. President, the the timeline and the cost of such a development like this. Has there been discussion about that or is that discussion to come or. Yeah, I think that's a do you want to answer that? Yeah. The. Do you want to answer that question? The timeline about the development when this can happen. Good question. I wish I knew the answer to that. Really? I think a 20 year horizon is probably accurate. On the glitches site, we've committed to keep the park there for the foreseeable future. I think we are contemplating a phased development of villages that makes better use of the surface parking lots in the short term. And then I think probably 20 years to get this project to completion. The reason why I got you last night is I think when the last time we talked, you said you really were committed for workforce housing in an affordable way. So I just wanted to make sure that I wanted to emphasize that. And that was what you're thinking about? Yeah, we're excited about it. As we all know, there is no silver bullet to solve the affordability crisis that's going on not only in Denver, but in every major city in America and North America. We think we've got some good ideas that we can bring forward and discuss with you, though. All right. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. President, for your participation on the group, too. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Cashman, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. Reese. If you don't mind, I'm following along with Councilman. Whose last question? I almost had a bit of a stroke in our our last hearing. I know the people who are involved in the whole Shattuck rehabilitation, and I don't think their dreams or the dreams of the neighborhood plan in 1993 were 350 square feet for 1300 bucks. So. The one slide that showed that 62% of the people and not only were interested in affordable housing, but were interested in child care and early childhood education, tells me that they're thinking about something other than 350 square feet. So if you can go as far as you're able to in your concepts right now, talk a little bit more about affordability and median income levels and just. As best you can do in 2018. Yeah. I mean, I don't want to hijack the area plan amendment discussion and focus on our plan, but I can tell you that I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by what we bring forward. I hope you will be. I think we will go well above and beyond what's been done in the city previously. Unit mix is important. I can talk for hours about this, but I'll try to be really succinct I think. I grew up in Vancouver and I watched Vancouver grow up as a city and it wasn't a really successful city until it accommodated a large cross-section of the population. My canary in the coal mine story that I use is when I would wake up in downtown Vancouver and you'd see young families pushing a stroller down the street, and obviously they're not going to live in 300 square feet or 350 square feet. So I think we need to be inclusive, not only income wise, but demographically as well. And in addition to affordable housing, I think we need to focus on how do we really create complete communities. And I think the area planning, aside from affordability focus is a lot on this and what kind of amenities do we need to bring to downtown? So we're not building a downtown Denver for just millennials, but we're building it for a much broader cross-section. So I hope that answers your question. It's getting closer. Yeah, it's 20 year build out and. We need three bedrooms and four bedrooms. You know, as long as we keep building to a limited demographic, as you're saying, then we get what we build for. And while I understand that there's a market for that limited demographic, apparently, because I don't think people would be building for what's not there. We also need to build to attract other elements of the housing market. And I believe what you're saying to me and this council may have an. Opportunity. To address specific zoning on these parcels, may be future councils. As far as the timeline you're talking about. But I really hope to see a truly diverse downtown with army levels all over the map. So thank you for that hope. You're welcome. I will confess, I'm not an expert in affordable housing and becoming one. But more importantly, I'm surrounding myself with good people, including Denver Housing Authority, who will hopefully partner with us and bring forward a good proposal that we can all support. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, thank you. Councilman Catron, Councilor Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Lily maybe or whoever can answer this. There are a number of historic structures along Old wasI Street, which is now a very a parkway, some of them built in the late 1890 through the early teens. What does the plan have to say about the fate or the status of those? I'm just going to switch to this to the slide here. And we, particularly through our meetings with the very residents who are also here today, addressed that by really speaking to lower intensity and potentially the the plan recommends having a height limit in that area, while it doesn't speak to height limit throughout anywhere else in the plan area. So this particular area here and then this this corner water street that that is next to Jefferson Park, we do talk about sort of limiting height and and developing new buildings that respect the existing context. Doesn't anticipate preservation or adaptive reuse or anything of that nature of those some of those buildings. The particularly along area, I think most of those buildings are already already. Functional scattered ownership, too. I don't I don't believe they're owned by. I mean, what we could tell is that they're in good standing as it is. They've been restored and they're being occupied and used. So there wasn't any language about additional preservation. Okay. There were two blocks that I saw in the presentation that were sort of they had a green asterisk on them because they were going to be a proposed park are open space. What's the total acreage and what is that acreage compared with the anticipated number of residents? Future reserves, I think the standard is ten acres per is a ten acres of open space per thousand residents is what we strive for. I don't know if I can answer to you in terms of specific numbers. We did not get to the detail of calculating that specifically, but there are sort of this is a large block here that is specified as potentially an area for for a park, a park that opens up to the river. Right. And there's one on the south side of the. Right in addition, somewhere along that area. And then we have sort of a green corridor that would connect those two parks together. Okay. And that that quarter crosses state, it would allow people to cross the sea at the consolidated main line, correct? That's right. And I just want to turn to my colleague, Sarah, to see if she. Yeah, there she is. Okay. Do we know the acreage of those two parcels? So we don't have a necessary acreage? We do have suggested park types within it. And we also suggest to follow the kind of guidance with the outdoor downtown plan. And some of the guidance is a requirement of a walking distance to certain sizes and types of parks, which is what we also recommend. And that will also be studied with kind of future development and the amount of people. We do have a recommendation in the plan that talks about that as far as how many people and park space per that. But there is no specified very specific acreage at all. But there's a lot of recommended recommendations about how we want to have parks throughout the whole area, a variety of parks and kind of what's going on within them. So there could be there could be more open space than is shown on those assets. Yes, I would say this diagram just has sort of two larger asterisks to show the largest designated parks. But there will be, I will say, many more other spaces, either designated parks or privately owned open space. Okay. Because we do fall short of that standard in a lot of parts of the city. Here's an opportunity to get it correct. And also, I was very intrigued by that 1933 aerial photo because of the the the comments during public hearing by some of the speakers about displacement and gentrification. But this has always been railyard and industrial property has never been where the images and Pepsi Center did not displace any residential. They replaced the the Chicago the Colorado and Southern or the rice yards rather. And all the railyards that were in there, correct? Yes. Okay. And I hate to bring up elegies again, but it's it's the source of source of summer employment and seasonal employment for so many young people in the city. So I am concerned and I've had some constituents contact me about what is the long term plan for Ilitch is. And I don't know if you can. With what degree of specificity you can talk about that. But I know that people look forward to how many kids have worked there over the years. Yeah, like I've said repeatedly, we're committed to keeping it there for the foreseeable future and I think our phased plan can accomplish that and make better use of our surface parking lots. I can tell you that my partner is quite as am I quite committed to looking at a relocation plan when the time comes to move it. The relocation plan to Northwest to where? To get a site. You can't say city and county of Denver or center central city or or the hinterlands. Yeah. The fact is. An amusement park by today's standards requires about 125 acres of land. We sit on about 62 today. And so it's tricky to get an urban amusement park. And there's a reason why there's not very many of them in the world. So you're saying we're unique? I'm saying that finding a great site within metro Denver will be challenging, but we're committed to looking at it for sure. All right. Thank you, Mr. President. That's all. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, with those leading questions. Okay. And I just want to remind our council members, you know, let's stick to the question. You'll have plenty of time and comments as well. Uh, Councilwoman Ortega, Europe. Thank you. I have several questions, so I'm going to first start with the railroad issue. So when we started the conversations on the Central Valley, everybody assumes the railroad, the central mainline was going to be moved and the railroads were not part of our conversation at that time. And we later found out that they didn't want to move. So we had to revise the plan to ensure that the central main line stayed. And so I want to know what kind of railroad involvement was part of this plan. And, you know, we've had many conversations with the folks that live in East West Partners Development in the Central Valley. And these residents are very concerned, excuse me about the volume of petroleum products that travel through this city, not to mention other types of hazardous materials that not only travel through the center of our center of our city, but oftentimes are staged right downtown, right next to the most populated area in the entire state. And I want to know what kinds of conversations were had about the compatibility and and what kind of buffering are we talking about that ensures the protection of the masses of people that are going to be attracted to this area . So can someone help me understand how that was addressed as part of the planning? Really, I think, you know. Um, as far as we know, the seamless here is here to stay for the foreseeable future. But throughout this plan we acknowledge the presence of Consolidated Mainline as well as light rail. We address it in walkable as a physical barrier and that needs to be to bridge to portions of this plan area one through an old mode connection along Seventh Street, and then with two additional connections for pedestrians and bicycles. We also address email in the drivers housing focus topic, where we have recommendations to avoid concentration of affordable units along C.M. and Interstate 25, Interstate 25 and under environmental conditions focus topic through recommendations that speak to implementing best practices that address downtown skill development along freight rail. This amendment leverages on the 2016 Mayor's Railroad Safety Working Group report and further recommends reduction of train speed throughout the downtown context restricting parking of hazardous, toxic or flammable goods throughout the downtown context. And one of the common reasons we did our research for freight accidents, we found, was due to lack of maintenance to freight rail lines. And so we also have recommendations that encourage more frequent checks of rail lines within the downtown context. Given the fact that we are considered what is known in the Railroad World Railroad World as a two tier of high urban traffic area, the the speeds are already reduced through the city. So, you know, I think that's that's the good news for Denver. Right. You know, they can't travel through here at high speeds where that would cause an incident. But the fact that, you know, they come through here and it makes us vulnerable as a city, especially given the high volume of of people that are concentrated in our downtown. So I just wanted to know how that was addressed and specifically to the the interface or or what may be seen as the incompatibility, right of, you know, the rail lines with high density housing that would be concentrated next to the the rail lines. That's one of the things I, I heard said pretty loud and clear is the the density would be more concentrated, closer to the rail. And as you go through the process with our planning department, the kind of buffering will will absolutely be part of how we address this. Let me move on to my next issue. One of my colleagues talked about open space. Can you tell me if any of the land along the river is considered as part of that open space? Or is are we talking about new land that does not include the river? Yeah. I'm going to defer to my colleague Sara to speak to that. So the plan definitely addresses current parks along the river. There's a few parks that are already there, including open space. And so there are recommendations to look at maybe possibly improving current parks. In addition to that, providing new parks and public space throughout the entire plan area. There was quite an expression to kind of enhance the riverfront as well and possibly improve trails and open space along the river. And so there's a lot of different recommendations that sort of speak to that. I guess does that answer the question? So I think it's important to include that interface with the river because it's a really critically important asset. But I want to make sure that we are including more park land in this area. I mean, the Central Valley had three new parks because, you know, this North Denver was park deficient. Those parks were actually built to serve part of North Denver, but they also happened to be serving the Central Valley as well. And so to do this area and not have any definitive amount of acreage that's being added as new park land is concerning to me that that we have no no details of how much more new park, land or open space we get in this new development. I think we're talking about 70 acres, is that correct? 66 years. But can can I just. Yeah, I want to just set the tone here a little bit because we're getting down into details. And this is this is the plan. This is the plan vision. This is the 30,000 foot. And so we're not going to have those kind of details at this level, particularly because we're not just talking about one property. You're talking about an area plan. And so I just want to encourage that. It I got it. It's part of the deficiency in the redo of how City Council sees the detail that we used to see. Having been here before, when we did the Central Valley Plan, we had a whole lot more details that were approved by City Council. So I get your point. So let me let me move on to flooding. Okay. So in your environmental issues, it's very clear in one of the picture shows the area within this this property that is being flooded. So how will that be addressed? Are we looking at bringing a bunch of a bunch of soil in and building up the site? Help me understand how that would be addressed. And I don't know if you want to speak to that very quickly. And then I'll let some my other colleagues speak to it as well. So one thing that I didn't mention earlier that I just want to mention as well is that this diagram is showing an enhanced river, enhanced green zone along the river. And we heard very strongly that people really want to see new parks in public space along the river. And that's why we also show a green asterisks adjacent to the. Riverfront, now adding to and green space. So we would hope to add parks and public space to the river. In addition to that, some of the recommendations that go along with this enhanced Green Zone goal. They speak about how to address flooding adjacent to the river and sort of how are we going to use sort of Brazilian green infrastructure systems maybe adjacent to the river? How are we going to look at adaptable spaces that can adapt to kind of a moving waterway? And in addition to that, we have some other recommendations across the plan area that we're trying to look at how to mitigate and accommodate flooding within development and within the plan area and how to filter and drain water before it gets to the river and before it gets to a pipe. Also led one of my other colleagues speak to that if they want. And let me just as you're coming up, who's ever going to address that? I just want to make sure that it it addresses it for the site without pushing the problem further down to areas that are already in a flood zone or are already experiencing flooding, like the Globeville neighborhood, for example. I'm going to add one. Just before Restocks we we worked closely with some of our other city colleagues who can speak to the specifics of that much more. This is obviously a very complicated problem. So what the plan talks about is what it needs to accomplish. And it's exactly that it needs to address the flooding both both in terms of the development adjacent to the river. And there's some in river improvements that can happen. So so our plan talks about kind of what how that needs to end up looking. But if race is thought a lot more about he's the one, he's going to be one of the people having to solve that problem. So he could speak more to the specifics. I'm an optimist. I'm looking forward to bringing a rezoning before you all, because as we're starting to flesh out, there's a lot of issues. Hopefully we can do that soon while it's fresh in all of your minds. We have been working closely with urban drainage and the city and county. As some of you may be aware, there's a long term regional plan for this reach of the river to solve the floodplain problem. And we've taken that on as part of our challenge to expedite that and implement that regional solution that hopefully solves the floodplain problem, not only for this site but for a number of others. Reaching all the way I think we're looking at the rich area is roughly from Speer upstream to about eight through 11th Avenue. So a pretty significant regional improvement project. Okay. Thank you. I have two more. Do you want me to continue or do you want to put me at the end? Yeah. You know what? Let's let's jump on to the others and then we'll come back. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. Some of my questions may be hard to understand where I'm going because I'm not trying not to do my comments first. So but please be patient with me. I think it's overall, there's some really good language in the plan, but I have a couple questions and there's a couple of places where I think it falls short. So I want to start by asking about the the process that you see going forward. So I'm in particular reading the section and implementation and I guess I'm concerned. I see partnership priorities for Housing Listing. Economic Development. Office of Economic Development. I see the community benefits, including a bunch of city departments. And so I guess my first question is just process wise, how many meetings did you say where the idea of diversity, affordable housing inclusion came up like, you know. A few most dozens. How do I say most meetings? Okay. So we'll talk in dozens of meetings. I mean, I can pull up the slide that. We use rough. I'm just trying to get it. We had three public meetings. I would say at each one of those public meetings, there were questions about you know, there were comments about that. And then there were some of these surveys and things. That's right. And so how many of those meetings was the Office of Economic Development present and participating in the conversation? Um. They were not present at the public meetings, but we did have workshops with them, multiple workshops with them, multiple meetings internally with them. But were they ever in communication with the community that was raising these concerns, as far as you know? No. And I would say. Probably the mature note I'm truly thinking about a majority of the concerns and providing affordability push came from the steering committee. Yeah, there were some steering committee. Does the steering committee include city agencies or does it include community folks? It does, but this did not include anyone from OED. But it did include community people, but it did not include OED. That's right. Okay. So you can imagine where my comments are going to head. I see no mention of the community in either of the implementation sections about the affordable housing or about the community benefits. Nor do I see any mention of city council. So I guess I want to understand how it is that you feel or and this is a planning question in part because, you know, again in my comments, I'm going to get to the trust gap between what's in this plan and then what gets negotiated by city agencies. Because we have another project coming forward in a week or two that has shown us how big the gap can be between the plan and what city agencies negotiate when they're alone with developers and they don't have the council and they don't have the community. So I want to have a sense of why those parties weren't mentioned in the implementation section about who's going to be working on the detail build out of this. Sure. Yes. A barge with the Department of Community Planning and Development. Thanks for the question, Councilwoman. There may be a little bit of an oversight in the language about who should be involved in the moving forward, because I would definitely understand your point. You do, because this is just setting the high level policy. We don't know exactly how this happens yet. We just have the priorities in place. But looking forward, we can start to see some paths forward. The plan talks about new or updated zoning that would apply, and it does even talk about potential incentive systems like we saw at 30th and Blake. And one of the things that we're looking at is a fairly set method for translating the the high intensity of development that's going to happen here into community benefits, like leveraging the increased land values. And that may mean that what we're negotiating with the community and with city departments involved are set formulas for the requirements that will apply to all of the development in the area moving forward. So that's a more transparent upfront negotiation before the developments are formally proposed. They're set requirements that they'd have to meet, if that makes sense. Okay. I think on that, I want to ask you about the you started to talk about the idea of regulatory approaches, and I definitely saw what I called nods to the 38th and Blake inclusionary, you know on site performance right higher performance on site but at pretty high aims. It's pretty much a workforce tool. The plan makes one mention of low income, but low income at the levels of like 30% of area median income is often not provided through that traditional route. It can be sometimes, but it's not as often we we more often are thinking about other types. It's typically, for example, financed in a building that leverages other resources, maybe not spread across. And so I guess I wanted to just clarify, when you say the word low income, what is your definition in this plan of low income? Thank you. Yeah, the plan does not. Specifically define it in several places. It says low to moderate income or low income and workforce. The but it also really talks about a variety of housing for a variety of people and requirements for that. And so one of the criticisms of the 30th and Blake strategy is that the housing that's required is affordable at 80% or below AMI because that's been the approach in the city wide linkage fee for building housing instead of paying the fee. I think we have direction here to look at something more nuanced with the affordability levels at which housing is provided or if, you know, in some cases, as you as you likely know, it may not make sense for housing to be provided by the developers at very low AMI, but could make sense for them to pay for the housing strategies to be accomplished through some other mechanism. Right. Or to provide land. So I guess where I want to go, I want to respect the idea. This is a vision plan, but I also want to make sure that there are no gotchas hidden in here where people are going to say to me that things are foreclosed. And so, for example, when you use this regulatory approach that works well for a linkage fee on site performance, a density bonus is designed for buildings. It's really not a substitute for an area plan for housing. And I think one of the problems we're having in the city is somewhere along the line, folks thought that a fee for a building was somehow a substitute for doing planning. So I want to just clarify, it talks about dispersal. Do you believe that anything in this plan forecloses the creation of a dedicated, affordable housing building for rental, for example, for 30% or 50%, since that would be one building. It may there may be for sale, affordable somewhere else. There may be workforce rental somewhere else. But I just want to clarify, when you see this word in here and I can give you a page number if it's important, but it talks about not dispersed that the housing has to be dispersed. Do you see anything foreclosing the creation of an affordable building in one place in this plan? I would I would say no, as long as it was clear that that was not going to meet the entire requirement for a variety of housing throughout the area. Got it. That's encouraging. Then the second question is, you know, there's this mention of regulatory approaches, which, again, I think work well for buildings may not work as so. Is there anything in your mind that forecloses the dedication of land, for example, for affordable housing, which wouldn't be something that could be accomplished necessarily. It might it might satisfy a linkage fee, affordable housing plan. We particularly put an affordable housing plan option in the linkage fee. But I just want to clarify that we weren't we are not relying only on density bonuses, that there could be other strategies that that are used to achieve the affordable housing. The plan doesn't foreclose other strategies. As we get into implementation, there'll be a lot of things to balance the the predictability of the formulas versus what you could get through more negotiated solutions. That might include a whole range of options, like setting aside land or doing really comprehensive planning for a large development like the one that Mr. Duncan anticipates. Okay. So we could have an affordable housing plan for this site. That is not. And I just want I want to know which doors are open, which are closed. I'm skeptical about a formula necessarily achieving the variety of aims and the variety of goals this plan sets out. So could this plan be achieved with an affordable housing plan that is negotiated and may include a variety of these things that don't all fit a regulatory zoning code ordinance? That door is not closed. Okay, that's really helpful. Thanks for allowing me to be so detailed. Just two more questions then. This one's a little different. It might be more for you, Reece, but on housing types, you guys have a lot of very broad language in here about variety of units and things like that. But I think and I know I was quoted in the media about this, so you may have read it, but there is a lot more to, I think, making housing attractive to families than the number of bedrooms. And I've continually tried to point folks to this idea that, you know, when you have five and seven year olds , you can't send them to the river by themselves and you can't cook dinner with them at the park. So, you know, the idea of internal courtyards in areas that create safe, enclosed play. Are you looking at anything that's beyond just telling me you're going to do bedrooms but really creating spaces that are designed around families? And then I have one more question about public input. So. Just signaling to the president so he doesn't steal may make. Sure that there is. Yes, you may have heard my response to Councilman Cashman about. I'm a believer in God. Constructing a complete community. And that's. That's what I meant to speak to. And I used my canary in the coal mine test. Right. The for me, the the test of a healthy city is when you wake up and you see families pushing strollers in your downtown core, I think that means we're healthy as a city. And what does that mean? Everyone in this moment in time wants to talk about affordable housing. I mean, that's all anyone wants to talk about, it seems. I like to broaden the discussion more about that. And I think the plan speaks to this as well, is, like you say, it's not only three bedrooms, but it's a daycare to send your kids to . It's a school to send your kids to so you don't have to move out to the suburbs. It's a library. It's a recreation center. And I think what's really fortunate about a lot of the land covered by the plan is that it's under large ownership parcels, which is really, really unique. And I think I anticipate we're going to have more of a discussion around this at the time of rezoning, but it creates the ability to deliver a lot of the elements in the plan a lot more easily than if the ownership was fractured. And so that's what excites me. And I look forward to having those discussions because I do truly believe you just can't put people in bedrooms and expect to call it a family neighborhood. So you may want to take this last question to then. So in terms of you've heard my questions about getting beyond just apartments to including voices and you know, other speakers and folks have mentioned the question of racial inclusiveness, which I think is, you know, not one that's easily designed in a physical realm exercise. And I guess one of the questions I have is what is the ongoing way that you as a developer are going to be engaging community and knowing that the nearby neighborhoods don't include necessarily the racial diversity that you want this site to, to reflect how you are going to seek out those perspectives. Because our traditional planning process is, you know, you have a committee that you kind of report to and and it includes representatives of all the nearby neighborhoods. But if you do that, you might be missing the voices that, you know, many of us are concerned about, feeling included. And so I'm just curious if you have given some thought to how you're going to do that inclusive planning and sound boarding as you move forward outside the rubric of the planning department running things. Yeah. For those of you who know me, you know, I'm pretty accessible. My cell phone's always on. It's kind of a 24 seven job. And so I talk to an awful lot of people and constituents in that role. I think I'm open to ideas on that for sure. I think, you know, we're we're bringing Michael Wolff to a portion of the site. Some of you may be aware of that, which is an exciting and a very exciting artists group. I think they have a really good model. They came in to our site, which they're use as a use by. Right. And they said, that's great, we don't need to consult, but we're going to go out wide into the artists community, into the neighborhood communities and really seek that input. And I think that's a really good model. But like I said, I don't have the all the names and addresses and the answers, so I'd be open to that discussion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Kathryn Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. Some of my questions have been asked by Councilman Ortega and Councilwoman Kenney specifically in regards to affordability and and racial diversity. I do want to bring something I think is the city. So those from simply from CPD. On that very note, I want to continue that note. By inclusivity and making sure. And here's some ideas. Looking at the steering committee district three borders the area. Right. Moran. I'm looking at that map. Yeah. Was there a reason why we were invited to this. Steering committee table? I mean, we were visited. We, you know, I think with the reset, Reese and his team came to visit and meet with me and took a lot of our input. And they met with Sun Valley. They got into LaMonica Park. The city is the driver here. This is a city plan. This is a CPD document. I'm looking at the steering committee and the folks involved. Two things pop out to me, and one is that Council District three was left out. We had brought this to the attention of the CPD before. And the only thing that neighborhoods to the just in the spirit of achieving this diversity and making this whole neighborhood. The neighborhoods southwest to the site. Are very diverse immigrants, refugees, Mexican-Americans. And when I look at the steering committee. Espinosa. You're the only guy that represents. Those communities. There's a huge population. So I wonder why we I mean, if if that ever got pinged on on on by the city. I know that the team had reached out to me, but I was surprised that the city hasn't had saw that or. Figure that out. You have three council people there and. I am not sure if I am qualified to speak to why District three wasn't included in the Steering Committee. But through our first and second public outreach, we realized that through sort of our CPD newsletters and our social media blast, we were not getting La Alma and Lincoln Park community at the public meetings. So we've reached out to them and we met with them separately. All Sun Valley as well too. Yeah. I think that is a little bit of one of my concern is I just want to know if there was is it. Is it a is it a 200 foot radius thing? Or what was the factor that that made that I. I don't know if I could speak to that because I was not involved in that process. Okay. And I know you're the messenger, but I think maybe I just addressed this to the administration in in making sure I want to know from from the executive level why that's the case. We had issues with notification before from the office, from the executive office in terms of, you know, things happening right in our own backyard . Right. And when I think of downtown and I know this is forgive me for not making this form of a question, but. I guess I guess it is a question, right? We only live about 6 minutes from downtown. Why are we not considered downtown? Anybody who visits Denver. And goes to the West Side. They think we live in downtown by any other city's measure. We live in downtown. But Denver's measure there's a line. So I want I so I want later on. Yeah. Just moments right now. Councilman. You know, this is this is this is the district I represent. And I think I was involved in conversations. And I think that's a that's an oversight. And I think moving forward, there's going to be a, you know, going to talk about this in my comments. You know, the devil is about to be in the details in this rezoning, and we want you to be at the table. So I think that's a I think that's a oversight. And we want to make make sure it's clear going forward. I appreciate that, Mr. President. Look, I just wanted to bring that attention. Sure. I may be term limited. I may not be at that table, but I may not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. We I can I can guarantee you this, Councilman Lopez, that this is happening in the next six months. So you'll be here, okay? Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Just put a tiny bit of fear into me hearing that we're we're six months away from a rezoning, and I know nothing about it but conversation for a reason. That's, you know, that's that. That'll be part of my comments. I did want to but along those same lines to councilman news question about the Station Stadium Plan Committee, I can tell you that there's a public meeting that's going to be happening coming up very soon. I have pointed this out. There has been day one was a lot of talk about connection to these to Sun Valley, to Sloan's Lake and to this area. And yet it has gotten very narrow. And we're not actually talking about those connections. We're really focused on those two blocks that they really want to develop. And I have made I'm supposed to be a champion and like be a cheerleader for that effort. But I do have serious concerns about the the lack of connectivity, especially when Wolf was just mentioned. That's the that's the link to that other state when I want to get to those questions. So this is really a question for the city attorney sort of addressing my colleague, Councilwoman CNOOC's comments that we could have prescriptive language. Um, my understanding is we can write prescriptive language into our plans and that would then in fact be legally binding. And that's been upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court. If we wanted to have some language that we shall establish regular, regular reviewed set of requirements for vertical development developments regarding affordable housing or, you know, minimums or something like that, we could have very prescriptive language, and that would in fact be legally binding. Is that true? Sorry I did this to broadwell once too. Good evening. Members of Council Navy Sir Sir Anthony Jasmine Espinosa. Typically plans are just that. We don't write prescriptive language into our plans. We save that for our regulations and our Denver zoning code. Yeah, and I recognize that. But this goes back to my history with Devin Buckles when she was a member of CPD. We had prescriptive language in plans and that became when a developer wanted to do something that deviated from those plans that were supported by community. That became the issue. And we then got involved in very, very aspirational and recommendations that don't have any sort of level of specificity to avoid that. But yet, when we have conversations with community, it's always very clear that this is what they want. But we never write plans to that effect. But if I hear council saying that we heard this, I mean, if I hear a plan committee say we heard this and I hear council saying we want to address this, we could actually just say, look, take it back to your committee. The idea that we want to be more prescriptive in this element and it's something that we could write. Correct. So to your point, I think Councilman Brooks or President Brooks addressed this earlier when when he mentioned that this is sort of a 30,000 foot view, and then what will likely come is a text amendment to the zoning code. And I think that's where council has the ability to put some teeth to this plan. But then that gets back to my colleague, Councilwoman Ortega's comments, which is who's involved? Right. The process is different now. So we're having this 30,000 foot view and discussion where if she doesn't articulate it now, the people that are actually writing these play, these these zoning might not know that that's even sitting in the in the members on council's mind if that conversation is happening only by an applicant and CPD staff members of the executive and maybe Councilman Brooks. President Brooks. You know, this is a conversation where I felt welcome at this conversation. I can speak to the fact that the diversity conversation came up early and not by me, but by other members of that task force. And in in in. So if there is a desire to to somehow capture affordability, capture some sort of regulatory conditions, that that might involve sort of more pocket parks and open space or some sort of diversity. It's inherent in the development language. How would we know that until it comes forward as a as text amendment or map amendment? Text amendments are purely legislative and they're not applicant driven. And so again, I would just reiterate that that's council's opportunity to give this plan some teeth. Okay. So that to me, colleagues, that is the sort of wide open thing that when a tax amendment comes forward, if you want to see change to it, please use that opportunity to start negotiating and asking for change. Because what comes forward and has by the time it gets to us, which has already been through public process and planning board. We still have the capacity to instigate change. The problem is, is by then it has gotten through our whole gantlet of support and to sort of say that, oh well what you guys all agreed to needs needs some sort of core level adjustment. I think we need to be. So I just, you know, I'm getting into comments now and you can save that for that. I just wanted to see if you have any more questions because I got Ortega. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Councilman Ortega. Okay. I'm going to continue from where I left off. I appreciate the questions that were raised by my colleagues about the affordable housing piece. The most critical part of this is we need different price points of housing that will serve varying income levels of people in our city. If we want to have the diverse city that we have historically enjoyed, much of which we're losing these days. I also appreciate the ethnic diversity being raised as one of the questions. I think having the socioeconomic diversity in our city is what has made us a great city. It's what makes any city a great city and ensures that you have people that can work at different income levels and do that kind of stuff. I want to ask about the point that was raised by Peter Lowy about the contradiction of sections in the plan and how we expect to address that moving forward. And I think part of that gets addressed with who sits at the table that shapes the details moving forward. So I don't know who wants to speak to me. I don't know if you want to. Yeah, I'll stick to diverse diversity as well. Well, we have a whole, whole vision element that dedicated to diversity. It's also addressed in a variety of forms and recommendations throughout almost all vision elements, in diverse vision, in we speak to affordable housing that would attract variety of income levels, that it also provides a variety of family sizes from single person to multi-generational family living. There are also recommendations to provide affordable childcare, community gathering spaces and the units, and that these units are closely located to transit fresh food parks and schools. We also address diversity through amenities and design elements that are cater to seniors and people with disability, such as incorporating universal design throughout and providing health care facilities and proper and prosperous vision element. We address diversity through downtown mixed use that provides complimentary uses to support downtown living, such as grocery stores, pharmacies, playgrounds, and other civic and community uses such as libraries, schools, community recreational centers. The plan also speaks to creating tools to attract a wide variety of employment opportunities and requiring the development of new, multifunctional public spaces are accessible to all and walkable. We address diversity through well connected and integrated public transit system and small walkable blocks and through tedium, by providing discounted or free eco passes and employees to employees and to low income residents. And in green, we address diversity by providing a variety of open spaces environments from natural habitat to playgrounds to areas that provide outdoor work or workout equipment to all. So I think we we do touch upon sort of creating that economic equity and socially social economic inclusivity. In regards to Peter's comment. I will say that while Downtown Partnership has been on the steering committee, that this plan is solely written by community planning and development. So I'm not exactly sure what the where those differences lie. The recommendations at the end of the plan that speak to a variety of different ways to achieve plan recommendations which include private partnership, public partnerships. This is a very common way to develop cities. Very often there's funds used from the city to help realize projects, but also sort of incentive tools created to create that TPP, whether and you know, I can name cities in like New York and Portland, for example, with their dedication of parks. So they work with developers to build the parks and allocate their own properties to parks. And that's the kind of pep kind of strategies that we we speak to in this plan. Okay. Well, it's not unusual for us to have adopted plans that have conflicting sections. The Garden Court is a great example of that, where we had to come back and. Make some major changes to that. So so have you all looked at and identified where we do have conflicting sections in that that we can then address moving forward in the details that will come later. I. I do not know what those conflicting sections may be. Okay, Peter, maybe you can highlight those and we can share those. Not not right at this moment. But last question is about looking at the cumulative effect of. The redevelopment of village's 60 plus acres. Sun Valley. How many acres do we have in Sun Valley? And then now we're talking about the Broncos. All of this in the same geographical area. We know that we've got traffic congestion everywhere in our city today. And, you know, the hope is that people will live close to where, you know, transportation is and they won't need a car. But until we have our first mile, last mile figured out in this city, everybody's going to use their damn car. And they do. And so what is being done to look at the long term viability of our city so that we're not just looking at jamming everything wherever we can build, just for the sake of of seeing more people come to our city? Can you help me? Understand whether or not the cumulative effect of these three major developments was looked at as part of this, or is that being done right now collectively? And who's part of that? Who's part of that process? Yeah, I mean, I would my initial response would be that's the sort of conversation that we're having with public works and sort of orchestrating, coordinating that those plans do come together and they're not piecemeal. Especially in such a close proximity. And that can't just be happening within the city. It has to include community. Right? Because the cumulative effect is what creates problems. I mean, we started this with the 38th and Fox area where we keep getting reason applications brought to us. Nobody was talking about the infrastructure impact that was was going to happen. And once, you know, staff sat down and started looking at how much density we were improving, approving through this body, they realized, gee, we only got one road into this site. How are we going to handle even more applications coming forward? So a couple bills that were on tonight's agenda, you know, ensure that the developers are contributing towards how we address that infrastructure. So we have to look at the big picture and not just be looking at these projects piecemeal. So I want to make sure we're we're having that. And Councilwoman, I wanted to I think she had an answer there. So I wanted to I just I want to say, in addition to specifically to this plan area, the you know, there would be what's what's great about Ilitch is is that it's consolidated ownership. And when that comes through the sort of for rezoning, we will have IP, which is the infrastructure master plan, looking at that and getting into more details, understanding mobility, you know, doing more detailed mobility studies which are beyond the scope and capacity of this plan. Okay. Okay. That concludes my questions. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for answering my question. All right. Thank you. And that concludes the core question portion of of of this 561 is not closed comments by members of council. So I'll start this being a part of the district that I represent, you know? I think it's really important that the public hear this, that a plan is aspirational. A plan is aspirational. It is. It captures the vision of where we want to go in the future and. You know this plan right here. I'm talking to constituents all the time. And this is the thing that they're going to tell you that's most important. First of all, nine out of ten will tell you they only feel within their they only feel that they're in a huge city when they're in their car and they're stuck in traffic. Mobility is a huge concern. Nine and ten to tell you, number one, we have a housing crisis. An issue in our city is is getting less diverse every day. And three is sustainability. We are really concerned about sustainability within the city and county of Denver. Aspirationally this plan. Encapsulates all those things. It talks about inclusivity. It talks about. I mean, you know, Joel Clarke would say this is the most impressive part of the South Platte River. It talks about revitalizing that piece. It talks about open space. It talks about all that traffic that everybody's talking about. Now you have a part of the city that is connected to a multimodal network, and it talks about increasing that. It talks about parking maximums. It talks about a team plan. Joe and Clark. Councilman, president pro tem. We've been talking about a team plan for ever. We now have one so people don't have to be overreliant on their cars. So from an aspirational perspective, this gets at everything. And by the way, it include it, although we didn't have Councilman Lopez and some folks from his neighborhood, which was an oversight. And we'll make sure going forward that we do that. We did have District one and as you know, District one has not, you know, been run roughshod by developers. They're going to fight right tooth and nail. We had Jefferson Park folks in my committee sit in there and tell you, I don't like this, I like this, I don't like that, and I appreciate that. I appreciate that conflict because it helped us put a plan together that was inclusive. And and Councilman Espinosa was at most and all, if not all of the meetings. Oh, sorry. And pushed pretty hard. And I think aspirationally he is not to put words in the mouth supportive of this plan. And so I think aspirationally we're in a good place. It's not over, folks. We get another and I'm sure folks who are going forward for the rezoning are not going to like this. But we another bite at the apple several actually. And it's called the rezoning. And it's going to be a long process where we we all get to be a part of it. Now, I'm a tell you right now, because I've been a part of texts and zoning amendments don't come at the 12th hour, 11th hour and say , I didn't feel like I was a part of this because now I'm taking notes. All of the folks who said that they want to be a part of the details of what this looks like, you're going to get a note, you're going to get you're going to call, you're going to get you're going to get invited to the table. I think one of the things I learned on this, you know, this was moving right at the gentrification conversation we were having in the district. And I would go to a meeting and say, if you care about this gentrification, displacement, what our city looks like, you better be at a planning meeting. And we have to do a much better job getting the word out. But we as a community also have to do a much better job of seeking out that information as well. And so, you know, I think, you know, Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Canete said some things. I think what I would throw out to the to the community and CPD and other folks is, you know, if we really want this to be a community this diverse, there are a lot of groups, a lot of African-American, Latino, professional groups that need to be a part of this and that we need to start reaching out to. And so I put that on my plate. I put that on CPD's plate, and we all should put that on our plates moving forward. I will say, number one, that moving forward and not, you know, obviously can't get in the details because we don't know. But this will be one of the most impressive, sustainable green areas in the city. One, two. This will be one of the most impressive multi-modal developments that we have in the area. And three, this will have one of the highest, in my opinion, and I will push for this requirements of affordable housing that we have at any large development in the city. And so we've got to work at that. I don't know what that looks like. You know, we'll be working all together as a city. But I think all of those questions that councilwoman can each about the the specificity of what's not included, what is included, I think are great questions. And I think this is open. I think this is open and we're really going to have the opportunity. I'm really excited that you mentioned that DOJ will be at the table and they are at the table. And so they are a great partner of the city and they can do a lot of great in the city. So I'm supportive of this by the requirements we are used to judge to pass a plan. I think it just meets all the requirements and I'm excited for the next step. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. To build off your remarks, I think that this plan has a lot of really good and bright aspirations. So I. Kudos to the steering committee. Kudos to you, Councilman, who I know was behind some of those important aspirations and pushing them forward. So I think that there is no question about that. This is a really great plan in all of the areas that it covers. I think the reason, the dialog it started even before your plan this evening, it started with the earlier rezonings. But I think that the city and I, you know, I don't know who I mean, what I mean the city. But I think sometimes there's a notion that displacement is about where the development lands. And if the development lands someplace without housing, then it's not a displacement question because there's no housing there and you're not displacing anyone . And I think what you're hearing tonight is that we can't be thinking about displacement as just where development lands. We have to think about every ripple that circles out from that development, and we have to think about its long term intergenerational impacts on the city. And so that requires thinking and planning and aspirations that are as big, as bold as all of those ripples. And not just on the site. And I hear a team tonight that's embracing, I think, that level of thinking, and I think that's a breakthrough. And again, you know, we have some projects coming forward on a similar timeline that missed the boat completely. And that's where the concern comes in in terms of where we go from here. So one of the things I want to point out is that I think one way to think about the ripples and I noticed it again tonight when we talk about conformance with plans and I know you're talking about legal conformance, I haven't yet heard a CPD presentation mention the affordable housing plan or the Todd plan. So we work hard sometimes running around trying to get language into plans because we want them all to point to each other. So the Todd plan says put affordable housing activities. The housing plan says put affordable activity. So we have all these plans. And I think that we are still. Thinking a little bit too much about the bubble where it's dropping and we're forgetting about these other really important plans that that point is in the right direction. So again, though, you got there in this plan, and I think that that's a testament right to the process, but not necessarily something we're doing consistently. So then what happens after the plan is adopted? And I think that I'm concerned about the silo that I've discovered. You know, so we heard it tonight, and I think our Office of Economic Development, this is not about them failing as individuals. But if somehow our view is we have a long conversation not just about the development, but about all these ripples, and then we're going to punt the implementation of the housing piece to a department that wasn't there, hasn't been engaged, hasn't been in my office or probably other offices asking what do you council members think is important about how we do housing here? This is a department that's set up to implement an ordinance. It's a it's a transactional thing. Did you meet the linkage fee? Did you not? We haven't set that department up to do catalytic visioning of how you integrate housing into big areas. We haven't we haven't set them up to do that. And so, therefore, they're struggling to do that and some other projects. And so they can't the staff and the team and the expectations we've built for that department right now, they haven't been in your conversation. So they're not the right party alone for sure, but maybe at all to be leading then the implementation conversation, because they missed all of the conversation, both about the development and about the ripples. And so I hear you that, you know, you did some internal meetings with them. But what I've seen is just that is not a substitute for being engaged with us as council members or being engaged with the community. So that bridge. But we need to blow up those silos and we need to build that bridge to make sure that as we go forward, we aren't thinking about this transaction. And that's where I get nervous about the formulas. So let me give you an example. I can think of at least three types of policies or approaches to housing that have nothing to do with unit formulas. So, for example, questions about disabled access, right, is about unit design that doesn't show up in a formula. Questions about we have a desire to maybe experiment a little bit with resident preferences, where we maybe draw some circles on a map and we try to include residents who are at risk of displacement into some of the new units we're building. Wouldn't that be an amazing place to pilot that policy? That's not going to show up in a formula. So we have to really get out of the idea of administering the linkage fee as the basis for how we think about this development. And then I just want to thank you for your openness and your humility in saying, hey, I'd love to take some input on how to do this next piece because I think we want to do it maybe differently. You had a really powerful steering committee that got these amazing aspirations. So then how do you get the next group of people for implementation? And so I would like to suggest that we think about like even a focus group approach, and I want to give one example. So I judged an art contest with mostly Latino students who are asked to talk about their neighborhoods. And I was shocked how every group there were for art pieces. Every group had create an art piece where the central feature of their neighborhood was open space and green space. I expected it to be about buildings and I expected it to be about, you know, streets and places. They hung out. It was these youths cared a lot about nature. And so I would be curious what a group of Latino youth has to say about river access. Right. And just let's not think about just professional organizations, but let's think about different user groups. You talked a lot about retail and the idea of active streets. And I don't want to speak for my constituents of color, but when I hear them talk about their experiences and where they feel welcome and where they don't, a lot of it has to do with how does the security interact? Does the security tend to over target and ask questions in a racial profiling way? Do the retail establishments right? We've obviously all seen the Starbucks example. So wouldn't it be amazing, if you like, for example, as a requirement to do retail in this site, had every retailer think about racial inclusiveness so that the table with the black customer doesn't get served last. I don't you know, I would just love for you to ask questions outside the design box to two communities that have sometimes felt excluded from our public spaces and ask them why. And I think you're going to find it's not about this sidewalk. It's sometimes about the ways people interact and all that. So and I again, I don't know, but I think these are the kinds of questions I love you to ask. And I think it sounds to me like you're open to that. And so I'm excited to support this plan. I'm excited to to see you struggle with these aspirations, ask some different players about them. And and I will call and answer the call when it comes, if there's ways that you want to, you know, put me to work and pieces of this, I'd be happy to help think about the affordable housing piece. But I think it's got to be more than you and. It's got to be more than you. And ID. If those are the only players in the room, I will consider this a failure. And then the last thing I will just say is I respect that the plans at a high level. To me, the word Low-Income means including 30% of a mind blow. And I would consider this plan to be a failure if it did not include that level of housing in addition to the workforce and maybe even for sale . So with that, congratulations on the hard work and I will be supporting it tonight. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. So my first note on here and it's underlying scary. I say that because, you know, sometimes, you know, in certain circles, I'm sort of the boogeyman for developers. And and I think when I walk into a room like this, that's probably the perception that some have. And most who know me now know that I'm anything but I'm challenging. But I'm I'm I'm pushing in a direction I think we all want to go, just maybe pushing a little harder. And in dealing with we're in a room full of people talking about your property and I'm pushing the way I push also. I mean, consistently just saw receptiveness and an openness to, you know, the ideas that were being expressed and letting those things play themselves out. And that's consistent with those those meetings and private meetings that that. So I just appreciate having you know, when you have. Three stake, three property holders. You know, you have this such an opportunity to have such an open minded, you know, representative on the ownership side to allow that sort of conversation to naturally flow. I think that's what you have in all of the sort of good aspirational aspects of this plan. So kudos that have been given to everybody. Staff your leadership. You know, it was a good it was a very good process. And, you know, we tried to be as inclusive as possible, maybe not in the task force. Maybe I'll admit that was pretty select group of individuals, but it was a very diverse scope of backgrounds and perspectives and and and and a lot of ideas got conveyed. And then even after all that public outreach that was by by design, you went the extra mile to go in and hear those concerns by very, very particular constituencies with very, very specific asks and and accommodated appropriately when, when, when it fit with the conversations that we had already had as a group and at least explained to them where there was synergy and where where there was conflict. And so it was a great process. And I was never really successful in scaring Uris, but I might now because we just got back from L.A. and one thing we learned there is they're planning to put me in their rezoning process is at least four years long. So, you know, we've got some time and and I got to have. Dinner with the incoming planning director for city of Santa monica, who's been an architect practicing for a long time and dealing with those delays and now is going to be leading those delays. So the there is a displacement thing going on here, too. My colleague Kevin Flynn's thing. Glitches has been a north Denver institution since its creation and so yeah it moved from one part of district one into this part of District one and if it ever goes away, I'm all for and I seen say Mountain View and Lakeside and moving it there. There's 120 acres there that we could do and throwing it out there anyway. The reason why we even sort of entertain this idea and the question to the city attorney was I have no I'd no problem being bold. And so if there were a statement by council that it wanted to be part of this, bring it forward, you know, and, and, and, and don't be afraid or shy away from that. I will be supporting this as it is. I do think it's a very good 30, 30,000 elevation plan is better than than most, in my opinion, because it gets to sort of a different way of sort of steering our zone, potentially steering the zoning for a rezoning process that might capture the lessons learned over the hundred. And what is it, 130 year history of the city and county of Denver. And so. So the one thing is, is that the diversity conversation came up tonight. We talked about it a lot and it did come up early. And the one thing that I've sort of. Figure it out. I mean, my own personal observation in 20 some odd years of architecture and whatnot is that is that there is no black place and there is no brown place and there is no white place in a good city building. You go to Atlanta, it's a very different population demographic than than Denver. But the places are still places you go. And that's true for probably Vancouver. And it's a completely different demographic than here. And so building quality places. Ah, four people are welcoming of everybody. And so the language we have on diversity about making things accessible. Are about as far as we can go. Structurally, then we have to design those places to be accommodating and welcoming for everybody. If we if people of color don't see an amenity filled place as a place for them. That speaks to some other sort of structural failure that we've had as a city, because that's not the design of this of this whole plan. This is not to basically say we are catering to one particular demographic. These are public. You know, this is this is private development around a whole network of public right of way and public amenities. And and they're not codified in to a particular user. You know, I mean, for different particular I mean, a particular ethnicity of user. And that's just that's just a fact. And this is going to sound super naive. But I've been Latino my entire life. I've lived in sort of varying degrees of sort of low, low income to very well-to-do and. And yeah, I eat certain foods that other households don't. I listen to certain music growing up that other households didn't do that. And and then I went to school and I had a very, very limited exposure to certain ethnic groups, almost no Asians. Very, very limited black people in my in my growing up, you know, I grew up in southwest Wyoming. It's tough there. And so. But when I. My last job before entering here, I worked for five years for a predominantly African-American run business and in a black community doing projects time and time again for black households. And that failed. We all live the same way. We're all Americans and we all desire open space, public space, a place to play, a place to breathe, the place to, a place to earn a living and a place to buy our to buy the food, to feed our family. And so none of what's in those stores. Is dictated by the building. None of those what's in those stores is dictated by the street or by the park. And so none of what's in this plan will dictate who lives there. It is about doing a better Denver, learning from what we've done in the past and recreating the successes that we've torn out. And rebuilding those and building on what we do know and putting in infrastructure for today. And that if it's done right, will welcome anybody and everybody. Civic Center Park serves all populations of the city, and it doesn't change every time it does. So we just had the Puerto Rican Festival, right? I mean, they didn't say, well, Sydneysider doesn't welcome us because it's Greek architecture. You know, and so I'm doing my thing. But it's just that this is a good plan. It gets to those sort of granular things on a very high level. I told you I was going to say I was concerned about the zoning. I think that that's where the nuts and bolts. Yes. Our code, based on our form based zoning, could capture all these ideals and then would we start being in our head when we found its limitations on things that we're trying to do that are outside the box? But it also could capture none of these ideals. And so I want to see a codified language that does a better job respecting the innovation, the variation and the granularity of of community building that is that is inherent in our conversations. And is that the core of what is being proposed here? Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Thank you. Thank you. Council President. I am. All right. I absolutely appreciate the work that's been done, especially the outreach. You know, I've. I maintain that. I think it's. More than just notable, more than just a kicker or just a complaint. What it is, it is telling the steering committee. Steers the plan from the get go. And if it's if we can't. I'm going to support this plan because I do believe it is aspirational. There is a vision here. We should not be parking lots for most of the year. Especially when we are growing in population and we need the density of the units, the affordability to go along with it. 80% is not the benchmark. It's not a watermark. It is 60% and it is two and three bedroom units. It is a real city, is full of real people. Right. And I'm interested in being part of a city and building part of a city. That achieves that. Right. I wanted to start out and this is. You know, when I sat here, I just couldn't help but think of the. And I'm a native. I grew up here my whole life. Yes. I've been Mexican my whole life. I'm just kidding. That's just a dig on my thing. Go with it. You know, there's a lot of things about Denver that are just that are absolutely unique. That are our spirit and our soul. You think of Mile High Stadium, you think of Larimer Square. You think of Federal Boulevard? You think of our parks. And you think of villages and as the city changes and as you know we. Build out certain parts of the city as things I couldn't imagine, which is moving from the north side down into the Central Valley. But they did. And I just keep thinking in this whole conversation of the Ferris wheel. 125 year old part. And there's one saying on that Ferris wheel that you're all going to have to tangle their. And that saying is to not see glitches is to not see Denver. There is a history. Inscribed on a lot of these places. And they're not it's not simply just the Ferris wheel. It's it's an identity. And Denver has a unique identity, just like all the cities that we all tend to visit and inspire and take great ideas from. I. I'm itching to hear what other people say of our city when they explore our cities. There are new ideas that we take from here and they're the best we can get. The great ideas. I think there are a lot of great ideas up north, but there's a lot of progressive policy up north as well too. There's a conditions for those things to thrive and exist. I know cities. I. Be a lot happier in my city if. In our city. If I knew that every one of those cranes in the air included affordable housing at a rate that is justified. But it doesn't. And we cannot say and we shouldn't say that we haven't been through this before. And that we don't know what to expect and that this is new. We've been working on the Cherry Creek Plan since I've been in office. We've been working on downtown area plans and we've watched downtown grow. You've watched the Platte River Valley grow. We've seen Union Station develop. At a rate that I've never seen any area develop before. We've fought to get community benefits and Union Station. There were standards that I believe were still a little low. But we've been through this before. We know what to expect. And so I you know, in this plan, although it is aspirational. There is a difference in terms of neighborhood plans and how quickly they get implemented. We've had neighborhood plans in my neck of the woods that had existed and that were formed in the seventies, calling for certain conditions that still have not been implemented. Whereas other plans that I was on this dais watching Ford. And making decisions on have been implemented very quickly. It just depends on the political will. So as we move forward, I want to make sure that we are. Our truthful with ourselves. And are transparent with the public. I think eulogies is a very important not just a symbol, but it is true. It's in an era where it's becoming very unaffordable to live in Denver. It's also becoming even more and more unaffordable for kids to be able or young people and families to be able to enjoy as well, too, without paying an arm and a leg. Safe place for folks to be. I saw a committee meeting. I sat in a committee meeting. This council where majority of these kids only live a block from the villages, are picked up on curfew tickets more than any other side of the city. This is one of those areas where you want to make sure your kid is safe. Jobs are important, too. We are displacing jobs. And we have to with this plan, we have to be able to figure out. A place for those jobs. We got to figure out how to replace those. I think when it comes to. Connectivity. I think this this has done a great job when it comes to using the river as its front door. It does a great job. And a compliment accomplishes a lot of great planning, a lot of great ideas. I can't wait to see implemented. However. When it comes to affordability, we have to be experts. This issue cannot move on, for there is no piece of land that we can touch without a plan with one of our plans that did not speak to affordability. That has to happen, not with just developers. We can't just say all the developers of this developer didn't do that. That's leadership from the city that needs to take place. And we should expect the city to set that standard. And not eggshell into it, but to be bold, to set that standard. To commit to it. This is this community planning and development, the mayor's office administration. We have to set the table. We have to create the rules of engagement so that folks understand. What they are and what we can do and what's expected when that's unclear. And this plan will be unclear. We have to commit to that. That direction is. Is absolutely key. So with that, I mean, I said this before and I you know, I'll say it again. You know, I, I am going to support this. I wish I was a little bit more excited. But I am putting my faith in folks who I know had visited me and told me that they're committed to it. And I have and I'm having faith that I'm going to make the right decisions. And I will say this one more time. I, I may be term limited in my, you know, in representing my district. But I'm not going to go anywhere for the foreseeable future. And neither are the folks who live in my district. Just like eulogies. Hopefully. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So, yes, we know this is the downtown area plan amendment. But we also know it's the Ilitch site and it shapes the change for the future. And so it's why I think you're hearing so many of us being not just vocal, but passionate about the things we care about and how we see our city changing and where we see that we keep missing the mark on some of these things. And yes, it does start with us having the right policies in place that sets clear direction for everybody and is the same level playing field for everybody. I have a long history with this area of town going back to 1979 when I started working for the councilman of this district, when we started making changes to the Central Valley. And then I later replaced that councilman and represented that area for 16 years and saw major changes. I served on the committee, along with Councilwoman Reynolds, that brought the Pepsi Center to the site, you know, address some of the floodplain issues. And, you know, so change is inevitable. We all know that. And lots of changes are happening in this city pretty rapidly today and affecting a lot of different people. But I believe that we need to keep the density downtown. It's also where we need to have diversity. But if we can keep the density downtown, hopefully that means that we don't have density overtaking our neighborhoods because we have neighborhoods around this city screaming and hollering that we're we're taking over their neighborhoods. Jefferson Park almost is it? There's very little left in Jefferson Park of what used to be in that neighborhood. Because it's pretty much been redeveloped. So. You will hear this very loud and clear in this next election cycle where neighborhoods are fighting to protect their residential communities. So we think this density does belong downtown. I'm anxious to see the infrastructure masterplan. I'm also anxious to see the details that would be in open space. I want to I want to see how much acreage we're talking about and that it's it's not just slivers added to the park, to the river, but that we have open space built in to accommodate the masses of people that will be in this area. I want to see the affordable housing plan in the commitment and that we have different price points that can be served. And I don't just want to see that here. I want to see it at Sun Valley. I want to see it when we start looking at the plans for building out the Burnham yards, which is another 77 acres not far from here in all of these large sites where we're going, where we have this opportunity to bring more density downtown and to keep it away from single family would have been traditional single family residential neighborhoods. Reese I'm also happy to offer my assistance at whatever touchpoint you think. You know, my input would be helpful in ensuring that diversity is part of the conversation or that the connectivity to addressing the first mile, last mile connections. Because if we're going to say, you know what, you don't have to build as many parking spaces in your development. But we see what's happening in the Reno area where they're they're close to a Todd. Right. But they're getting to reduce the number of parking spaces. But you see every little sliver of land that saturated with cars because we haven't figured out a first mile, last mile connection in this city to all of these real stops so we can get people around this city where they need to go and not have to be in a car. So we need. We need to keep working collectively in in how we address that. We have no jurisdiction over the railroads. And so addressing the. The safety of the people that we're going to bring down to this area, knowing full well. Unless and until. The central main line is relocated to the far north end of of Colorado, as some people are trying. And that's a that's a long haul that may or may not ever happen. These products are going to travel through the center of our city. And, you know, we've had some influence in trying to keep them from staging in the center of our city. But they will continue to travel through. And so. Ensuring that we address the safety is a critical piece of the big picture of everything we do, not just here but anywhere along our rail corridors. And it's why when we have developments that are next to rail, I will always make sure we're asking that question and bringing that to the attention of our developers so that we're not just having people build and leave folks stuck there, and then they're long gone. And then if we have a catastrophic incident, we're all stuck, the city stuck figuring out how how did we do this? Why did we not address this? We have to be proactive in looking at how we address this issue on the front end. I think there are some good elements that are part of this plan and I will be supporting it tonight as well. But I look forward to seeing more of the details and in whatever way I can be helpful, I'm offering my assistance as well. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. Oh, it's so interesting to hear the. The comments of my fellow council people. I think it shows how much downtown Denver means to all of us that folks want to talk about the history of their lives and and how it is intertwined with downtown and, you know, how long it has been. And I think that we put lots of hopes and dreams into that area. Tammy Dorr likes to call it the living room of the city or the living room of the home. And to me, that downtown area is the heart. It's a home. You know, it's just everybody feels so strongly about it. And I want to give great thanks and praise to the citizens who spent so much time working on this project. What a big job. And you produced a plan that. Has something for everybody. I mean, it has some mixed use housing. It has affordable housing, it has diversified, it has mobility, it has, you know, open space. It's like let's let's hope for everything in the world. And and I think we all place a lot of hope and dreams in it. But, you know, this the downtown isn't going to solve all of our social ills, for Pete's sake. This is just one area. And I think you heard a lot tonight, which was sounded to me a lot like a cup half empty when I see it as a cup half full. What you have done. It's so much easier to edit something than to compose it. And so as people were saying, well, it's not perfect. It could have done this. It could have done that. I just want to thank you for all that you have done. And please know that it's the the half empty feelings people have is because they are much they love downtown and how much they care about it and hope that it could be just absolutely perfect as it as it being as it matures and becomes reality. But thank you very much for having included so much stuff in here and for all the work that you did about. What goes into the heart of our home. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Brooks. I would like to definitely thank everybody for their work on this plan and. You know, sharing the vision of what the South Platte River can be, the amenities and really building a brand new community and really in looking through the document diverse was used a lot and I think diversity is very, very important . But I would also like when you go a little bit deeper to explore inclusivity. It's one thing to have a diverse community, but really having something that's inclusive is people take ownership of it. And it's not that they're moving in to be part of this community. But when my colleague, Councilwoman Sussman, was talking about. The the histories and the memories that elegies evokes for families and my 13 year old daughter. I mean, she would know specific places and elegies that are meaningful to her. And so I just asked that as you kind of delve a little bit deeper, deeper. And I love the part about the community gathering spaces because that's something that we hear time and time again in the Montebello and Green Valley Ranch community is we have lost those community gathering places and how important historically but going into the future, those community gathering places are and I would encourage you to look at how through those spaces you can ensure that people see their culture, that they hear their music, that they have access to their food, and that they can really see the history of the area and how they fit into the past, present and future of the city. Because if you're able to do that, you really will have an inclusive community that you've built, that people take ownership and they put down roots. And as you also get deeper, I would ask that you look at not only access to affordable housing from the for rent side, but home ownership. Because when I again listen to folks throughout the city, people of color do not always have the in-roads and the access to building wealth. And when you think about it, home ownership is that pathway to wealth. And so where you could look at out of the box ideas talking with the community, but really how you can encourage people to not only rent in the area but really be a home owner and truly, truly put down. Roots is so important. The other pieces are access to education. I think you've got the community gathering spaces, but access to financial literacy and financial empowerment. So if you have historically always rented, your family has always rented, you've lived paycheck to paycheck, you're maybe not equipped or even know the questions to ask about, well, how do you create your budget? How do you save up to buying a home? What if there is an emergency? Things that a lot of times people take for granted. If you haven't been given that opportunity or those tools, it's and this is coming directly I'm sharing with you what I'm hearing from my community as well is the access to financial literacy and empowerment. But beyond that, how does real estate work? Financial planning, estate planning, trust planning, all of those tools that go towards making families more stable. And the last part is access to workforce opportunities. So in these community gathering spaces, are there going to be, you know, entrepreneurial incubators kind of like the commons on campus? Are there going to be access to training programs? So we're making sure that we're not only getting people into this area and maybe looking at buying their first property, but then how are they going to grow their skills and maybe open a business or become part of this great new, vibrant neighborhood and really have that truly inclusive fill? And so, again, congratulations. I think it's going to be amazing and stellar, and I look forward to working along with you on this path and journey. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I want to thank the team for all the hard work. Lots of meetings, lots of time invested in this. And so thank you to everyone from the public to the city staff who put into this. It is very clear from the end products that a lot went into it and a lot of really awesome hard work. You know, one of the things that's great about this process is that this plan goes through a body of people, a group of people. And I know at 930 at night sitting in those particular chairs, you're not probably fully appreciating, you know, that it goes through a body and like this. But what's great is that everybody up here comes at this and picks it different corners and looks for different things and pulls out different things. And I'm sure that, you know, if you're a regular on Channel eight on this season of Denver City Council, you can almost predict who's going to pick which corners. But it's great because then we have all of these perspectives picking and appreciating and looking for things. So I don't think it will come as any surprise that I'm thrilled that there's a tourism plan in here. Although I have a dream that someday we will have plans that don't need to have tedium in them because we will have a citywide team plan that we've been pushing for since we were, you know, talking small lots and budget. So. I love that it's in here. I hope that we can get to a point where that's citywide. And then here's the real shocker. I'm thrilled to see the park and the river plan. And I mean, this is a site that is right next door to the birthplace of Denver at the confluence of the Cherry Creek and the south. What it is I've said this to a million people before. This is Denver's riverfront. This is the best piece of riverfront real estate in the city. This is our chance of having a real defining riverfront of really finally making that transition from having fully turned our back on our birthplace. And the reason that the streets in downtown Denver don't run north, south and east, west and really embracing that, that opportunity is here. And don't get me wrong, I adore you, which is I still for me, it's still the new elegies, because as a kid, my elegies was the old elegies. But now I'm taking my kids in our tradition to ride the train down. And I think, you know, I won't reiterate what everyone said about the importance of that place or finding a new space for that place. But really, when you look at it, elegies is is the exact example of turning your back through a use on the river because that entire stretch, it's it's a chain link fence between you and the river on the best piece of riverfront real estate. And so I get so excited about the aspirational parts of this plan. And I love how Councilwoman Kennedy talked about when you're building spaces for families, it's not just about bedrooms. It is about that green space. And all of the people up here have talked about the connection to parks and green space and that really creating any livable community. You can't be done without that creation of space. And where else in our city can you not just create green space, but you can have a river that is is is living in vibrant in so many ways that flows right through it. And really, you know, this plan, the aspiration is to not make that turn our back on it, but to make it the front door to this community and the front yard for this household that we're building. So I think that this is just a plan. And so I will say I'm excited about the aspiration, but we it will be a tragedy if we don't achieve that on so many fronts that everyone's brought up. But but right now focused on if we don't achieve that full embrace of the river and the full potential of what this riverfront can be, then we will have failed. And so I encourage everyone in the room and everyone in this process to go from 30,000 feet down to, you know, taking off your shoes and getting your toes in a river that is that is swimmable and that is fishable. And where kids can go down who live right there and turn over a rock and catch a crowd, I'd like the thousands of kids I've taken on field trips down to the river who are shocked and surprised to find that nature lives right there, underneath, underneath the rock. So thank you for all of your work, and I look forward to the reality that comes from this plan. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Sussman was was was right on the money, partly in saying that that it's easier to edit than to compose. Unfortunately, in a case where something is really badly written, it's easier to start from scratch rather than try to twist it into something good. Now, the good news, I don't think this is badly written. I think it's really well-written in a whole lot of ways. Mr. Dugan, you're not the only person involved with ownership of this parcel, but you're the one in front of us. So I'll speak to you. You have a great opportunity here and you have a profound responsibility as well. The the element of the plan that concerns me. One of it is I don't know how long you're going to be around. None of us do. And I believe in what you said. I think you get it. The idea of affordability, inclusiveness, I truly do. But like I say, you're just a person and the plan is important. And as with so many of our plans, I just don't think it says loudly enough that we need family housing, that that right now, our city in so many ways has been building a city for a limited population. So I would love if this plan were more aggressive in speaking to that, but. It is, you know, our housing plan that talks about housing and inclusive. Denver. I wanted to say something about crisis because I truly believe it is. It is at that point. But this is a I'm not going to use the word, but it is a plan that speaks of hope and direction. And so I will be supportive of that of that plan. Like I say, I just hope, sir, that you live a long and healthy life. Thank you, Mr. President. Here. Here. To risk his life. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. I just want to thank each and every one of you all for for paying for parking, for coming through security and sitting in really hard seats for a long time and listening to folks. You guys care a lot about this city and you cared a lot about putting this together. So thank you. Hats off to all of you who are here and all of you watching at home. This concludes our comments. It's been moved. And second, about Secretary Raquel. Clark I. Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Catherine Can I. Lopez All right. New Ortega assessment. All right. Mr. President. Hi. Sorry. Please. Oliver. Okay, we're back on there. Okay. Please tell us the results. 11 eyes. 11 eyes. 561 is passed. Congratulations. All right. One last pre adjournment announcement on Monday, July 19, 2018. Council will hold a required public hearing council bill for 24 teams on classification of problem approximately 90 701 East 56th Avenue unstable to any protests against Council Bill 424 must be filed with the Council offices no later than Monday, July

A bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the registered electors of the City and County of Denver at a special municipal election to be held in conjunction with the coordinated election on November 3, 2020, a proposed amendment to the Charter of the City and County of Denver to give City Council the authority to consent to certain mayoral appointments. Submits to the voters of Denver the power for City Council to confirm Mayoral departmental appointees. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-9-20.

DenverCityCouncil_06222020_20-0536

Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Correct your comments the council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council member can each where you please for council bill 536 on the floor. Yes, Mr. President, I put Councilor Bell 536. Uh. Sorry. On the floor in order. It's not on the floor. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Courtesy public hearing for Councilor Bill 536 is now open. Are we getting a staff report from a council member from CPD? What are we doing on council members, staff report or are we going straight into hearing? We can go straight into hearing unless everyone is dying to hear a staff report yet again. Yet again. Okay. From your code of battery, you're going to. Have to do a just a quick overview of it for everyone to hear it. Okay. Well, you do that. A quick overview. Sounds good. Absolutely. Okay. So this is a this so this would be a proposal that would be referred to the voters in November 2020. It covers 14 mayoral appointments, the 11 positions that are the mayoral cabinet, which are specified in the city and city charter of Denver. Those positions are sort of like the what I would call the quote unquote, major cabinet positions of the city of Denver. So that's the heads of things like the airport parks and Rec, Finance, General Services, Human Services, Department of Transportation and Infrastructure, Department of Community Planning and developments, things like that. The quote unquote, big ones. And then it also includes the three heads of safety. So that's fire, sheriff and chief of police. The reason that it includes the three heads of safety is because Councilwoman CdeBaca had originally, back in October, proposed that the city and county of Denver have an elected sheriff. Well, the proposal had a lot of support from the community. It did not have as much support from the administration. And so that is a yeah. You're not shocked to hear that. That is that this is a compromise that straddles sort of it bridges the gap between the two. So having the three heads of safety also be included under this proposal is a way to bridge that gap where it allows city council the ability to approve those 14 positions. So it gives you the people a voice through your elected city council representatives. This is a best practice across the the most of the strong mayor systems across the United States of America. Denver is the only strong mayor system in the state of Colorado that does not do this. So it's you know, there's lots of discussion that we've had about it. I urge you to go back and look over. If you look online at our committee presentation, Councilman CdeBaca and I did two Tuesdays ago at our finances. Yeah. Yep. It's worth watching to just sort of fill yourself in on a lot of the different ins and outs of it. But the proposal would allow us, as a city council, a majority, seven members, to approve these 14 positions. If the if the appointment is not approved, then that's it. Then they're not then they're not approved. And then the mayor would have to either find someone else to approve the position, into the position and appoint, or they would have to whoever the mayor is would have to come back to us and have discussions about why it is that we, as the Council, did not support at seven members. And then, you know, if it was an issue of, you know, questions that couldn't be answered or something like that, then then maybe it would move forward after a discussion or, you know, maybe not, but it would require a seven member approval of council in order for those appointments to go to move forward. Councilwoman CdeBaca, do you have anything else you you want to fill out? Two quick things. There are two ways that something gets on the ballot that you vote on. And one is through a citizen led ballot initiative where citizens have to collect 9000 signatures, valid signatures to get it on the ballot, or by getting seven of us to vote on something to refer it to the ballot. This is the one way that we can help you to govern. This is an important change because there are no salary caps on appointments, there are no job descriptions. There are no ways for us to fire any of them. Should we find them in trouble for something? This doesn't give us the power to fire them, but at least, at least gives us the power to say yes or no if we know that somebody's being appointed as a clan member or something. You know, it gives us one mechanism that's important for us to be able to have some kind of balance. And this is one of many charter changes that we're hoping to put in front of you. And so this will be the first one tonight that you guys get to weigh in on. Yeah, I think that's great. And I think, you know, if there's anything that we've heard tonight, it is that the community is crying out for transparency and accountability from your government. And thank you. This is not a perfect solution, but it is one solution that is a best practice across communities across the United States of America. It is a way that is rooted in research. It's a way that is rooted in best practice. It is something that is done already. It is something that makes sense for our community. It is a way to create partnership and to create buy in, right. So this is a way for city council members and the community through your city council members to create collaboration and a sense of collaborative ness that, in case you had not noticed, does not really exist in our community and in our government right now in a lot of ways. And so what this can do is change that narrative in a more positive way, in a more collaborative way. And I think that that's really important to keep your eye on and to remember. So that's the goal here. That's what we're doing here. And we look forward to your comments. Councilman said about could you have anything else to add? Let's hear the. All right. Yes. Thank you. Tonight, council. Sorry. We're sorry. Okay. Tonight council has received 31 written comments by people who are not here, but submitted them as one of our options during COVID. So 31 written comments on council. At 536, there were 30 submitted comments in favor of the bill and one submitted comment in opposition of the bill. All members of Council that are present have certified that they've read each of the submitted comments. So do any members need more time enabled in order to read the written testimony? Because if so, then we need to go to recess so everybody can read. Please work in if you do. Looks like everybody's good. Okay. Seeing none. Council Secretary let the record reflect that all written testimony both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 536 has been read by each member of council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. We have 11 people signed up to speak on this item. So first up is Dennis Brookfield. Dennis. Brookfield. Brookfield. All right, Katie Leonard. Katie Leonard. This is Jamie Titus. James Titus. So my name is James. I filled out in favor of this bill. I think the strong merit system, the amount of power that Mayor Hancock currently has in this system, in this system and in the city is abhorrent, especially when it comes to those three safety branches. It seems pretty self-evident that the current, the way things are currently laid out, that the city council is fairly weak. There are I believe this is a time in which I can ask questions regarding this, or I can only say if it's. Still just public comment. Your feelings about this bill, I mean, you could pose a question that someone might try to answer later, but. Well, it's not accurate. If you would like to answer my question, I would ask you, which is, does is there anything in this that affects people being grandfathered in? If there is somebody who is currently a head of department, do they have to go through a new approval process in order to be appointed? And so people won't answer right now you'll throw it out there and people can answer once we get to comments. So you can just keep them. Well, contingent upon that question. I would I would say that that is something that needs to be added as another charter or should be adjusted. And I would also request commitments from all of you, all of you who want to get reelected, to not approve the reappointment of the sheriff of the city who has instituted domestic terrorism on our city. So I would really appreciate anybody who can commit to not approving an appointment. I would also be in favor of extending this power more so that you have that you can't just say no. Because I'm also curious about what happens, who stays in that position, like who is a sheriff, who is the head of a department if that appointment is turned down, if an appointment is repeatedly turned down over some course of time, I don't know how long that would take, but I would hate for some interim goon to stay in there for some long amount of time while things continue to go to set. So again, I'm for this, but I think those are all important questions that people that need to be addressed. And I would I demand your commitments on that. In relation to your reelection. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is. And he can wait. Hello. Um, just want to speak to you guys about, uh, checks and balances tonight. If we're actually going to be a actual government that supposedly protects people, we should be able to not have our city become what is almost a dictatorship. Like when there are no checks to power, when people can be put in the places of power they have no like job descriptions or anything like that. That's ridiculous. I can't become an educator. In a university. If I don't have a masters degree. It should be the same in our city. You should have actual experience with safety and how you should be questioned. You should be like, I think it's so ridiculous that we don't have it. I know the history goes a long time. Back to Mayor Speer. That's the reason why we have such mayor power in this city. It goes back historically a long time, but we know that that power even back then was used for corruption. So you as the city council, we look to you guys and that is why I'm in support of this. And I think all of you should be in support of this, too. Another thing I want to speak on with this is, um, I don't think this is enough, but it is a start. And we believe that all of you can help hold the mayor accountable. Like the mayor has done many messed up things, like when you put the home in, like the sorry, the real estate owners and the gentrifiers in charge of the housing department, like. That's ridiculous. Well, there are other things I could go on and on and on about with, but I don't have the time. But I. I just want to come in front of ya and have it be said. Many people, like even your commenters, there's only one or two people. I assume that one was sent in by the mayor. I can neither confirm nor deny, but, uh, I think that is the case. But as we look to all. Of you to keep power. In check on the mayor, we hope that you use this. Power wisely. And we hope that you. Can do what needs to be done. Like if. You see somebody unfit, please. Make sure that you. Stop these unfit people from taking positions of power. Shouldn't have a dictatorship in our city. It's unacceptable. God like I want to do more. Like I could go into AIDS department. But you already. Know very well enough. Y'all have people in there. And I think the best example I could take from was what just happened earlier. If we're letting that type of incompetence, that's the thing go around and that's the shit that they're giving you. I think the mayor needs some checks and balances. Next up is Jason Ball. Jason Ball. Hello. My name is Jason Ball. I live in. District three. And two times in a row. I got to go after Kenny, so. All right. So, yes, of course. I'm in favor of this bill. I believe that, you know, I'm a history teacher in District three. And I teach children about civics and. The American governments. And it's kind of seems ridiculous that our own city doesn't really model. These same values. Of so-called American democracy, of checks and balances, a legislative branch that can actually hold the executive accountable. And this is what our own federal government supposedly does, where it's like, okay, cool, you can make appointments as the executive. That's how it should work. If it's good enough for the federal government, it should be good enough for Denver. And as Kenny had mentioned in our history. The reason that we have such a strong mayor. Government is when the city and county was created in the early 1900s during this administration. And yeah, well, he did a lot of things make the city pretty. He was, according to historians, notoriously corrupt and did some shady things. And we have seen this continue in our current mayor administration, where you can kind. Of choose to pick the people that you want to to go. Through with your agenda. And I'm sure as city council members, it must. Be frustrating because I know a lot of people who come here. They'll move from different parts of the country and think you have more power than you do. And a lot of times people will say, you have this power and you'll be like, well, unfortunately we don't. So for me, this is kind of a no brainer. Why would you not want to give yourselves more power to hold the male mayor accountable, to kind of give the citizens of Denver an actual vote to decide for themselves by voting yes on this? You're not committing to it. You're letting the people of Denver decide. So that should be a pretty big no brainer for me. So vote yes on this and I certainly support it. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Blair Step. Blair step. All right. Next is Tesla. Tesla. All right, Kristina Shulman. Firstly, I'd like to thank Councilwoman Sawyer and CdeBaca for opening this to public opinion. My name is Christina Shulman, and I am a social worker in the Denver community and live in the university area. Transparency in government and stakeholder input is the foundation of this country. I hate to I hate to reference this colonial period, but the American Revolution occurred in part because the people had no say and no look into what their monarchs were doing. And I hate to quote a white male colonialist, but it seems that some of you only respond to those types of people. He famous, he more. Famously proclaimed, Give me liberty or give me death. But he also said this The liberties of the people never were nor ever will be secure when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. While we are not under a monarchy today, we are under a strong mayor system with all sorry, transparency and governmental appointments is necessary for the people to feel seen, to feel heard, and to trust that their thoughts and values will be reflected in those in charge of calling the shots. If we allow the mayor's appointments to go unvetted by the council, we are opening the door for corruption and nepotism. Councilman Cashman is my specific district councilman and while I understand the question posed concerning the whispers surrounding the potential deterrence of applicants, that deterrence should be the big red flag in and of itself. It is a privilege. It is a privilege, not a given right to hold office in this country, to hold the power to make decisions that could directly or indirectly affect the people they serve. And that includes you all. So if we're boring you or if you're tired, we're just getting started. So feel free to resign. We need leaders that are not only qualified for their positions, but also are willing to show up for their agencies in a way that represents and reflects the values of the public they serve. As the Council to vote yes on Bill. 2005 36 to show your constituents, the people that give you this privilege, my clients and your fellow Denver rights, the people that you live next to you, the people that you passed on the street, that you will give them merely the opportunity to ensure that you will take your responsibility to the public seriously, your privilege of having a seat in public office seriously, and the checks and balances of power in our government. Seriously. Thank you. Thank you. I don't think that Chairman Sekou has stuck around. I don't see him. No. Rosie Dupree. Rosie Dupree. No. And I don't see Jesse Perry's stuck around either. No, Jesse. I see. Okay. That concludes our speakers on this item. Are there questions for members of Council on item 536? Council member took us. To the speaker's point. Did we clarify whether or not retained appointees would need to be reconfirmed? Yes. So the way. Kirsten, do you want to take this or do you want me to? You want me to take it? Okay. So. So, yes, the wording is that if an if a if an appointee is going to be retained and maintain their position as an appointee for the same position under a new mayor. Right. So a new mayor is elected and there's an appointee who's an a current appointee who's going to maintain that position moving forward. Then they would need to be reappointed. If there is an appointee who is going to stay in their position just until a new appointee takes over that position just to cover the time period, then they are no longer the appointee in that position. They've moved to an interim appointee. And this does not specifically cover interim appointees because that's that's a temporary position. So then they do not need to be reconfirmed. Do you do you need to clarify anything that I have said there or was that good? That was. Well, I'm confused. I've never heard of an interim appointee being different from permanent appointee. What about? I guess I'm looking to Kirsten Legal. Kirsten Crawford Legislative Council. There are circumstances where we have have interims fill a position if someone, for example, resigns. This bill is intended to apply to permanent appointments and it's not uncommon drafting. You know, we have to look to other jurisdictions as far as when a new mayor comes in. The question is really whether the nomination and the bill moves forward in a reasonable and timely manner. So if someone's holding the position and the new mayor's intent is to have the person resign and fill it, the question is, you know, what period of time is reasonable? The standard for reasonableness is what an objective person believes. So there's case law on that. And, you know, certainly there are there could be a situation where someone thinks it's unreasonable and they're just filling it with an interim to avoid the process. And we would have to deal with that when it comes. But we shouldn't draft further unreasonableness, in my opinion. Got it. Thank you. And actually, there was a question from one of the speakers about whether there was like how that worked. And just so everyone knows, it is written into the charter amendment. So it would be written into the charter that a mayor is required to fill the positions in a timely, reasonable and timely manner. So what that does is it's not you can't put a time period on what a reasonable and timely manner is. It can't you can't say like six months is a reasonable and timely manner, but you can say, are they is the mayor doing some sort of action that shows that they are trying to fill the position versus are they not doing any action and just using this interim position as a as a holds position and not actually taking action to try and fill that position with a permanent position, permanent person who would have to go through the appointee process. Confirmation process. Does that answer your question? Yeah, I'm answered. And Councilmember CdeBaca, did you also want to help answer that question? Is that what you're flagging me for? Well, just. To add on to the question from the audience about. Basically getting rid of the sheriff. So we don't currently have a sheriff. And that would actually be one of the very first appointees that we would be able to have this power over, because it's between now and November that this would happen and it's unlikely for us to have a full blown sheriff process before November. So this might be our first chance to have this power, and that would be the first one. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Torres, you all good? Okay. Councilmember Flint. Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank Councilwoman Sawyer for clarifying one of the sections that was giving me some heartburn, which was when the 30 day shot clock starts. You're welcome. So I would like to I would like to make a record here, because there's been a lot of confusion about our contracts and approval process with a 30 day shot clock. When it was adopted in 1982 or three or so. It was always understood by the city attorney's office that the 30 day shot clock started when the bill or contract was filed Thursday noon for the Monday meeting. And when I came on council five years ago, I found that the city attorneys have interpreted that differently along the way. And they start the clock when they file, when they bring the bill to us, and it goes through committee, which shortens our time. And so I want to make a record here that the way I am reading this, Councilwoman Sawyer and Councilwoman CdeBaca, the intent is that now that the wording says it used to say that the shot clock started when the mayor made the right reading, the recommendation of council when he gave us a letter. I am appointing this person to that position that started the clock and the wording now is much more precise and much more acceptable that it starts 30 days, starts when the resolution is filed for action by the Council . It is my. Interpretation of our rules that the resolution is not filed. For action by the Council when it comes. To a committee. It's filed for action by the council on noon Thursday for Monday. So that will give us that extra time. And I want to I just wanted to bring that out and asked the two sponsors, is that your interpretation of this or are you interpreting that the clock starts when it comes to committee? Committees are not required. So I would interpret it that way. No. You would. No, I would not. Committee is a. Courtesy. Right. So I would not. Interpret it that way. So the clock will start Thursday noon when it's filed for Monday action. Thank you, counsel. And sir. That's correct. And it is written that way in the final draft, specifically because of the conversation you and I had about that. Right. And to clarify it exactly in here so that it will live on in our charter, clarified exactly like that. Okay. Could I ask our legislative counsel if the city attorney's office agrees with that? Yes. Kirsten Crawford, legislative counsel. And John worked on this. So I'm speaking for John. But John drafted. It just. The way we're representing here. So, yes, when it gets filed the Thursday before. Okay. So thank you. And then, Mr. President, my next my next proposal will be that we interpret contracts that the clock starts with. We will have to say that one for another day. Councilmember. All right. Anything else on this bill? Councilmember Flynn. No, just a comment when we get the comments. All right. So no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 536 is closed. And now we'll move into comments by members of council. Council members Sawyer and CdeBaca. I'll let you guys YouTube decide how you would like to go first or for comments or do you want to defer? Well, I have said most of what I already need to say. So got that. As I will defer my time and if I want to jump in at the end, I will thinks. I've said my piece. If you care about defunding the police or any department in this city, it's coming under the leadership. Their budgets come under the leadership of their appointees. And so if this is one place that we can at least try to get some different people making decisions about our budget, then let's do it. Let's try it. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Folks, this is what democracy looks like, and I want you to keep coming. By the way, this is your house. And so please keep coming. Keep stay engaged. But speaking of democracy, I am also amazed at how well educated and informed our speakers have been tonight, specifically on city politics, which is an interesting beast. And my dog will be really unhappy because he has appeared in over 12 hours. But anyway. But but speaking of democracy, there is a there is a disconnect between perceived democracy in the city and actual democracy in the city. Just as as the people have have said, we need three functioning branches of government here in the city. And and and the way we learned it from Schoolhouse Rock was that we would have three equal branches that would keep each other in check. So now what we have in Denver and you know it, which is amazing, it's amazing that that that you were that educated and that engaged. So this, I believe, helps it. It doesn't make that three equal branches of government, but it helps modify some of that actual power towards some of the perceived power. And so I'm I'm really excited about it. Councilmember CdeBaca talked about how the appointees have no salary caps. This is a subset of all the mayoral appointees. But if you look at all the mayoral appointees, which is approximately 60, it kind of it fluctuates a little bit. The the the budget for the entire legislative branch, from Mr. President to the receptionist to all of us electeds and our aides, is less than the budget for the mayoral appointees. So the previous conversation about how we are, where we are, we we're very lean that is to councilmember said about this point there are no salary caps for the appointees and this helps us balance that power to make sure that our perceived government is in line with our actual government. So I am excited to refer this to you to vote on in November. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Yes. Ms.. Shulman mentioned during comments when this was first brought up, I was considering the idea that good candidates might be concerned with subjecting themselves to that public process. But thinking about it further. I have a hunch that should this pass tonight and get to the voters and should the voters adopt this? I have a hunch it may be the last time you even hear about this, because it doesn't entail a big process. When the mayor makes an appointee, the appointees go on to our consent agenda. And if there is no problem, it just gets passed on with the rest of the bills. And I think it's really no loss of power for a good mayor who is really concerned with putting the best possible candidate for a position. But if if we are presented with a mayor who's trying to do favors and put people in positions that they're not the best qualified for. You know, we talk a lot about the salaries of our cabinet people. And there there are comparatively a drop in the bucket in our city budget. I often wish we could pay more and when there's a position open, I want absolutely the best individual in the country to fill these positions. I mean, Denver's at a time where there's so much going on. We need real visionaries. But I think what's going to happen. Should this pass is a mayor is going to be forced to involve council early in the process rather than, you know, no executive wants to look bad and put someone up that's going to get voted down by council. So I think there will be conversations about if there is anybody that that's got stuff that might concern council, I think there'll be discussions ahead of time. So, you know, it might be maybe somewhere down the line there'll be a brouhaha and the Mayor will put someone up and there'll be a big discussion on council. But I think most of that will get done during the nomination process. So I appreciate my colleagues bringing this forward and I do look forward to supporting this. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Torres. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank Jason Ball. Thank you for being here representing District three. I appreciate your work, your activism, and we've had good conversation and thank you for being an educator. This will be an easy vote for me, I think, Councilman Sawyer, for shepherding it since last October. So remember, you voted in people last May and June who came here to change things and they started doing that right away. I also want to make sure, you know. Only 39% of Denver voted in the last election. So democracy is in November. That's where it actually hits the road. And whether or not you vote and others vote in this city for this and for everything else that's on the ballot. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Mr. President. So first, I'd like to just thank all of you for sitting here. I can't remember the last time we had a packed chambers. I think it was the pit bull ban. I think there were more people here talking about pit bulls than I have heard in a long time. So I asked you all to show up when things were happening, and I didn't expect it to look like this. But here you are. It's 1015 and you are still here. So I'd like to thank all of you for your activism. And I, too, will be supporting this to push this to the ballot. And that's going to be at the ballot. From what I understand, it's going to be three pages. So you all need to look at all of the state initiatives. You need to look at these initiatives. And when you're talking about defunding the police department, I need you guys to look at the Gallagher amendment. I need you to understand what Gallagher amendment and TABOR does to our coffers at the state and at the city level, because we don't have money like other states have. We have taxes like other states have, but we don't have money because the way that the Gallagher amendment and the TABOR amendment collide makes it super challenging for us to get money into our coffers and to pay for all of the things that you all are calling for, the reforms that you are calling for. You all need to get educated on what's on the ballot. So that's my little spiel for the Gallagher to D.D. Gallagher, I think is the term of it. I know I'm quite sure they just passed it. It's on the state. But if you have more questions, feel free to give me a call. I have a cool PowerPoint presentation that I got at the Latino Leadership Institute last year when I graduated from Do You, and they broke it down in five slides. I've been asking questions about Gallagher and Tabor my whole life and they broke it down in five slides. So if you want that by PowerPoint, contact my office council district one. I will gladly share it with all of you. And as for this bill, as Councilwoman Tori said, thank you, Councilwoman Sawyer, for pushing this forward and bringing something this type of dialog to this council. I think it's needed right now more than ever. So I appreciate you for your effort and doing the hard work to do outreach. It's really hard to do things citywide, so thank you for your steadfast leadership. Thank you. Council member. Council Member. Flynn Thank you, Mr. President. I do share some of the concerns about that were expressed by one of the speakers and several of the members about whether a process like this results in perhaps not the best candidates coming forward because of jeopardizing a position elsewhere or whatnot. And I want to recall that both that the community was upset with the processes for finding a new superintendent when they ended up with only one finalist and also the president of the University of Colorado system, when they ended up again with just one finalist because other finalists withdrew because there would be a public process. The answer to that isn't that, well, somebody if they can't get seven votes, then we don't want them anyway. I don't want someone who can just get seven votes. I want someone who can get a substantial number of votes up here. There's always pros and cons to every measure that we consider up here. On balance, I believe this is a good proposal and I'm very happy that to have the shot clock issue clarified so that there won't be any dispute about when we start and when we have to act. And so with that, I'm satisfied. Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilmember Torres, thank you for urging people to vote in November. If you haven't turned in your ballot, you can vote right now. So just wanted to add that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Sandbach a perfect segway. I was going to add that democracy happens in November, but if you live in Denver, it also happens in May and in June. If there's a runoff, our elections don't happen. In in November for our city council races. So keep your eyes open. It's very different. That's why we have low voter turnout and our ballot will be long in November because these things that we refer will go on the November ballot. But follow us on any social media, Candy, said Abarca. We will create ballot guides for all of you to be able to share and disseminate and explain things so that we break it down and it's not hard. Just check the boxes. Thank you, Councilmember. All right, I go. Thank you all so much for being here. Thank you for sticking with us and echo what many have said and and and vote right now. We have an election going on. All right. With that, Madam Secretary, roll call on 536. Sawyer. I. Torres. I black. I. CDEBACA Heck yes. Flynn All right. Gilmore I. Herndon. I can. Pass. Cashman. I can. I. Hines. I. Council President. I. Madam Secretary, please close voting in the results. Two of us. I believe. I just want to clarify the record. I believe that was 11 Eyes and one. Heck yes, I believe is what I heard. Constable 536 has been ordered published on Monday, July 20th. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 520, changing the zoning classification for 5061 Perry Street in Regis.

Councilor Flynn for Councilor Mejia offered the following: Order for the appointment of temporary employee Jacob deBlecourt in City Council effective February 12, 2022.

BostonCC_02022022_2022-0250

02500250. Counsel of Plain Folk Counsel. Let me here the chair. Six Suspension of the rules of passage docket 0250. Mr. Clarke, can you please call the roll? Roll on 025 Old Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor IOU. Yes. Councilor Baker. Yes. Councilor Baker. Yes. Councilor Borg. Yes. Councilor. But. Yes. Councilor Braid. Yes. Councilor Brading. Yes. Councilor Edwards. Yes. Council. Edwards. Yes. Councilor Fernandes. Anderson. Yes. Councilor Fernandes. Anderson. Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Yes. Councilor Flynn. Yes. Councilor Flynn. Yes. Council Ara. Yes. Council area. Yes. Council is in. Yes. Gonsalves and yes. Council over here. Yes. Councilor, me here? Yes. Councilor Murphy. Yes. Councilor Murphy. Yes. Council World. Yes. Council world. Yes. Number 0250 has received a unanimous vote. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. Mr. Clarke, please read docketed 0 to 5 one.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the State Route 99 Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement Program; authorizing the Mayor or the Mayor’s designees to execute an Agreement with the State of Washington to set forth roles and responsibilities for the State’s project to demolish the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct structure once the bored tunnel is opened to drivers.

SeattleCityCouncil_12112017_CB 119155

Agenda item 22 cancel bill 119 145 relating to the state Route 99 Alaskan Way Viaduct and see what replacement program authorizes the mayor or the mayor's designee to execute an agreement with the state of Washington to set forth roles and responsibilities for the state's project to demolish the existing Alaskan Way Viaduct structure. Once the tunnel tunnels open for drivers, the committee recommends the bill passed. Councilmember O'Brien Hey, everyone, the last quarter viaducts coming down some time next year it will start. Hopefully this is the agreement between the city of Seattle and watch dot on the staging for the demolition of that viaduct for the public to be aware the the expectation is by this time next year there'll be vehicles traveling in the new tunnel, at which point we will close the viaduct to vehicle traffic and begin the decommissioning of that, meaning the tearing down of it, how and where they tear that down. And what is the state's responsibility? RELATIVE The city's responsibility has all been hammered out in this agreement. There's been a series of agreements along the Replacement Alaskan Way Viaduct. And this is I think there's one more agreement to come related to Battery three tunnel that we're getting. We're getting the work done here. Very good. Any further comments? Just one quick. Quick that's back show. Thank you for all this work. You know, we have all been working on this since 2004. Even though some of us haven't been on the council out this long, we've. I think none of us technically we've been on the council that long. But it's been a it's a really important day for the city that we're moving forward with this. And I would just specifically like to ask, when you get to the Battery Street tunnel document, if you will talk with me about that, because our Belltown neighbors are very interested in what happens there. I understand the rubble is going to go in the tunnel, but they're looking at how do I make the green connections? You bet. And I've had conversations with Scott along the way. They're well aware that you and your constituents are constituents are have concerns about that. And so as that comes up, we'll be sure to engage the community. Very good. Please call the roll on the passage of the bill. Thanks. John Gonzalez, Purple Pi Johnson, Shadow O'Brien, High President, Hero High seven and favorite on oppose. The bill passed in show with Sonny D's religion idea number. 2323 Quirk File 314309 Petition of Seattle Department Transportation to vacate Broad Street right away between Dexter Avenue North and Ninth Avenue North, a small area of adjacent merges Marcia Street and any remaining eighth Avenue North right of way between Mercer and Roy Street to consolidate all property on the block between Mercer Street and Royce Street, Dexter Avenue

A resolution approving a proposed Fourth Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and The Greenway Foundation for advisory services. Amends a contract with The Greenway Foundation by adding $175,000 for a new total of $1,364,000 and three years for a new end date of 12-31-24 for advisory services to the City, including advocacy, fundraising and environmental education programs related to the South Platte River and its tributaries as needed (FINAN-201415058). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-3-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 11-30-21.

DenverCityCouncil_12132021_21-1443

New items have been called out under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out under pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put up the first item on our screen. Councilmember Hines, would you please put Council Resolution 1443 on the floor for adoption? I believe that council resolution 21, dash one, four, four, three be adopted. It has been moved. And seconded comments by members of Council on Resolution 1443. Council members say the back. Thank you. I'd like to go on record as a no for this contract. I've been consistently appalled by this organization's. Mistreatment or advocacy against the interests of the most vulnerable among us in service of revitalizing rivers. Their tagline is Revitalizing Rivers and Reconnecting Communities. But they have consistently ignored communities and also taken positions on other items that would do the same in other contexts protect our communities, protect reconnect our communities. And they've taken positions against it. And so I'm confused as to why we're engaging in a contract with an organization for advocacy, given that their values seem misaligned with our own. So I want to go on record as a no for this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. No one else in the queue. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Resolution one four, four, three. See the Barca? No. Clarke Friend. Flynn. I turn, then I try. Cashman. Can I. Ortega, I. Sandoval, I swear i. Black. I. Madam President, i. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One name 11 eyes. 11 Eyes, Cancer Resolution 20 1-1443 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screen. Council members say the but can go ahead with your questions and comments on resolutions one, four, five, eight and one four

Recommendation to receive and file a report and presentation regarding the impacts of allowing the sale and use of state-approved fireworks. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02182014_14-0141

Thank you. I want to thank everybody who testified there was a long, bitter testimony, but you did a great job. Thank you. Now move to item 18. Read. Item 18 is a report from the fire department with the recommendation to receive and file a report on the plan presentation regarding the impacts of allowing the sale of safe the sale of safe and use of state approved fireworks care. Can I ask people just be try to be as quiet as you can as you leave before have Chief Terry or whoever was going to get the report. I just want to I'm going to have to leave early tonight. But I wanted to make a couple of comments on this issue. I know we're not going to vote to put it on the ballot. I know it's to receive and file and hear the report from the fire department. But I did want to signal to the proposer of this that I've got some real problems with this. First of all, I think that we're elected to either the city council or mayor or whatever to solve these problems. If we if you see it as a problem that should be dealt with, we should put an ordinance up here and craft the kind of conditions under which this should be done, merely putting something out to the public. Do you want fireworks or not? Doesn't it only be it doesn't even hardly begin the discussion. For example, you'll hear from Mr. Terry. I'm sure that other cities who have brought these back have a substantial cost for clean up and for public safety. At a minimum, I would want a fee imposed here that would compensate the city for those costs. And that just begins the problem here. You know, you'll hear you'll hear from, you know, from Mr. James, from the PSA, who I have great respect for, that he's concerned that because it's hard to enforce this are impossible to enforce it. People think that they're negligent, that the the force is being negligent. I understand that point of view. But the fact is, we rely every day on people obeying the law and observing the law without having the law enforcement there. If you wanted to fully enforce every traffic law, you'd have to have an officer every quarter mile on every street. But we depend on people. So to say that because it's not enforced, somehow we should just take it off the books, I don't think that makes any sense. And to me, if you really want to do this either because your son's football team wants to sell fireworks or create stuff for other charities, I understand that. I think there are other ways of doing it, but I think we need to put the conditions under which that the city is not expend any money, that people are safe, that the neighborhoods are protected. Those are the conditions under which should be done. I think that should be in an ordinance putting this before the voters in this form. To me there's really nothing. So I want you have an opportunity to answer that. I just wanted to let you know that's kind of where I am right now. And, you know, this this this idea. It gives me great trouble, Mr. Terry. Mayor Foster council members on January 7th, the council directed staff, fire staff to come back to them tonight to give a report on the impacts of allowing for possibly for sale, use and possession state approved fireworks. We have a little presentation we'll go through right now for you in the next slide. State approved fireworks known by the hour, which are known by the fireworks industry as safe and sane are those that do not go up into the air, explode or move about the ground in an uncontrolled way. They have been approved by the state fire marshal for private use by consumers, and some examples include cones or sparklers under ten inches in length, smoke balls and spinners. The fireworks are approved for sale for a few days leading up to the 4th of July. State approved fireworks do provide some several benefits for our community, one of which families can spend the 4th of July holiday at home and avoid the crowds and traffic associated with going elsewhere to watch a planned show. The fireworks have been deemed safe for sale use in possession by the state fire marshal. The city of Long Beach could receive income from permit fees and sales tax, and the greatest benefit is perhaps to local nonprofit organizations. Nearly all state approved fireworks are sold by volunteers raising money for volunteer groups, as reported to us by phantom fireworks and TNT fireworks. The average gross retail sales for a stand location is between 22,030 $5,000, of which the nonprofit groups keep 30 to 35%, which equates to about 7000 to $15000 per stand. A survey of cities that have stands indicated to us that gross sales are near the lower end of that range, typically between 23,020 $4,000, meaning groups keep about $7,000 per stand. The potential profit, however, depends greatly on the number of stands and the proximity of the stands to one another, as well as a stands location. Some of these benefits have been outlined by information provided by the fireworks industry. Think slide 295 cities in the state. Permit the sale and use of fireworks or about 61%. 39 cities in Los Angeles County permit fireworks. That's about 44%. It means that a slim majority of cities in Los Angeles County, or about 56%, do not permit the sale or discharge of state approved fireworks. The cities in Los Angeles County that do permit fireworks are much smaller than Long Beach, and these cities typically average about 56,000 residents. Together, these 39 cities account for one fifth of the county's population. A majority of these cities, or 77%, contract with Los Angeles County Fire for Fire Services and 49% contract with L.A. County Sheriff's Department for their police services. Thus, most of these cities do not bear the costs associated with increased public safety demands. I want to point out here that we did reach out to Los Angeles County Fire and Orange County Fire Authority, and they did confirm that the costs associated with staffing up during that holiday period are borne by the county themselves. The assumption being, of course, that the contracts included those costs. The existing ban that we have in Long Beach is consistent with most large cities in California, examining the top ten largest cities. In California, of which Long Beach is one, we find that 70% of these cities currently ban consumer use of state approved fireworks. No city in Los Angeles or Orange County with a coastline permits the sale or use of state approved fireworks. Coastal cities attract large numbers of visitors to their shores each Independence Day. And even if the fireworks were prohibited on the beachfront, it's nearly impossible with existing staff to prevent their discharge on our shores. This creates potentially dangerous conditions on the beaches at night, contributes to litter on the beaches, and exposes ocean waters to toxic substances found in fireworks. Hold on a sec. So the following video shows the situation on the honor beach. You'll see a crowded beach filled not with only state approved fireworks, but also dangerous fireworks. And you'll see residents, including youth, engaging in unsafe activity with state approved fireworks, such as throwing them into the air. Over the video, you're going to hear 911 calls that are a sampling of what our dispatch office receives on the 4th of July holiday, with reports of trashcan fires and residents who believe that fireworks are actually gunshots or mortars. This is merely a fraction of all activity we would see if the fireworks were to become legal. Keep in mind that this video was created with the band, in effect, Dancing on the beach. This is a longer fire. We like to remind. The fireworks are illegal. Please note our 600 are at the intersections of what? Atlantic and Ocean. You've got a building here. It's like a. Four story. Building. And I just like to go on the roof, the penthouse, open area. They've got some type of pyros. I don't know. They're like open flames, and they're also launching rockets and all kinds of stuff. Sounds great upon the paramedics. What's the address of your emergency? 3900 Dispo Avenue. They're all standing in front loading fireworks, and the embers are going up on our roof. It sounds like mortar fire. Gunshots. Okay, hold on a moment. Okay. 103. It's just. Blown up. Car stands between Santa Ana. I'm the vision and camera in my shorts and so. It's about five people are setting off fireworks yeah interest and. You alley rear of 1929 Payne fireworks it went bad There's a fire. My first friend. Waiter Engine four. Looks like someone threw a homemade. Bomb over the wall here. It's at 645 Atlantic Avenue in the parking garage area. They have a huge fire going on inside of their dumpster. There's a bunch of teenagers throwing fire in and out of it. Are they fighting fire or firework fire or they were doing fireworks from the dumpster and now it's fire like a huge fire. One kid, my dad just burned his arms. Next slide. I discussed. Go to the next slide, please. If we could get our PowerPoint back up. I just saw the slides. Yeah, I discussed their personal injuries and property damage caused by fireworks at a previous council meeting. Therefore, I will not recount the numerous statistics that I relayed to you on this topic before. I would just simply offer here a few pieces of information that illustrate the harm that fireworks can cause. Next slide. The contents of fireworks include toxic substances that can accumulate in soil and water permitting. The sale, use and use of state approved fireworks will reverse progress. Long Beach is made in improving our air and water quality as far as water pollution, fireworks contain a number of toxic chemicals and metals these substances can accumulate in the soil and water. Perchlorate, a substance common in fireworks, has been known to cause groundwater contamination. As far as air pollution, fireworks are known to expel toxic chemicals into the air, and these elements are finally responsible, increasing agitation to those with asthma, heart conditions or other respiratory conditions. The particulate matter can also be problematic for seemingly healthy individuals, as some of these particulates are healthy and can remain in the lungs. Many Long Beach residents consider the noise produced by fireworks to also be a nuisance. Calls for service due to noise will undoubtedly increase. The police will not be able to address the complaints as it will be for illegal activity. The noise pollution disturbs animals. Domestic and wild like dogs have been reported to have run away, even jumped through screens or fences in order to escape from sounds that they hear on the 4th of July. This can lead to animals being injured by cars that may run into the street, and we could see an increase in calls to animal care and an increase in missing pets. Animal Care confirms that the days leading up to and following the 4th of July are among the busiest of the year for them in pounds nearly double . Beginning on the 4th of July, they must schedule extra staff on the 4th of July through the sixth. And fireworks have also been known to disturb and disorient birds, causing them to leave their nests and sometimes collide with buildings. Next. The city of Huntington Beach, which is a coastal city located to the south of Long Beach in Orange County, decided to permit the sale, use and possession of state approved fireworks for two years, 2012 and 2013. The city experienced a number of negative impacts. Thus, at the conclusion of the two year pilot, the council voted to reinstate the ban. The city of Long Beach can learn a lot from the experience in Huntington Beach. Huntington Beach documented an increase in illegal fireworks or improper use of state approved fireworks. Progress had been made in 2010 and 2011 and decreasing fireworks as illustrated by the downward trend in confiscations in 2010 and 2011. This trend reversed in 2012 and 2013 when fireworks were allowed in the city. Confiscation of legal fireworks increased as a result of individuals discharging those improperly or discharging them in prohibited areas. The increase of dangerous fireworks is important. These fireworks have a great potential to harm individuals and damaged property by allowing state approved fireworks. Long Beach will almost certainly experience an increase in dangerous fireworks. Police and fire will have a difficult time distinguishing between the approved or dangerous fireworks complicating enforcements. The complicating factors put citizens and property at risk. Huntington Beach documented an increase in calls for service citywide as well. The first year, 2012, the police noted a 182% increase in call volumes when compared to the same day of the prior week. The fire department noted an 87% increase in emergency calls. Huntington Beach collected 680 cubic yards of trash on the beach alone after the 4th of July. That's equivalent to 170 of these dumpsters you see on the slide. Even though the beaches and parks were considered off limits, residents and especially visitors did not know this or chose to disregard the prohibition. This demonstrates that it's very difficult to place certain areas in the city off limits to fireworks. Enforcing geographic prohibitions would not only require that staff be dedicated to the area, but that there be enough staff to adequately patrol the area to ensure compliance. In staff reports, Huntington Beach noted that the city was unable to fully recover the costs of the police department, fire department overtime as well as cleanup by their public works and parks departments. Fiscal impact in Long Beach, a fee of 1500 dollars per fireworks stand, which staff tentatively proposes at this time, could result in a new annual revenue of $60,000, which would cover staff costs associated with permitting and inspection. The 1% sales tax on the sale of fireworks could result in additional revenue of about 14000 to $15000 if industry estimates are accurate. More likely, the resulting sales tax will be $8000 to $9000. However, it is believed that the city's cost for increased fire and police response, as well as public works and parks and Recreation and marine staffing for cleanup activities, would exceed the tax revenue generated from the sales. In. In. In the even in the event of a June 3rd, 2014, citywide runoff, the estimated cost of placing an advisory measure on the ballot and in the sample ballot booklet is $150,000. If there is no citywide runoff election, the estimated cost is $1.4 million. Excellent. So that said, the fire department recommends that the city council maintain the existing fireworks policy that has been in place for decades due to the risk of injury and property damage and adverse impacts to the quality of life for our residents. The environment and city services. Mr. Mayor. With that, I stand ready to answer any questions. Any Council comment. I believe this item is just a is this just a receiving file? Because this is simply a report from the fire department on on the last requested action. So I don't know if there's any councilmembers there as a councilmember, Councilmember Austin wishes to come. Thank you. And thank you, Chief Tory, for the very comprehensive staff report. I will commend you that it was very illuminating. It was dramatic and somewhat balanced. I do have a few questions because I don't. Despite what we've seen here, I am not convinced fully that that that we are number one. I'm convinced fully that we're not enforcing the ban that we have, particularly with those images that was put that that showed that fireworks were rampant at our on our beach. And I assure I'm one of the motivations for bringing this item forward for consideration. And in conversation by this council, in conversation for the city, is the fact that the the alarming number of calls service for service says that there actually take place during the 4th of July. And the the the the expectation of residents that that we are going to actually enforce the ban, saying that is not enforced and has not been enforced. I thought, why not bring this item forward for discussion, for consideration, for debate by the city and its residents to consider legalizing safe and sane fireworks with the simply because of the fact that they're everywhere throughout our city. Your own staff report identifies or defines safe and sane fireworks, which I think you you you backtrack from your original definition as a marketing ploy, but you define them as fireworks, which are approved by the state fire marshal that do not go up in the air, explode or move about the ground in an uncontrolled way. Your your graphic about showing the city of Huntington Beach clearly had a table where you said safe and sane fireworks and dangerous fireworks. So I'm I'm assuming that you don't believe the safe and safe fireworks are dangerous or you may be coming back off of your original position on that. And the fact if we could go back to that graphic, it would be very helpful because I think it actually the data shows us something else. It shows that when we actually do have safe and sane fireworks in the city of Huntington Beach in 2012 and 2013, the confiscation confiscation rate for the, quote, dangerous fireworks were far greater, which tells me that public safety police services were probably focused on confiscating and dealing with illegal fireworks. Those that are going to be more of a harm do more harm to structure and be more dangerous to children and to the public. And so I think that graphic was very telling in some respects. Further in your staff report, quote said It's not possible to respond to all request for service. Was that specifically for police or fire or both? I guess that's a question. That's a question. Councilmember. I can tell you that I can speak for the fire department. I'll let Deputy Chief Luna speak for the police department. But we have a team of four arson individuals that go out and patrol over the 4th of July holiday that look for fireworks to eradicate the use of fireworks that are not permitted in the city , which is all of them. On July 3rd and fourth this year, our arson unit responded to 41 calls for service, cited nine persons for illegal fireworks and a check of their fireworks been revealed about 75 to £100 confiscated that they then turned into the state fire marshal's office. So we respond to all of the calls that we can. I would be willing to bet based on our arson captain this year. He can answer this as well, that we do not get to every single call that comes in related to fireworks. So your calls your response to calls for service? Actually, as a fire fire department, you actually confiscate fireworks as well. Our arson detail does. They're sworn peace officers. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Also, you were quoted in your staff report that said that it will, quote, will lead to a sharp increase in calls. And I have some challenges with that assumption because it may may I think it may lead to a sharp increase or an increase in calls, particularly in fire service. But when we look at police calls, if we are legalizing same and same fireworks that are probably more prevalent throughout our neighborhoods, throughout the city, calls will can be be decreased significantly, particularly if we educate the 911 operators and the dispatchers to ask the right questions. Are these fireworks on the ground or are they in the air? Are they going bang or are they whistling? I think it's it's very clear here that that there's an opportunity to to actually possibly reduce calls for service and refocus our resources on the dangerous fireworks here. And that is really the genesis and the motivation behind doing this this just this discussion here. I want to ask you two more questions for now. I love to hear from the public and my colleagues. Councilmember Anderson. Yes, thank you very space folks. Here are what we have in a year. Really, I think, you know, allowance, you know, the sale of state approved fireworks is very ill advised by that. You know, by their opportunities to raise funds through the sale of state approved fireworks is not worth the nuisance they did pose to residents in my district and in the city of Long Beach. Fireworks are dangerous. They are flammable, combustible and very appealing to those waiting to have the source of entertainment for a party. Unfortunately, many people get caught up in the excitement of the fireworks and forget about the danger that they pose by allowing people to buy these more frequently leaves room for more accidents and injuries. And making these and I think you guys can see that in the Boston Marathon that they had those fireworks, that they took all these things on and caused a bit dangerous where most people were killed and other incidents that came about. So I think it's something that we really seriously have to look at, not just in my district, think all over the city of Long Beach. It is a dangerous situation. And I think this is why we haven't, you know, made these things legal at this point. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Andrews. The members of the public wish to comment. Good lineup. You have 3 minutes. Figures. Woman No. Fireworks are fun. Yeah. You know, I find it's a celebration of life. And above all, in celebration of our great revolution. It's our most patriotic holiday. I will get just sit by and watch fireworks off the shoreline that indulge their beauty. That in itself. When you go to buy them, you're actually helping people. Why do you why restrict something that helps people? The donations go to good causes. More heart, more. Hyman would be done in decimating fireworks than it would it allowing them. We have restrictions against smoking. That's always dangerous. But why don't. Why do you want to have a restriction on fireworks, too? That's. That's our holiday for enjoyment. It offers a little danger, I tell you. Maybe we should. Maybe we should outlaw football because a lot of people get injured in that. Near here. And that goes, you know, good car that fills the pockets of the athletes. No, I think fireworks are just wonderful. I think kids love them. Maybe we should follow the paradigm of L.A. City, which is advanced in many, many ways, more than even we are. Their paradigm restrict some, but not all. And there are there are some points that they make in regards to that. They. The point that Mitch Austin makes that they're everywhere should. Yes, there's something right about it. If they're everywhere in Iran, why are they so popular? We should not restrict fireworks. It's unpatriotic. It makes. A holiday less participatory. And celebrates America. Power. Love. And of country. And above all, freedom. Council members. And. Mayor. Sit in. My name is Angela and I have lived in. Long Beach for a very long time and. I have always enjoyed the fireworks. From afar. Safe distance. However, I cannot say that our dogs enjoyed it. In fact, we had to buy a tranquilizer. It was named as one of the detriments of fireworks. And as a lifelong animal lover, I can say that it's not just the dogs. It's not just the cats, it's horses. And yes, it also affects me when a cherry bomb goes off in my alley or on the beach. And it doesn't stop when everybody wants to go to bed. It continues and it continues for days. I find it very stressful. And I would like to encourage you to vote against the having Long Beach, allowing that people can buy and fire off dangerous fireworks by themselves. And you know, the statistics in hospitals, how many people do get injured and yes, animals get injured by getting out of the yard, running away in fear. And so please keep language safe. It is not as safe as it could be. As long as Lakewood sells it legally and Long Beach residents go and get the stuff and bring it to Long Beach, it's already out of control to a large degree, so let's not increase that. Thank you. Hi. My name's is Carbon. I've lived in Long Beach for about 1520 years and I've been a technician at an animal hospital for about the same amount of time. And I can vouch that hundreds of thousands of animals are killed every year from fireworks and. Personally, I can't really enjoy em because I know how much it's bothering every creature on the planet. When. When these things are going off. And there's. Statistics are all over the place proving how many shelters get filled up every 4th of July with with dogs and cats that break through glass and run across the street. Get hit, get lost. A client of mine's dog broke out of his yard and fell over dead from a heart attack just because humans wanted to be entertained by fireworks. And to me, that doesn't that doesn't make any sense at all. With all the. Things that we can do now for entertainment. There's there's things like laser that are quieter and doesn't have fire. And there's just so many reasons to not have them. I think it's pretty selfish to to do it anyway. I mean, it bothers a lot of people. Children with asthma, they're they're toxic. The fumes come downwind and. There's just so many reasons to not have known. Three nights ago I was walking my dog and a cherry bomb or some kind of thing landed right behind us on the sidewalk, and he broke out of his collar and ran all the way home. And I went back to the house where it came from, and they just denied that they did it. And I know it's impossible for law enforcement to stop that, even with them illegal. We have a huge problem on the 4th of July on the peninsula. The police, there's not enough to be there to stop. And the fire department's down there trying to stop illegal fireworks. I mean, I just can't even imagine what it would be like if they were legal. I mean, there's just not enough people to to manage it. And it's like putting guns in serial killer's hands. People are going to do something stupid if they're allowed to buy fireworks. And that's just human nature. And please, please don't pass this. Thank you. Thank you for being here. On the fireworks issue, I vote no on putting it on the ballot on state approved fireworks in Long Beach. I live next to Naples Elementary School, which is already a war zone with illegal fireworks going off and explosive litter in the weeks leading up to the 4th of July. We're not talking about one night of fireworks, of sparklers. People begin getting it, getting it into their hands before the fourth. And the problem starts early for the understaffed and underfunded shelters. I'm a rescue volunteer and they beg us weeks in advance of the 4th of July, please come and take the animals, because they're having to put them to sleep, to clear the decks for animals that are going to be coming in. And after the 4th of July, the animals that are dead in the streets and again, they're crowded. They have no chance of getting adopted because of the onslaught of animals coming in. So, please. Thank you. Now, can you just identify yourself for the record? Louise Montgomery. Thank you. Third District. Got it. I'm Lynda montgomery. Ditto to what everyone said. I know that. You know, the people that get hurt with fireworks, it's usually kids, in which case the parents are responsible. You know, as a kid, I saw somebody get hurt with fireworks, so I've always been kind of afraid of them. Anyhow, I saw a kid get his toes blown off and that's always, you know, sort of stayed in my mind. I saw another kid have firecrackers throw down his pants, you know, again. So that's embedded in my mind. But the big problem is also adults. I mean, they're stupid adults. But on 4th of July, I mean, I'm the first one to confess I'm sometimes stupid to because we drink. Everybody's at these house parties and they're drunk and they're fooling around with firearms. Hello. We don't let people drink and drive, but we let them have fireworks and drink. I don't know. It just doesn't make sense. I mean, we're a smart city. You're a smart council. I can't believe that we're even talking about this issue. It's so stupid. But anyways, please vote against it. Thank you. Thank you for your candor. Yes, I do. I follow Linda. I'm Kate Karp, and I live near Belmont Shore. A while ago, one of my dog of one of my friends burst through a plate glass window and went looking for her mistress because of a firework. Whether it was safe and sane or unsafe and stupid, I don't know. But this this was just an example of what everybody else has been saying. My fear is that allowing safe and sane fireworks, so-called safe and sane fireworks, and I'm qualifying them as such because there really isn't any such thing, as our chief pointed out in the city, is going to open the door for anything goes. And to me that means anything that goes boom. It's going to be a lot tougher to enforce the laws that we have now. And Councilmember Austin, let me tell you something. About four years ago, they decided the city was going to have a crack down on the fireworks. We had a bunch of pinheads who lived across the street who were just the scourge of the neighborhood. We got rid of them because of that ban. They were out there. They were stupid enough to throw one in front of the police car that came down when we called them and they wound up out of there after anywhere from a 3 to $5000 fine. So. Yes, thank you. Police department. They did. I live near the shore and it's bad enough there. But I have a friend who lives in Lakewood where they do sell fireworks. And she lives in an otherwise quiet residential neighborhood where there are no draws, such as bottle rockets on the beach. And she said that they're neighborhoods, a war zone on the 4th of July. This is where they sell illegal fireworks. And furthermore, and this is, you know, close to everybody's heart. It's the animals. I worry about the animals, as our chief said, the animal care services manager. He showed you the stats, how they went up and so did the dogs. And this is going to further increase with your your holiday at home. Everybody's going to be setting them off. And that's what we're looking forward to. It just seems to me that it's the height of folly to support a measure that's going to cost about $15,000 a year to get on the ballot when it comes to discretion on this issue. I'm listening to our fire chief. Let's not take a step backward. Thank you. Well to the late Judy. Hi. My name is Jenny Warner and I live at 1084 Mahana, which. Is Midtown area. I belong to a neighborhood association that basically has four council districts in it. And I can tell you that there's no such thing as 4th of July. It's it starts in June and it ends in May. It's like every year when I. Moved here four years ago, fireworks. Were a huge problem. Basically, since Commander Rocky has taken. Over, I want to give him a lot of credit. There's been a lot more. Enforcement and the list last year was actually very enjoyable. There were just a few apartment buildings that were problems. I have had my hedges catch on fire. It's not as bad as where I used to live. In Koreatown, where my roof caught on fire. But safe and sane fireworks in L.A. were just crazy guns being shot. Long Beach is so much better. I really. Urge. Everybody, just like Deandra said, to vote no on this. I worked in hospitals. I ran disaster program. I've seen people, little kids come in with their hands split open from the little pole. Kind of poppers. I worked for our Medical Reserve Corps. I am involved with Surfrider. We've seen the trash impact. There's just a. Lot of considerations. And 4:00 in the morning, sun waking up to huge fireworks going off right over my house is not fun. I can see the Queen Mary displays from my house. That's fine. Thank you very much. But good evening, everyone. I'm Judy Crumpton and I reside in the Forth. And my addresses on file. And I'm here basically to support what our fire department and police department have already brought forward all the reasons why we need to keep this band. I really like what Councilmember Andrews and our mayor had to say. I echo the thoughts of everybody that has come up here. The previous speakers, they've really said it all. I do have great concerns for our children and our animals. Safety, it's all been said. What happens to animal care services? All animal control services throughout the country suffered dramatically because of one holiday. I'm a patriotic person too, but I put safety for children and people and animals before any tradition on earth. I would just like to say to that I don't appreciate the pollution that will definitely increase dramatically. And there are wonderful fireworks displays everywhere. They're terrific. So, yes, it's nice to be at home and have a holiday, but it's not so great if it's not safe and kids are getting hurt and they do all the time. The emergency rooms at hospitals are loaded with kids that have lost fingers and eyeballs and and so many animals are killed from from the fear. I know my husband. We cannot go out on the 4th of July. We stay home with our dogs because they are so drastically afraid. We have to keep the, you know, the radios up and the TV's up. And also, I want to say, it's not just the fourth people start this nonsense like two weeks ahead of time. A week later, neighborhoods suffer for sometimes because I know my neighborhood does and we don't even bother calling the police department cause we know they're so busy. It's not that they don't want to come out and help. They're just so busy with phone calls. They can't. They can't do it. Why can't we just find a better way to enforce our ban? You know, why are we even considering increasing a problem? We already have a problem, you guys. Why are we even considering this? So I'm sorry, Councilmember also, but I think this really stinks. Thank you. Mr. Double, Vice Mayor, members of the Council. Steve James, President of Long Beach Police Officers Association. You know, obviously, this is a very emotional issue for people. I'm a dog lover. I've got a dog now. I've had two dogs before. I lived in Long Beach for, I don't know, 35 years. We always had to sedate our dogs, but there was a ban, but I had to sedate my dogs. I now live in Westminster. When I moved there, fireworks were illegal. Safe and sane. State approved were illegal. I had to sedate my dogs. Now they are legal. I still have to sedate my dogs. You're going to have to sedate your dogs on the 4th of July if your dogs need to be sedated, whether this passes or doesn't. So I have the utmost respect for these folks. The things that I mean, there's a very good friend of mine sitting back there that does a lot of great work with animals, but I don't think that really is the issue here. I want to see a little bit of full disclosure. I work at a fireworks stand in the city of Westminster that raises money for my son's hockey program. I'm not at all interested in a fireworks stand in Long Beach. The PIO doesn't want one. Steve James doesn't want one. But I want to talk a little bit about we need to separate two things. The stuff that is illegal in the state of Long Beach is 95, 98, maybe even 99% of what you've heard the problems are. We don't they don't sell cherry bombs at a fireworks stand. They don't sell things that explode. They don't sell things that go up in the air. They don't sell things two months before the 4th of July. So if you're having these problems, these problems are not from the fireworks being sold from a fireworks stand. I'm not saying that some of those products don't cause these problems, but for, I don't know, 20 years of my life, I got in the car with my dad. We drove to Lakewood, we bought the fireworks. We brought them back into Long Beach and we had a great time and we let them off. We are criminalizing. Law abiding citizens with this law. If you put this on the ballot as an advisory, non-binding advisory vote, what you're afraid of is that about 60% of the public is going to tell you that they want these things. Why? Because 50% of them are already using them. 10% are afraid because they are such law abiding citizens. Unlike my parents, they won't go buy them. And in Lakewood. We don't need to criminalize these folks. We can't enforce this. We cannot enforce this. We don't want to enforce this. You don't want us to enforce this. I am not going to go and take a box of $50 fireworks that were bought at a fireworks stand from a ten year old child and his parents. I'm not going to. That's not the impression we want this ten year old child to have of the police. The other thing is, I'm going to get dispatch when that kid has a sparkler in his hand, even under adult supervision. And now I'm at that call instead of going to the call where the fireworks are going up in the air, where things are exploding. So this is to me, we need to take some of the emotion out of this and we need to take some of the rhetoric out of it. The presentation, with all due respect to my very good friend who is the fire chief. Huntington Beach had 170 dumpsters of trash. Okay. What did they have when fireworks were illegal? 164 dumpsters of trash. I mean, that that doesn't show me that that we're getting anywhere. If there's no runoff, there's going to be a runoff. All of you people running for mayor, I think, are well aware there's going to be a runoff. So we don't need to talk about $1.4 million in cost. I know the light's red. Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean you have to be rude. I think they're saying your lights on. That's what they're the lights on. It's actually been on for about 30, 45 seconds. I apologize. But I will just tell you, you're putting police officers in a spot that they cannot be successful. If we take the fireworks, we create enemies. If we don't take the fireworks, we create enemies. It's just a terrible spot to put us in. My name is Bill Endicott, and I live in Belmont Shore. When we came here 30 years ago, we had a lot of problems with fireworks. Thanks to the excellent work of the police officers and the fire department. And thank you for your good presentation. Cheap battery. We're now down to a fairly quiet situation. Each year it has gotten better. I think what's missing in the discussion here is if you have fireworks stands around the city of Long Beach, the message to the public is, oh, we've changed our mind. It's okay to set off fireworks. You can buy them here legally and you can set them off. And the public doesn't know which is safe and save and which is not so. Once you open the door to fireworks, you're going to have more and more of them. And I certainly agree with the people who have so much trouble for their animals. I have friends who have to take their dogs to a veterinary place for the weekend of before and after the 4th of July. So we urge you not to spend the money to put this on the ballot. There are good ways to raise money. We've got Girl Scouts selling cookies. We've got people selling candy. There are ways to make money for non-profits that are more acceptable. And I urge you, these are dangerous. It'll just open the door to more. And please listen to your police and fire. Our police commander does a great job in trying to suppress fireworks and we appreciate it and thank them. So thank you very much. Good evening, Mayor and Staff John Kelly, vice president with TNT Fireworks. I'm a resident of Huntington Beach. Make a couple comments to that effect in a moment. A couple of comments on some of the slides shown earlier. The top ten cities, I would point out Anaheim voted unanimously about a week and a half ago at their city council meeting to put the issue of fireworks to their voters. In June of San Jose and in Mercury Times in August, Mayor was quoted stating, Our ban is not working and we need to seek some alternate alternatives. And staff is currently studying that issue. And while in Southern California, we don't have any cities that rival Long Beach in population, cities like Fresno, California, do and have been selling very successfully since the early 1990s. Want to comment a little bit on the Huntington Beach, one of the slides showing that £166 of dangerous and illegal fireworks were confiscated. I want to call to your attention some efforts by a task force that was formed in Los Angeles County by the El Monte Police Department, along with some other supporting agencies. The city of El Monte had a very serious fireworks problem and the task force set out in March of 2013 to do something about it. They confiscated over £44,000 of illegal fireworks in a three month period. Clearly, illegal fireworks is a big problem in California. It's a huge problem. It's a huge black market. They do much more business than I do in this state. They're not subject to the restrictions that I am for stores, not subject to the sale periods they operate of seemingly with impunity. A couple of comments in closing on the staff report. On the first page, we make a reference to licenses, sales tax and possibly a surcharge. Would serve to offset additional. Safety costs. And yet nowhere in the remainder of the report do we offer any dollar amounts for those surcharges. I know that I provided staff with examples of cities that charge surcharges to the retail consumer. Those vary anywhere from 2 to 7%. So you do the math on those retail sales and you're talking anywhere from 20 to as much as $90,000. And I would question if that would assist in offsetting some of the clean up and enforcement costs. And finally, it states. In the last paragraph that. A sample ballot would be $150,000. I was at the last city council meeting. It was reported it was 65,000. I'm curious why the increase? Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Hello. My name is Vince Watson, and I've been a resident of Belmont Shores since the mid seventies. And I'm here to strongly oppose any sort of legalization of fireworks. I'm a homeowner, business owner, pet owner and the president of a501c3, which is a nonprofit. So I'm very familiar with the needs for raising funds, but I don't think this is the way and I'm not a fund hater either. I'm not unpatriotic. But you know, the old adage about you can swing your arms as much as you like until you start hitting people in the face. And I think that's where we're at with this. I mean, this is this is people pointed out this goes on a long time. It's it's not a daily thing. I do a one day thing, but I'm representing myself, my family and my neighbors and friends who strong who also agree with me that this is just not a good idea. The potential for injury, fire, property damage, vandalism far outweigh any temporary economic benefits to the city from the first and inevitable lawsuit that will follow would eliminate any monetary gains. It also encourages people to come from outside the city, converging on Long Beach with the idea that now it is fireworks friendly, whether they be legal or not. And I don't see any evidence that any of these people have our best interests when they do come into the city, as has been documented in Huntington Beach and so many others. I actually, you know, and if you remember, there were two homes that were damaged and or destroyed back in Lakewood within the last ten years, probably five or eight years, I don't remember. But someone was actually prosecuted because their fireworks caught fire and did burn homes in a neighborhood. Negative environmental impact has been documented. I mean, realistically, we've heard from professionals, police, fire, city attorney, I don't know this, but I'm assuming the city is not really big on this or the city manager. I know animal control is not. These are the professionals. And it seems to me that we should be listening to them. It's a it's a potential step backwards and a liability to the city and the citizens. To me, this is the kind of logic of stepping over $100 bill to pick up a dime. It just does not make sense. Thank you. Hello. Kelly Edwards again, still downtown Long Beach. I just will be real quick. I just wanted to bring up a couple of things. I was interested to know what the percentage was of when people get fined, of what the percentages of those that actually pay those fines. I think that's something that we should look at because maybe if we just have more officers that are hired at that time to really hit our cities hard. Make a statement in the next couple of years, we'll start to see that decline. Also, the other thing I just wanted to bring up with in regards to Councilman Austin, I understand that you were talking about educating the nine on one employees. Problem is, is that those that are calling in aren't educated. So they're not going to know if it's a cherry bomb, a gunshot or just sparkler that's going off. They could just completely be freaking out and exacerbating the whole situation to where the nine on and most of the time they're not even seeing it. They can only hear it. So even with educating them on that is going to fall short when the caller is informed themselves. So thank you for your time. Good evening. I've been hearing this argument and I guess I would have to say I'm somewhat neutral due to the fact that, oh, by the way, my name is Hadi Mohammed. And this situation, me personally. When I was younger with black convert, I used. To, you know, set off fireworks. However, when I hear Councilman Austin and the fact that in this room tonight, I don't think we're qualified to speak for the entire city of Long Beach. And believe it or not, there's some pro, there's some con. There's a lot of bad things like in boxing, people fighting it's entertainment. But sometimes people get killed or sometimes you see blood splatter. I believe that this is a situation that needs to go to the voters. Me personally, I don't set off fireworks. It's not my thing. However. Maybe there are people who do care about this or who do want to set off fireworks. And I believe that it should be done by popular vote. Thank you. Great. Thank you. No more public comment. Council member Neil. Thank you, Mr. Pro-Tem. And I would like to thank everyone that has come up and spoke on this issue. This is, as you can see, there is a lot of emotion around this. And I believe I'm not speaking for Mr. Olsen, but I believe his point in bringing this forward was to create this dialog and to really look at a situation that, as the head of our police union has said, is not enforceable as it is. All of these things are happening anyway. So the question in my mind is. Is there is there room for the city to benefit? And is it worth us investing in. And that you know that. That's a decent question. Right. Because regardless of what we decide today or tomorrow, next year on the 4th of July, all of our animals are still going to be running scared. And there are going to be fireworks going off in our neighborhood. It's going to happen. So the question still remains is, is there an opportunity for the city to benefit and. Bye. If we were to choose to do a safe and sane. Fireworks, does that put the police in a better position to their assumptions? But does it really make it easier for them to go after the unsafe fireworks? Those are the two questions that I have. And I want to thank all of you for your testimony. But I'm still left with as many questions. As I have before we set out here. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Neal. You know Councilmember Dawn. Well, could we ask Deputy Chief Luna to answer that question? What specific question would you like them to ask? Answer Councilmember Neal said he had a couple of questions. One of them had to do with whether or not it made it easier or more difficult for the police department to manage this. And I guess I'd like to hear from the police department what their answers. Councilman Neal, what you might know, repeating. The specific question, please. Sure. If we were to have safe and sane fireworks, would would your department be better poised to go after illegal fireworks? It's going to be very difficult in the. PMA, president stated earlier. It puts us in a difficult position. Either way when we get out there and we do respond. I would say just talking about the 4th of July itself, our call volume increases between 18 and 20% just for fireworks. People are going to call people are going to call whether they are the illegal kind or what could be deemed illegal. It's very difficult to determine. And when they get there, the officers would make the best determination possible. But what we got to look at from a public safety perspective is that the 4th of July hands down, is the busiest day of the year for the Long Beach Police Department. We quadruple the number of officers that we put in the field. And it's not only to deal with firework enforcement, that's only part of it. We deal with an influx of several hundred thousand people that come to our beachfront. So we're dealing with a lot. The men and women of this police department do an outstanding job. They do enforce firework violations. The citizens of this city call over and over that they are perturbed by this nuisance and the officers do a pretty good job year after year of going out and trying to enforce what they can . Although they do get put in a difficult situation. So I guess I'm not clear. Will the police department be better off or worse off if the city permits safe and sane fireworks? The position of the police department is that if if this were to pass, we believe it would put us in a more difficult situation moving forward. And we believe that because I don't see the call volume going down. Actually, I see probably and I can't prove this until it happens that the call volume would potentially go up. We still have to respond to citizens calling us regarding fireworks, firecrackers being heard or observed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. DeLong. Any further counsel comment? Do we have a motion on the same you? I'll make the motion to with recommendation, receive and file a report. Actually, the recommendation is well, it's actually approved recommendation, but it's really receiving files for it should. Be so moved. Council member Austin wishes to comment. Good. And for the record, I did second to the motion. I do agree we should receive and file this motion and staff report. I think at issue here is over the last eight years, we've actually lost 200 officers due to attrition, due to cuts. And that is a real problem with our enforcement efforts here in the city of Long Beach. I don't know that fireworks are more prevalent today than they were eight years ago, those. But I've lived here for the last eight years. And I will tell you, based on my experience as a resident, as a pet owner, as a homeowner, and as a as a as a vested stakeholder in this community in a city, I don't believe that the volume has has decreased even with the or the the the less number of police officers on the streets. Today, I think it was as high eight years ago as it is today. And I would just say that I don't believe that we are doing an adequate job of enforcing this. With all due respect, I think we we have the best police department in Southern California, not the state of California. I think they do an excellent job keeping our city safe. But I want them to be able to direct their resources in a manner that is smart and is efficient and that really goes after the dangers in our community. Safe and safe fireworks are are state approved. They are legal in the state of California. And I hear you, I've heard you. And I appreciate everyone that came out to the comment. I appreciate the letters that I received both pro and con, on this issue. I've heard a lot of good, good dialog over the last few weeks. And so I think I've been successful in one way, inspiring a conversation. I'd like to see this go to the ballot, quite frankly, because I think it deserves a hearing and airing among the voters here in the city of Long Beach. This is a statewide issue. If you want to ban fireworks, if you want to, you know, really clean this up and then maybe this is something for Sacramento. And I know a couple of you may be listening to me right here, but, you know, several several cities already have made this are recognizing safer same fireworks. And the youth organizations, the service organizations, the nonprofit organizations in those cities are benefiting from the sale of save the same fireworks. The point is duly noted there. Girl Scout cookies and their bake sales and candy sales that work. I can tell you, as someone who is a parent of two very active young, young, young kids, they they don't raise enough money. And every one of these organizations is struggling to raise money out there, at least from my experience. And I've been involved in youth football, track basketball. PETA's every organization dealing with our youth community based organization today are not raising enough money to meet their needs today. And I'm sure that something like this could serve as a shot in the arm for those those organizations. Now, listen, I'm not this is this is not something that I'm going to die on a sword over. You know what I mean? If the voters in the city of Long Beach say no to circus and fireworks, I'm fine. I'll move on. But I think it's worthy of their consideration. But with that, I. I'm going to second the motion to oversee the vote. Also, I want to just just point out that the the image here on the beach, on our shores was was deplorable. The sea, the bottle rockets, the sea, the fireworks, the see, the blatant disregard for our law and our ordinance right there in our face, on our beach, was not a pretty sight and it's not a pretty sight. Each and every year, let's focus our police officers where they can do their jobs, where they can actually go after it. Protect our resources, protect our shores, protect our beaches, protect our assets in the city of Long Beach. That's what I like to see our police officers focused on doing and not running around the city chasing fountains, you know, fountains that are harmless in our neighborhoods. I spent the 4th of July last, last year in a bank parking lot in Lakewood and firing off fireworks with my kids and feeling really guilty about it. You know, like I was doing something wrong, you know, I was doing something wrong. I mean, I don't think I was violating the law in Lakewood, number one. But when. My next door neighbor shoots in my. House, Mr. Austin has the floor. We don't need exchange back and forth. Well, thank you. But but I think I mean, I'm a law abiding citizen, and there are several other law abiding citizens throughout this city who ask the same question each and every year. Why do I have to feel guilty or. Or Why do I have to go to another city to do something that is illegal, that is legal in the state of California, but illegal in our city? You know, and so that's the question. Again, it's about enforcement. It's about being smart with our resources, focusing our resources on the issues that truly matter. I heard from Chief Luna, and I appreciate that our police officers are dealing with crowd control issues. They're dealing with illegal fireworks. They're dealing with gunfire. They're dealing with violence. Those are the issues that I want to see our police officers focused on and not, you know, breaking up block parties and, you know, family, family fun on the 4th of July. I want to remind you that fireworks are an American tradition. It's something to celebrate it. We gather in big places throughout this city to to watch firework displays and celebrate that. And so I think in some ways, we are we're we're backpedaling and depriving our children, our neighborhoods, our citizens from a liberty that is enjoyed by most other Americans. Thank you, Mr. Orson. Rather passionate. Councilmember Lipski. What can I say? I'm opposed to actually making it legal. I do think that it's fraught with all kinds of problems, not only from the nursing standpoint of what it does to kids and the injuries that it causes. But also, quite honestly, I do think would make it much more difficult for fire and police to respond to legitimate concerns of gunfire and other things that do happen around the 4th of July. What? Mr. Johnston Actually, what I'm I'm curious, though, why isn't why wouldn't you just write an ordinance, see if you've got the votes on council? You can always take it out to the voters for ratification. You can always ask them after the fact if this council approves it, which it may or may not. Then you can go back and ask the citizens if they support it. But I think to spend the money, energy and time to go ask an advisory doesn't move this issue anyplace. It just simply sets up a lot of campaign contributions. But it certainly doesn't do anything to get the issue. You probably could benefit from that. I'm not running. I won't do anything right now. Just to be clear, was that a question? Yes, ma'am. Orlando Councilmember Lipski has the floor. My question is that if you feel this passionate about it, why not just bring it forth as a council item for an ordinance? Let the council vote up or down on it. You can always take the results to the voters afterwards. But I just think let's you know, let's move forward on it. Can I just ask a point of clarification. On how you would do that, write the ordinance and then take it to the voters for even for people. Mr. Perkins, you can clarify this. If, in fact, this council does pass something, we can ask for it to be. Is that correct? We can ask for the. Mr. Parking. Could you opine on that? Yes. Mayor of members council member on down members of the council. The. It's similar to asking for an advisory opinion on an ordinance you've already adopted. But the the benefit, I guess, would be is that you have an actual ordinance that you're asking them to opine on. Right. But it's similar. It's an advisory opinion on your ordinance or you could worded as its own initiative ordinance or as a council member indicated, you could adopt your own ordinance on on a Tuesday. That's correct. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Parking ships here. Go ahead and finish up. More importantly, I think we've stepped up and dealt with the issue as the elected officials and, you know, taken taken the consequences of it. I don't think it does any good to send it out to the voters on an advisory opinion on something that is not detailed and specific. And so on that basis, I will support the receive and file and and hope that's the end of it. Thank you. Council members, item number 18, go ahead and cast your vote. Item number 18, O'Donnell's a yes. Motion carry seven votes. Yes. All right. Thank you. We're on item number 19, correct? Actually. I'm 12. All right. Let's get moving here. Item number 12. And item number 12 is a recommendation from the office. Complimentary shift key to request city manager to provide information on to the City Council regarding the cost and feasibility of utilizing a the government the open government platform or equivalent to make city expenditures available online.

A bill for an ordinance amending the classification and pay plan for employees in the Career Service and for certain employees not in the Career Service. Amends the Classification and Pay Plan by abolishing the City’s twenty current pay tables, replacing the City’s current pay tables with three proposed pay tables, and reassigning the city’s current classifications to the proposed pay grades table and amends Sections 18 and 14 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to reflect the streamlining and modernization of the pay tables and pay ranges, maintenance of the pay tables and market adjustment allocations, and certain associated terminology. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-9-21.

DenverCityCouncil_03222021_21-0233

Yes I move that council bills 20 1-0233 and 20 10234 be ordered published in a black bag. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded the combined 30 minute courtesy public hearing for Council Bill 233 and Council Bill 234 is open. Speakers may offer comments on either or both items. The Office of Human Resources has previously presented these items at our Finance and Governance Committee, and they are available to answer questions after the hearing . And it looks like we have. Three folks. Signed up to speak this evening. And our first speaker is Mike McKee. Good evening, council members, and thank you for taking my comments. I while I had to make a choice, when I signed up to speak as to whether I was speaking for or against the bill I chose against, although I am not generally opposed overall to the proposed changes to the pay and classification plan. However, I do have one area of particular concern which has to do with the proposed method for handling positions that fall more than 10 to 20% behind the market, behind market pay. It has those two different thresholds depending on the length of time that they were behind market. And unless I'm missing something, it appears to me that and I'd like to say, first of all, I guess I to step back that with my group at the airport did and I'm sorry, I didn't fully introduce myself. My city of residence is Aurora, but I'm a city employee and I work at the airport. So but I do have to first thank the group of employees that are who met with us two different times to help answer our questions and help us to understand the proposal. They were very helpful and really kind in spending significant time with us to try to understand. But I still have that one aspect, as I said, that I'm not clear on and I'm concerned about because it appears that from the plan, unless something has changed in the interim, that there isn't a methodology that I see for bringing a position that falls more than 10% below market. Back up to market or closer than 10% below. It looks like the plan is designed to only bring those positions back to 10% below. And I know there are some complicating factors. There's lag in a survey data, and sometimes you can overshoot and end up actually on the other side of the equation where it can be higher than market. So I know there some buffer that they're trying to build in there. And they they indicated when we discussed that that there may be other mechanisms that can be used to bridge that gap. But I'm not clear on what those are and haven't heard a concise explanation of what an alternate method might be for for addressing that. So I'm concerned that that the plan might leave a number of positions over time, at least 10% behind market for a length of time. Thank you. That's all I had. All right. Thank you very much, Mike. And next up, we have Annie Christianson. Hi, counsel. How are you today? Thanks for letting us speak on this. Um, you know, to reiterate what Mike McKee was saying, you know, we're kind of worried about, you know, how what mechanism that they're going to be using to, you know, get people up to their market rates. It's not clear in the Gallagher consultation package. And, you know, without and also without a pay survey, you know, the 2020 pay survey did not get approved as well as, you know, the other the pace or even for 2021 potentially not being approved as well. You know, while leaving people 10%, you know, behind the market all the time, there might be quite, quite a financial burden once the pay surveys start up again and, you know, leaving employees behind. By so far, it'll be two years, three years before employees are caught back up to market pay. So I think, like Mike McKee was saying, you know, there's really nothing in this presentation that really explains how what mechanism they're going to be using to, you know, get people up to market pay. And yeah, that's a bit worrisome and. While I think it's a good idea to make the processes more efficient and easier to do the survey to help classification and compensation to, you know, make sure that employees are being paid what they're supposed to be being paid. Yeah, I just worry that there's not a good enough explanation on how that will come about. So thank you so much for your time. All right. Thank you, Annie. And our last speaker is Jesse Paris. Yes. Good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. My name is Justin Muschamp Pierce and I'm representing for Black Sox and War for Self-defense Front line, Black Nose Unity Party of Colorado. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. My question. In regards to this bill oh and I reside in District eight and Councilman Emergence District in regards to this bill tonight I had a few questions. I wanted to know if this pertains to all city employees or if it just applies to so-called service providers, front line responders. Exactly what categories of employees does this apply to all city employees or just a certain segment of city employees? So somebody could please answer that question. I would greatly appreciate it. All right. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak tonight. All right. Thank you, Jesse. And that concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill two, three, three and or council Bill two, three, four. Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Madam President. Just is it true that that many cities are opting out of pay surveys for South excuse me, salary surveys in 2021? I think that's all right. Thank you for the question. We've got Karen Parco on the line and Nicole as well. And so we'll go ahead and ask Karen. You can go ahead and unmute and answer Councilman Haynes question or Nicole, whichever. Hi. This is Karen Parco, Office of Human Resources. Yes. First of all, thank you very much, Counsel, for your consideration of this bill. And thank you so much to Mr. McKeon, Mr. Paris and Ms.. Christiansen for their questions. Nicole is on the line here, and her her team is the one that has put considerable amount of work into these proposals and has met with several of the agencies answering employee questions. So I'm going to ask Nicole if she would mind addressing each one of these questions directly. Hi. Good evening. Go ahead and call. Good evening, council members. I hope you can hear me okay. I can answer these questions for you for sure. To address Mr. Parrish this question. The consolidated pay tables and the new streamlined processes to address position audits and of cycle pay adjustments and market adjustments. And the many sundry components of these proposals will apply to all city employees, with a few exceptions. So they will not apply to elected officials, to appointed charter officers, to the uniform, collectively bargained employees. So it's not applying to every single cohort of employees. So but but most it will apply to most. So that is the answer to that question. And I think Councilman Hines was asking if other cities were not doing pay survey types of of adjustments and processes. And from what we are seeing in the literature, that is absolutely true. We saw a very recent compelling survey from World of Work that showed that market adjustments were down significantly. Organizations are just not in financial straits to provide those or lack the data to support such adjustments. And then the other questions that Mike and Annie were were addressing, and I did meet with Mike and Annie, and so thank you guys for acknowledging that we did meet with you and spend time with you. So their question was around the market adjustment methodology and getting employees to within 10% of market. And the reason for the 10% plus or -10% of market median pay is considered market. That's a leading practice. You'll find that in almost every organization. And so when we're trying to close the gap to get within ten plus or -10% with that 10% number, I mean, that's kind of a it's it's a bit ephemeral, right? Market data is it's just market data. It's one one it's one piece of data. And, you know, we don't want to as I think Mike McKee, Mr. McKee mentioned, we don't we don't want to, you know, overshoot the mark. We don't want to undershoot the market. We're trying to find the sweet spot to move employees to the central tendency of market median pay. And that is what these recommendations are indeed designed to do. And the new proposals will create the market adjustment based on the classifications degree of led to the market. So not all classifications lag the market by the same amount. So this process is much more nuanced than what we've done in the past, which was very broad and may have over or underpaid, whereas this this approach is much more sophisticated and will be more precise moving forward. So I hope that helps a little bit. And the other final thing I'll just say is that the market adjustments do typically apply to a small select number of employees. And I think people have this misconception that it can apply to many. And what applies to many is the annual merit increase program, which of course we didn't have in 2021, and many organizations didn't have those because of the pandemic. And, you know, like I said before, many organizations are not doing market adjustments again because of the pandemic. You know, our economy was was very different before COVID 19 came into our lives. So we're. Hoping that we. Are able to unwind and recover from this pandemic and able to have a merit increase program in 2022, which would impact on all of our employees. But for example, the 2020 pay survey that did not get approved last year would only have affected 130 employees, and the city has about 10,000 employees. So just to give a little context there, so I hope that that helps a little bit. And thank you. Thank you for the questions. Oh, definitely. Well, thank you, Nicole and Karen and Councilman Hines, I was going to come back to you to see if you had additional questions. Thank you, Madam President. So the first question that I asked was, is it true that many cities are emptying out of the city pay survey in 2021? It sounds like they are. The follow up question is, does that mean that it would make it difficult to compare data in 2021, even if we were to like one of the one of the concerns is that we're opting out of a theoretically assuming we were to vote on this, opting out of a salary survey in 2021. I guess the nature of the question that I'm trying to get at or the answer the information I'm trying to get at is even if we wanted to find the survey , would we even have relevant data? That's I mean, I would hate to. And that's that's that's the question. That's that's a great question, Councilman Hines. And the answer is there's no, we don't have the data. That is a big reason why we are proposing to not run the 2021 market survey. Most of our data is pre-COVID. We are in the process of participating in salary surveys now for 2021. We'll get that market data over the summer. We plan to run the next survey in Q4 of 2021. We'll bring it forward for socialization in Q1 of 2022 and bring it to council for approval into the Career Service Board in Q2 of 2022. That is our game plan because we need to have market data that is true up to 2021. So right now what we're dealing with is a real mixed bag. I've got a lot of data that's pre-COVID, which, you know, is not reliable. And then I've got a couple of vendors which ran refreshes to their survey in the fall, and we tried to run a pay survey for market adjustments just on two surveys. We would miss hundreds and hundreds of benchmarks. So we would the analysis really couldn't be done. So that is a big piece of it is because of the market, the lack of reliable market data. So you raise a very, very good point. But the data is coming and we really are anticipating getting enough data over the summer to propose moving the tables on January 1st , 2022. And we are also intending to run a PACE survey in Q4 of 2021, like I said, for socialization and approval in early 2022. So I hope that helps. All right. Well, thank you, Nicole and Councilman Haynes. Looks like you're all good. All right, wonderful. Well, seeing no other hands raised, the public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 233 or 234. Right. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on council bills. 233 and 234, please. Wow. I. CdeBaca. I. Clark. Right. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. I. Cashman. I. Can I? Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Council bills, 233 and 234 have been ordered published. And thank you to Karen and Nicole for joining us this evening. And the questions by the public are pre adjournment announcement on Monday, April 19. The Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 211, changing the zoning classification for 2017 North Colorado Boulevard in South Park Hill. Any protests against Council Bill 211 must be filed with council offices no later than noon on Monday, April 12. There being no further business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.