Datasets:

huuuyeah

/

meetingbank

like 8

Recommendation to approve the 2023 - 2027 Five-Year Consolidated Plan (Consolidated Plan) and Fiscal Year 2022 - 2023 First Action Plan (Action Plan), and prior Action Plan Amendments (FY 2021-2022, 2020-2021, 2018-2019, 2017-2018) for the Community Development Block Grant, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, and the Emergency Solutions Grant Program Grant Funds; and Authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all necessary documents with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and other entities necessary to receive these funds, and execute agreements necessary to implement and comply with related federal regulations. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_07192022_22-0832

Thank you. Congratulations. All right, so we'll move now to item 23. And I think this is the last item with the staff presentation. So this is the last longer one, folks. Let's hear item 23. Report from Development Services recommendation to approve the five year consolidated plan and Fiscal Year 2022 2023. First Action Plan and Prior Action Plan Amendments for the Community Development BLOCK Grant, the Home Investment Partnership Program and the Emergency Solutions Grant Program. Grant Funds City Wide. Thank you. Staff Report. Thank you, Vice Mayor, Members of the Council. We're excited to be here today to talk about our five year plan for CDBG funds that come out of the federal government. These are really transformational funds for some of our most impacted communities. And the team has been doing a lot of planning with the community about how best to invest those limited resources. So we do have a presentation tonight as we really look at how those funds are going to be focused. And I'd like to turn it over to our sports, he and his team to go through the presentation. Thank you, Mr. Rocha. Vice mayor and members of the City Council. Earlier this year, we conducted. A workshop with council to discuss and help us provide a framework. For the Consolidated. Plan. I want to say that Council, we heard you. We put your comments into action, including. An extensive. Public participation process to gather input that helped us prepare this plan. Tonight, we are here to provide you a presentation on the five year consolidation plan. As well as the annual action plan. So with that, I've got Nikki Haymaker, our community program specialist. Who will provide you a presentation. Thank you. The city's current consolidated plan will expire on September 30th, 2022. The new consolidated plan will take effect on October 1st, 2022, and will expire on September 30th, 2027. Once a five year consolidated plan is adopted, the city must submit an annual action plan for each of those five years. The annual action plans are guided by the Consolidated Plan and they identify annual goals, deliverables and funding for each fiscal year at the end of each fiscal year. A paper report, which is consolidated annual performance evaluation report, is also submitted to HUD and that summarizes our annual accomplishments. The Consolidated Plan is required in order to receive these three grants, the first of which is the CDBG program. This program can be used for both housing and non housing activities that improve lower income communities. The city anticipates receiving about 5.4 million each year under CDBG. The Home Investment Partnerships Program supports affordable housing production, and we anticipate receiving about 2.3 million under home and for ESG. This funding is specifically for programs that support individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Our health department administers this program and we anticipate receiving about 500,000 each year. There's a lot of information to cover in this presentation, but these are the big takeaways. The need for more housing, particularly affordable housing, is something that we heard a great deal of during our input process. So this plan cycle focuses on all things housing. So that includes new construction through funding for site acquisition, accessory dwelling, unit construction, homeless prevention and continued home spending. The plan builds on community input, HUD priority areas and other related efforts, such as the recently adopted housing element. We're also expanding programs and staffing to prevent homelessness through landlord tenant mediation, anti displacement regulations and other supportive programs. We also received input regarding increasing grant amounts for our existing rehabilitation and facade programs to increase the impact of those programs. This change will also reduce the overhead expenses to to administer those programs. Funding for our city parks will continue. However, there will be a shifted focus from programs to improving the physical facilities. Oh, I'm sorry. Lastly, the plan supports community grants and partnerships through capacity building for nonprofits, community land trusts and neighborhood associations. The first step in the development of the consolidated plan is to determine the different needs in the community within the areas of housing, community development and homelessness. These needs are determined through analyzing available data and gathering public input. The second step in this process is to identify any gaps in services and or determine current available resources to meet needs. And because the level of need tends to be greater than the limited resources that we receive through these grants, we then move on to the third step, which is to identify priorities or prioritize needs, rather. So we do this by considering the extent of needs, the impact toward our consolidated plan goals, availability of other funding, and eligibility for funding. Based on HUD's program parameters, HUD does have rules about what we can and cannot use the funding for, so we need to be mindful of that as well. Public participation is key to the development of the Consolidated Plan and the Annual Action Plans staff has been engaging the community to identify high priority needs in the areas of housing and community development. Due to COVID, much of our outreach efforts have taken place virtually. But we have employed some other methods to try and engage as many people as possible. We created a multilingual survey which was provided in English, Spanish and Tagalog, and all detailed the results of the survey in a later slide. The city also conducted a variety of outreach efforts, including promoting the Consolidated Plan, community meetings and the survey via the City of Long Beach and Development Services, social media. And just to give you a picture of the reach. The city of Long Beach social media has about 193 contacts and development services. Social media reaches just over about 10,000 contacts across all of the various social media platforms. We also placed advertisements and multilingual newspapers as well as sponsored posts via the Long Beach Post, English and Spanish social media accounts. We emailed all neighborhood associations and CDBG areas. We sent email blasts to community organizations and residents through the Neighborhood Resource Center and Link L.B.. We've promoted the plan in the Go Along Beach newsletter, which goes out to over 56,000 recipients. We issued a public notice to the city manager's office and we sent hardcopy mailers to 21,000 residents and businesses in CDBG eligible or recap census tracts. We also hosted for Neighborhood Association Focus Groups three virtual community meetings, two public hearings with the Long Beach Community Investment Company, and one virtual feedback session after the draft plan was published . Interpretation services were provided at the community meetings, the public hearings, and the feedback sessions as well. Staff have also consulted with and held meetings with several city departments. The Long Beach Continuum of Care Board. And we hosted two study sessions, one with the LV CIC and one here with the City Council. So the next couple of slides detail some of the key findings as it relates to housing conditions and challenges in Long Beach. The majority of residents in Long Beach are renters and 52% of households are lower to moderate income. 12% of households are considered large. WATTS Which means that there are five or more members living in the home. 20% of households are headed by seniors. 7% of households are headed by single parents. And the vast majority of those single parent homes are have a female head of household. And 40% of those households have children living in poverty. 10% of Long Beach residents live with one or more disabilities, and there are 3296 persons considered to be homeless. The majority of housing stock, 83% was built before 1979. So the implication here is that many units currently require or will require upgrades and rehabilitation. Other key findings illustrate the challenge of housing affordability and overcrowding. 2089 Publicly assisted affordable units are considered at risk of converting to market rate housing. Home prices have increased significantly over the last five years by 22% between 2017 and 2020. And then from January 2020 to January 2022, it's increased another 24%. Additionally, the median rent at Long Beach is higher than what HUD considers a fair market rent for smaller units. So studio apartments, one bedrooms and only about 14% of rental units have three or more bedrooms, compared to 63% of owner occupied units. We also looked at housing problems among low to moderate income owners and renters. Housing problems, for our purposes include physical defects, overcrowding, cost burden and severe cost burden. So cost burden means that a household uses 30% or more of their gross income to pay for housing. And as you can see here, LMI, renters experience cost burden at a much higher rate than LMI owners at 47% compared to 19%. 27% of LMI renters experience severe cost burden, which is 50% or more of their gross income spent on housing compared to 11% of owners. And overcrowding, which is more than one person living per room, is experienced much more frequently by renters at 14%, compared to 3% of LMI owners. So now we're looking at the prevalence of severe housing problems among and how those disparities exist across race, ethnicity in general. Extremely low income households experienced severe housing problems more than any other income group in the city. However, when we look at these problems, when factoring in race and ethnicity, we can see that Pacific and Pacific Islander households, as well as Hispanic households, experienced the highest rate of severe housing problems at 100% and 84% respectively, which is quite a bit higher than the citywide average of 75%. This is also true for the very low income category. Pacific Islander and Hispanic households experienced the highest rate of severe housing problems at 81% and 58%, respectively. When looking at cost burden, American Indian Alaska Native households experienced the highest rates of cost burden at 33%. However, black households experienced the highest rates of severe housing cost burden at 28%. So in addition to assessing for housing needs, the Consolidated Plan also evaluates what we consider non housing needs. This includes needs for persons experiencing homelessness, non homeless, special needs, which may include needs for persons with disabilities or single parents, for example, and non housing community development needs, which includes things like infrastructure, neighborhood cleanups or economic development. As mentioned previously, this plan includes about $500,000 annually for homeless services through the Emergency Solutions Grant, which is not a lot. However, the city receives funding for homeless services through a variety of other sources, including the city, county, state and federal, which totals over 77 million. And so even though the Consolidated Plan contribution just makes up a fraction of these overall resources, the Consolidated Plan does play an important role in the Health Department's overall homeless response and strategy. The continuing production of affordable housing is critical to addressing housing stability and preventing homelessness. The city currently receives annual funding for affordable housing under home at approximately 4.3 million per year. But we are also a recipient of the permanent local housing allocation, which gives us about $3 million per year, as well as some other one time funds, such as the city's care home grant. So as we'll discuss in future slides, the current plan and the first year action plan really maximizes those home funds. And aligning and leveraging all of these other different housing resources help us maximize our impact. Over the last few years, 302 new affordable rental housing units were completed with financial support from the city and the LBC, AC . Currently there are 323 affordable rental housing units under construction across four projects. The City and L.B. CIC provided about $14 million in funding, primarily through home. To support these projects, a total development cost for these four projects is over $180 million, which is to say that the city's $14 million investment leveraged 166 million and outside investment into these projects and into the city. The average city subsidy has been about 44,000 per unit, which is very low compared to past years as we asked developers to work hard to maximize other resources. The first of these four projects under construction is Anaheim Walnuts. This property will offer 87 affordable rental units for extremely low to low income families. Long Beach Senior Housing is a 67 unit rental property for extremely low to low income seniors. 26.2 apartments will provide 76 affordable homeless rental units for extremely low to low income households. And lastly, there's The Cove, which provides 89 affordable units for extremely low to low income homeless veterans. Another important tool to address housing needs is the housing element. The housing element is a required component of the city's general plan. It was updated this year and it shows how the city will meet housing demand over the next eight years. Our housing element goals are aligned with our Consolidated Plan goals, and some of the programs contained in the housing element will be addressed in the Consolidated Plan and with the funds that we receive. Housing element law requires that all California cities, towns and counties must plan for the housing needs of all residents, regardless of income. The California Department of Housing and Community Development determines the total number of new housing units that must be built. And this is called RINA, a regional housing needs allocation. Our local arena requirement is given to us by Skaggs, the Southern California Association of Governments. They look at several different factors in determining what our arena requirement will be. Some of those factors are household growth, future vacancy needs transit and job accessibility and household overcrowding. So as you can see here, the Long Beach Rina allocation is 26,502 units, and of which 57.9% of these units need to be for the extremely low, very low and low income households. These are our consolidated plan goals to assist in the creation and preservation of affordable housing for lower income and special needs households. To support activities to end homelessness. Support activities that assist with basic needs. Eliminate blight and or strengthen neighborhoods. Expand economic opportunities for low income households, and promote fair housing choice. When we develop a five year consolidated plan and the action plan activities, HUD regulations require us to focus on and address the listed priorities here. So housing needs, homeless needs, economic development needs, community facilities and infrastructure and community services needs. These are the steps that we take to develop the action plans. We start with HUD regulations and what is eligible. We gather meaningful public input. Input. We conduct an analysis of data which informs the needs assessment and helps us identify gaps in services. We also incorporate housing element goals to align our efforts. We consider resource constraints and we make geographical considerations in line with HUD requirements. So as we've discussed, one of the ways we've collected public input for this consolidated plan is through a multilingual community survey. This survey was posted online for a period of two months and was promoted and community meetings, workshops on social media and the various outreach efforts that I mentioned previously. The survey received a total of 586 responses. Respondents were asked to rank the relative importance of different programs and services, with one being the most important and seven being less important. So they ranked these items in three different categories community development, housing needs and economic development needs. So based on the survey results. Services for people experiencing homelessness was ranked as the most important community development need, followed by street improvements and neighborhood improvements and engagement. For housing needs. Housing for people experiencing homelessness was ranked highest, followed by rental housing for low income families and low income housing for older adults. And then finally, for economic development activities, respondents ranked job creation and retention programs as more important than small business assistance. Oh, sorry. I also want to mention the survey is just one of the ways that feedback is gathered. We also gathered input through community meetings and workshops, so we also recorded those public comments and weighed them as part of the overall needs assessment as well. And we received many public comments around the need for more affordable housing, increasing access to that affordable housing and services for people experiencing homelessness, which is in line with with the survey results that we received as well. I mentioned these structural changes at the beginning of the presentation. However, this slide just provides a little bit more detail about what those changes are in the new consolidated plan compared to the current consolidated plan. The proposed plan places an increased focus on new affordable housing construction through CDBG funded site acquisition, 80 new construction and continued home spending for affordable housing production. The plan expands programs and staffing to prevent homelessness through landlord tenant services. Support for the implementation of anti displacement regulations and complementary fair housing services. The plan also phases out the place based Neighborhood Improvement Strategy Program and modifies existing programs like the Home Improvement and Commercial Improvement Programs to increase increase grants of up to $25,000 to increase impact. Again, funding for parks will increase just with a shifted focus from programs to physical facilities. And the plan will also support grants and partnerships for capacity building for nonprofits, community land trusts and neighborhood associations. For the first action plan. Under the new consolidated plan, which is fiscal year 2023, we are proposing the following budgeted activities. Under Consolidated Plan Goal one Create and preserve affordable housing. We are focusing on affordable housing, production and site acquisition, anti tenant displacement services and housing rehabilitation under goal to support activities to end homelessness. We're focusing on preventing and responding to the needs of persons experiencing homelessness. I do want to point out that in fiscal year 23, the ESG activities shown here have since been revised. In FY 23, the focus will will be on rapid rehousing, $373,000 for that, and about $85,000 for street outreach. As we've all seen, the recently published homeless count has shown that the number of people experiencing homelessness has increased significantly over the last two years. So getting as many people into housing is the priority. We're also continuing the security deposit assistance program, though this time around it will be funded under CDBG rather than home. Under goal number three, eliminate blight and strengthen neighborhoods. A variety of community development activities are being supported, including graffiti removal and prevention funding for the Neighborhood Resource Center, capacity building for neighborhood leaders, grants to assist community organizations, community land trusts and business improvement districts. Park Facility Improvements. Code Enforcement and tree plantings. Under goal for the city will continue its technical business support program and undergo five. Fair housing services will be provided, which includes support for tenant landlord disputes, fair housing workshops to educate the public about protections and rights as well as some other services. The activities that we just covered do not constitute all of the activities that the five year plan will carry out. The programs listed here are currently funded under the 2018 to 2022 Consolidated Plan, and they will continue in the news cycle because these programs have existing funds already. They will not receive additional funding under the year one action plan, which is why they were not shown in those previous slides. However, these programs can receive funding in years two through five, depending on the need and the available funding. As mentioned before, local needs do exceed the funds that we have under this consolidated plan. However, there are some existing programs and resources that are working to address some of the needs identified in the plan process, which you can see here. So that includes some home ownership assistance programs, community land trust development, additional accessory dwelling unit programs and eviction prevention services. As required by HUD's recent directives. The Fiscal Year 23 action plan will not include any unspent REPROGRAMABLE funds from prior Action Plan years. Instead, these funds will be reallocated through the amendment process to different programs that are in line with the last consolidated plan, and they'll just continue to be accounted for and spent under their original fiscal year. So the table shown here details the reallocation of remaining FY 22, 21, 19 and 18 funds contained in the amendments. The proposed amendments are refocusing the majority of unspent funds to support housing acquisition. And with that, here is the staff recommendation for this item. The Consolidated Plan, an annual action plan must be submitted to HUD no later than August 15th, 2022, which is 45 days prior to the beginning of the new fiscal year. Thank you very much, Mayor Council. I know that was a long report, but you can see how much thought and how much investment has gone in with community input into the next five years of these really, really critical funds. So I want to thank the team and thank Nicky for a really comprehensive report and shows how much we're paying attention to the community needs and housing in particular, and we're available to answer questions. Thank you. I'll start off here and I'm happy to make the motion here. And you're right, it's it's important. Lots of community engagement went into this plan, and we only get one bite at the apple every five years. So it's important that we take our time and understand this program. In the district I represent, North Long Beach community is incredibly important. We it's one of the only flexible dollars that we have to address some real serious issues like economic development and improving facades. And we had a good conversation a few months ago, and I'm really proud to see a lot of the feedback from the council reflected in here. We talked about how the $2,000 grant program had an increase with inflation in many years. I'm really proud to see that it's now $25,000. That's enough to get a property on an open the door and, you know, sign the paper to let us spend some money to improve the facade. So so it's 25,000. Yeah. So that's, you know, that's a that's a that's a big deal. I also love that, you know, and based on our conversations, you know, when we first I mean, you know, last time we did a plan and the time before that we didn't have an economic development permit, we do now. And so this still allows you some flexibility to allow economic development. Whose you know. You know, I know they're short staffed today, you know, but but to allow that team to utilize things like this grant to go out and actually make things happen in the community, I also the last thing I'll say is it's very, very clear that you have an intentional focus on housing these five years. And I saw based on the surveys and all the feedback, that is the top issue. We have to use every tool that we have to advance affordable housing and so on, and to keep people in their homes. And so I particularly love the the the piece in there to help people stay in their homes. So that's incredibly important. So happy to make this motion and I move on to Councilman Sorrell. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yes. I want to thank staff for a great work done with this report back, reflecting our priorities. But I also am interested in learning how I'm new to kind of this CDBG grant process in the way that the reports or surveys are done and the reports coming back. And I see that it's now changing the emphasis from place based neighborhood programing to the housing development. And so how does that look? Because before when it's place based, it's based on kind of the criteria used in the most need, right? So how are you? So using the same criteria or approach? Before we answer your question, I just want to just remind you that the place space will still will still be in process. We have two or three different project areas that we need to address, and I will be working with the corresponding districts to complete those efforts. It's under the separate the previous consolidated plan that that effort was unique. It was something that we discussed. So as far as projects to be able to identify brand and help neighborhoods in terms of improve its economic sustainability. Again, based upon the input we received at our public outreach efforts, we shifted our priority now to really focus on all things housing. So that's kind of what led to the phasing out of that of that program and into more housing opportunity areas. And to further answer your your question, COUNCILMEMBER So when we talk about a shift from, you know, sort of the place space program where those are infrastructure improvements, so sidewalk improvements, crosswalk improvements, landscaping, lighting and your district in, you're familiar with those. When we talk about housing production that comes in the form of a loan, it's a residual receipts loan, meaning the developer does not have to pay that loan unless there's extra revenues in a given year and then they make a payment on that loan. So we have two different pieces on the CDBG side. It's what's called a side acquisition loan. So it's to buy a piece of land to develop in the future an affordable housing project. So that may not end up being in the most the area of concentrated poverty. You've talked about on other items this evening and other occasions about, you know, housing being built around the city and not just in your district. So the emphasis has changed from the federal government over the last ten years and the emphasis is on high opportunity area. So we would do a solicitation of developers asking, you know, propose a project and we would look at a number of different factors the financial performance, the number of units, but also the location. And we would consider a location that might be over concentrated where there's a certain stretch of Long Beach Boulevard, which has a high concentration of affordable units. And those are great projects, but we're looking at doing projects elsewhere. So we would look at the location in that way, which is a different way of thinking about it than how we did the play space. But you're still serving people in poverty and very high levels of poverty and actually providing them certain options to experience different locations around the city. Does that answer your question? Yes, because that's really where I'm getting it is regardless of where the housing is built, I would just want to make sure it's serving. Those who it's supposed to address are people living in poverty or people who are in at risk of being homeless. So I just wanted to make sure that regardless of where is built, if it's not identified as these sites as being high poverty areas, that people would be able to who meet at least a criteria would be able to have access to those housing. And I'm going to let them give you the exact criteria for who we can assist and who we don't assist in general. Which is used mostly for affordable housing. In the first instance of the completion of affordable housing, we serve people that earn 60% area median income or below. And then when we also put together the contracts and the agreements together, for instance, out of 100 units, we have an option to make like 60, 70 of those units to be to go for very low income or basically hard money, whether it's home or some of it. You can only assist in housing production, land acquisition, people that are on 80% or less in the area, median income. Thank you. The other point I want to mention here is we have several other strategy funded activities. Those activities are still remain for us in low income eligible areas. Great. Thank you so much. One thing I'll add is to say appreciate seeing more money being added to enhancing our neighborhood leadership program is so vital because some of the reason why many of the neighborhoods are needing support is because it does also need leadership in the area. So I hope to see more. I know that it's set there, but I hope they can be increase a little bit more because I think that's really what helps maintain whatever gets built in those the neighborhoods. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I just wanted to ask. A question of clarification about the presentation. It talked about. Homes with more than one adult. And I think that I just wanted to clarify. I know that people are watching at home and we want to be accurate and I could be wrong. I think that it's more than one adult that are not siblings or more than one adult that are not married to one another or cohabitating . I think that those would be exceptions. If they're not exceptions, I'd like to know about that. It's now. Yeah, I'm trying to find the exact slide, but we look at overcrowding in a couple of different ways. So one would be what you just mentioned, adults that do not have a, you know, relationship through marriage or sibling or parent child. And we also look at just the sheer number of persons per room. So there's two different ways to look at it. And I think both are actually alluded to in the presentation. Yeah, I just know that we're a family or a city of family values and we appreciate to parent families just as much as one parent families than if there are two parent families. That's a reasonable way to live. And so when you count those numbers, we don't wanna be penalized for the number of families that we have in our city when the statistics are aggregated. And then my mom comes from a family, and I come from a family where my brother and I shared a room and my mother shared a room with her three sisters . And I think that that's a my girls share a room, even though I could separate them. I think that there's a lot of value in that and we want to make sure to have accurate statistics on a true need. Thank you. Thanks and great work on this presentation. It's been a long time coming and I know a lot of work going into it. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Price. Thank you. I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the staff for that amazing presentation. It was really thorough. I know these are topics that we've talked about quite a bit, certainly over the last eight years. But just recently we had the opportunity in April to touch on some of these topics, and the presentation tonight was fantastic. So I want to thank staff for everything that you're doing and also for the work that you do offline, not in a council meeting to educate all of us and teach us how we can be part of the solution in terms of working with housing providers and not only just helping shape policy, but also helping implement some of the policies that you bring to us for recommendation. So really grateful and appreciate the presentation. Thank you. Fantastic. Thank you. Public comment on this item. If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on item 23 in person, please line up at the podium in Zoom. Please use the race hand feature or dial star nine now. In present day Sinai campus. Sixth District Resident Councilwoman Mongeau. Page 26. I've read it multiple times, so you know you. I would let you know when we get this home acquisition program in and in movement. I would love to volunteer all my free time that I already spend reading your guys's white papers and reports. Amazing. Uh, uh, presentation. Uh, Miss Nikki. Uh, it's. It's amazing when the data supports, when you spent years of your life talking about, you know, we were losing our working class, uh, framework and, uh, it's great to see finally some teeth behind the methods used. To facilitate preserving that population, it's imperative for the future for the future of our school district, because our schools are going to be closing in next seven years because there's not enough children attending them. And honestly, just for the continuity of our communities and neighborhoods, I think I agree with Dr. Sorrell with respect to the concentration. HUD has the scattered method that they use now, but the concentration is of affordable housing projects in the 66 district neighborhood is always something to bring up. I think one topic, a solution that I like that was referenced was the, uh, the storefront facade thing, the $25,000 would help. The problem is that some people want to maintain blight. About a year or two ago, Councilman Austin tried to bring up a bill or relation to the vacancy tax because there's corridors like the Civic Avenue where people willingly choose to leave their storefronts empty, blighted, because they're waiting for the next economic kick to, you know, over sell their, you know, antiquated property for. That's something that we as a city need to impact and either force them to either drop the land so we can do something with it, like house these people or move on from it. The second thing would be that because although we do financing as a sneaky reference, we take county financing. When we do that, they one of the stipulations is that we have to take a list housing lists. So even though we are, to Mr. Hogg's point, providing opportunities of housing, it's not Long Beach people that get put in those buildings. And that's a problem. We cannot continue to allow, you know, projects to come onto our land and be built here, but don't facilitate eliminating those 3296 people. So great presentation, great opportunity for the public to see data and hopefully we can do something with this. Thank you. Well, finally, one thing is that L.A. Metro just announced that they're going to be facilitating land banking around all the transit hubs and transit zones. Maybe this is an opportunity to engage as a city with the county to facilitate some type of development. And I know lobbies Boulevard all the way up to Norfolk. Mr. Can Vega, Time's up. Has a lot of car dealerships that need to go. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is Clarissa Cooper, and I came about a disturbance of the very and the city of Long Beach, a sanitation department. I have a picture here on my phone was so disturbing. And I don't I just like to show it to one individual or whatever to get something done. And there's another problem in the city of Newark, Long Beach beginning, maybe Cher Park and going forward, going north there, there's a bad rodent problem. And there are there are just many things that, you know, just really, you know, this is really getting really foul as far as like, well, the rats are really starting to come all around the apartment building and some people like four and 3:00 in the morning, they will take, you know, like their rubbish and throw it in the big vendors and I alley because it's you know so many apartments right around there and I was just to do anything they can be done about that because the raccoons are really the motion and I don't know whether in a Daytime Cher Park or not, but you know, it's really getting bad and they really need some type of situation to, you know, have it sprayed or, you know, it's really out of hand. They're going all the way from from from from right there along Beach Boulevard over to Atlantic. All the way down del Amo, up all the way to maybe South Street. And you know, if you ever be out in the evening by people that, you know, work at night and are coming home, this is this really is getting scary. And I've been here Long Beach for 50 some years, and I've never I've never witnessed this situation. And I was just wondering, cause I had a lot of fine people in my family that worked for the sanitation department that have gone on. And I just worried, you know, if they could do anything, it would be deeply appreciate it. I would really, you know, really. You know, thank God for that. Thank you. So if I could show someone this picture, if I may. Maybe Mr. Murdoch is cued up. He'll help make sure someone can. Speak with his shoulder. Yes, absolutely. Aubrey, if I can ask you to come to talk to this lady and get all her information, and we can certainly work on this problem. So thank you for bringing that to our attention. Thank you so much. I think that concludes public comment here. Members, please cast your vote. Councilman's in Dallas. All right. Councilwoman Allen. Councilwoman Pryce. I. Councilman. Super. Now. I. Councilman Mongo. I. Councilwoman Sara. I. Councilmember, your anger. I. Councilman Austin. Hi. Vice Mayor Richardson. My motion is carried nicer. Thank you. Good news. We have some results for those who have been waiting on the permit results. So, Madam Clerk, I'll hand it back over to you. Let's pull the let's pull the midtown up first. So regarding results of assessment ballots cast for the Midtown Business Improvement District, the total assessment ballot distributed was 61 total valid ballots counted were 22, and the percentage of assessment in favor was 58.89%. There is not a majority protest. Though. That's good. News. This is good news. This passes. Congratulations and we need to take a vote on this one before we move to the next one, correct? Correct. And we pull the item up on the system. And this is item 17. I joined 23 International.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3621 Lowell Boulevard in West Highland. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B to U-SU-B1, located at 3621 Lowell Boulevard in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-27-20.

DenverCityCouncil_12212020_20-1177

Looking at other policies within Blueprint Denver, specifically a policy for a diversity of housing choice through the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. This rezoning is consistent with that policy. And the reasoning is also consistent with a number of housing and inclusive Denver policies. Criteria. Number two, uniformity of district regulations. This is a standard zone district furthering public health, safety and welfare by implementing adopted plans and by providing additional housing unit that is compatibly integrated into the surrounding neighborhood. Justifying Circumstances. Implementing of adopted plan. Specifically Blueprint Denver. I'm looking at consistency with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent. Urban neighborhood contexts primarily consist of single unit two. Unit residential uses or residential districts are intended to promote and protect residential neighborhoods with the character of the urban neighborhood context. The building forms standards, design standards and uses work together to promote a desirable residential area. And the specific zone district, UCB one, the single unit district that allows the Urban House and detached accessory dwelling units building forms with a minimum area of 4500 square feet. Staff finds the proposed rezoning to be consistent with all five criteria and recommends council approve this application. All right. Thank you, James, for your staff report. Council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 1177. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening, and our first speaker is Jesse Paris. All right. Go ahead, Jesse. Did you put Jesse up or me up? Because it looks like I saw my picture. And it's Jesse up first. Okay. And then also I'm in the chamber. So every time there's nobody here, the focus is on the tears. One of them is just a missing person. A representative for Denver, homeless out loud. That's the smallest, the self, the most positive, I think, most of the time, as well as the guilty party. Oh, Colorado Mile High. No, I will be there next November 20, 23. I am under reconsideration in favor of this rezoning. Of. I was against it initially because I thought it was going to be more justification as usual. This area of town is rapidly gentrified, so I've got used to rezonings that involve more gentrification of the dumb black and brown areas. So upon further consideration of support processes going units, I'm allowed to see them in every single district in the city. Just like I would love to see Tommy Hall go door to door, follow this and this. Amanda. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Jesse. Next up, we have David Hagan. Hi all. David Hagan. I live at 18 and Chestnut. I am in support of this as well. You'll hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Okay, great. Thanks for having me on as well. I'm in support of this as well. I would like to say a couple of things about it quickly, and I'll tie all this to all the put together at the end here. Just as Sam Gary said, what could be, should be. I think that's a great quote. I didn't know the man, but I admire him based on that quote right there. Well, what could be said, we could be should be is an inclusive comment, not an exclusionary one, as the council member thought it was when he said something different. It's all about bringing us together, just as the zoning is bringing people together, giving more opportunity for somebody else. And I like that. So this is one that I can I can say yes to. Let's see here. My wife was reading something that I wrote earlier, and it's not about how much you do. It's about what you choose to do and about who you choose to represent. And it's about what you choose to remain silent about. And when you choose to defend the will of the people before the power of the elites. It's about treating your constituents like human beings. As Martin Luther King Jr once said, we are caught in an inextricable, inextricable network of mutuality, bound by a single garment of destiny. So that right there is a good reason to approve this rezoning right here. And it's also a good reason to represent all of us. What I see when I look around my screen is not a diverse group of people that represent the make of the city. I see a group of people that are dedicated to the status quo and unwilling to rip the Band-Aid off. That is not what we want to see around here. How it is that you are representing us when you fail to push back at the mayor, shoves policy through what would what would happen if you voted down the $16 billion? Would we have no police or would they strike? David, I need you to stay on topic for the rezoning, please. On topic. It's just I'm just getting there a roundabout way and. Do you think the police would have stayed there in a pandemic? This is not what would have happened. The people would not care and the people would not allow that. We should not have passed that, just as we should not have passed the rezoning of that other place. It took to the 16th storey or 14 storeys or whatever. So just think about those things when you vote yes tonight. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 1177. All right. Seen no questions by my colleagues. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1177 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. So accessory dwelling units are growing more popular in Council District one. As we'll see this one is coming through. Before they had the application, filed the application, they had a pre-approved community planning and development and then met with my office and they rebuilt a garage in 2016 with like a shell of an accessory dwelling unit, knowing that maybe their policy was going to move forward with allowing them. And so this would allow them to legally put in the plumbing so the kitchen and the other appliances needed to finish off the accessory dwelling unit. And I believe it meets all the criteria. And I also believe that accessory dwelling units don't change the fabric of our neighborhood. They allow gentle density. And in a time when we need a different type of housing options, there is a registered neighborhood organization in this neighborhood. It's called West Highland United Neighbors, West Highland Neighborhood Association. Sorry. And they choose not to take a position on any accessory dwelling units. So any accessory, any ADU use that comes to rezoning in this neighborhood, they are no has chosen not to take a stance with that. I feel like it meets other criteria and I would be honored to have my colleague vote. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. And seeing the presentation, I agree it meets all of the rezoning criteria. Madam Secretary, roll call. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres. I. Black. I see tobacco. I. Clark. I. Flynn. All right. Herndon. I. Haines. Hi. Cashman. I can. I. Ortega. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash. 1177 has passed. Councilman Hines, would you please put Council Bill 1184 on the floor for final passage?

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

DenverCityCouncil_08072017_17-0823

Yes. Sorry to find them again. Okay. And Councilwoman Gilmore. Yes, Mr. President, I move that council resolutions 823, 824 and 826 be adopted in a block. All right. It has been moved in second it. Councilman Espinosa, your motion. I move that council resolutions mean I move that adoption of council resolutions 388 23, 824 and 826 be postponed to a date certain to Monday, August 28th. All right. It has been moved in second to comments by members of council. Councilman Espinosa, just asking my colleagues, I'm I think I'm probably the slowest one on council getting to sort of the comfort level here. A lot of input this weekend and some concerns that I have that that I developed over this weekend. I need some additional time. I'd like to actually work with the administration, if at all possible, to some sort of to amend these contracts or somehow put in some language that will actually allow us to not do any sort of reverse irreversible changes to the course. I mean, mainly the trees, the mature trees that are 100 years old and hard to replace before we have absolute confirmation that any appeals process and pending litigation on the question around the legality of this is resolved. I think it would be sort of you know, it would be it would be wrong for us in our position as stewards of everything in the city to sort of rely on the court process to stay and preserve trees that way when we actually fully are within our capability to just put it, codify it in an agreement, that we're not going to start grinding up certain amenities and assets until such time as we know it's it's perfectly legally in the clear. So I would rather I'd like some time to work with that because this is really literally coming to the. Administration right now because it's an idea that essentially I would. Vocalize a concern I vocalized in committee, but we obviously didn't have the votes there to postpone and get this clarified. But hopefully my members, my colleague, colleagues on on this. Dais. Will recognize at least a couple of times I mean, a couple of weeks, which will still allow this contract to be executed on time if it were to pass on 828 as is. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Castro. Thank you, Mr. President. Since I've been in this seat, I've spoken consistently that I'm I'm not a fan of the Central 7570 project. And I've spoken consistently that I believe that this project, the Platt, the Park Hill project, is intimately related to I-70. So I had intended to call these out for a vote to have the opportunity to vote no, but I'm perfectly comfortable with the councilman's request for additional time. So I'll be in support of that. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And Councilman. No. When asked Mr. Broadway a question, I figure give us a little history on the litigation on this issue up to date and and when the next trial will be and what the effect would be is postponing this. David Broadwell, Assistant City attorney. Councilman, we have attorneys in the room who are actually helping to handle the litigation. I would invite one of them to come to the podium and give you a quick update. Good. Thank you. Good evening, members of council. My name is Jessica Brody. I'm an assistant city attorney and I'm one of the attorneys working on the litigation as well as the contracting for this project. We will be going to trial in two weeks. It's scheduled for a four day trial. The city is ready and eager to get going with this case. So if we approve this tonight, what effect would that trial if we lose that trial, what effect will it have? Well, first of all, I'll say we feel very optimistic about our chances at trial having gone through many months of discovery, evaluating the plaintiff's claims. We think that the project that's being put forth for approval is entirely consistent with the Denver charter and the Denver zoning code. So I'll say that first in terms of what happens at trial. I mean, obviously, in the event that we're wrong, we'll have to see what the judge's decision is and determine what, if any, changes need to be made. But at this point, we're not anticipating any. Being a factor delaying this counsel, Espinosa suggests. Just to clear the air on this. I don't believe that's necessary in this case or helpful to the the process. The contract, like all of our contracts, has plenty of opportunities for the city to seek delays or termination if necessary. I will add that no onsite work on the course is anticipated for a few months yet, so certainly we'll know well in advance of that what the outcome of the case will be. So whether we delay or not won't have effect? Well, it will have effect on the project because the project is being very carefully timed in order to minimize the amount of golf season that's disrupted. If we delay the contract, then all that planning work gets delayed, which could have a significant impact on the schedule for the project. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Thank you. Jessica, could you come back to the microphone? Sure. I think the motion was to or Councilman Espinosa's intent is to try to have the administration amend the contract so that actual physical work doesn't commence until the end of the appeals process. In your experience, the outcome of a trial, of course, doesn't. That only begins the appeals process. How long could that take in your experience? The appeals process can take months, two years, just depending on what the nature of the appeal is, what the court's docket looks like. So again, it at this point is pretty much speculation in terms of how long that would involve. But I would say in general, it's it's months, two years if you wait for every potential appeal to run. Mm hmm. Thank you, Mr. President. I had another question. And for Jen Hillhouse. Could you come up for a second? Go ahead, Councilman Flynn. Jennifer, I'm wondering what would be the impact of a delay in this contract to the project, if any? Good morning or evening. Members of Council Main. Jennifer Hillhouse I'm with Public Works and we have procurement. Steve Coggins My best answer that, but I get as he comes up, I can give you a little bit of indication if we delay this, this contract, as Jessica mentioned, we will lose an entire season of golf and our commitments that we've made to the public would be hindered. And so it's it could be a substantial impact to us. So we expect work on the site. If things went according to schedule right now, we expect that the work on the site would begin in November. That's what I recall. That's correct. Okay. That's all, Mr. President. Okay, Councilman Espinosa, I'm going to jump in. So I just want members of council and the public to know that Councilman Espinosa, with this motion, has exercised a rule beyond our rule of 3.7, which delays a council bill one week. And so this goes above and beyond. I'm not comfortable voting on that. We've been. This project has been talked about, worked on. Had a conversation with her last year. And all of us stay here to midnight for the water rates increase as well. And so I think Councilman Espinosa knows a lot about this project, actually, and is very well attuned to it. And we got many emails from residents saying we should wait for the ruling and for the judge to rule on this. Well, this is the legislative branch and we take on our legislative process as such. A judge can can issue a stay on any of these projects, and we will not be able to move forward. So we're going to go I am as a district representative who was knocking doors in our city park in Skyland last night, 7 p.m. talking about this issue. I feel comfortable moving forward with this, knowing that the judicial process is going to take its course. So, Councilman Espinosa, let me get to Ortega and then I'll pop back to you. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. The first one is Katzman Espinosa. Did you postpone to a date certain? Yes. What was that date? Well. It's 828, so August 28, two weeks. Okay. And to the city attorney, Jessica, if you don't mind, coming up, when does the 30 day clock expire on the contract? I believe that would be the last day to take action. The last day. So if we took action on that night, it would still be allowed to move forward. It would be within the 30 days. But again, it would cause delay to the contracting process and to the start of the project. How so? Well, probably the procurement team is best to answer that. But my understanding of the schedule is that we're hoping to issue a notice to proceed to the contractor. So again, they can start their preparatory work as soon as possible in order to take advantage of that November 1st onsite start date and minimize the disruption to the 2019 golf schedule. So if if the ordinance moved forward on the 28th. I don't understand how that affects the contracts schedule, the construction schedule. And so help me understand that. Sure. So, Councilman Ortega, this is a design build contract. So before they actually start any onsite work, the contractor will start preparations of the design of the project. So and you've been doing that all along. We've done preliminary design, but as this is a design build contract, there's still a lot of work for the contractor to do before they start any onsite work in November. Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. All right, Councilman Espinosa, back up. So I do want to clarify something, and I understand how this happened. I did. I was asking for two weeks. So that's actually August 21st, not August 28. But less my watch is wrong. And so I would like to change that, that request. I would like to change my motion to. To from August 28 to a date certain of August. 21st. With that said, I don't believe any concrete, any work that a contractor does between now and the executed contract, which we aren't required to act until 828, would be at risk. And up to them, it would be. Sort of wrong to assume that just with our vote, they start work because I mean, is. That true or should they wait until they have an. Executed contract before beginning work? We always advise contractors to wait until they have a signed contract. But if this action were to be approved tonight, we would hope to get to a sign contract as early as later this week or early next week. But this body has technically. Until 828 to act, correct? Yes. Yes, you do. So if we were to take our full allotted time that was anticipated by the contractor would not have been. Well, that's certainly your prerogative. But as far as the anticipated schedule, again, our hope is to get the design underway as soon as possible so that we don't cause delays on the back end of the project. Again, I would like to change this behavior. If you want a contract executed by eight seven, then you should start this contract 30 days. I mean, we should be seeing this 30 days. Ago and not, you know. Telling us that your entire schedule is contingent on us acting to meet three weeks ahead of when we're required legally to act. So I do have a question. What is the is it possible that a contract I mean, the contractor could proceed then during the appeals process and trees be removed. Well, at this point, yes, because no injunction has been sought by the plaintiffs in this case. Okay. So failing that and sort of putting it on the citizens who are making this case rather than on this body, who can actually compel the administration maybe. To. Put this language in the contract, what is the how do you resolve that situation if 100 year trees are removed? How do you replace those? Well, I think as you can anticipate, you can't put the trees back once they've been removed. So that is the core of my concern. And so then the last thing it's related to these this ballot, I mean, this this battery of contracts. How the Parsons contract actually is for both City Park and Park Hill. Those are two separate projects. It's sort of difficult for me to say, you know, one should be able to move forward while the other one sort of tries to resolve this issue. In my book. Why are the parsing contracts essentially linked and how do we you know, if City Park and Park Hill are two different things? Jamie Price. I'm with the Park Hill team. Councilman wanted to try address your last question and then also the question about the appeals process. We're somewhat fortunate in that the trial date is very close to when the A.B. date is for the contract, and we will know the result of that trial before physical work begins on site . After that, yes, there could be an appeals process. But at that point or now there's risk in every project. Right. And we're now weighing the risk of not moving forward with with that of moving forward. And there's going to be significant costs and delays and impacts quite a bit beyond the risk of moving forward. Based on what we know about the case and the strength of the cases. The City Attorney's Office has consulted us so wanted to clarify our impression of that somewhat unlikely event happening. The Parsons contract. Your second question. They are being retained to help with extension of staff services for construction management and project management, so they will need to be in place at about the same time as we engage with the contracting team, the design build team, the Saunders team to help with contract administration inspection, oversight of the project safety, all those things that go with the owner's role. So were the durations. So there's a contracting period. I mean, it's it's going to be a required amount of time to build this course. Does the duration of the construction change at all? Because, yes, there's a delay in the start. But the overall time it takes to complete the work is still the overall time it takes to complete the work, because they're doing it over the winters. As opposed to over the summer. It's doing both. But so, I mean, I'm I'm a little bit worried that you're you're you're addressing this concern by saying that there's risk, but moving forward with the contract, as is if there's a sort of. Of. Sort of confusion caused by the litigation or, you know, some sort of, you know, what you're relying on in predicting is is is monkey wrenches thrown into it. You will then be under contract and will have to amend those contracts. And that would cost money and delay the project. So why wouldn't it be prudent to actually just say, look, let's get let's continue the design because the design is not complete. That's work that has to be done and hold off on the construction with Saunders until such time as we have resolution. I mean that wouldn't that be the safe, most conservative way to go. Not necessarily. We have a design build team that's ready to work on a particular schedule at a particular cost. Again, changes to that will then cost money. Sorry. Changes to that particular. Schedule. Would then cost money. Councilman, let them. Let him finish what he said, and then you can respond. Go ahead. Yes, sir. I assume we're talking about both contracts now, both the Parsons contract and the Saunders design build contract. There's risks either way. The team believes that there's much greater risk to the city in terms of delays and cost overruns by delaying at this time with little benefit as we understand the status of the lawsuit as the city attorney's office has represented. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. I sort of beg to differ because it is a significant impact to the quality of life, to the environment. To lose mature trees, if, in fact, we do it. We end up being wrong. In this case, it is very. None of our lifetimes here will see those trees, any new trees get to the size that they are today. That is two generations from now. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. By the way, there was a question before I'm going to go to Councilman Clark, because he has not said anything but the percentage of trees that would be saved on City Park. Yeah, we have an estimate on that. Just you want to just make sure I got that right. I believe what we said in committee was well over 70% of the trees will be saved, including the significant older growth trees on the perimeters that are valued so highly. There will be tree loss. We know that that tree loss will be some of the smaller trees or the trees that will be internal to be mitigated. Every tree will be mitigated to City Standard. And there's a there's an effort to preserve older trees on the perimeter. Just I just want to make sure you say that again. Okay. Very big effort, sir. Great. Thank you. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to jump in. This one's hard, obviously, because there are a lot of people who feel very passionately about this issue. I just wanted to jump in and say that I agree with Council President Brooks about our legislative process versus the judicial process. I also think that it is it makes me uncomfortable sitting up here that anyone who filed a lawsuit on anything that we do, we would just freeze and not take action on anything, because I think it opens the floodgates. Anybody can sue the city or anyone else for any reason at any time. And there is a process by which the judge could say, this just needs to stop. And I think that's the process to get that to stop. Otherwise, I don't think we should be delaying just because there's a lawsuit. All of that being said, I also want to clarify, because I don't think I'm buying the storyline that a two week delay when you know any one member of council. Councilman Espinosa, if this is not successful, can simply ask for one week. You can get a one week delay. And the statement was made that we will lose the entire season of golf and everything that we've promised our golf and our community over two weeks. When I would hope that this team has anticipated that someone up here at their discretion with no vote could delay for one week. So you're somewhere there's a magic number between seven and 14 where the whole world comes to an end. And I guess I'm not buying that either. So I just want to clarify again, I don't think we need to postpone and I back what Councilman Council President Brooks has said. But I do think for the record, we should clarify that this is really only seven days longer and still within the window of when council has its prerogative to approve this contract. And I would hope that our team, very smart people that you all are, have anticipated not losing an entire season up to the date at which we could take action. But certainly the difference between seven and 14 days. So can you clarify for me that that that you're you're really making the statement that that extra seven days will lose an entire season? So first of all, just to clarify. When we were speaking about the original DeLay requests, we thought we were addressing a three week delay as opposed to a two week delay. So just to clarify that, we certainly had anticipated that there could be a one week delay. We've included that in our schedule, but beyond that does jeopardize the contract. Still not 100% sold on that, but I don't smoke. Can I? Jamie, perhaps. Could I clarify? Once we get beyond one week delay, the contract is still whole and viable. We're going to complete. It just starts to impact a lot of things that are happening on the backend in terms of how quickly we can return this golf course back to the golfers and then those and I understand your your preference, but I would certainly hope for the citizens of Denver and for all of us that when a contract is brought in front of us, that we have until a certain date to approve, that the whole thing is not shattered for an entire year. DELAY If we if we don't vote on it, the first chance we get versus the 28th, I hope to all the city agencies out there that the way we're doing business is in anticipation of that last day. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Okay. Councilman Flynn and Cashmere, are you still there? Okay. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, if I could have a point of personal privilege, I want to recognize the presence in the chamber of former Councilwoman Cathy Donohue, who served on this body from 1975, I think, until 1993, when she joined the Webb administration. And welcome you. She served as council president on at least one occasion that I can recall, at least three occasions that I now recall that she's raised three fingers. And so I just want to acknowledge her presence here. But on the point of the of this motion. I really don't like this this project. I voted against it last year when we had the wastewater fee. I think Councilman Espinosa and Councilman Cashman joined me. We were we were the only three votes against it. Councilwoman Ortega was absent that evening, but she would have been a no vote had she been here. We could have killed the project then if we really wanted if we really wanted to kill it. I thought it was much too big going by a factor, I think of ten or 12 times larger than anything wastewater had ever done before. I thought it should have been done more incrementally and with more planning already in place, but that was not the case. We were outvoted and the bonds have been issued. And I think our responsibility now as fiduciaries of the city and the taxpayers and the ratepayers into wastewater is to make sure it's done efficiently and at the most efficient cost, particularly. Mr. President, on the matter of the contracts themselves, they do contain the standard provisions that in the event the court would rule in favor of former Attorney General McFarland, who's the plaintiff in the case and whom I wish a lot of luck. I, I do know that the contracts contained both suspension provisions and termination provisions, specifically in the event that there's a court ruling against it. If there's an injunction, for example, and if the plaintiffs should move for an injunction, should we approve this contract tonight or in two weeks? The plaintiffs can take advantage of that. And I think that's as the. Mr. President, I think you've already hinted that it would be the proper avenue to do this. I really dislike that this is going forward in the manner it is. I wish that we had done it more incrementally and with more forethought a year ago, but that that wasn't the majority decision of the council at that time. And I believe my responsibility now is to make sure it's done right. And just to one other point, it is I know that in the public mind and the minds of a lot of folks, this is so intimately intertwined with the I-70 expansion. But the plain fact is that the I-70 project is not dependent on doing this drainage project. We are not doing this project in order to enable the I-70 project. The I-70 project can go ahead. If we didn't if we didn't even think about doing this and conversely, if there were no I-70 project, we could still be doing major drainage improvements in the Park Hill and the Montclair Basins, which are needed separately. What happened last year was the prior council locked us into an idea before the seven new members came on, locked us into an idea that says we will cost, share and take advantage of those efficiencies and do a project that we think will benefit the wastewater ratepayers in Park Hill and Montclair, as well as the as well as the CDOT beneficiaries, the public, the traveling public, the people who pay their faster fees and their gas taxes. So that's how they that's how they are married. But each of them is independent of each other. So with that, Mr. President, I would my principle that I like to act on is we should take as much time as we can take to to approve contracts. And I would I would not be opposed to a two week delay as well. Okay. I'm going to woo. Okay. We got some new ones in here. Let me, Councilwoman Sussman first and then I'll pop to you new and then for the councilman. You already have a chance to speak on this one. He spoke already. That's okay. Yeah, I wasn't really going to chime in, but I really like what Councilman Clark said a. You know. A one week delay still makes him a state councilman, Clark says, which is. We delay things just because we've had a lawsuit filed. I mean, whether we do it two weeks or one week, we're still responding. Oh, dear, there's a lawsuit. Let's delay. And as a legislative body, I just don't think that's a correct motion to take. And so either the vote for a two day, two week delay or a one week delay seem hollow and useless. And I it's interesting that we're talking about the bill tonight. Which is if we're going to delay, we should talk about it in another time, because I think the thing down on the bench is, are we going to delay or not? But delaying it doesn't change. The the fact of what of what's going to happen when we do have that debate. So and it's still whether it's one week or two. It still has the problem that Councilman Clark suggested that we can't delay things just because we're being sued. Thank you. Councilman, you. Just had a question on the attorney about Councilman Flynn's comments about the contract having a clauses there that if the ruling goes against the city, that there will be a. Opportunity to terminate the contract or suspend the contract. I'm going to invite my colleague John McGrath to come up because he is the lead on the contract. Strom McGrath Assistant City Attorney Yes, we have a standard set of general contract conditions for all construction contracts that the city enters into, and they have a number of rights that would enable the city to either suspend, cancel. And because we have those rights, we could also then sort of open a dialog with the project team to figure out exactly what the best path forward would be. And who would make that decision to cancel? So would the client public works and in consultation with the city attorney's office. Thank you. All right, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. With all due respect to my ex journalist brother, Councilman Flynn, there is opinion and evidence on the other side of the argument about whether Platt, the Park Hill and I-70 are connected. But the thing I just can't let go of is a one week delay. Delays your project a week, a two week delay delays two weeks, a three week delay, delays at three weeks. Maybe you're going through the winter. You have no idea what weather is going to do to this. And the reason I bring it up is a large part of the disapproval of this project is among the constituents that I talked to came from that insistence during the development of the project that this has nothing to do with I-70, when again, there's evidence on both sides, depending on how you interpret that. And to stand here and intimate that this the delay that Councilman Espinosa requests, regardless of how you feel about this project or his reasons for delaying this project to intimate that it's going to have some sort of major effect on your pride, on your project is disingenuous. It just is. So I don't think it's wise to take that tack in something that is this project is extremely important to the community. Again, depending on which side you're on, so let's argue on the merits of the project. And, you know, as far as it being shallow or not shallow to ask for a delay, I don't want to psychoanalyze any of my colleagues reasons for for asking for a delay. And so, as I said, I'm in support of this. All right. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. So as Councilman Flynn said, I was not here the night of the public hearing on the wastewater increase, which basically created the funding that allowed the project to move forward. And just to go back a little bit, some members on the council tonight were not here when this body was asked to vote on the original . So it started with both a proclamation and then later followed by an idea, an intergovernmental agreement between Denver and DOT that clearly tied the funding that Sea-Tac was going to spend for drainage on I-70 to the drainage project that Denver wanted to do on this area. And initially, you know, when when it came forward, it was a $40 million span CDOT was going to do. When the AG came forward, it was about 180 some million dollars. And then when we had the wastewater increase, it was $300 million. So the project scope just kept growing and growing and growing. Now, maybe it was the intent of folks from public works to always bring this forward as a, you know, a bigger scale project. But the problem I had was we did not have a public input process on any of the drainage projects before the decision was made that this city was going to move forward with the Twin Basin, which is what it was called initially and then later changed to the Platt to Park Hill project. So. You know, in these big projects, typically you have an EGIS, an environmental impact statement. And when you look at the cost of the funding that was spent on all of this. Folks will say we did that, but it was not called. And it's during that part of the process. And so, you know, people who are in the neighborhoods who have this these various aspects of drainage that are going into their communities feel like they had the project shoved down their throats, just to be blunt, because. The input came after the fact and the decision had already been made that the city was moving forward with the Twin Basin Project. The plot to Park Hill and the East Montclair Basins. So. I would have voted no. Then I plan to vote no tonight just because I think we don't do things backwards. It's important for us to follow procedures and to do them right in making sure that we do have genuine community input. And again, that's not what happened in this case. So I just want to ask, Jamie, were you clarify your role in the project? Are you are you a city employee? Are you a contractor to the project? And will you just explain what that role entails? Sure. Councilwoman Jamie Price. I'm with the Plat to Park Hill Project. I've been serving as the project director to the project for the past almost two years now. I am a contractor to the city. And the company I work for. I work with Matrix Design Group. Thank you. Okay. I want to focus this back on this delay. Councilman Espinosa, you have on the floor a 2828, so a three week delay. But you wanted to change that to a 21? Correct? That's correct. Can we. Councilwoman Gilmore, can we move to change this back to. Just the permission of the river in the second or the second year? Councilman Herndon. Councilman Turner, do you have permission to move it back a week? I did not second that. So this is flim flam. Councilman Flynn? Yes. Okay. All right. So just just again, Councilwoman Espinosa, Councilwoman Gilmore, it is Resolutions 23, 24, 26 be postponed to Monday, August 21st. All right. Thanks President Brooks I move the that the adoption of council resolutions 823 824 and 826 be postponed to Monday, August 21st. We have a first mover and a neo seconder. President Brooks. I should be the mover on that again. Okay. Yeah, it truly matters, but. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Councilman Espinosa, are we ready to vote on this? I do have one more question for city attorney. Okay. Um, so if you were asked to produce article A clause and for the on the contract to preserve to to preserve trees until. Until, you know, a certain date. Uh, could you have done that? Um, I think we essentially have those rights in the contract as it is today. The city is in control of the timing of all phases of the project. Would that make a little closer area? Geographic and City Attorney's Office. We have suspension rights and we have termination rights and we have other rights to have the program unfold in a way that suits your needs. So I think that with those rights, we can delay certain phases of the project on site if events suggest that, that would be prudent to do. I recognize that all of our contracts have the ability to amend and terminate. Pretty much standard boilerplate language that then we revise project specific. I'm asking if somebody had directed you to specifically address preservation of mature trees until such a time when we're free of litigation. Could you have produced such a language. And put it in this contract? Sure we could we could produce other clauses that that either are or aren't. And so, you know, of course. So to to close out that that was all I was asking for. This was not a whim. It was really to to to spend a couple of weeks making that ask of our city attorneys who are fully capable of doing this, the administration who is fully capable of incorporating this, because this is not I think Councilman Clark sort of explained a false equivalent that this would be something we could always do. We're talking about preserving an irreplaceable asset. These are trees that we cannot grow tomorrow. We cannot grow in 30 years. We cannot grow in 70 years. We need 100 years to produce these things. And so if we set a threshold and made a commitment, we could codify that in in in language. And I don't think that's far fetched idea for this council or the administration to to protect. I mean, those trees can then ultimately be removed once everything's a go. Yeah, it would be painful to work around, but it's we really shouldn't be marching until such time. And I recognize that the comments have made that we have the right to terminate, we have the right to amend, we have the right to do a whole bunch of things. But it's very clear in all the city statements that that desire to postpone or delay or keep these projects is independent, as has been stated previously for for a year. And as Councilman Flynn sort of reiterated, you know, if they're truly independent, then we should be able to say golf course, you stay on hold until we have clarification that we, in fact, can disturb that historic golf course. And that wouldn't be so wrong. So did you want to. I would just say that a no vote is to not allow a representative of this body to seek time to to at least make that ask. Okay. I think we want something from the legal team. Yeah. I just wanted to briefly address your concern about the tree preservation. We do believe we already have the language and the authority in the contract as written, in addition to the standard suspension and termination clauses. The city has the rights to approve all phases of the work. One of the requirements of the contract relates specifically to tree preservation and any tree removal and replacement plan would need to be approved by the city forester, among others. I think. Again, all of that is known. That's all very clear. What you're obviously obfuscating here is the fact that that tree removal plan basically says you remove this tree, you replace it with these. And and I'm saying that it is not the same to put three new trees in to replace one large mature tree. If you were telling me that it was only removing seven inch caliber trees, that would be one thing. But we know that they're more substantial trees than that, and those are the. Ones that are hard to produce. All right, Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. Just briefly, I appreciate as council president was saying, I don't think we should let a lawsuit dictate our timeline. And in the end, does it make a difference? No, but the principle of it, as legislators, we are moving this city forward and we should not start because of fear of litigation. And let's be real. If the judgment comes down in support of the city, there will be an appeals process. And will we be getting more chain letters saying that we should wait for the appeal to go through? I just don't believe that is something that we should do as a city. So I am comfortable moving forward with this and I would hope that our council members support it. But in the end, it, I don't think will make that significant of a difference. But for me, it's the principle that who dictates how we vote. It should not be based off of who chooses to sue the city. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Herndon, just to remind everyone we're not actually vote on the bill are now are voting on a delay to 821. It's been moved and seconded. Secretary Roll Call. Mr. President. Of all three of them or just one? Yes. Thank you for for pointing that out. This is all three of the bills. 823, eight, 24 and 826. Espinosa, I. Flynn I. Gilmore No. Herndon. No. In. Can each. No. Lopez. I knew. Ortega, I. SUSSMAN No. BLACK No. Clark. No. Mr. President. No, please, cause very nice results. Six, eight, seven, eight. Six, eight, seven. Nays. The postponement to Monday 821 fails. Councilman Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. President. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, I would like to postpone the adoption of Council Resolutions eight, 28, 23, eight, 24 and 826 to Monday, August 14th. And just as a reminder, that can happen again next week. By a different member of council. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. President. Now, under the rule, that can only be one discretionary lamictal i i just. I just. I just wanted to keep this thing going. Thank you for city attorney. I thought we were in new rules. Yeah. Thank you. City attorney David Broadwell. What will we do without you? Um, just. Just for folks. There are folks who are watching and who probably took that comment serious there. We are not able to do that next week. You can only do it one time and postpone it a week pursuant to Rule 3.7. Our jokes aside. Okay. Well all of their bills for introduction or order publish except for council bills. Eight, 12, eight, 13, eight, 14, 15, 16, eight, 17, 88, 18 and eight, 19. After recess this evening, there will be one hour courtesy combined courtesy public hearing on these bills. After the public hearing has concluded, Council will separately vote on each of these bill. We are now ready for the vote on resolutions and bills for 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 it an item on a separate vote. Councilwoman Gilmore, where you put the resolutions for adoptions and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor. Yes, Mr. President, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration do pass and a block for the following items. 071607970806080707910793079507960808080107630780. All series of 2017. Excellent job. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Raquel Black. Clerk Espinosa. But. I. But it's a black vote. Oh, sorry. Hi. Hi, Lynn. Okay, great. I gillmor I heard in Cashion. I. Can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega I. Susman, I. Mr. President. I. I. Please close. What was the voting or announce the results? 1313 ies The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed on final consideration and do pass. We recognize former Councilwoman Cathy Donahue here. Thank you for being here. There are some other former councilwoman in the place to Councilman Elder Debra Wedgeworth, former district eight, and also the president, also former Councilwoman Harvey Haynes, who still in here. Okay. Got the council. Yes. We also Councilman and. Councilman Sanders is the mayor. This is anybody else here? Councilman Sanders is in the back. He's down. The staff is a coup to town. It's a good idea. Oh, my goodness. And look. Alyssa McKenzie. Can you. Okay. And Councilwoman Mackenzie, thank you for being here. This is five I think we have a yeah, a quorum. A former council speaker. Wow. Did I miss anything else? All right. Okay. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 728, providing an extension of approximately ten months of an existing moratorium on the

Approves a contract with Savio House in the amount of $1.4 million through 5-31-16 to provide culturally competent strength-based resources and support services children and families involved with the child welfare system (SOCSV-2015-22477).

DenverCityCouncil_06222015_15-0377

Got it. All right, well, let's first put on. Let's publish it. Councilman Ortega, will you please put 377 to be ordered published? I move that council. Both 377 be ordered. Published. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Lopez, we need a motion to amend. Thank you, Mr. President. I move to amend Council Bill 377 series of 2015 as follows Don't my my assistant here. Number one on page one line seven strike out quote unquote out of home placement services and replace with core services for families involved in the child welfare system. Two on page one, line eight, strike, quote unquote, for children. The purpose of this amendment is to change the title, provide more specificity concerning the child welfare program, funding for the contract. There are no other changes to this bill to be made aside from the title. All right. You can get the comments. Thank you. So we have the motion on to amend any other comments on those amendments. Scene none. Madam Secretary. Roll call. Lopez. Montero. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Rob Shepherd, Brooks Brown, I. I can each layman. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please close if I announce the results. 12 eyes. 12 eyes. 377 has been amended. Councilman Ortega, we need a motion to order published as Amendment four 377. I move that council bill 377 be ordered, published as amended. And wait for technology. It has been moved and seconded. Thank you. See? No comment. Assuming you have no more comments, Councilman Lopez. Okay. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Lopez. Montero. Nevitt. Hi, Ortega. Rob Shepherd. I'm Brooks Brown. I what? I can each layman. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Kathleen Brown. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please close the voting and as the results. 1212. By 377 has been ordered published as amendment. All right. Our last one, I believe, Madam Secretary, is 378. Councilman Lopez, what would you like for us to do with this? Mr. President, I move to amend this bill. All right. Councilman Ortega, could you please have 378 ordered published. A move accountability. 378 be ordered. Published. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Lopez, we need a motion to amend. Thank you, Mr. President. I move to amend Council Bill 15. I'm accountable for to Council Bill 378 series of 2015 as follows on page one, line eight. Strike, quote, unquote, out of home placement services for children and replace with, quote unquote, core services for families involved in the child welfare system.

A RESOLUTION requesting that the Department of Finance and Administrative Services, the Seattle Fire Department, and the City Budget Office include in the City’s contract for Basic Life Support Emergency Services provisions that provide to emergency medical technicians (EMTs) a prevailing wage and benefits comparable to other emergency workers employed in comparable cities and similar sectors in the City of Seattle; and requesting the departments to provide additional analysis, data, and information.

SeattleCityCouncil_08062018_Res 31831

It was number 33 and I stopped it. Okay, so we concluded. We concluded that. So where was it? Please read the first edition item into the record. That new it the new agenda item one Resolution 318 31 requesting that the Department of Finance, Administrative Services and the Central Budget Office negotiate a contract for basic life support emergency services. That includes provisions guaranteeing wage and benefit standards for emergency medical technicians and requesting the draft contract be provided. To the City Council for approval prior to execution. Councilmember Swan. Just one minute. So I'm not a lot we we closed public comments, we cut off I think right before but we're less than 32. I think you were in number 33. So. So that's that's that's. I do apologize. People go to great extent to come down here. I understand. I understand. But we extended. A strong issue. Okay. And we're getting ready to address it right now. So, again. We're getting ready to address it right now. So I'm trying not. To be disrespectful. Sir. You've been very respectful. You've been very respectful. We have rules that we're trying to comply with. We extended it twice. So it's so it's not over. So I'm going to ask you. Sit down, sir. And if you're not, you're disrupting our agenda. So I'm going have to have you remove. So I'm sorry we didn't get to you. Pretty much the line. Yeah. So I'm going to ask you to relinquish the microphone. And you just started proceeding. Is it? Could we could we just give him a minute? I mean, he's an EMT. No, I think if you'd like to make a motion to that. I'll make a motion to let him speak for a minute. But I've made it. I've made a motion to allow the EMT to speak for a minute. I'll second it. It's been moved to extend public comment to allow this gentleman to speak. Any comments on the motion. Or we're just extending one minute. We're listening just for this gentleman, and I'm going to speak against it this way. I have nothing, nothing against this fine gentleman, nothing to. I think we understand the plight of the M.D. We've heard some pretty heartwrenching stories now for a few weeks. We do have an agenda. We did extend it twice. And in all due respect, sir, we've heard pretty strong testimony on behalf of the MTA, and now we're about to vote. So let me speak, sir. Okay. So I understand he wants to speak, but I'm trying to run a meeting here according to the rules. But I'll vote against it if you want to vote for it will extend it. So the motion has been made. And second, any of the comments of the motion. Although then you raise your hand. If all those in May in favor of letting this gentleman speak for public comment, raise your hands. Say I. All those polls say, no, no, the ayes have it. You have the microphone, sir. Thank you, council members. Good afternoon. My name is Robert Bandera and I'm currently an EMT with the American Medical Response. I've been an EMT for 20 years. I can tell you that I love this profession. I enjoy making a difference every day. I believe the majority of my brothers and sisters come to this profession for the same reason to make a difference. The job itself is extremely challenging, full of ups and downs. I can tell you what it's like to take care of somebody who's homeless on the streets of Seattle, I can tell you. The next call can be at a high rise penthouse with a multimillion dollar resident. I can also tell you what it's like to be on the streets and do CPR and lose a patient. I can tell you what it's like to use an aid and shock a patient, get their heart rate back and have a save. I can tell what it's like to be in the Rainier Valley at 2:00 in the morning with a pregnant woman whose water broke, who's extremely scared and deliver a baby. There's lots of ups and downs. That said, this profession is is not about the money. Nobody comes to this profession. No EMT comes to this profession to get rich. But that said, it's important that we earn enough money to put a roof over our head, food on the table, be able to provide for our own health care, and not have to decide between being able to pay rent versus food. I'd like you to know that you have to be with our organization for ten years before our wage hits the $20 an hour rate. Ten years? I'm trying to go fast. We've lost a lot of really good, exceptional care providers who provide excellent service to the Seattle Fire Department and working in cooperation. It takes a while to build proficiency and we lose this proficiency if they don't remain. I'm not going to say the AMA is a bad company. They're not a bad company. I've worked for them for a long time. They're a company for profit. They're a company who. Who needs to be able to make money. And that's that's they're there. They need to have a profit margin. I understand that. But we need to try to find a win win solution where the employees can continue to work and they can continue to make a decent living. The contract stipulates a prevailing wage. The prevailing wage has never been defined. That's part of the reason that we've come to you folks today to ask you to evaluate the prevailing wage, determine what the prevailing wage is, and then please enforce that. I encourage you to sign the resolution. I appreciate your time very, very much. Thank you so much for your time. Mr. President, just very briefly, Mr. President, if I might, just very briefly, since we went back to public comment, I just wanted to quickly say thank you to you for allowing so much public comment where an hour and 40, 40 minutes into this discussion and to connect the dots between the affordable housing issues, the need for good living wages, the need to create more density throughout our city, and to not just create density that bulldozes landmark institutions. And so I just wanted to thank you for your time today. I saw the signs that said Save our empties and save this shoebox. I think there's a huge connection there. And when our city really directs development to just about 15% of the land that we currently have, it's no wonder that housing is so damn expensive in this city. It's no wonder that word they $815,000 for an average home in the city. We need to actually think about how we create the housing and the cultural institutions that allow for artists to play and live in this city. So I look forward to supporting the shoebox. I look forward to greater conversations around density and density done right. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, councilmember skater. And. Why don't you read the agenda item again? So we get to sort of start from scratch. Resolution New Agenda Item one, Resolution 318 31 requesting that the Department of Finance, Administrative Services and the Central Budget Office negotiate a contract for basic life support emergency services. That includes provisions guaranteeing wage and benefit centers for emergency medical technicians and requesting the draft contract be provided to the City Council for approval prior to its execution. Councilmember one. Thank you, Brian Harrell. I made some comments earlier today and you've heard eloquent testimony from EMT themselves, including the person who just spoke that they do enormously valuable lifesaving work. You actually could not put a price on this any more than you could put a price on your own life or on the lives of your loved ones . And if you can't do that, then you can't put a price on the living standards that standard and dignity of the workers who allow that to happen. And as we know, they are doing this incredible work, but they are not being paid what they are owed. And in reality, there is a very specific question here. The city of Seattle contracts with AMR, which is a for profit corporation. I urge the council not to confuse the public, intentionally or otherwise, by talking about the contract that the Teamsters have with AMR, the Teamsters and the workers. Rest assured, we'll be fighting for the best possible contract when they when they fight for it. But that does not. The fact that the workers are unionized does not absolve the city council as the highest legislative body in doing its duty and making sure that the rhetoric about Seattle's workers and their rights does not just remain rhetoric , but it's actually enforced by the city. So this resolution is not about the Teamsters contract with AMR. It is about the city of Seattle's contract with AMR. And this is very much in the purview of the city council, the contract that expires at the end of August. And that and I know that there is an RFP process and the mayor's office is working on this currently. I also want to make sure the public understands there is no conflict here between the city council passing this resolution and the mayor's office carrying out that RFP process. I know council members will say things that suggest that, but that's not true. It is absolutely without conflict. Furthermore, if the city council passes this resolution today, it gives much more leverage to the mayor's office and much more leverage to the workers and the Teamsters to demand that there is a contract that enforces workplace standards. Because the city council today, by voting yes on this resolution, will say, we are urging the mayor's office to enforce contractual provisions on workplace standards and that we request that the mayor that the contract details are reported back to the city council. Now, what is what are the contractual provisions? We are talking about the existing contract for you that it existed for years. That the city of Seattle has with M.R. says that the combined compensation and fringe benefit program for all the personnel should be substantially substantively equivalent to the average rate of compensation for similar private sector field personnel in similar sized and cost of living areas of the United States. Now, it is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact that the EMT with AMR in other cities are being paid far more and better benefits than the EMT in Seattle. This is not a it's not an imagination. It is an actual fact. And Seattle EMTs are paid fully 28% below the starting pay for EMT, incomparable and even lower cost of living in cities in California and 34% below EMTs working in Seattle for the Federal Veterans Administration. So if you look at comparable jobs, there's a lot of injustice in this world when we need to fight. But we're not even talking about larger issues. We're talking about simple the comparison between EMT who do the same work in other cities, the AMD's who do the same work in this city but happen to be under the federal jurisdiction or under the city of Seattle jurisdiction. So these these EMT happen. Many of you are here. You happen to be working for a for profit corporation. The city of Seattle has an obligation to enforce the contract that they themselves have. The city of Seattle has this contract. I did not I did not introduce this. I just read the contract, which, by the way, the mayor's office did not help us to get. It was the workers who gave us the substance of the contract. I just want to repeat that this voting on this resolution today is important because it will give workers the leverage to demand that the mayor's office enforce the workplace standards in the new contract that the city signs with Amber. I would also urge the Council to remember, as the EMTs have told you, we've never been empties. They are EMT. They work hard, they work 24 seven. Many of them have to take a second or third job. It is a lot to ask them to come to city hall day after day for what? It's a resolution and it's a straightforward resolution. So if all council members support it, then why not would vote on it today? So the MDC can focus on their work and they can focus there, you know, focus their energies on making sure the mayor's office puts together a decent contract that enforces, you know, provisions that allow them to live with dignity. I absolutely think that that is important. We have to put a value on the time of the MTA, just like we always put a value on our time as city council members. I do not believe in any way that this resolution will be a distraction from other issues. As Councilmember Bagshaw brought up about patients without insurance, as AMD's have themselves said, they don't refuse service to anybody. They don't refuse service to anybody. So let's not let's not I mean, let's again, as I said, for the shoebox question as well. Let's be honest with the public about why we are voting or not voting on a certain thing today. This resolution does not in any way hamper the ability of IMR MDC to serve everybody regardless of insurance. As a matter of fact, if we offer, if we make sure MDC have decent living standards, then they are better able to do their job for what our people have insurance or not. Mind that there is a big problem in Amara, which is the turnover of the workforce. If we if we recognize correctly that M.D.s bring in a lot of skill and experience that no, you know, I can just become an EMT tomorrow and replace an existing EMT . These are skills and experience that are gathered over time by working with actual people who are in crisis. It's very hard to replace it, but with such abysmal wages and benefits, it is, you know, inevitable that workers will look for other jobs and move on, even though they love doing what they are doing and they are so dedicated and self-sacrificing. So I think it is only correct to do this. That's the other point. You know, Mike Andrews from Amado Amar, spokesperson who spoke, he says here that they are in a partnership with the union. No, this is not a partnership. If you are keeping your workers in such abysmal living standards. This is not a partnership. This is exploitation. And Andy NGO said it's tough. Well, I'll tell you what's tough. What's tough is having to, you know, help people in crises, work long hours, take second jobs, having to sell plasma because you can't make your rent. That's tough. And let's also keep in mind that Ammer is owned by a parent company named KKR, which is the leading global investment firm that controls 176 billion in private equity, energy, real estate and other ventures. So these are not struggling corporations. These are corporations that are making a lot of money, except the profits are going at the top. And lastly, for council members who are concerned that maybe this is the only company that the city can contract with, that somehow we can't enforce it. I will say two things. One is this is the city of Seattle's government. We have the power to enforce things on corporations. We have the power to do it. I don't want to join in the pretense that that is not possible. It is absolutely possible. It's a question of whether there's a political will or not. And the second point I'll make is if if AMR threatens to not sign the contract, then we should bring this into public ownership and make all empties be direct City of Seattle employees and give them all the living standards. That's okay. Any comments, Councilmember Herbold? Sure. Thank you. I am going to be supporting this resolution. It is an expression of intent and expression of our values as a city. I do think we need to address some broader, broader structural issues, though, and work together with AMR in doing so. They've not received a rate increase on their Medicaid reimbursements from the state of Washington since 2004. And so what that what that does this is a city where there are a lot of Medicaid reimbursements necessary because of the population of folks that AMR is assisting, the EMT, that AMR is assisting. So this is a structural problem that we that we need to address. This is a resolution to the city. I do believe that it will give the city more leverage to to negotiate with AMR. But we also need to be taking this vote today with our eyes wide open. It might change some of the discussions around the negotiation table, around the approach that the city and AMR use for for compensation of other services. So I'm comfortable with knowing that because again, this is a contract from the city of Seattle to employ people. And I think we should be employing people with a livable wage and in a way that is consistent with our with our values as a city and actually would which is consistent with the previous contract, which has not been able to be enforced. Thank you, Katherine Herbert. So I have just a question for clarification. First of all, this isn't a new approach as a good approach. When you look at for some of our waste management and recycling contracts that we've outsourced, we've asked for similar types of provisions in our our fees, make sure that people are paid a good wage and certainly they deserve it. The question I have is looking at the language. I just want to understand sort of what we're doing. That is that we are requiring the Department of Finance and the central budget to negotiate in the contract at least $25 an hour. So I'm reading this. It's a request if you see the language and also it's a resolution. So it's not I mean, it's it's a it's an expression of intent. So it says the Seattle City Council requests the force to enforce those provisions. And I like your point that we're sort of doing this eyes wide open then in support of our employees that certainly am or may have a different opinion and threaten to move out of our market. And but we want to stand behind our employees. And so we think this is a good statement of legislative purpose here. So so I'm prepared to vote as well unless I hear any other comments from anyone in our city. Councilmember Johnson. I'd just like to say I don't feel adequately prepared to vote yes today. I had a conversation in the 90 minutes that we had between the conclusion of our Mandatory Housing Affordability Presentation Special Committee today and 2:00. During those 90 minutes, I reached out to some members of the law department to ask them questions, have not had a response back from them yet and also received a phone call from the fire chief asking us to asking me to support DeLay for one week in order to better understand the impacts of the resolution both to the negotiations and then also to our baseline budget, which this undoubtedly would have an impact to our baseline budget if it is adopted as is. So I would support a one week hold on this topic to allow for some more information to help me make a better informed decision. So I'll take that as a form of motion to hold for one week, for one week till August 13th and second. So we'll address this issue first. So there's been a motion, a hold and a second customer. Swann Did you want to address the hold or. Yeah, okay. Please do. Please do I obviously if the majority of the council finds it so compelling to hold this, as opposed to all the other votes that were rushed through like the Amazon tax repeal, then that is what will happen. I will say for my part, I do not agree at all withholding it. There is no reason to hold it. I mean, there is no legal or ethical or or any such technical reason, technocratic reason to hold it. It is this is a political hold that one member of the public, an EMT, has to understand that this is a political hold, meaning they don't feel comfortable, council members don't feel comfortable on voting on something so straightforward. It's a resolution, not an ordinance. It's merely a request to the mayor's office to enforce provisions that already exist in the contract. I do not think we should hold it mainly because it is very, very difficult for empties to come again and again. You all have taken time off from your work and furthermore, furthermore, I mean, if they're forced to come, they absolutely will because they are fighting for their lives. But the but the reality is that if we are if we have the political will to vote on this resolution today, then it will give them one extra week to use this as leverage for their for their own efforts. I mean, this is not they're bringing a resolution. The city council is not the only thing that employees are doing. They are fighting hard on many fronts to make sure that their living standards are satisfied. And so if we hold it, we are taking one week away from them, a week that they could use, you know, going to the mayor's office, empowered with this resolution and say, did you see the city council has voted on this resolution? What do you have to say about that? How will you help enforce these contractual provisions and so on and so forth? So with all with all that in mind, I will be voting against the hold. Okay. We have a. Motion. A motion to hold on the table has from properly made in second and more discussion about the whole the reason why you want to hold it or not. Councilmember Gonzalez. Thank you. So I chair the committee responsible for public safety issues. And one of the departments that is at the center of this resolution that has is not directly mentioned in the resolution is the Seattle Fire Department. And I was I was alarmed when I shared the resolution with Chief Scoggins this morning. And I learned that he had not seen it before and had not had an opportunity to provide me as the chair of the Public Safety Committee or the rest of the council, his feedback on the interplay and the intersectionality between what the resolution is signaling and where the fire department is in terms of negotiating the service contract with AMR. And so for me, it's not it's not a oh, I want to hold this because I'm, I don't know, don't have political will or whatever the term was that councilmember so want used. It's legitimately that I heard from Chief Scoggins that he believes that there may be implications here that will incur unintended consequences both in the service contract. They may and could harm the positions of legislative intent that are described in the resolution. And I want to have the benefit of the opportunity over the next several days to consider the information that Chief Scoggins may bring to bear to the conversation so that we're crafting the legislative intent described in the resolution in a way that it will actually ultimately be helpful to the effort to raise the standards of EMT in in the city of Seattle and make sure that we actually understand how we can best enforce the terms in the contract. Ultimately, the end of the day, this is all going to boil down into a contract. The contract will still have the same enforcement issues that exist now, because there's nothing in this resolution that talks about a pathway forward on figuring out how to enforce the terms, including the terms that are described in this resolution. So I think I think we just for me, I would just appreciate the opportunity to extend it to Chief Scoggins, the courtesy of providing us some more feedback. And he and his folks are the ones who are at the table negotiating their service contracts with Amara. I just think it's a reasonable approach to to making sure that we aren't creating landmines where we are actually trying to be helpful. All right. Okay. Any other comments? Councilmember Switch. Just to quickly respond to this question of interplay and intersectionality, the groups that we here supposedly exist between this resolution and the contract that's being negotiated. I don't I don't agree with that at all. I. There is no there is no clear reason why. What is the interplay? What is the intersectionality? And my office also spoke to Chief Scoggins. We spoke to him in detail. I'm not convinced in any way that this resolution is in any way conflicting with the process of contract negotiations between the city and between it and Amara. And as I said, if the mayor's office whom Scoggins ultimately Jeff Scoggins ultimately represents, if the mayor's office is genuinely desirous of achieving a contract that enforces decent living standards for the workers, then they should welcome this resolution. Why? Why are they asking to hold a resolution? Because the resolution merely says we request the provisions that you have in your existing contract, enforce the provisions that are already there. That's all the resolution says. But it's its political significance is greater because it empowers the workers to continue fighting for their living standards. So I am I'm still not clear at all what the actual reason is, other than the fact that Chief Scoggins called, which he called my office also. Okay, I'm going to call for a. Vote comes from ROSQUETA. Well, I just want to, again, echo my my extreme appreciation for the folks who came to testify today. Having worked in the labor movement for the better part of a decade, I know the importance of getting contracts right and having internal and external pressure. I think as a city we have weighed in with that external pressure before we weighed in with support for UAW 4121 when they were negotiating with the University of Washington. I appreciate that there's multiple venues or conversations happening right now where we will weigh in with support for the Teamsters as they negotiate with the employer as well . Here, I think it's really important that our city send a strong message that whether or not you are a city employee or a. Contract employee. It is important for us to have good living wage jobs and especially for those who are in dangerous situations. We make sure that there is adequate and above, above and beyond adequate health care benefits, especially for those who see trauma on a daily basis. I am very interested in making sure that we send a strong message to the mayor and the negotiation team that this city stands up for its most vulnerable. I'm also very interested in supporting the chair and her interests and making sure that the public safety questions have been answered. Otherwise, this conversation would have been, I think, discussed in detail in your committee. If there is a commitment like we talked about with the shoebox, that this doesn't go on for a long period of time and that we bring this back, I will be happy to wait a week, but I want to make sure that we're sending a very strong message. The details do matter in this. The council is weighing in with support for not just good benefits, but also adequate wages, and that we stand up and identify every opportunity we can to pull some of this work in-house. Because I think it was said earlier by council members that we have critical services that we have outsourced historically. And to the extent that we can be more cost efficient and have contracts negotiate on our terms, I'm always interested in that. I look forward to the discussion if that happens in a week. Happy to support them. I think your concern is greater. So I guess just in plain and plain nonpolitical terms, I have no reason believe that FASB and CBO, while they may not have been on their A-game in the past, I have no reason to believe they only put in a positive. I think they will support the EMT workers. Anyone with any ounce of sense realizes the plight of the EMT workers now. And I think, Councilman Schwartz, leadership is, if anything else, has really brought this issue to light. So I don't hear anyone disagreeing with how can we be your advocates? And even following your your strong advocacy for your plight, one week's not going to make that big of difference. What we're trying to do. Let's see if we can do even more. Let's see if we can get a Department of Finance, CBO, to really understand this issue list, have this discussion. I talked to Council Chief Scoggins as well, and I understand his plight. And in his plight, if you know his personal story, he is aware of how people are underpaid and treated unfairly. And so I think a week is not political. Whatever. I don't even pay attention. Whatever the accusations are, it's just common sense to make this stronger, not water it down and support our EMT workers. And so I think you're hearing that. So I would support the motion to hold it for a week in those simple terms. And so having said that, it's been moved in second and hold it for a week till August 13, 2018. All those in favor I. And raise your hand, I. All those opposed. Say no one. Raise your hand. No. So. 62, it's been it will be held for one week and we will see everyone on this issue in one week. And so please read the next edition item.

AN ORDINANCE authorizing the conveyance of the surplus property located at 906 Pine Street, Seattle, Washington, in council district four.

KingCountyCC_06072017_2017-0094

I when the opposed approval unanimously. All right. That brings us to item number five for discussion today. This is the proposed sale of Metro Transit's Convention Police Station to the Washington State Convention Center Authority that we've all just been talking about to construct an expansion of the convention center. This item was extensively, extensively briefed in the budget and Fiscal Management Committee is now before the committee of the whole to work on some technical and other issues. There is a striking amendment and process. It's not before us today, but it will be before us very shortly. And but we I want to thank councilmembers Dombrowski and Caldwell's for working with me to try to bring this to a place where we can have an up or down vote in a timely manner. Because I think that we hear the urgency and we hear the interests, and we're trying to balance those and make sure that we do our due diligence as as one of the speakers stated. So, okay. With that, I will ask our staff, Pat Hamacher, to give us a status update and maybe lay out some of the issues that we're working on. Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Council members, for the record, Patrick Hamacher, Counsel Staff. I'm going to turn your attention to page 20 in your packets. And almost all of the staff report is verbatim the same as what was in the Budget Committee. But, Madam Chair, you asked us to highlight one issue that was in the staff report but didn't get a lot of attention. And then we'll flip to the end, which is the update, as you hinted, as you said in your introduction about where we are with the status. So the item that I want to cover is the bottom of page 20 and end of the page 21. It's areas of the sale, particularly revenues of the sale or expenses associated with the sale that are of interest to council members to make sure that the county actually retains the proceeds from sale, from the sale of the of the convention place station. And the two big areas of risk that I want to touch on are covered in this section. And they are the temporary work that this is essentially the ramp that would allow the transit busses to continue in and out of the site during the work the convention center is doing, but hasn't yet when their work is being done, but hasn't yet displaced the transit functions into the CPS station, and that is currently projected to be up to $4 million. The scope and timing of that have yet to be worked out between the convention center and transit. So there is some risk there. The additional piece is the what we call the the TPS, which is the transit power substation work, that is equipment that is owned by transit and communications and power transmission and other utility equipment that is jointly owned. And the total of the equipment is owned between King County and Sound Transit. And that relocate that equipment needs to be relocated as part of the construction and is currently projected to be in the $17 million range. But once again, the final scope and schedule and what the budget actually will look like hasn't been negotiated yet. So those really are two areas of risk on the expense side for transit that are still up in the air, not not for any lack of intention to have it clear, just that the negotiations haven't been done yet between transit and the convention center authority. So that's what I wanted to highlight there. And I'm sure. That what I really asked for, I mean, we've highlighted these issues and. And frame them and you just highlighted and framed them is there's a big difference between we know what we're building and there might be a change in the cost of materials and that can be significant. But, you know, it's a percentage here, a percentage there versus we don't know exactly what we're building. And this could mean this number could be way off. And that's what I'm really asking, is what's the range of possible swing in those actual costs? Do we have any clue the no. We have a lot more certainty around the ramp because that is a much more narrow number. I've seen between six and $8 million as the current projected one. The fact that you have sound transit and Metro Transit and the Convention Center all negotiating over the TPS agreement, what needs to be done? Ultimately, we know what works there, but how and when it is done is what can drive the cost and the risk. There is potentially millions of dollars in difference. Okay. Well, that's something that's of concern to me. I just wanted to highlight that because it's of concern to me that we set a sales price and then that's the benefit of the bargain can get significantly degraded by the fact that our cost to close the deal and do what we said we were going to do could go way up. And we don't know that at this time. And I think we need to get a little more certainty around that one way or another. I mean, there's different ways to do it. Yeah. So. Okay, thank you. Please continue. That's an excellent segue to page 30, which is the very bottom of page 30. This is a status update on the items. And I'm sure that you and your colleagues asked us to highlight essentially the areas you're still working on. And the very first item there is price certainty around the two agreements that we were just discussing. So that's one of the items that's still under discussion. The agreement as transmitted by the executive, gave the buyer the option of building affordable housing on site or providing a payment to King County. Same value. But whether they built it or whether they paid the county for it, the notice essentially notification and a verification opportunity for the county around the stress test associated with issuance of bonds for the project. The next item is how to address concerns with the decommissioning of the public art on the site. And then finally the amount of time or the date at which transit will be required to vacate the site. So those are kind of the big picture items that are still in progress. And at that point, I'll stop and I'm happy to answer any questions. Madam Chair. Thanks, Mr. Hamacher. Councilmember Lambert. Thank you, Manager. I am concerned about the affordable housing piece and I would rather have it in my mind in the facility so that it gets done simultaneously. And having had to deal with the city of Seattle on a building permit that the county is trying to get, I think that it would be better for us to have it inside. So at what point could we decide which way that's to go? Can we do an amendment here to decide that so. That the agreement that came over from the executive, it's the buyer's option. They can, at closing, make a payment to the county or commit to building affordable housing on site. The part of your question where you said right away, though, that's the real issue because any housing that's built on site would not be constructed until at least 2021, which is when the rest. So they're going to build the convention center addition. They're going to build the footings for the two new towers. And at that point, housing could be built. And currently they're projecting an office building and an apartment or condo building. So it would not be until at least that time that any housing would be done in 2021. Sounds fine to me. I'm just worried about a be 2015 or 29. So in order to not be 2090 and I have some concerns about some other history we've had where they were going to build offsite housing and I'm not aware that ever got done. So it is part of this and conditional that you don't open your office building until the affordable housing is done, then I know it'll get done. And so I want that to be tied a little more closely. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. My concerns are very similar to Councilmember Lambert. I was kind of surprised by the lack of, you know, labor or work or solidarity that was expressed this morning. We have people testifying that were with your name here. But let's talk about it at the end of the process, after the decisions have been made and other people are saying, well, they weren't there at the beginning when the hard work to its effort was. Therefore they don't have any legitimacy. So I don't understand why we can't make a commitment for low income housing up front even though the housing not be going to be spent. I pad indicate into 2000 22,021. We as a government have been okay on too many big projects for a commitment to housing and that not take place. And it is the condition that the executive worked out is very minimal. You hear just saying and I think it's a moral and good idea that if you're going to be on how they make some of it affordable for the people who work in hotels, which are mostly refugees, immigrants, African-Americans and other low income workers that are serving as maids, butlers, cooks. So I don't understand why we would bypass making that kind of commitment upfront. Or. Not just affordable for some low income housing and whatever. Is the bailout as ideal that one union's ideas are superior to the other and the other because they represent low income workers? Got to wait later after we get our jobs. I don't see that as solidarity. Thank you, Manager. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Councilmember Lambert, another question. Thank you. Yes, I just wanted to ask about the permitting for the building construction. So having been for the last three years, every Wednesday morning dealing with a building permit from the city of Seattle and Purgatory, be a nice word for how that is. Are there any things in here where we need to put any protections that any delays that are caused by the cities? I can't use the word ability, but I should use the word ability. Ability to to get permitting out in a timely manner. Would there be any impact to us? Is there any protections we need to build in that? If it's not done by a certain time and there's a cost allocation escalation that there's no impacts on us? Most of the answer to that question is no, because this is a land sale. We're selling the piece of property. The area where I would say the answer is yes is as transmitted. The date for when Transit asked to vacate the station is September 30th of 2018. Unless there is substantial delay on the project. And as we've noted previously throughout the staff report that what that substantial delay is isn't defined. So I think the the only real place where a city delay would impact the county would be in that if they delay permitting, theoretically transit could stay in the station longer. And there's up to a year there. That's really that's really not clear. But we're anticipating sound transit would like the county to be out of the tunnel September 30th of 2019. So there's quite a difference there between September of 2018 and 2019. So that's the one area where I think the city permitting delays could impact our role in the transaction. So anything we can do, they say you can't be paranoid if it's already happened to you. So the fact that we've had to deal with this for our own building, building, if they'll do it through the county, then it could happen to other people too. So I think we need to just show that up so that there's some kind of way that we are completely protected. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions on this topic? Well, just in closing, as I said, we are closing in on an amendment. I heard some comments from council members this morning that suggest that you might be thinking about other amendments as well. And I our plan is to take that up after at the special meeting where we're going to do the appointment to the legislative vacancy in the. This is the 3040 646. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Douglas. Despite rampant rumors, I am not making calls for one of the candidates. Excellent. I thank you. And that is so. But there's going to be represent. Part of it. Councilmember Garcia, I think we'll be able to use half of that special meeting to keep this moving because we get into summertime and we have some breaks in our schedule and it gets a little bit difficult to keep things going. So I want to keep the momentum going. Madam Chair. Accounts from. Damascus. I apologize. Say this. I haven't done it yet, but I did have one question that I wondered if Pat might be able to answer. This is, I don't think senior staff report, but with respect to the party, the DSD, the downtown sale transit tunnel early and turning that over to exclusive sound transit operations is their existing debt service that the county is paying today on the tunnel. And if any of that we do that, are we relieved from that debt service? And we have an idea of what those savings are to the county that soundtrack that understands hundreds of up. The first part is, yes, there is existing debt and if we give up up joint operations early, we would be absolved of that. I think it's about a year and I think it's about 3 million. But don't quote me on the number, I will confirm that to you. There is a debt service payment and we would probably avoid at least one year of that. But I just need to find out what the number is. Appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm referencing your earlier comment about amendments. When would an additional amendment have to be ready to be discussed? Well, the final date would be when we take this up at the full council, but the earliest date would be as of next Monday morning. And next Monday. Okay. Because I want to look at an amendment. We have a government wide commitment to equity is also just as in my mind, that means considering what impact our major policy decisions have on other poor minorities and other disadvantaged folks who want to put it together. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Gossett, Oscar Castro, the best known. What sense would it be? Helpful. You and I and Councilman Carlos have been working diligently with staff on this and on the affordable housing piece. It seemed to me there was a growing consensus, at least among the three of us, that it might be worth sharing and correct me either of you if I get this wrong. But with respect to the $5 million payment for affordable housing in the county, I have heard a couple of preferences among us, and that is one that we pursue the cash at closing option. And I think the thinking behind that is twofold. One, it occurs sooner and allows us to deploy the money faster to build affordable housing sooner so we don't lose through 2021 inflation. The value of the $5 million, right? If it were to be built into the project years later too, it allows some little bit more control at the county to direct those proceeds, perhaps for workforce type housing or transit oriented development housing where we'd have the flexibility to locate those on projects that are ready to go or high need or that suit our policy objectives. And I know Councilmember Garza has been a leader on ensuring we get down to the real affordable housing. 30% am I 50% in mind that would allow us to target those dollars that way? So we've had this discussion today. I thought it was fair and appropriate, so everyone was on the same page to share some of the thinking in the room. As I recall it. Just as a process matter, there will for sure be a chair striking amendment. There may be a joint strike imminent, there may be a separate striking amendment, then there may be standalone amendments. But we're going to try to get as much of what we all agree to into one as possible, just so that we're able to take things up in an orderly fashion. And I think we're I mean, I think we're getting there. I guess that's what else I think we're getting there. And I appreciate hearing the issues that have been brought up this morning. Councilmember Costa, I just wanted to thank you, Madam Chair, said Councilwoman Dombroski there it is nice that, you know, the three leaders of this issue have discussed this, but I would like to have the opportunity to meet with you all and try to make a case for more concrete commitment to low income housing because. Always that big is off the hook by saying, Y'all give us some money and we'll find somewhere to build low income housing. And we hit our tendency of building all the low income housing and already low income neighborhoods. I don't see why we can't commit to building that in the neighborhoods that were being expanded. And we're going to allow the developer to invest in building, you know, hotel, motel or apartments. We should do something for the lower income workers. Not exclusively, but something. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Dawson. Councilmember Colwell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Packed question. I concur completely with the motivation, the desire expressed by Councilmember Garcia, but I wonder about what the history is in recently of the council dictating to a developer or a business what they do, how they spend their funds and how they design. So, I mean, can we require that they. Oh, I think I think certainly you could. I think I think the the desires expressed by the developer or through the executive's proposal are just that you're making a contractual agreement with the developer for what is built on land that you currently own and are being asked to sell. So you certainly could obligate that. And in fact, we have obligated developers to build housing on site in the past. To Councilmember Lambert's point, there have been quite a few hurdles in actually getting it built. But certainly you you have the authority to require that to be built. Thank you. For much. That's great. That's what I is for so that we can surface issues and hopefully do something with them. Thank you, Madam Chair. And this is in the event I don't connect with the three of you, so we might as well pass thoughts along. Now on that. I am I mentioned this before in the Budget Committee and I'd repeated again, I'm very supportive of the Councilmember Dombroski suggestion that we take Castro closing part because the geographic flexibility in addition to the the real dollar, the real protecting the value of those dollars to the extent we can legally and I don't know to what degree we can legally. The ability to target. Additional housing units to a workforce that's going to be generated in Seattle as a result of this project and the increased need there. And I don't know how, you know, our attorneys have looked at this, but in essence, can we find ways that units become available for the lower wage workers who are in that industry? And I don't know if Pat, if you recall the conversation with legal to agree we do that or is it simply doing housing in that price range and marketing it to them versus restricting? We have done some analysis of that and the initial conclusion conclusions ironically were actually that it's very hard to target the industries in Seattle with their new rules because of the first. So I would not give that as a as a legal opinion or a final answer. The the councilmembers that we've been working on this have have wanted to target based on images the lower the lower end of that spectrum. And that's fairly common to do. I think it may be difficult to do a industry specific target in Seattle, but I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done with the $5 million as a whole as it went out into other programs and and actually funding affordable housing projects. What you end up with is a project with a whole bunch of funders and with a whole bunch of different restrictions. This part has that and it goes into a pot and there's a really complicated process they go through to try to allocate it in this case as quickly as possible because of the need out there. But I think that's workable. Ironically, it might be difficult to target that and then back into the city where the where the jobs are being generated. So Councilmember Lambert's. A noble a noble a noble goal that it might be a question of if you can't legally set aside units, we at least maybe want to set a goal of good communication and targeting of marketing in our clients to that segment of workers. Thank you both here. Thank you, Councilmember Lambert. Or maybe even some agreement, if it were going to be in that area that we buy it. We've made it so that over cost in all of our contracts it'd be really nice weather and whenever we are expecting housing to be built that we have some follow up dates that you know, five years from the date it's supposed to be down to three years. And if it isn't that there's a fine levied with that because I don't think that the follow up has been as good in the past on some of them to make sure we got all the units we thought we were going to get. So that's my concern. Okay. Thank you for that good discussion. And I just want responded Councilmember Gossett, and I appreciate your acknowledging those of us who have been working on this issue. But as always, the decision will be the bodies, what happens. And I hope that we can engage with your proposals and and do something in that regard. Thank you. All right. I think we're ready to move on to item number six. Are we? Very good. And that is a solid waste overview. So we're going to have a briefing now regarding King County Solid Waste System and the development and approval process for the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, which is the overarching plan that looks to the future and talks about how we're going to continue to perform this critical function.

Recommendation to receive and file the memorandum to the members of the City Council from the Department of Financial Management dated January 13, 2016 entitled, “Responses to Questions from the December 22, 2015 Study Session on the City’s Infrastructure Needs,” along with the Revenue Measure Options presentation; or Direct City Manager to provide additional information relative to the implementation of revenue measure options for the City; or Direct City Attorney to prepare any and all documents necessary for a possible revenue measure in the City, to be returned to the City Council for a vote to place the measure on a ballot. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01262016_16-0069

Great. Well, congratulations, everybody. Again. Thank you. Thank you all for coming out. I know you have been working on this for a long time, so thank you all. We'll all be in touch soon. Thank you. We're going to transition into our next our next item, which is item three. We're going to just we're just going to hold for about maybe 30 seconds or so and let some folks exit before we start. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and transition to our next item, Madam Clerk. Report from Financial Management Recommendation to Receive and File Memorandum from Financial Management entitled Responses to Questions from the December 22nd, 2015 study session on the city's infrastructure needs, along with the revenue measure, options, presentation or direct the city managed manager to provide additional information relative to the implementation of revenue measure options or direct the city attorney to prepare all documents necessary for a possible revenue measure in the city citywide. Thank you. We're going to turn this over to staff. I know they've got a pretty extensive presentation. A lot of it, I think, is answering some of the questions that were asked at the the study session. And so I'm going to turn this over to Mr. West, and we'll just go from there. Thank you, Mayor. Council members. As a follow up to our December 22nd presentation on infrastructure needs, city staff was asked to work with the city attorney and the city clerk to bring back revenue options for the City Council to consider. This topic has been brought up many times over the past several years. A version of the presentation we were about to give was put together in 2012, about four years ago at the request of the City Council at the time. Revenue options were also brought up last year at the City Council retreat and this year during the budget process, our assistant finance director, Lia Erickson will present the revenue options present and will be available to answer any questions you have and receive any direction you may put forth. And she'll be assisted by the finance director, John GROSS. Lia. Good evening, Mayor, and members of City Council. First, I will talk about the current tax rates in the city of Long Beach. Then I'll cover the different types of tax measures, general versus special taxes. I'll then talk about the various tax measure options and then some considerations related to the tax measure options. And then finally, some next steps. First I'll go over the current tax rates on for property tax. The city receives approximately $0.22 of every property tax dollar, which equates to about $735 for a 3300 $50,000 assessed home. For u u t, the rate is 5%. For example, a combined utility bill of $150 per month would equate to or generate $90 per year in tax for u. U. T. On the sales tax. The city receives $0.01 for every dollar spent in Long Beach, which equates to $68 based on average taxable sales per resident of $6,800 a year. For transit occupancy tax, the rate is 12%. That equates to $18 for $150 for a night. Our real property transfer tax is currently at $0.55 per $1,000 in sales price, and that equates to $192.50 for that same 300,000 $300,000 assessed home. And then the business license tax varies. But for a retail store with five employees, the cost is $385.40. There are two basic types of taxes. There's a general tax that can be used for general purposes that would go into the general fund. And then there's also a special tax for a specified purpose that would be detailed in the ballot measure. These different types of taxes have different requirements for votes, voting both on the city council side and also on the electorate voting side. The citizens are also the type of voting requirements differ, whether it's a general election for the city, which would be the April primary or the city June runoff, or if it's a special election, which would be any other election, including state and federal November elections. There are some exceptions to the requirements that are listed in this chart. So for instance, a transaction in use tax always requires two thirds of a vote of council, even if it's for general general purposes. And the parcel tax is always considered a special tax for and requires a vote of two thirds of the people, even if it's for general purposes. So any specific ballot measures and timing and voting requirements would need to be consulting with the city attorney's office. So this chart, this slide lists the different tax measure options that I'll be covering today. First the parcel tax. This is based on a fee per parcel, not the valuation of property. The parcel fee may vary by types of parcel, so a single family could have one type and a commercial could have a different rate. It may be designed designed to exempt certain classes or types of property, and it can include a sunset provision and or an annual CPI adjustment as it's a tax levied on property other than a property tax is considered a special tax, so it will always require a two thirds majority vote of the electorate. For illustrative purposes, the chart shows what a $50 residential parcel fee a year and an annual parcel fee for commercial .0366 square feet and that would be 13.8 million. And then the chart shows different varying amounts that can go up to $33.1 million a year. Next, the existing utility users tax, which is imposed on the consumption of utility services. Currently r u. U t is at 5% and covers electric, telephone, gas and water utility services. It generates $38.6 million from in taxes and 15. In 2000, Long Beach voters passed Measure J, which decreased u u t rates by 5%, phased in over five years. This reduction eliminated 15 50% of the city's T revenue, which would have resulted in an additional 38.6 million in 15. The next slide shows what a 1% increase in the U. U t would would generate, which is about $7.7 million for each 1%. Also, this can be a general or special tax. And you can see in the chart the Long Beach rate at 5% compared to some benchmark cities. In addition to expanding the existing utility users tax, we also have the option of Irene of expanding to additional utility services so we could impose the utility users tax on sanitary sewer, refuse collection and cable television services. If we use that current 5% UUT rate, we could generate 800,000 for sewers tax 2.1 million for refuse and recycling collection, which excludes private haulers which already have a franchise fee. And we could also generate $5 million for cable television. Next I'll cover the local sales and use tax, which is levied on sale, storage use or consumption of tangible personal property. The current sales tax rate in Long Beach is 9%, which is split with the state at 6.5, L.A. County MTA at 1.5, and Long Beach receives 1%. In FY 15, Long Beach received $59.4 million in revenue from this tax per state law. The city could add on a transaction and use tax also sometimes called a district tax of up to 1%. This works generally the same as the sales and use tax. However, there are differences into how and where this tax is applied, so the figures below are rough approximations. So for illustrative purposes. Point 25 tax increase could generate 12 million up to a 1% tax, which could generate $48 million per year. This also could be a general or a special tax if it's dedicated for specific use. However, in either case, it does require a two thirds vote of the council to put on the ballot. This next chart shows the the combined sales and use tax rates for benchmark city's other local communities and those cities in L.A. County that also have increased sales and use tax through the transaction and use tax increase. You can see that La mirada, Pico Rivera and Southgate already have an increase of 1% of the transaction and use tax in addition to the normal 9% rate. Next, the business license tax. We currently charge a business license tax that varies by the type of business and does include an annual CPI adjustment. Other cities charged license taxes on a wide variety of basis and increments, making some comparisons difficult for 15, the business license checks generated $12.7 million. An increase of $50 per current business license account could generate approximately 1.5 million annually. This could also be general or special tax. Next is the oil barrel tax. The city currently taxed its oil production by volume, which is called a barrel tax for two two purposes. One is $0.15 per barrel for general purposes, and the other is $0.28 per barrel. And that's the rate as of June 14 for public safety purposes. This is called Prop H and that does include a CPI index. Citywide, we we did produce 13.3 million barrels in 15, which generated 5.7 million for both general fun and prop age. Other cities use different indices to calculate their barrel taxes based on last year's numbers. Every 10% saw a ten cent increase in the city's current tax rate, which generate approximately 1.3 million. However, production and is lower this year as anticipated, were lower, so the amount would probably be lower. The oil severance tax is a value based oil tax and is based on the percentage of actual sale price of oil or on a rate from published price index. To achieve an equivalent $5 million from this tax, we would need to institute a tax of 0.65%, which was based on the 15 average sale price of $57.96 a barrel. You can see on the table the various rates that would need to be charged based on last year's numbers. I once again priced in production are being impacted, so these amounts are probably conservatively too high. Culver City is the only city known to be assessing the severance tax. Next is a transient occupancy tax, also known as Totti, which is a hotel bed tax paid for the occupancy of a room. The current rate is 12%. For downtown area, there is a self-imposed business license surcharge, which gives us an effective rate of 15%. The total generated $23.9 million in revenue in 15, with 17.2 million of that going to the general fund. So every 1% increase in the rate would generate 1.4 million to the general fund. The table below shows the total rates to compare to benchmark cities. And once again, this can be general or a special tax. Next is the parking tax, which can be levied on public and private lights located in the city. And it could be based on a percentage of total parking revenues or a number of spaces this would not include on street metered parking. We currently do not have a parking tax and parking lot operators would be required to collect the tax and remit the collections to the city. We have an estimate of about $1.7 million from a 10% tax on the city owned parking lots. And we have a we don't have a solid estimate for private lots, but it's anticipated that that could be up to another $1.7 million. It could also be general or special tax. This next chart shows the city's benchmark cities and their parking tax rates. A total of 25 cities in California do levy a parking lot tax, including San Francisco, L.A. and Oakland. Real property transfer taxes next. And this would be a charge that is a charge that is applied to the transfer of ownership of real property. Our current transfer tax is a dollar $0.10 per $1,000 sales price. The county retains half a $0.55 along beach retains $0.55. We currently receive about 1.7 million per year and the state law sets this rate. But as a charter city, Long Beach can, with the citizens vote, approve its transfer tax at a higher rate. However, if this fee is increased, the county retains the original dollar ten and the city will receive the rest. So to double the current annual revenue amount of 1.7 million to 3.4, the current the city tax would actually need to be $2.20 per thousand dollar. This could also be general or special tax. And this next chart shows the transfer tax rates of our benchmark cities. The emissions tax can be levied as a gross receipts tax charge for entry to specific entertainment, sporting, recreation and or amusement activities. Or can be imposed on a consumer on a per ticket basis. It can also be extended to include gym memberships and spas. The cities that often find do emissions tax are the ones with major sporting venues or amusement areas like San Francisco, Pasadena, Pomona and the cities you can see here listed in the table. This could also be a general or a special tax if dedicated for specific use. Next, I'll briefly discuss some funding mechanisms for infrastructure. The city does have the ability, with the vote of both city council and the public, to do general obligation bonds. This is an ad valorem tax or property tax that applies to the assessed value of taxable property. Bonds can only be used to finance acquisition or improvement of real property. So capital improvements versus operations like public safety, a strong credit rating by the city does mean lower bond cost for the city, and this requires a two thirds vote of both the city council and the electorate to do. Other financing sources include a community facility district. However, this must tie to a new development and assessment district in which must tie to the benefit of the real property that's that's been benefiting from the improvement or service that's going to be funded. And then also lease revenue bonds, which are currently used right now on a case by case basis for financing of infrastructure and equipment. Now I'm going to go over some of the considerations for these tax measures. The parcel tax, which would be a new tax, is predictable and reliable that is usually viewed as another form of property tax. A utility user tax could be either an increase or new expansion, and this does have a relatively large tax base, but it's based on commodities, some of which are in decline like telephone. The local transaction and use tax would be an increase to our sales and use tax. Potentially could affect consumer shopping habits. However, our consultants have not noticed a difference in other cities that have implemented this tax. This is also sensitive to economic conditions and would grow in a strong economy in decline in a recession. The business license tax would be an increase. However, this is a revenue increase, relatively small compared to other options. Oil taxes would be an increase in perceived or new and perceived impact very few taxpayers directly. And it potentially could result in decreasing oil production in Long Beach. The transit occupancy tax would be an increase, which potentially could be detrimental to convention bookings and tourism and relatively small revenue compared to other options. The parking tax would be new and that would impact few private parking lots and have revenue relatively small for those lots and high cost for the city to minister and also the high costs for the city's parking garages. The real property transfer tax would be an increase, which actually the implementation benefits the county at the cost of the property owner first and then the revenue increase is relatively small compared to other options. Emissions tax is new and this could be detrimental to special events, booking and participation in life. And also the revenue increase is relatively small and then the funding mechanism for infrastructure is limited to real property acquisition improvements and so cannot be used to fund operations like police or fire. So here are some next steps. Should the city council wish to proceed with a ballot measure? City Council would need to decide on a measure type and tax amount, develop a ballot measure language and determine timing of the ballot measure. The next general election for the city is the April 12th, 2016 primary. However, that filing deadline is passed. The following general election is June seven, 2016. The runoff election. And for that to meet that date, City Council would need to adopt a resolution in February to meet the March 11, 2016, filing date. And depending on the measure, it would either require a simple majority vote or in the case of a transaction and use tax or general obligation bonds. A two thirds vote of the city council. The November 8th, 2016 election will be considered a special election for this city. And in order to meet that date, a resolution would need to be adopted in July to meet August 12th filing date. And depending on the measure, it would either require a simple majority vote of the Council for a special tax, a two thirds vote for a transaction and use tax. Who are unanimous vote of council on a declaration of fiscal emergency for a general tax. The cost of the election will depend on the timing. Other issues on the ballot. And if city or the county conducts the election. If the city conducts the election, there would be no additional cost for a general election with citywide candidates on the ballot. However, this is not the case in six. The next citywide election is 2018. It would cost 1.6 million for the city to conduct a special election, if only the city. Every city measure was on the ballot. And for the June election to expand from the even districts to all nine districts, it would be an incremental cost of 900,000. If the city conducts the election and it's during one of the regularly scheduled elections for June or November, it would be 560. I'm sorry. I think you mean the county, right? I think you said the city. What? I think you mean the county. Oh, I'm sorry. Of the county. Thank you. It would be 565,000 for the June election and 433,000 for the county to conduct the election on behalf of the city for the November. We did not ask the county to cast out a special election just for the city only measure. This concludes my presentation and I stand ready to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. I'm going to thank you for that. I'm going to make a few a few comments and then I'm going to turn this over. There's a I think everyone's plugged in to say a few words. And I know this to be a lot of questions tonight, which I think are really important. I just want to just start by just kind of taking this back a little bit. I think that it's important to note that this this is a conversation I know that this council but other councils have had, I think, for for many years. I think that the largest challenge in front of us as a city and I mentioned this at the state of the city, is our $2.8 billion need when it comes to infrastructure and capital infrastructure. We're talking about our sidewalks, our streets or alleys that are in in terrible condition are public buildings. But most importantly, those streets that connect our neighborhoods and the systems that connect our neighborhoods. And it's not just the streets, but an incredibly important part of our deteriorating infrastructure. As many of you also know is our water systems, our water conservation systems or storm drain systems. The systems that protect our neighborhoods and improve our water. Our water quality are all crumbling. And while we have and the city continues to invest significant dollars every year, there is no question that no matter how much we invest, our our systems and our infrastructure continue to get worse because we just don't invest enough. We'd have to substantially increase that investment. And obviously the city currently can't afford to do that. And so we are in a in a difficult position when it comes to infrastructure. And I mentioned that my state of the city and I think most most folks understand that there is a need and that if we are going to , as a community, have to have a conversation about how we pay for a world class city and how we move forward and ensure that our community is strong and prepared for this next century. In addition to the incredible infrastructure needs, we also have other needs now. These are different needs. But while this is, I think, focus on infrastructure, I don't want to leave out the fact that this city continues to have challenges when it comes to ensuring we have enough police officers on our street and that we have enough paramedic response times and firefighters to patrol our communities. And so we have a lot of needs. And certainly I think infrastructure is the largest, but those are our public safety needs and our infrastructure needs are critical for the success of our future. An interesting fact is that I think if you look back at the history of Long Beach, it was it's been 25 years since Long Beach voters actually increased any sort of revenue. So I think it was 1991 was was the last time. But as far as any general obligation bonds and that's been I think it's been the 1960s since any of that has has has happened. And so while others around us including other cities in the county, certainly Long Beach City College and and and Miami Unified, which we have supported, the city of Long Beach's has not. Increased revenue significantly. What we have done is decreased in many ways government. We've eliminated more than 700 positions in the last ten years. We've leaned government believe we've made it more efficient and we've also partnered with our employee unions, particularly our city employees, our firefighters and our police officers to enact pension reform. And that pension reform, as we all know, saved the city and is saving the city over $250 million over the next ten years. So pension reform has been in place. We've eliminated 700 positions, including, by the way, police officers and firefighters. And we have tried to be as efficient as possible with the resources that we have. And so as we move this conversation forward tonight, I know there's going to be a lot of questions which which is which is really important. I want to just mention a few things. The first is and these I think are important as we move forward. One thing is and I think there's you know, I think there's beginning to be reports about about this issue in the media and conversations. As a reminder, this city council can't raise tax revenue or investments. This body can't do that by a vote of the body. The only people that can actually bring in this type of revenue are the voters of Long Beach. And so the council cannot, on its own, raise the taxes that were being discussed in this conversation. I think that's an important distinction that sometimes gets lost in headlines or in articles I read. It's this body can't do that. Only the people can do that. In addition, I just want to leave us with two thoughts as we as we as we move forward. The first is as we consider possible investments and possible revenue measures, I think there's two things that should they're important to guide our conversation. The first is that I personally don't support any new tax investments unless they sunset and unless they end. I think that good tax policy should always sunset and end. And I personally don't believe in ongoing types of revenue sources. And so I think smart revenue measures come in when there's a need, there's an investment made by the public, and then they sunset out. And so it's a more responsible way, I believe, of doing any type of revenue measure. I think those are always the best types. The second thing I'll say is one of the things that's really necessary in the city is to strengthen our reserves. Now we have actually already a strong emergency reserve. We have a strong or growing rainy day, rainy day fund, which has actually grown a few million dollars over the last year, thanks in large part to this council and the one before for adding to it. But I'm hopeful that any conversation about revenue begins also with this idea that we need to, first and foremost, also strengthen reserves. And so if this council and if we decide as a community to move forward and voters have a chance to weigh in, my hope would be that any new measure would include a significant increase to our reserves to ensure that future years are stable for this community in the long run, and that we don't go back into difficult deficit years in the future. And so those are important things. And as we all know, reserves also help with future credit ratings. We already have pretty decent ratings, pretty good ones. It'd be great to have to have the best. And so those are our two things that I think are important as we move this conversation forward. And I also just want to want to mention as well that over the course of the next couple of weeks, I know I plan to and I know I'm sure other council members do as well. We plan to have conversations with folks in the community. I certainly a meeting with community some community leaders and business leaders next week as well as a variety of other folks. So it's important that we kind of hear and what they have to say as well as talk about the the incredible need that we have and challenge that we have in front of us. And so with that, I'm going to turn this over to to the council, starting with Councilwoman Gonzales. Yes. I want to first thank our city staff, our financial management department. This was a very great presentation, very thorough. I think what I gathered from it was that we have a lot in front of us. We have a lot to certainly consider. And I agree with what the mayor states is that, you know, almost $3 billion in infrastructure needs is is definitely an undertaking that we have to not turn a blind eye to. We actually have to face it head on and look to see what other alternatives there are in our city in terms of opening up new revenue streams. And so at this point, you know, I certainly believe that, you know, we have the opportunity to present this and look at what we can offer our residents and see if it is something that they want to do in terms of infrastructure. I also think as well, just, you know, along side our streets and sidewalks and alleys, you know, we had a great infrastructure report from our mayor. Before that I had brought forth Safe Alleyways Project that looked at some of the dirt alleys that we still have in our city. And I'm still in awe that we have alleys in some places that also do not have sufficient lighting that adds to our issues within public safety. And so I think that getting those reports and then having this plan in place would be, you know, kind of good timing for us to look at all this. In addition, I think as well which compounds the issue is unfortunate the are one time funds many time rely on our oil revenue and we know right now that we're below $30, which is pretty bad. The economy right now is, you know, in that sense, isn't doing well. And so I think that we do have to look at other opportunities. I do have a question, though, a couple of questions that may have been answered. I just wanted to ask them first, when was the last time we had a ballot measure of this sort in our city? Mr. MODICA So I think the Mayor pointed out the last time that we had a significant revenue measure that was, you know, for general purposes, it really provided a tremendous amount was back in the 1990s when the suit was raised in 1991, 92 in that area. We have had some smaller measures. It was Prop H that was very specific and the medical marijuana. But neither one of those are considered general tax measures that support, you know, the, you know, city government. You know, those are very limited in specific taxes. Okay. Thank you. And then are you t. Currently it's 4%, eight percentage points lower than los angeles. And when was the last time that was in the report? But. When was the last time that we did anything with our user utility tax? So the you t was actually changed in 2000, 2000 and it actually went down. So it went down from 10% down to 5%. So it stepped down 1% each year. After that, the city has taken an action to clarify the u u t. But the voters may remember that they voted on a u t that didn't generate any additional revenue that was just to comport to some changes in federal tax law. So but we've actually gone the other way on the U. T not an increase. And should we I know currently we're going to receive and file this, but if we should move forward with bringing this moving this along, we would be able to clarify language or look at language that we can put forth on the ballot. Yes. The city attorney can talk to you a little bit about what that process would look like. But we've outlined there are two options. There's June and there's November. June would require some decisions in the next couple of weeks. And April is really not an option at this point anymore. Okay. And this wouldn't have to go through any other committee like elections oversight. This can just be done here. Just to clarify that. That is correct. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmember, your. Thank you, Mayor. You very much outlined the challenges that we have with not only our infrastructure, but also with our public safety. Also included in there. We're looking at closing of libraries, parks, recreation programs, and also we're looking at the increase and the spikes that we have in crime and of course, the needs that we have with our fire services. So I think that when it comes down to the issue as a whole, I'm glad this is being brought forward because we are being challenged and we do have issues that we need to look at. We're looking at every year we're deferring maintenance to another year and as as we defer those costs increase. So we do. I'm not saying it's urgent, but it is pretty pretty much there in terms of what we need to do in reviewing this this issue here. I was very much concerned back in 2000 when we looked at the utility users tax and the effect it was going to have going from 10% to 5%. And the the impact of that was immediate. And we haven't been able to recover since it was an immediate $80 million hit because it was half of our half of our budget that we would get from the utility. And we've been struggling ever since. As a former city employee, I was I was very much aware of the impact that the utility had on our budgets and on our need to lay off a number of of of individuals from their jobs and also the elimination of a number of programs that had that had to go away. And we're talking about even now, as as we talk about the increase in crime, you know, our gang unit had to go away. So we have to look at ways that we can bring back some of those programs. And I'm looking at at the possibility of what's taking place here would be the the seriousness of looking at the at a at a new building, a new revenue stream for for us to look at the the concern I would have, obviously, because there's a lot of different machinations that need to take place, whether we go for a general or a special, whether what the threshold is with the electorate and what the threshold is here on the on the city council, whether it's a simple majority or two thirds. So we we have to look at this seriously. Obviously, we're going to receive and file this document today. We're going to have more discussion on this later. I'm sure that there's going to be some other additional questions that each one of us will have as we move forward with this. In terms of what the timeline we're going to we're going to choose whether it's June or whether it's in November. But we do have to look at it very carefully because we want to make sure that we get enough of of information out there for the electorate, for for the residents to evaluate and was looking at this to give them the time that they need to determine what they can or cannot support. So I'm glad that we got this this report very thorough. Some of the questions that I had coming in were answered in regards to a general or a specific election, the November versus June versus the November election. Those questions were answered for me as well as Councilmember Gonzalez clarified right now in terms of the whether it's a committee of the whole city council or an elections committee. So he's not going to be coming to the elections committee. It's going to be the committee of the whole. But I think that that's what we need to keep in mind, is that there's going to need we're going to need some time. We're going to need some time to take this out into the community, get their feedback and get get some guidance as far as what we can and cannot do personally. As I mentioned before, the U.S. tax went from 10 to 5. And I think if we were to look at the you that you you the uut opportunity, it would be it would not be an increased tax. It would be a recovery as far as I'm concerned. You know, it sounds like semantics and it probably is, but it's not. When it comes down to the big hit that we took in 2000 and trying to recover some of that money now where we're at, you know, for the future in looking at that tax here. So looking forward to the continuing conversation. Thank you, Councilman Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank staff for this presentation. I remember the president the similar presentation back in 2012. I want to thank the residents who have already sort of reached out to me about this issue. You know, I see some of your comments from from Ardoyne, the Hamilton neighborhood. I see. I hear you. I, I. I do plan to. You know, I don't know what the answer is at this point. I know that there are a lot of questions and that we have to grapple with those questions. But I do plan to go out to the community and talk with our North Long Beach leaders and have an honest discussion about the circumstances in the state of our our you know, our infrastructure and our services. My thoughts? I have a number of thoughts and a number of questions related to this. You know, it's no question that our streets and sidewalks are failing and that the longer we delay maintenance, it becomes more and more expensive. I know that we have a number of dirt alleys in Long Beach. I know that certain neighborhoods north of Artesia and north of 91 Freeway still do not have sidewalks. And the fact is, our district annual allocation for sidewalks, just it it just won't cover it. It's not enough for us to really keep up. I was interviewed last year some time by Univision and had to actually explain why we as a 21st century still do not have sidewalks in all of our communities. And then in terms of our facilities is no question. I'm a proponent of of of making sure that we have a Highland Park community in the future. But the truth is, demand is growing. Our facilities facilities are failing. The Highland Park Community Center is literally 90 years old, and we're still utilizing that building today. 90 years old. There are issues with asbestos. There are seismic issues. The community has grown over the last 90 years. That is a community center we designed a long time ago. Will not meet the community center today. Literally, it serves 20% of Long Beach, its population, the 1985 zip code. We can't continue to ignore that. We can't continue to ignore North Long Beach. And this isn't simply any park. This is one of five regional centers. And I want to just ask it's Parks and Recreation here. I want to simply ask the question, what is the distinct difference? How many how many regional centers do we have? And what is the distinct difference between a community center and regional center or a park in a regional park? Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council. Councilmember Richardson We have 26 community centers throughout Long Beach that serve primarily our youth, age 5 to 12 afterschool programing. Of that, we have five regional centers, including Halton, Silverado, Eldorado, McBryde and Chavez, that offer a more robust offering of programs and services, which include our teen population in addition to senior programing. So that's really the distinction there, the teen programing and the senior programing at those five locations. So these five locations. And thank you. Thank you, Mr. Scott. So these five locations across town are typically situated next to high schools, are typically spread out from one another and typically larger. And they have additional they have additional functions that they have to provide. It's one of five areas that provides senior senior services and teen services. And that's critically important given our very young, our aging community and our very young community that's developing. And it has a lot to do with public safety and crime. We've done well. But to demand and request that our police officers, our public safety personnel continue to do more with less. When we see the national trends increasing, that's a recipe for disaster. The truth is, we you know that our we're at historically low levels in our police department. And and, you know, I don't I can't quote how many decades it's been. I won't get into that. But it's time that, you know, we've seen the reports. It's time to double down on public safety, stumbled out, time to double down on violence prevention. Now, in terms of response services, I think it's no secret we had a big conversation last year about the loss of Ramadi and what that means for our our paramedic response times in our services. And a few months ago, we had a conversation about and we really dissect it. What does it mean when we go from nine paramedic rescues to eight? What is the impact on those services? And I think the fact that we had that conversation then is really relevant today because there is a real difference and a real strain on our system. As a matter of fact, is the fire chief around? Can Chief Terry, can you just elaborate? Is there a distinct difference between when we go from a certain level of paramedics and our system to and we take out just one paramedic. So if we go from nine paramedics to eight, what does that materialize and actually look like on our paramedic system? Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers Councilmember Richardson, as I have discussed here before, our system is comprised of all the parts and they work in concert with each other. So in the event you reduce our resource capability by taking a resource out of service, what ends up happening is the remaining resources will need to pick that up. So by removing one resource, it does have a tremendous impact citywide on our system. And you know, and thank you so much. I think that is something that is a tremendous context for this conversation that we've actually seen the difference in what happens when you have a big hole in our system. And so this is you know, I personally believe it is a responsibility of our city to provide public safety, to make sure that we can respond to emergencies and actually in a timely manner. And, you know, the fact is, the numbers, the number of of, you know, incidents that we have is staggering. It's continue to grow the number of emergency calls that we have. But we are at modern. We have the lowest levels of paramedic response to respond first responders than we've had in modern history. So the truth is, I mean, this is a tough conversation we're going to have to have. I was watching earlier this week, I saw that the Gazette's editorial board released a piece that I thought was was very reasonable and hit the nail on the head I shared with my social media. And in plain talk it made a good case. It essentially said that we've been fiscally prudent. We've made, you know, significant reductions in our budget. We've, you know, I'm paraphrasing, but we've cut our staff. We've cut our staff to the bone. We've been more efficient. We've partnered with our rank and file to reform pensions. The belt has been tightened. That's the truth that, you know, there is no more fat on the bone to cut. And so. That said, you know. Deserve a voice. They deserve to weigh in and say how they you know, what they believe our city should be today and in ten years. Do they want to balance the budget at the risk of, you know, slow response times? Hundred year old community centers, asbestos crumbling? But before we commit to that, there are there are, you know, some conversation need to happen in our city. We need to make sure that we're aware whether or not we're going to continue to build a second tier city. I think that this the presentation also, I think it was interesting and I want to throw this into the air that there was a $700,000 difference between a June election and a November election. So that makes a lot of sense to me to go with the cheaper election, which it's looked like was June. Am I correct? Mr.. City Manager That June was, it was like $700,000 cheaper. Councilman Richardson, the June election is conducted by the state. His 560 are sorry. I keep on saying the wrong thing. The county is $565,000. The November election is 433,000 and is the estimate. The November election, though, would be considered a special election by the city and would require a two thirds vote of the public for a special a special ballot measure unless a unanimous vote of city council declaring a general emergency was declared for a general election. General tax measure on that that item. Yeah. I didn't hear that. I was I was looking for the slide, but it was at the $700,000 difference and I catch that. I think what you're looking at is if the city conducts the election and it was just a special election that the city did in November, that would be 1.6 million. And then if it was in June in the city conducted it, it would be 900,000. So that is a $700,000 cheaper if the city conducted. But even more even less expensive. Expensive would be if the county conducted the election. Okay. So so that said, I mean, it makes a lot of sense to me to do a June a June election. What the what the measure looks like, not quite sure. But I'm going to go out I'm going to talk to I'm going to talk to my residents about this issue and have a really, really tough conversation . So thank you so much for your time and I look forward to what this turns into. Thank you. Council Member Austin Thank you. And I will try to be brief. I know that we're going to have a lot of comment from the council here. I want to thank financial management and staff for this report and putting it together so, so quickly, expeditiously. We asked for this just a few weeks ago. And this just shows again. I think the quality of our staff to give us this information is such a timely manner. This is unfortunate in some respects because I think it falls short of the $2.8 billion addressing that need. But it does give us some options to enter in an avenue to make significant improvements in our infrastructure. And I know there's been conversation here about public safety as well, which we do need to address. I'll speak on that as well. I think when I talk to my residents, the infrastructure and public safety are among the top concerns. These issues are universal. No matter how much of our residents home values are or what neighborhood they live in. If you go into some of the nicer neighborhoods in the eighth District and little Cerritos, you'll find that our our curbs are falling apart. Our sidewalks need to be repaired. Alleys and Bixby nodes are dirt and pothole laden. And in the north Long Beach, we have crumbling streets. This issue infrastructure resonates with our residents and they live it and see it every single day. And they look to this council. They're looking to the city to fix it with limited resources. And it's very difficult. And I said this before, it's very difficult as a as a city leader, as a elected leader in the city to not be able to address those critical needs. When residents when it rains, you know, there are puddles in front of people's homes for days on end. And they want it fixed. They want it fixed now, and they really don't want to hear the excuses. So having these options in front of us give us gives us the ability to at least say, hey, we can have a conversation with our voters citywide and put the question to to them, to our residents, whether or not and how. They'd like to see the infrastructure needs fixed. As many as I've spoken before, many of us I've been involved with the state led committee and over the last year particularly have been advocating for state funding for for infrastructure needs on the local level. I'm encouraged that something may happen, but I don't think we can depend on Sacramento to fix the vast needs that we have here in the city of Long Beach. I don't think any local government is smart to depend on a revenue source from the state to do that. We have to control our own destiny. And I think Long Beach is really at a crossroads. We need to decide whether or not we want to be a world class city or we want to be a third world city. I mean, and it's just that simple. We are if we don't address our revenue today, if we don't address it very soon, we run that risk. And I don't think any of us want to see that. And again, this is this is a conversation that needs to be had with our residents. I think on the public safety front, maybe one or nine and one is 47 I'm sorry, 47 has had an impact on rising crime numbers. And the city was not necessarily we didn't have a five year plan or a three year plan to adjust for that. But we know now that that we need to make adjustments to our public safety needs, and I'm prepared to do that myself. Personally, I'm curious to know how much revenue was lost. And this is a question for financial management. How much revenue was lost with the decrease in the utility users tax? Over the period of time that it was. It was has been been a revenue source left. Yeah. Councilman Austin, if we had it at the 10% rate, we would be collecting $38.6 million more per year. And so that's the amount. I mean, if you wanted to run it over the ten years. And I'd be just just off the top of your head and I know I'm asking a lot of you right now, but how many, for example, public safety officers would that fund? So it's a guess over 25 years, whatever the number would be approximately. Right. Over how many years? Well, it's been 25, I think, since well, 1991 is when it was raised. And then what year was it? It was. 2000. Yeah. Right. So, well, the last ten years it's been down to four or 5%, you know, and then the five years before that, it went down incrementally, 1% a year, but at an average cost of about 140,000 a per officer, it would be about 275 police officers. So that that's pretty consistent with the the the downturn in terms of the loss of officers over that period of time here. We're down over 200 officers today. And I think that's an important point. I'm not going to go back and Monday morning quarterback or or go back and say, you know, what should have been done. I know personally, I didn't think it was a wise move to do that then. But but that that was a pivotal point in this the city's makeup to to to to really impacted our ability to to deliver services. And so I just wanted to go back and make sure that that that point is clear. Also, I there were a couple of taxes or options that you you you laid out regarding the number one was a parking tax. And I'm not sure what that would generate. I imagine it was rather low. But did you have a number? On that. Councilman Austin, we looked at a 10% tax being being able to generate about 1.7 million on the city owned parking lots. And we don't have a good estimate for private lots because there there aren't as many of those and we don't have the knowledge of them. But that could potentially be another up to 1.7 million for a total of about 3 to 3 and a half million dollars for a 10% rate. And the real property transfer, do we currently have that? Correct. Now we do we have a $0.55 goes to the city and we that generates $1.7 million per year. If we were going to increase it, we could we would have to a minimum double it to get the 3.4 million instead of 1.7 million. And the rate would actually be $2.20 per $1,000. You can see on Slide 19 that some cities have doubled it and some cities have gone even higher. One thing that's not on Slide 19 is there are four cities in L.A. County that have increased it Culver City, Pomona, Redondo and Santa monica. Thank you. I'd like to just also just lend my support from the mayor's comments. I think it's a very responsible and fiscally prudent for us if we were to move forward with this, to create a reserve fund. I think that is unnecessary. And shows, like I said, prudence and good faith to to our residents. And and I think a sunset clause is is is necessary as well. I think that's responsible. If we were to move forward with something, I don't know what that looks like. I want to. I want to. Have a conversation with my residents as well and in some time to be able to do that. I'm pretty certain that that most people will recognize the need to improve infrastructure, to improve public safety, because these are common themes that that I have heard from my constituents during my time in office . And it's one of our biggest challenges, I think, facing the city. And I'm glad we are having this conversation finally, because I think it shows a. It's a tough conversation. It's going to be a tough conversation to have with our residents, but it's a necessary conversation. And so thank you all for bringing this forward and thank staff for the report. Thank you. Next up, we have councilman manga. Thank you. In the past several weeks, we've seen the presentation of the $2.8 billion. And I've had lots of discussions with residents and sometimes calls into our offices asking, are we as a city really suffering in terms of within the budgets of each individual department? What they see out in the community is the streets and sidewalks. And I'll tell you that I've reviewed many of the departmental budgets, many of the department heads of said in very long meetings with me and my staff going through the details. And in any organization that's constantly changing, things are going to come up and things are going to change. And I think that an item I have coming before council in a few weeks will help us focus on those things that can be changed to ensure that we are regularly reviewing both our budgets, our structure and other things that have been brought to our attention and or things we think we should look into. A lot of great work is done by our city auditor, Laura Down, and in that we have seen that some departments have fared a lot better than others. Some are struggling a lot more than others. And there is no way through traditional measures we would ever be able to overcome the surmountable costs that we have inherited from our predecessors who treat streets and sidewalks as a one time cost. Streets and sidewalks are not a one time costs. Streets have a certain lifespan to them. And I think that we'll get to that in a quick second. But I want to first start with appreciating my colleagues who supported my efforts with increasing sales tax revenue through recapturing the leakage we'd been losing to our neighboring cities. I think the messaging has been working. I think that more people come up to me now and say. I drove to Ralphs instead of shopping at Albertsons in Lakewood. And I know that not every district has the same opportunities to leave the city. As Councilmember Richardson and I have, and that we border so many other cities where people have choices to spend their money. And I think that as people recognize that the town center is one of our biggest sales tax revenue generators, they come to the town center instead of the Lakewood Mall. And those are important decisions that they continue to make. And as we've been watching sales tax revenue, we've been able to see some healthy changes. But I would like to take a quick second to ask Miss Erickson or Mr. GROSS a question. I'm sure you know, I know the answer to, but I think it's really important for you to explain which is our annual sales tax revenues. They do fluctuate. What percentage of those, though, are considered ongoing revenues that we count on despite the fluctuation? Council cuts women mango. We what we do is we work with an outside consultant to to determine a revenue estimate. And they do have a high medium and an a low revenue estimate. And we tend to do on the more conservative side and an estimate on the low side in part to have a more conservative base for our actual sales tax that we need for operations. And they do look at past sales tax performance and things that we know like for instance a Walmart closing in factor that into those projections and we meet with them quarterly. And I appreciate the renewal of that contract. I think we're doing a great job with that organization. I appreciate the significant number of updates they've made to the reporting that I think makes it a lot easier for us as a council to to look at and monitor where we are and what we can do and what messaging we can do to help certain business corridors that have been very successful and other business corridors who have been struggling. But I drive the community and experience the streets in our neighborhoods. And when I walk the city, I, like many of you, am frustrated. I came out strong in supporting every effort to increase what we can do in terms of what can we do to bundle some of our streets and sidewalks so that we get more for our money in my district alone? Well, I guess I should say. Well, when I talk to neighbors and neighborhood leaders, I'm very open with them about the grading of our residential streets. I think it was an amazing investment that this council chose to invest in to get an actual street grade for every street in our district. Because when people call and they tell me what we know, which is my street is terrible, my street needs a complete overhaul. I'm able to say, yes, your street is terrible. It is below the rating, which is acceptable. It is a 55 and we have a dozen streets that are below a 50 that are prioritized above you because at least in the prioritization of the fifth District, one of the things that we've really embraced is that we try to pave and invest in the worst streets that are most closely clustered to get the most for our money. It has nothing to do with who calls the most. It has nothing to do with who has the most voters. It's based on where is that need and how can we stretch that dollar as far as we can? In my district, streets alone make up more than a $40 million need. We as a city budget 38 point something annually citywide among nine districts. And so that doesn't even include the need for park bathrooms to be repaired that are in despicable quality for our youth, the water fountains that are inoperable that need to be revised and repaired. ADA Ramps Restoration of some of our most important task forces, I think it was mentioned earlier, are getting task force is really important and if we move forward with this marijuana ordinance, we're going to really need to talk about what it's like to talk about a high impact drug team because federal agencies are less likely to do supportive enforcement, at least as Chief McDonald had previously said under his administration. Once we enact our own and so we really need to take on some of that responsibility because we need to protect our neighbors. And so. I would, of course, want to hear from my neighbors and the neighborhood leaders before making any big decision on this. So I encourage people to reach out and call our office and see me. We have several community meetings planned over the next several weeks in the South Dakota neighborhoods and several others that have reached out. And I definitely support reserves because if we had been properly budgeting or reserving, we wouldn't potentially be in this situation. Mr. Crombie What's the average life of a main corridor in our community for a street? Or another member of the community that knows. Mr. Beck. Councilmember Mongo It depends really on the corridor and how frequently and heavily utilize it is. I think 20 years is average for a main corridor and it's extended beyond that for residential streets. How many and beyond for residential? Closer to 40, depending on again the frequency of its use. So when I take a street in the fifth District and public works comes back to me and says, for you to repair that district, that street, it's $350,000. I believe that after we repair that street, we need to take a 40th of that and put it into a fund. So in 40 years, when it's time for that street to be repaired or maybe 38 or maybe 42, we have the money ready and willing to go because it pains my heart to say not only do I not have the money to pay the street, I don't know when I will have the money to pay for your street because the amount is so insurmountable and the backlog is so great, and the amount of additional degradation annually by not making the repairs when we should have has been difficult. So while I support the mayor's idea of reserves, I support dedicating dedicating a percentage to infrastructure that is measurable in terms of what it costs to repair things on a schedule. If you have an air conditioning system and it costs $10,000 to install and it needs to be replaced every ten years, you should put $1,000 away every year. And I know that's an oversimplified version of that, but I really feel that for us to be a first class city, in a city that has neighbors who as we are in the baby boomer generation and some of them than baby boomers are selling their homes and downsizing. Our streets need to be just as great as Lakewood, who paves every single one of their streets at the same time. Because when people are making a decision on where to buy a home, those streets make a difference, those sidewalk repairs make a difference. And the values of our homes are one of our top priorities to our neighbors. It is the lifeblood and the nest egg that they've really invested in. And I feel that it is crucial that we as a council deliver to the taxpayers what we have promised them, which is a safe community. And that does not only include public safety, which is very important, but part of a safe community is the quality of our streets and sidewalks because we want a walkable and bikeable and drivable community. So thank you. I look forward to hearing what our options are. And I, I know there's some other details that we can go over later related to the Brady Burns bill and a few others that would impact different types of taxes that we can talk about offline or maybe in a two from four to the council. Because I know that while the consultants have said that sales tax would not be reduced, there are concerns from certain sales groups, including car dealers, about what that means to them and how that impacts them. And I think you've answered some of those detailed questions through some some communications we've had. But if that's an area that we decide to explore, I'd like to really work through everyone on the council fully understanding what our options are to ensure that people don't start purchasing their cars in other cities with a reduction in our sales tax revenue, because I think we've worked really hard with the Association of Car Dealers to ensure that people are getting the message that buying your car in Long Beach makes a big difference. So thank you for everything so far, and I look forward to hearing more from my colleagues in the community. Thank you, Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I wanted to thank staff for the report that was very, very informative. Just had a couple of questions and then a few comments. What is the difference in terms of practical application between the city administering the election and the county administering the election other than the lower price tag with the county administration? I think actually the clerk would probably be the best position to answer that question. I'm not used to turning my head this way for staff questions. This is. Weird. But yes, Councilwoman Pryce. So the difference between the city clerk conducting the election versus the county conducting the election for the June runoff, is that. Well, the the county is going to be conducting or coordinating with us for the June election. So essentially, if we turn around and then conduct our ballot citywide ballot measure, then we would then again run into the issue of doing a. A concurrent election, so duplicating efforts and such. So it makes more sense to have the county administer it if we were going to administer it and it's actually cheaper. That's correct. Okay. So there's no there's no advantage to us doing our own election. Okay. Okay. So in regards to the presentation and just to clarify, any action by the City Council would ultimately. Lead to the voters deciding whether to impose a new tax. That wouldn't be something that council is doing. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. So just a few comments and I echo a lot of what my colleagues have said tonight, and I look forward to talking with my constituents about this, too. And ultimately, regardless of what we decide to do, this is an issue that really needs to be decided by the voters. When I started running for office, which was in December of 2013, and I started to go to community events and talk, I remember, you know, probably because of my background and kind of seeing where the trend in crime was going. I felt that public safety was the number one issue that we needed to focus on in the city. And I remember it being at a community meeting in the third district, and I remember a resident standing up and after I had said with the two or three top priorities for me would be and listing public safety as the first, she said, You know what? Your priorities for the district are all wrong. Public safety is not an issue. And the third for us, the bigger issue is, you know, and she listed some of the issues that that she believed were the main issues. And granted, this was a kind of a special group that was focused on a particular area. But. And what I said at that time was. You know, people don't start off committing violent crimes. They start off committing small theft related crimes that, you know, a lot of times get brushed off as not serious. And in that kind of an environment, and when we have the addition of some of the things that we've seen in terms of statewide initiatives that take away the incentives for mandatory treatment and such, there's there's no question whatsoever that crime is going to rise. And that's something that I saw after AB 109 passed. And it's definitely something that I have seen proven to be true in the criminal justice system over the last year. Now, when I go to a community meeting and the third public safety is for sure, absolutely, without a doubt the number one priority for my district. You know, a lot of times we sit up here and sometimes I have to, you know, bite my tongue because we're all trying to do our best for the city. But we're also all very protective of our districts. And our public safety structure is not designed to be broken up by districts. It's a citywide approach. And sometimes I'll have my colleagues say, well, you know, Councilwoman Price has all these fire stations in her, you know, district, or they have all of this and all of that. You know, I have the slowest response time in terms of nine one. One paramedics is in the third district and it's an island village. And we have communities in the third district that are hard to get to that have response times that are over 10 minutes long. I had 911 respond to my house last week around this time while I was here with all of you. And thankfully, I live right next to a fire station and the response was amazing and the firefighters were amazing. And on a very private level, we're going to express our gratitude to the team that responded to our home. But the point is, when you're and my kids called 911 and when you're in that kind of a situation, the response of the fire department getting to your house in a timely fashion is the only value that you care about in terms of what the city is doing for you at that moment. The only thing you care about is 911 getting to your house as soon as possible because your family member's life is in danger. I experienced this last week and everybody in this city should have faith that 911 is going to respond to their home within a couple of minutes, not 13 minutes, a couple of minutes. That is the one thing that we should be promising and guaranteeing to our residents. And if we can't do that, we're falling short and meeting their expectations. So, you know, I think and, you know, we've seen a 15.9% increase in crime citywide. We have seen property crimes on the rise, theft related crimes on the rise. And we're asking our police department and our fire department to do more with less. And I've said repeatedly, looking at the deficit years that are coming ahead, I cannot imagine a scenario where I personally I speak for myself would ever vote to reduce the number of police officers or firefighters or fire resources that we have available in the city. I would probably vote to cut many other things, but those are two areas that I cannot imagine I would vote in favor of. So going into the deficit years, I mean. I have shared with this council very openly that I don't know that the amazing work that the council before us did in trying to cut costs by use of. Policies such as proportional share. I don't know that that would work for us moving forward because we have a public safety crisis in California that we did not have at the time that we instituted those policies. And so for me, going into the deficit years, I don't know where the cuts are going to be made. I really don't. And so it's a matter of of really taking a hard look. At the. Resources that we have available to us. Looking ahead at 2019, 2018, 20, 19 years that we are expecting to see major budget challenges for the city and granted, yes, they're not as big as budget challenges as they were in the past. But we can't lose any officers right now. We really can't. We can't lose any fire resources. And so I think this is a conversation that we need to have and figure out how are we going to pay for this? And, you know, I think ultimately it's going to be a decision that our voters are going to have to decide what where the value proposition is and where they want the resources spent. I agree with the comments that my colleagues made regarding infrastructure. We have the ability to pay one street a year. One street a year. So I represent more than 50,000 people who live in the third district and I can promise them one st a year. This year we actually did some very creative patchwork and we paved portions of a couple of streets in order to be able to serve a couple of different communities. We had our team go out and drive every single street and make a list of where we felt the need was greatest. It was a ridiculous process to service, you know, just a few small streets. That is that is problematic. Fortunately, through the great work of our city staff, we were able to get some grant funding to fund the repaving of Ocean Boulevard and a couple other major public works project. But that was really because of creative grant writing efforts by our team, which I'm grateful for, and I don't know that those are sustainable funding options for us. The deferred maintenance option or discussion is huge. We have no option for deferred maintenance. We have city buildings and facilities and we've talked about this before as a council. I'll use the ranchos as an example. The ranchos have a partnership with Long Beach Unified School District. Every Long Beach Unified student in the grades that are targeted for the two ranchos visit the ranchos. Both of the ranchos every single year. And yet we as a city do not have the money to be able to take care of some of the infrastructure needs of these city facilities, historic city facilities. That is a shame because it's it's very, very important that we maintain these beautiful, historic gems that we have in the city that a lot of the newer cities don't have and can't claim. So I'm glad we're having this discussion. I'm curious, to me, tonight was more just about information. I learned a lot in terms of the various options that are available. I can tell you that, you know, I personally I know this is something that the voters ultimately decide, but I personally would have trouble with any sort of additional burden that we would place on our business owners with any increase in licensing fees. I think we've made great strides as a city to be business friendly and attract more businesses here, and I do not want to do anything that would deter that. But beyond that, I'm open to hearing and talking and sharing with my constituents their thoughts. But, you know, when people call me and say, how are we going to how are we going to deal with this public safety crisis? I say we need more officers. I mean, that's that's the solution. There's only so much community watch groups can do. We need more officers driving up and down the streets because that is a proven deterrent to crime. That's just a fact. We need paramedics that can respond in time. That's just a fact. It is what it is. I'm so grateful for the work of our fire department and our police department. This is not at all a reflection on the work that they do. They do amazing work. Their leadership is fantastic. I cannot imagine a city that's doing as much as they are with the limited resources that they have. And for anyone who says, you know, there's a lot of fat and we're wasting money, you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what you're talking about. I challenge you to actually look at the books and stop the rhetoric, because that's not what we've been focused on for the last two years. We've been living very prudent times here in the city of Long Beach, and that's just the truth. So thank you. And I have no questions. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Supernova. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. And I guess I'd like to start off on a positive note has been too positive tonight. So I have some good news for Councilmember Gonzales. Oil is not below $30 a barrel. It closed tonight at $31 a barrel. So we can all appreciate that. I'm going to I have a very just a couple of questions, but one is very specific on the on the parking tax for staff. You said that you didn't know exactly how many private lots we have. Do you know if that would include Cal State, Long Beach and Long Beach City College? Councilman. Councilman. Supernormal, I. Those would if they're if they were open to the public, you know, and there was public parking, then they would be included. And so we don't know how many private it's more we don't know the revenue estimates from the private parking lots. Okay. That might be a great resource, but I'm I'm in a parking impacted district. And one of the chief complaints is the price of parking at Cal State Long Beach. That's something I really want to scrutinize moving forward. Councilwoman Pryce mentioned remembering her campaign days and see if I can remember mine. Oh, yeah, it was less than a year ago, and I talked to a lot of residents in the fourth District. And specifically the hot button issue one year ago was a utility users tax. So the first question I have is what was it before I think you said 10% and where would that put us on this list here of all the cities? I think that would put us at the very top and put us above Los Angeles, is that correct? Council member, super or not. It was at 10%. And this is just of some of the the benchmark cities that are listed on Slide eight. There are other cities in California, though, that are at 10% or higher. Okay. So this is just a regional listing here that that you showed. Yeah, it was like some benchmark cities. So, for instance, Santa monica is at 10%, SEAL Beach is at 10%. And those are not listed on the chart. Okay. Also, I think Councilmember Price mentioned, you know, the idea of putting this in front of the voters. If we do decide on a on a June date for the election, 128 days, would that be enough time to run a campaign on this and educate the voters? Oh. Council Member Councilmember You know, the council's decision is really whether or not to put something on the ballot. At that point, the city really doesn't get involved in whether or not there's a campaign. We don't spend city dollars on a campaign, so we wouldn't be able to answer that question right now. But that those are the legal deadlines as you have a certain amount of time to make a decision to put it on the ballot. Okay. Thank you. Also, with all the analysis of these various taxes, we've never it's not described as to whether or not some of these taxes are regressive. And that was certainly a topic one year ago when I was walking my district. And I'll just give you a dictionary. Dictionary definition. Definition of a regressive tax is a tax. It takes a larger percentage from low income people than from high income people. A regressive tax is generally a tax that is applied uniformly. This means that it hits lower income individuals harder. Would you describe the utility users tax as a regressive tax? Councilman. Super or not it the rate is uniform. If someone has a smaller home, their actual tax amount would be smaller. So if you had like a five bedroom house, your utility bills are probably higher. So it does vary. But I, you know, I can't answer if it's so it has some reactionary aspects to it, but it also has some non regression aspects to it because it really does vary by the size and your consumption of utilities. Okay. Thank you. I think it's all I have. Thank you, Councilmember Andrews. I yes, I thank you, Mayor. You know, I myself I really think that this is you know, I know that this is the right thing tonight in asking the city manager and the city attorney to explore options for revenues and has for the city of Long Beach. You know, our mayor and the city council has shown that we have been very smart in using taxpayers money to pay for city services. And making every dollar count for much needed infrastructure improvement. When the recession hit very few years ago, we made it necessary cuts to ensure. Long Beach didn't go broke. And still, we found a way to provide services to the people of my city. It was painful. It was the right thing to do at that time. Now it is appropriate for us to look at revenues, you know, incentives so that we can continue to properly serve the people of our great city . You know, the impact of public safety is a deep concern of mine. We have had an impact on federal, state and county early release programs with little or no support from these agencies. As a result, crime has crept up from the historical low, and we cannot expect police to do more with less. I'm not sure we will even keep up with the current police level with only one police academy a year. And in saying that, you know, we think of I'm sure that the retirement rate of our police force would maybe 80 or 90 individuals retired at a certain age. And we can only, I think, have 50 an academy. And you would think that only maybe out of that, maybe maybe 25 of them will, you know, move on. And that will let you know that we're still below the level that we would need. Well, you know, when we talk about public safety. And I know in my area, most crime they talk about is public safety. And that is very important. Infrastructure, we know we need that. But like I say, I think our most important thing, especially yet in my district, they talk about, you know, police and fire. And this is why it's so important to me when I think about things that we know we have to do, it's a must that we do that. How are we going to get the money? We're going to have to find a way. I've also been concerned with the cut of that fire department that has taken over the past seven years. We've had cuts, six fire engines, one truck company cut, rescue 12 that an engine eight, engine 15, engine 17, engine 18, engine 23, engine one or two and truck 14. We had three fire station with no fire engine in them, station eight, station 17 and station 18. Now, with that said, individuals, you know, I'm going to leave all of this up to our chief of police and the chief the fire chief, because I know what the decisions they're going to come up with, something that we know will definitely take care of the city of Long Beach because of the fact that we have ideas, we have things that we know we have to do. But I think I put total confidence in our chief, both for fire and police. And this is what we're going to do when we have these discussions to let them know that we're behind you no matter what decision that you make. So in the city of about 500,000 people, our fire department received about six 60,000 emergency calls for services each year. That a lots of calls and it makes Long Beach Fire Department one of the busiest fire departments per capita in all of America. So what I'm doing is am. I'm requesting the following from the city manager. Please ask the Chief of Police and fire to list or reduce or eliminate positions or programs in the past four years and what the report priorities are for each department for restoration with the corresponding costs from financial, financial management and each team. And I support this action tonight and look forward to seeing the options that you present to us and when it returns to the city. And thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to ask the staff about how we assessed our infrastructure needs. I know all our colleagues here addressed the various aspects of our needs, ongoing needs, whether it's infrastructure, public safety, other services. But the $2.8 billion in infrastructure needs that the mayor mentioned and highlighted. Could you describe for us how we got to that? So, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, Vice Mayor I'll take a crack at it and then Craig Beck can join us and add additional if we need to. So what we did is we, you know, we have a number of different lists where we try to assess what our capital needs are. We look at our street backlog. We've done a project paper management plan just recently, and that gave us a very robust number of an accurate assessment of our street impact. Air street needs are. We're in the process of doing that on our sidewalks. We've got capital needs in our parks. We've got technology infrastructure. And so the $2.8 billion in the presentation that we gave you back in December, December 22nd was really an estimate over the ten years. It's not engineering assessment. It's not to that level. But it really is a pretty well-grounded estimate of what our need is, and that if you were to fund that over ten years, it'd be roughly $280 million projects, and it's by no means a complete list. There's certain projects that could be added there, some that might be addressed through other needs. But it's a picture kind of snapshot in time of what our needs are. Thank you. Mr. Beck, did you want to add to that? Actually I think Mr. Modica summarized it well. I would just add that some of the categories that were included on that list include streets, bridges, sidewalks, alleys, public safety facilities, storm drains and pump stations, community centers in our parks. Parks, amenities including restrooms. Energy efficiency improvements such as LED lighting and technology. Infrastructure. And does that. I may have missed this. Does that include our water systems as well in that infrastructure estimate? To my knowledge, it does not. And if you're talking about potable water, right, you're talking about storm drains, then? In some aspects, yes. Right. I was talking about potable water. Thank you. And Mr. Mota, Modica city manager, the mayor also alluded to the rainy day fund that was established with the former council. Could you describe what the set aside is and what the policy is or the finance manager? Actually, I like Mr. GROSS to answer that. We are set we set aside half a half a percent of of. Our surplus. Revenues each year. And we have, I believe, several million dollars to set aside. Yeah, I did that. Answer your question. It did. And and while that doesn't sound like very much, it really was quite a bit to do at a time when this council was considering the huge deficits that it it was starting ten years ago. Councilman Andrews and I, as well as Councilmember Richardson, who was staffing a council office at the time. Really? Walked into a council that looks very different from our state of financial affairs than than it does today. And Councilmember Price is right. The deficits that we are looking at going forward will feel. More steep, even if numerically they are less because we have cut all the fat. And so it could be $100 million less than what we had to do over the last ten years. But it will feel much more difficult to extract those those cuts. And it's not even savings. I don't I don't I hope none of us refer to that as savings or actually just cuts. There is really nothing to save when you are operating on a very lean, lean set of services, lean set of operations. And as it was stated earlier, the city services, including public safety, but all of the other quality of life services that the city is part of in making a city and providing the city life is a . It's beneficial to all of us. Councilman Suber not asked about the regressive tax. Something I'd like us to also consider is not not just whether a tax is regressive, but when we look at the proportion of dependents on on our services, whether it's police and fire. Councilwoman Gonzalez just shared with me what the December numbers are for calls to police and fire for service just in the first District for the month of December. And it was over 700 calls, and that might be proportionally different from another district. And so when I think of the term regressive and the impacts that we have, the disparity and the dependance that we have across our districts on public services, we have to regard that as a citywide issue and a citywide policy. I've worked in water services, potable and recycled water services for almost 20 years now, and in the late nineties, then-Governor had created the state's commission on building for the 21st century, and it was to identify the infrastructure needs for the entire state. And I don't recall what the sum was. I think it was in the hundreds of billions of dollars, while ours is at 2.8. But one thing that was very glaring for me at the time in observing the process and also looking at the report is. That it was a moment of truth on infrastructure planning and investment, and it highlighted the long silence and really terrible state of inaction that we had experienced as a state. And we were looking at what this bill would be. And these were just public infrastructure items, such as highways and roads. It did not address what we needed to do at our local level. And I'm proud of this council that had very, very, very fiscally prudent policies and had the ability to cut the reduce the 700 positions that the mayor talked about and to save more than $250 million over the last ten years on pension costs and has leaned this government, as he said. But in leaning the government, we still kept our eye on maintaining quality of life. And so. For me. And I hear from all of us, everyone that has spoken, that this doing more with less is not sustainable going forward. The question now becomes, now that we have stabilized our economy here locally, our our city operations and our budgets, what is the city that we want to be today and what is the city that we want to be going forward? Not paying as you go is a very painful exercise in in water. We actually have a fund called Pay As You Go. And there are other funds to to address infrastructure and capital needs. But that it's a very direct statement pay as you go when you're in a fiscal deficit, paying as you go makes it very difficult , especially when you're looking at a $2.8 billion bill for just infrastructure needs. And as we've seen in the city of L.A., on their tree trimming schedule and their sidewalk schedule, they could be at it for dozens and dozens of years and still not catch up because it is hard to catch up. And so I'm thankful that we're not in that dire a situation, but we are in a dire situation. And we do need to look at solutions and we do need to collectively come up with a response that we perhaps we decide we ask our voters or not. But I'm delighted for the opportunity for us to be able to look at this, to actually have a conversation about the future where we're not struggling to just crawl out of the struggles of the present. I think it's a great opportunity. I mean, I know, Councilman Zubrin, I said this was a depressing conversation or not very good news, but it is a great opportunity to actually be able to talk about what the future of this city can look like if we make certain policy decisions and budgetary decisions and if we ask collaboration from from our residents, what can the city look like? That is a very positive conversation for me. And doing more with less is not sustainable. And. And I echo councilwoman. Price's statement that anyone who thinks that there is fraud really has not done their homework, that hyperbole and invective and rhetoric and all of that really has to stop because that is just the purpose of that is just distraction. Ten years ago, before I ran for council, when I was working on improving our development projects here in downtown Long Beach, I had coined the phrase about our city, and it's not a nice phrase and and I wasn't happy to call our city that, but I said that we we suffered from a collective municipal inferiority complex. We did not think that we could actually deserve better or do better. And so we took what was good enough. And I think what we have to do is. Look at ourselves today and exercise some confidence. We have city employees that are talented. We have city employees that we have to compete to to have them work with us here as opposed to work elsewhere. I think paying for talent is what you do in every industry, and I am not embarrassed or shy about the fact that we will pay for talent because this city deserves it. And so let's crawl out of that collective municipal inferiority complex that this city suffered from for so long and that we have actually come away from. And let's not revert to that and let's join with our residents and look at these solutions together and ask them what it is that they want this city to be going forward. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think everyone's had a chance to to weigh in. And I know it's an important topic, so I appreciate all the questions. Public comment. Please come forward. Good evening, everyone. I'm Jack Smith. I live at 240 Chestnut. That's in Plymouth West in the first district. Ten years, not ten years ago. Six years ago, when I was running for council, the term revenue enhancement came up and at one of the public forums I reminded everybody that that was really a government term for tax. It occurred to me about halfway through the terrific presentation this evening how many times that word showed up. And it occurred to me also that that is probably the most reviled word in the history of humankind. Tax. When I was a kid and suddenly my life needed more money than my father's allowance was providing me, I went to my father and said, Well, we need to increase the tax I have on you and get me some more money. And he responded, No, there was another word in front of that. You can fill in the blank yourself. So I had to do something that I think this city can do. I had to delve into economic development. I had to go find other means of raising money. Not by taxing my family. I mowed lawns. I babysat. I created my own little business. I did whatever it took. We have an economic development commission that I believe has some of the smartest, most powerful movers and shakers in our city. They are really an incredible group of folks. Now, you just sent them a hot potato on the minimum wage increase. The meat of what they want to do is help this city increase its revenues and therefore increase the amount of tax it has coming. That will solve the problems that you're talking about without necessarily increasing the taxes. I found it interesting that probably the largest number. Of increase was in the sales tax. That was the biggest possibility there. Now, rather than increase the sales tax 1%. Why don't we increase the tax base by 1%? Don't you imagine our very, very good economic development commission might be able to do that? I would suggest you take the time over the next few months. Not rush into throwing something on the ballot that will cause the voters to say that word. No. And let the Economic Development Commission come up with a plan for you. Do what you want them to do. Don't send them off on some ten year plan or something. Do something right now within the next year or the next few months and make some real suggestions. There are smart group. They know what they're talking about and increase the revenues in this city that therefore will increase the amount of taxes that we collect without raising taxes. Thanks. Thanks, Jack. You also you'll be happy to know that that's actually next on their agenda. And so the the economic blueprint is actually on their agenda at their February meeting. And I know they're all looking forward to that. So thank you. Our next speaker, please. Laurie Angell. I live in the eighth District and I have to mirror an awful lot of what Jack said. This is we're looking at tax increases and not really looking at opportunities to increase revenues, actual revenues like bringing in industries. We have industrial space in the ninth and ninth district that's just fallow that could be utilized. So we haven't even really looked at that. And, you know, we need to do some work on that. A tax increase should be the very last resort. And we have to look at the commitments that have been made over the past couple of years that helped. To get us into this situation. I mean, the Civic Center, how much is the additional cost per year for the new civic center? How much money have we lost in sales tax incentives? So we've taken away the sales tax revenue that we would have received from some of the largest sales tax generators as a business incentive for them to stay. Well, they're here and they've been here for decades, so I don't imagine that they would be leaving. So continuing to eliminate your sales tax revenues to provide incentives isn't really helping you at all. I think that if you are to consider taxes, it does have to be the last resort. But if you are going to go down that dangerous, bumpy, scary road and probably be denied, you need to have a very robust. Discussion with. The public, not throw at them at the last minute. This is what you think that you need and this is how you need it. That's why the last measure failed. There were budget discussions several years ago and Mayor O'Neill was here and General Manager Gerry Miller was here with the entire community. I mean, hundreds and hundreds of people showed up and we discussed the budget in detail and there were stations for every element of the budget for the people to decide what they thought might be best. So you're saying that it isn't really your your. Problem. To put a tax measure, but how you packages package it is everything. The options are huge and that's where you need to rely on the public if you're even going to plan on going down that road. But if you can figure out a way to increase the value of our property and our homes and don't influence that with poor decisions about land use, then you might be getting somewhere as well. Thank you. Next speaker, please. This is our final speaker. Mr. Good. He wants to come down after this. Thank you. Like most of you seeing this sign before, I had to break it out from an inventory. I'm really sort of shocked that this is like Groundhog Day. I've lived here since 1986 and every five or six years. This Hogg's. Come on again. I mean, it's ridiculous. We did it with Mayor Foster. You know, he came up with this measure I concoction. That was terrible. It was free money. You guys could have spent it on anything you wanted. That's why it died. You talk about raising money. He raised $700,000 from California to New York. What the hell is somebody in New York care about my street? He just called in all these chips. He's a lobbyist. Now you're going to do the same thing again. We heard Lakewood Mansion. Why is Lakewood in better shape than us? One word, two words. Contract City. It's a lot less expensive for them than it is here, no matter how much money we have here. The residents, taxpaying residents will never get the benefits that city employees do. The family will always come first. It's been said by this council many times that our first priority is to take care of the family. And when you try to run this mayor, this proposition, I around $700,000 in just about every department head in the city was out there stomping for it. Your latest study says that only 23% of city employees actually live in the city. That's pretty amazing. So all those people that are asking us to raise our taxes, take their check and go to another city. That study you did on minimum wage, you even mentioned it up here, 23%. I thought that was only police and fire. You know, none of them live here. Well, 23% is about right. 25. So I think you need to rethink this drastically. You talked about cutting 700 positions. That was that those things were kept. The police department used theirs to fund overtime. They even admitted it when a department had to make a cut, they cut a phantom position so that give it a rest. The pension reform. You said if we have such great reform, wire pensions, $100 million. Why are they going to go up between 130 and $150 million by 2021? And then from 2021, for the next 20 years, we're going to be paying that $150 million. It's not fair. The family shouldn't come first. Residents should you know, they they had a article in the paper to. But that $10,000 club it used to be. Thank you. Mr. said that. It was a 200,000. Now we have a three times. Thank you. Members of that $300,000 club sitting here. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Very good in a number of points. First of all, let me start with a very. On point. Astute observation the councilman from the third district led. Mention a relative to increase the crime. And that's not going to get any better. That's what we can expect in that ratio of increase for the next ten years. Later on in the month, we're going to have the details of why that. But if you just check the birth rates at the hospitals and so forth, you can project that out. But I think you have to take a few things that come sharply. Hopefully it's sharp in people's mind is obviously. The rebuild of city hall as projected and as people want is dead D.O.A. buried? What will happen? This will be replaced with either an office building or a hotel. All right. Library will be at the Renaissance School. A paradise in there. And the port will relocate where it should from which it the area should never left in the first place back within the port period. It was the disease process of kicking them out of there to start with. But one of the things I think you need to address yourself is the fact that within the next certainly 90 days, 220. There will be a federal master administering this city. And if you don't doubt that, how fast that has been pushed up in the agenda. Look at the article from the L.A. Times last week. Relative to the Speaker of the Assembly. Coming out and supporting the attorney general to rebuke Kamala Harris. Who the court opined had almost all but suggested she resign for the epidemic of corruption she has engendered. The who but a crook which supported another crook. The feds have now realized that the original epidemic of corruption, which is slowly moving to pandemic, has surpassed their pandemic level and is now we are California. California is in a state of what's called kleptocracy. And if you don't know what it is, look it up. Gail EPP. G o. C. R e. Y. Period. They recognize that. So we will have a federal master to oversee what needs to be done. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I do know that we can expect with a federal master overseeing the city, just like they're overseeing the L.A. Department, the L.A. District Attorney's Office. Now, whether that was for incompetence or not for corruption. We can get a better handle on what we're going to have to do. And it's not going to be pleasant, but at least we'll know. It will be honest. Thank you. Facing no other public comment. There is a motion to receive and file the report as presented by city staff members. Please go ahead and cast your votes. Motion carries.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and consider the appeal from the applicant, Steve Rawlings representing Grocery Outlet (APL21-007); and Uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit (CUP21-004) with conditions of approval, to allow the off-site sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits (Type 21 License) in conjunction with a 6,000-square-foot expansion of the existing grocery store located at 1340 East 7th Street in the Community Auto-Oriented Commercial (CCA) Zoning District. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_12072021_21-1271

Unanimously, actually. Thank you. Thank you for that for the consent calendar. Next up is we have a first hearing, which I am hearing 31. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation under the record, conclude the public hearing and consider the appeal from the applicant. Steve Rawlings, representing grocery outlet and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve a conditional use permit with conditions of approval to allow the off site sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits at 1340 East Seventh Street District two. This item does require an oath. If any, who are going to be speaking on this item can please. Take the oath. Do you and each of you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth , so help you God. Thank you. I'm going to begin the hearing with the staff report. I'd like to introduce Patricia Defender for our planning manager who will make this a staff presentation. Thank you so much. Good evening, mayor. Vice Mayor, council members. This item before you is an appeal by the applicant of specific conditions of approval imposed on a conditional use permit for the sale of alcohol at a grocery outlet grocery store . Council is being requested to uphold the Planning Commission decision on this matter on September 16th of this year. The Planning Commission conditionally approved a conditional use permit to allow the off site sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits in conjunction with a 6000 square foot expansion of an existing approximately 14,000 square foot grocery store. The grocery store in question is located at 13/47 Street on the south side of Seventh Street between Almond and Nebraska Avenues in the central area of the city. The grocery store is a tenant in the existing shopping center and will comprise that will comprise just over 20,000 square feet with the expansion. The project site is predominately surrounded by residential uses, but properties in the vicinity have a variety of zoning designations, including commercial mixed use and residential zoning, as shown on the map. On this slide, the grocery store currently has a conditional use permit to allow the offsite sale of beer and wine, which was approved by the Planning Commission in 2008. The subject conditional use permit is required because of the expansion of the liquor license to include the offsite sale of distilled spirits and also due to the expanded footprint of the grocery store and those operations. The Planning Commission based its approval on the fact that positive findings could be made in support of the request, particularly as it relates to limitations related to overconcentration of alcohol sales and allowing alcohol sales in high crime areas. You can see here the Planning Commission did find that the approval would not contribute to an overconcentration of alcohol licenses in the area at this location, as this location already has an alcohol license and that the site is not located in a high crime area and thus determined that the required conditions are met and positive findings could be found. The subject of appeal was filed by the applicant, who has concerns specifically related to two conditions conditions number 14 and 20. The applicant requests that condition number 20, requiring an onsite security guard between the hours of 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. daily be eliminated and additionally request a modification to condition number 14 to allow the sale of beer or malt beverages and 22 ounce containers, which is a common container size. This approval already does allow the sale of craft beers in that container size. As previously stated, council is requested to uphold the Planning Commission decision. However, if council wishes to consider alternatives, there are some alternative modification or modifications to the conditions that could be considered. The condition number 20 and option of the Council is to update the condition to allow the applicant to be relieved of the requirement after a 12 month period with a zoning administrator review for condition number 14, that condition could be modified to grant an exception in container size for microbrews and specialty malts, so sold under certain designations that are listed here on the slide and. And that concludes the staff presentation. The appellant is here and will speak more to the appeal points and I am available to answer any questions you might have. Do we have the we have comments now from the appellant. I don't know where members of the council. Before we before we begin, I just want to make sure. But reasonable time is 5 minutes enough for you? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Good evening. My name is Steve Rawlings. I'm a business consultant to grocery outlet. Joining me this evening is Pat Barber, who is the vice president of real estate for grocery outlets, as well as Dave O'Connell, who is the property manager for the shopping center that this site is located in. First of all, we greatly appreciate the Planning Commission for approving us to move forward with a 6000 square foot expansion, as well as be able to add some distilled spirits. The only reason we're here is we were just hoping for some consideration on a little bit of modification on the particular conditions of approval. One was as as Patricia, so well articulated. Just just don't allow us to be able to sell craft beer in in kind of the 22 and 24 ounce containers. And what was presented to you as draft modification language is is acceptable to us, and that would allow us to accomplish what we're trying to do there. The second was was the security guard. There was a time that was placed between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m., which we didn't we didn't quite understand where that was coming from. But that was ultimately the condition that was adopted. Subsequent to that, we hear Patterson, who is the store operator, a Long Beach resident. We met with her as well as Lieutenant Gonzales out at the site. And Barbara, myself, to kind of talk about, you know, security issues and what we could do to, you know, make sure that we're helping out with the situation. He informed everybody that she already employs a person whose sole job is, you know, security and or loss prevention from the hours of 4 p.m. to closing Monday, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. She's been on the property now for about four years. She's the hardest working person you'll ever meet. She's at that store 60, 70 hours each and every week. She understands what it takes to run a clean and safe operation. And she is determined that that those are the best hours. So, you know, our request was, you know, hey, if we could be relieved of that condition because we're already proactively trying to take care of any issues out there, and we haven't been a great source of issues with our operations. But alternatively, if the Council would like to see a specific condition in there, we would just ask that it be aligned a little bit more with what we're already doing, because I think that that has proven to be effective and that, you know, that security plan be open for review either by the zoning administrator. I think I proposed the Long Beach Police Department and it doesn't make a difference to us either way. So in essence, that is the request. Grocery outlet already operates three stores in Long Beach. They did sign a lease for a to open another store on Long Beach Boulevard and Willow. So we're hoping to get that open relatively soon. They have been embraced by the neighborhoods that they they serve. They're very happy that they've been making investments in your community and are looking forward to possibly continuing to make more investments there. So thank you for your time and consideration. I think Pat just had one or two other quick comments. Yeah. Thank you. We still have about a minute and a half. So for. Little. Share here, Pat. Good evening. My name is Pat Barber. I'm vice president of real estate for Grocery Outlet. I've been working on supermarket real estate for 43 years. I've seen thousands of shopping centers and grocery stores. It is exceedingly rare. In my observance, it is true for a city to require that a security person be stationed at certain hours in a store. This existing store, which has been operated by IKEA for four years plus without getting into details about how a grocery outlet does business has not had a problem. She's there all the time. She sees what the issues are. She deals with them. We have had no complaints filed by any of the people that received the notice of this meeting. I just say we really don't think that it's at all necessary for you to make a specific requirement with regard to a security person for the store, given that the operator of this store herself, who's black and who's a woman and who's very involved in the community and has received awards within the community for her involvement with the community should be overruled by you folks. You know a lot of things, but she knows a lot about operating this store. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. With regards to grocery outlet, it's a public company. 75 years old, 414 stores growing are going to be doing another new store shortly in the city. We love this store. It's growing nicely. We need the extra space. We're not including any additional space for the sale of alcoholic beverages. Thank you. Very much. And I believe that concludes the the appellant's time. I believe there is a additional appellant and then the staff. Any additional comment or response? No additional comments. Thank you. Is it public? Is there any public comment know for this? There is no public comment for this item. You think? Yeah, I think you have them queued up for public comment prior to the hearing start. Not prior to the start of the item. Okay. Mr. Graham, please. Please grab a seat. Thank you. Just just to be clear. Madam Clerk, how does public comment work for hearings? And are items. You need to come in and get a speaker card prior to the beginning of the item being read once the item is read. We closed the speakers list. So please, if you'd like to speak on an item, you can come over and get a speaker card prior to the item being read. And I believe that's how it's been been done. That is correct. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I have to follow the rules that are in place for the hearing, for and for the council. So there's a motion and there's no public comment about Councilman Allen. So I might. My job is to follow the rules established by the City Council on hearings. So unless I get direction differently from the city attorney because it's a legal procedure, I have to follow exactly the rules that are set by the body and the council. So unless I'm told differently by the attorney, that's the rules I have to follow. So let me. Sir. Sir, I need to. Councilman Allen. All right. First of all, I want to say thank you to city staff director R.C. and Development Services. Detective Gonzalez, Avon Police Department, for your frequent communication with my office. I also enjoyed seeing Payton, Steve and the folks here from a grocery outlet. I feel that with regards to city staff that you engage both the community and the applicant to work and find solutions for for all the parties. And I know that it can be really hard some time sometimes to balance all the issues on on different sites. That being said, the Planning Commission unanimously voted on these conditions, and I have carefully reviewed the circumstances and staff's updated recommendations. So the two items of the appeal are separate. I do support the modification to condition 14, allowing the sale of a 22 ounce to 24 ounce beer and malt beverages. I think these are common sizes these days for local and small breweries and they reduce the bottling cost. Now, with regard to Condition 20, the security guard condition, if we were able to update the condition to allow the applicant to be relieved of the requirement for the onsite security guard by allowing the zoning administrator action after a 12 month period of good operations can only shorten the minimal period of good operations before possibly relieving the operator of this security guard requirement. Yes, we can reduce. That to six months. That's the pleasure of the council. Okay. I also I received the supplemental letter sent in by grocery outlet regarding that condition, and I've seen the public comments that were also submitted to the Planning Commission as well. And I believe the city staff has created a good balance. So I like to make the like to move the following. I like to approve the amendment to condition 14 as outlined by the staff, and also update condition 20 to allow the applicant to be relieved of the requirement for the onsite security guard, by the way, of zoning administrator action after a six month period of good operations . Thank you is the second by Councilman Desmond Austin. Any comments? Any comments by the city council? Any additional comment, Mr. City Attorney. Okay, there's a motion and a second. Please go to cast your votes. Sir. We need to go. Please. Let's not be disruptive to the hearing. Motion is carried. Mix item is for transfers items 33 and you business 52 to 58.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2070 North Colorado Boulevard in South Park Hill. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-E to U-SU-E1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2070 North Colorado Boulevard in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-2-21.

DenverCityCouncil_04192021_21-0211

A move that council bill 20 1-0211 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and we have the second by council member or take up the required public hearing for council bill 211 is open. May we please have the staff report? And I see we've got Libby Adams here with us. And so. Go ahead, Libby. Okay. Okay. Can you see that? Mm hmm. Okay, great. So thank you. Council president. I'm Libby Adams, and I'll be presenting the Map Amendment application for 2017 North Colorado Boulevard. This application is located in District eight in the South Park Hill neighborhood. So it's located on Colorado Boulevard, just across the street from City Park, and the applicant is requesting to rezone from urban single unit E to Urban Single Unit E1 to allow for an accessory dwelling unit. The current zoning of urban single unit E allows for the Urban House primary building form, and it's a minimum zone lot size of 7000 square feet. This is the former home of Dr. Margaret Long and was locally and locally designated in 2013. If this rezoning is approved, when the applicant applies for the EU permit, it will go through the landmark design review process, which includes a final determination from the Landmark Preservation Commission. Existing land use is single unit residential. As you can see, most of the park to the South Park Hill neighborhood is single unit residential. And then there's park and open space where City Park is across Colorado Boulevard. This slide shows the existing building form and scale with the subject property on the upper right hand side. And then you can see other single unit homes in the area and then the park across the street. The application was complete at the gate at the end of December and an informational notice was mailed to property owners within 200 feet on December 29. To date, staff has received two letters of support for this application, as well as the applicant has submitted nine letters of support with their application. The Denver zoning code has five review criteria that must be met in order for a rezoning to be approved. The first is consistency with adopted plans, and there are three that are applicable to this site. This rezoning meets several of the strategies within the comprehensive plan, but most notably, it will create a greater mix of housing options in this neighborhood and will promote infill development for infrastructure and services are already in place. In Blueprint Denver. It's designated as urban neighborhood context for the future neighborhood context. These areas are mostly single and two unit residential uses with some multi-unit and mixed use embedded throughout the block. Patterns are regular, and there's a high degree of walkability. Blueprint identifies the future place type as low residential. These are mostly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. And then the future street type for Carrara Boulevard is a residential arterial, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The Growth Area Strategy and blueprint. Denver is all other areas of the city. This is where we anticipate 10% of new jobs and 20% of new housing by 2040. Blueprint also identifies specific policies. So in the land use and built form housing policy for strategy. It states that until there's a holistic approach on the individual rezonings to enable, it should be small in nature. And then this site is also within the East Area plan, which provides more specific guidance for certain areas. The blueprint does so for the future place type in the East Area plan. This area is designated as single, low residential single unit, and that does say that these are appropriate. And then the maximum height is up to two and a half storeys. There are also specific recommendations within the East Area plan for the South Park neighborhood, and it talks about integrating abuse and missing middle housing, inappropriate locations such as this area. So staff does think does find that this rezoning to USC you is consistent with the adaptive plan guidance. Seth also finds that it's consistent with the next two criteria and that it will result in uniform regulations and it will further the public health, safety and welfare by implementing our adaptive plans and providing a new type of housing unit in this largely single unit area. And there's also a justifying circumstance that warrants a change in zoning to U.S.C. E1 in the guidance for use in Blueprint Denver, as well as the East Area plan for this area. And lastly, staff finds that the rezoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context. The residential districts, general purpose and the specific intent of the USC E-1 zone district. So finding are review criteria. Have the MET staff recommends approval? And that concludes my presentation. All right. Well, thank you, Libby, for the presentation. And this evening, counsel has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 0211. And this evening we have five individuals signed up to speak. And our first speaker this evening will be Tess Dougherty. I'm going to go ahead and get tests. Moved over. Up. Let me see. We had a little bit of a lag in our system and so had to wait for the the list to load. So thanks for your patience. It will be Kristen such. Go ahead, Kristen. And correct me on your last name. In your muted. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Issue and no worries. And really, I wasn't quite sure how to respond. I am one of the homeowners at the residence for application and so I really wanted to be able to be. Here and answer any. Questions. But also I am supportive, I think for all of the reasons that Libby has already presented in terms of preserving the character of our neighborhoods, in providing other options for for residences in this neighborhood. And also for us, it largely has it gives us the. Ability to have intergenerational. Housing, which is significant for our family. So I'm here to answer the questions otherwise. Very good. Thank you for being here this evening. Our next speaker is Sha De. All right. Looks like we don't have share with us. And so we'll go ahead and see if she gets into the queue. Sure. If you join the meeting back, please raise your hand. And our next speaker is Matthew Fitzpatrick. Go ahead, please. Matthew. Yeah, hi. My name is Matthew Fitzpatrick and I am a resident of the city of Denver, as well as the owner's application representative. I just wanted to take a moment to thank the Council for hearing the application before you to rezone 2070 Colorado Boulevard. I also want to express my gratitude to the Council and to the community planning and development for their efforts to simplify the rezoning application itself, and especially for working to make the city's housing more equitable and affordable through consideration and approval of accessory dwelling units within the city. I fully support this housing typology and strongly feel it's necessary for the cultural and economic survival of this growing city. And as an immediate neighbor to 2017 Colorado Boulevard and as a resident of Park, I fully support this application for rezoning the subject property to allow for the accessory dwelling. All right. Thank you, Matthew. Our next speaker this evening is Jesse Paris. Yes, good evening. Members of council, those watching at home. My name is just on the show on Paris. And I'm representative. Excuse me. I live in District eight in north east Parkdale and I'm representing for Blackstar, actually, movement for self-defense, positive action, criminal for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, Universal African People Organization and Frontline Black Knows and I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I am in favor of this rezoning of this 80 you I supported 80 years when I ran for office in 2019. I will continue to support them in 2021. We have a housing crisis. So anything that is being done by this council to alleviate that housing crisis, I'm here for favor of. So I'm here for favor of this. Rezoning. Tonight's for the 80 you. Thank you. Thank you, Jesse. Our last speaker this evening is Tess Dougherty. My name is Tess Sturdy, and I'm a resident in District nine. And I think I also support the this zoning. And and I would just call, you know, in the presentation, it was noted that the building formed standards, design standards and uses work together to promote desirable residential areas. And that part of the goal of the rezoning for to use is to expand diversity of housing types and affordability to support households of different sizes, ages and incomes in all neighborhoods. I just wanted to kind of point that out for the gentleman who gave public comment tonight regarding the zoning that he's having trouble with, for his mother with a disability. I talked to people with disabilities and it's not you know, it's about universal design and about about equity and responding to the individual needs of someone with a disability. And so I you know, it's it's just interesting to see the stark contrast between that, you know, this process, which seems to be also for intergenerational housing for the applicants and to see that a gentleman earlier is having so much trouble in being told that he should hire a lawyer, I find that just egregiously discriminatory. And I hope that whoever you know, that that was the response from the mayor is is unacceptable. So I hope that in the any department and whoever they're making, whoever is making these decisions, that we are thinking about it with an equity lens and that that we're really considering that these plans are in place. It should provide guidelines, but that, you know, people with disabilities are going to need different things than than other people sometimes. And so taking that into consideration, it seems it just seems like that was a clear case of discrimination. And I don't I just I don't know much more about it, but I don't understand why he's just being told to hire a lawyer. That seems ridiculous. So thank you. Thank you for your comments this evening, Tess. And that concludes our speakers this evening. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 211. Right. See? No questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 211. Council Member Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. This is in Council District eight. I. I believe the criteria has clearly been met and I would urge my colleagues to support this. What is interesting, this is. Not the first you but I do believe this is the first aid you've done on a on a building and a house has been. Landmarked. So I'll be curious just to see. Watching this process through landmark designation to see how that goes. And I'm now the place of the. More elder. Council members who back in 2013 remember designating this along with my At-Large colleagues, council members Ken Needs and Ortega, when I looked at this property was like. I remember when we did. This back in 2013, so I am supporting this and I urge my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Herndon and I concur, looking at the zoning criteria that this application does meet all of the criteria and seeing no other hands raised for comments. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 211, please. And then. I. Hinds I. Cashman. I. Can each I. Ortega All right. Sandoval. I. Sawyer I. Or as. I. Like. I. CdeBaca. I. Clark. I. Flynn. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0211 has passed our pre adjournment announcement on Monday, May 17 Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0356 Changing the zoning classification for 8120 West House Avenue in Marston are required public hearing on Council Bill 21, Dash 0370 Changing the zoning classification for 3030 North Newton Street in

A proclamation honoring Shirley Amore for her service to the Denver Public Library. A proclamation honoring Shirley Amore for her service to the Denver Public Library.

DenverCityCouncil_02172015_15-0064

Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation 15 006 for honoring Shirley Amore for her service to the Denver Public Library. Whereas Denver City Council wishes to recognize our colleague Shirley Amour, who has provided exceptional guidance and vision as city librarian for more than eight years and is now retiring. And. Whereas, Shirley accomplished a great deal during her tenure, including delivering a successful campaign in 2007 when voters said yes to $52 million for library capital improvements as part of a better Denver bond program. And. WHEREAS, with Shirley's successful advocacy, voters approved ballot measures to age in 2012, ensuring additional funds for every branch to be open a minimum of six days per week. And. WHEREAS, The Denver Public Library enjoy many highlights under Shirley's leadership, including opening the Green Valley Ranch Branch Library, the Sam Gary Branch Library, and the Rodolfo Corky Gonzalez Branch Library. And. Whereas, with unwavering commitment to bringing excellent library services to the community, Shirley Amari has earned respect and affection of the Denver Citizens Library staff and city officials. Whereas Shirley has been a high, tireless advocate for the purpose of libraries in our communities. She has thought outside the box to provide all residents, including homeless people, opportunities to utilize library services for personal growth and connection to the technology services. And. Whereas, it has been the privilege of City Council to work side by side with Schuller, Shirley and more. And we thank her for her dedication, talents and heart, which she has served this great city. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council, since their birthday, wishes to Shirley as she celebrates her special day on Monday, February 16th, and to honor both her birthday indeed, and the occasion of her retirement. The council declares Tuesday, February 17th, as Shirley Amore Day Section two, that the Denver City Council hereby honors Shirley Amoore for her distinguished service to the Denver Public Library and the citizens of Denver and wishes her well upon her retirement. Section three that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall test and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Shirley more. Thank you. Councilwoman Lehman, your motion to adopt. Thank you. Madam President, I move that we adopt proclamation 15 Dash 006 for second. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman Lehman. Thank you. It has been an honor to read this resolution. Surely you have been in the city library and since the summer of 2006 you are our first female city librarian and the ninth to hold this office. You have guided the library through fast moving changes in technology. You directed the building and the staffing of three new library branches, which provided library services to underserved areas of Denver. And you created an important community resources throughout the city. Leadership is everything. Surely. Thank you for being an outstanding leader for. We're not finished yet. Councilwoman Ortega, we're just getting. Started. Right. Thank you, Madam President. First of all, I'd like to ask that my name be added to the proclamation. I can remember coming back to council and having discussions about the hours being reduced in all of our libraries. There was discussion about whether or not we should be whether or not the library system should be sort of a separate entity apart from the city similar to an authority. And we were just struggling with how to deliver the same quality of services to the citizens and the taxpayers. With with the challenge, the financial challenges that we had. And over time, as you can see, we've actually added three libraries to our system, ensuring that people in all of our neighborhoods have access to all of the great materials that you and your staff routinely update and ensure that people have access to, including movies. I have a good friend who goes to the library just to check out movies all the time. So I want to I want to say thank you for your eight years of service to the city of Denver and for your work and dedication. I know you have an excellent team of people at the Denver Library system. We've we're going to be opening the last of the three of the end of this month on the 28th. And I know lots of people are looking forward to that one as well. But it's your leadership that helped guide us through this process. And I just want to say thank you for all of your work and your dedication to the city and the citizens of Denver. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Madam President. Cheri. This is a hard day for me and seeing you seeing you go in. And one of the reasons is, is I just feel like you get it. As a librarian, you understand it's not just about books. It's about the community. And I remember we when we first met you talking about you see the libraries as community centers. And I was like, oh, my goodness, this librarian gets it. Because it's not just a place where people go to read books, but it's a workforce center. It's not just a people. A place where people go to read books. It's where young folks who don't, who come from single family homes, aren't exposed to some of the programs to read. So they're there. It's a place where we have homeless services, especially around Blair Caldwell, which is in five points. And so I, I just appreciate your work and I appreciate your your boldness in even putting social workers at the at the libraries. And so I pray that this vision will continue to go on to the next person, because we have a lot of work to do in our urban libraries. And so thank you so much for your service. Thank you so much for understanding the city and seeing the city. And best of luck in retirement. And you can come back anytime. Just let you know. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sheppard. Thank you, Madam President. Surely I said this during mayor council, but I have worked with you most closely in your project manager role, and there have been no shortage of unplanned twists and turns involved in getting the the Rodolfo Corky Gonzalez library ready to open its doors. And, you know, you and I and several others have had, you know, our share of angst and nail biting, wondering, you know, when and if and how it was finally going to come together. But I am so pleased to be able to announce to everybody this evening, as Councilman Ortega alluded to a moment ago, that we will be celebrating the grand opening of this new state of the art library to serve both well, all of Denver, but specifically the West and North Denver communities. And I couldn't be more excited. And I think, if I'm not mistaken, your actually your last day of work is the day before the opening. So I just want to let folks know that we will have a grand celebration on Saturday, February 28th, at the new Corky Gonzales Library, which is at West Colfax in Irving. If you did not know, the doors will open at nine and in 11:00 we will have a program and general merriment and celebration. So I couldn't be more excited. And thank you for your steadfast persistence and dedication to seeing that project through. I very much appreciate it, as do everyone who will avail themselves of that opportunity once the doors open. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Shepard. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. You don't often think of librarians as superpowers. But then I met Shirley Mra, who was of is a force to be dealt with. You were a hurricane of action and persuasion on the bond issue. And I was so impressed and so happy that we had you as our librarian. The librarian with superpowers. I don't think you'll probably be retired for too long. And certainly, as Councilman Brooke says, you can come back anytime. Thanks for your service. It was it was just wonderful. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you. Madam President, I wanted to just thank you, surely publicly for your work in making sure that libraries are still a thing of the present, not a thing of the past. You wouldn't believe how many times we heard people say, Why do we even have libraries anymore? When you have the Internet and I'll tell you why. Because they are. They're centers of knowledge, centers of opportunity. Our libraries nowadays are not just books that are getting dusty on a shelf. What happened to being able to do good research and teaching our young people not to just rely on what they see on Wikipedia or on Facebook as fact, but to go look for it themselves. And that's what that teaches, that that's what it's all about. I'm a generation Xer. I don't know about anybody after me. No offense, Elvis. But in the same generation. Hey, you claim to be young. I'm just picking on you. Even now that you're young, you know, three months younger than me. So it's such an invaluable it's such a valuable lesson, right, to to look for that information. It is the center of knowledge. Folks going to the library to seek refuge, to find work, to find peace. In some cases, there are only community centers and communities where we don't have any. A library is a community center and it's a place for community that and I'm proud. That at the end of this month, we will finally open the doors to the Rodolfo Corky Gonzalez library at the Avondale on Irving and Colfax. And you can clap for that. You can clap for that. And it's in a neighborhood that needed it the most. And when I worked with you, sure, you work together, even though it was contentious at times, even though we had a fight for every inch, we had to say we have to look surely mark my words surely said that we have to make sure this isn't the area for where the greatest need. And we're looking at putting this library somewhere in the west side. She says it needs to be in the area with the greatest need, and we all concurred with that. And this library is going to be a game changer, and it embodies the spirit of its namesake who fight in the streets so that we have access to the same seats that you all are sitting in. And so they can sit in the front seat of their classroom and not the back seat. Right. And so that's exactly what that library entails. You, ma'am, were critical to that. And I wanted to thank you on behalf of the folks in the West Side that I represent. Thank you so much for your work, Shirley. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Nevitt. Thank you, Madam President. Shirley, I'm really sorry to see you go. That's for sure. I'm trying to avoid the word, Shirley, but. You've been great to work with in. You know, a number of my colleagues have already talked about sort of, you know. The hurricane of. Activity and, you know, the tremendous things achieved. But I kind of like to think of you as sort of the librarian's librarian, the uber librarian, quiet, ridiculously organized, highly knowledgeable. You actually know the answer to the question before I've asked it. But you're very generous in letting me go ahead and ask the question and, you know, pretending that it's an interesting question and that that's something that you'll consider. But and the couple of things we've gotten to do together, working with Councilwoman Robb to get the funding for the bookmobile. Again, not a whole lot of drama and not a whole lot of fuss, just quietly working away, getting that done. And then the my Denver card, I remember coming to you all sort of, you know, hair on fire about how we could do this. And you explained that you'd actually been. Thinking about this for some time. And that was an excellent idea, Councilman, and we'd certainly get on it. But I think that was. Your idea before it was. Any of the rest of ours. And thank you for then quietly setting about making it happen. So librarians. Librarian, thank you for being. That. And you have big shoes to fill. Thank you, Councilman Nevitt. Next up is Councilman Fights. Thank you, Madam President. It has been a true pleasure, Shirley. Really enjoyed having you. You came at a time that followed some really tough budget cuts, and that's not a good environment to enter in to be the heroine. But you turned out. To be able to add libraries, add library hours, add library services. And you also worked with. Council. Officers very graciously to make those work for each of the areas. So I sincerely thank you. Thank you. Councilman Fox. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Madam President. Pro Tem. It seems like just yesterday that I met you at a reception for three candidates for city librarian. And boy, did we or I should say, the library commission choose. Right, as you've heard in all these comments. If I were to echo because really everything's been said. Any of the comments tonight? I think it would be Councilman Brooks. And I do want you to know, Councilman Brooks, there are books in the library older than you. But I really do see through the example of the main library here in Civic Center, the Central Denver Library, how much you have crafted a place that serves all people, regardless of the challenges. I remember going over and seeing the new computer technology center and it was just so exciting and I remember your excitement about it. I also remember your excitement at numerous book Lover Balls, all the dressing up and, you know, eating in the library that I don't think a librarian is actually trained for. But you were you were wonderful. I think the whole approach that you have had to community is also reflected in what we have heard from city departments and library employees about how great you are to work with. So thank you very much for your service. Thank you. Councilwoman Robb, are there other members of council? I, I want to just take the time to thank you with all of my heart and soul for all of the work that you've done in our community. As usual, the way it goes in District nine, we're always embattled in something. And the way that we bonded and started to work with one another all had to do with the potential. Closure of. The Byers Library in West Denver, one of our Carnegie. And you. Were. So supportive, understanding that politically myself and the rest of the neighborhood had to get through it. We need to we needed to speak up. We needed to advocate and. And you completely supported it and understood that never took it personally. Just understood that we were fighting the good fight to keep the library open. And as a result, it's still open today with a beautiful mural by Carlota Espinosa and then us working together to try to find a site that was a confluence. For the three council districts. And finally we found a home for the Corky Gonzalez library. And I want to assure you that I believe with all my heart that that is going to be the center of the universe. As for many of the people that live in the neighborhood and many people that will be seeking and understanding what what the Latino movement , Chicano movement was in the city of Denver and how. Much it really did forge history. In the city. So I want to thank you for your graciousness and your understanding and your unwavering bravery. And yes, you are absolutely Wonder Woman. The city librarian. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Lehman. Hi. Lopez. Hi. Nevett. I. Ortega. Rob Shepherd. I Susman. Brooks Potts. I can reach Madam President by. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. It's 11 eyes. Thank you. 11 Eyes Proclamation 64 has been adopted. Councilwoman Lehman, is there someone here that you would like to invite up to the podium? Well. Would you like to come? Boo and introduce yourself. And. And then surely. Afternoon. My name is Jay Mead. I'm the president of the Denver Public Library Commission. And first, I want to say. How pleased the commission is given the signal service of Shirley to the people of the city and county of Denver. How pleased the commission is that she could be recognized. In this way. And now let me introduce Shirley. I'm all. Shirley, you stand. Shirley, I'm sorry. Our city librarian lady. Well, thank you all for the wonderful accolades it has been. This has really been the pinnacle. Of my career to. Work as the uber. Librarian. Here in the city of Denver. It has been a wonderful community, but it's it's certainly not just me. I would like to acknowledge I have some of my family here tonight who've put up with some long hours. I have my staff, two of my executive team and some other staff I think are sprinkled throughout some of our . Friends. Foundation folks. But I also want to thank city council and the mayor for the strong, strong support that you have. Given the libraries over the years. I know during those really tough. Budget times, I could always count on city council to support the library and provide whatever. Service you could. You know, given the situation to the library. I do a weekly podcast for staff. I've done over. 300 of them in. The last few years, and I always end the podcast with one phrase that I think is fitting for tonight, and. It includes not just. The staff, but all. Of us. Together, we make an. Extraordinary difference in our community. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Before we go into resolutions, I wanted to announce that we've been joined by Councilwoman Marsha Johnson. Thank you for coming in. Resolutions. Madam Secretary, will you please read the resolutions from.

A resolution approving the Mayor’s appointment and reappointments to the National Western Center Authority Board of Directors. Approves the following Mayoral appointment and reappointments to the National Western Center Authority Board of Directors: appointment of Sandra Ruiz-Parrilla for a term effective immediately and expiring 12-31-2024, or until a successor is duly appointed, and the reappointments of Steven McCarthy and Lucia Guzman for terms effective immediately and expiring on 12-31-2026, or until a successor is duly appointed. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 4-5-2022.

DenverCityCouncil_04182022_22-0366

Ten Eyes. Resolution 22, dash 381 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screens? Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put resolution three, six, six on the floor for adoption? I move that consideration of resolution 366 be postponed to April 25th, 2022. Just a moment where I just need you to. Please remove that resolution, be adopted. All right. Very good. Thank you. When we've got it, we'll get it. It's been moved and seconded. We've got that. Councilmember CdeBaca, your motion to postpone. I moved that. Hold on. You guys skipped ahead. I move that a 20 2-3 66 be postponed until next Monday. Okay. Would you like to give any reasoning or. Their sound on it? Yeah. There's some confusion in community and with the mayor's office about one of the appointees. And we just want to get some clarification before we move forward with this one. All right. Thank you. And my scripted moved as well. And so we've got it. It's been moved and seconded. We've got council members that Ibaka gave the reasoning behind that. Are there any questions or comments by members of council? Not seen any additional. Madam Secretary, roll call on the postponement of Resolution 22, Dash 366 to next Monday, April 25th, 2022. CDEBACA Hi. Clark All right. Flynn i. Herndon Hines. I. Cashman I. Kenny Ortega I. Sandoval, I. Sawyer I. Torres I. Black I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes. Resolution 20 2-366 has been postponed and will be back in front of council on Monday, April 25th. Madam Secretary, if you would, put the next item up on our screens. Councilmember Sandoval, would you please put Bill 383 on the floor for publishing?

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

BostonCC_03162022_2022-0312

Duncan Number 0312 message in order for your approval, an ordinance regarding targeted residential picketing to protect the quality of residential life in our city. Filed in the Office of the City Clerk on February 28, 2022. Thank you. The chair recognizes counsel. Royal Chair of the Committee on Government Operations Counsel. Royal. You have the floor. President. On Monday, March 13th, the committee held a hearing on docket 031 to an ordinance regarding residential picketing to protect the quality of residential life in our city. This matter was introduced by the mayor on March 2nd, 2022, and, according to council rules, must be acted upon by this body before May 2nd, 2022. I want to thank my council colleagues that were able to join us Councilor Murphy, Councilor Louie Jeon, Councilor Barker, Councilor Braden and Councilor Fernandez Anderson. Councilor Flaherty, Councilor me here, Councilor Flynn and Councilor Laura. I also want to thank Chief Miller for joining us from the administration. This ordinance would limit the ability of individuals to engage in targeted picketing between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m.. For this ordinance, targeted picketing means picketing, protesting or demonstrating directed towards a specific residents. This ordinance would work in addition to existing laws around excessive noise, disturbing the peace and blocking streets and sidewalks. Violation of the ordinance would result in a fine of $100 for the first offense, 200 for the second offense, and 300 for the third and any subsequent offense. The ordinance would be enforced by the Boston Police Department. During the hearing, the committee discussed. There we go. Excuse me. This is a warning. Next time you're going to be escorted out of the building. Well. Can we take a break briefly? So somebody's going to interrupt me. We're back in session. Thank you, Mr.. Counselor Arroyo, you have the floor. Thank you. During the hearing, the committee discussed the legality of the ordinance and whether it would unreasonably restrict First Amendment rights. There was some discussion of including a sunset clause or more clearly defining which protest, demonstrations and picketing would be covered by this ordinance. Several councilors highlighted the fact that this ordinance was not introduced in a void, but rather in the context of hateful, extended attacks in the mayor's residential neighborhood. While the law department did send a letter discussing some high level legal aspects of the ordinance. They declined to attend the hearing, and the committee was not able to get further clarification on how the ordinance could be more narrowly tailored. Several councilors also inquired about the lack of enforcement of the city's existing noise ordinance and expressed concern over the addition of this ordinance instead of enforcement upon an existing law. The committee will be submitting requests for information to the administration, including an explanation from the police department about why existing noise ordinance has not been enforced. The total amount spent on police details for the demonstrations at the mayor's residence, the number of attorneys within the law department, their responsibilities and their salaries, as well as the amount of money spent on. Excuse me. That's a warning sign. Please do not disrupt. Please do not disrupt this this hearing. You have your right to your opinion not to disrupt. Please escort him out. Please, American. Let's take a quick, quick. Question. Thank you, Mr. President. The number of attorneys within the law department, their responsibilities and their salaries, as well as the amount of money spent on contracting outside legal counsel, whether a stay away order would be a more effective punitive measure rather than fines. This hearing has also included a large amount of public testimony. And as Chair, I would just like to correct some misinformation that may have been spread because of this hearing that COVID 19 virus is real. It's not a hoax. Vaccines are proved safe and an important way to prevent serious illness. And in addition, City Hall has been open to the public since last summer. I also want to thank our essential staff lady Candace and Christine, whose patients leading up to and throughout the hearing allowed it to go as smoothly as I believe it possibly could due to outstanding questions of counselors. I recommend that this matter ought to remain in committee for a working session so that we can hear from the police department and the law department on specific language adjustments that were discussed at the hearing. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel Royal. Would any other counselors like to speak on this? Dawkins 0312 will remain in committee motions, orders and resolutions. Mr. Clerk, please read DAWKINS 0381.

Rezones property at 1555 and 1597 Stuart Street from Former Chapter 59 PUD 559 to C-MX-3 (Commercial, Mixed Use, 3 stories) in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property at 1555 and 1597 Stuart Street from Former Chapter 59 PUD 559 to C-MX-3 (Commercial, Mixed Use, 3 stories) in Council District 1 (2014I-00050). A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS AFTER PUBLICATION. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-10-14.

DenverCityCouncil_01202015_14-1047

Madam Secretary, please close the vote and announce the results. 1201 Nay Baba has won the council bill 1100 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We are moving on to the next one, which is Council Bill 1047. Councilman Watts, will you please put 1047 on the floor? Certainly, Mr. President. I know the council bill 1047 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded council bills 1047, 1075 and 1076 all approved zoning map amendments. The Council is required by law to conduct hearings on zoning map amendments and Council's actions are subject to court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items presented to the Council are marked as exhibits and become part of the record. The Council Bill for the Public Hearing for Council Bill 1047 is now open. May we have the staff report? So there we go. Thank you, Mr. President. And good evening, council members. I'm Kyle Dalton with the Department of Community Planning and Development. This request for rezoning at 1555 and 1597, Stewart Street is located right next door to what we've been talking about for the past hour in Council District one in the West Colfax Statistical neighborhood. It's located on the west side of Stewart Street, all the way to Tennyson Street between Kansas Place and 16th Avenue. And it's directly across from the old St Anthony's parking garage. And Colfax Elementary is just to the south of it. And it's the L-shaped or the backwards L-shaped property indicated in the in the yellow dashed line. The property is a former religious assembly structure with attached school facilities, and the property owner is the one requesting rezoning tonight there requesting rezoning in order to facilitate redevelopment of the site and remove an old restrictive specific plan unit development. And our staff analysis is based on the rezoning and not any specific development project. They're requesting to rezone to the C three zone district in the Denver zoning code. The C stands for our urban center neighborhood context AMC's indicates that it's a mixed use zoned district and the three indicates the maximum height allowed in the district. In terms of number of stories, the property is sandwiched between two neighborhood contexts. To the east is the urban center see neighborhood context as their requesting and to the west is urban neighborhood U. Zone districts to the east are more intense. Mixed use districts to the West are less intense residential zone districts. And then all along Colfax are Main Street mixed use commercial zone districts. The current zoning is a plan. Unit development in the former Chapter 59 are known as the old zoning code number 559. It was established in 2004 and is based on the R-1 Residential Zone District, with the addition to allow the construction of a dormitory which otherwise wouldn't have been allowed in the r-1. In a very specific site development plan that I saw in just a second, it allows continuance of the existing school as well as that religious assembly sanctuary with some remodeling. But the detailed district plan included in the PD does not allow reconfiguration of the site. And so this slide really is the nuts and bolts of why they're here tonight. The this is a site plan out of the the plan, unit development zoning that exists for the property today. It acknowledges the existing school and the existing sanctuary at the southeast corner of the property, and it proposed a dormitory at the north end across a parking lot. Well, here they are today, and they recognize they no longer have a need for that sanctuary facility. The congregation that was here has long since moved. The school doesn't recognize that that that's a a use that they need for their school. And it's actually a more fitting site for their dormitory where it can be attached to the adjacent school rather than located across the parking lot. But again, under the current PD, this is all they can build. So the dormitory is currently off site, a few blocks to the east. They want to move it here and they want to move in that location adjacent to the existing school, but they can't under the current zoning, hence the request to rezone. Here's a look at the existing context around the property. The blue indicates the the school. So there's the school on the site as well as Colfax Elementary School just to the south. The hatching to the east is the parking garage and beyond is the the vacant property under redevelopment to the west and the shades of yellow are residential zoned districts. And then there's the pink commercial along Colfax. In terms of the building form in the scale of buildings, the site is is right in a transition from lower scale buildings to the west of one and two storey single family homes and some multifamily units further west, as indicated by the top graphic, that middle graphic shows the existing school site, 1 to 2 stories and scale. And then to the east is the parking garage. It's a four story building currently there in terms of process. This application was received and we were provided informational notice of receipt in September. On September 17th, 2014, it followed the regular schedule for rezoning. So there was a public hearing at the planning board on November 19th, which was properly noticed under the terms of the Denver Zoning Code, at which planning board recommended approval unanimously of this case. It went on to the Neighborhoods and Planning Committee who moved it out on December the fourth of 2014 to register. Neighborhood organizations have commented on this case, both of recommending support of the case. That's the West Colfax Association of Neighbors and the West Colfax Business Improvement District. And we received no other written comments on the case, and there was no one else has testified on the case. We reviewed it against the five rezoning criteria. And I'll I'll get to the salient points here real fast. First, the criterion for a rezoning is that it be consistent with adopted plans. So first, we have the citywide comprehensive plan 2000. There are a number of strategies and comp plan 2000 that address this rezoning, which staff feels that the application is consistent with in terms of promoting infill development. That is a quality that broadens the variety of compatible uses that are allowed and that promotes mixed use development, which allows people to live near work and retail and services and that they need in their daily lives. It also relates to the Comprehensive Plan 2000 strategies regarding recognizing the traditional ethnic ethnic neighborhood, which the school has been a part of for a long time, strengthening the positive attributes of our neighborhoods and then reviewing and updating city processes for zoning, this this rezoning, all of the old code and out of a putting into a standard zoned district. And the Denver zoning code is a is a great implementation of this land use strategy. And for those because of that, we find that the application is consistent with comp plan 2000. Turning to the blueprint, Denver, which is the city's land use and transportation plan adopted in 2002. This map shows the Blueprint Denver Plan Map. The pink color is the land use concept indicating that the site is has a mixed use land use concept which encourages a variety of uses, including employment and housing and services. Intensity is higher but can vary, and then the diagonal hatching across the site and to the east indicates that it's in an area of change. In our areas of change channel are areas where the city desires to channel growth, where it will be beneficial to the city, and where we should allow an appropriate mix of uses. Now again, the current PD limits, development limits the available uses on the site and doesn't implement these recommendations for Blueprint. Denver We do find that rezoning to a mixed use zone district would be more consistent with this blueprint. Denver Land Use Recommendation Blueprint. Denver also has recommendations regarding the street types, and here all four streets around the property are local streets. Blueprint Denver doesn't give a specific direction for local streets, but that lower volume designation makes rezoning to a low intensity, mixed use district appropriate. And here the applicants have selected the lowest intensity mixed use district in the urban center context, the three story zone districts. So again, we find it most appropriate. Then turning lastly to the West Colfax Plan adopted in 2006, even more specific plan, the West Colfax Plan had its own land use concept, which again is a pink color , and the property is shown here in the blue dashed line. That pink color stands for the town center and it's designed to be an activity center with mixed use retail, employment, housing, civic amenities like a school in the language of the plan, specifically calls for this town center to vary in scale where the greatest intensity should be . At the core, it should radiate to lower intensity at the fringe. Again, the sites are at the fringe and so rezoning to the lowest intensity mixed use district, a mixed use three story district is consistent with this plan direction. So having reviewed it against all of the plans, we find it consistent with that review criteria. It would maintain uniformity with the Cemex three zone district as applied throughout the city of Denver and through implementing their plans and is further detailed in your written staff report, we find that the rezoning would further the public health, safety and welfare of the City of Denver. The fourth criterion is that there be a justifying circumstance here to justify in circumstances that the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it's in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area and recognize the change character of the area. There are a number of changes happening in this area, some of which you've heard earlier that we find provide a justifying circumstance for this rezoning, including the adoption of the West Colfax Plan and the new Denver zoning code in 2010, both of which have transpired since the time of this PD being adopted. There's been a lot of investment in the West Colfax area and the redevelopment of the Saint Anthony site are all changes occurring in the surrounding environs that provide a justifying circumstance for this rezoning. And then finally we review rezonings for consistency with neighborhood context, zoned district purpose and intent. The Urban Center Neighborhood context includes a regular pattern of blocks with consistent orientation and mixed uses in the X three zone district is as accurately applied to the site where we do have that kind of pattern of blocks and uses. And even more specifically, the Cemex three zone district is intended to apply to areas served primarily by local or collector streets, where a building scale of 1 to 3 stories is desired. So as I indicated earlier with Blueprint Denver indicating that these are local streets around this property, around this property, and with the scale of two and a half to three stories to the west, five stories and up to the east here, the Cemex three zone district is that perfect transition and it is also consistent with the intent of the zone district. So again, we find it consistent in having reviewed it against all five criteria. We recommend approval. Thank you, Mr. Dalton. We have one speaker for this public hearing. And Rabbi Wasserman, you can make your way into the front pew and you can begin your remarks. Thank you, Aaron Wasserman, president and CEO of the Yeshiva, as well as a resident of the community for the last 42 years. I first wanted to take the opportunity to thank the Community Planning Development Department, as well as Councilwoman, Councilwoman Susan Shepherd and the rest of the City Council for their work and the recent years of the area, as we heard much of tonight. Grateful for that. It's certainly exciting to see all the transformations happening in our neighborhood. And we are thankful for all to all of you to help make this helped this process along. I am grateful as well as a resident watching this over many years, growing up in the community and seeing what's going to happen now, it's really amazing to watch. As you know, the Yeshivah has been a proud, active member of the Sloan's Lake community for the last 48 years. Since 1967, with activity happening in the area, the Civic sees the opportunity to reinvest in the neighborhood and and the community by renovating the Stewart Street campus and relocating our dormitory, as well as renovating our current facility, which will enhance the neighborhood as well. The look and feel as well for our students and our community. We believe connecting the dorm directly with the yeshiva will better be a better solution for our students by providing them security, as well as better connection to the existing school. Overall, we look forward to renewing and invigorating our presence in the community for next 50 years. And again, thank you to all of you and to the staff, the city council, staff and council for all the work that you have done. Thank you very much. Thank you. That concludes our speakers is now time for questions. Do we have any questions from members of the Council? Councilwoman Shepherd. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a question for Mr. Dalton. Do you happen to know what year the PUD five, five, nine was passing. I think it was 2004. Okay. Would you consider it a detailed beauty? Yes, he has a boy. I'm sorry. Would you call it a detailed beauty, sir? Yes. The former Chapter 59 didn't make the distinction the way the new code does between detailed in general, but it is a highly detailed beauty. Am I to understand that we are being asked to change this zoning tonight in order for the current or owner who I believe was the owner in 2004 to move the project from one side of his property, their property to another side. That is why they're requesting a reason. That's what I'm just asking you to confirm. Yeah. So in this case, what I'm. What I'm asking is. Well, actually, maybe I'll just leave it for the comments that that's my question. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Sherrod. Any other comments on 1047 seen on public hearing on 1047 is now closed. Time for comments, Councilwoman Shepherd. Thank you, Mr. President. I am definitely very happy to support this rezoning tonight. The reason why I was asking Mr. Dalton about the detail is because I think it exposes some of the issues that come up around a detailed pad when you get so specific and prescriptive about how a site may be developed that it doesn't leave flexibility for changing conditions, changing uses, changing broader implications, that can happen. And I think, if I'm not mistaken, that is why community planning and development has really been moving away from detailed Pwds is because in this case you have the owner of the property having to file for a rezoning just to move a project from one side of his property to another. And I find that problematic, you know, and so I think. That there are reasons. Some of which are quite valid for why we as a city are trying to move away from the DFL PD situation. So I applaud the recommendation of CPD. Thank you very much to the Orthodox Jewish community and to the Yeshiva for coming forward with this and I'm proud to support this tonight and wish you all the best. And I know the community is growing, so I'm here to help support you as I can. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other comments on 1047 C? None, Madam Secretary. Raquel Shepherd. I susman. Brooks Brown. I thought I can eat lemon, i. Lopez Montero. Nevitt Ortega Ortega. Rob I Mr. President. II. Madam Secretary, please for the voting and announce the results. 3939 1047 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We are moving on to the next one. 1075. Councilwoman Fox, would you please put council Bill 1075 on the floor?

Councilor Baker called Docket #0265, An order authorizing the City of Boston to accept and expend a grant funded through the coronavirus state and local fiscal recovery fund (CLFRF) in the Treasury of the United States established by section 9901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) awarded by the United States Department of the Treasury for $10,000,000.00, from the Committee on Boston's COVID-19's Recovery. No objection being heard the matter was before the body. Councilor Baker moved to amend Docket #0265 from $10,000,000.00 to $5,000,000.00. Seconded by Councilor Murphy Motion Prevailed; yeas 12; (Absent 1 Mejia). Docket #0265 as amended did not Pass; yeas 5 (Baker, Flaherty, Flynn Murphy and Worrell), nays 7 (Arroyo, Bok, Breadon, Coletta, Fernandes Anderson, Lara and Louijeune). (Absent 1 Mejia)

BostonCC_02092022_2022-0265

Back to you, Mr. President. Thank you, Council Royal. Mr. Clarke, will you please read docket 0265? IP number 0265. Councilor Baker offer the following in order authorizing the city of Boston to accept and extend a grant funded through the coronavirus, state and local fiscal recovery from Fund c. L f. R. F in the Treasury of the United States, established by Section 9190 901 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, a RPA awarded by the United States Department. Of the Treasury. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. B The Chair recognizes counsel. Baker Council. Baker You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just just to be clear, this is an ask for $10 million. I filed this law and order looking for a way to support the boys and Girls, Boys and Girls Club of Dorchester, who , in collaboration with the Martin Richards Foundation, are proposing a once in a lifetime, once in a generation opportunity to transform a parcel of land on Columbia Point into a vibrant youth development facility, a field house designed to holistically meet the ever evolving needs of Boston's 50,000 children and teens living in a in a three mile radius, including the thousand Boston public school students who attend the abutting Gavin McCormick schools using the upon AP moneys has received the AARP money thus far has come down from the mayor. The pathway has come down from the mayor asking us for approval. I would like to change that and have an ask from a district city councilor and have it go up again. It doesn't necessarily need to be asked for money, but this is an official ask for $10 million to go towards this field house. So the city would signal to the state because the state has already made commitments towards this field house. The Boys and Girls Club of Dorchester currently operates three clubhouses servicing servicing a culturally and ethnically diverse range of children from and from newborns to 18. I believe I believe if we can help with some funding, we can create a community that can stay on the peninsula from a young age through college at UMass and potentially right into a job. As well as receive the support they need. This would be a hub school model where children and adults alike have a safe place from before, before school, through dinnertime. This will also be a facility that will be fully accessible and inclusive to all and a great benefit to the school community on on Columbia Point. We have an amazing opportunity here to use the funds to be able to point to a tangible structure that will be built successfully in this time for money and again, to reach to to restate what I've been stating since the beginning when we were talking about all we are for money. My concern is that if we're not in line with projects to build with the money coming down from the feds, we're going to look back and five years and and and look at a whole lot of debt coming down on the federal government and have no assets. No assets that we've actually built infrastructure meaning failed houses, meaning housing, meaning libraries, meaning parks. We need to be building things with money and yes, thank you. Building building things with this money. So we'll be able to point to things that we've been able to build with this money from the feds. Again, this is more of a waste. So I can have my. Colleagues. In a hearing and view this structure and and view what the whole plan is over here on Columbia Point. It's part of. A lot of mines that are that are that are together on the point talking about education that will start at zero and end in at UMass. And also job opportunities that will happen with the new development in the next 5 to 10 years also. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Counselor Baker. Is what any other counsel I was like to speak on this matter. If you would, would you please raise your hand? Good counsel. The chair recognizes counsel. Murphy. Counsel Murphy over the floor. Thank you, Counselor Baker And I just wanted to quickly say that I do know personally the Boys and Girls Club of Dorchester, who has helped so many families and children and continue to and the Emirates Foundation and them coming together and really working on this and working hard to raise most of the funds themselves. This support from us would just really make the difference and also agree what Councilor Baker said, that this once in a generation lifetime money coming from the federal government. Housing and all of these other issues are very important. But if we can invest and make sure we're investing in lasting infrastructure, that our grandchildren can look back and see that it's not. Things that we're not going to even remember what we put into because this will be generations, thousands of children benefiting from this and would love, like Baker said. Counselor Baker said that when we have this hearing, having married in the Boys and Girls Club, come to us as the council and really share with us the work they've been doing and their vision for this amazing clubhouse. And, you know, it's an empty parking lot. Anyone who's been in that area or have lived in Dorchester like myself for the last decades, if you drive down that street, it's been an empty parking lot forever, right behind PC High, which is always updating their football field and their soccer field. And UMass Boston is on the other side of it. So in knowing that 100% dedicated to making sure that the students, the staff at the McCormick Denver, which is the public school there, which had recently got, you know, in receivership, has come out of receivership, struggling to, you know, be successful. It would be a really great support for the students and staff there. And they have openly and made sure that they're committed to be having the school use that as a gym. And that clubhouse all day during the school day is something that really mattered to me. And when I knew they were committed to that, that really makes a difference. So thank you, Counselor Baker, for bringing this up. And I hope also that other district counselors who know their neighborhoods best come forward to this council with their ideas of what they know that they need in their neighborhoods that we can use this money for. This is going to help our and I think it ties closely into the order I filed last week about mental health and making sure that we have spaces, safe spaces that are programed in this wonderful way for our students, for our children, for our, you know, our young adults. So thank you. Thank you, Counsel Murphy. I know counsel of clarity has his hand up, but let me go to the original co-sponsor next time, Counsel Baker. Sorry, Mr. President. I meant. I meant to ask to suspend Rule 12 and had counsel counsel Murphy on that believe it's Room 12 as an original co-sponsor. Mr. Clarke, can we please add Counsel Murphy as an original co-sponsor? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clarke. The Chair recognizes counsel of clarity. Thank you, Mr. President. Great organization, great programing and great results. Please add my name. Thank you. Counsel Clarity. Please have counsel, clarity and counsel. Bach has her hand up. Counsel BACHELDER Thank you so much, Mr. President. I just wanted to say, and this really follows up on a comment that Counselor Murphy just made, that, you know, just to all counselors, that I'm definitely, as the chair of the COVID Recovery Committee, happy to hold hearings in order to create a public forum for counselors to present ideas they have about our funds. And so I would just say and although Counselor Baker framed this one in the form of an appropriation order, it would also be fine if somebody writes something more informal, sort of a hearing order formally, just as long as it's clear that you're expressing an interest in the ARPA dollars conversation. Because I know that we talked about, you know, we have a hearing that we're currently scheduling right now for talking about the ARPA dollars more holistically. And I think that holistic conversation is really important. But I just want to stress as the chair of that, that I'm very happy to create a forum for folks to raise ideas they have because as has been discussed, obviously, where the legislative body of the city and I do see that as their role to make sure the create that space wanted to underscore that point for everyone. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, counsel. Walk to those comments. Would anyone else like to speak on this matter? Would anyone else like to add their name? Please raise your hand if you'd like to have your name, please. And, Councilor Braden, please add the chair. Dawkins 0263 will be referred to the Committee on Boston's COVID 19 recovery. Personnel were offered onto personnel orders, of which we have none. Late files. I am informed by the clerk that there are zero way file matters. Green sheets. The City Council would like to remove the matter from the red sheets. You may do so at this time. We're moving on to the consent agenda. I have been informed by the court that the is that there are zero additions to the consent and consent agenda.

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

DenverCityCouncil_03182019_19-0055

Everybody could get settled. We're going to get started. We have two public hearings this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling the council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home addresses. If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, come to the podium. State your name and note that you are available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There is no yielding of time on the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Stretch your comments to council as a whole, and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 55 on the floor? Yes, President Clark, I move. That council bill 19. 0055 be. Placed upon final consideration. And do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 55 is open. May we have the staff report? Okay. Thank you very much. My name is Chandler Van Scott with Community Planning and Development. So this is for an official map amendment application number 2017 i00155 for rezoning 4519 Pearl Street from ESU B to UCB one. So the site is located in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood. It's just north of 45th Avenue. The lot size is approximately 600 or 6250 square feet or 0.14 acres. It currently contains a single unit residential use. Again, the proposal is to rezone from SB to USC to be one to allow for the addition of an 82 or accessory dwelling unit. So just a bit about the requested zoned district use stands for urban neighborhood context, such as single unit and B-1 refers to the minimum lot size. So the minimum zone lot area is 4500 square feet. Blocks typically have a pattern of 37 and a half foot wide lots and setbacks and lot coverage standards common eight front and side yard similar to UCB, but allowing a detached accessory dwelling unit building form in the rear yard. So that's what the one is. I'd go over the existing contest context quickly. So the existing zoning on the site is SUV, that's urban edge context. Single Unit B, the surrounding properties to the north and west are also sub to the south. You have IMX too, which is a mixed use zone district. And to the east you mix three with overlays and some industrial zoning further to the east. As I mentioned before, the existing land use on the site is single unit residential to the north and west. The neighborhood is primarily single unit residential as well on a variety of lot sizes, generally ranging from 3 to 6000 square feet to the south and east. You have a mix of commercial uses. Vehicle related uses on 45th and pearl and then some duplexes and multi-unit. Just taking a look at the existing building form and scale. The yellow dotted line is highlighting the subject property. That is the middle picture on the right there, the existing single unit home. And as you can see, just to the north of the site, there are more small scale one, two, one and a half storey single unit homes across the street to the east is a storage facility, which I believe is now actually completed. That's a slightly older picture. And then to the south, you have a liquor store and some other commercial uses. So in terms of process, the Pre-Application review for this application began in October of 2017. The applicant then conducted informal public outreach to Ana's and the council member. The application was submitted on February 8th, 2018. A planning board heard this item on January 9th, 2018 and voted unanimously to recommend approval. I'm sorry that I should say January 9th, 2019, as you mentioned, and literally apologies. They voted unanimously to recommend approval. The Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee heard this item on January 28, 2019 and also voted to pass the item along to council. First reading was in February and we are now at the public hearing. So far there have not been any public comments received during the review. So to jump into the review criteria found in the Denver zoning code, there are five criteria. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. In this case, the Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver, Globeville Neighborhood Plan, and the 38 template stationary height amendments all apply to this property. In terms of comprehensive plan strategies, staffs found there are several with which the proposal is consistent, including environmental sustainability strategy two F land use Strategy three B and Denver Legacy Strategy three A. All of these refer generally to increasing density and encouraging infill in sites where there is already existing infrastructure. In terms of the blueprint Denver 2000 to consistency. So the land use designation in Blueprint Denver is single unit residential that generally anticipates densities fewer than ten units per acre and an employment base significantly smaller than the housing base. And it anticipates single family homes being the predominant residential type. It is located within an area of stability which the goal of which is to maintain character while accommodating some new development and the future street classifications. Pearl is a local street and 45th is a collector street. So the Globeville neighborhood plan goes into a little bit more detail about this area. This highlights the area where the zone is located as residential neighborhood core. The vision for this is to maintain the single family residential character of the neighborhood while improving internal circulation and enhancing 45th Avenue as a neighborhood serving Main Street. The land use designation found in the global neighborhood plan is single family with accessory dwelling units. So this land use designation essentially anticipates the addition of 80 youths to the single family neighborhood to enable aging in place, multi-generational housing and additional income through rentals. Some additional strategies included in the Global Neighborhood Plan that are unique to the residential core strategy. B One mentions allowing accessory dwelling units for those benefits that I just mentioned. Strategy E1 talks about specifically updating the neighborhood context from the existing urban edge context to urban context, which this rezoning is also accomplishing. And then it refers or mentions tailoring minimum zone lot sizes, and specifically calls out maintaining the 4500 square foot zone lot minimum, which the request of zone district also does. In terms of the anticipated height in the global plan, you have two and a half storeys which this requested zone is well within and then the 38th and Blake stationary height amendments also anticipate two stories here. The zoning does allow two and a half storeys, but there is not really a two storey zone district. So we found it to be consistent. So in general, CPD finds a rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver, the Globeville Neighborhood Plan and 30 and Blake stationary Hyde Amendment in terms of uniformity of district regulations. The proposed rezoning to U.S. would be one would result in the uniform application of zoned district building form, use and design regulations, as there are no waivers or conditions requested and staff finds that the requested rezoning would further the public health, safety and welfare, primarily through the implementation of the city's adopted plans, as well as by adding to the diversity of the housing stock and your transit. So the fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. In this case, there is a city adopted plan that was adopted since the zoning was put in place. That's the Global Neighborhood Plan 2014. And this plan sets out a specific vision for the area that includes changing the neighborhood context from edge to urban and also allowing accessory dwelling units. And there's also significant development in Globeville and nearby Reno. And then finally, the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. So the urban neighborhood context is primarily characterized by single and two unit residential uses. Small scale multi-unit, residential and some commercial areas are typically embedded in residential areas and single in two unit residential units are primarily located along local and residential arterial streets. The requested zone district for the site is consistent with that context as well as the U.S. use on district purpose, which is to allow a single unit district allowing urban houses and detached accessory dwelling units maintains a minimum zone lot area of 4500 square feet, 37 and a half foot wide. Lots and setbacks and coverage standards very similar to U.S. Hub. So in closing, CPD recommends approval of application number 2017 II 00155 based on finding that all the review criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening. So when I call your name, come on up to the podium and your time will start to elapse. Our first speaker just signed up as a he. Am I right in guessing that that is an Elizabeth? Yes. Okay. And Elizabeth, you're up. Here I am without focus. Let's see what happens. I appreciate any opportunity to address the Council as a whole regarding what's going on in Globeville, because many things will be coming before the council. This is an important property and I fully support the granting of this zoning change because it is owned by a gentleman, Phil Falco, who really cares about the neighborhood, lives there and likes the ideas of accessory dwelling units creating more, more housing. And I would like to just kind of sensitize the council to this corner and why this is so important to be specific. There are single family dwelling homes all along the west side of Pearl from East 46th to East 44th. Even though there are businesses, perhaps the rest of the city will benefit from the restrictions of the self-storage around Tod. There's one right there, smack dab in front, one block to the south, and across the street is the angst banks driven conversation about the tiny home village that is being discussed in Globeville. It's that intersection of great stress and this exemplifies the hope to me. I was involved in the neighborhood planning process back yo many years ago when the conversations had to do with diversifying the income on single family properties, which increases the likelihood people can stay in place along with cottage industries and things like this. This is a gesture of hope. I wish there was a way to accelerate the the the and use more across the city and prioritizing. I hope that we will see more of this. I do want to encourage different language and I talked to the property owner to about in the in the when we say that it's the right no neighborhood is encroaching in the second to last page right now is not a neighborhood it is a very vital art district. The neighborhood historic boundaries remain beneath the art district. I would ask the city council to look at the beautiful neighborhood map that's up at Denver gov talk and memorize those boundaries. I support the right to art district, but we really need to embrace the organism of the neighborhoods block by block by block. I would love that self-storage to be removed at some date so that the views from this new beautiful adu etc. could be home to the reconstructed multi-use Washington Street that is the corner of the historic Main Street. East 45th Avenue is the historic Main Street. So I really want to thank Mr. Falco for hanging in there with these visions. He said that property for a long time and I really think this is a really excellent step. And I bet it's going to be beautiful, too. Thanks. Would you would you mind introducing yourself for the record? I'm sorry. I'm an Elizabeth and right near East 50th Avenue in Washington, in Globeville. Thank you very much. Sorry about that. All right. Next up, Jesse Pearce. Good evening. My name is Jesse Pierce. I'm represented for Denver. Homeless out loud, black star action, movement for Self-defense and Positive Action Commitment for Social Change. And I'm also an at large candidate for May 2019 Denver election. And I'm on the top of the ballot. We are actually in favor of this rezoning for once as a reasoning that I'm in favor of. Wow. Yes. So this neighborhood is under rampant gentrification. So to hear that there's a rezoning that's going to be actual affordable, that is great news. I wish more people were like Mr. Falcon and seen the need for affordable housing in the city because we are in a housing crisis. So. Mr. Falcon, my hat goes off to you as well. Thank you for this. And I hope that members of the council approve this. And just keep in mind that there could also potentially be a tiny home village right across the street. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of Council on this item? All right. Seeing, no question, the public hearing for Huntsville, 19 0055 is closed. Are there comments by members of council? All right. Seeing no comments, I'll just say thank you to a staffer for putting this word and for the robust staff report. I think it clearly meets the criteria and I'll be voting to support because of that tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black eye. Brooks I. Espinosa. Sorry. Flynn I. Gilmer, I. Herndon, I agree. Cashman I. Can i. Lopez I. Knew. Ortega I. Assessment I. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 1212 I Council will 19 US 0055 has passed. Desmond Brooks, will you please put Council Bill 79 on the floor?

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending and restating Chapter 21.54, related to billboards, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_01142014_14-0004

I don't know. Five is a report from Development Services recommendation to declare ordinance amending and restating Chapter 21.54 relating to billboards read and adapted as read. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Any council comment on item number five? Which is just to clarify to city management. This is the item we heard last week, correct? Yes. The move forward on this week and as I understand it, the city attorney had some issues with us on a couple of different fronts that you want to elaborate on those now or did you want to hear council comment first? Councilmember O'Donnell, members of the city council, as you know, or as was explained, this is actually back to you on second reading. It was here last week. You had some suggested changes to the ordinance which we made on Wednesday morning and presented to the city clerk. And those changes, as I thought that they were articulated, I think, by Councilmember DeLong, who made the motion, were presented to the city clerk, and that was what was out for circulation. Since that time, the city attorney's office and I think maybe most of all the council people received a copy of a letter from one of the attorneys that represents one of the billboard companies who took issue with the way it was done procedurally, number one. And number two took issue with the way that we formulated what I thought was council's direction relative to posting of a cash bond in the event that they were going to take down billboards. We there was a concern that if the wards were removed and the new billboard was going to go up, that the old billboards go down first. We made it the language more flexible so that they would they had the option of either removing the old billboards first before constructing a new billboard, or the city would impose a cash bond after consideration during the copy process by the Planning Commission and then the City Council on Appeal. At any rate, the attorney took issue with the procedure, and I have to admit that the attorney is correct. And what our municipal code says is that if changes or substantive changes are made on the floor, those substantive changes have to be in writing and specific reference made to the line in page number where changes are made. That was not done. So our suggestion is that either tonight be treated as a first reading if you have no further changes to the ordinance, or if there are further changes to the ordinance from what is in the text in front of you that the matter be put over, I believe till February 4th we would bring it back for first reading and incorporate any changes that you might make or direct us to make tonight. And that concludes our staff report. Okay. Great. Thank you. And I know other council members want to comment, but I do have a comment. I think my concern is in hearing the different companies and knowing that our goal is probably twofold. It is to take down billboards mostly in the inner portion of the city, not so much along the freeways, I would think, but mainly along the inner parts of our city. And maybe to if we can even achieve some revenue generation here. And that would be done through a development agreement, I assume. Is that correct, mister? Cities are really the only way that it could ever be. Revenue generating for the city is if there were development agreements. The way the ordinance is currently drafted, in some circumstances a development agreement would be possible, and that is if one of the involved companies could demonstrate to us that it was infeasible for them to comply with the cap and trade portion of the ordinance and that there were no other non-conforming billboards left in the city for removal. So the possibility is there. But what we anticipate, if the ordinance works correctly, is that the companies would participate in cap and trade. In other words, they would take down billboards in exchange for being able to put up a new billboard or an electronic billboard rather than participate in a development agreement. The cap passes is the trade part. That's that's a little more difficult. Difficult because we can't compel the companies to trade among each other. Correct. And you can't compel them to do that. But it's our understanding, I believe staff's understanding that that it does happen in other jurisdictions. But that goes into the factor of feasibility. I think what we discussed last week is let's say you had a company that didn't have enough billboards available to participate in cap and trade. What we anticipate they would do under the ordinance is contact their competitors, see if the competitors had any interest in selling billboards or partnering with that other company to do a cap and trade. If the other billboard companies said, No, we're not interested in that, we would expect that that. Would be reported back to us, hopefully in writing, and we would take that into consideration in determining whether or not it's in feasible and if if no one wanted to participate or allow the sale of their billboards, if they had a large inventory, staff could make the recommendation to the Planning Commission that it was infeasible and they should therefore be allowed to apply for a development agreement. Okay. So my concern is that one company might be locked out of participating in this in the trade component. So if they couldn't trade does the current language that sits before us now, does it allow them to go to the planning commission and say, we couldn't we couldn't find an avenue to take down other signs? Right. If they if they do not have an inventory that would allow them to participate, then they could apply for a development agreement that would be put before the Planning Commission. Planning Commission would make a finding on whether or not it was feasible for them to comply. They'd have to demonstrate that they didn't have an inventory and that they reached out to other carriers to see if the other carriers would sell them inventory or, like I said, partner with them. And if they reported back to the Planning Commission that they tried to buy inventory or trade for inventory and it wasn't successful, then the Planning Commission would be in a position to at least make a finding that it was infeasible and recommend to the city council that a statutory development agreement be entered into. Mm hmm. Could that include revenue sharing? Most definitely. With a with a development agreement. It's a quid pro quo type situation. The one that comes to mind that the council is probably most recently familiar with is Douglas Park, where we entered into a statutory development agreement with Boeing. On Douglas Park. They provided money for our housing trust fund and did some other things park related that made it worthwhile for the city to do a development agreement. Well, given that those signs along the freeway are quite valuable. Well, how does the trade system work? Is it is it based on value or is it based on number of signs? Why would someone trade a freeway sign away? I think that's the challenge that we're hearing is out there. There's a company that owns a limited number of signs. Are they going to be able to participate? Well, the. Way the ordinance the way the ordinance was brought back to you in the way that it was presented to you for first reading all of those signs along the freeway would be considered nonconforming signs. And the goal, the overarching goal of the ordinance, as stated in the ordinance, is to remove nonconforming signs. So if you adopted the ordinance as it's presently constructed, then the folks that own those signs along the freeway, if they wanted to build a new digital billboard, for instance, in some allowable place in the city, we would first require them to remove those billboards that they have based on the formula that's currently in the ordinance, either 6 to 1 or eight or. Yeah, either 6 to 1 or 8 to 1, depending on what they were doing. Thank you. Councilmember Sheepskin. Yes, thank you, Mr. O'Donnell. I think the question again needs to be discussed, and that is, is there any way particularly and I think that's what Mr. O'Donnell was getting at, is that you've got our goal this here on the council is to get rid of billboards, quite honestly. And so I think any way that we can fashion this ordinance to do that with all the parties involved, I think helps everybody. And so what I get back to that that item that I think we talked about last time, and that was the issue of being able to make some provisions in the language. I think it's Section 21.50 4.12 development agreements. Mr. MAYES. And I know we have this back and forth on it, but again, I would ask the question, could we not put language in there that would exclude billboards and landscape freeway segments because that obviously targets a particular company and then provide that the they have to remove at least one billboard within the city to be able to participate in this development agreement process. Councilwoman Sheepskins It's very difficult for us to analyze because quite frankly, we don't know what the business practices are of all of these companies. We've certainly received contact from all of the companies that we're aware of that operate within the city. I spoke with the attorney for one of the companies today who indicated very clearly to me just before the meeting started that if we did anything to the ordinance that gave one company a competitive advantage over another company, that they would sue and challenge the ordinance that it was being unfairly administrated because we have actually carved out something for one company that that is not available to other companies. Now, whether that would happen or not, I don't know. But that's what they represented. Realizing that. Mr. Mays, what about if we had the option of a development agreement or the cap and trade so that there's the two possibilities because that way that that is actually equal in terms of the pool of available companies. So yes, we could probably we could fashion an ordinance where you could have a situation where they could choose to voluntarily participate in cap and trade or enter into a development agreement. But that really is a policy decision for the city council, because what's staff's investigation determined and Amy can elaborate on this probably better than I can , is that the companies would prefer to keep their signs and enter into development agreements. So if that were the case, then the goal that you mentioned at the beginning of your discussion of removing billboards, it's possible that that would not occur. If both scenarios were provided so that they could participate under it. Either way. I mean, how do they know that? How do we know that? Or if just we focus in. With. The majority of the ones that we obviously want to remove are in the residential areas. I think that's the policy consensus. What about the ones that are just simply along the freeways? That's an entirely different landscape. Council members, we've structured this ordinance and have focused the ordinance on treating this as one single land use. As I said at last week's meeting, we deal with things on a land use basis irregardless of where they're located. So when we deal with drug stores, we don't treat Walgreens differently than Rite Aid is, regardless of whether they're located on an arterial corridor in North Long Beach or an arterial corridor in East Long Beach. So this would be a policy decision and of the council if it decided to. Has Mr. Mesa give us the opportunity to have people or companies participate, either under a cap and trade or a development agreement? Is that correct? That is correct. What we're suggesting is that since the ultimate goal is the removal of non-conforming billboards, that there is a situation written into this that allows development agreements to occur. It does allow. It does require a little bit of due diligence by the billboard companies. But it is feasible for them to enter into development agreements. But it still allows a company who does not wish to be in a development agreement situation to just move on to the cap and trade. A development agreement is going to take an extensive amount of time. It does require its own seek law review, whereas the cap and trade would not. So the expectation that a development agreement would be a quicker avenue is not likely to be realized because of the difficulties in negotiating a development agreement. Okay. Before I make a motion, is it possible there's other council members, but then we can come back and maybe hear a response from the public. Thank you. Any further council comment? See? No further council comment. Why don't we go to the public? Any public comment on this item? Councilmember. Mr. Dale, do you mind if I have a moment for the public talks, if I may. Yes, you can have a more. I'm sorry. Short on the trigger there. Mr. Mayes, two questions. One is I understand that there's been some conversations with the city attorney's office and perhaps development services staff, but some modifications to the spacing might be appropriate. I'd just like to hear that before public comment. So if there are any comments that the billboard companies would like to make, I'd like to hear what they have to say. I think Amy can run through. We've had a request from one of the companies who basically believes that the way the ordinance is currently structured, you can have a situation where you would actually have billboards that were too close to one another. And one of the companies suggested that we have some spacing requirements and Amy can run through what those requests were. Great. Thank you, Mr. Potter. Certainly councilmembers. If you turn to table 54.1 excuse me, 54, dash one. On page 14 of your revised ordinance, there is a table called Billboard Development Standards. Under the fourth column spacing between billboards, we would leave the spacing requirements the same for item number one. For item number two, we would change the spacing to be at least 300 feet between poster size boards and at least 500 feet between bulletin size boards. The same change would be made for row three, the conversion of existing billboards to electronic and the same change would be made for row four. So it would be a 300 foot minimum spacing requirement between posters and a 500 minimum foot spacing requirement between bulletins. This issue was also raised last week by one of the companies during the public comment. Thank you. That's it. Okay. Let's hear from the public. Good evening. My name is Mike Murchison. Council member. Other council members. I used to call on the mayor or the council member now, but I'm here tonight on behalf of Regency and I just want to clarify a couple of things that may have been a little bit confusing from last Tuesday. One of the things that you have to understand with Regency. Is their whole all the. Billboards that they have, which are nine structures, are all on the freeways. That's their entire inventory. Okay. In one scenario, whereas the other major companies are in Long Beach, have also along the freeway and in the residential area. So in the scenario that you're talking about, if you're asking Regency to remove them, you're asking Regency to remove the ones that are most valuable to them and that wipes out half of their inventory. But again, that's all they have. They're not in the residential areas, whereas if you ask the other billboard companies, do they have freeway adjacent billboards? The answer is. Yes, at least for most. Of them. Okay. So it's not an ordinance that's focus just on one company. It's an ordinance. So when you look at the proposed draft language that you all have talked about, it's something where you're basically saying that freeways are not our focus. Our focus is the residential communities. So I'm asking you to consider that very strongly tonight. When you look at that. That you look at what the impact would be, freeways versus the residents. The residents are not the ones that complain about freeway billboards. They're complaining about the billboards are in the residential communities. Thank you. Thank you. A question for city attorney. And again, I agree. I don't want to talk about one company, two companies. Three companies. I want to talk about location. So could you address only those signs on freeway landscaped areas or or whatever definition you might have separately from those and the and the other portions of the city? We'd have to legally you may be able to do that, but the ordinance, the way it's structured. Tonight, I realize tonight does. Not do that. But if you want us to to give us direction to look at that, we certainly could or look at a situation where you're only focusing on residential billboards. You could do that. But we have to have a rational basis for doing that. And without knowing what the what the relative stock is, as between the freeway oriented ones and the residential ones I couldn't give. Amy may have an idea, but. It depends on whether you're talking those prohibited in the landscaped buffers or those along all freeways. There is a difference and we would need to understand what the crux of the issue is for the city council. There are areas along the freeway that can be developed with billboards now. There are also areas along the freeway where companies who would have a non-conforming billboard can use Caltrans credits and go around the city's policy and create digital billboards using their Caltrans credits and not having to deal with the cap and trade or a development agreement at all. So the way the ordinance is structured, we would need a little bit of input on whether you're talking about the landscape buffers along the freeways or whether you're talking about all freeway billboards. Why don't we talk about landscape freeway areas? If we just address that portion. If we just address that portion. We may have. Somewhere around 20 billboards out of 350 within the city. So not a large portion? No. And again, we're not speaking about one company here. So. Okay. Thank you. I believe this further is a further public comment. So please. Come forward. Any members of council? My name is Richard Montgomery. I'm government affairs director for Lamar Advertising. As most of you know, Lamar has the majority of billboards in the city. That is 143. 95% of those are all in residential neighborhoods. We have no billboards or zero along the freeway. Make that clear from a get started. We also completely support the staff proposal as written. However, any deviation, any changes that would benefit one company and the other, we completely oppose. So tonight we're talking about equality all the way around. We simply ask that you treat all the companies equally across the board. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Montgomery. Man. I don't believe there's any more public comment, sir. Come down. This will be the last speaker on this topic. Unless there's anybody else who needs to speak. No, this will be the last speaker. My name is Lee Chaucer. And I have to confess, I'm sort of a newcomer to this issue. And I was wondering, what is your main focus? I notice sequel has to do with. Environmental protection for the public, and I was wondering whether your criteria was whether or not. These billboards. Along the freeway were. Distracting. To motorists who might get involved in a car accident because possibly. The glitter. And the glamor of the new electronic. Billboards is in effect, or. Whether. It's just in the communities themselves. The old type of billboards seem to. Be rather passé and. Don't make the community look as hip and Vegas. Like or. Whatever. So I'm just asking. Kind of like four criteria. In regards to. These proposals and these. Laws. And so forth. Okay. Thank you, sir. Well, the council directive, in short, was to have staff develop a policy wherein we could take down billboards across the city. So that's what we're trying to shape here tonight and stay within the bounds of the law. So what what are the. Criteria for taking them down? Well. You know, to we can't have a give and take right now, but I can direct you to city management after after the council discusses this matter and go to you can have further conversation. But right now, you and I can't it's not a place for you and I to engage in, give and take discussion. We discussed this last week for about an hour, probably more than an hour. So I invite you to always watch that on my record as well. Thank you. All right, there. Thank you. Thank you for coming down. Council membership scheme? Yes. And actually, sir, that's this ordinance that we're trying to get through would set out those requirements as to how billboards, wire billboards would be taken down and where. I'd like to make a motion and ask that this matter be referred back to the city attorney to come back to the council with. Wording that can be placed into the ordinance that takes into account that there are billboards and landscape freeway segments. And I know, Mike, if I can just regression, you can help me with the motion to be of of be mindful of the fact that we do not in any way want to craft anything that favors or dis favors any particular business that we're what we're seeking is to get the billboards removed predominantly out of the residential areas. But certainly any new billboards that would be along these areas obviously have to conform with the requirements that we're going to set. So I know. The motion would be to refer this matter back to the city attorney because you said you'd have to look at you'd have to look at the language. You said there's 20 potential billboards this. He's his. No, no, no, no. But the landscape. Yeah. So. Councilwoman Chayefsky, if I understood you, one of the things that we could look at, if it's the desire of the city council not to focus on those 20 billboards, I think Amy said there were 20 in the landscaped areas of the freeway. One way to address that, although it would defeat to a certain extent the overarching purpose of the ordinance, but you could do it would not would be to not count those signs as being non-conforming. So they would not factor into the equation when we say you have to remove nonconforming signs. None of one way to approach it is say, okay, for purposes of this ordinance, they are not non-conforming. So we wouldn't say, okay, you've got six non-conforming there. You need to take them down like individually. But but well. They could they could in theory upgrade them to digital if they were located in an area that they under the criteria. That that's the danger when you do that there's because someone overnight drop a digital in. That's right. So we don't want that. Well, that's why I think her approach was for that area. Have a dual. Yes. Does it be able to have that dual way of also publishing our goal, and that is to remove barriers. You know. So so not require them to factor it into the non-conforming status, but also have a prohibition against converting those 20 billboards to digital. Is that. No, no, no, no. That's not the two opportunities to be able to participate in the program. One would be cap and trade and the other would be through a development agreement. So for those 20, they would be eligible to apply for a development agreement and they would not count towards non-conforming. Yes. It would. You know. I think you take the non-conforming piece and cut it off right there. I don't think we need to speak to non-conforming. I think I think what she's saying in Miami is she wants a dual track for those signs that are in freely landscaped areas. Absolutely. I think and and best motion with you coming back, because obviously we want to make sure it's legally sound and it would would pass muster. So we can't craft this obviously on the floor. So that would be helpful if you could then bring that back. May I ask a clarifying just to make sure that we understand the direction and I do apologize for this. So we would we as staff would go out and verify the number that are within the landscape, freeway buffers. And we're only talking about the landscape freeway buffers and we would determine whatever that number is, regardless of who owns them. And we would we would make it so that they are still non-conforming billboards, but that those are they are specifically eligible for a development agreement for conversion to electronic. Is that your direction? Excellent. Absolutely. And is there a minimum take down ratio that would be a minimum floor. Thing, at least one. And certainly we can get some guidance on that from staff. But I think, you know, at least one. At least one within the same landscaped freeway area. And one non-conforming. And councilwoman ships key. Does your motion include the spacing that we talked about earlier to certainly increase the spacing. The other components in place, simply figuring if we can do this. Those were the spacing that was brought up by Councilmember DeLong and Amy. ARTICULATE Exactly. And I understood we were going to have that in there anyway. Yeah. Regardless of the motion. Yes. Okay. So as I understand it, we will survey and make sure we know what the universe of freeway landscape buffer billboards are. Those billboards would still be considered non-conforming. They would have the right to enter into a development agreement with a bare minimum removal of at least one of those non-conforming billboards for the benefit of conversion. And the spacing that I read into the record would be included 300 feet between poster size and 500 feet between bulletin size in table 54. Dash one. Anything else? No, that sounds. And certainly in returning that to us with an analysis as to if you can, the impact, it's hard to do this on the floor about really getting a sense of what the impact would be by making that change. So if we could have that as well, when you returned to us with the language. So that would be my motion. Thank you. Sir. Any further council comment. Oh, you need you need a second. And Mr. Larson. Son of Mr. Neal seconds seconded by Neal. Motion by Chayefsky seconded by Neal. Any further council comment? Council members alone. Thank you. Okay, a couple of things. First of all, you included the space requirements. Is that correct? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mace, I know that one of your concerns had to do with legally defensible and so forth. Are you comfortable with this approach? I know you need to spend a little more time with it, but is this something that you think you can work with? Yeah. What we'll be looking at is if by doing this, does it give one company some sort of a competitive advantage? And if it does not, I'll be comfortable with it. Okay. And you'll let us know when it when it comes back? You know, the other issue that we didn't discuss and maybe you could give us direction on it tonight is one of the things that you included last week, which we did make this change was there was the discussion about the cash bond. Performance bond yet. And let me just say that I know that your response wasn't exactly what I requested, but but I think that it certainly met the spirit of what I was looking for and probably was a little bit better. So I could tell you I fully support what staff is recommending for the performance bond approach. I would add that to the motion. All right. So we'll bring that back as well. And then the last item I have and Councilwoman, this could be either a friendly amendment or a substitute, depending on your preference. But as you talked about, requiring one science structure at least to come down through the development agreement. This small change, small to me, perhaps not to you, so you can give me direction here would be that at least one science structure with an equal or greater amount of display square footage that shows to a freeway has to be removed. So not necessarily landscaped area, but freeway adjacent. So it needs to be in that area and it needs to be at similar square footage and it stand. STAFF Does that cause any concern on your hand or city attorney Does that make it less legally defensible or more? We can look at it, but there could be a potential problem in that. The number of billboards in the landscaped area, I think is considerably smaller than the overall freeway oriented build. And I'm looking. Overall. So I am not minimizing that the landscape just I'm saying the face of the freeway. So it could be freeway adjacent, but you can't for example, you wouldn't take one say from residential, but you could replace it along the freeway corridor. So I'm not restricting it to the landscape area. That. Councilmember DeLong, if I may, you're just expanding the definition. Exactly. Obtained council, physically expanding? Well, I'm I'm doing two things. One is I'm expanding the display square footage to make sure it's apples to apples. All right. Get replace a very small board with a very big one. Correct? Right. So and then the second thing is that it shows to a freeway. Right? Yeah. So when you say close to a freeway, we will interpret that as within the landscape adjacent the freeway adjacent area. Correct. Okay. So we will have to do some analysis to see whether or not that does provide a competitive advantage. At this point, I can't answer that, but that is something that we will definitely look at. If it does not provide a competitive advantage to one company or the other, that is the direction we will go. Yeah. And certainly the goal is not to provide a competitive advantage to one or the other. So being tackling, I would add that to to the motion. And when you when you come back, is it your expectation when you come back with something that hopefully it would qualify for first reading? We will make our best effort. We will definitely bring back an ordinance that's suitable for first reading. Then if you decide to tweak it some more, we may have to go through that same analysis and put it over for another first reading. It's possible. Let's try to make it work the first time. And the last portion is, I don't understand how much effort needs to go into this, but could we get first reading next week as opposed to the first week of February? We can check with Amy, but I doubt that we could get this done by the first week in February, to tell you the truth. No, I really know. All right. First we get February. We should. Do our. Best never to ask it. Okay, if I may, I think they need to take as much time as they need to do it right. Oh, we've done it right. They're aiming for the first week of February. I get it. But listen, if you need another week, then you need another week. That's that's that's my opinion. Mr. DION If I can just add it, Mr. Mays what would be helpful to me, and I think the other council members, if your analysis could come to us before we get it on the council agenda item so that we've had some time to understand what it is you found by crafting that language. And that when we're here for the for the first reading, you know, we're a little bit more prepared than just the day of that would be very helpful. Yeah. We will we will definitely try to do that if we get it out in time, if not in the regular course, you get it eight days before the meeting. So if I can get it earlier than that, that portion of it, I will definitely do that. I appreciate that. And I also want to thank Ms.. Burdick and her staff. This I know this has been a a long, long process. And hopefully by the time we're done or have it right and we can move on to other big, long, long processes. Thank you. Item number five, council members cast your vote on item number five on a yes. Motion carry. Thank you, madam. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Item number six.

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

BostonCC_11172021_2021-1023

Duncan Amber 1023 The Committee on Planning, Development and Transportation, to which was referred on September 29th, 2021. Docket number 1023a Communication Received from Susan L. Sullivan, Executive Director of Newmarket Business Association, regarding the proposed petition for Newmarket Business Improvement District, submits a report recommending the order ought to pass. Thank you. The Chair recognizes, actually our new chair of the Committee on Planning, Development and Transportation with, of course, the mayor's resignation. The vice chair has moved up. So Chair Baker, chair of the Committee on Planning, Development, Transportation, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. President. If you don't mind, I'm going to read this committee report, and it's a little bit lengthy, so bear with me. First, I want to acknowledge to Solomon in the work that you've done in all this, I think it was about seven or eight years ago. We first met with Rosemarie Sansone. We were talking about the bid for Newmarket, the Boston City Council Committee on Planning and Development and Transportation, to which was referred the following docket 1023 Communication was received from Susan Sullivan, Executive Director of Newmarket Business Association, regarding the proposed petition for a Newmarket Business Improvement District. This matter was filed with the city, with the council, by the City Clerk upon filing of a petition with the City Clerk seeking the City Council's approval for a proposed business improvement district and was referred to the Committee on Planning, Development and Transportation on September 29, 2021. The Committee on Planning, Development and Transportation held a public hearing via Zoom on November 8th, 2021 to take testimony and consider the same. The chairman entered into record formal language requirements outlining by the state according to Mass General Law Chapter 40 oh, which is included, which included a letter from the City Clerk stating the petition to establish the Newmarket Business Improvement District meets all criteria for the establishment of the bid as set forth in general law 40 all and also an assessment certificate from the assessor for the City of Boston certifying that he has received and reviewed the list of fiscal year 2019, assessed real property and real property owners within the proposed Newmarket Business Improvement District, and that stated signatures exceeded 60% of the real property owners within the bid and that they exceeded exceeded 51% of the assessed value of all real property within the bid. The fee structure as set forth and also the fee structure as set forth in general law 40 all documents read into the act into the record . The Council and the Council want to first thank the councilors that were present. Council will chair. I was there. Councilor Frame was there. Council Clarity was there. Council was zero. Councilman He was there. Also in attendance were a State Representative Liz Miranda, State Representative John Santiago, Suffolk County Sheriff Steve Tompkins and Andrew Grace, the Director of Strategic Planning for the Mayor's Office of Economic Development, attended the hearing and presented testimony in favor of the petition to establish the Newmarket Business Improvement District, citing their familiarity with the mission, the mission, the goals and the aspirations of this project, their long term efforts and commitment to advocating for planning and better future together with residents, leaders, property , property owners, business owners, organizations and institutions in the Newmarket Business Association. They pledged their full support in moving this matter forward and bring it to fruition and urged the Boston City Council to approve the petition in the Newmarket Business Improvement District. Also testifying in favor of Sue Solomon, the executive director of Newmarket Business Association. Ben Murphy, the program manager. And Berke, who's a consultant for Newmark and an expert on bids, also attended the hearing presenting in in favor of. Um, the components of the Business Improvement District and the enabling legislation. Chapter 40 of the Community Outreach Education Partnership Formation efforts. The data substantiate substantiating the well. It well above required legal threshold to establish the Newmarket Business Improvement District and the dist in the description and maps of the proposed boundaries of the New Market Business District. It also stated the mission's goals, the mission and the goal is to better. Have better quality of life, increase safety and security, greater area cleanliness, improve transportation around the district. Advocacy for local business, property owners and residents. And also advocacy for change in the homeless addiction crisis and the promotion of business growth. Growth. The proposed development and improvement plans for Newmarket Business Improvement District. And the overall associated benefits and enhanced programing services and resources and activities brought about by the establishment of the New Market Business Improvement District and is a copy of the whole presentation in the back. I just want to make one point about this. This is this is services that the business community has been looking for from the city for years. This will not be a replacement of the city services. We still need to be down there full time city. That's public works, police, public health, transportation, fire department. We're all still there. This will argument augment the city services that were there it was it will also. It will also augment a transportation plan. It will merge be you South Bay. And I think there's one more transportation plan that will merge there and augment so so the people now that are trying to transit transverse this area will be able to get there safely and securely. And I think it will be a much needed benefit. Just the transportation plan based on the documents, documentation, information and testimony submitted and presented at the hearing and have considered the same. The Committee to determine that the petition seeking the formation of the Newmarket Business Improvement District satisfied satisfies the proposed set the purposes set forth in established criteria of general law. 40 All I respectfully recommend that the City Council vote to approve the petition to establish the Newmarket Business Improvement District that a roll call vote be taken and this matter ought to pass. Signed by Michelle Ward, the Committee Chair. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr.. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if there is some further discussion, the chair recognizes the District Council from South Boston on docket 01631023. Councilor Flynn, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say thank you to my colleague, Councilor Baker, for his leadership on this, but also to recognize Sue Sullivan and the work she did in the Newmarket area, which also overlaps into my district as well. I want to say thank you to Sue and her team for working closely with the businesses in and around the new market, including residents and businesses in the South End as well, and engaging Steve Fox and other neighborhood organizations. It was a great working relationship that they had and thank you to Sue and her team. We were able to get it done and also obviously our colleague, Councilor Baker. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you very much. Councilor Flynn, the chair now recognizes the District Council from Mattapan Councilor Andre Campbell. The floor is. Yours. Thank you, Mr. President. Of course. Thank you to Councilor Baker. And I also want to thank Sue and her team, because part of this connected to some constituents in the other part of Dorchester in District four. And she was able to navigate some of the constituent cases and concerns with respect to folks who didn't want to be in and who thought about being in it and did it with such grace that it all turned out really well. So thank you for for really pouring in on this. And thank you again to Councilor Baker. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilor Campbell, would anyone else wish to speak on docket 1023? Seeing No Takers. Councilor Frank Baker, chair of the Committee on Planning, Development and Transportation on behalf of Mayor Woo, who is the past immediate chair at the time of this hearing, seek acceptance of the committee report and passage of Docket 1023. All those in favor please indicate by saying I. I oppose say nay. Mr. Chair, the chair did ask for. I was waiting for you to yield out the vote. The chairman doubts the vote. Mr. Clark, would you please call a roll call on docket 1023? Well, no, it is the opinion of the chair that the matter has passed, but we will have a roll call on record. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Baker. Yes. Councilor Baker. Yes. Councilor book. Councilor. Book. Yes. Councilor Braden. Yes. Councilor Braden. Yes. Councilor Campbell. Councilor Campbell. Yes. Councilor Edwards. Councilor Edwards. Yes. Councilor Sabi George. Councilor Sabi George. Yes. Council. 30 Council 30 years. Councilor Flynn. Yes. Councilor Flynn. Yes. Cancel the Janey. Council on me here. Council on me here. Yes. Councilor O'Malley. Yes. Councilor O'Malley. Yes. The matter has passed unanimously. Congratulations. I it. Thank you all and congratulations. Moving right along to matters recently heard for possible action. Mr. Clark, could you please read docket 0900? Duncan Number 0900 Ordinance to Provide for legal legal representation of the Boston Groundwater Trust by the City of Boston Law Department.

A proclamation proclaiming the week of October 19, 2015 – October 23, 2015 as Choose to be G.R.E.A.T. Week in Denver, Colorado.

DenverCityCouncil_10192015_15-0779

Oh. Councilman Brooks, you got your wish, man. Council Proclamation 758 series of 2015. Well, I know. I'm sorry. Sorry. Scott Shire Council Bill. Our Council Proclamation 779 six of 2015 proclaiming the week of October 19, 2015 to October 23rd, 2015, as Choose to be great week in Denver, Colorado. Whereas the city and county of Denver is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all its residents and visitors. Whereas, youth violence, delinquency and bullying are concerns both locally and nationally. And. WHEREAS, the Gang Resistance, Education and Training Great Program as an evidence based gang violence prevention program built around school based law enforcement and officer instructive classroom curricula. Teaching youth to say no to gangs, drugs and crime. And. WHEREAS, the great program offers a continuum of components for students and their families that focus on providing life skills to help youth avoid bullying, delinquent behaviors and violence. And. Whereas, GREAT has now served over 6 million students nationally and internationally since its inception in 1991 and since 2011 has been taught to over 5000 students in the Denver Public Schools in partnership with the Denver Juvenile Probation Department, Denver Police Department, the Denver Sheriff's Department, in coordination with the Gang Reduction Initiative of Denver or. Great. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council, the city and county of Denver, Section one, that in the pursuit of reducing youth violence and bullying while fostering a better relationship between youth and law enforcement officers, the Council of the City and County of Denver does hereby proclaim the week of October 19, 2015 through October 23rd, 2015 , as Choose to Be Great Week. Section two that the Council of the City and County of Denver encourages all students to sign the great pledge. Quote unquote. I pledge to use my great skills to reduce violence in my community, work to resolve conflicts, conflicts peacefully, and stop bullying whenever I see it. Section three that the clerk of the city and county of Denver saw attest and affixed the seat, the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that copies be transmitted to the executive director, Paul Callan, and the Gang Reduction Initiative of Denver Chiefs Chief Sean Cone of the Denver Juvenile Probation. Chief Robert White of the Denver Police and Sheriff Patrick Furman of the Denver Sheriff's Department. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, your motion to adopt. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council proclamation 1779 2015 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I had the great privilege. Not only to watch this program take place in our schools and to see all these young people involved in this program, but to see some of the results as well, too, in an area that I know we've had a huge problem with youth violence, in an area that I know and a lot of people who would walk around years ago and say that this was a rough neighborhood and you felt afraid in it. Well, that's no more. It's a different feeling in the neighborhoods, and there's a lot of things that attribute to that. Even. Rec center and library hours. Attribute to that or paved streets and sidewalks. Attribute to that it's a big thing but. The one thing that we can't discredit or look past is this program and these efforts. And it's it's a it's an amazing program and it's part of a great initiative to reduce gangs in Denver and not by simply trying to arrest our way out of a situation of this problem. We can't. And it forces us to look at other measures and and focusing more on preventing violence rather than reacting to it. And so the last thing I will say is, you know, in its inception, I actually had the great pride and privilege to that, to be a co-chair of the other group. And they've done great work. They've done great work, and they continue to do great work. So being that, I'm using the word great a lot. Thank you, Mr. President. It's been a great proclamation. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, in other comments, seven, seven, nine. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to just acknowledge the great work that Deborah Garcia Sandoval has been doing as the leader of this great program for a number of years. And I don't know if you all know this, but this program was actually not proposed to have funding last year as we were looking to do the budget for this year. And, you know, I know some of us made phone calls to the mayor's office and said, you know, this is such an important program and it's such a small amount of money in comparison to dollars that are earmarked for other programs. And it makes such a huge difference for the lives of our young kids. And I was so pleased that the mayor continued funding this program and had an opportunity to go to one of the graduations and learn a little bit more about, you know, the coursework that the young folks participate in throughout the year. And, you know, this ties in perfectly with the proclamation that we did earlier, because having positive outlets for our young people is so important to ensuring that they continue to leave, lead their lives in the right path. And this program really has has just made such a difference. And so I just wanted to put my $0.02 in thank Councilman Lopez for bringing this forward and just want to see it continue because it really is helping make a difference. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Any other comments? 779. Routine. UN Madam Secretary, welcome. Lopez Hi, new Ortega. Sussman Black Brooks. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. I Gilmore. Cashman. I can eat. Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. If we first announced the results. 3939 779 has been adopted. Councilman Lopez, someone you'd like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. There are three individuals who I'd like to come up to the to the podium recognizing. First, I wanted to ask and recognize our chief probation officer, Sean Cohen, Deborah Garcia Sandoval, who was the the great probation officer who worked with us on the proclamation, who works daily with the program. And then a woman who I always would get her emails or she'd get mine somehow. And I hear about this this p lopez. Denver Pearl Lopez from the Grid Project, who also worked on this proclamation, has been serving our city in a variety of capacities for a while. So welcome. I. Thank you very much. I wasn't prepared to say anything. Our program director from GRID, Mr. Paul Callan, did here in the back row. I think he was the one that was. Going to get over here with. The goggles. The cameras are on you now, so you got to get up. So I would just like to say thank you from the bottom of my heart that I have the privilege to live in a city and to work in a city that supports programs such as Great and the Grid Project, the Gang Reduction Initiative of Denver. And I also want to be extremely thankful that I work in a department where I have a chief probation officer that is so visionary and thinks out of the box. That allows me, a probation officer, to be on special assignment to the city, to go into these schools and to teach the kids to say no to gangs , drugs, crime and violence, and to say yes to a great future. Great is an awesome program that's been around. You heard since 1991, we've served over 6 million kids. It's international. It's in Central America. They're going gangbusters over there, no pun intended. But it's it's just really awesome that I get to be a part of all of this. And if we would really focus on putting the dollars on prevention, I think that we would like my chief probation officer said, probably work ourselves out of a job and we would be happy with that, wouldn't we? Yes. So I'm going to let my chief say a few words. The only comment I would want to make is that this is such a true collaboration between state and the city and county of Denver. And I came from Adams County, worked 15 years in state probation there, and was very difficult to break some of those barriers and gaps when you're talking about county funding versus state funding. And really, I think that we have put forth an effort to serve really the the children and families of Denver, regardless of whose silo they fall into. And so this has been a really enjoyable experience to work alongside with city employees and the Denver public schools to reach out to probation are to young people before they hit our door. And I know state judicial was very apprehensive about allowing a probation officer to do this type of work because it really is outside of our scope. But to me, it makes the most sense is that if we can prevent people from entering the justice system at any level, we're doing a good job. So I appreciate it. Thank you. Hi. I just want to say thank you also to Denver Public Schools for allowing us to be in the schools and to teach great to the elementary and middle school students. We're very welcomed in the schools. And again, we've taught over 5000 students in Denver up to this point. So thank you again for the proclamation and for the students really acknowledging this this whole week. And we've made videos. Officer Garcia has done a lot of work in really highlighting this whole week. So again, thank you. Thank you very much for the proclamation. And Mr. Khan, why don't you come up? I made a big mistake. My I. I read this wrong. I read the highlighted part, and I forgot. So I want to make sure you know that you are also in Colorado, just my right here. So without further ado, the executive director. Again to Councilman Logan Lopez and the rest of the council. Thank you for support of the great program. It is the anchor program of the city's gang prevention efforts. It's a program that truly exemplifies the coordination and partnerships that go into reducing gang violence in this city. In addition to police officers, sheriff's deputies, probation officers that teach the program starting in January 2016, we'll also have U.S. marshals and U.S. attorneys teaching the program alongside their probation officers and the police officers that are teaching the program. It is a program that has shown positive results in Denver on building relationships between law enforcement and youth and teaching kids the skills to stay away from violence and gangs. So, again, thank you very much. And there is funding for the next two years for the program. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Captain Lopez, for those two proclamations. All right. We are on to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, please read the resolutions. From business development 724 Resolution for an unbiased First Amendment between City and County of Denver and ThyssenKrupp Elevator, Inc. concerning a maintenance agreement at Denver International Airport 726 resolution approving any proposed Second Amendment to hotel management agreement. The Westin Denver International Airport to City and County. A different West India Operator, LLC. Related Development of an airport hotel at Denver International Airport 727 A resolution approving proposed airport use and cargo facilities. Lease agreement between Atlas Air Inc. City and County of Denver. Related Lease Space at Denver International Airport from Governance in Charter Review 696 A resolution approving the mayor's appointment of the Denver Community Corrections Board from Infrastructure and Culture 623 A Resolution Little Change Party to the city, streets and Bars Magnolia Street, its intersection with East Colfax Avenue 630, a resolution laid out opening a step change part of city streets as a marshall Plan and Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard and Central Park Boulevard at Stapleton filing number nine 640 a

AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 25th Street and Glenarm Place in Five Points. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at and around 25th Street and Glenarm Place from G-MU-3/UO-3 and R-3/UO-3 to U-RH-2.5/UO-3 (general urban, multi-unit to urban, row-house) in Council District 9. Amended 4-23-18 to modify the rezoning boundaries to exclude four parcels due to the impacts on nearby redevelopment. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 3-13-18.

DenverCityCouncil_04232018_18-0244

11 eyes. 243 has passed. Congratulations, everyone. Okay, we are on to our last council bill of the evening. Councilwoman Gilmore, can you please put 244 on the floor? Yes, President Brooks, I move that council bill 18 dash 0244 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Council Bill 244 is now open. May we have staff report? Oh, yes, I will. I'm going to do an amendment first before the staff report. Thank you, Madam Secretary. So good. Before the public hearing is open, I have an amendment to modify the rezoning boundaries to exclude four parcels due to the impacts of nearby development and commercial space, which was never the intent of this of this bill. I move the Council bill to 44 be amended in the following particulars on page two, line three, strike two, number block 183, Lot 17 through 31 and replace with block 183 colon lots 17 through 28. I need a second chance. It has been moved. And second it is. If there is any questions by members of council, I'll just make a few more remarks. What happened here is when we drew this, there was a property that was inadvertently added to these boundaries. And these boundaries include some commercial property. That commercial property is actually the rezoning development which just got announced this week. And so this is something that obviously this community in in five points, but the city has been waiting for for 40 years. And so it would be an issue if we downs on this property. So we saw that we caught it and worked with CPD to address the issue. Okay, we are now ready for you. Do we need to vote on this? Yes. Or can we? You should go ahead and vote. Okay. It's been moved a second to Madam Secretary. Rocco. Black eye. Clark Espinosa i Flynn I Gilmore I Cashin. Carnage knew Ortega I. Susman, i. Mr. President, I. Please I was watching this. Results. 11 eyes. All right. 11 eyes. Council Bill 244 has been amended. Councilwoman Gilmore, we need a motion to pass as amended. And move that council bill 18 dash 0 to 4 four be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Roll call. Sorry. One moment. We're not going to. You won't vote on it until the end of the night. Okay. Till after the speakers. Excellent. All right. A public hearing for 244 is now open. Now we're ready for you. Sorry about that, Jeff. Okay. So Jeff Hurt with speed again. So I'm here to present KP's analysis of this legislative map amendment that's been brought forward by Councilman Brooks. So the request is for the Council District nine. It's actually in the Five Points neighborhood. That's a typo. So the area is about a 12 acre area in five points with a proposal to rezone from GMU three. So general multi-unit three story in you oh three that's a historic structure overlay. There is actually no locally designated historic structures in in this area and then are three. There's a small portion. That's our three. I'll show you the zoning map. The request is to go to your RH 2.5 to align the zoning with the pretty explicit specific recommendations for building height in the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan. So current zoning, as I said G three and there's a small portion that's are three in the surrounding properties are mixed but along the Welton Street corridor is where you see the most intensity with CMCs eight so mixed use eight stories and then to the east and south is mixed but ranging from Cemex five, you mix three and then some old code zoning as well. And so existing land use is mixed as well, but mostly residential. You see some, uh, nonresidential which is mostly surface parking lots. And there's one church, but it is a mix overall of single to family and multi-family residential in the boundaries and so on to some images. So I want to spend a few minutes on this because it's particularly important. This is what the rezoning request is really about, is the existing kind of built environment and character of this neighborhood, which is pretty clearly articulated in the in the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan. But looking at images first of properties within the boundaries. So you see along the street these are generally late 1800s, early 1900s structures you see one and a half to two and a half story at most is the predominant sort of pattern. But you do see the introduction of three storey buildings onto this next slide here in the top image and you see some two storey buildings. But for the most part, there really is no buildings over that 2 to 2 and a half storey, um, height within the boundaries. And then more images of some of the new development that's happened in the area and in and around the area. So these images focus on the surrounding area. So properties around the legislative map amendment boundaries and you can see the the rapid redevelopment that's happening, particularly to the to the south and west along the Walton Street corridor , mostly three and up storey residential. But along the Wall Street quarter, you see more mixed use going higher than that. Five, eight stories in more images just showing how this area is really transforming the surrounding area. So the existing zoning is Jimmy three such general multi-unit with a maximum of three stories. So this zone district allows three stories and 30 feet in height in most places. So a lot of it's calibrated based on the width and the size of your lot. Most slots are less than 50 feet wide, so you have this three storey and 30 foot height limitation on most of them. But for lots that are greater, they're 50 feet are greater, wide. There's more allowance for you have three stories, but also you can go up to 40 feet with the row house and apartment building form. So right now it's you three. You can't necessarily achieve three stories all throughout the area, but there is some allowance for it and it does allow for accessory dwelling units in the rear, 35% of these lots. So the propose on district is your 2.5 sets. So that's a two and a half story zone district where you would have the same use allowances in terms of still allowing single family, duplex, multifamily, a range of housing types. But essentially it lowers the building height by a half a story. So year 2.5 allows up to two and a half storeys and 30 feet in height. So similar to Jimmy three in that it's 30 feet in height along in a lot of places throughout the neighborhood. But it would allow up to 35 feet in height and two and a half storeys again, based on the width of your lot, if you have a lot that's 50 feet or wider, which is a very small portion of this area, actually, you could get up to 35 feet in height with two and a half stories. So it's really about reducing the building height by half a story. And you'll see in a second here the plan recommendations that this is calibrated to. And your 2.5 does also allow accessory dwelling units like Jimmy three. There's just limitations on the height and the scale. So the process is there was an extensive community process leading up to the application, even making its way to CPD. This actually is a 20 and 15 case number to show you when it actually started in the in the queue. But in terms of the more recent notification, I'm going back to January of this year was the initial notice. And then, of course, all the other signs in the posting that went along with planning board and city council. And I'm sorry. Plenty more did recommend approval on February 21st unanimously. So the Arnaud's that were reached out to are on the screen. So each one of these in I've got a better summary here. Each one of these were notified of the request. And as of today, there have been 13 comments total on this specific request, ten and support. I think there was nine in your packet, but we got another late one tenant support, including the Curtis Park Neighbors Registered Neighborhood Organization. And in general the support is related to conservation of motion, of conservation of community character relative to building scale. There are two comments and opposition mostly related and certainly in your packet, but mostly related to the concerns over loss of property values. With losing that half story increment and some concerns over our notification process and the public outreach that was done leading to the decision to go with you as 2.5. There's one comment I would classify as neutral that has some concerns, but I don't know that there's actually opposition in there. And so these are the review criteria staff look at. To formulate a recommendation, you have to city wide plans, of course. And then the Northeast Downtowns Neighborhoods Plan is really the sort of the focus of the analysis. So related to comp plan, 2000 staff looked at a number of different policies related to encouraging infill development while at the same time being respectful of neighborhood character. And so there's a number of policies that sort of call out that goal and staff does find the request consistent with that. Relative to the existing character of the neighborhood blueprint, Denver is actually mixed within the boundaries of the rezoning area, so it's mostly area of stability, but some area of change in mostly single family and duplex feature land use in terms of the the staff position a recommendation on this. So in terms of what an area of change policy states and that's kind of paraphrase, it's really about accommodating investment and redevelopment in strategic places. But then you also have an area of stability, goals and policies of promoting maintenance of neighborhood character. So on balance, staff does find that it does require strikes, a balance of the two. So sort of encouraging reinvestment and investment while at the same time being more consistent with neighborhood character relative to building scale. And like I said, Single-Family duplex and urban residential are the blueprint land use classifications, both of which support the idea of a mix of housing types and staffing 02.5 Consistent with that in terms of you still have a wide range of housing types that would be allowed under that zoning. So the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan is really the the the focus of at least three adaptive plan analysis. That plan actually calls out this specific area explicitly has 2.5 stories. And there's a small area to the south of 24th Avenue that's actually called that is three stories. We could talk about the nuance there, but essentially three stories is not possible because of the intersecting streets under any sort of the list of zoned districts that would be feasible here. I'm happy to talk about that. So but the concept building height of 2.5 stories applies to the majority of the rezoning area and STAT finds that consistent with the neighborhoods plan and the future land uses really follow a blueprint in Denver in terms of promoting a range of housing types between single family duplex and urban residential. So staff finds year 2.5 consistent with that. And there's also some other sort of non map based policies in the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan related to specifically this area Enterprise Hill as it's kind of called out. And that's about reinforcing existing development scale in about protecting neighborhood fabric, maintaining character. And it even goes so far as to say to make use of upper story setbacks and minimizing massing where appropriate. So staff finds overall that the zone district is consistent with these policies as well. And so since this is a legislative rezoning request, these are the three criteria that are used to evaluate it so you don't have the justifying circumstances and all the additional criteria. But staff did look at these three criteria and found that the request is consistent with the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan and other plans, and that it furthers public health, safety and welfare through the implementation of adopted plans in implementing that vision of maintaining neighborhood character related to height and massing . So staff recommends approval of the request and happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you so much, Jeff. We have eight speakers. I'm sorry. Nine speakers this evening and I'm going to call the first five up to the front bitch, please move that way. John Haydon. Sam Hargraves. Deborah Jacobson. Keith Pryor. Maggie Miller. That's five. John Hayden, you're up first. 3 minutes, sir. Thank you. Members of council. My name is John Hayden. I reside at 2418 Champ Street in the Curtis Park Five Points neighborhood. I am the president of Curtis Park Neighbors, and I'm here to let you know that our neighborhood organization had multiple presentations on this rezoning and that our board voted in favor unanimously of the rezoning. And you should have our letter expressing that. And then just from a why why we think this is really important, the area that we're rezoning tonight is and is a collection of of of five points homes of small, medium single family homes that were built in the 1880s, very similar to the homes in Curtis Park. And we want to make sure that those small homes remain a part of our community, that we don't lose all of the the housing stock, that that makes up the character of Five Points and Curtis Park. And so that that is what what this is about to me is maintaining a degree of affordability by maintaining those smaller single family and row homes and not seeing them wholesale demolished in favor of larger luxury homes. And and so that that is what I see coming of this. And I will leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Hayden. Sam Hargraves. Hi. I'm opposed to this on several grounds. Can you. Can you say your name for the record? Yeah. Samuel Hargraves. Good. Okay. On a couple of grounds. One is procedural. As you've heard, this has been a multi-year process. I didn't receive any notification and I've spoken to many neighbors who weren't aware of it until they saw the first signs posted on corners a couple of months ago. I spoke to some women who were neighbors. A couple of years ago or. Several years ago, and they still own their house. They use it as a rental house. Their address of record is current. When I talked to them, contacted them last week, they had no. Idea about this and they are reachable because they did receive a. Letter regarding the demolition of a house behind them. It seems to me that primarily opposing or non avid supporting voices were not included in this process. I'm not at all surprised that the Curtis Park Neighborhood Association supports this. Curtis Park is a different neighborhood. It's across Welton Street, several blocks over. It's a self-defined, historic district. People self-select to live in this district. Of course, they're going to support a down zoning. Of another place. I'm also curious about how many of. The homeowners whose houses will be directly. Affected by this. Support it and have been directly involved in this discussion. And I think there are a fair number of people who support it whose houses and properties will not be directly impacted. Yeah. And then in terms of the sort of inevitability of this that I've heard from some people regarding Blueprint Denver in the 2011 thing , Susan Barnes Gail said. That every town in a blueprint. Talked about putting density adjacent to transit and encouraging. Of change where directly. Adjacent to Welton Street Core Transportation Quarter, which has a light rail. And I'm not sure why you would. Go to a. Less dense zoning. From GM. You three also believe GM Year three is appropriate. As a transitional zoning from CMC's five and eight on Welton to GMU three where we are, and then you step down a couple of blocks over, then you get down to 2.5 across Washington as opposed to going from CMC's five boom straight to 2.5. And I would argue that the character of our neighborhood is. Not as as as. Posited. These are these this sort of charming character. The character from their neighborhood. Is already. Substantially a mix of non historic homes of and larger of. Non historic homes. Including four plex is three story duplexes. We are not blocks of of. Quaint single story Victorians. We are not Curtis Park. We don't resemble Curtis Park in any way, shape or form. We are a. Different neighborhood. And which includes larger a substantial number of larger structures. Some of these supporters live in those structures. So it's weird. Thank you, Mr. Grace. Deborah Jacobson. Thank you, counsel. My name is Deborah Jacobson. I, I have lived at 2437 Clumber place since 1997 with my partner who bought the property in 1990. And I would like to briefly review how the zoning that we have now, which is GMU three, came to be when the current zoning for this area was proposed in 2010. Several of myself and several neighbors signed a petition asking for our zoning to match that of of the Curtis Park neighborhood. At that time, our neighborhood was not represented by an R.A. and we we we failed to get the urh2 point five that we were trying to get back then. Just a year later, in May of 2011, the Northeast Denver neighborhood plan was adopted and building height and land use maps, as have been pointed out now support the you are h 2.5 zoning. The momentum to change our zoning started to build a few years ago and a group of neighbors got together and started outreach to the proposed rezoning area. And you will hear from my neighbor, Robbie Hobin, regarding the details of our outreach and my neighbor, Maggie Miller, regarding the outcome of that outreach. We have seen the neighborhood in the surrounding area go through many changes over the last several years, especially the last four, 4 to 5 years. And we are in full support of the increased density we are seeing along the commercial corridors of Welton Street and in Arapahoe Square. But we feel strongly that changing the zoning to reflect what is called for in the Northeast Denver neighborhood plan will help preserve the character of our neighborhood. And, you know, some may say that changing the zoning would negatively impact the monetary value of our properties. But I would argue that replacing historic homes with multi-unit apartment buildings would significantly impact the things that we value most about this neighborhood. And just thank you, counsel, so much and I appreciate it. All right. Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. Keith Prior. Hi. My name is Keith Pryor. And this is all about, you know, our tools in our toolbox. And so we have the northeast neighborhood area plan that was adopted basically after we had done the major rezoning of the city. And unfortunately, this neighborhood, which was adjacent to Curtis Park, in a sense, has been because of the neighbors, reached out to Curtis Park and have become a part of Curtis Park and really now have the advocacy there. And what we really want to do is basically work with tools in the toolbox to really match what's on the ground with the zoning that's appropriate. There are a lot of single storey homes that are still there and we're constantly seeing these cannibalize through the current zoning into a three storey. So basically they got the house, they keep the first storey walls and then they go up three stories which next to a one storey house looks really odd. And it also then removes that house as a one storey house to being a 600 square foot, very affordable property. It's a great starter home that a lot of people are able to get into. And so as we've seen in other neighborhoods such as Bonnie Brae, Washington Park, when you're zoning doesn't necessarily match what's on the floor, you have this cannibalization. And so what we're finding is as a tool to help maintain the area's character, but yet still allow wildness in the street, which is actually the transit corridor, to have the density of the five storey and the eight storey and really concentrate that on that corridor. But then yet let a mix of income survive that has been there. That has been the cornerstone of this five points area. It is the most diverse economically area in the city. Pretty much started out that way. And if we don't down zone to actually protect the land values, then the land values go up to make the houses no longer affordable. So you're buying the land underneath the house and then that then creates the problem. So when your use and your land use actually matches what's there, those opportunities to have that affordability and to keep the character of the neighborhood there is lost. And so one other tool in the toolbox, landmark preservation, that is one area that, you know, we've obviously looked at in in Curtis Park, we have 11 landmark districts. Is that something maybe something would be supported in the future? Sure. But we have immediate needs. Obviously, there is great change and we really want to make sure that the character of the neighborhood maintains itself, the affordability, the diversity maintains itself. And we just want to make sure that what's on the ground matches what's in the zoning and the plans support that. So please support this tonight. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Mr. Pryor. Maggie Miller. Good evening. My name is Maggie Miller and I live at 451 24th Street. I am here to ask you to approve the Denver Planning Board's unanimous recommendation to rezone our little triangle. I would, since not everybody who supports this is actually going to be speaking. I would like to just take a minute and ask anybody who supports it to stand up whether they're speaking or not. Thank you. In my time tonight, I'm going to focus on how much support this proposal has from our neighbors. We did a very thorough outreach that Robbie will be talking about, and we got a lot of support. I don't know if you can picture our little triangle from the street level. We're basically nestled. There's Curtis Park, there's San Rafael, there's Clements, and we're by the Safeway. So I don't know if you can picture that this neighborhood currently has a mix of housing. As people have said, single family homes, both large and small duplexes, row homes, condos and an apartment building. And not surprisingly, therefore, has a wonderful mix of people. You'll hear you have a detailed letter about our outreach, and Robby will be talking about it. So what I'm going to talk about is the results of the outreach. So here's the math. At the time of our initial outreach, there were about 100 properties in our little triangle, 107. Just over half of those were owner occupied. So you can imagine what it was like to reach the owners. That's why we had to do so much outreach because only they weren't all owner occupied. Despite that, we managed to contact owners of 69 properties. So that's about two thirds of the properties. And it is a minor miracle that we contacted them. Again, Robby is going to talk about all of our efforts to contact. Of the 69 properties, 56 had owners who signed our petition. I'm going to repeat that of the properties we contacted 56. That's 81% had owners that signed our petition. So that's a lot of support for this. And not only did we make contact with those owners, we had thoughtful conversations with them in person, on their front porches, on the phone, over coffee. We learned why they did or didn't want the rezoning. And I don't have time now in my 3 minutes to describe all of their reasons. But my point is that we had substantive conversations with our neighbors that we were able to contact. If you have any questions or concerns about our outreach or level of support, for goodness sakes, please ask. We have the answers. I have we all have copious notes. So in closing, I want to ask you to approve this rezoning request and to thank you again for your attention and for your service to the city. All right. Thank you, Miss Miller. Okay, I'm going to call the next five. Robbie Hoban, Joel Noble. James. Two minus. TerraCycle. Come on. Yeah. Terms like know you're not ready yet, but Robin hoping is you. But you can sit on the first front row. For the next. For the. First time. For the first time in five years. Okay. Go ahead. Hey. I'm Robbie Hobin. I live at 24th in Glenarm. And I also want to thank you and the city planners for meeting so much with us and for your support and getting through this process that took us two and a half years. I'm going to speak just to the process part. Just to summarize that, I sent you about 30 pages of maps and photographs and letters that we sent out and fliers and the mailings we sent to mailings just to speak to at the very beginning of this, Maggie. And I don't know where she went. We kept telling ourselves, well, this may not work, but at least we're getting to know our neighbors. And we did. We hit every house, hit as in like knocked on at least once, twice, dropping fliers, mailing letters. We created a Facebook group just to stimulate conversation because sometimes people work and it's hard to get a hold of people. We created a fan of five points at gmail.com address, so if you got the flier, you could at least email us. We created it, not we. Maggie The Excel spreadsheet Ninja created this enormous spreadsheet to keep track. We had to look up every address one by one on this Realtor real property website and write down who owned the house and did they? Were they owner occupied? And it was just amazing. We had a scale of 1 to 7 on super supportive or not supportive or you know, Maggie left a message and we think we saw them at some point, you know, at a meeting we held meetings at the Five Points Curtis Park neighborhood. R.A. which is how I got to know everybody in the neighborhood, just about besides the walking and talking. We met at the library and Blair Caldwell Library. Coffee At the point I sound like I'm rambling. There's just so much to tell you. The point is, when it comes to process, we really did want to know what the neighbors thought because we wanted we didn't want to make enemies of the people we were. It would have been pointless. That was not what we wanted to do. And Maggie's number really do speak to this. That of the people we were able to reach, 80% were supportive. And that includes mailing letters out of state to Elsie's and trust funds and that kind of thing. As people use some of these properties as rent, what do you call it, income properties. So for sure it's been a long, sustained effort to get here and I'm so glad to be here. Finally, to ask you respectfully for your vote of yes tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Holbein. All right. John Noble. Good evening, Council. President. Council. I'm here to speak in favor of this, but really to speak in favor of the process because this is something I think should and Joel Noble take seven or five, I don't think and that's great, so to speak, in favor of the process, because I think this is something that can work well in every neighborhood. What we have is a recent neighborhood plan and neighborhood plans are fantastic because as supplements to blueprint Denver, they capture the consensus in the community for what the future of over the next 20 years should look like. You can imagine this little triangle going a number of possible ways. It would be very reasonable. I had the pleasure of leading the the community input process to the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods plan for Curtis Park. That that neighborhood plan is quite large. It covers essentially all of five points. But this Curtis Park sub area, as you heard, this little triangle didn't have an R.A. And in the previous couple of years during the zoning code update, they realized, hey, we don't have an R.A. we're not we're not getting input. So they came over across Welton Street and joined our input to the Northeast Downtown Neighborhoods Plan. And through that process of consensus building found the consensus that you see in that plan today, two and a half stories and a range of building types from a single detached house through row house. Having found that consensus. Then it comes to us now after a lot of outreach and making sure people understand the implications after support with our council member to make the zoning match. The planning. In her neighborhood. Cooperation has not taken a position on this, and I wouldn't expect them to take a position on individual rezonings. But I would like to point out that in the ANC zoning and planning platform, not only do they talk about the importance of neighborhood plans, but they also encouraged legislative rezonings, just like we have here in front of us. When the community consensus has been found, then don't don't waste time. Go ahead and legislatively rezone so that the zoning matches the intention of the community. And so we're grateful that Councilman Brooks has brought this forward. I'll be available for questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Noble. All right, James Tobias. Did I say that right? You did. And thank you. It's it's not an easy one to pronounce. My name is James the Midas. I live on just one of the fringes of this triangle that we're talking about tonight. I want to thank the members of the council for letting us talk. I want to make four brief points, two of them with respect to support of the bill and two of them with respect to the process. I think passage of this bill will allow us to maintain at least some modicum of diversity in this neighborhood, not only with respect to the economics of the people who live there, but also with respect to the cultures of the people who live there. And also with respect to the architecture of the places that are there now. I think we have. Excuse me. I think we've all seen in the various neighborhoods in Denver the kind of the scramble to make as many square feet on a lot as possible, livable and sellable. And that's something that I think we see everywhere. And this is an opportunity and it's a relatively modest request, but it's a request that will allow some livability of the neighborhood to maintain itself. So. So obviously, I support this. I do live in the neighborhood full time. I am not an absentee landlord and I am aware of everything that goes on, even though I'm fairly anti-social in the overall picture. I see all of the activism from everybody here. I am not one of those people. But with respect to the process, Ms.. Miller and her colleagues have always been very forthcoming with all the information associated with this, and I have been privy to it. I've asked for it, I've taken a look at it, and I've been impressed by it. I've been impressed by their efforts on behalf of the community to the same effect. With respect to some of the concerns that were excuse me that were brought up with with regard to the getting in touch with everybody in the neighborhood. I am. I have the dubious distinction of probably being the. Least social, most unacceptable person that I can think of in that neighborhood because I'm always working. And between Maggie Miller and some of the other people that she's been that share her viewpoints on this, they've contacted me no fewer than five times since this thing kicked off . And I'm not very accessible. I'm always working. I always have other things going on. So in some I would support the bill. I would very vigorously support it. And with respect to the process, I think that they've put every effort possible forth to get everybody's feedback, and I think it's been very overwhelmingly positive. So thank you. Thank you. Mr. Thomas Turner, stay cool. So we want you on that first bench so you can be closer. And so maybe when he is winding down, you can start just suggestions from the from the president. Go ahead. You're here. 3 minutes of starting. Thank you. Terrorist registration movement for self-defense. Oh, yeah. I have to step outside of myself. To actually support this. Because this is the neighborhood that I was gentrified out of, that I was born and raised in for 65 years. And my love for the neighborhood supersedes all actions and events as happened in my personal life because I am connected spiritually to the land. And those little small houses that you saw. With the houses that we black people occupied and lived in as we served the white folks that was in the bigger houses. Those who are quarters. And we lived in those properties. And when movement came, we could move and other folks moved out. We moved into the bigger houses, and those are the biggest houses that we just got gentrified out of. By the folks who are proposing this because they don't even know about the people that were in those houses because they came from here. So I supported it on a moral obligation. To maintain the integrity of the community I grew up in that I could not live in today. Because it's principle and it's not personal. Because of my love. For my community. So that's why I'm supporting this. And that is it. That's it. And so as I can step outside my personal feelings about things and put my community first. I'm seeking a similar behavior from them and from this council and begin a process of repatriation of folks who were moved out of this justification so that you have a diversity of a neighborhood as opposed to a all white community of settlers outside of this neighborhood. Outside the city. So I can do it. I expect us all to do it. Because this is about teamwork that makes it dream work. It's about principle for personality. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Chairman Sekou. This concludes our speakers questions by members of council. Councilwoman Ortega. Yeah, I would like to ask city staff if this creates any nonconforming properties with the changes. So the only thing it would create would be noncompliant structures. So for example, the the new three storey buildings, newish three storey buildings that were built under Jimmy three would be noncompliant, which is different than non-conforming. You get a little more flexibility to make improvements and maintenance and things like that. You just can't increase the extent of the noncompliance, if that makes sense. So the zoning essentially allows them to exist, which, you know, is similar to a nonconforming use, but it gives more flexibility on them being able to do improvements. So that's the basic difference. That's right. In terms of the terminology. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Do you have any idea how many? None. What's the word? Using non-compliant properties. This this creates. I don't have that offhand. It's in the others that know the neighborhood better than me. Okay. Probably. No, I would say. Well, less than ten, maybe even less than five. Okay. I'd like to ask one of the speakers who is involved in the. Maybe outreach. Process. I don't know if anyone has that information in front of them. I can assure you no one has that information. I mean, we can get it back to you. That's a that's an analysis that needs to be done very specific. It could be. The number of stories. It could be the setback. You know, there's a number of things that could could get at this noncompliant issue. Yeah, I guess I was looking mostly at the height issue than anything so that that would be helpful to know that information. Anybody in the audience have the answer to that question. If you could raise your hand. If not, Joe, I figured you would. If he has a precise number right now, we can switch places. Councilman Brooks is correct, of course, that nobody nobody did the analysis measuring every every building. I think it depends how strictly you look at it. With these older neighborhoods, 1880s through 1910. The two storey buildings tended to be quite tall and quite narrow and. A lot of them, I would say most of them don't fully comply with every piece of both the new zoning and the old zoning, because there's some way in which just just think about the side setbacks. The houses in this neighborhood were built very close together. And to build a new house today, to be fully conforming with the zoning code, you need to have a five foot or a three foot side setback, and generally they don't. So if you looked at every provision in the zoning code and say, are they conforming in every regard? None of them in this area are. And that's true with the current zoning is true with the proposed zoning. So in this area, we depend very heavily on tools in the zoning code like administrative adjustment. When you're looking to do something, there's a way in the zoning code to have some flexibility on some measurements like height, like bulk plane, depending on the character of what's on the block. And that's basically how we get by. Thank you. I have no further questions. Yeah, thank you. Councilman Ortega, councilman connection. Thank you, Mr. President. I would love to talk to city staff as well. So I want to follow up on Councilman Ortega's question first, which is just about non-conforming or non-compliant buildings that are apartment buildings or multi-unit. And I want to dig in to this question about what's the difference between density versus size, because I don't think they're the same thing and they're kind of being used interchangeably by some of the speakers. So are there apartment buildings for Plex's, whatever you wanted to call them, that would would not be able to continue in this zoned district that exists now? Not that I'm aware of it. This is really about the the massing of the building itself and the envelope of the building itself. It doesn't really get at uses meaning number of units. So those two things remain the same between Jimmy three and George 2.5. So I don't I'm not aware of any I don't see any issue with current units being able to continue in perpetuity. It's more about the building scale and placement and size in the case. You said something really quickly in there, so I'm going to slow you down. Is a big building more dense than a small building if the same number of people or households live in it. I mean, what is the definition of the word density? Oh, boy. Well, it's not something that we as a city actually regulate that closely. So the whole idea of our sort of form based code and post 2010 was to get away from that, in a sense, regulating number of dwelling units. We regulate it based on parking and things like that. But for the most part, you know, multi-unit is still allowed. It's allowed under current zoning and it would be allowed under future zoning. It's just a matter of the number of units you can put into this new footprint. And so I don't know if that we don't have density is just not something that. My my definition of density is the number of people per acre and the number of people who live in an area. So if you have one building and it's 25 feet tall and it has one household in it, and you have one building and it's 35 feet tall or 45 feet tall, and it has one household in it. They have the same density. It's one dwelling unit on that, you know, so. So I just it sounds like you guys don't go down that road, but. So you said something really slowly and I just want to go back there again. So to folks who say this is near transit and we should have density. Is there anything in here that's reducing the number of dwelling units can be in this neighborhood? You said you said it in the middle there. But I just want to go through that again, that if you're going from three stories to two and a half stories, that's not the difference between two dwelling units and one dwelling. No, not at all. It's just about the scale of the building. The only difference is, is the building itself obviously could have an impact on the number. It depends on the type of dwelling units, the size, the orientation and all that. But it's not about this change is not about changing anything. Relative number of dwelling units. No. And I just want to clarify, because we did have one we had one one opponent who said this is not going to reduce density near transit. And I don't see it as that. I see it as a character. And then we had one proponent who said, you know, it's about apartment buildings, but I'm not hearing anything in the zoning that's changing the ability to have apartment buildings. This is really just about height set back character. That's what I'm hearing. That's right. Well, they both kind of had a misstatement, so we're clarifying that. Yeah. Multi multi-unit is still allowed under 2.5. Thank you very much. Okay, Councilman Espinosa. On that line of questioning. Is the apartment form allowed in the RH? No, it. Is not so. I want to clarify what was just transpired, because that is a in fact, on an adequate zone lot size. That form would afford you potentially more units than a row house. Well, what would now be an urban townhouse for? Is that correct? It allows you more building massing, but not necessarily. It doesn't explicitly allow. Yeah. So let's get back out of the density conversation because that's. That's true. Like, you could, you could put a bunch of little mike very narrow row houses and be conforming. But you can't, you couldn't stack them because you would be in an apartment for. So you couldn't do horizontal vertically stacked in in. And so inherently that limits the amount of density that is is potentially accommodated in the same mass. So we're not changing the massing, but we are changing the density. The density potential. I mean, eliminating the apartment for. Yeah, I really do think it comes back to massing. I mean, you could do the duplex form, for example, in your 2.5 and I believe have the ability to still stack. You have limitations on the massing. Obviously we got out of that business, remember, because that was something we adopted last year, which was we had some seven unit duplexes and things like that. Now duplexes, two units and we did get into the units per unit in the density conversation there. And now with that townhouse forum, we're getting into side by side units by definition, which also would be limited by the size of the zone lot. Yeah. I'd have to look at it again. I believe in the duplex form, even with the slot home amendments being proposed, which, you know, kind of may in fact give you 3.5, I believe you still have the ability to stack in the duplex form in the RS 2.5. It's the real house form or you're required to do side by side. But the duplex form at least I don't think that stipulation is in there. Yeah. I guess the simple, you know, maybe you can answer it this way if I have a 50 foot a 6000 square foot lot. Interior. 6000 square foot lot in the gym. You three with only 50 feet? No. With with only with less than 50 feet of frontage. Well, let's give it a specific number with only 40 feet of frontage. Let's say that. Would you would the row house zone district would limit the number of. You know, I guess you could make every row house the width of a door and an insurance. But let's say you'd be limited to eight units. But on an apartment form, you could. Well, now you need 6000 square feet. You could build a substantially denser apartment building on that. If you have a 50 foot wide lot currently and 6000 square feet, which for which there's a limited number in this area, I think there's only maybe 12 or something of the. 60. I forget how many persons there are. Then you could do the apartment form currently. But again, it gets back to the massing. So that allows you three stories or 40 feet and that allows you to stack. Um, and so, um, yeah, that, that, um, that would no longer be allowed in yours 2.5 But it's only allowed in a limited area. Councilman Espinosa, I know you had some other question and it sounds like we're getting down into the yeah, you know, the detail of this. And this is a good conversation because it gets more to maybe the higher conversation of are we not allowing density already allowing density, but I'm afraid we're gonna go down a rabbit hole here that well. Let me go with my three questions. And believe it or not, this is not related, but it's sort of related. Is it possible to remove the apartment form with an overlay? I'm sorry. Would it be possible to remove the apartment form with an overlay? I mean, I think that that you could say that's possible. Yeah, but I mean, that's not something that has been considered. At least that answers the second question, which of course an overlay we're moving apartment form ever considered. So the last question is. He says. A typical zone lot for single. Do you have any sense about what the typical zone lot existing condition but the existing the typical zone lot for these single family and duplex houses are in the area right now. Dimensions wise or area wise. Let's see. I'm terrible at math. I know that 35 feet wide is very common by 125 foot depth. So if ever that comes to be less than 6000 square feet. But um, so that is a common dimension I will say. Um, so what does that. That's 4000 375. Okay. And that's fairly typical because I'm trying to understand because I was looking at the granularity of the of the existing housing and there was a lot of conversation about the desire to maintain that character and massing. And I wanted to make sure that we were in fact mapping something that was consistent with those lots. Okay, that's it. All right. Thank you, Councilman. When what I as I see you over there, Councilman, New. Jersey, every time I see garden court, my ears perk up. And I just want to make sure that this applies to after the moratorium ends. Right. The use of this garden court feeling for me will be with the new design criteria if it's approved. I am not sure about that. I'm not sure when that moratorium expires so soon. Okay. Okay. Well, in May. Yeah, I. I am not sure about that. Okay. Well, now, as I understand it, that that building forum will be changing. You know, the criteria design criteria will be not not drastically, but it will be. And and. Councilman A, that's one unit, right? One unit decreased from the typical. Well, that's the smart homes. Okay. That's a brand new building form. They'll come into play, but the guard car still stay there. But the design criteria, the height and the width of the garden court, the landscaping, it'll change. And so just just knowing what they know. Yeah, that's. Good. I think the garden court isn't allowed form in the yards 2.5. Um, actually so. When you go to list is. Okay, I'm sorry, that's a typo then. I'm sorry. That's the reason I brought it up. Okay. Okay. Sorry about that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman, you. All right. See no other questions. Public hearing is now closed for 244. Thank you all for showing up as legislative sponsor. I'll open this up for comments. I got to tell you, you know, many folks have heard me say this in this city. I believe that revitalization and preservation can coexist. And this is a a perfect example of this. And if you have not been to the five points, if you have not been to the historic Walton corridor, you need to come and see it because it's construction is everywhere and it's kind of exploding. And there are some buildings that are eight stories. You go four blocks downtown, there's some buildings, some 15, 16 stories, and then you have this little neighborhood right next to it. And so it's quite interesting when people talk about density, because that's the last thing I'm thinking about for this neighborhood. This is a neighborhood who has been working on this. There have been individuals in this neighborhood who have been working on this for a long time, and it's so exciting to see it come to fruition. The the the deal that, you know, I think folks talked about just a little bit was when the late Carlo Madison was in office, didn't get a chance to sit down with the neighborhood and advocate for this specific zone district. If she would have been in office and there could have been a more robust campaign in this neighborhood, that they would have had this zoning. And so I do not see it as a sort of a downside. I see it as a right fixturing towards our plan of the north, the downtown, the northeast downtown neighborhoods plan. And so I'm excited to support this this this group right here is serious and doesn't play around. And really, you know, every person who had a question about this rezoning, I would immediately say. Hey, Maggie, do you know this person? Yeah. We met about, you know, a year ago. We talked and, you know, like this entire group had specific individuals. And so hats off to this neighborhood. And I hope that this neighborhood is an inspiration for the rest of the city to say we're okay with density. We just want some protections for our single family neighborhoods. And and that's why I'm so supportive. And I know not everybody's on board. And I appreciate I appreciate opposing views. And in conversations, I think this is what a city is about. It's about having these conversations and agreeing to disagree and trying to move forward together. And so that's what we're doing here. I'm excited to to support 12 acres of this legislative rezoning, to preserve a community in the midst of revitalization. And I think it's actually a perfect mix. So good work to everybody who did so such a good job. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Seeing this. You know, it's one of those things that if you know me, you know, I would be super excited to see this sort of this sort of zone change because I look at this area and go, it's a minor miracle that it has not radically transformed, like Jefferson Park and Sloan's like the other areas that have this, what I consider atrocious zoning of GM you three. But that's fortunately there's an effort to change that which would truly benefit this this because it will apply if, if those changes are approved to the RH 2.5. So for naught, you know, for a lot of reasons, I'm excited about this proposal. But there is one question that I had, but I forgot to answer it because I got a little sidetracked, you know, but it's because I still have the same sort of concerns that have impacted similar communities in my district negatively or I mean , that transformed character. And again, we are working the zoning zone district as is intended, goes to address the character concerns. Change plan changes would also go to address character concerns. And if there are any lingering ones, I'm sure we'll work on those as well. My outstanding concern is that it's clear that the existing context is largely single family detached homes, and there was even conversation in the public testimony, I mean, comment about that and I wish we were actually the proposal was USA, ESA, A2 or something that was actually about that character because you still are going to a multifamily zone district to that whole question about density, you know, the only way you can capture more density is through multifamily where you once had single units. And so you still will have pressure to see this now as row houses larger, more substantial row houses rather than this existing. So I mean, we almost needed to go the full Curtis Park with a conservation overlay or something like that. So I mean, we can only weigh what's before us and I can't telegraph how I would support or not support something like that in the future. But you could probably know my own sympathies in general. But it is a concern that, well, you will get different outcomes than a GM, you three that are more positive, positive, more community sort of public realm focused. There will still be pressure on this area to radically transform, despite the smallness of the parcels and despite the limitations , which aren't that many because and that's the other thing that was struck me as odd is the GM you three, and this is why I asked about the overlay to remove the apartment form because it's the apartment form that created the slot home. It's not the GMA three by itself, it's the form. And this is the fundamental problem with our form based code is that actually the GM, you three without the apartment form is more consistent with this underlying fabric because it has a smaller zone, lot requirement for a duplex. You know, you actually need a bigger zone lot in the new zoning than you did before. And it's just it's the problem of this form base code which captures. Urban town. Urban home. Duplex. Tandem house. In the case of what we're going to row house in both of them. You know, it could be all those things and some of those things are great and consistent, but then that apartment form creates this this anomaly. So I applaud you guys for what you've done, the outreach that you've done, the, the, the, the, you know, but I still pray for this community to some degree on the future and its outcomes because you're still the zoning code still doesn't get to a lot of the character concerns and you can get some redevelopment that is is incompatible with that character that this community has gotten accustomed to. And so the other thing there is that. Yeah. I lost my train of thought. But it is a. Yeah. It slipped my mind. But you get the gist because there are legitimate concerns that still need to be addressed. And I hope that you're involved in the Denver Rite Process encouraging more guidelines and standards that are more granular to communities so that new development is in a way that sort of is compatible and that we can preserve general character of areas like this. Well, encouraging what you were talking about high density redevelopment in areas that are in fact closer still to transit. We can have both and we sort of need both as relief. So, you know, this does meet the criteria and I'll have no problem supporting it. And I and I applaud the work that Councilmember President Brooks and his community have done to sort of make sure that this could happen. Thanks. And thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Appreciate that, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I was thinking about this almost in the reverse, because one of the things one of the key criteria is that there's plan support. And when you think about the plan is so clear about what this area needs to be in terms of two and a half. And, you know, if you were to imagine that this area had different zoning and someone came in and said, can we put in you three? There would not be support for the zoning that is there now. And so I think that is like the most compelling criteria meeting ever, which is that there's no plan support for the existing zoning. So, so that I just want to lay out there in terms of the criteria. The second thing, and you know, I do not want to invite my colleague into a big tit for tat. I think it's okay for us to see this differently. But the map actually doesn't show that this is all single family residential. The map is pretty clear that there's a lot of multi-unit, and I think that that's key. And so I want to say thank you to the community for not trying to erase that density that's there. Those are affordable units, whether they're being rented or whether they're being owned. You know, that is density. And so I, I commend your restraint in saying we have multi-unit properties throughout this neighborhood now and we should continue to have them. I would I would have had a challenge if it had been a try to push out and reduce. So I just I reject the language that this is a down zoning. In my mind, density is not the right to a big house. Density is about fitting people into an area. You know, more and more people are more households into an area. It's not about having huge footprints or huge ceilings even. We've got two and a half storeys here. So you you can't even tell me you get fewer bedrooms. You just frankly won't have nine foot ceilings. You know, there'll be a, you know, a different shape. So I feel strongly that this is about character. I feel that it was community led and so so it already met the criteria. But it's also great to be able to say thank you for the thoughtfulness with which you pursued that and for the community leadership. So thank you. And kudos to Councilman Brooks for for trying to find that way to to both incorporate multi family units and character together. And Councilwoman Kennedy, you're right. It isn't about zoning. You know, I've been trying this. What's the right it's almost like a right sizing to the original plans and guidelines from 2011. And I'm excited that folks kept pushing. So. Way to go. Way to go. You guys are going to be giving clinics all over the city of of how to right size to neighborhood plan. So well done. And again again, I just want to point out again, you know, I think there's so much division over this city about development. It's it's it's really it's painful what's going on in the city. And I think this neighborhood is a great example of saying, I may not like all of what's going on, but I'm going to do something for my contacts in front of me. I'm going to make this right. And so I think that's a great example for the rest of the city. Madam Secretary. This has been moved and secured. It's amended as amended. Please do a roll call. Black. Clark. I. Espinosa. I. Flynn. I. Gilmore. Cashman. Kinney. Lopez knew Ortega. I assessment i. Mr. President. I. Plusieurs voting in US results. One vote is missing. Somebody saying in fire. 11 eyes. All right, there it is, 11 eyes. COUNSEL About 244 has passed. Congratulations. All right. Please hold your applause. And I'm sure on Monday, May 21st, 2018, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 323 series of 2018, amending the zoning code with multiple substance of clarification and usability amendments.

AN ORDINANCE proposing an amendment to the King County Charter to make the office of King County prosecuting attorney nonpartisan; amending Section 610 of the King County Charter; adding a new Section 649 to the King County Charter; amending Section 680.10 of the King County Charter; and submitting the same to the qualified voters of the county for their approval or rejection at the next general election occurring more than forty-five days after the enactment of this ordinance.

KingCountyCC_06152016_2016-0044

Thank you so much. We'll now move on to item number five. This is a charter amendment and this is charter amendment number 2016 0044. And it would be to make the office of the King County prosecuting attorney nonpartisan and provide for filling vacancies in that office in the same manner as vacancies in other nonpartisan county elected offices . Mr. Wagner, did you want to make some beginning comments? No, Madam Chair. I gave a staff report at the committee's last meeting, and I don't have anything to add unless there are any questions. Okay. So we did have the presentation, like you said, two weeks ago, and we had our prosecutor speak. We had a member of the legal staff for the county. Answer some questions. So today we are ready potentially to take the vote. And so I am open for somebody to put this before us. Councilmember Gossett, would you be willing to put this before us? Okay. When you say but this before. Or since 2016 0044. Okay. I'd like to know that we had ordinance 2016 0044 or four. And as Councilmember Lambert said, we had a very robust discussion on this issue at our last meeting. But, Councilman Lambert, I think that it would be helpful to members if the staff or somebody kind of indicates and reiterates what the issue is, because we have a different listening audience today and then recommend that we vote. But I'm putting that before us now. Okay. So you want to give us like two sentences or a very brief rendition again, of what this does? Sure. There are basically two two effects of this amendment. One is that currently for Partizan offices, each candidate's party preference is listed on the ballot. If the if the candidate so requests or each candidate's party preference is listed. If this office were made nonpartisan. That would not be permitted. So each candidate's name would be on the ballot. But there would be no indication of party preference, party endorsement or anything like that. The second effect has to do with the way in which vacancies in the office are filled for a partizan office. The the council is required to choose someone to fill the vacancy from among. First of all, it has to be someone from the same political party as the person who previously occupied the office. And the replacement has to be chosen from among three persons nominated by the County Central Committee of that party. For nonpartisan officers, that is not the case. It's entirely up to the council's discretion who to choose to fill a vacancy. Those are the main differences. Thank you. Councilmember Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm going to urge members to vote for this measure and remind or reinforce the fact that what we're doing is presenting an amendment to our charter or our county constitution that would essentially make put the King County prosecuting attorney in the same state as of every other elected official here in King County . And that is make him nonpartisan. I believe that the majority of people in the community who are eligible to vote will come out and vote and vote positively for this measure, because it's a progressive measure that I think will serve the community really well. Lastly, I mentioned this last meeting, but I'd like to mention that again, I think it is particularly beneficial to African-American and other people of color communities who have the perception, rightly or wrongly, here in Seattle and King County, as well as and just about every other urban area across the nation that, if they are at the prosecutor , is have a party, they will like Republicans and that he or she is going to think a certain way or if he or she is a Democrat, that that he or she is going to think a certain way. And that certainly is not always been the case. And I mentioned that our last meeting, there are lot the two prosecutors that I worked under have been very responsive and accountable to all of our people, all of our communities, not always in a way that I would like. But I think taken as a whole, they've been very responsive. And I mentioned a damn saddleback in particular, where some of the most challenging cases, those dealing with three strikes, has shown significant insight has been beneficial. And I just think that this measure is important and that this is the time to pass it. And I hope the members will join me in putting this on the ballot this fall for our voters. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Any other comments? Okay. I'm sorry to see you here, Councilmember McDermott. Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll have a charter review in two years overseen by the King County Charter Review Commission. And that would seem to me a good timeline to have this conversation about making this charter change. I would also point out that all the all 39 counties in the state have a partizan election for their prosecuting attorney . And therefore, I'm going to oppose this today and ask members to join me in voting no. We can take this conversation up as part of the charter review in two years. But I also want to be very clear that my vote today is in no way a reflection on the excellent work that Mr. Sandberg does every day in this office and has brought some very innovative programs and to the office, and I commend his work highly. It is not at all a personal reflection, but a concern about when best to have this conversation. Councilmember WG So I also had some questions about the timing. And Nick, maybe you can help me out here. How long has this office been? Partizan Since 2008. The press. Oh, no. I'm sorry. Not sorry. I was thinking of a different question. I'm not sure the answer to that question. But as long as we can. Remember, at least 50. Years. Okay. And these positions have been nonpartizan since the vote in 2008. That's what you were thinking, right? And so the next regular vote is in two years, is that correct? That's what actually the county charter requires the executive to appoint a charter commission every at least every ten years. And the ten years is up in January of next year. By January of next year. Right. I'm just kind of wondering why that is. So if we're going to start looking at charter changes in January of next year, why are we doing this particular charter change now? Because I'll tell you, when we first arrived here and I was sworn in, I was and then I was given my notebook full of the charter and all the information. I noticed that it referred to the the office of councilman. Right. And I'm not a councilman. I'm a council member. So I thought, okay, that seems like a fairly easy thing. We should just change it. And I talked to staff and so we should just change that because it's obviously out of date. And I was told, well, yeah, but we will take it up at the next charter change and that makes sense to me. And so I just sort of held back on making that change, which is admittedly less substantive than what we're talking about here. But why take this one up now? What's the what's the the impact of taking it now versus waiting until we do the charter as a whole? I think Councilmember Gossett might want to say something. Councilman Gossett. Thank you very much. I would like to respond to councilman about dirty, if I may, Madam Chair. Last year, after discussion with our chair, our councilmen, our fellows, he and I decided to put forth a change in the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight and submit that to the voters for a charter change. And my response is that both what they are and what the prosecuting attorney is in the criminal justice arena, that throughout our nation we've inherited some really difficult times, creating a more solid, open and and and fair relationship between criminal justice officials and oversight entities and the communities, all particularly the African-American communities around the country. And I just think that it's time to lead. We, we think, were successful with all our Office of Law Enforcement Oversight. And I'm just I just think it's time that we should do it with the only nonpartisan elected position in our county that's central to the operations of our criminal justice system. Yesterday, when we were in our Law and Justice Committee, it was pointed out that, you know, in King County, we're about seven times more likely to refer African-American youth to consideration for having charges filed against him or her than we are white youth and other year. And I just want to create the fair environment possible. And not having our prosecutor be partizan is a significant step in that direction is not a revolutionary step, but it's a significant step in the right direction, in my opinion. And I think we should do it now rather than waiting in two years and hope and hopes that the commission would take this issue up. Madam Chair, though, that, in answer to my question, completely remarks. Thank you and then will be followed by Councilmember Van Barrow. Thank you, Mr. Gosset, for your answer. And look, clearly the voters prefer to have these positions be nonpartisan. I mean, I think that's an obvious fact. They've made the council nonpartizan, they've made the executive nonpartisan. In fact, the only remaining partizan position we have here in the county is the prosecuting attorney. So I think it's a matter of, you know, sensible organization of the county and and organizing in a way that the voters support. This proposal makes some sense, but the timing of it to me, I'm not hearing a compelling reason to do it right this minute. I'm not hearing you. Compelling reason not to do it. This minute doesn't cost us anything. There's already going to be a ballot measure it there's always going to be a ballot to go into the general. Right. As you know, in the general election. Is that correct, Nick? Yes. No, but but the idea that that somehow changing the partizan or nonpartizan nature of the prosecutor now would somehow affect people's perception of the fairness of the office. I haven't heard particular problems around the perception of the fairness of this office. In fact, I think this office has a tremendous reputation for fairness and justice. And I also don't see any connection between whether this is a partizan office or a nonpartisan office and the disproportionate referral of African-American youth to the criminal justice system for charges that I just don't see that tie at all. What it is, is it's about how the voters perceive the office when they are casting their vote. And I think, quite honestly, the reason the change is now is because there's an election next year. Let's just be honest with people that that's the reason why we're doing things. I don't necessarily have to stand in the way of it, but I think the claim that there's some big problem we're solving here today, personally, I will admit I voted no on the on the, you know, in my personal ballot on the changes to the partizan nature of this body and the exact elected executive. Because I do think that party affiliation is shorthand that a lot of voters rely on for some types of values that an O candidate brings to the table. However, the voters didn't agree with me. The voters decided to make us nonpartizan. So I'll tell you, I'm torn about whether to support it or not. I think probably this is the wave of the future, regardless of what we do. And and therefore, maybe it's time to get it over with. But I think that we should be open and honest about the fact that we're doing it now because there's an election next year and it's going to be easier. For elections next year. I don't know. I just think, you know, what election. The election for the prosecuting attorney, it's. Not next year. When it 18. Well, then why don't we just wait and do? Okay, well, then I'm going to vote no along with Councilmember McDermott, because I was misinformed. I'm sorry. I was. I misunderstood. So because I think we could wait until we do it along with the rest of the charter update. So I'll step in there for a second and then Councilmember Vaughn. Mike, there are some of them, right? And I go after you. I'm going to pick up. Okay. No, no, no, no. Quite. You've been. Wait. Okay, Councilman, go ahead. Okay. So that's polite people here today. That's okay. You know, when you look at the fact that we are home rule charter and the people have already voted, as Councilmember Balducci said, for having a nonpartisan people representing them. I think that this is consistent with that. You did mention the only remaining office that is not nonpartisan, and I think it's important to do this. The Charter Review Commission takes a year or more. And I think, you know, a lot of people like to have things, you know, not quite so many things on the ballot all at once. So I think it's a good idea to be able to have this brought forward now. And I think the idea that the people who are coming forward, we have with us today a former prosecutor, Chris Bailey. I believe I've been told that Jenny Durkan will also be supporting this. So we have former prosecutors that are supporting this, and I think it's a good time to do this and there's no reason why not to. So Councilmember Caldwell's next. Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, you said just about everything I was going to say, but I as I understand, Jenny Durkan, you as former U.S. attorney, will be on will be one of the voices on the ballot in support of this measure. I wrestled with this a lot, too. As I understand, the charter review can take a year, yes, to two years. And so that plays into my decision to support this proposed ordinance. I also believe that of all of the positions that are elected in King County, the prosecutors should certainly not be a partizan office. I mean, there should be nothing partizan about law and justice. And we I think the people of King County would like to know overall would like to know that there are not partizan issues coming up for this office. So although I've wrestled with it, I am going to support the proposed ordinance. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. And right there. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank customer Raquel Welch for articulating why I'm going to also supported by the privilege of sponsoring the original. Legislation that was eventually passed through initiative to make King County Nonpartizan. We wanted to make this position Nonpartizan, but we were restricted by state law at that time. Council member duties correctly said that the voters have spoken loudly and clearly on this issue in a bipartisan fashion, and I think. That this is an opportunity for us to follow up on what Councilmember. Gossage said. We've been very fortunate in the history of this county to have an incredible number of individuals serving both as prosecuting attorney and also in an office. And they've dealt with issues that have evolved from the original time that we got involved beyond Ferguson in particular, and very sensitive to a number of issues in this region . And we have had prosecutors we've been blessed with who have evolved and responded to the changes that have taken place in King County. And I think if we're going to recognize that the voters of this county wildly called for nonpartizanship, we should finish the job. I don't think we're overwhelmed by work right now. I think we can do some of the work that could precede what the Charter Review Committee is going to review. But I'm prepared today to take action and support with the public guilt by initiative in King County. And I want to thank Councilmember Gossett and Caldwell in particular. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With that, I will. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I've been listening carefully to the debate and discussion here with an open mind. And I've had the opportunity to meet with prosecutor Senator Byrd a couple of times on this and, in fact, speak with former prosecutor Bailey at a recent event about it. And, you know, I think my cosmetology torn on it when I was out door belling, you know, people saying, well, is it a Democratic or Republican? They say it's nonpartisan. They say, well, what are you. You know, they kind of want to know your philosophy a little bit. And that party preference, remember, we don't run in this state anymore on a party ticket. You prefer a party. Now, that's a and it's a distinction to preserve our top two primary system. But I think it does give a little information. And the staff report pointed this out to the voter, at least an initial clue. And most folks still, I think, vote the person, not necessarily the party, and will do further investigation if they're interested. I appreciate the arguments about wanting to not have justice be a partizan issue, but I don't think stating a partizan preference brings partizanship into the administration of justice. I just don't. And I know I've certainly not seen that in Prosecutor Söderberg nor his predecessor, Mr. Mailing in Mr. Mailings predecessor Mr. Bailey wrote a terrific book addressing some of the history of the office. But I do think that the prosecutor's political philosophy matters and the parties matter a little bit, whether you're for or against the death penalty. Whether you are more in favor of sentencing reform initiatives, diversion initiatives. Our prosecutors led, frankly, by example with the programs like Lead and 180 and has really been a leader on these issues. And as Councilmember Garcia points out, is looked back at some three strikes cases where you felt justice in the in hindsight was not ultimately served and has gone and petitioned the clemency board to do justice. And so I have the highest degree of respect for Mr. Chabot. That's not what this issue, in my view, is about. But I don't think taking off the label eliminates Partizanship. And I think, in fact, you can see it right now in our state Supreme Court races where they are nonpartisan, but there are three challengers to three sitting incumbents. And to be quite blunt, there is a partizan bent to those challenges. There's been some frustration that some of, I think, are more conservative friends about some of the rulings of the court. And and I believe that generally one political party is supporting some challengers. I mean, I'm just being candid that taking off a partizan label doesn't take politics out of politics. So I don't think that that argument here is a compelling one necessarily. It doesn't mean we shouldn't do this or that the voters want do, but I don't I'm not convinced by that argument. On the process, it is true that we have sent charter review amendments to voters out of the regular cycle. We did that last year and cast member Lambert's point that sometimes there's value in not overwhelming voters, which I remember I think is a good one. In this case. I'm surprised that kind of the lack of input we've received. I think one of the values you get from a charter review process is you have the Municipal League and the League of Women Voters and civic leaders come together and debate in a robust way these issues of governance, structure and what reforms should be undertaken. And we could have had a little bit more of that here in the process. I did some of my own research. I reached out, talked to people I trust like Hugh Spitzer. He's the kind of an expert on Washington constitutional law. And I don't think he would mind me saying he agrees with the prosecutor that this should be nonpartisan. So I would have liked to had a little more input on it. And to be honest, I'm still torn on on what to do here. But I want to share my my thinking on it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Well, I agree with you also. He's true. And I don't think that whether you're for or against diversion as any relations, whether you're already I know others and I know does that agree with that? So and I do know that the book that Chris Bailey wrote talked about a time when there was Partizan ism in the office. And as citizens get the opportunity to vote on this, hopefully this year they will have plenty of opportunities to read more about it and to properly vetted. So with that, the clerk, will you please call for the vote? Thank you, Madam Chair. Customer of duty. Now, Councilmember Dombrowski. No. Councilmember Dunn by. Councilmember Gossett, I recall. Well, Councilmember McDermott. No. Councilmember of the Girl Council member. But I know. Quickly. I'm sorry. Captain. Until it was on the farm. Yeah, he's on the phone, but he can't vote and. Yeah, it's not recorded. Yeah, understating my preference. Councilmember. I. Madam Chair, I am sure the voters by those three, those that's voting no are council members duty Dombrowski, McDermott and council member of the Rivers excuse. Thank you very much with that. The motion has passed ordinance just passed charter amendment. And is there any objection to expediting it to this week? It will not be on consent, obviously. Is there. Needed for. That? Well, we need to have it done before the end of the month in order to get it on the ballot. So I think since we've had the conversations there. Like right. Now, I don't it does have to be on the you know, to take final action before the end of this month, but before the August recess. Oh, okay. I thought it was the end of this month, not the end of July. Okay, well, then it doesn't matter. Okay, well, that would be great. Okay. Thank you. And thank you very much for your being here today, both of you. All right. That means is item number six and make it by paperwork here. Item number six is proposed ordinance 2014 zero 3 to 0. This is one we've been talking about for a number of time. This will not be voted on today.

A resolution amending the Denver City Council Rules of Procedure concerning the time and order of regular council meetings. Amends the Denver City Council Rules of Procedure. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-21-22.

DenverCityCouncil_07182022_22-0741

Councilmember Black has called out Bill 791 for an amendment under bills for final consideration. No items have been called out and pending. No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screens. And Councilmember Flynn, go ahead with your comments on resolution 741. Thank you, Madam President. First of all, I want to recognize and thank Councilman Herndon for the long and tedious work he's been doing on modernizing our meetings. This meeting will look a lot different next week, and I don't know if Councilman Herndon might want to talk after me about how it will look different. But I wanted to. I will support the resolution and the changes. But I do have some concerns about moving public hearings to begin as early as 530 rather than the 6:00 time that we have now to start any public hearings. It used to be Councilman Ortega will remember it used to be that this meeting would start at 630 in the evening and it would give working families and folks coming through rush hour, maybe a grab a little bite to eat and come down here and attend a public hearing at 630. When these meetings were moved to 530. It was with the understanding that no public hearing would begin until 6:00. And so if this preliminary part of the meeting had wrapped up at 545, we would which we would recess until 6:00 to give people a chance to come down here or now with the hybrid model to get online after they've come home, maybe changed out of their work clothes, maybe fed the kids or or did some other business. And I would rather that this resolution had set the Times for the afternoon session of council to begin at 3:00 rather than 330, and for the evening session to start at 530 with the general public comment session and then the public hearings starting at 6:00. I think that would have been much friendlier, much more friendly to our public who comment whether they're online or whether they come down here in person. But nevertheless, I will support the changes because I think they're much needed. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens. Councilmember Flynn, would you please put Resolution 842 on the floor for adoption? Thank you, Madam President. I move that council resolution 22, dash 084 to be adopted.

Recommendation to name the park site located at the Pacific Electric Right-of-Way between Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue and Lemon Avenue "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Freedom Park."

LongBeachCC_10072014_14-0812

Motion carries eight zero. Item 11 Council Communication from Councilman Andrews. Councilwoman Price. Council Member O'Donnell. Recommendation to refer to the Housing and Neighborhoods Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission to consider naming the park located at 2300 Martin Luther King Jr Avenue and ACP Freedom Park. Thank you so much for this. Over to Councilmember Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. First of all, I'd like to thank my colleagues for signing on with me with this item. And it's definitely a pleasure for me to be able to, you know, read this item because the fact that it plays a very important part, I think, in everyone's life. You know, it was founded in 1909 in the NAACP. It's the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization for over 100 years. This organization has vowed to bring civil rights and justice to the new level of acceptance for all our national people. Local and Long Beach branch of the NAACP was started in 1940 by the late honorable Mr. Ernest McBride Jr. The policies and procedures brought forward by this local branch causes changes in language, education, economics, development, housing and the labor industry. I want to thank the thousands upon thousands of members that served to bring about the change that we see in our world today, not only for blacks, but for all colors that have been integrated into the movement towards freedom, equality and justice, which this is the part that will stand for Long Beach as well as for the United States. And the first park named in honor of the NAACP. And at this time, I would like to show a small film sent to us by the national president of the NAACP. Thank you. Would you please take the time to look at this? I am the largest. The oldest. I am the baddest. The boldest. I am protecting our voting rights and our environment. I am ending racial profiling. And fighting HIV aids. I am advancing economic equality. And for all. I am. I am. I am. I am. NAACP. Are you. Take a stand. I am. NAACP. Dawg. Thank you. I like to move to approve the asylum. Okay. There's been a motion and a second. Let me first begin by taking public comment on the item. With any public comment, please come forward. Good evening. Honorable Mayor Robert Garcia, City Council. Thank you for this opportunity. I'm here on behalf of Naomi Rainey, president of the Long Beach Branch NAACP. My name is Jesse Johnson. I'm on the executive. Board and a lifetime member of the NAACP. We thank you for this consideration. Some of my speech has been given already with the history of the NAACP by our councilman at the Andrew's. We especially want to thank our Councilman de Andrew's council member, Susie Price and Councilmember Patrick O'Donnell for putting this item on the city council and especially to our honorable mayor Robert Garcia and the full city council. The state in. ACP President. Alice Huffman, as well as our new. President and CEO at the national level, Cornell William Brooks. Send their congratulations for this consideration that the city is giving and naming this part of the NAACP, Freedom Park. It was mentioned about the history so I can I'll pass over that. And last but not least. Oh, yeah. I'd like to mention also that. We had several. People in the audience that were here earlier, including the president on Naomi Rainey. But she had another. Engagement, and that's why she's not here. But we still have. A have some community. Leaders as well as pre the previous members and board members were you raise your hand. And everyone know Evelyn Knight. Of course. She's. She's also a lifetime. Member and and a civil rights leader nationally. She walked with Dr. King and many other things. And she was instrumental in a lot of the civil rights that happened here in the city of Long Beach. When I thank you for holding out with this presentation. And last but not least, Sylvia. Several of you have already committed. To attend our annual. Fundraiser. And this is how we are able to. Ensure the programs. And the civil rights that we do in the city continues on. It's happening is our 35th of Founder's. Celebration Dinner and awards presentation. It's this coming Friday. At the Hilton, the president's reception. And you all are welcome to attend as at 530 in the dinner and the program starts at 630 and then it's at the Hilton. And thank you so very much for this consideration. Thank you. And the other public comment came to get back to the council, Councilmember Ranga. I want to commend Councilmember De Andrews for bringing this forward, having been a long time community activist, myself in Long Beach before being an elected official, I have worked very closely with our Long Beach branch of the NAACP for civil civil disobedience issues, as well as some issues are very important to minority communities. And the NAACP has been one of those organizations that has extended its arms to embrace all the other cultures in this community as well. So I want to commend the NAACP for their efforts also in terms of being inclusive in their civil rights issues. It's not about one, it's about all. And we are one Long Beach. So thank you. Thank you. I think we have another public public speaker. So let me let me take the next speaker, then we'll go back to the council, please. My name is Evelyn Knight, and I would just like to say that I most appreciate the kind of consideration, because not only has the NAACP and many other organizations, civil rights organization, had a tremendous job in making things better for all people. But also, I would like to remind to remind us that that struggle continues because we still have a lot of rights and responsibilities that's on everybody's plate to make things better for all people in the United States of America. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for all that you've done. Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you. I want to thank Councilmember Andrews and his staff for giving me the honor to cosign on this particular item. One of the objectives of the ACP is to ensure the political, educational, social and economic equality for all citizens. And I think it's appropriate that here in the city of Long Beach, that is to our mission and that we have a park. And with that mission in mind and with that namesake. So thank you for being here. And thank you, Councilmember Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I also want to express my my gratitude for to my colleagues for bringing this forward. I want to congratulate the NAACP, the Long Beach chapter, Naomi Rainey, State President Alice Huffman, and the many members of the NAACP locally who who labor away for the mission. And Evelyn Knight, you said it best. The struggle does continue. The struggle continues in education. It continues in the political realm, but it also continues in the labor and industry area. We have one in high unemployment rates where we're looking to bring up wages of workers. I hope we can we can continue to work together and be partners on those issues as well and be cognizant of the importance of standing for those issues. I'm thrilled to 2 to 2 to support this item. And and I would encourage everyone else to as well. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Councilmember Andrews, for bringing this forward. And we a number of us stand on the shoulders of many of the folks who've come before us. But I think Councilmember Alston articulated it best. We are in the midst of a major discussion in our country around equality and and wages and fairness. So I would hope that moving forward, we can, you know, count on the NAACP as a partner here in Long Beach as we take on some of these some of these campaigns and challenges. Thank you. And with that, I believe there is a motion on the floor. Yes, it is. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor. I want to thank everyone, everyone for coming out. And if we can take a roll call on a roll call a vote, Madam Clerk. Councilwoman Gonzales. Writes. Vice mayor. Here. Now you want to voice, vote and. Oh. What are we doing now? It's just a regular vote. Oh, Castro does. One. Voice. And then I said, I'm sorry about the regular vote. Yes. Motion carries eight zero. Thank you. Sorry for the confusion. Moving on to congratulations. Very good. Moving on. Item 12 has been withdrawn. Moving on to item number 13. Madam Clerk.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Table 30-1 of Chapter 21.30, Table 31-1 in Chapter 21.31, and by adding Subsection T to Section 21.31.020, and adding Division III to Chapter 21.31 by adding Sections 21.31.300, 21.31.310, 21.31.320, 21.31.325, 21.31.330, 21.31.340, 21.31.350, Table 31-8, and 21.31.360, relating to planned unit developments, read and adopted as read. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_11172015_15-1139

Report from Development Services Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to planned unit developments. Read in adopted as read. District eight. Councilman Andrews. I'm sorry, Councilman Austin. I moved this part. Thank you. Public comment, please. For what it's worth, Lorie Angel. I live at 458 East Street addressing our representatives of the public. One thing I did want to mention that is I did go through the city council video last week, and part of the basis for approving the project was the fact that the residents were in favor of it. Well, there were 30 speakers, 31 speakers. 14 of the speakers lived in the neighborhood. Six were for it and eight were against it. And of the total speakers it was 2 to 1 against and we didn't bring a bus. So my concern. Is not. Even the issue that we push this thing through when it isn't really all as favorable as it's being lit up to be, is that the concept of a PUD is included in this ordinance and it hasn't been discussed anywhere except in the context of the Riverwalk. The public hasn't had a chance to weigh in. And not only that is what it says in this ordinance is already in direct conflict to the one project that you have in the books. It says that it has to have a driveway. Well, the Riverwalk doesn't have a driveway. So what happens now? They don't have any driveways. Is that okay? Does that get vetted anywhere? Is there. I mean, where the process is really fouled up here? Has anything gone through the planning commission, as they said, that, oh, you have a variance, you don't have to have a driveway and maybe that doesn't matter. I know everybody's tired, so let's just go home and just vote yes. I mean, this is a problem. It's an issue. You're creating something that's going to have an impact on neighborhoods henceforth. And also the ordinance just looks at APD within the context of itself. It doesn't even have reference to anything outside of it, except if a river runs through it or a street runs through it. Well, what about the impact to everything outside of APD? It's not even addressed. This ordinance is not ready to be passed. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Joe Weinstein again. Oh. Like the other speakers, I have to point out that this this was not properly noticed. To the extent that it could have been said to be noticed at all. It was put in such a way that you wouldn't notice it. Mind you, the last of several resolutions that appear to pertain to all of two parcels in one district of the city, and suddenly something that applies to land use throughout the city. This is patently against the spirit, if not the law of due notice. It's so totally anti transparent. But then let's look at the actual. Zoning option that's provided. It was a. It was a straw man question that people allegedly asked whether this would change zoning anywhere else. No, it doesn't. But it provides options. And what kind of option does it provide? Essentially, it essentially an anything goes. If you have five acres, you can put any you can ask for any number of units on that acreage. It's true. They all have to fit within. There's only a certain number of lots per acre, but you can pile several dwelling units within a single lot and there's essentially no limit. Impost. What you have then therefore is in place of a son of cracker box, which some people derisively referred to this. It's not a son of cracker box. It's a clan of cracker walks. And in fact, the way you try to put it over, it's a clandestine of clan of cracker box. And basically the more honest way to do this is to go to Houston. Houston has got a problem. No zoning. That's honest. This, in effect, says Houston, we want your problem. Thank you. And Cantrell last week when it was pointed out that this PUD would affect. Development in other parts of the city are. We were told. No, that's not right. This is only for. Riverwalk. I'd like to read what the staff report says. Use of R one and development standards are not consistent with a new large subdivision or the current goals and objectives with enhanced site planning, unit designs and community amendments. Staff therefore proposes to create a planned unit development PWD zoning district that could be used for this and other similar large scale residential projects currently in the development pipeline or on potential infill sites on suitably large lots. Therefore, this could be used in any one of your districts in the city. It could be used for the city college property. In the fifth district on los coyotes and wardlow. It could be used for c dip in the third district. It could be used any place. There's still five acres left to cram in a large development and create. Density. I'm wondering if you even read the staff reports. Because I can't see how you could vote for something like this without allowing the public to know that this is what is going to happen in their city. True, the developers will still have to go through, get their permits and go through planning and come to you for your blessing on their developments. But now they have the ability to ask for 13 houses per acre where before they did not have this ability. You are changing the whole zoning of the city. Think carefully. My name is Richard Ivey, and I'd like to echo the comments that have been spoken here earlier. It was very anti transparent. It looked like it was only relating to River Walk. It was hidden in a bunch of other items. And it applies to the whole city. I don't think people are aware of the impact that this items had. Normally we have hearings. We have opportunity for input. We have. Public meetings. Throughout throughout the city. We've. Looked at zoning and our resident are. Things that we've wanted to and ways that we've wanted. To develop our our community. And. And this. Just totally overrides all of that. I think that down the road we will look and look back at this and say, this is what? We'll have the beginning of a very. Big change in our city that will not have good effects. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello again. I think I'm very fortunate. At least I have an advantage that I. I was able to speak to the planning department before I came to this meeting, and I spoke to this lady at length. So. I do know that there's been a lot of things that's been vetted in the within the city, and I think Ms.. Mungo's office for at least putting me in touch with these people. But I will admit that this is very difficult language for the average person to kind of understand what's taking place. And I am going to kind of echo what they're saying, but not quite, you know. I will admit that that yeah, this, this, this pussy pudi where the zone is going to increase the density for sure and. Trying to stay on the same subject that I have been. There's going to also be a lot of. Uh. Um. Water usage coming from there and what, 161 people, something like that that's going to be in this unit. They're going to be sucking up a lot of water. And it's going to be more than even the parts that we supposedly made a memo against because they were using water. So we got a little bit of a contradiction in that respect. But I also want to echo what Incontrol was saying regarding this. Many of these there's many zones in Long Beach that it intends to have an institutional zone. And this is going to just make it a little bit easier for the for the. The developers are going to look for these type of things and they're going to they're going to do their best to use this as a template for stamping this thing out. And that's really kind of more the fear that I have is that, you know, we have this land, the property that Encontro mentioned is near my house and it has been tried before it was fought off. Gosh, I don't know, maybe ten, 12 years ago. I mean, I've been in Long Beach in this area for 50 years at least, you know. And so this is kind of somebody left their pin up. Um, this is kind of on. We're having a lot of difficulty. How do you prevent? Is it possible for maybe a council person to say, look, this isn't even though we might be able to choose, can we leave this? This is going to designate this as a like a blue area or something just to let a developer know that it's been marked that way. I mean, I don't know. There might be a suggestion, but we also probably need a map. To locate the different areas that this other developers might choose. At least make that available for people to kind of vet so the council people can bring it out to their public to in fact that so. That's why I have to say good luck. I've still got a water issue, you know, but life goes on. Thanks. Thank you. Members, cast your vote. No. Councilwoman Mongo motion carries. Item 35 I'm sorry. 34 Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to speed limits. Read the first time and lay it over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading District six and nine.

A proclamation declaring May 15 as National Peace Officer Day and the Week of May 15 as National Police Week.

DenverCityCouncil_05152017_17-0544

So use your multimodal options as we think about that. All right. Seeing no other comments, just want to make sure that I didn't miss anybody. Okay, great. Madam Secretary, do we have any presentations then? Mr. President. How about communications? None, Mr. President. All right. We have two proclamations this evening. Councilman Flynn, when you please re proclamation 544. Thank you, Mr. President. I certainly will. Proclamation 17. Dash 544 declaring May 15 as National Peace Officer Day and the week of May 15 as National Police Week. Whereas in 1961, President John F Kennedy issued an executive order declaring May 15 National Peace Officer Day and the week of May 15 as National Police Week. And. Whereas, during its 158 year history, the more than 10,000 individuals who have comprised the Denver Police Department have played an essential role in safeguarding the rights, freedoms, lives and property of the people of Denver. And. Whereas, during its 158 year history, 72 men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives in service to the people of the city and county of Denver. And. WHEREAS, the Denver Police Department and the Denver Police Museum have undertaken a project to place memorial signs to honor our fallen heroes at the locations where they fell. And. WHEREAS, the Denver Police Department and the Denver Police Museum will honor the following fallen officers this coming year with memorials signs. Thomas Durkin, who lost his life on January 17, 1929. Thomas J. O'Connor, March five, 1934. Fred Renovator, October 13, 1938. Virgil Hall, July five, 1945. William Clawson, February 11, 1953. Donald el-Sheik, January 12, 1958. And. Whereas, the Denver Police Department and the Denver Police Museum also plan to hold special memorial ceremonies to mark the 20th anniversary of both Ronald D Herrera and Bruce Vander Jack's sacrifice. And. Whereas, the Denver Police Department and the Denver Police Foundation have recognized the following active officers for outstanding service this past year, including Troy Smith. Preservation of Life. David Timmerman Preservation of Life. David Wiley. Medal of Valor. Craig Miner. Preservation of Life. Alex Solano. Preservation of life. Zachary Currier. Preservation of life. Kyle Sonja. Preservation of life. John Adsit, Purple Heart. Anthony the KENYON Medal of Valor. Roman Rhetorician. Medal of Valor. Adam Boise. Medal of Valor. Anthony Lopez. Medal of Honor. Purple Heart. Jeffrey Jenkins preservation of life. Ron arrest Civic Officer of the Year. Richard Blair. Above and beyond. And Daniel Filkins. For saving the life of Tony Lopez Jr. And. Whereas, it is important that people know and understand the problems, duties and responsibilities of their police department. And that the members of our police department recognize their duty to serve the people by safeguarding life and property, by protecting them against violence or disorder, and by protecting the innocent against deception and the weak, against oppression or intimidation. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City and County of Denver declares May 15 and the week of May 15 as Peace Officer, Memorial Day and Police Week to honor the active, retired and deceased members of the Denver Police Department who have faithfully performed their duty to protect and serve the citizens of the city and county of Denver. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, your motion to adopt. Thank you. Mr. President, I move that proclamation. Five, four, four. Be adopted. It has been moved in. Second, it comes from rooms of council. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. The resolution of the proclamation rather echoes the very words that President Kennedy used so many years ago to recognize the sacrifices and the work of law enforcement throughout the nation. And we've adopted much of that language here every year when we do this. But it's especially fitting this year for members of the department, but also for those of us who attended the Police Foundation Awards recently to see. The awards that I read that were given out to the current active officers and in particularly the preservation of life awards was so impressive. Mr. President, to hear of the stories and to see some of the dramatizations where police officers have. Not only preserved the lives of others, but themselves and of of perpetrators. Where they have used every bit of their training and restraint. To handle situations that I don't think any of us would ever want to find ourselves in on the street. I've had the pleasure of knowing so many Denver police officers over the 37 years I've lived here and the sacrifices that they make and some of them the ultimate sacrifice, were brought home to me very viscerally. Recently, when Mayor Hancock came down to Laredo Heights and the charter school down there did a ceremonial balloon release for fallen officers of that year. And I had the opportunity to meet the family of Celina House Officer Harless, who was, I think, the last officer who lost her life in City Park a few years ago. And to talk to them and to meet them was just such a moving experience. It's it's just with great pride that I that I sponsor this proclamation. I want to recognize the presence of some of our police command staff, the Denver Police Museum. Mike Hess is here. Pat Nating Almond is here. And we also have representatives of the Police Protective Association and I think Fraternal Order of Police is here as well. So with that, Mr. President, I would urge everybody to join me in adopting this proclamation and consider joining in some of the activities this week. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Well said, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank Councilman Flynn for bringing this forward. And I want to thank our men and women of the Denver Police Department for the work that they do day in and day out to protect the the residents and the people who work here and come here to play every single day. And they do that with, you know, with pride. And, you know, we all see and hear various stories in the news. But, you know, when an officer gets up every morning and puts a uniform on, you don't know that you're going to make it home that day. And just knowing that we have had those who were named in the proclamation that have paid the ultimate sacrifice for all of us, we owe them a debt of gratitude. I've been honored to be asked to do one of the sign dedications I did one last year, looking forward to doing one tomorrow. And it's a true honor to stand side by side with the families, knowing at that very location is where their loved one died, and to be able to just honor that individual in a way that shares the mutual love and respect for those individuals. So, Councilman Quinn, thank you for bringing this forward. But thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Cashman. Sorry. Okay. I thought Ms.. Councilman knew was ahead of me. I want to thank Councilman Flynn as well for bringing this forward. I certainly want to thank the men and women of our Denver police for the work they do on a daily basis. I'll be honored certainly to join in the memorial for the 20th anniversary of Officer Vander Jack's passing. But when I. Think about this, I think so often of the families. That every day. They send their. Men and women off to work. With the facing the same danger that can come out of nowhere as as benign as the job may be for extended periods of time. All of a sudden, it gets very real. And that fear that these families live. With and I'm assuming. It kind of. Mirrors the commitment of the officers themselves. So I just want to thank the people in service. And again. Thank you for bringing this forward, councilor. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman New. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks to Councilman Flynn for bringing this up. And we appreciate that. And you just you know, when you talk to our citizens, you know, public safety is the number one concern they have. That's their number one priority in our city. It's just incredible how much they respect and and want. Pleased to have a very vital role in protecting our way of life here in the city. That one thing that we talked about, our officers protect this from violent crimes and criminals and helping protect us in no way. But one thing that we, the officers do we don't get enough attention for is our neighborhood policing, be working with our community, our resource officers and all our staff being out there talking to our residents, working and trying to prevent crime and not having to be react to a crime after it's occurred. So it's just so important that what they do interact with the community as well as protecting us seven days a week, day and night. They're always there looking out for our interests. So I'm just really very proud to be a part of this and look forward to the memorial service tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I do want to join the thinking chain here as a representative of the constituents of District one. In my two years on on this body, I have we've seen it all in District one. And I'm grateful that this year I haven't had to experience sort of the the the violence and the level of violence that we did in my first year here. But I just want to say, as that representative going from place to place, I don't shy away from any neighborhood in my district, and neither does Commander Payson. And wherever we go, there's a genuine appreciation of our police. And I just want you to know that I want to thank you all for being the high caliber quality force that this this community deserves and for doing a commendable job in the line of duty. So thank you all very much for serving. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to have my name added to the proclamation, so I want to make sure that that is announced and just as the thank you that everyone else says. And it's amazing all the things that you don't see that our men and women in uniform do. I think about the example when they brought the mounted patrol to the Isabella Byrd Elementary School where they had the new horse and they let the third graders pick the name for the new horse. And Galaxie is now the new member of the Mountain Patrol. And those are the things you just don't hear about it. Councilwoman Anne Gilmore and I sign certificates for District five, top cops, District two. I had the opportunity to sit on a board where we get to choose all the winners for each month, and every one could just be something that should be on the news. And it's something, unfortunately, that you don't see. So I appreciate us taking this time to acknowledge them, but I think we have a greater responsibility to is to ensure that our men and women in uniform have their right equipment and facilities. So as we have this bond conversation that's going to continue and hopefully the voters will improve in the fall, I hope that we have some safety improvements and enhancements for our men and women in uniform, because that is something that, in my opinion, is in dire need that we need to increase here in the city and county of Denver. So, once again, thank you for all that you do each and every day. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I can't say it any better than my colleagues already have. So but I just wanted to add my thank you to all of our police officers and my deep, deep appreciation to all of the family members of all of our police officers, a true, true service to community. And not a day goes by that I don't remember that. And think about that. And today's an important day because I get to say it out loud in front of a lot of people. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to add my thanks in particular. Thanks. As a councilman, you often have to call on the neighborhood resource officers and they're so responsive and I've been so grateful for them. And special shout out to the commanders of the two districts that encompass my district commander, Carlo and Commander Dodge. Thanks for all you do. For all of us. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm very proud to be a co-sponsor of the proclamation and just wanted to also chime in my share of gratitude for our men and women in the police department. And I got to give a shout out to our former commander, Nagle, and our Dean Christofferson, who used to be our CEO for I had the pleasure of working with them hand in hand in District four and District one and six are in Council District three now. So there's a lot of there's a lot of overlap. I'm happy about that. But the one thing that I really admire the most, aside from just a human element and that that hand raise to say, hey, send me, I'll do it right, I'll, I'll I'll do that is the is the badge. And that badge is special because it has the seal of the people on. And the seal of our city. And that's what makes it absolutely sacred as they do it on the behalf of people in our city. So I to say thank you and thank you to the families. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Um, I'll just. I'll just send by saying we honor you today. Thanks for being here. Thanks for your sacrifice. And, you know, on behalf of all the city council, we honor and love you guys. We appreciate it. Madam Secretary, roll call. Flynn. I. Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Cashman can eat. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Sussman. Clark. Hi. Espinosa. Hi. Mr. President. I pliskova voting in results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes. Proclamation 544 has been adopted. Councilman Flynn. Is there anyone you want to bring up to receive this proclamation? You know, coincidentally enough, Mr. President, there is the fact there's quite a few people I wish could could speak, but. And they could speak for a long time, but then we'd have to swear them on the council to give them that much time. So I would like to ask our deputy chief, Matt Murray. And we have some family members here. Jen Kawasaki. And Dan Dowd. And did Robert Elgin come in? From Randy Herrera's family? No. Oh. Okay. Chief. So first, let me just give Chief White's apologies that he couldn't be here tonight. You all know him well, and you know that he was he's very grateful for this and would be here if he could. The second thing I want to tell you is that we work in a profession where you can't really get through a career without knowing someone who died. And oftentimes we know him well. And sometimes in careers, you know, a lot of people who die in the. Line of duty and give their. Life to the city and it hurts. And you know these people as people. And in our case, we've had 70 to 72 police officers gave their life for this city. And this week is about remembering them and about remembering their families. And if you go to a police funeral, and I know many of you have, we always say the same thing. We'll never forget, we'll never forget, we'll never forget. And today we put up a sign at 2810 Downing for an officer who died in 1953. And tomorrow will be one from 1934. And it's it's a great tradition that the museum has started, and we're very appreciative. And I think it's a great symbol for this city and a great way to remember. But I don't really want to end there. I want to tell you all. You know, we know you. We are so appreciative of the support we get from this council and from the people of this city. Laying on of hands in City Park. Being at a police citizen's academy. The tweets going to meetings. We know you. We really do know you. I sat across the aisle from Councilwoman Kennish on the way to Washington, D.C. We know you and we know how you feel about us. And I will tell you, sitting here and the officers who listened to what you had to say, it's so. Genuine. And so sincere. And it means a great deal to us. And we know that you are the people's representative and that that's how this community feels about us as well. And so this this week means a lot to us. It's an important thing we do. But what you're having to say to us, you know, just is very, very touching and means a great deal to the officers of this department. And I want. You to know that. And how much we appreciate this council and the support you continually give us. So thank you. Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. First of all, I just want to give a warm just thank you so much for allowing this the opportunity to preserve the past and look at the present and the future. I am so grateful to live in a country where opportunity is the norm and it's not the exception. I think that we all have opportunities in life and everywhere we turn we can go right or we can go left, we can go straight or we can turn around. But we are met with opportunity here. And I think that every officer that takes this honor to be on our police department absolutely has made a conscious choice, having very slight idea what might what may lie ahead and true the path ahead will be rewarding and it will also be devastating. I'll be happy and sad and it'll be enlightening and sometimes dark and very dangerous. And in my mind, they choose to take this path because of one thing. And that's love. Love for community, love for all people, love for right and wrong, love for the opportunity to see people in the worst and try to make it better and truly a love for his or her brother and is a very special person to show love in this area where sometimes police officers are not seen as love. I stand here today as a survivor of a fallen officer, and I've seen firsthand the love that can pour out of this job. My dad, Donald Bruno, had a love for this job like no other. I've heard through so many stories how my dad helped people, how he counseled people, how he took time to hear them when nobody else would do some. It was a wake up call and of the greatest of all love he could give. He inspired one woman to be a police officer for the Denver Police Department. I believe he joined the Brotherhood of the Denver Police Department to show love. And they also believe on December 5th or December 10th, 1975, that God took one of his earthly angels up to heaven to walk a different beat and to serve and protect from a different post. And as our family gathered to the strength each day to go on, we felt a love like no other from the Denver Police Department and from the Denver Police Orphans Fund. And they took amazing care of our family. And they never, never, never forgot my dad and they never forgot us. Life is really all about love. And I think every single one of our officers, each and every day for the love that they wear on their sleeve. It's not just a badge on them. It's the badge of love on their sleeve. And I'm so thankful. So thank you for giving us an opportunity to celebrate the past, the present, and the future. Hello. My family, and I would like to thank the city council for this proclamation. This is just another thing that the city has done to recognize our farther between the police memorial. And the street sign at 15th in California, it lets other. Officers and residents, the city of Denver see. What our father did while he was a police officer. It takes a special type of person to become policeman. Most people aren't willing to put their life on the line for someone else. My dad was. One of those people who. Did. What everyone needs to know is that not just the police officer, the officer that's serving each day, his family also does wondering if he's in a come back through the door every morning or every night, whatever shift he had. I just hope that no other police family has to get the call that their loved one has given their life in the line of duty. I know this is wishful thinking. Once again, me and my brothers and sisters are thankful to the city of Denver. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, money also take just a moment to to recognize Pat nating Armin in the audience who who lost her husband in 1971. Thank you. And she is now vice president of the Denver Police Museum.

Recommendation to direct City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending Chapter 8.100 of the Long Beach Municipal Code to require that residential and commercial rent deferred due to COVID-19 impacts be repaid according to a schedule. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_06232020_20-0558

Okay. Thank you. Move carries on item 25. So now we're going to be moving on to item number 26, please. Communication from City Attorney. Recommendation to direct City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code to require that residential and commercial rent deferred due to COVID 19 impacts be repaid according to a schedule citywide. Okay. Think we're going to have a report from the city attorney. First mayor, members of the council, Rich Anthony. You might be having some technical difficulties. This item was brought back to the council, requested us to come back and present the council with options for the repayment of the rent deferred due to COVID 19 impacts and according to a payment schedule tonight for your consideration. The item presents four options or three options, and obviously the Council can and are various other options that are available. We are here to answer questions and take your comment. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and go to the council of council. I'm sorry. City attorney Rich Anthony on the line now, by any chance. Richard, are you on the line? Yeah. I'm sorry. Can you hear me? This is Rick. Anthony, can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you now. Okay, I apologize. I was having muting trouble, but Charlie summarized it well. I just wanted to remind counsel that you asked me to bring this back on May 26. We originally we're going to bring it back in July. It keeps coming back a little bit earlier because I do think is it important? It is important for both landlords and tenants to see if there's going to be a repayment schedule. I think they need as much time as possible to know that in order to plan for the future. With that, I stand by to answer any questions, which I'm sure there will be a fair amount during discussion. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Anthony. All right. I have Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So in the discussion around moratorium extension, there was a lot of discussion about really the need to help support people, make sure that they don't get have this large balloon payment at the end of the repayment period that city council put forward. I think the council made the right decision to give people up to a year to catch up on their rent. And I think the concern is if people are already struggling. And when they you know, when they begin to pay full rent on August 1st, it's going to be it may be difficult to make some of those back up payments. You know, by proposing a repayment plan that could inadvertently trigger evictions, I don't think that that was the goal of the city council either. I think this is a moment where we just have to think about what the problem is and how best we can help people solve their problem. If we want to help people, I think we should address the fact that. When come August 1st, when people are paying full rent, when the moratorium period is over, those people are really struggling. We should really help them. We should target our resources to help them with the back rate so that they don't have a problem in the future. So the idea here is that the purpose here is we don't want to lose sight of the point is to help people. This program should not be something that inadvertently triggers evictions for anyone. It should be voluntary. It should be incentivized. I'm not interested in putting forth a policy that triggers more evictions. Money should be our resources should be targeted at helping renters get out of the hole during the pandemic. For that said, I think I think the solution here is to take our rental assistance fund and look at ways that we can target that to help people make up their back rent. It's very limited resources. It's only $5 million. There's potential to add more. It was only $5 million here. There's 300,000 people in the city that live in a real household. That money is going to go very, very fast. If you think about the universe of people who are paying the rent in August. Let's say they paid 50% or 70% in the past and they're going to need to be caught up. That funding will go a long way to help support them get out of the hole. And that's the way we should be thinking about it. Targeted resources to help people get out of the hole. So what I have in mind is sort of a matching program that can help match dollar for dollar. Somebody helps make a payment to the back rent and the city can come in and match. Obviously the details of the program would need to be shaped up. But to be clear, what I'm not interested in is a policy that triggers evictions, but rather right now are programs to incentivize people through matching, to pay back whatever they can in the city will help them get out of that hole. So I have a motion I move that we receive and file a report from the city attorney and direct the city attorney to take no further action at this time regarding repayment schedules or benchmarks. In addition, in order to address potential failures to pay that deferred rent and evictions resulting therefrom, we direct the city manager to propose a program for City Council consideration at a future meeting date which could allocate current and future federal and state rental assistance funds to the payment of deferred rent during the moratorium period that the City Council has established. This program should be limited to repayment of rent. That's deferred pursuant to our moratorium. It should provide a dollar for dollar match. It should be available to any tenant who can document the reverse impacts from COVID, the people who are behind on their rent from that period of time and to the extent of the funding sources, allow, not just those who are I mean, this should be open to anybody who sort of has back rent, because I think our dollars go further that way and we can actually help people get out of the hole. That is my motion, and I'm happy to accept any questions or clarity that folks might have. Thank you. Okay. The that's the motion. Is there there a second to have a long list ahead of me up. Councilmember Pierce. 1/2. Okay. Well, let me go down the list, Councilmember, your. I have one person in between. Vice Mayor Andres. Okay. Yes. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, you know, I think it's it's really unfortunate that we are once again debating people's livelihood. Where you are, Kenneth Orlando. It is unfortunate that it takes government involvement to sort out. Just because at the end of the day, we're not going to reach an agreement that makes everyone happy. My district, which is the sixth District, has a large population of people who left. And it's also one of the communities have struggled with their basic needs since COVID. There's not a single tenant I have spoken to when asked for rent rental assistance that is unwilling to pay rent. It is the same premise where they reach out. They want us to help them pay their rent. I believe that if we do not establish a repayment plan, our community is going to fall into a great debt . They will not be able to come out of. I do not think they remember. I do not think that as a member, it is our role to establish a specific a specific repayment plan, because every household is different and every household income and spending needs are different. I received about 90 emails in support of a repayment plan and about 45 against the repayment plan. And I want to see where this conversation goes tonight. And I really want us as a city to use dollars and resources available to help people get their rent paid all across the board. And I'd like to hear some more dialog before speaking some more. And I want to make sure that everyone would qualify for this program regardless of income. I believe this program should apply to anyone who owned that, who owes back do rent because the corporate customers in Washington. Do you see that as your motion? Absolutely. Look, it's limited resources. I think targeted at people who are behind will go a lot further, especially if it's a matching and sort of just putting it out broadly to 300,000 people who live a real household across the city. They will get more bang for our buck and actually help, which is the point, help people out of the hole. Yes, sir. Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Councilman Pierce. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank Councilmember Richardson for his motion. I think that it is in alignment with what we see the needs to be in our community. I was happy to bring forward the item that this stemmed from, which was a 12 month delay and being able to support people that we told there's a moratorium . We told them there's a moratorium to evict you, pay what you can, because we, the government told them you can't go to work. We the government told them, you need to stay home. Stay home. I cannot support anything that we then turn around and create a mechanism that would affect tenants for doing what we told them that they could do. And so I just want to get on the record. Two questions with Rich Anthony. If there was a repayment section and I know that's not the motion on the floor, but I want to just ask the question if there was a repayment option and a schedule, would tenants be at risk of being evicted if , say, they paid their full rent but they didn't pay the full amount that that payment plan had included? Yes. Let me make sure that you all can hear me. You can, right? Yes. Yes. Good. Yes. So if I understand your question correctly, Council Member Pearce, if you were to adopt a benchmark payment requirement, any one of the three outlined in the letter or something else which required tenants to pay a certain percentage. You know, as we move through the upcoming year, then yes, the if they failed to make that payment, the idea would be that they would then be subject to eviction even if they were current on their regular rental payments. The benchmark system in other cities that have adopted it is meant to to require the tenant to pay. But of course, as you said, that's not the motion that's on the floor right now. Thank you. And my my other question is what we have right now, if we receive and file this today. When the 12 month period ends and there are tenants that cannot pay their full rent, they can then be evicted at that end of that 12 month period. That's right. As of August 1st, 2021. That's right. Right. So I understand that the conversation with some of the landlords has been wanting to understand when they would get paid. There's a relationship that landlords and tenants have. I've been a renter my entire life. I know the relationship. Well, if there's an issue, you call your landlord. Sometimes you don't call your landlord because you're scared. Right now, I'm spent as a renter. I don't know if I'm the only renter on this on this council, but I know I'm a renter, a single mom that rent an apartment in my district. The cheapest thing I can find for a two bedroom with $800. And I know that my landlord, since I have not been paying for rent because I am not consulting, in addition to being a councilwoman, he is here every single day. He is here. Fixing the roof, fixing a window, tapping on my door to ask if everything is okay. He is here more than he's ever been in the three years I've lived here. And while he's not saying anything that's threatening to me, it makes me very anxious. And it has meant that I've put off other bills to make sure that I spend whatever I can on my rent. And so the idea that tenants are going to wait to pay a balloon payment is something that we have fear of. But that has not been demonstrated. And I think that there's some numbers out there. About 80% of tenants are paying their full rent. And so I would hate for us to create a mechanism to evict anybody for any reason that's not already law. And so with that, I just wanted to make sure I had those facts on the on the record. People can't be evicted if they don't pay their rent based on what we have now. But that period is 12 months later. So thank you, Councilmember Richardson, for making the motion. I really hope that we can move on and get to this other program that you've outlined, which I think is a fantastic program that I fully support and look forward to having that discussion when the time is appropriate. Thank you. Count twins. And they have. Mayor for and thank you, Councilmember Richardson, for doing this this motion. I, too, have been conflicted on this repayment plan. I definitely do not want to see our. Renters, you know? Be faced with the possibility of being evicted due to not being able to match the rent repayment plan. But I also don't want to see our property owners lose out on the rent that they that they so rightfully deserve. I know that we're in a special times right now, that we're during COVID. And like Councilmember Pearce said, you know, we did ask all everyone to please stay at home to, you know, restrain from going to work. Everybody closed down. So, you know, it's it is kind of unfair if we kind of like jump and put a repayment plan and ask them to do it here like this when we know that they're facing uncertain times ahead. So I think that by filing this report, receiving, receiving and filing this report is the right direction to go to as we explore a little bit more on how things are going to be in the next couple of months. I think this is the right direction. But I'd also like to see. And I'm hopeful, you know, too, that a lot of the tenants like myself, I'm also a renter. And I also fear of not being able to pay rent, you know, at times. But. You know, i1i myself know that rent to me is a priority and I want to assume that it is for all of those of the renters as well, and that, you know, those renters are not going to try to not pay rent because rent is something that they really want to do as it is for me , because, you know, to have a safe place to live. So I again, I do think that this might be the right thing to do right at this moment. So I encourage my colleagues to support this at this moment. Thank you, Councilmember Ranga. Counseling for your anger. I think you're muted. Council member. Think your muted. You hear me now? Yes. Oh, geez. Okay. For some reason near me, I think that the two council members who are renters set the story straight. They're the ones that had the experience and they lived it. There's a lot of moving parts. And this item here that I can't agree with of the biggest one, of course, being COVID 19 and the direction that it's taking. When we look at whether people are going to be going back to work or not or when they go back to work or not, it's a matter of how many. Hours are going to go back to. Work and what and even if they have a job. Waiting for them. So I think the sad in the way it's being presented today is not an item that I can support. So I'm going to be supporting the of the receiving file with the additional comments that the Councilmember reached to put in in terms of looking into some kind of matching program that we might be able to to assist renters with. So I'll be supportive of the motion. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. And I have a couple questions regarding the receiver, not file motion, but I'll also make a few comments. No, I think the spirit of what? We as a council understanding these really unprecedented times and challenges that we have been presented, that have been presented to our constituents, our residents throughout the city, renters, property owners, business owners, small businesses. This is we were we were we were we've been faced with really unprecedented decisions. Right. And the. Much of what we did was all in good faith. It was all to help people or support families to provide economic relief. We passed the package hastily. Right. And we with the intent of getting it right. And I think for the most part, it has worked out. But then there were the unintended. I don't think it was ever intended that the eviction moratorium would what mean, you know, a French rent vacation or free rent because there's no free mortgage . There's there's a system there's an economic system that has been disrupted. And. I do. And I think the intent of what's creating the Long Beach Cares program, the rental assistance program that we passed just a week ago or two weeks ago, was intended to do justice to help people catch up on their rent and allows for up to $1,000 a month for three months. And so I'm not sure exactly if we received a file. Are we looking to create the same program for the same intent or. Or what? So I'm a little confused about that part. I'm okay with putting this item right, because I think it gives us a little time to to work it out and to work the details out. But we are in as smart and efficient with the resources and helping the folks that. Councilman Austin. I think we lost you. And a landlord and I think the city council and I've heard it. Well, now appreciate what you said of council members. And they have. I appreciate and I encourage good faith between those parties. Right. I would say that the vast majority of renters and landlords are going to work it out and should have the ability to work work it out. And so what is proposed here is very prescriptive. I we have four options on this notion that are very prescriptive. That. Could. Essentially, if it doesn't work, we create an unintended consequence. But I also would say that. We look forward. A year from now and someone is three months behind on their rent. Are we still looking at the same? To do what they in terms of potential eviction because they are behind on their rent. I don't know that answer, but I certainly do not want to. Contributed to anyone being evicted or losing their housing as a result of this this economic. Chaos that we're in that. With no fault of anybody. Not. Not the fault of the renter. Not the fault of the. The landlord, a property owner and really not the fault of the city. I think we're all trying to to to work to get to a good place. And so I guess my question to Councilmember Richardson, in terms of the receiver file, what can you. Can you tell us again what the direction. Absolutely. Where we want to go, because this is not written down up, by the way. You know, we're just kind of interested. So so, councilman, thank you for allowing me to clarify. So and thinking about a way to structure what a voluntary program would look like that didn't trigger evictions, but could incentivize people to make payments by matching it. I spoke with Rich Anthony about the appropriate action that we can provide so that he understood it. And so I think so. I think I structured it based on that discussion. I think it would be helpful if we just hear from Rich on how he understands the request. It's it's it is what we have in front of us. The ordinance we have in front of us is specifically related to a repayment plan. And whatever repayment plan we do, if people default, that triggers the eviction. So the appropriate action, whoever the appropriate action is to not do it within ordinance but within, within the program. Charlie Great. Sure. So just to clarify, there's not an ordinance before you right now. What was before you was the direction to give the city attorney direction to adopt an ordinance which would amend 8.1? I'm hearing the motion loud and clear. That's not what is on the table now. But in order to. Councilmember Richardson, I think what you were trying to do is without imposing a strict commitment schedule, you were trying to address what you see as a potential problem, which I think Al just also noted, which is there may in fact, be a year from now. A lot of tenants out there may not, but there may be a lot of tenants that have not been able to repay their deferred rent and come more or less a year from now, a little more than that. They're not going to be able to pay all the deferred rent that they need to. And there may be a bit of an eviction crisis occurring in July of 2021. In an effort to address that, Councilmember Richardson is directing city staff. I'll be working with city staff, but primarily the city manager, to see about establishing a program very similar to the program that this council approved two weeks ago. Rental assistance. But it would be a little different. I think it would be a it would be a stand alone program. The way I see it. People would be eligible for both programs. They could apply for both. And tenants may in fact, qualify for both. It would be limited very specifically to only city dollars would only be given to tenants to pay their deferred rent, rent that they had not paid, and that accrued between March 4th. And assuming no extension of this moratorium July 31st of this year, whatever that dollar amount is, the city would have this program and would pay up to half of that dollar amount, presuming that the tenant pays the other half. So so because this was admittedly this was not agenda on tonight's agenda because we didn't know it would come. And that is why we're discussing the program now. But we'd have to bring this back. We got to give staff a little bit of time to think about how it would work to identify any potential problems. Although I've been we've been thinking about that for a while now, and I don't think there are. And then we would bring this back for formal approval and establishment by the council, you know, as soon as we can, and we will highlight any sort of direction that we need at that time. And this is tell me if I can make a quick question to the maker of the motion. I need to understand is this Instead of the $5 Million program, which we have $5 million for taking a portion of that or some of it, I just need to know if we hit pause on that program because we don't have any other dollars allocated for any type of new tenant program at this time. So some direction on that would be helpful. Sure. And I don't think you should cancel the program. I think you should look at some of the resources that indicated that program and figure out what portion to be targeted for this. And then and then as additional CARES Act funding comes in, we should we should increase it. To be clear. I'm not. What I'm saying is it's a repayment program as opposed to a structure repayment plan or a repayment program. And that program incentivizes matching. That's what I'm saying. So I think you can take some time and then bring it back. Okay. So given that then, because really the portion of the program, we would take a short break before we implement that program to evaluate this should the motion move forward. Thank you, Mr.. Let me let me let me keep going forward. I'm not. I'm not. That was the question. Clarifying question. May I just. I do have the floor. I. I was giving I was giving you a back and forth. Okay. So let me just keep moving forward. So, Councilman Austin. So I guess my my question for the city manager is, I know we've received some more relief from the county. Could there be funds in that to go toward this in addition to the Long Beach care program that we have? And then secondly, I know. Councilmember Richardson We are also working on getting money in the Heroes Act potentially from DC to help with some of the economic relief work that we want to do. I would say earmark or contingency or for that for this type of program, because what we're also looking at is we don't necessarily have to have it today. We sounds like we have some time to to work out a replacement plan for for those who are in arrears. So those are my comments. I'm really interested to hear the discussion from my colleagues on this. This is this is I think it's encouraging. I, I want to. I don't feel so comfortable with an ordinance at this point to to mandate the repayment. I do like the idea of a program. I like the incentive incentivizing repayment. And I think this council should be in a place where we're encouraging folks to continue that good faith relationship between and it's a landlords. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman. I have concern from Vice Mayor Andrews. Actually Vice mayor, do they have. I have two people that haven't spoken yet. So let me go to them and they'll come back around just for a second round. Captain for Superman. Thank you. I have a question on clarification on an issue and maybe be making this step. I think I heard two different things, and that is let's let's talk about first things first. Would at the sunset of the eviction moratorium, what is the date that typically renters would pay their first rent? Would that be August one? Yeah. This is rich council member Super nine. Yeah, I think that's the way it would work. The as the ordinance currently written sunsets on July 31st. I mean, I think everyone on the call probably knows 90% or more of residential rent's due on the first of the month and that that will be due on August 1st. Regular rent not the deferred rent, but regular rent. I think it's safe to assume what we do in the vast majority of cases the day after the sunset. Okay. So could you take a guess at then? Well, I think I brought this point up at a previous meeting, but I think it's a very important point. So I'll reiterated. Um, if that rent payment is missed, is the penalty that the back rent is due at that time. Yes. So if that if that rent payment is missed. After a three day notice to pay her quit is is delivered to the tenant. Then what we want to make sure is if if the if an unlawful detainer is moving forward legitimately based on August 1st rent or any rent thereafter, the landlord has the right to include in this lawsuit the repayment of all deferred rent at that time. So I don't think it's right to say if if the rent payment is missed on August 1st, all deferred rent is immediately due. The tenant still has the opportunity to go through the three day notice to pay or quit procedure. Okay. So for the sake of argument on on let's say August 7th that that would kick in and that. Yeah, that's right. If they failed if they failed to come current on their August rent in response to the three day notice to quit, then everything would be due August rent and also the deferred rent. Okay. And also, Mr. Anthony, you couldn't possibly speculate on when an eviction would physically actually take place in that scenario. I could always speculate on something, but given that currently the Judicial Council, the court says, kept at least unlawful detainers closed, youth courts are closed. I don't think that they will be open by August. But whenever they do reopen and this is a bit of speculation, I don't have direct experience, but I do think unlawful detainer actions usually take 5 to 8 weeks to get to completion. I may be off on that and I welcome comments from other members of the Council who may have different opinions. Okay. Thank you. The other question I'd like to ask staff is the number of 80% of renters are paying rent. Do we have any opinion from any data on that, from staff? Linda Tatum will take a shot at that question. I'm. Councilman, I'm not sure where that number comes from. We know that there are many that aren't paying, but we don't have a really good, accurate data source that we could give you that would really be based on actual data. So it's completely anecdotal. Okay. So just to summarize my position here, I'm very concerned about that August one date and I'm equally concerned about the balloon payment, which I think everyone is. So I'll hold any further comments for now. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I share I mean, from the very beginning, I have shared very publicly that I am concerned about the concept of the balloon payment. And when we offer things like. Rental assistance, but we don't have mortgage assistance. Then the burdens that we're creating are falling on the shoulders of only one entity in the circle that is involved with housing. And I and I definitely concerned about that. I know that the repayment option is not a popular one. I'm hearing that from folks to me, and I've shared this with with everyone, I think on the council as a as a commercial tenant, I know that for us, the balloon payments is going to be nearly impossible to meet. So we've talked a lot about a partial payment structure that would work. And to Councilman Austin's point, you know, working with your landlord is always the best way to do it and always the best way to ensure that you don't fall into a situation that the city can't really mandate, that we can't really mandate people to meet and confer on a payment plan. If we could, I think that's something that we would have thought about a long time ago. So the repayment plan is really an opportunity or an effort to try to be fair to all of the entities that are involved in the housing cycle, the housing provider, as well as the person who's occupying the home, the tenant. And I think what we I think we've done a lot to help tenants, and I think it's great. Certainly nobody on this council wants to see people get evicted. Nobody no councilmember wants that. But what we are trying to do is to be fair to the folks that aren't getting any mortgage relief. And for anyone out there who thinks banks are offering relief left and right, you're absolutely wrong. That's not happening. It's not happening for commercial properties and it's not happening for residential properties, at least not on a large scale. And certainly that's because the government can't intervene and force that as we can with the eviction moratorium for tenants. So I would like to see a payment plan, but I also agree that we don't want to do anything that subjects people to earlier eviction. Because if they can't if they can meet their balloon payment, that they're not going to be subject to eviction. But if they can't meet their balloon payment and it's unlikely they're even going to be able to make the partial payment, then that's going to subject them to earlier eviction. And nobody wants to see that. My concern I like the idea of the incentivizing and the matching. I really do like that idea. I think that is a great way to look at it and it's a great way to offer incentives for people to pay. And they wouldn't get evicted, but the landlord would still get a partial payment. The concerns I have with that is one I will say that I don't like the fact that we're leaving it open. Councilman Richardson, I think you and I've been on the council long enough that we know when we are receiving five with they bring it back at some future date. We're basically kicking it out with no expectation that it ever come back. I would like to offer as a friendly that we set a time for it to come back, whether it's 30 days or 60 days, to have staff report back on what funding is available and what the limitations on that funding might be. The state and federal dollars and county dollars that we're getting to help with rental assistance do come with some restrictions. And some of those restrictions, for example, there's income based qualification. So I'd like to get a better understanding of if we're going to do a repayment incentive program or partial payment incentive program. Are there moneys that we can utilize that have less restrictions attached to them so that tenants throughout the city can benefit from it because they may have a higher income in other parts of the city, but they're still tenants and they're still facing the same problems as tenants throughout all of the city. So if their rent is, let's say, you know, if they're if their income is is similar to someone living in a cheaper apartment, but they're paying more of their income to rent. But their incomes about the same, then they're really not going to be able to qualify. And that puts them in a very difficult situation. They've chosen to pay more of their income to live in a more expensive housing unit, but yet they're not qualified. They're not getting qualified for any sort of rental assistance because they don't make enough money. And so I worry about that category of people. And so I'd like to see what options are available. I certainly do not want to cut the current tenant assistance programs that we have, the $5 million that we have, a place that has worked so hard to get that program up and running. I'd like to see that program up and running as soon as possible. So I don't want that program to pause. But I would like us to come back in 30 days or 60 days and evaluate what additional funding is available, whether there is any funding or any revenue source that we can tap into that's nontraditional, that might help for this sort of program, you know, a back to work type program, maybe it's not even. Earmarked for housing specifically, but to help people get back on their feet on some sort of a stimulus program that might amount that we can utilize to help residents get back on their feet. So my friendly would be I'd like to have it come back, not necessarily with a date certain, but, you know, a month certain. And I would hope that you would be amenable to that. Absolutely. So when so Rich Anthony mentioned that, I think you mentioned the date of July 14th. And my conversation with him earlier just simply just comes down to how some staff can. And, you know, look at the program. Get the details on the color of the money, what restrictions? All of those are important for us to understand. We can do and we want to leverage additional funds as well. I think there are some opportunities. But like you, I want to be urgent about this. I think people need help and we should help them as quickly as we can. So I think I think 30 days should be plenty of time. But sooner if we can get this back, the date that that rich man, I think that I would prefer. But I think 30 days is 20. Oh. I'm sorry to interrupt. I would just. This is rich. I'm a little worried that I was being aggressive on that date, given that I'm not the one that's going to be doing most of the work. It's going to be city staffer. And I think council. Council member Austin made a good point. I don't think that it's that time critical. I don't mean to dismiss Councilmember Price. And your point, Councilman Richardson. Let's make sure it comes back. I get it. But since tenants are going to have until July 31st, 2021 to pay. There's a lot of time during which we could establish a program and during which they can take advantage of that program. So. Is there a is there a council meeting on July 21st and maybe we bring it back in early August? I definitely want to make sure Tom and city staff have input into when they feel comfortable bringing it back. So this is done. So yeah, we do agree we should come back in about 30 days rather than 60. While the city attorney is right about there's not time from the ordinance perspective. A time crunch there is on the money that we would be able to access for this. The Federal Cares Act money needs to be out the door spent reimbursed everything done by the end of December. That's incredibly fast. So to be able to use any of that money, we need to make some decisions on it fairly soon. So we would commit to coming back within 30 days, giving you the options for the $5 million or what we could do with that, how we would move that program forward and any additional federal cares act or other revenues that you may want to dedicate. I think that's fine. I accept that. And just be clear, we're talking about the program. I know that. We're not talking about the ordinance. I know you mentioned ordinance. Sorry, I'm talking about the program. Yes, sir. I just want to be clear. We're talking about the program. But, Councilwoman, I fully accept that. Absolutely. Yeah. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And Tom or Mr. Modica. You know, as you and your team are evaluating funding sources, really, I know you guys are really good at being creative, but this repayment program is different. It's creative, and maybe there's some category it falls into that's not specifically housing, but allows us to be a little bit creative with, you know, incentivizing people, getting back on their feet or something like that, and also trying to see, I hope that I was able to articulate the concerns I have about it being income based because there are people who do 40 or 50% or even higher percent of their salary to rent so that they can live in a different neighborhood, so that they can be in a different school district or whatever the case may be. So I want to make sure that we're trying to help as many tenants as possible. And of course, there are landlords, too, who aren't getting any mortgage relief. Okay. Thank you. Next up is. Council member Mungo. No. Q can you hear me? Wonderful. Thank you. I think a lot of the concerns mentioned tonight, in no way was the council looking to set up runners to have a big balloon payment at the end. And we always talked about finding a way to help them get there. And the reason that balloon payments are not. Really allowed anymore in the credit industry is because people don't typically have the ability to get to a point where they have that much cash on hand to make those balloon payments. So we want to have a win for everyone tonight. We want to make sure to focus on the back rent owed. I guess I just have two things. It's easy to say that we want to. Forgive rent. And the challenge comes with the finding who's going to eventually pay for that? I was talking to one of my colleagues today about a woman in my district who literally hasn't had any income, zero income, but her Social Security, which is very, very low because it was her husband's who passed away. She's been getting food from a local church and she doesn't have any income coming in except for the food from the local church. And her husband's passed away. Has the Social Security to pay for her caretakers and to pay for her living expenses. And. And as you get older, if you have caretakers and those things, they're very expensive. And those caretakers will not allow her to pay late. And so the home that she grew up in, that she now uses as a rental and has not been paying their their rent. So we're not talking always about some big corporation. We're literally talking about our neighbors who also need to eat. And so any way to put forward a program. So I'm going to just kind of delineate a couple of things. So the $5.3 million that we talked about last week, I first want to think two weeks ago, Councilmember Austin, for starting us down that path. And one of the things that I talked about was stretching that money and instead of up to 100% of rent, that it would be 50% of rent. And I love the idea of using it as matching, and I think that that is a huge component and that really was kind of thrown around. But I know that we are all working so hard to. Fine solutions so quickly. We haven't been able to work through all the details I agree with. The idea that there isn't as much urgency now, because we do know that they have longer to pay, but there's still neighbors at home who need some certainty on when they can pay things back. So this neighbor that I mentioned is in her late seventies and she took out a credit card cash advance to make her payments. She needs to kind of figure out when she's going to be able to pay those things back. So I'm a big thank you to the city staff who are willing to make a commitment to getting that back to us in 30 days. I'd also like to say that we need real data on what is outstanding, and so I'd like to see the city staff pull together with our I.T. team, some kind of portal where a landlord can enter limited information about what is outstanding from them. You can go on and say, I have two units and I have one tenant who's three months behind on rent to the tune of 1800 a month. And I have another tenant who's behind on rent, but they've been paying 70%. I think we as a city need to know what that looks like because we need to kind of track that as we go, because we as a city need to prevent a mass eviction status across our city. In August, what is it, July 31st of 2021. We need to look at where those numbers are lining up so that we can prepare ourselves and put in additional programs as necessary. So I'd love to see some kind of portal if Councilmember Richardson's amenable to adding that to his motion or the city staff to explore what options they might have to collect that data for us. Absolutely. We should we should explore it. I think I think more broadly, we need to be thinking as we approach July of 2021 about a strategy that. Well, this could be one of the larger things I think you're thinking correctly in that we don't want mass evictions at that point. So there should be a whole host of evaluate absolutely them. And then I think asking the question, too, there are a lot of people who haven't gone back to work yet and they do have rent due just around the corner. And so I think for landlords to also give that information on where they've made exceptions, what they've done to accommodate renters and whether they did have a COVID reason or not, just for us to have that is important and then for us as a city to really think it out. The program was supposed to start on June 29th. That's six days from now. And we don't have another council member between now and meeting between now and then. Mr. Modica, what is your plan with if the motion on the floor passes? What are your initial thoughts on when we could regroup in terms of what kind of information you've already sent out regarding the program as it was or. What that would now look like. Ask Linda Tatum to respond to that. Councilwoman Mango We have been very aggressive in terms of starting to publicize and put the information and the information documents. We've gotten a really robust response to this from the public who are saying we're ready to go and we have committed that we would have the application forms and other information about the program up on the website on the 29th for the the rental assistance program that the council approved a couple of weeks ago. So if you direct us to continue that effort tonight, we would certainly just get that information up and just restructure the program based upon the direction. And as I understand it, I think the clarification is that we would need to understand that you want us to continue with the prior rental assistance program, but just use a portion of that fund funds, the 5.3 million to dedicate to this program that we're talking about tonight. So that's the direction that we would need, whether we put the one on hold or continue with the one and funded at a certain level and dedicated a portion of the funds that have already been committed to that program and divert those to this new program. So I don't think it's a diversion. I really think it is a prioritization. So I think you open the portal and again, I can hear from my colleagues, you open the portal and people apply and we can use the data of all the applicants and how far behind they are. All the different components for us to determine from a policy perspective where the most need is and where the city can forgive or not forgive. Brant Pay on behalf of the tenants. That makes the best impact on our economy as a whole to be able to lift up neighbors and make sure that they get to stay in their homes. So that would be my recommendation. I think that even if it's still opened on the 29th without clear direction on how much any one person is going to get, I think you kind of talk about the possibilities of up to $3,000 of rent matching or or prepayment for you. And then you'll have the data in in there for us to determine. And I kind of said that at the last meeting, too. And I think this is really just an enhancement of a great program really authored by Councilmember Alston and for us to and have now sat on it for a week and said two weeks and said, okay, let's leverage that money as the matching, let's do up to the 50% of rent owed a couple of those sides of it. So we can see how far that money can stretch and how much of an impact it can make. But other than that great work of Councilmember Richardson, Councilmember Austin and Mr. Anthony, I know you've worked on this tirelessly, and I know my council colleagues who really discussed this program over the last few weeks. I know that we wish we could forgive rent, but forgiveness is really not making it disappear. It's really taking from one and giving to another. And in some of those cases, some of our most vulnerable senior citizens are kind of living on that income, and you can't really differentiate how you pull those people apart. We want to make sure not to have our senior citizens without care, food or or housing. So I'd thank you all to your work on this. I'm really excited to see an opportunity for renters to be incentivized to both pay back a little bit of that back rent and for the city to step in with these funds to kind of pay off part of it for them. Vice Mayor Landrieu's. No, I'm fine. Thank you very much, man. Consumer superpower. Thank you. I just want to back what Councilmember Mungo said, and it looks to me and maybe staff can respond that if this comes back on the 14th, can we be up and running by August one? So if we if we leave the end of June. Program in place. Our program in place. Um. Tenants can access that money. And then if this program gets going, um, is August one too early a date to get that moving? I let me respond to that. I think it would be helpful to just clarify that the the the prior rental assistance program, the criteria for that were very specific in terms of the income qualification and the other criteria in the documents that you would need to be eligible for that program. The program you're talking about tonight for the rent deferral, that program, in my opinion, and we're still we'll still spend some time to look at it over the next 30 days would potentially have a different set of criteria because it would come from a different funding source. And that's why I was asking you to consider maybe having these as two separate programs rather than melding them, because they come from different sources and they have different criteria for qualification. And that makes it really challenging to meld them together and try to really efficiently and fairly implement them when they're melded together under the scenario that was just described. So I would and the program that you previously approved was scheduled to be rolled out on the 29th. And given that if we don't come back with the the details of the program you just talked about for another 30 days, that truly would delay the implementation of the rental assistance program. So I'm some clarification about the goals would help and I would encourage you to consider them as two separate programs because of the different funding sources. Okay. Well, I was I was playing off of Stacey Mungo's comment. So if I like to respond to what I just said, but again, I want to reiterate that August 8th one is a great concern to me. And what I failed to mention is August one is just the first milestone that rent will be have tenants want to pay their rent on time every month after that? That is correct, Mr. Anthony. I believe that I might have overemphasized August one, but that's just the start date. Any month after that, rent. Rent is late. The same consequences will kick in. Thank you, Mr. Zubrin. I do agree that there is some confusion because, Ms.. Tatum, we cannot continue to create separate programs to a taxpayer, to a renter, to a landlord. It is one program. It needs to be a11 door. They don't know the differences of what type of funding it is. They the applicant would not, but the the city staff would. And we would certainly put all of the details of each one of the programs. And I what I'm hearing is that a any one household could be eligible potentially for two programs unless you direct us to qualify them for one or the other of the programs. And there is clearly some overlap because the rental assistance program that you approved last week, a person who has deferred rent would likewise be eligible for that program, even under assuming that they met the income guidelines. Everything you talked about tonight, they could potentially be eligible for the rental assistance program you already provided. But I'm hearing that you're really concerned and you want to focus additional funds on those who exclusively have deferred rent. So there there's there's a difference in both of those those qualifications for the program, which is why a more distinction, a greater distinction between the programs would be helpful in terms of administration. But I hear you loud and clear. You're saying we could probably just get the application and see which one of those programs they would would qualify for. And if you're okay with that, we can certainly study that and roll out the rental assistance program on the schedule we had already provided because the funding wouldn't all go away immediately. I think we could work something out where we move forward on the one and yet still maintain some of those funds for for the new program and continue to look for additional program program funds. And this is Tom. I jump in here a little bit, so I think we just need some clear direction. There's definitely two different ways we can go. So we've got $5 million set aside for a program. We're ready to go. You're asking us to do something different, which is to kind of either either modify that money to extend to this kind of new a program or to create two separate programs. We can certainly go out and look for more money we only have right now. We know we have the $5 million in hand. So that's kind of what I'm looking for direction from from the either the maker of the motion or others and we, you know, just should we try to do both or should we create one new program? That's what we're looking for. Okay. Okay. So this is this is the Mary. Nobody's had a chance to speak. I want to I want to just clarify, and I think I'm hearing everyone's comments. And, Councilman Margaret, you have additional comments also. Well, I really appreciate Mr. Modica comment, but I think that what we're talking about is an enhancement with some of the suggestions made last week, because when Mr. Richardson states up to 50% matching, there are certain tenants that would then be what I think we would use the word prioritized because they were marching down that path, but because they wouldn't have that same kind of requirement. So I think that they should consider my recommendation to the maker of the motion is that they would continue to take in applications, but that we don't necessarily tell anyone who's been awarded an application until at least we get a report back from the Development Services Department on the 14th. So we as a city can make sure that it's headed in the right direction. That would be my only comment and thank you for all that. The considerations to both Mr. Medications. Tatum Great. I'm going to make a brief, brief clarifications and then we'll move on. I think actually. Then I've got Councilman Austin and we're going to move up. Just to clarify, I think I know a lot of people, including Councilman Austin and others, worked on the original program. I think we want to keep the original program in place, is what I'm hearing. So the original program stays in place. We have funding already set aside for that program that moves forward and we have a timeline set up for that. In addition to that, we are expanding this kind of this program that we have to also do this kind of rental repayment assistance program. That's a matching program of which we're going to look for additional dollars to supplement that program if and over the course of the next few weeks, you know, staff, you come forward and say , hey, we think, you know, we found some new dollars here or we think that there's some some dollars maybe, you know, some limited dollars from the original program that can move into the other one. I think we'll wait to hear from you. But I think what I'm hearing is we want to move forward with the original program and keep that going. Then we now we have a new program as proposed tonight that we're going to look for additional funds. That program is going to come back to the council for approval. And it will essentially be one rental assistance bucket of which there's different kind of programmatic ways of of of people getting assistance. So that's the way I'm hearing things. And hopefully we can get to a vote. Councilman Austin. I think I was cued up. Thank. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am pleased with the direction this is going in. I appreciate your clarification. I did want to just express my my desire and hope that the council will support moving forward with the right care Long Beach Cares program, the rental assistance program that we already have in place. I'm supportive of this. We've seen and we can commit to doing that and also look at how we can enhance options for for helping people pay their rent and helping landlords get their rent as well. I think everybody wins with the proposal on the table. And if we can take just a little bit more time to work that out and also hopefully identify new resources from other sources, this could make the program even more robust and beneficial to the more so. Those are my comments. I hope we can stay the course here. Okay. Think I'm going to go to public comment unless, Councilman Richardson, do you have do you have additional comments before we do have a comment and vote? As a Richardson. Here. I am sorry. I was a supporter of that in this direction. I think I think a lot of the last. A lot of discussion, just confused a lot of folks. I think we wanted to be very, very clear here. We already have a program in the works. I think that program, people are expecting to get assistance. We don't want to take anything off the table that we've already put on the table to them. What we're saying is we need to develop a program to help with back rent. Where the color of money comes from. Steph's going to need some time to evaluate that. What the funding levels are, staff's going to have to evaluate, and there's going to have to be additional funding as well. So Steph has some flexibility come back with a few options for the city council to consider. But this motion is about saying let's not do rental assistance. It says we can maybe look at, you know, figuring out how our dollars can stretch this massive matching concept and truly incentivize people to make those, you know, to make payments as best as they can. So so those are my comments. Thank you. Yeah. View it as an expansion of what we were already doing. So we're not going back on what the program was and expanding it in a different way. So let's go to public comment. Madam Clerk. We have 13 public comments. Our first comments from Tanya Jimenez, your colleague. Your time starts now. Hi. This is Tania menendez, District seven. This item is important. Landlords do not provide a valuable service to society. They are parasites that hoard housing, stock and profit off the backs of others. Requiring tenants to pay back rent without taking into account the continuing pandemic and inability of many times to pay is not logical. It does not serve the people it serves to evict tenants and free up housing stock to put for sale back on the market. I heard about this. It only serves landlords and property owners. It serves to increase the city's overall homelessness rate, something you are going to want to reduce. If you need it to live, it should be free. This includes housing, water, food and health care. And this goes specifically. To the councilman. That says she hopes renters are not trying to get out of paying their rent to the councilman who said there should be no free rent because there's no free mortgage. And so the councilwoman who called landlords housing providers point blank, period, housing is a human right. Housing should be free. Keep your landlord assistance and repayment plan. Black women and black families in particular are the most rent burden in Long Beach and are at the most risk of eviction, followed by families headed by indigenous peoples and people of color. I urge you all to cancel the repayment plan and forgive him. People over profit should be the bottom line. Always. My time. Thank you for your comment. Next we have. And you said De la Cruz a better. Starts now. Hi, I'm from District one. So today, me and other residents, I want to ask for all of you to vote no on the repayment plan. First of all, I think it's ridiculous and there's a special plan to move forward with the renters, which are the ones who need protection from the landlords. This is the price. So how dare you support a measure that would help you as a landlord? This is not about personal gain. It's about the people involved and the 59.8% of renters. And then protection. There would be that 59.8%. Our economy is still not functioning and reopen and with little openings have taken place. COBRA 19 infection rates have skyrocketed and landlords want to sit there like royalty until long time resident that you should have a plan or a safety net or that x amount months is plenty of time to pay back to rent. People do not have the money right now to pay what's already ridiculously high rent. Working class people both a lot of these are nationwide have been bearing the brunt of government response to COVID 19, from the city dragging its feet to provide widespread testing to offering the least possible help to thousands of workers who were thrown out of their job and don't have the wait a month. Rents are growing overhead. The proposed rate rise with the payment plan will leave thousands of citizens of our village at risk for eviction or failure to pay rent. The fact that sentences of this city are being subjected to pressure to this pressure is criminal, especially when members of our city council are a landlord themselves, indirectly profiting from the very plan they are proposing to pass. The real issue here is that rent should have been forgiven in the first place. You guys have filed 5.3 million, I believe I heard. Dollars. Thank you for your comment. Next, we have Seagram. Your time starts now. Y'all are going to be hearing from me and my fellow community members now and in the future, because we are listening. We are tuning in and listening. We are taking note. We are mobilizing. And we are angry. You need to hear our words. I'm looking at you because I know that you are a landlord, a landlord in our community, and you will benefit directly from this measure. It is in your personal interest to pass this measure. But as a member of your district, I say I demand that you vote no on this measure. We need to cancel rent completely. Cancel it, cancel repayment, cancel it all. We are in a new time. Corporate capitalism has failed the people and only benefited property owners. Well. Thank you for your comment. Next, we have Daniel Kelson. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor and city council members. I'm a longstanding homeowner and I do not rent, nor do I own properties for rent. I therefore speak with no conflict of interest on this measure. But as a concerned citizen, the push by rental property owners for an ordinance scheduling this rapid to pay back of rent is mathematically challenged, economically irresponsible and civically reprehensible. For those renters lucky enough to have been out of work and that missed payments for only three months, this proposal amounts to an inhumane 25% rent increase to pay back dismissed once in a 12 month period. Many more people are still suffering in this economic and public health crisis. With the unemployment rate in Long Beach hovering around 20% and more months of rent still paying that back in a 12 month schedule is an even more dramatic increase in their housing burden. So just because the proposed table sounds simple doesn't make it humane or even feasible. A large number of Long Beach residents who are housing stressed, a population skewed toward people of color and the working poor would be devastated by such an ordinance whose sole aim must be seen really as a roundabout way to produce more evictions when rent payback schedules cannot be met. Now is not the time for landlords to be talking about clawing back funds that may never make it into the hands of the tenants. I just defended the property owners. Consider that this is the sort of measure appropriate at this time. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comment. Next, we have Elsa tongue. Your time starts now. Hi, this is Ailsa Chang from Long Beach Forward. I'm going to read some excerpts from the letter that our executive director, Dr. Christine Pettit, submitted today. We at Long Beach Forward stand in strong solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement here in Long Beach and around the world. We strongly oppose item 26 to mandate and ill conceived one size fits all deferred rent repayment schedule for all tenants. This proposal, especially during a global pandemic with mass unemployment, is patently anti-black, anti-immigrant, anti-poor and anti small business, and, if passed, will lead to mass evictions, growing homelessness and shuttered small businesses. 63% of black women and 60% of all women of color in Long Beach are rent burdened. These women and their families, meaning children, will be the first to be evicted from their homes and onto the streets. Under this proposal, black residents are already grossly, disproportionately represented in L.A. County's unhoused population. Long Beach must reject any and all policies that would add one more black body to the violence of homelessness. Vote no on the repayment schedule and instead cancel rent and cancel mortgages to provide real relief in our renter majority city. I yield back. Thank you. Next, we have Fred Sutton. Your time starts now. Honorable Mayor City Council Fred Sutton on behalf of the California Department of Association. Appreciate your time and your deliberation on this very important issue. Housing providers continue to act with compassion towards those who face related hardships to the coronavirus as the economy reopens and an increasing number of employees return to work. We asked council to insert a payment standard to help residents pay rent that has been deferred. It is in no one's interests to have large payments outstanding in a year from now. This policy should be simple, regular, and give everyone time to understand their financial obligations. It makes sense and helps avoid mass evictions. It is not mutually exclusive what Councilmember Richardson is talking about in his motion. You can insert a payment plan and have renter assistance. Fulfill those that are unable to meet some of those installments that are continuing to struggle. The you can vote for an installment plan and assistance to come back and figure out how to pay some of those installment payments at a later date. This should move forward in some capacity today. We understand what everyone is facing, but housing providers need some relief as well as there has been no assistance through the CARES Act . Coming to housing providers and utility costs are going up, maintenance is going up and income is not coming in from these units. It's fair and equitable to find a payment plan solution going forward and using assistance loans to fill those gaps. Appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Jen, Victor and Ensign. Honorable Counsel. My name is Jan Victor Anderson. I am an immigrant from the Philippines and grew up in Long Beach, and I'm currently an organizer with Eastside Communities, located on two four, four eight Santa Fe Avenue. 90810. Before I speak to item 26, the city needs to ensure that the public comment feature on the city website follows the Language Access Policy Protocol as it currently is only accessible in English. This means needed Tagalog speakers like me, monolingual Spanish speakers will not be able to participate in our city meetings as it. Relates to the repayment plan. Thank you for your leadership. Councilmember Richardson and the other Council members in support of Receive. And filed a repayment plan and no to. Any ordinance because any repayment plan will. Only lead. To eviction in organizing. With working. Class black brown residents during the COVID 19 pandemic. This repayment plan is going to be an added stressor creep on abilities for many in our community to be evicted. This is not speak to the moment of the pandemic where residents are facing lack of work hours and lacking financial resources. Many residents are relying on city services and community groups to cover their food and other mutual aid. But this repayment plan contradicts the spirit of the eviction moratorium past weeks ago to protect those most vulnerable so that we don't create a bigger homelessness issue. Usually, Lufkin did research. Estimating 120,000 households in Ohtani will be at risk of homelessness because of this pandemic. Thank you for this motion file and receive it. Let's not revisit the repayment plan. Cancel the rent council mortgage and find ways to protect and support the most vulnerable in Alberta and keep our home. Thank you. Next, you have Jordan when you've time starts now. Hi there. My name's Jordan Win. I'm a second district resident. I stand firmly against the original item, and I thank Councilmember Richardson for introducing the substitute and I am in support of that, as well as the council members that are standing behind Richardson's motion in Long Beach. We need to stop pitting families against each other. There have been mom and pop examples that have been given out time and time again. What about this one situation? What about this one situation? It's disrespectful to suggest that one family's income is a deserved or God given right of another. This is not about transferring rents between residents. We need to make sure that people have the ability to pay for their housing, and that means camping rent and canceling mortgages for everybody. We have to stop pretending that COVID 19 is disappearing. It's not just still here. It is increasing. The economy isn't going to snap back on July 31st. All of a sudden, people aren't going to suddenly be reemployed. Once again, people are going to be on the hunt for jobs. Truth to suggest that we need to have some sort of uniform repayment plan is ludicrous, and it is truly out of touch and out of sight. People who have who have a consistent roof over their heads, who even if they weren't able to pay for their mortgage, they could sell their house. Do they have wealth? Renters don't have that luxury. They end up on the street. Two thirds of our homeless population this year are experiencing it for the first time. That point directly to housing and affordability in a severely rent burdened community. I ask you to receive and file the original item and don't bring it for your comment. Next, we have Joshua Christian. Leaving the remaining members of the council to the Joshua Christian eviction defense attorney with the Legal Aid Foundation in Long Beach. I want to thank all of you for speaking really clearly about what was a pretty misguided item on the agenda tonight. Councilwoman Pierce, you cannot it clearly out of the gate. Thank you very much and thanks for supporting the motion on the floor. I hope we can go home just with this arbitrary repayment plan policy put to bed entirely. I think that the motion that we're discussing is actually a perfect example of why setting up arbitrary levers to eviction is ineffective and inappropriate at the time. 12 months form a grand kids breathing room to households to get back on their feet, the different economic sectors to recover at different rates, and to local legislatures to be creative and come up with plans like the one that we'll hear about in a few weeks. Jim mentioned there are 120,000 people expected to be homeless during the next year because of this crisis, and that's with a 12 month rent deferment plan. So I think what was originally on the agenda tonight was going to make that a lot worse at a much faster rate. And I hope that the repayment program that we come back to consider is something that will be much more constructive and supportive for the Long Beach renters. So thank you very much. Thanks to city staff as well. Thank you. Next, we have Keith Kennedy. Your time starts now. Yes. My name is Keith Kennedy and president of the Smart Property Owners Alliance, also known as BOA. We support a pay back option that establishes that deferred rent obligations be paid back in one vehicle installments over a one year period of time starting August 1st of 2020. Having said that, I'd like to ask the mayor and city council members if they would be using the 5.3 million C, D, b g funds approved three weeks ago for this new program. We would support a matching payment plan. However, it should not be tied to income. Since the reason for the deferment was not based on income, I'd like to request that this come back to City Council for July 14th. Also, it's important to remember that housing providers are not in the business of evictions. It's expensive and disruptive. With that in mind, banks are not so kind and generous of many of our housing providers, of which some are elderly and may be suffering from ownership and security as concerns for meeting their contractual obligations without a structured payback period are mounting. With the likely extension of the federal unemployment benefits, along with employers opening up, it may become less of an issue. Thank you. Next, we have Mike Parkinson. Your time starts now. Mike Mitchinson. I'm sorry. Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Mike Murchison and I supported Councilmember Orphan's push for a rental assistance program. But there was one caveat to that had to do with an 80% income level for area median incomes. And we all know that doesn't apply to all tenants in Miami. So certainly all landlords are not going to benefit. I want you to keep that in mind with this rental assistance program. If you have the same type of program and you're using that 5.3, you're not going to be benefiting all tenants and all landlords of that 5.3 million. I do encourage you to follow up quickly with what I told you about using those monies prior to December. So 30 day response time seems appropriate. Finally, clarify on evictions. The Judicial Council for the State of California has already gone on record as saying there's going to be no unlawful detainers until the start of that process or 90 days, 90 days after the governor declares the eviction moratorium over. We're not talking about evictions right now. We're talking way, way down the road. I hope that you guys can find programs that don't have these restrictions that contends and landlords can benefit at the same time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, we have Norberto Lopez. Your time starts now. Hello, council and mayor, you know that people are tired of their showing up in the streets and they're against the street because they have no other option. They fight for their home now while they're in there or they're going to have to fight for it on the outside. With instability of the nature of the police are out and that people are tired of being told that they are going to have to pay back the rent and you try to dictate how they should pay back the rent. That's not the way to go. Right. And then the landlord rents talking about that. They're compassionate that we have you know, we have tended to be threatened with gun violence and that they're going to go get shot by their landlord. That's not compassion. And I get the apartment association emails and, you know, my parties are saying that Judicial Council this and that. But, you know, the apartment association fighting to also repeal that. What? If there are units back to get rid of all the lower income folks out of Long Beach. We already saw the first wave of gentrification hit the first district and folks are moving over to a nice district. That's why I appreciate the ones that are standing up for the people, putting people over profit, not profit over people. And, you know, all these private meetings that are happening like we. Need, right? I am not like, you know, people are standing up and they're going to continue to show up and they've got to take off the street. They will take off the street. And we've seen it. And, you know, you know, the police aren't going to help because the people are tired and they're going to continue fighting. Are you on my side? Thank you. Next, we have Tiffany Davey. Your time starts now. Hi. Good evening. Council Mayor and all citizens listening. I strongly oppose the original item. Support definitely was even fail as well as hoped to see an extension statewide. Given the fact that we are still in a global pandemic with no real I mean, even these July 31st dates seem quite arbitrary as we're about to segway into the next item when we're talking about systemic racism being a public health crisis. Considering the all of the numbers going back, I mean, before this crisis existed and now what it's really brought to light. I also support it in that same note towards the possible aggression. Of this moment. Similar to the ads that we saw during the No on Rent Control campaign that depicted 1937 almost word for word KKK ads that were endorsed by many small property owners and such. So not to revisit that as we're also seeing different types of other potential tools of future hate crimes. Again, we're in a. Pandemic, and. If we move forward, the next item would be acknowledging that we're also in a public health crisis long overdue to acknowledge. So with that, especially hearing the audio from the gun violence video past anti-harassment or. Thank you for your comment that concludes public comment for this item. Okay. Thank you for public comment and roll call. Vote, please. District one, district two. I District three. I used it for. I. District five. I District six. Five. District seven. II. District eight. Hi. District nine. Hi. Ocean carries. Thank you. Okay. We're going to go ahead and go through the next. So six or seven items should go rather quick. Kelly I know there's got to be some discussion on, I think on item 27 from from a couple of council members. So let me let me go ahead and go through the next few. I'd have to go rather quickly and we'll get to oh 27 item 17.

A bill for an ordinance amending Section 18-81, D.R.M.C. setting the salaries of elected officers for terms beginning July 20, 2015 (FINANCE & SERVICES) Sets the increase in the salaries of elected officials beginning in July 20, 2015 as allowed byCharter as the lesser of the cumulative increase in the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI or the cumulative increase in the mean salary of employees in the Career Service over the previous four years, or 10.3. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-15-15.

DenverCityCouncil_01262015_15-0023

Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill took 23 series to 2015 be published. It has been moved and seconded. I'm going to start with the comments and I'm calling this out for a vote. I'm going to make a motion to amend, but before I do that, I just want to make sure I give some background. So for those aren't familiar with this, bill is about to give you a little bit on that council. Bill 23 is in regards to setting the salaries for the elected officers for terms beginning July 20th of 2015. Those elected officers are the mayor, the auditor, president of City Council, council members, as well as our clerk and the quarter by charter that this body is responsible for doing that. The charter allows salary increase. That's to be of the lesser of two amounts, the cumulative increase in the Denver, Boulder, Greeley Consumer Price Index, or the cumulative increase in the mean salary of employees in the career service over the previous four years. Those respective numbers determined by the Office of Human Resources over the four years are 11.3 for the cumulative CPI and 10.3 for the city employees. So the elected office of the elected officials are limited to a salary increase over the next four years of no more than 10.3. The bill before us right now has the current salaries to be increased by 10.3%, effective July 20th of 2015. The amendment that I'm about to move forward and I will have to read all the numbers so you have to bear with me will be phases in the 10.3% increase allowed by the city charter for the next set of Denver elected officials who will take place for four year terms on July 20th, 2015 and to equal portions 5.165, effective July 20th, 2015, and 5.165, effective July 18th, 2016. So now I'm going to need to read those numbers just so that makes sure everyone is aware what those numbers are. So the annual salary beginning July 20th, 2015 to July 18th, 2016, will be for the following offices. The Mayor 163,227. The Auditor 141,168. The President of Denver City Council. 98,136. Members of the Denver City Council. 87,636 for the clerk and recorder. 141,168 and then effective July 18th, 2016 to July 15th, 2019, the salaries will be for the mayor 171,658, 150 100 for the auditor. 148,459. For the president of the Denver City Council 103,205 for the members of the Denver City Council. 92,162 and for the clerk and recorder. 148,459. And so that is my motion to amend in those following particulars. So just to recap briefly, we are taking the current bill in this form of a 10.3% increase effective immediately July 20th, 2015, and passing that out 5.165%, effective July 20th, 2015. And then the second 5.165%, effective July 18, 2016. So hopefully I did not confuse anybody. It is now time for comments. Councilwoman Fox on the motion to amend. Thank you, Mr. President. On the motion to amend my comments really are going to go to why it is inappropriate for us to have an increase at all. So I will be voting against your motion. Simply because I'd be voting against any proposal that would. That would raise the salary. Thank you, Councilman, but. I don't we don't need that now because he has a different. Councilwoman Lemon. I would like the amendment to be voted on, and then I'd like to make my comments on the motion. Not a problem. All right. So do we have any other any other comments on the motion to amend? Seeing the manner of Secretary Roll Call. Mr. President, I can each layman. LOPEZ All right. MONTEIRO No. Nevitt I. ORTEGA No. Rob No. Shepherd no. Susman, I. Brooks, I. Brown, no. Fats? No. Ortega. Rob. I thought I voted. Oh, I didn't push it. Thank you. No. Am Secretary. Please close the venue. Announce the results. Eight ice, five nays. Eight AIS five nays. The motion to. I need to read that correctly. The Motion Council Bill 23 has been amended. Got it. Councilman Lopez, will you please vote counter bill 23 on the floor to be ordered published as amended. Mr. President, I move that council bill 23 series of 2015 be placed upon will be published as amended. It has been moved and seconded. Now time for comments from members of council. Do we have any comments on 23 published as amended? Councilwoman Lehman. Thank you. I voted. I am going to vote for this motion because the four separate three reasons. The first one is that the members of council are the most important people who touch the most citizens of the city in Denver. They are from my 12 years in the Navy of experience as being one of them. The ones that people call to thank you for the good things that the city does. And to call to say we don't like this thing that the city does, or this is the problem I'm having because my sidewalk is broken and it needs to be fixed or whatever. But there are 13 of us and we have the ability to talk to every single one of the citizens of Denver and we represent them. My second reason is I called out Brendan Hammond from Finance to say, okay, so this motion, this motion, what percentage of the 2015 entire city budget and it is 1/100 of 1% of this proposed city budget for the kind of representation we offer the citizens of Denver. That isn't even that incredible, that that's how we have to pay for it. And the third and my third reason is because at this salary, anybody who wants to run for council is at least not hindered by the salary. And so it opens to feel free anybody who thinks they'd like to be part of this city council. So thank you. And I will be voting for it. Thank you, Councilwoman Lehman, Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. I will not be voting for this. The Charter requires the current council to set the salaries for the newly elected officials, but not to raise them. In fact, we could lower them and I personally would vote for that. If you go by supply and demand and free enterprise seems to run on supply and demand, salaries do not seem to deter the many candidates currently running. As of an hour ago, there were 50 to 52 people seeking office. Some candidates themselves have already urged us to hold the line and not vote for these. No legislative body and I consider us a legislative body should consider its work more valuable than teachers whose median salaries 56,000, or Denver's working families whose average household income is less than 63,000. Remember that the charter does not require the council job to be a full time job. And I've observed over the years that time spent doing a job does not necessarily correlate with the quality of the work. As for the other elected officials, none require a raise. The current mayor, while voting for the 2011 race when he served on council, said he wouldn't take the mayor's increase. So now taking his current salary. What she'd certainly be entitled to do would be a raise for him. There will be a new auditor, so a raise isn't necessary. In fact, should a council member be elected as the new auditor, that would ultimately be a $50,000 raise without raising any of the pay. When the salary of clerk and recorder was established, the salary was actually initially set at $39,000 above that of other county clerk and recorders of similar county size. It was a whopping salary that this council decided to give, and our clerk doesn't even have the responsibility of overseeing the licensure of motor vehicles the way many of the others do. Our work on behalf of the people should be about public service. The salaries are already generous. Let's keep them where they are. Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. Any other comments on 23 C? None, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Mr. President, I can eat. Lemon. Hi, Lopez. Hi, Monteiro. No. Nevitt. Hi. Ortega. Hi, Rob. No. Shepherd. No. Susman. Brooks. Brown. No. Fights? No. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please close the voting announced the results. Eight eyes five. Eight eyes five nays Council vote 23 is ordered published as amended. The final consideration will be on Monday, February 2nd. Madam Secretary, I believe that's all we had called out, correct? Yes. We are ready for the block votes. All of the bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilman Lopez, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in a block? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolutions number 19 and 21, 22 and 33, all series of 2015 be adopted.

A bill for an ordinance making supplemental appropriations from the General Contingency Fund to Departments and to the Business Incentive Fund and Technology Service Capital Fund; and authorizing a supplemental appropriation and the procurement of leased golf carts from the Golf Enterprise Fund. (FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves 2014 supplemental requests for the General Fund and Golf Enterprise Fund. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-4-14.

DenverCityCouncil_11242014_14-0961

Certainly in council members. Could you please put 961 on the floor for final consideration and do pass? Certainly, Mr. President, I put Bill Constable 961 ask to be placed on the floor for final consideration and do pass. Has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. This is the supplemental appropriation bill. I will be voting against it because of one measure within it and it is a whopper. It's $1.3 million of business incentive money we are transferring to that fund. I do not like that fund to begin with, but in this case they won't even name the business we're supposed to be subsidizing. And so this is a nonstarter for me. I'm voting no. Thank you, Councilman Watts. And there any other comments from members of council? Seen none. Madam Secretary, Roco. Fights no each layman. Lopez Monteiro Nevett i. Ortega, I. Rob Shepherd, I. Sussman Brookes. Hi. Mr. President. I. Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. 11 eyes one. Day. 11 eyes one day. 961 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. I believe that with all the bills that are called out so we are ready for the block votes. All other bills for introduction are ordered published.

A bill for an ordinance establishing an excise tax on electricity and natural gas for commercial and industrial customers to fund the office of climate action, sustainability, and resiliency, subject to the approval of the voters at a special municipal election to be conducted in coordination with the state coordinated election on November 5, 2019. A Bill for an ordinance establishing an excise tax on electricity and natural gas for commercial and industrial customers to fund the office of climate action, sustainability, and resiliency, subject to the approval of the voters at a special municipal election to be conducted in coordination with the state coordinated election on November 5, 2019. Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 8-13-19. This item was postponed to 6-1-20 at the City Council meeting of 8-26-19.

DenverCityCouncil_08192019_19-0803

12 Eyes, one nay. Council Bill 745 has been ordered published. Madam Secretary, if you please, with the next item on our screens and before we go, because I'm going to put an amendment, we'll put this one on the floor, too. Councilwoman, can we please put council for 803 on the floor? Yes, I move that council bill 19, dash 803 be ordered published. Right. It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Black, you'd call this out for questions before we have a couple of potential amendments here. Do you want to go ahead with your question first? Whatever you would like me to do. Questions first or you. Have questions on the bill? Or do you have questions on the amendments? Questions on the. Bill. Go ahead. I have some legal questions. So I don't know if someone from the city attorney's office is here who can answer them, but I'll just ask. A couple are related to Tabor. Hi. How are you? Good. How are you? Depending on what your first question is, it'll either be myself. Liza's active at the city attorney's office. My colleague. Rob McDermott. City Attorney's Office. Okay, thank you. So I have three questions related to TABOR. So TABOR requires a rational basis for applying a tax to one group and not the other. Can you explain if taxing one group, which is can commercial and industrial? Is in compliance with TABOR. And not taxing all customers. And at this time, I do apologize. I only got this a handful of hours ago offhand. No, I'm not able to answer that question for you. I can get back to you at a later time and send that response to you. Okay. And I can add there. So my understanding is that so long as there is a rational basis and yes, you can tax one specific type of group so you could tax commercial, you could choose not to tax residential. A concern with the bill as currently drafted, however, is that rational basis may not be within the bill as it currently exists. In particular, the purpose provision in this tax bill states that it's intended to to pay for the new office. It does not correlate why it's taxing a certain segment and not another segment. And so do you think that would be a problem if it were on the ballot? I think as it's currently drafted, it's certainly an issue. Again, you can tax a certain group and not another group. But in order to ensure that there's not a legal issue, I would recommend that that's clarified either in an amendment to the purpose statement or actually that's that's certainly what I would recommend. Okay. Well, I will look to the sponsors to addressing that. My other question regarding TABOR is so when more money is collected than as is anticipated, would the money have to be refunded back to the. I don't know that off the top of my head. You can certainly. Councilwoman Black, this is Troy Britton, Deputy Legislative counsel. Yes. If if the the number and the question is over, what if more is collected than the number and the question then yes, under TABOR, it has to be refunded. Back to your previous question. That's not really a TABOR requirement. That's more of an equal protection question. And as the attorney stated it, it's true that you can have different classes of tax classifications as long as there's a rational basis for it. You know, whether it's in the bill or not is debatable, but I think it is established in the record from the committee hearing on Tuesday. Okay. And then if the financial modeling is incorrect, would TABOR require that the bill go back to the voters? Incorrect. In which way? If if more is collected than the number in the question, then there needs to be a refund. If less is collected, then there is no TABOR violation. Okay. All right. And then. I actually have a long list of questions. I don't know how long I want to go. Okay, so so this isn't Taber related, but it is sort of state related. So utilities are regulated by the state. And so I'm wondering if it is allowed for Denver to to tax the utility. So the Public Utilities Commission does regulate rates for utilities, but not taxes. So the public the PUC, would not have any jurisdiction over different taxes on utilities. Okay. All right. I'll defer to Councilman Flynn for now and I have others. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. Press. I just actually wasn't going to comment at this point. But to follow up on Councilwoman Black, could you produce for us a list of various Denver taxes that are not uniformly applied before next week's hearing? Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Guzman. Flynn. Guzman Black. Do you? Well, I guess this is for the I guess it's for the attorneys. But do you see any sections of the tax bill that attempt to grant the city authority it does not have, such as examining the books and records of Xcel Energy? Councilwoman Black, if I may answer that one, this is Troy again. That language is in other parts of our tax code when other entities other than the city collect, collect and then send the tax to us. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman Ortega. I think your microphone's on there. I think I'd like to ask a question of someone here from Xcel, if you wouldn't mind, coming forward. And it's related to the collection and remittance of the tax that would be collected. I asked this question in committee and thought maybe you've had some time to take a look at this. So if you wouldn't mind addressing whether or not Xcel would charge a fee to the city for collecting and remitting the tax. Under this ordinance as it's been drafted. So Jerome Davis, regional vice president of Xcel Energy, and Holly Velasquez Horvat, director of community relations with Xcel Energy as it relates to the collection of the tax. Our position would be that we really, in terms of our business, try to avoid anything of what we term cost shifting. So the cost of administration of this as it relates to this is something that Denver and Denver itself wants. Our position would be that Denver itself would pay for in administrative costs related to this. Do you have any idea what that cost would be? So it'd be a cost passed on from you all to Denver for administering or doing the collection and the remittance of the funds? Correct. We we really don't know what that cost would be. For example, when you talk about exemptions and say you want to exempt all the nonprofits, we don't code our customer base like based on nonprofits. So someone would have to give us the list and we would have to manually each one of those, exempt them within the system, and we would have to do this on an annual basis. Someone would update us and then we'd have somebody that would go in and look at this, have to manually watch it because the system is not set up to do that. Okay. So other than doing that aspect of the work, what are some of the other procedural steps that you all would have to go through to analyze the data over the three year period? And in that kind of thing that's spelled out in the bill. We'd have to have a full understanding of what is meant by commercial and industrial customers. We classify them by rates, so transmission general, secondary general, primary general and commercial class. So we would need to understand from your perspective where you see that being fit based on with the way the bill is written. We need to have understanding of what resources it just says electric and gas. We don't have a clear understanding. Is that also mean our steam customers or are they exempt in this? There would be a number of questions. Gas, transport, are they? Our assumption is that they would be collecting it on their own, the third party gas transporters and remitting it to the city in some other form or process. We certainly aren't set up to accept that from another third party and then take it and then remit it back. Additionally, we don't understand on the rebate piece. Is the rebate coming directly from the city or is the rebate going directly to us to then remit as a credit on a customer's bill? We just don't have a lot of enough information to give you a clear assessment of the impacts. Mr. Davis, were you all involved in the committee that was working on shaping the bill as it was drafted that came before us? So I myself personally was not. But I'll let Holly talk a little bit about if any actions we had in that process. Thank you. Good evening, everybody. Holly Velasquez Horvath, director of Community Relations. From my initial response would be that we met early on in May with President Clark and a couple of his key stakeholders that were working on the ballot initiative that did not get enough signatures to be on. Other than that, we were not asked to participate in helping formulate this piece of policy. Okay. And then just one last question. Is it easier to convert steam heat? That is is fueled by gas. Or I'm just trying to understand how you how you convert steam heat to electrical. Well, right now the process would utilize a resource like natural gas. There may be other technologies out there that are available to use now or will be available to use in the future. We don't know them right now. We just would operate the system, sort of how it is set up right now. And I would add, I know that there was a comment about that. The commission has state authority as it relates to the company over rates. I would probably say if, for example, there all of a sudden were multiple cities that wanted this, say, ten or 20. My guess is that the commission would step in and say, Whoa, we need to look at this and understand the full impacts on the company in terms of administrating it. And I think they would exert authority on how that would work. I would also add, if I may, around steam conversion, if that's a you guys might all be aware in addition to the city of Denver. But we recently went through. A steam rate case with the Public Utilities Commission asking for a rate. Increase. Because of our system and the upgrades that we need to make. The Commission recently approved that case through the settlement process, where we are roughly looking at about a 30% rate increase for all steam customers. In Denver through. A phased approach over the next three. Years. That is now in place. Through that process, we did. Agree through. The settlement with the commission and also our customers that we would start a study over the next several years to figure out how we could potentially move off of steam on to electric. But we have just begun that process because we understand that potentially that could be significant costs onto customers. If we were. To go through that path. But we are. In that current initial phase of studying that. So other than the city and county and Denver, a number of our buildings are steam on, steam heat. What percentage of the downtown buildings would you say are heated through steam heat? We don't have the exact as it relates to the percentage, the number of customers far between about 115 and 149 have that exact number. That's the total number of Steam customers. Thank you. I have no further questions right now. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Kinney. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to share some information that I have been working to develop since the proposal came forward, and in particular with regard to the revenue estimate. The estimate put forward at committee is $35 million. I'm not clear if we have several amendments in front of us, so they may or may not be changing that estimate. I haven't quite absorbed that yet. But in terms of setting community expectations, I think that the expectation that I understood that was that there would be $35 million for for climate work. And so as I have gone through and examined the exemptions that were described by the sponsors during the committee hearing, in particular the exclusion of all governmental and all nonprofit entities with 100% rebates. In the case of the nonprofits, I did my best to clarify what information was used by the sponsors and then to go check that with some of the other sources. It's hard. As Xcel mentioned, they do not have a system that separates out nonprofits from other types of commercial properties. But I went to our assessments of the city. And so in the 2018 abstract of assessment, it has a list of all of the properties that are exempt from property tax. In particular, there are four categories religious entities, private schools and charitable entities. Those are exempt from property tax. They are, by definition, nonprofit. They are not the only nonprofits I will state. But I worked with the with the assessor to come up with an estimate of our commercial property. So see if you can follow me here in this revenue estimate. And I did check this with the sponsors. 82% of the revenue is being generated on the commercial side. Okay. So the vast majority of the funds come from the commercial side, not the industrial side. 39% of Denver's commercial property is nonprofit or government. 39%, which means that that portion of commercial is is almost cut in half just with the religious nonprofits. This does not include secular nonprofits that pay property tax. We have other nonprofits that don't fall under this religious or educational category. And so therefore they pay property tax, but they would be exempt under this ordinance. So for folks to understand where this estimate comes from, it's quite possible that those dollars will be collected. But over half or potentially half of the funding will go right back out the door. And rebates. This is not counting rebates to small business that are also written in the bill without really any parameters, as well as rebates to potentially high intensity energy industrial users. I understand the importance of trying to protect those who are vulnerable, but as I pointed out in committee, we have multibillion dollar nonprofit entities in this city who are major sources of energy usage and are capable probably of paying this tax along with the rest of our community. So for me, I just needed to put this on the record before folks vote so that we understand that the realistic amount of funding that this could produce is is somewhere more in the neighborhood of 10 to $17 million. So I just wanted that to be transparent. The 2018 abstract of assessment is available on the city's website, and for me, it's a it's an important reason why I hope we'll be continuing to work on an alternative set of immediate actions so that we can go back to the table to start over on any discussion about a climate tax for something that will generate a larger and more meaningful base of funding, as well as to correct some of the other errors, challenges and omissions that have been made in this rushed process. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Kennedy, Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. May I also ask questions of Excel, Mr. Davis, or your designate? I apologize to make you do seated pinball, but. Here we are. This hopefully will be quick and painless. So my first question is, other than President Clark in May. Did anyone ask you to be involved in the stakeholder process? No. Did you tell anyone that you would not participate in the process until there was a bill? There was bill text available. No, not that I remember. And then the last question is about Steam customers. I think I heard between 150 and 140 Steam customers. How many customers do you have? Total. 1.4 electric and 1.1. 4 million electric. 1.3 million gas. Great. Thank you, sir. And ma'am. And, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Hayes. Any other questions before I jump in here? All right. I'm not seeing any. Just a couple quick things. I will point everyone to Slide 13 in the deck from committee presentation. I'm happy to entertain an amendment if we feel that this is more appropriate in the bill. But as our esteemed attorney over here has stated, I don't believe it's necessary, but having to put together some more materials on the stated case on why some customers, not others. But Slide 13 is the one that I presented that shows that industrial and commercial customers pay a lot less to pollute than residential customers do. And so I'll just point to that slide in the conversation that was had in committee to officially get that back on the record as well. Also, you know, I do have an amendment that I'm about to go through that, you know, there was some talk about what can we do as an exemption and what can we do as a rebate. And concerns around the rebates, as we've heard from Councilwoman Cannick on the amounts of the rebates, but also on the logistics of administering a program where we're collecting tax and returning it. So, you know, again, this is different than if we were levying a new addition to our sales tax where we can very quickly pull the numbers based on what other people have exempted in the past and know exactly the number. If you do an exemption per TABOR, it's a little bit harder because we are blazing new, new a new path, new territory, which is exactly where I think we should be on this issue. We need to be we should have been doing that a couple of years ago, and now here we are. How exciting to blaze that path. That path is a little bit more complicated because we don't have that immediate data set ready for us. We were able to get down on, you know, customers, federal government, state government, municipal government, K through 12th grade educational institutions and are able to offer an amendment today that would provide an exemption so that money doesn't have to be collected and given back instead of a rebate. I'll also say that while I respect capsule mechanics thought process and where she's again trying to grab data, where there isn't data immediately ready, which is again why we're doing it as a rebate and not as an exemption. The numbers that we've run don't show that the reductions are anywhere near the numbers that she has. So, yes, there will be refunds and and rebates. And, you know, we don't know the exact number of that. If we knew that number, then we could put it in as an exemption. But again, we're forging new territory and we're trying to to create a pathway where we are generating money, you know, way more money than we're currently investing in in this in solving this huge problem that necessitates even more money than this, while at the same time being respectful to the concerns that this is something that is going to immediately destroy Denver. And so that balancing act between collecting the revenue that we need, doing it in a responsible way, creating pathways so that we're not creating unintended consequences and hardship, I think is, is, you know, we're getting attacked on both sides from that. But I believe that means we're probably striking just the right balance. I just want to point out that I believe the steam numbers you just gave her, a 30% increase phased over time. And no one is running in screaming. That saying that these businesses were facing a 30% increase in their utilities will be destroyed forever and will will have to rise from the ashes. What we're talking about here is a very small fraction of that. So with that, I am going to offer my First Amendment here, and it is I would like to move that council bill 19 0803 be amended in the following particulars. Number one on page two, strike lines 25 through 27 and substitute the following e exemptions. The following Electricity or natural gas customers are not subject to the taxes levied in accordance with Article nine one. The Federal Government, State Government, municipal government, or kindergarten through 12th grade educational institutions, and to a domestic customer whose meter serves a multi-family residential building or other residential common area. Two On page three, strike lines 19 334. Three on page four strikes straight lines one through 11 and substitute the following shall city and county of Denver tax has been be increased by 30,391,224 annually, commencing July 1st, 2020, and by whatever additional amounts are, is annually thereafter. By authorizing the city and county of Denver to levy a climate action, sustainability and resilience excise tax upon commercial and industrial customers consuming electricity and natural gas with a first year electricity rate of $0.0060 per kilowatt hour for both commercial and industrial customers. A first year natural gas rate of $0.030 per therm for commercial customers and a. First year rate of $0.015 per therm for industrial customers. The electricity portion of the tax expires when Xcel Energy Grid reaches 70% renewable energy. The natural gas portion of the tax does not expire and increases 10% annually. After January 1st, 2025. The excise taxes for the purpose of funding the Office of Climate Action, Sustainability and Resiliency show the full proceeds of the tax and any earnings therefore be therefrom be collected and spent without an additional limitation or condition under Article I , Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution or any other law. So that is the motion. Looks like it has been moved and seconded. The purpose of this amendment is again to move what we could get good data on from rebate to exemption to lessen the amount of time that will have to be spent administratively collecting money and giving it back where it was possible. And then also to clarify and provide a clear and concise ballot title. We had a request in councilmembers off from the clerk's office to try and tighten up our ballot language, to assist with, you know, everything that our clerk does. And so that was the second part of the reading was on the ballot title. So we have the amendment is now on the floor. And I said to people would like to buzz in on the amendment. Councilwoman Cannick. Thank you, Ms.. Thank you, Mr. President. Quick question for counsel. I had thought we might have had a conversation that when there was an exemption and a Taber question, it had to go in the ballot title. I see that it's in the ordinance, but I don't I'm I'm reading it and I don't see it in the title. Am I missing it? No. So I think what we may have been discussing is the number. This has a new number in it. So the new number includes the exempted out areas. Okay. So it's not a requirement that the governmental entities being exempt be named in the ballot question? That's correct. It's just the number has to reflect the exemption. Thank you. And then I will continue conversation on some of the estimates when we get to maybe discussion on the amended bill. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Come on. We can eat each. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr. President. I oppose the amendment. I have a serious question about the equal protection issue. And when we're considering an excise tax, the consumption tax, everyone who consumes it should be contributing to it. It matters. It doesn't matter to me highly that residential properties emit only. I think it was 12% with single family homes and 25% was multifamily or whatever it was. It matters to me that everybody contribute to it in Boulder. The average tax for for homeowners is about $21 a year. Everybody needs to be part of the solution to this problem. And when we start picking winners and losers on an excise tax, on a consumption tax, I think we're going down the wrong pathway and I don't support that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. All right. See no other question or comments on the amendment. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment. Black Eye. CdeBaca Eye. Flynn. No. Gillmor. Herndon Hinds. High Cashman. High Carnage. Ortega. I. Sandoval, I. Swear. I. Torres. I can eat. Mr. President. All right. Well, do. Did we get everybody? Yeah. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results to arise. One day. 12 hours, one day. Comfortable 803 has been amended. So we don't need the Second Amendment because that passed. So. The only amendment. Troy that was the only amendment that I need for that owners. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. So we have the bill as amended now on the floor. Councilwoman Kennedy, did you indicate that you wanted to discuss that before we vote on the bill as amended? Yes, I have a comment on the bill as amended. Thank you. As I mentioned or alluded to previously, I believe that a climate tax may be something that this city needs to seriously consider. I also believe that it's critical that the entire community be engaged in our climate change. I supported the energized Denver ordinance and actually helped to work with the department to shape it, which focused on buildings over 25,000 square feet. I also supported the revisions to the Green Roof Initiative and actually supported the original ballot measure as well. In my personal vote at home and then the fix that several colleagues did to try to make it more effective, including energy efficiency upgrades with credit, we have done two major components around the commercial sector and it is the largest source of greenhouse gas, which is why those policies were appropriate and its way that a tax on those sectors may be appropriate as well. Residential is 21% of the greenhouse gas emissions and we have passed precisely zero policies, incentives or approaches to help incentivize reduction of greenhouse gas usage in the residential sector, particularly below five stories. Buildings above five stories are subject to the Green Roof Initiative, but smaller apartment buildings and single family homes. Single family homes on par generally use more greenhouse gas, create more greenhouse gas emissions than multifamily for the same square footage. So I believe that the path to climate change involves all of us. And I also believe the sponsors have made a persuasive case about the need for powerful revenue. I, I am very confident in the numbers I ran. I checked with the staff numbers. And I just want to clarify. He admitted to only including buildings greater than 25,000 square feet because that's what he had access to. There was not a data source that was available with the nonprofits other than the assessor data. So trust me when I say that the estimates provided by the staff were not complete, and the sources show that they show that they only included, for example, under religious entities, those greater than 25,000 square feet. The exemptions are not narrow that way. So the numbers I have given you are real because they are based on the entire commercial sector, not just data sources that were used by the staff. And I. It's hard. Our staff did the best they could, but the research did not as we would have perhaps gotten in a longer process. I firmly believe I outlined in committee that I believe there is a path for us to continue to examine this source. I will probably be bringing forward amendments depending on how things go in the next week, to create a path for us to create a data based discussion about a climate tax, potentially with a deadline of reporting back to this Council May of 2020 for the purposes of considering and doing it on track to be able to consider it in November of 2020, I believe that means we have to involve everybody, including our friends. I have a lot of friends. I come from the nonprofit sector. I have a lot of friends who live in residential buildings. I believe that where you have a modest tax of 50, $60 a household, even some taxes in the hundred dollars range for moderate and other income households, that is not a make or break to a housing budget. We can create exemptions for those who have equity issues, but we need to have all sectors at the table and we need to be able to generate more than 10 to $17 million if we're going to do this right, if we need to make it worthwhile. So we need to go big. I believe that we can do that conversation while taking some immediate actions to better fund things that could be done immediately to reduce the climate impacts from the city's own impact. If you remember, we had a presentation at Safety. The city of Denver is responsible for 10% of the greenhouse gas emissions. If you combine the airport and the city and the climate, frankly, doesn't care where the reductions come from, if we can immediately make some reductions in our own building stock in the next 12 months while we work on a ballot measure, the climate wins. So I believe that path still exists. I'll be voting no on this referral tonight and I will, you know, save my comments on the on the ordinance related to the office for a moment. But I believe that saying no to this bill tonight is saying yes to a much longer term victory in terms of a bigger and more meaningful outcome, in particular, avoiding the potential for a veto, potentially avoiding the loss of a poorly crafted measure in the fall ballot, and therefore preserving our potential to win in the long run. Thank you. Thank you. Counsel. Mechanic Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to adopt and echo the remarks that Councilwoman Cohen each made. And and then also to reiterate that my no vote on this is also related to the equal protection issue of of an excise tax applying only to certain people who use this commodity that we plan to tax and would wish to reduce the use of, but not to others. And I do not believe that that would pass, at least my interpretation of what is equal protection and constitutional. And I look forward to the list of what other taxes that we levy broadly on only one certain consumer of a good and not on others. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Mr. Chair. When I we're going to talk about this again next week anyway, right? That is correct. So I shouldn't be too loquacious. I'll just repeat what I said in committee. I talked to the residents of District ten over and over. We made more than 40,000 voter contact attempts by far. If anyone was a single issue voter in District ten, by far the number one issue was climate change. And I said that I was going to take bold steps for climate change. I released an ad that said a mailer that said that I am in favor of climate change for poor those here who's sleeping. Denver City Council's first council dog is had a little surgical mask over his his snout and it was somewhat of a joke. But we do have the brown cloud coming back. We do have serious issues with our planet in Denver and beyond. And I committed to providing quick, bold steps about climate change. And so I'm a yes vote. Thank you, Councilman Hines. All right. See nobody else. I will. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to make a brief statement, and I won't repeat what I said in committee. But the most important thing is that we're solely focusing on commercial and industrial buildings. And when you look at the fact that the next category that contributes to the amount of greenhouse gas emissions is the transportation industry , we're not even looking at that. And I think for us to just hone in on one category and not be more broad in the work that we're doing and and looking at accelerating the the goals that the city has set in, looking at how we move that needle faster to reduce our overall carbon footprint, I think is is critical. And this bill only looks at one sector of our industry in terms of where the tax will come from. I think there's room for some middle ground here to be able to look at how we address this issue faster. But I don't believe this bill gets us there. A lot of our. Key stakeholders that will be directly impacted were not at the table. And I think that's important because we want to make sure that, for example, our city buildings are doing what we can to reduce the emissions from our city buildings. I want to make sure that our fleets that we have at the airport and with public works and with our police department, as we're buying new vehicles that we're looking at technology that reduces emissions in this city. We're looking at hydrogen as one of the technologies. As you know, the state has moved for us being a zero emission state, and we're going to see a whole slew of bills that will come up in this next legislative session. And I think that for us to just hone in on one sector and not that it's not important because we know in Denver it is the highest sector, but we're not including the other categories. And I think this bill kind of misses that Mark. I would love for us to have more of a conversation about how we get at funding the improvements that we want to see happen, bring our stakeholders to the table with both sides represented, and be able to, you know , have something that is is a little bit more thoughtful in terms of the the the depth of looking at how we get there. And so I'm not going to be voting for this tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Or take a council woman GILMORE If you don't mind, Councilman Owens, I'm going to go to Councilwoman Gunderson, Chairman, and. Thank you, President Clark. You know, I thought quite a bit about this over the weekend and with, as you can readily see, the immense push back to trying to do something that really is well-meaning and that we needed to do many, many years ago. And I just for the public who are watching tonight and who want to get up to speed up to speed where we're at in the Safe House committee. Last Wednesday on August 14th, the city a couple city agencies came in and did I believe it was 94, 92 slides around climate change. And so I would ask the public to look at that slide deck. And I'm going to call out a few slides because I think it's important for it to be on the record, but then also for the public to take a look at it. So Slide 15 has that at least 224 locations around the world set an all time heat record in 2018. Slide 16 talks about the average temperature temperature of Colorado rising two degrees over the last 30 years. Slide 17 heat wave days in Colorado are expected to jump from ten per year now to nearly 50 per year in 2050. Slide 19. People of color are exposed to more air pollution. Colorado is one of the states with the highest exposure. Slide 29 Central American Farmers Head To U.S. Fleeing Climate Change. The New York Times. Slide 40 Solar installer and wind turbine service technician are forecast to be the fastest growing job categories in the U.S.. You've got to scroll forward in the slide deck. But on slide 70 for our progress, the cities progress towards our first 80 by 50 goal of reducing building energy by 10% by 2020. We went up. We didn't make a difference. And in commercial we went up by 0.26%. We're aiming for in 2020 to reduce that by 10%. We're not even getting close. And lastly, slide 80, where it talks about HEA emission reductions and that the 80 by 50 goal is by 2050, 100% of heating emissions must be eliminated. Okay. 100% of heating emissions must be eliminated by 2050. And you might ask, where's the plan for that? Will the next slide? Slide 81 tells us right where we're at with that plan. It's called the Strategic Building Electrification Roadmap, and it's under development for 2020. I hope that this is serving as the clarion call that. We're up against. A monumental barrier. And yes, I want to get more money. But the Office of Sustainability, which created this system, a voluntary program for buildings and industries to benchmark their usage, have ignored residential. I haven't had focus groups in my neighborhood. I haven't heard from the Office of Sustainability on how my residents can get access to programs that would help them weatherize their home, would help them pay for solar panels on the top of their roof, maybe 50 or $60 a month for some residential works. But I know seniors and I know others in my district that are on fixed incomes that they go out without medicine, they cut their medicine in half so that they can save money. So 50 or $60 a month is massive for them. And so I just want the public to know where information is to get more information about what we are doing as a city. And I hope that this is the clarion call because, you know, we might have seven co-sponsors of this bill. We would need nine to have a majority where it won't get vetoed. If it gets vetoed, yes, we will have a long stakeholder process that will be filled with lobbyists and others who are representing industry and commercial. I'm sorry, but my residents don't have a lobbyist. They have a councilwoman who cares dearly about them. And I want the commitment. To have any sort of stakeholder process begin immediately and please do not have it in the city and county building. Please do not have it in the Webb building. Please have it in our neighborhoods where the folks that we are all supposed to be representing can get there and share their concerns and share what their barriers are on. They want to do good, too. And they would pay if they knew what they were getting. And they knew that they weren't going to have to fight like hell to get what they deserve. And that is exactly why we put equity language in this bill. It's so important. And if we miss that, then we're not walking our talk. Denver We're not. We're doing this on the backs of black and brown people. Not with them. Thank you, President Clark. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. I echo many of the sentiments just shared by my colleague, Councilwoman Gilmore, but I did want to also add and point to the hypocrisy in a lot of the statements you've heard here today. We heard from another colleague that we won't generate enough even if we're only generating between 10 to 17 million a year. That is the same colleague that was the lead on the linkage fee for housing, which only was intended to generate $15 million a year to address our top crisis in the city. We also heard about the equal protection clause from a colleague who I have frequently seen. Not put equal protection at the forefront of our decision making. The biggest generator of pollution is transportation. Yet many members who had that complaint have also voted to expand roads, and that incentivizes the use of the transportation causing our problems. So the difference here seems to be who's being taxed and the profit generating entities. It is what distinguishes the industrial and commercial from the residential. There's profit to be lost here, and it seems that that's all we want to protect. And so I urge my colleagues to see through the thinly veiled attempts to protect profit before the planet and our people. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. See nobody else in the queue. I'm going to give a quick second just to make sure, because I'm going to say a few words and then we're going to vote. Everybody good? Okay. I'm not going to go on at length today because I see I see people here today, including Cathy, who's tried to speak twice on this, a public comment and missed the deadline. And I know is in opposition of this. And I think she deserves, you know, a chance at the microphone. I see a lot of folks who have been in these conversations and in the trenches on this for a long time, who deserve a shot at speaking at our microphone. And that's not scheduled for tonight. So I'm not going to go real long here other than to say that I will echo a lot of what my co-sponsors have said, and they've said it better than I can say it. So I'm not going to say it again. And just one more statistic to pull out as I'm dropping my kids off. I'm no more elementary school kids have two middle schoolers. It was a big day for me. And as I'm dropping them off in a school that was not designed to function in the climate we have today , when it's going to break a record for the heat. This is not something that is happening down the road. This is something that's happening today. And this is not something that we can afford to wait to take action down the road. It is something where we have to take action today. And so I will beg and plead and urge my colleagues to vote yes on this, on first reading, if even if you intend to vote no on it, on second reading, so that we can get to second reading and allow everyone on both sides of this issue to have their moment at the microphone to share with us their thoughts. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Voted zero three. Black. No. CdeBaca. Yes. Flynn. No. Gilmore. Yes. Herndon. No. Hines. Yes. Cashman. Can each. No. Ortega. No. Sandoval. I swear, I. Torres. No. Mr. President. All right. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 756786 nails Constable zero three has been ordered published final consideration with a courtesy public hearing will be Monday, August 26th. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and cancel them, can you please put Councilor 805 on the floor?

A resolution by the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex officio as the Board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget and making appropriations for the Budget Year 2020 and approving a Mill Levy, and approving an Amended Work Plan and adopting an Amended Budget and making appropriations for the Budget Year 2019. Approves the 2020 Work Plan and Budget for the Gateway Village General Improvement District in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-22-19.

DenverCityCouncil_11182019_19-1105

12 hours. Council Resolution 11 zero four has been adopted. Council is now convened as the Board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District Council. Can you please vote Council Resolution 11 zero five on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council resolution 19, dash 1105 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Resolution 1105 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, board members. Once again, Michael Carrigan from the city's finance department. And before you tonight to get the staff report and request approval for the Gateway Village General Improvement District 2020 Annual workPlan and Budget and a 2019 Budget Amendment. The district is located northwest of I-70 in Chambers Road, I-70 and Chambers Road intersection. It consists of approximately 243 acres on the eastern border of Montebello. It is completely developed and primarily consists of residential property. Responsibilities of the district include maintaining landscaping and parks. City Council approved the formation of the Gateway Village General Improvement District by ordinance number 551 series 1994 and establish City Council as the ex-officio board of Directors of the District. The Creation Ordinance also created a district advisory board made up of property owners within the guide. The ordinance specified that such District Advisory Board should conduct and manage all affairs of the District as the authorized agent for the Board of Directors, including its financial and legal affairs pursuant to Resolution Number 32 Series 1995. Denver City Council authorized the District Advisory Board to create a work plan and budget for approval by the District Board of Tours by the Board of Directors Gateway Village. 2020 Budget proposes overall expenditures of $825,489 in transfers to the capital fund of $500,000, with total revenues of $696,758. The district plans to assess 20 mills on real property within the district during 2020. The district plans plans to continue to to complete its major infrastructure and fence improvement project. Additionally, the district plans to continue landscaping, irrigation maintenance, snow removal, storm drainage maintenance within the district. City staff has reviewed the 2020 budget and work plan and recommends it for approval. Thank you. Thank you. We have two individuals signed up to speak this evening on this item. First up is Jeffrey Erb. Good evening. I'm Jeffrey Erb, and I'm general counsel for the district, and I'm here to answer questions. Thank you very much. Next up, Jesse Pierce. Jesse Paris represented for Denver Homicide Loud Black Star Action Moment for self-defense, part of a commitment for social change, as well as the UAP and the Unity Party of Denver, Colorado. And I'll be your next mayor in 2023. My question was, how much of the budget is going toward this and when can we expect these improvements to be put in place like time frame? How long is it going to take? Because we have all these construction projects going on and people will like to know how long this is going to take. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of the board? Councilman Ortega. Jeffrey, if you wouldn't mind, coming up. So is the improvement district folded within? An existing metro district or is it independent of a metro district? Yes. So general improvement districts are independent of metropolitan districts. Okay. And I know they can tax themselves as well. So how many? So 20 mills are being added. Is that what I heard you say to Gore, correct? Yeah. The budget for next year anticipates a property tax of 20 mills on the properties within the district, which is actually a reduction from what it used to be prior to 2016 when the district paid off its debt. And what was that? And you're going to ask me that. I think it was 35 mills when we had bonds outstanding. Okay. I was just trying to look at the budget here in our. Report. Give me a second, because it looks like in the this budget is significantly higher, at least in what it's showing us than it was in previous years. If you have the whole budget in front of you, there's a summary page that shows 2018 and 2019 on it. Okay. In 2020. Yeah, I'm pulling up a different document than I was just looking at. But this is the full budget, so. So the reason for the reduction. In the in the mills. You said it was 35 and now it's 20. Yes, I believe that's. What is the reason for the reduction? The district has no more outstanding bonds, so it issued bonds back in the late nineties and those were paid off at the end of 2016. So it didn't need that extra revenue for any debt service. So now we just use our revenue for operations and we basically fund projects as we. Just to cover this budget. Mm hmm. Okay. That's all I have questions about. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman C.A. Other questions? The public hearing for Council Resolution 11 zero five is closed. Comments from members of the board. Right. Seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black Flint. I. Gillmor I. Herndon All right. Hines High. Catchment. Can. Each. I. Ortega, i. Sandoval, i. Sawyer, i. Torres, i. Mr. President. All right. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 12 hours. 12 hours. Council Resolution 11 zero five has been adopted. Council is now convened as the board of directors of the Rhino Denver General Improvement District. Councilwoman, can you please put Council Resolution 11 zero six on the floor?

Recommendation to request City Auditor to review the bid responses for the residential recycling collection services. The responses should be analyzed based on qualifications, cost, recycling revenue to the City, environmental benefits, compliance with the terms of the Request for Proposal (RFP), as well as any additional criteria the City Auditor deems appropriate; request City Auditor to report findings of the review directly to the City Council at the earliest possible date; and request that City staff provide the City Auditor with all documents, analysis, and emails related to procurement process for this RFP in an expedited manner.

LongBeachCC_03222016_16-0244

Motion carries. Thank you. Next item. Item 15 Communication from Councilwoman Price, Council Member, Super Councilwoman Mango and Council Member Richardson. Recommendation to request City Auditor to review the bid responses for the residential recycling collection services and report findings of the review directly to the City Council at the earliest possible date. I think this would be a receiving file, Charlie, at this point, so that's correct. Okay. Can I get a motion there? Receive and file. Move to receive? Okay. I think I think Councilor Richardson sends the wrong items on the screen. Is that right or were they switched, as it were? Correct. Right. Yeah. Okay. We're good. The receiving file and public comment and receive and filing. Not just on this, but any motion where your recommendation of your city auditor is to take a course of action. That action, that recommendations should be followed. Fact, if it were followed more often, we probably would not be in the financial condition we are in now. It matters not how long it takes, as long as red flags are up. You need to take the requisite time. To make the right decision. Otherwise, that red flag goes up and every time you follow that and duplicate ignoring the city auditor, the red flag goes up even higher and the stench gets even greater. Thank you. Thank you. Senior the public comment cast your vote. And Stephen finally. Motion carries. Next item, please.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2160 South Grant Street in Rosedale. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-TU-B (single-unit to two-unit), located at 2160 South Grant Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-11-20.

DenverCityCouncil_03232020_20-0130

The resolutions and proclamations have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Council will not take a recess this evening. Council members say to Barker, Will you please put council bills 130 and 131 on the floor. I move that council bills 130 and 131 be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Herndon, your motion to postpone. Yes, Mr. President. I move the count the bill series of 2020 01300131 with their public hearings be postponed to Monday, May 18th, 2020 and a block. Thank you. Councilmember has been moved and seconded comments by members of Council Councilmember Herndon. Are the president council and the applicant of these items have all agreed to move the hearings to May 18th. We just once again need a formal vote to do so. Thank you, councilmember. I'm Secretary Roll Call. Black Sea Tobacco. I. Flynn. II. Gilmore. Herndon, I Cashman. Hi Kimmich Torres. I Council President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting. Announce those results. 998 Council bills, 130 and 131 with their public hearings have been postponed to May 18th. On Monday, May 11th, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 228 Accepting the Future Places 2028 Plan Map in Blueprint Denver 2019 A Supplement to Comprehensive Plan 2040 to reflect the

Creates and establishes the Five Points Business Improvement District, appointing the initial members of the Board of Directors of the District, and approving the initial operating plan and preliminary 2016-17 budget therefor.

DenverCityCouncil_05312016_16-0341

All right. So the first one we have up is Council Bill 341. Councilman Clark, will you please put 341 on the floor for final passage? Thank you, Mr. President. I move the council bill 341 be placed on final consideration and do pass. The public hearing for council. Bill 341 is now open. We have a staff report. Good evening. It's been quite an evening. We'll try to keep this moving along in an expeditious manner. And what I got for you is a two part staff report where we will I will tell you a little bit about why we're here with the creation ordinance for the Five Points Business Improvement District, as well as a quick PowerPoint presentation showing the location and some of the other things that are going on with the proposed district. The city has been petitioned by a commercial property, by the commercial property owners to create the Five Points Business Improvement District. The main purpose of the Five Points Business Improvement District is to improve the economic vitality and overall commercial appeal of property within the district. The district will extend 11 blocks along both sides of Welton Avenue from 20th Street to Downing, including parcels adjacent to Welton on the southeast corner of 26th and Washington and parcels and the southeast side of California. Between 26 and 27, the district will encompass 219 properties. The district will provide programing and benefits to business and commercial properties located within the proposed boundaries that will include economic development, physical improvements, safety and advocacy. The site consists of approximately 42 acres and is located entirely within the city and county of Denver. The district will be a Title 31, Article 25, Part 12 Business Improvement District, and will be utilized to assist in the acquisition, design, funding and construction of certain public improvements authorized by the Business Improvement District Act, including, but not limited to street lights, decorative structures, statuary fountains, identification signs and bicycle paths. And in and adjacent to the site. The district will also be utilized to provide services within its service area, including, but not limited to a consulting with respect to planning and managing development activities within the service area of the district. B Promotion and or marketing of district activities. C Organization promotion, marketing and management of public events. The activities and support of business, recruitment, management and development and e security for businesses and public areas located within the district as. Determined by the board of directors of the district. The aforementioned services are collectively referred to as district services. The services, facilities and improvements to be provided by the district are not intended to duplicate or supplant the services, facilities and improvements provided by the city and county of Denver within the proposed district boundaries. The district is being created to provide enhanced and otherwise unavailable services and improvements within its boundaries as part of the creation process. Office of Economic Development provided a grant approved in 2015 for the petitioners to begin a feasibility study in late 2015 and met with the and met with surveyed and met and surveyed people in the five points neighborhood of the required of the 50% required total assessed property represented approximately 62.3 of the petitioners were in support and 50% of the. And then there's another statutory requirement that 50% of the acreage must also be in favor of this. And they attained 56.7 of the petitioners support for these two thresholds. The district initial budget is expected to be $162,000 to fund district ongoing administration and provision of district services. The initial revenue will consist of property tax revenue on commercial real property and a transfer of the remaining funds from the Wellston Corridor Pedestrian Mall Local Maintenance District . The district will impose a levy of ten mills and only commercial real property in the district boundaries. The district will not assess any mills on any personal property. Residential property is not subject to the revenue raising powers of the district unless the property owner changes its use to be commercial. The district shall exist in an initial term of ten years at the end of the initial term. The district will dissolve unless the district board determines the district has been successful. The board will then request the City Council to renew the district by resolution at the conclusion of that initial term. Also before you today was the dissolution ordinance for the Welton Corridor Pedestrian Mall. This is a local maintenance district that is currently on the mall or on the corridor and is being dissolved. If this bid is created and moves forward, in addition, it is submitted that there is an operating plan for the Five Points Business Improvement District that meets the requirements of the Business Improvement District Act and further meets applicable requirements of the Colorado Constitution and other laws. It is further submitted that the types of services and improvements to be provided by the proposed district are those services and improvements which best satisfy satisfy the purposes of Part 12 of Article 25 of Title 31 , Colorado Revised Statutes, as required by Section 31, 25, 1277, subsection five of the statutes. It is further submitted that the formation of the Five Points Business Improvement District has a demonstrated all public purpose and that it will support the implementation of neighborhood and economic development goals. The Office of Economic Development is supportive of the district creation. Approval of this operating plan does not approve any specific development plan or change in zoning. City Council approval of the bid creation allows for a proposed district election, including the imposition of an assessment to go forward to the November 2016 ballot. The Board shall consist of five electors of the district appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council resolution. The initial members of the board are proposed as follows Dr. Renee Cousins, King Paul Books, John Patricof, Nathan, Bill and Carl Bert Burgess. Supporters of the bid are present today and available to speak on behalf of the district. City staff recommends approval of this ordinance. Thank you. All right. We have Tracy Winchester is going to finish with this report. Thank you, Andrew. My name is Tracy Winchester. I'm the executive director of the Five Points Business District, and I live at 217 South Jackson Street, Denver, Colorado. Thank you, Mr. President, and all the city council members for having me here today. When I was in front of the Business Development Committee, I had 21 slides and did it in 5 minutes. Today I only have 15 slides, so I'll do it in 3 minutes. So I just wanted to let you know that what happened here and there we go. We go this way. What happened here on the Walton Street corridor did not happen organically. What happened in 2009 was the community got together and decided they wanted to revitalize the area and they selected overarching goals through studies that they did with their strategic planning group. They had professional urban planners come and help them develop a vision for the area. Their overarching goals were a business development, historic preservation, tourism, land use, parking, transportation and sustainability for an urban green corridor. So the road map, this is just a laundry list here of what we did step by step with regards to working with the Office of Economic Development and helping to fund our office and helping us to go after the grants that we received from the federal government as well as the state of Colorado with regards to coming together and figuring out what the vision is for the neighborhood. And the future of Denver is bright, is shining, is a shining star. We have over $300 million worth of construction and development that's going to be happening over the next 24 months. And you'll be seeing those developments because we became a tough district in 2012 by the approval of city council. And again today, you'll have a project that you'll see later on after my presentation. But this is just an example of what's going on with regards to development with the rezoning and as the crown jewel. Now in our proposed business development area, our business improvement area, we're looking at 219 parcels, of which only 88 are commercial, 42 commercial property owners, over 700,000 square feet of commercial property, 42 acres with an assessed total value of over $15 million. Ha ha. Here is the map between basically 20th and, well, ten to 30th in Downey with just a little bit of jutting out on the sides there on Washington Street, which includes our historic district. All these parcels begin at the north side of 20th Street, going northeast along Welton Street, terminating at Downing Street and 30th Avenue. The parcel located adjacent to Welton Street on the southeast corner at Washington Street and 26th Avenue, is included as part of the district. What do we do for community outreach? Well, we did quite a bit. We started in November with our consultants PUMA, the Progressive Urban Management Associates. And before we even had the consultants, we had a steering committee. We have five community meetings, 21 one on one meetings for property owners and businesses just to do a feasibility study to determine whether or not this is something that is that can be achieved on the Welton corridor. And then we also did surveys as well to be more detailed. We started November 17th with the property owners meeting. We sent out letters in December trying to set up individual meetings. We had our January newsletter, which went out to the community that had over 1300 people on our database. We also again had meetings with property owners throughout January and February, again to determine the feasibility of this. We were featured twice in Neighborhood Life February issue as well as in the May issue with regards to talking about our quest for developing a business improvement district. We met in front of Curtis Park Neighborhood Group. We met again in front of our community meeting groups as well as we had a petition campaign drive kick off on March. It was originally March 31st, but because of March Madness and a snowstorm, we had to change it to April 12th . And then, of course, newsletters some more. And then again, we had a positive result because on May six we were able to send in to the city and county clerk the record of petitions that represented 56.68% of the land and 62.3% of the total assessed value. We had been very successful. We more than met the threshold for achieving and creating a business improvement district. As Andrew mentioned in his staff report, the wall to Street Maintenance District as it exists today, which is assessed roughly about $55,000 in 2016, is only two blocks. And so once this is actually passed and once they are voted upon, once this is voted upon in November, this wall to maintenance district will dissolve and become part of the Business Improvement District. All dollars that are associated with the maintenance district will come over to the bid. But it will only be used for that two block area. Thus, our budget that we talked about, although we're only going to raise about $157,000 on an annual year with a ten mill levy, about $5,000, we figure it's going to come over transfer over from the Walton Maintenance District. Initially, we have ten years is our term. We decided that we didn't want people to feel locked in, that even though we had the ability to be infinite, we did not. We wanted to have the group who was in charge ten years from now be able to go back to the community, to the property artists and decide if this is the right way to go. As Angie talked about, our five board members, some of you may know the name Carl Bourgeois, the owner of the rezoning, and he is also on the board of directors. Again, the operating plan is all about enhanced maintenance, physical improvements, economic development, safety and security, marketing, promotion, and still advocating for the five points area today in 2016. And hopefully it will be still there in 2026. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Tracy. Thank, Andrew. I believe we have nine speakers. I'm going to call up the first five. You can make your way up to the front pew. We have Rick KRON, Tracy Winchester, Catherine wallace, the sheila sayer and medalist stigler. Apologies for any mispronunciation. So if I can go ahead and make your way up to the front pew and Rick, you can go ahead and begin your remarks. Evening. My name's Rick Crone. I'm an attorney at Spencer Fein here in Denver. I'm working with the organizers in favor of the proposal. I'm just here to answer questions. Nick, thank you. Thank you. Speaker Tracey Winchester. And that was just a mistake. I've already spent my time thinking. Next. Catherine Wallace. Yes. Good evening. My name is Catherine Wallace. I'm a business owner on the Walton corridor. I've been in business for over 50 years. I my property is inherited through my parents. I am opposed to the b i d simply because of the structure of the corridor. There are more vacant properties on that business corridor as well as parking lots. I do not see a vision of businesses coming in from 20 years to 23rd. Also, there is a block of city buildings which will not contribute to the b i d. I am curt. I have been involved with the Walton Maintenance District for at least 25 years and have been paying those property assessments as well. And a 10% levy in addition to my regular property tax is unacceptable to me and I cannot see any improvements coming in because when the infrastructure was done or the feasibility was done for the Walton Street maintenance, we really didn't have what it takes to in order to really put that Walton Street maintenance district in. And I believe it's going to be the same as now. We're having problems right now with lighting and with the watering system. And there are a host of other problems initiated through this Walton Street corridor. And I have been I have seen this go through process after process, neighborhood revitalization. That was in the late seventies. Then came the Welton Street pedestrian mall that's been in exist for 25 years, supposed to have new improvements, only got trash cans and now the bad. And then I don't know what the real cost is going to be in the long run. Thank you for your consideration and thank you for listening to me. Thank you, Miss Wallace La Sheila Sayer. Good evening. I'm Lucida Sayer. Say I'm a business owner adjacent to the Welton Street Corridor. I'm in support of replacing the existing Walton maintenance tax and expanding the coverage area to the proposed 11 block segment there on Welton Street. And I'm in support of the Business Improvement District five points. Thank you. Next, Mandela Ziggler. And as she's coming up, I'm gonna call the last four Maude. Maude Brown, Lofton, Myron Melnick, Will Austin and Paul Brooks. Yes, my name is Mandela Steiger. We've been in business for over 50 years. Franklin Steiger broke down in Barbershop and I suppose to be the due to the fact that some of the things that Katharine was saying. What I don't understand is why should the respondents, you know, they be getting the same service as the business. So there's more residents in the 3000 blocks of wealth and 30th and down and on 20th, there is property properties. There is. She was saying we kind of had the same thing written down, belong to the city. So I suppose I'm not. Thank you. Maude Brown Lofton. Good evening. My address is 47 Tamora Drive. Littleton, Colorado, and I stand. To speak in support of the business. District. I think it is a fantastic way. For business owners to be invested and engaged. In supporting the. Development of. The. Entire measured. Section of the Belt and Street Corridor. I think it will also aid. Residents who live there by generating money for improvements. By which they will benefit from. I think it's a great way for a very historic area of the city to be on par with other areas in. Other districts in the city, and. I stand in support of it. Thank you. Myron Melnick. Mr. President, can you remind the speakers to, I guess, either say their address or their affiliation? She did say their name. And if you're comfortable doing so, your home address. My name is Myron Melnick, 3001 Welton Street. Mr. President, council members, thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. I bought my building at 3001 Welton in 1996. It was three and a half walls and half a roof. And I spoke with economic development about the feasibility of getting this project off the ground. They told me to knock it down and build a metal building. I didn't listen to them. I wanted to preserve the 1895 building with the beautiful mural on the side. And I was able to do that. I installed sidewalks, gardens, sprinkler systems. I put a lot of money into that building. There have been I've seen five points. We've been waiting for the rationing for the last 20 years. We've been waiting we've we've heard all kinds of things about improvements to five points. The light rail at the time. They've closed the station across from my building. It just everything they've done. But now with the city booming, there's big large projects going in with hundreds of residents. On my particular block, the 3000 block, I am the only commercial building on that block. I don't want to be taxed to take care of the rest of the residents. I feel we all have to share in it if that's what we're going to do. I don't think this is a fair thing. I was not I was not given the petition or any information about this. I was not notified. I worked closely with the Five Points Business Association since I've been there. I donated chairs for their conference table years ago. I've donated art. I paid the money. I had a good relationship with them. When it comes to raising my taxes, they don't call me. I did not sign any petition. I knew nothing about it until about four weeks ago. So I am against this. I feel like there's too many rundown buildings. There's too much development that needs to be done. The free market will handle this. And when it's built up and we have a good a good business district, that'll be the time to add the improvements. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Manning will often. Mr. President, members of council. Good evening. My name is Will Alston. I reside in that great neighborhood of Park Hill and I am the previous executive director for the Five Points Business District, and I'm currently a board member. I came here tonight because I wanted to to remind folks that, you know, I had the privilege of shepherding the vision plan that this council approved. And in that vision plan, we talked about the need for an entity that would work, would play a lot of the role that the Five Points Business District is playing now. And in that role, I believe it is this business improvement district. We we brought in back then the folks at home to help us look at what all the different models on. Again, if you revisit that document, you'll see all the different options that that that we would have had. But we actually put that in there because we knew at some point we needed to create an entity that would be self-sustaining. And in my mind, and we believe that's the vibe, that's the, the, the business improvement district. And so I come here tonight to just ask you all for your support on this, because, again, it wasn't something that just came out of the blue. We thought carefully about it when we were developing the vision plan and we incorporated it in that document. And so we're here now to kind of realize what that vision was and that this business improvement district is. It's what. We believe. Is the next evolution of moving five points forward. Thank you. Thank you, Paul Brooks. Good evening, President and council members. Thank you very much. My name is Paul Books with Palisade Partners, which is a property owner and I'm also part of the Five Points Business District Board. I also had the privilege of being the chair of this committee to explore the business approved districts that we have and that we have in front of the council tonight. My story with the Five Points area begins in 2013, and I had no idea stepping into this this great neighborhood, how much work and effort had gone into getting the Five Points neighborhood to where it was in 2013. And a lot of the effort has to do with the effort that Wilson and Tracy Winchester had done up to that point. We had as well mentioned the neighborhood vision plan was in place. The urban renewal area had been approved for the area and plus it had been designated a cultural, historic district. These things and more created a platform with which the neighborhood was able to spring from. And then also on top of that with the Office of Economic Development providing the welcome challenge also as a spring spring board. I think that this business improvement district, if approved, will create the next base, the base of the future and create a viable and exciting commercial corridor. So I encourage a support tonight to help us with this next vital step. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brooks. That concludes our speakers. Now, time questions. Any questions from members of council and Councilman Brooks? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Tracy Winchester, can you come up real quick for a question, Tracy? Just a couple questions. You know, a little bit Rapidfire of, you know, why didn't we? There's a couple concerns come up. Why aren't residents involved? Why are we not taxing residents? We looked at a general improvement district and just love to get a short snippet of why we didn't go that direction. Definitely it was on the recommendation of our consultant Puma that said that although we wanted to have a general improvement district as well as a business improvement district, similar to what Rhino did with overlaying the two areas that because of the feasibility study, the results of that study with interviewing people and talking to residents, it didn't seem like this was something that was going to pass. It didn't seem like the residents were ready to have a guide. In addition to IBRD, they understood that a bid makes sense because it's going to bring traffic, foot traffic in and visibility for the businesses that are there now on the corridor and those businesses to come. But the idea just wasn't the right time, as well as the fact that we didn't have a specific infrastructure project that we could really tie in to. At the same time, that was on the advice of the city that said, you really need to have something in place from the city government saying that this is what is going to happen for your area, that the residents can rally around and see specific benefits happening for them. Great. And there was another concern saying that, you know, this business improvement district is not going to bring any improvement to Welton. Can you talk about a little about in the budget that you're building out for the bid, what are the improvements that you're looking at? You know, the specific improvements, whether it be marketing, whether it be snow removal or the be all those issues, lighting. Right. The top three services that we want to provide under the Business Improvement District is safety and security. We want to be able to have private patrol, which is something that other business districts surrounding us, such as Lower Downtown Denver Downtown Partnership, as well as 16th Street Mall as well as Colfax, are looking into having some private security to make sure that we supplement what the police are doing. Now, the other thing that we definitely see is maintenance. I mean, this is something that's a responsibility, as you know, of all businesses need to take care of the exterior of their businesses so we can collectively come together and create a nice uniform, look a beautification of the corridor that we can collectively do together. That again, is a benefit and it's cost efficiencies. The other most of the people who are in the Welton Maintenance District right now, they're assessed fees are going to go down as opposed to it going up. So it's really in their best interest to be able to have a bid because the economies of scale allow us to get more money for more, but more. What is it for you? But for my board, that's it. And then the third is marketing and promotion. Again, we want to talk about what we're doing on the corridor and we want to be able to bring businesses and more residents to come to the quarter. And we need to do that with a collective marketing and promotion, which we will be able to do. Okay, great. Thank you. Andrew. Real quick question for you. You know, couple of residents are fearful that if we approve this tonight, it's a done deal. But just talk about the process that they do get another bite at the apple. There is going to be election in November, things like that. Correct. So tonight what we're looking at is the creation ordinance and the ordinance in front of you today just simply creates the organization called the Business Improvement District. There's also other organizational aspects of the budget and whatnot, but they will this is a preliminary budget. They will also be bringing that budget back in the fall when they have a newer or a better handle on all the costs and what the local maintenance district moneys will be transferred. And then you are correct, the they won't have the ability to actually raise revenue through taxes until the November 2016 election, in which case there will be a vote of all the eligible electors in this commercial district that will have the opportunity to vote yes or no on whether or not to raise taxes up to ten mills. Great. Thank you. That same bank. Accounts and works. Councilman Espinosa. Tracy. So when you do these videos, you do them a lot like council and count votes, you know? And so that's probably what you mean by polling. Do you have a map that basically shows where the support is and isn't in the bid so that some somebody like myself can understand what where that support lies and doesn't ? You know, we did not do that. We didn't overlay the petitioners who signed and overlaid it on the map. We can do that. But I didn't have that prepared for today. Okay. But I can get that. But that and then the just so the public knows that that percentage comes from land area. Correct. Right. Has to be to formulas that has to be met. It has to be with the value of the land, which is that right now, 62%. And then also the actual mass of the land that it represents or acreage. So 56% of our property owners who represent 56% of the land, the acreage signed the petition and the value is represented by 62%. Okay. Then I have thank you. I have one question for actually both Katherine Wells and Paul Books, and it's the same question. So can I have you both come up? Katherine, did you say you had 50? This is not for both, actually. Did you say you were there in a business for 50 years? Yes, sir. My mom and dad bought that property in 1956 and created wireless beauty Nook, and we have been there most of the duration of that time. My dad did own a property on on Walnut, and he had a bar and restaurant there and we rented out the property. Then we came back in the late seventies and renovated, and we've been there ever since. So the question for both of you is my experience with With Five Points only goes back 30 years. But in that 30 years there's been I've seen program after program and investment after investment, not unlike what you were talking about. So I would like to know both. Why didn't what you're in your opinion, why didn't they work or why didn't they do whatever they set out to do? And what makes this different? So. Well, first of all, there's. Always been a nonprofit organization over the. Over at the projects. The board members that were put in place normally were not really property owners. They were you might have one property owner on the board and the other people representing that did not pay any taxes. But yet we're making all of the decisions. And as you know, the five point Business Association misrepresented our our our fund, and they didn't get anything done. So it's been a problem of the board people and the fact that the city has not encouraged the property owners themselves to come forth and work with them, but rather we always have a third party. And you know, when somebody else is spending your money is easy. Yes, that's real good. When our money is being spent and we're not having the representation, then I don't think that that's really good. And so didn't have they. Have you communicated that? And is there an attempt to address that? Maybe that's a question I'll ask Tracy to follow up on that. Did do you know. I've only communicated with Tracey one time in 2016. It was a one on one meeting and it was held on April the 20th, and that didn't go too well. And so therefore the communication was not very good. Okay. Thank you. Paul essentially the same thing. I don't know how long your history is with Denver, but I'm sure purchasing into that area. You're so familiar with how much investment we've done essentially since Welton. I mean, Wellington Webb was in office, so we made that an area priority through multiple projects and multiple investments and and microloans or whatever. So what makes this different? Like you said, my history only goes. We moved to Denver in 2006 and have really been involved in the Welton Corridor since 2013. But I guess I've had the exact opposite experience. I actually did do the do real estate program at the time. I actually volunteered under Will Austin when they were first starting the Five Points Business District Improvement District, and at the time they were spending a lot of time mapping out who all the property owners were so they could start getting all of them into the same room and actually start having the right conversations. And so I think I think that's where the success really stemmed from, is starting to do the neighborhood visioning plan and make sure that I mean, they have a board that they actually had all these neighbors that were part of it actually signed this visioning plan and really say that they're a part of it. So they they really got community buy in. And then my my other experience has been is the Welton Corridor in general through the landmark process and through some of these other processes is forced great interaction among the citizens and developers and what they want. And and it has started to result in, I think, some, some great outcomes and actually could be looked at as somewhat of a blueprint for for Denver as a whole. But so I so I guess my, the short of it is, is I think and I don't know if they didn't do this in the past, but they really did unify the neighborhood. They got people in the same room talking and having the hard discussions. And we set together over the vision plan. And then on top of that, they implemented, like I said, the urban renewal area, also the cultural historic district, and then have continued to implement that plan. And again, my experience with Tracy has been that she's you know, we we went through the list every time we sat down to try to make sure we met with every single person and try to reach out and contact as many of the people, if not all of them as possible. So, again, that that that's been my experience through this process. And I think I think they've done they deserve a lot of credit for for what's come throughout the last six or seven years. I'm going to paraphrase what I just heard so that so that I can make a point of it. Yeah, I believe I just heard a developer say that landmark and other processes which are regulation regulatory force to great outcomes and now you're up here telling us to tax you more. I just wanted to go on record with observing that. I've had a great experience with one corridor and the landmark process I think has made our buildings better. Yeah, and it's, it's also I feel like I have a great relationship with many of the residents through the multiple meetings that we've been through. So I'm going to go I maybe this is putting words in your mouth, but does it is it because both design review and the bid you give you as a developer more predictability about what is the future of that place? When I first came into it, it was the only cultural, historic district, and there was there was no guidelines. What that meant. How do you how do you do a design review for a cultural, historic district? And we're actually in the process right now of of the landmark is putting together specific guidelines for this neighborhood. And so I think that will provide more predictability. We were kind of the guinea pig through the process. And I think a lot of the design guidelines for Landmark have stemmed from the multiple meetings. And and then and then Landmark has taken their own process as well with multiple public meetings. But yes, I think in the long run it will provide predictability. But what I also think it does is and I think it's a good standard anyway, is it does it has encouraged interaction and people listening to each other. And and so I, I think, you know, density in general is, has been successful there because they're they felt heard and they they they like the outcomes of what ends up with the building. So. Okay. All right. Thank you. And actually, Tracy, I think that that makes it pretty clear to me. About just what do they have a low point of clarification on when Ms.. Wells was talking about the Business Fiveways Business Association mismanagement of funds? It wasn't this organization was a previous organization. So we have never had any mismanagement of funds. Yeah. And that's what, that's that clarity that I got, which is that in, in the we those other measures that we've been putting in historically were sort of in these vacuums. And that was a place that that probably needed stronger leadership than it had, you know, more orchestrated manner, a little discombobulated in how things got metered out over time. And so, yeah, with a regulating guideline of the cultural district and, and guidelines and standards coming forward and all this other stuff. I do think it all helps to know that when that when a commitment like this is made by the. The commercial property owners that there will be some expectation of performance from the bid. And I'm glad that you put a ten year cap on it. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Ortega. Thank you. Tracy, I have two questions for you. The first one is for both existing as well as new residential projects that have commercial. How how will they be handled? Is it only the commercial part of those buildings that will be included? Well, I actually had a map that I took out of this presentation that really showed there's about three different types of commercial properties that will be included. Mixed use will definitely be included. But we will only assess the part that is retail and commercial. So if it's a 60,000 square foot building and only 4000 or 5000 on the first floor is retail, that will only be assessed on that 4500 square foot of retail. Vacant lots are considered commercial, are in fills and then also totally all commercial and industrial is also considered commercial properties. So any of the tiff. Projects. Those are handled the same if they have commercial in the buildings. Yes. It should be included. I mean. I mean, that's the way I see it. Yeah, sure. Please. Councilwoman, one of the real keys here as far as business improvement districts and what's commercial and residential is that's a determination made by the county, by the assessor. So it's not done by the district. It's a city person that does that determination. They'll need to be in agreement with the district. We have not got that together yet. We did get a very similar agreement in Reno, though, and I would expect to have the same thing here as far as how that's going to work. Okay. So that's the main thing. So, yes, those mixed use business buildings, residential, according to the assessor, will be assessed at the residential rate. Will not be included in this assessment. Commercial would be. Okay, great. Thank you for the question. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. The questions 341 Scene nine public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. Two 2011, July 18th. If you would have told me and I think I said this, a business improvement district, if you said this is a business improvement district, it's late. I said, if you would have told me that in 2012, we'd have an urban renewal area and in 2013 we would start to get our first development. In 2016, we would have a business improvement district with over $300 million of redevelopment planned. I would have said, What street are you talking about? Are you talking about Brighton? Are you talking about Colfax? Are you talking about all the other streets in this city? It is. This is an incredible feat in the last five years to happen here. And a lot of the credit started with will Austin be in here? My main man who can sing, if he didn't know he can sing because everything starts with a vision and he brought the community together and got the vision behind it. A lot of people talk about, well, you just had a great economy. Yes, that was very helpful. But you need a vision and then you need people to right the ship to live out and dream out that vision. And so that's what we've had. And Tracy's been great at implementing that vision and it's been incredible. A lot of a lot of kudos goes to Puma for helping us walk through this process as well. And also Paul Bucks for, you know, being the chair of it, because a lot of folks don't understand that in five points in on wilderness, hand-to-hand combat, you know that what we heard tonight has been conversations that we have had over and over and over again. And your comments tonight don't fall on deaf ears. We really respect your comments and we want to continue to work with you. And, you know, if you don't see the growth that's happened on Walton, let's walk and talk about it and let's see the growth that you want to see on Walton. This is one of the things I'm most excited about in our district. The transformation that's happening in this district is incredible. I see OSD in the room splattered in the room here and Sylvia's been incredible. And Paul Washington. And I just want to say that the return on investment of what already has done has been incredible. And we're seeing it. And so I told I was telling one of my colleagues that the the unspoken word here in this whole conversation is gentrification. Are you all experiencing gentrification? And of course, we are. But the difference here, and I think you see it, is that there is a community of diverse leaders here. There is a majority of African-American ownership here on Walton. And you're going to hear a little bit tonight. There's over. Just about 280 affordable housing units on deck, and you won't be able to tell the difference on what's affordable and what's high end. And so we're really excited about that, where we're trying to bring that balance. And I think the Business Improvement District will keep us on par with what is happening in Reno, what is happening in LoDo, what is happening in ballpark, what is happening in Arapahoe Square. So, Mr. President, I am excited to support this and just thank you everyone for your hard work to get this done. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I will be supporting this. But I did want to speak to the opposition that these are these are always close votes. Just because it's a property rights obligation thing. And what I would suggest to you is that, you know, the boundaries, you go out and you start polling those neighbors. I mean, you start doing your your legwork because sorry, Tracy. Tracy is doing the same thing. And you go out and you try to get support for your your point of view, because I think that's leverage. I think you want to have this $155,000 a year bigger than our council budgets. Each one of these of us. And and because you have expectations, they haven't been met historically. So you want to be able to have your seat at the table. They're willing to have you at the table, but gives you some some leverage. If you go out and you start asking for people's votes in that area to help you leverage your position with with other owners. So I just that that's the legwork that you have to do between now and November. But I hope I don't think I think Tracy and Paul would probably be welcome, you guys, to the table. I hope so. Because the in the end, if it goes through, you're all going to be obligated and all have to be working together anyway. So do it from that point, which is we're just trying to make sure we have a strong representation and voice as a as a group. It sounds like everyone's open to that. Just make sure, because you guys have historical knowledge, Paul has new knowledge. And that's the future of of of Five Points is a blend of the two. So make make it happen. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Any other comments? 341. Scene on Madam Secretary. Roll call not black eye. Brooks Yes. Clark, i Espinosa. I Flynn. I Gilmore. I Cashman. Hi, can. I knew Ortega I. Sussman Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please, for the financial results. 12 hours of eyes, 341 some place on final consideration and does pass. Okay. The next one we have, I believe is 218. Councilman Clark, would you please put Council Bill 218 on the floor for a final passage?

A RESOLUTION reaffirming Seattle as a welcoming city, expressing the Seattle City Council’s solidarity with Seattle’s South Asian community regardless of religion and caste, and opposing India’s National Register of Citizens and Citizenship Amendment Act.

SeattleCityCouncil_02032020_Res 31926

Opposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it. Please read the report to City Council. Item number one. The Report of the City Council and Adam one Resolution 319 26 reaffirming Seattle as a welcoming city, expressing the Seattle City Council solidarity with the Seattle South Asian community, regardless of religion and caste and opposing India's National Register of Citizens and Citizenship Amendment Act. Wonderful, and this has been introduced by Councilmember Samant. Councilmember Swan, I'll ask you to do an intro to this and I understand there's an amendment. Councilmember Swan Thank you, President Mosquito And with your indulgence, I want to make several remarks and I appreciate in advance my colleagues were bearing up with that. And also I wanted to just add, as you said, President Mosquito, that Councilmember Lewis has an amended version of it, which I'm going to support. But before that, I want to make these comments. And also, if you would, let me make some closing remarks after others. Hoping that maybe we can have the majority of the comments at the end for the closing, if possible. Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. By approving this resolution, the Seattle City Council will show that the city's legislative body will stand with the widespread protest movement courageously facing brutal police oppression throughout India against a national register of Citizens, the NRC and the Citizenship Amendment Act, the CAA, which in tandem with each other, threatened to strip away the basic rights of hundreds of millions of people by approving. This resolution, the city council will go on the record opposing religious persecution and Islamophobia, the discrimination, scapegoating and oppression of Muslims, poor people and marginalized communities by the Hindu fundamentalist regime of the Bharatiya Janata Party, or the BJP and Prime Minister Narendra modi. By approving this resolution, the City Council must show that we understand that the fight against the right wing and bigoted agenda of the BJP and of Modi is not separate from, but in fact inextricably linked with the struggle of American progressives against the bigoted agenda of Trump and right wing Republicans. That we cannot fight Trump's Islamophobic agenda if we also do not oppose the rise of the far right globally. Only late last week, the Trump administration expanded the Islamophobic and racist Muslim travel ban to include six additional countries. By approving this resolution, the City Council urged the United States Congress to support legislation censuring the Indian BJP government for adopting policies that are discriminatory to Muslims, oppressed caste, women, indigenous and LGBTQ people. By approving this resolution, the City Council will draw historic line in the sand, recognizing the ominous similarities between the NRC and the CAA and the early Nuremberg laws enacted by the Third Reich in 1930s. Germany. Recognizing the credible news reports that the Modi regime has already put many people in the state of Assam in detention centers and at new detention centers. And prisons are being built as we speak. As a reminder to folks both in the room and to folks who are downstairs in the viewing audience. I know there's a lot of people who want to hear the details, so please continue with your hand motions. I am looking at your comments and folks downstairs that we can't see and please also respect the folks who want to hear the comments that are happening so that we can get through this. Customers want. Please continue. Thank you, president mosquito. Before the concentration camps and the death camps, the Nazis enacted the Nuremberg laws, including the Reich citizenship law, which redefined German citizenship to exclude Jewish people. The result was the isolation of Jewish communities, making them an increasingly easy target for scapegoating. The CIA and the Nazi have ominous echoes of these laws, as the board of directors of the Kadima Rican Reconstructionist Jewish community said in their statement supporting this resolution, quote, Within living memory policies closely parallel to these were among the first steps taken by the Nazi government of Germany in the 1930s and are now recognizable as the initial steps to the Holocaust. Policies such as these were central elements in centuries of systematic oppression of Jews, especially in Europe, unquote. On the other hand, if the City Council does not approve this resolution, it will send a chilling message that for elected officials like us taking a stand against dangerous policies that have outlines in them of past horrors only comes when it is convenient and when there is no political courage involved. I sincerely looking look forward to each one of us up here on the dais taking the morally correct action today by voting yes. It is ironic for the Modi regime that while they are attempting a deeply divisive tactic, it has ended up unifying Indians and Indian immigrants in a way that I haven't seen in my own lifetime. I want them nationwide. And yet please continue. Council members want and have emotions only. Please. I want to thank all the hundreds of Seattle's Indian immigrant community members who helped draft and push for this resolution. It has been a real movement from all parts of the Indian-American community Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs and atheists across all guests from India have come together to voice their opposition to these discriminatory and unjust laws. I specifically wanted to commend the courage and leadership of members of the Dalit community in the Seattle region, because I know how much courage it takes for people from oppressed caste to speak out even outside India. Given how given how entrenched the system is, even in Indian communities outside India, I thank Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal for using her position to speak out against the atrocities in Kashmir. And I know she will be speaking out on the CAA, NRC issue as well. I specifically thank Redmond Councilmember, very shaken for coming here and speaking up in favor of the resolution. I thank leaders like Anila Afzali and the Muslim Association of Puget Sound. Our maps, the and many other organizations who have signed statements strongly urging that the council pass this resolution, including Amnesty International, Kadima community, as I mentioned before, Appalachia, One America, the Seattle City of Seattle LGBTQ Commission, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Indian American Islamic Council, the Group of 42 civil and human rights lawyers of South Asian origin living in the United States, who sent us a letter of support, as did hear us sing, who sent us a letter from a group of Sikh organizations and also Imam Muhammad of the Seattle area, Al-Furqan Islamic Center. Our movement here in the Pacific Northwest also sends a message of solidarity to the young people, students and workers all over India who are fighting back with mass ongoing demonstrations on university campuses and strike actions since December. Special mention of the courage of students at Jamia millia Islamia and the peaceful occupation of Shaheen Bagh. On January eight, there were united protests and strikes across India against authoritarian laws and against the devastating economic policies of the Modi government. This was the largest general strike ever in global labor history, with Bloomberg newspaper reporting that 250 million people from banks and transport services in the cities to farmers in rural areas stopped work to participate in the strike, grinding the whole country to a halt. It is telling that virtually no one who spoke against the resolution had anything to say about the National Register of Citizens. Last year in the Indian state of Assam, the BJP government created an updated national register of citizens. NRC people were forced to prove with documentary evidence that they were Indian citizens, and if one had even a modicum of honesty, one would have to call the documentation requirements under the NRC. Absurd on the face of it, and only logical when you see that it seeks to fulfill the specific agenda of snatching away citizenship rights from large numbers of people. The NRC rules for documentation require that if you were born before 1971, like myself, if you have if you have to have your birth certificate. But if you were born after 1971, like myself, I mean, in other words, if you are younger than 48 years old, you must have pre 1971 documents with your parents or grandparents name on it and documents proving your relationship with your parents and grandparents. According to these rules. According to these rules, someone like myself, who was born after 1971, would actually be unable to provide the required documents. So what the Modi government found through the pilot project they did in the northeastern state of Assam is that it is impossible to carry out the NRC without also rendering large numbers of Hindus stateless unless the BJP found some way to target it directly on Muslim Indians. That is the reason for the Citizenship Amendment Act, the CAA, which gives citizenship without documents to people of some religions, including Hindus, but specifically not to Muslim people. So because I happen to have a Hindu name, even though I don't have the documents, even though I was born after 1971, I will still get my Indian citizenship under the NRC update, despite not having the documentation. The BJP government claims that the CAA is a humanitarian act aimed at supporting persecuted refugees, and the NRC is nothing to worry about, but the experience in Assam proves otherwise. Also, if the CAA were truly about refugees, why is the regime building detention camps? Why doesn't it allow refugees to come to India instead of retroactively applying to people who immigrated before 2014? If the CAA allows Indian citizenship for oppressed religious minorities in three neighboring countries, why does it pointedly overlook the oppression of the Shia Ahmadiyya muslim communities in those countries? If it was all about supporting refugees, why does it exclude persecuted minorities and other countries in the region, such as the Rohingya people who are predominantly Muslim, who are facing genocide in Myanmar and the Tamils of Sri Lanka who happened to be the largest refugee group inside India. Unlike Modi's BJP government, our movement, our movement truly supports the right of all refugees, regardless of their religions, and we do not support overt religious discrimination. I will close my comments for now and then you'd like to comment at the end. Thank you. Very much. Council Member Lewis. Okay. This is the first warning I'm going to give to warnings. I've already given a precursor. We are going to get through this. Please continue to use your hand gestures as you have so that we can get through this customer. Lewis, I understand that you have an amendment. Would you like to introduce amendment? Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I am seeking to introduce an amendment I believe is the only amendment on this afternoon to the resolution 31926. I believe that amendment has been circulated for council members to consider and review. It adds just one clause into section two of the resolved sections to change the language well, to rather add language. For us to be calling on Congress to take action in response to our resolution, rather than just sending what we're sending to the Indian government. The basis for that request is that I tend to think that when we engage in these resolutions that involve things outside of the jurisdiction of the city of Seattle, I think it's more in our wheelhouse when we are calling on our federal representatives who are charged with negotiations with other countries in international relations to take the formal action rather than us ourselves to be communicating with the Modi government. So I think that this amendment helps us to capture the same attitude as the underlying resolution, but just making sure that we are targeting it towards folks that are in a position to do something about it. I would add, and this might have actually been a good amendment for a whereas clause that Congresswoman Jayapal has been leading on similar issues and introduced resolutions in the House on this. So I think that actually this is a resolution that would be received probably well by Congresswoman Jayapal. So wonderful. That's the basis of the amendment. And I do. So move it. Okay. And then again, in advance of moving the amendment, let me go ahead and put this on our docket for for official consideration. I'd like to move to adopt resolution 31926. Is there a second? It's been moved. And second, that the resolution be adopted. Now, I'd love to entertain that motion for your amendment, if you could do that again for me. And I do. So move my amendment, Amendment one four on resolution 31926 to be considered. Great. Then it's been moved and seconded that that resolution be amended as presented in amendment number one. Are there any other comments on Amendment number one as outlined by Councilmember Lewis seeing? None. I'd love to have a vote on this. All those in favor of the amendment as outlined by Councilmember Lewis amendment number one vote I and raise your hand I any oppose none. Any abstentions? None. There are five eyes, as I see it up here, and that means the motion carries the resolution is adopted. I'd like to now see if there's any. I'm sorry. Not the resolution. The amendment was adopted. Thank you very much. For the parliamentarians in the room. The amendment has been adopted to the motion. So now we have in front of us the amended resolution. Amended resolution 31926. I'd like to entertain any further comments on the resolution as amended. I have a comment. Yes, thank you, Councilmember Morales. So last week, this body passed a resolution that offered a generic condemnation of all current and future oppression happening in the world. I opposed that resolution. Even though it did acknowledge that there was oppression happening in India and it was in reference to this resolution. As a Mexican-American woman, it's unacceptable to me not to speak out against the tragedy that is happening on our southern border against families who are desperate to find a better way of life. It is also unacceptable not to speak against the targeting on our northern border. Now, as we know that folks are being targeted for being Muslim as they come into this country. And I have to say that as a Jew, it was not lost on me that that resolution passed on the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. Hmm. It's important that we stand up for human dignity, for the right of people to find refuge from violence, regardless of their religion. India is a secular country, and I have to say that every comment I heard today, most of the comments I heard today had an undertone of religious intolerance. I think we need to speak up against that. A program that detains people because of their faith. Like our own shameful Muslim bans must be rejected. As elected leaders in our community, we have an obligation to speak up against oppression regardless of where it's happening. And I do want to read a quick paragraph from a letter that we got from One America this morning. Please go ahead. From the executive director, Rich Stoltz. It says, I understand that there has been some discussion as to whether non-binding resolutions condemning oppression in other parts of the world are worth the council's time to the communities that one America works with. These issues are extremely close to home. Resolutions like these provide a vital opportunity to demonstrate that their communities matter and that the world is taking notice of their plight. And for this resolution, there is an obvious parallel to the laws, to these laws and what the current U.S. federal government is attempting to achieve in its immigration policies. I think it's important that we ensure that our own constitution in this country protects people from discrimination, especially if they're seeking refuge. And as an elected leader, I think it is our obligation to speak up when we see tragedies happening across the globe. This resolution urges India, the largest democracy in the world, to uphold its secular constitution and reject discriminatory policies. And I intend to support it. Thank you, Councilmember Morales. Are there any other comments? Yes. Councilmember Lewis. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. So, you know, I was not prepared to vote on this resolution when it previously came before the council. You know, having done my own independent research, having accepted a considerable number of emails from folks who have been providing feedback on this from the community, you know, I am prepared today to vote in favor of this resolution as it has been amended. Well, you know, it sounds like I'm probably not going to get elected to the Lok Sabha. But I got to say that in looking into the issue more and looking at two and more in depth, a lot of organizations that I'm very favorably disposed to have reached similar conclusions on the CAA is what the resolution has adopted. The economist of which I follow the editorials can very closely too, has editorialized and opined against the CAA. You know, I did not run for Seattle City Council to pass resolutions regarding international matters. I do not intend, in my own practice here on the dais probably to propose resolutions like this. But the question hasn't been posed to me. The people of District seven did send me here to vote and offer a position when they do come before me. There is no other option for me than to support this resolution and call the CAA what it is. I will therefore be voting in favor of the resolution today. And I thank you, Councilmember Swan, for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councilmember Lewis. Any other additional comments? Are there any additional comments? Councilmember So Sawai, I believe you would like to close this out. I will also just go ahead and acknowledge that it has been important from my perspective as an elected official to make sure that we are raising issues that are of significance both here at home, nationally and internationally, and having both been elected for the last two years and also previous to that, being being an advocate for human rights and labor standards, working families. It is important when people take up resolutions, even if it is not within the confines of the borders of the municipality that's being considered. We have had cities, states, Congress take up resolutions condemning injustice. In many different levels. And I would welcome any country who wants to raise questions, condemn U.S. policies of incarcerating children, of separating families, of enacting wars, of aggression, a person pursuing oppression and occupation in countries around the world. I welcome that type of criticism when it is in our country, and I think that it is important to raise concerns when we see injustice in other countries or in other areas. Even here in Seattle, our words have an important impact across the globe and also locally. I do want to acknowledge many of the organizations that you mentioned and also say to folks who both testified today and who have expressed concern, we did receive your messages. And I know many of you been waiting for a long time to speak. We've also heard from a number of the organizations that councilmembers want mentioned, including individuals who were not able to speak who I know are downstairs. I want to say that I understand that you have been waiting a long time to speak for the folks in this room that didn't get to speak. And downstairs and I really do appreciate you coming forward. This is something that I think Councilmember Lewis referenced, that council, that congressional woman, Jayapal, has been very clear to outline her concerns. And I would encourage folks to look at The Washington Post opinion piece that was published on December 23rd, where she articulates the concerns around the CAA and the NRC. So I think that this is something that is not an individual pushing a certain resolution. This is a community effort that we have heard from. And also at the national level, we know that there are many people that have raised this issue. I will be in support of this resolution. I look forward to you closing us out and then we will move to a vote. Thank you, President Mosqueda, especially for recognizing that this is not something that's coming from an individual. But this has been a tremendous community effort and I also greatly appreciate the powerful comments from yourself and from Councilmembers Morales and Lewis, and I hope that this resolution's passage will provide inspiration for other legislative bodies like city councils and state legislatures to do the same as well. And I also wanted to add that such resolutions, as important as they are, will not be sufficient to defeat Modi and BJP and Trump agenda. You know, we are facing similar questions, as you all have echoed about how do we defeat Trump? And there are lots of similarities. Trump and Modi even held an odious joint rally last year in Texas called Howdy Modi. Both Modi and Trump won their election not because their xenophobia and Islamophobia majority support in either country, but because of the complete failure of the political establishment to address the needs of ordinary people, people who hate the BJP voting for them in the election last year. This is the third and final warning. This is the third and. Final one in a pro tem. I'm I would support you. Clean the chamber. Go ahead. Council member. Speak to the. Council members. What council members want please. Do you hate that hated the BJP actually ended up voting for them in the elections last year because they saw no alternative after all. Right. Do you want to continue after that. After decades of open corruption? All right. The chair has asked the meeting to come to order, and order has not been resolved. If you do not resolve this and come to order, the room will be cleared. I know folks want to hear this. The room will be cleared or individuals will be asked to leave. Is the security present. Okay, Councilman. Hey. Security guards. I will ask that the individuals who are yelling, please be removed from the room if they do. If they do, they are welcome to stay. They want. People who hate the BJP ended up voting for them in the elections last year because they saw no alternative. After decades of open corruption, privatizations and neoliberalism by the Indian National Congress Party. They continue. You can read. So you don't have to clear the room. I think they're leaving on their own. Excited about. Sir. You don't mind to calm. And that people are taking their own initiative to leave. Thank you for. How can you be like, sir? You make the Americans. Want you very much. Whereas you we. Understand that some folks have decided to leave. They are welcome to leave. Folks who are willing and interested in hearing the rest of the comments are welcome to stay those who are being disruptive. We appreciate them walking out on their own accord. But we need to continue with this. We have about three more minutes until we have to get to this last item. So if you want to wrap us up, that would be appreciated. Okay. I'm going to get on it in security. I mean, the vote. Okay, at this point. But at this point, we greatly appreciate those who have stayed in the audience and for the viewing audience. Some individuals have chosen to leave, so we are going to go ahead and ask security to let the folks who are still being disruptive get out of the room. Great counsel, colleagues, the sponsor of the resolution has asked that we go ahead and consider the resolution in front of us. At this point, I would like to ask if there are any further comments you're seeing none. All those in favor of. Leaving for once again. All of those and all of those in favor of adoption of the resolution as amended, please vote. I. I. Any abstentions. Our guys saw no abstentions and no opposition. There was five votes in favor. The motion carries the resolution as adopted and as amended is adopted and the chair will sign it. Okay. We still have some more items on our agenda. We are going to go to item three through seven items, three through seven. I know. I can skip it. Can I get it? Oh, I can't skip it. Okay, great. We have a few more items on our agenda. I'd like to quickly do item number two, because I understand there's been a change in the agenda that's been suggested. Before we do that report of the Sustainability and Renters Rights Committee, please read the report. Okay. I've got it. Let's do that. Because we have a hard time deadline for our council colleague who needs to leave it for. I would like to move that. We hold item two until after consideration of items three through seven and we will come back to item two at that time.

A bill for an ordinance establishing a new fund in the Community Development Special Revenue Fund for the “Affordable Housing Incentive Fee Fund”. Establishes the Affordable Housing Incentive Fee Special Revenue Fund to receive and account for revenues derived from incentive height fees targeted for production or preservation of rental housing, rental assistance programs, for-sale housing, homebuyer assistance programs, permanent supportive housing for homeless persons and for supportive services associated with such housing, programs supporting low-income at-risk individuals in danger of losing their existing homes, and for mitigation of the effects of gentrification and involuntary displacement of lower income households. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-26-18. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 1-2-18.

DenverCityCouncil_02122018_18-0014

All right, 11 eyes. One day, 17 passes. We will now look at Council Bill 14, count 14 and 19. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put 14 on the floor and place upon final consideration? Do pass. Do we want you both 14 and 19? We didn't we didn't put it on the floor yet. You can do. When it does, but we have to vote. On it. We moved them in a block. Yeah. Would you like to move, Madam Secretary? Okay. Moving a block? Yes. Okay. 1490. Thank you. All right. We postponed it. Sorry. I moved that council bill for bills 14 and 19. Be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block. All right. These are the special revenue funds for affordable housing, an incentive fee fund and establish a affordable housing incentive fee and special revenue fund to receive the amount of revenues derived. All right. It has been moved in. Second, it meant a secretary. Roll call. Black eye. Clerk. All right. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn, I. Herndon Katherine Kennedy. Lopez. No new Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President. I was voting and that's results. 11 I won. 11 I's council, 14 and 19 has passed. All right. We passed four bills and we still have another one. Now you see why this took over two years. So why don't you come up? Councilman Espinosa, please put 15 on the floor.

Recommendation to adopt resolution allowing for the initiation of a Consolidated Coastal Development Permit process pursuant to Section 30601.3 of the Public Resources Code (Coastal Act) in connection with the realignment of Shoreline Drive as part of the Shoemaker Bridge Replacement Project; and

LongBeachCC_06012021_21-0417

Okay. Well, we're going to hearing item number 11. Report from Development Services recommendation to adopt a resolution allowing for the initiation of a consolidated coastal development permit process in connection with the realignment of Shoreline Drive as part of the Shoemaker Bridge Replacement Project, and adopt a resolution granting city manager the authority to initiate permits districts two and three. Thank you. I'll turn this over to Stan. Thank you, Mayor, and members of the city council. This item for you tonight is essentially a housekeeping matter. Our planning bureau manager, Ms.. Patricia Defender here will provide you a brief presentation. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor, council members Patricia Devendorf, her bureau manager. The item before council involves actions associated with the Schumacher Bridge Replacement Project. The actions involve the adoption of two resolutions. The first a resolution to submit the portion of the project in the coastal zone to the California Coastal Commission for the processing of a consolidated coastal development permit. And the second resolution to change the process for initiation of consolidated coastal development permits by transferring that authority from from the city council to the city manager, which is a procedural change only. This site provides an overview of the project, the Shoemaker Bridge Replacement Project, and the air was prepared for this project. An alternative three design option A was selected was the selected alternative. As previously noted, the portion of the project, subject to the consolidated coastal development permit is the realignment of local streets, including Shoreline Drive, that are the first phase of the bridge replacement project. This slide shows the chronological history of the project. The A.P. or the notice of preparation for the project was issued in 2016. The environmental process was conducted and that environmental review process was completed in 2020. The following components of the project fall within the coastal zone, specifically these improvements for both within the city and the state jurisdictions of the coastal zone. They include shoreline drive improvements, which involve lane realignment, that shift both the north and southbound traffic medians and buffers to facilitate traffic calming sidewalks and bike lanes to improve circulation connectivity improvements to Golden Shore, which involve removal of the existing grade, separation over shoreline drive and construction of an accolade Signalized intersection as well as the addition of new class one shared use bike paths along golden shore. Improvements to Seaside Way involve lowering the grade to meet the modified golden shore roadway and new sidewalks and bike lanes and also conveyances from the existing stormwater pump to that will be must facility. This slide shows a map that demonstrates the location of the various improvements. The red area falls under the Coastal Commission jurisdiction and the coastal permits are solely issued by the state in this area. The yellow area is the appealable area. The city issues local coastal permits in this area, but they can be appealed to or by the Coastal Commission. And finally, the green area is the city's permit jurisdiction and the city issues local coastal permits in this area, but they are not appealable to the Coastal Commission. So these improvements across these various jurisdictions. The next steps for this application are to approve the requested resolutions and to submit the Shoemaker Bridge Replacement Project. The local improvements associated with that project to the California Coastal Commission to initiate the consolidated coastal development permit process. The actions also involve the resolution to for future consolidated development permits to be submitted to the Coastal Commission and reviewed by the City Manager. This concludes the staff's presentation. I'm also joined on the line by the Public Works Director and other public works staff who are available to answer questions on the project. Thank you. That concludes the staff presentation. I don't believe we had. I don't believe we have any additional comments from on for the year. Beyond staff, is that right? Correct. There's no public comment for this item. Okay. Let me go to Councilman Allen. Perfect. I thank you, Mayor. I'm super excited about this project. I think that it will significantly improve our infrastructure and. Connectivity. And walkability in the downtown area. So just want to thank Oscar and everyone in. Development services that worked on this project. Thank you. Can I get a motion and can I get a second, please? On them. On the motion. And I think staff may have said this was a silly one. Or sort of city city two in a city three, but I think City one and City two, just for the record. Yes. City one and City two. Okay. So there's a motion by Councilman Allen and I have a second by Councilmember Ringo as we ring any comments? No college degree for downtown Long Beach. Thank you. Okay. Great. And I just want to also just add, this is a fantastic project and getting the Shoemaker Bridge done is critical to the future of mobility and the broader downtown area in the western part of the city. And so it's a really, really important project. I'm glad that we're making a lot of progress. There's a we have a most significant role, calvert-lewin's. District one, district two. I District three. I district for. I. District five. I. District six. By. District seven. I. District eight. By. District nine. All right. Motion carries.

Rezones property located at 301 South Cherokee Street from I-B/UO-2 and C-MX-16/UO-2 to PUD/OU-2 in Council District 7. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at 301 South Cherokee Street from I-B/UO-2 and C-MX-16/UO-2 to PUD/OU-2 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 5-20-15.

DenverCityCouncil_06292015_15-0346

I need a second. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 346 is open. May we have a staff report? Tourism. Sara With Community Planning and development, just getting the PowerPoint loaded. So this application is located at 301 South Cherokee. The proposal is to rezone the property from IP you oh two and CMA 1602 to PWD you 002 property is located in southwest Denver in the Baker Neighborhood Council District seven, near the directly adjacent to the Alameda station and the Broadway market place two blocks west of Broadway, two blocks east of I-25 and the Platte River. The property is 19,000 square feet or nearly half an acre. There is an existing general manufacturing use on the property. Councilman Nevitt is requesting rezoning of this property to restore the land used to conformity and to allow the business to expand. So again, the proposal is to rezone from IP you oh two and connect 16 year old to two PUD. You are to the scenic 16 zone district is the base zone district. These days when we do parties, we base the beauty on an existing zone district. So the Cinemark 16 is that district. The beauty changes that we make would add the manufacturing fabrication and assembly land use to the allowed land uses in the Puti would alter some building form standards on Alameda Avenue, a build to and it would change the build to from zero to 15 to 0 220 to accommodate the existing building and allows some existing parking to continue there. So we already talked a little bit in the last application about the urban center context. It is that mixed use, slightly denser area where we are seeing multi-unit, commercial and in this case industrial land uses. In this case the mixture is sort of horizontal rather than vertical. We've got a couple of five storey buildings on either side of this property that are responding to the TOD. But we have also area plans that say we want to hold on to this use. So it is truly a diverse mixed use area. So again, the current zoning is Cmmc 16 0202 is an overlay that allows billboards. This is part of the Denver Design District General Development Plan. There is a view plane from Washington Park that would limit heights here to actually about 6 to 7 storeys. There are four existing 1 to 2 storey structures on the property surrounding zoning. See them x five and see well see them x 16 in the Broadway marketplace industrial to the west along the railroad tracks, the x five is a five story residential property I was talking about a little earlier. Just to the south. In the CMC, 16 is another five story residential property under construction directly adjacent to the to the transit center. The land use isn't industrial, it's an existing business. Again, we're adjacent to the Alameda station, we're adjacent to Broadway Market Place and to TOD Multifamily. These are the photos of the area. The top right is alameda avenue on the north side. The red arrow is the buildings themselves. The bottom on the right is the Kmart. Across the street, the light rail station bottom left. The middle left is the five story residential to the south of the property. The top left is the five story residential directly across Alameda. This was seen at planning board a public hearing on May 6th at NAP committee on May 20th. And of course, today, the all of these public hearings were duly, duly notified by electronic notification and for planning board. And this hearing signs posted on the property the RINO's notified were the baker, his neighborhood association, Santa Fe Drive Redevelopment Corporation in her neighborhood cooperation. Denver urban resident. The Association and Denver Neighborhood Association. There have been no letters or public comments on this proposed rezoning. So the criteria, consistency with adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, furthering the public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances. Consistency with neighborhood context. And then there are some pretty review criteria. The relevant plans are a comprehensive plan. 2000 Blueprint Denver, the Baker Neighborhood Plan, the Alameda Station Area Plan, and the Denver Design District General Development Plan. All of this is is summarized in your staff report. I don't want to get into specific standards or every single one of these plans says hold on to this industrial. We are with this party trying to do two things, which is why it ended up a party. We're trying to encourage tod development in this site that's directly adjacent to a TOD station, but also to hold on to existing employment and an existing business that are city policies in our plans tell us we want to hold on to. So that's what all of these plans are saying. Redevelop high density housing. But a hold on to that employment center. The station area plan calls for it to be employment. The GDP says existing industrial. We're holding on to that in this area of this sub area of the GDP. So staff believes this proposal is consistent with the adopted plans that by basing our Pudi on an existing zone district, we are not affecting the uniformity of district regulations as the majority of the standards will be c IMX 16 standards. And that by planning this rezoning, according to our adopted plans, we are furthering the public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances on this one is also changed conditions. We are trying to accommodate the change at the transit oriented development, but also hold on to an existing land use. So we do believe that the changed conditions has been met. We did talk a little earlier about the neighborhood context, the urban center neighborhood context that we believe this this area meets and the zone district purpose and intent. The main pretty criteria that staff looks at is unique and extraordinary circumstances. We believe that this is a unique circumstance where we are trying to accommodate the TOD as well as an existing industrial development. So we believe the PD criteria are met and with that, staff recommends approval. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Lucero. Madam Secretary, how many speakers do we have signed up this evening? None. We have no speakers. So let's go to questions from members of council. First up is Councilman Ortega, followed by Councilman Kennish. Thank you, Madam President. I'm just trying to understand. So this is an existing operating business that's been there for how long? Over 35 years. Okay. So as zoning got changed in 2010, it's been a consistently operating business. So has been they they're grandfathered in. But under the CMA zoning, it didn't factor in that they became non-conforming. And the business license to expand, they can't expand. That's exactly right. There should be some other way than having to go through a whole rezoning process. But I appreciate the fact that Councilman Nevitt is the applicant as opposed to making the owner be the applicant for this. So I appreciate that. I was just trying to understand what do they manufacture their pharmaceuticals? Okay. All right. Thank you. Clearly, this is not an incompatible industrial use with residential. So one of the things that I didn't say that I maybe should say is the definition of this general manufacturing land use is that it doesn't require toxic, hazardous or explosive materials or produce them. So it is an operation that has little noise, odor, vibration, glare, pollution and therefore minimal impact on surrounding properties. That's the definition of general manufacturing and the zoning code. Okay. Thank you, Theresa Hilton. In fact, I'm sorry, Councilman Kinney. There often. You know, we're on the mind of. Thank you, Madam President. Just one quick question. Why not? I am ex zoning. We started at IMX, but the IMX didn't really accommodate the Todd next door, so we sort of found ourselves. Just one observation. I don't think we got the IMX zoning right. We generally it hasn't benefit for almost any manufacturer. It's limited some of the types of manufacturing that I think truthfully are compatible. And so we may we need to look at that further because we continue to not use it for use. Is that it by name, industrial mixed use should be appropriate for us. So I think we need to work on that a little more. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Any other questions from members of council? See? None. The public hearing for counsel Bill 46 is closed. Comments by members of Council Health Benefit. Thank you, Madam President. As the Lord giveth so the Lord taketh away. You do have me to thank for the fact that we have a third public hearing tonight after the long public hearing. But you also have me to thank for the fact that there is not one single person here to testify. So I want to get some credit for that. Indeed, Councilwoman Ortega put her finger right on it. What we're doing here is really correcting an error of enthusiasm. Back in 2008, 2009, we did a station area plan and in conjunction with a general development plan there, there's a big landowner here that owns the vast bulk of Broadway marketplace. And we got very excited about the future of this site and wanting to, in the 2010 zoning code update, the new zoning code set the table for our station area plans. And so when we set the table for this area, we set it with CMCs 16. The only problem was that in the back and forth of the writing of the different C-Max districts, the s m district manufacturing isn't allowed. Use the e m x. The manufacturing isn't allowed. Use the U.S. manufacturing allowed used not in the CMCs. And so we inadvertently zoned to a non-conforming use this pharmaceutical manufacturer. That would all be okay if they didn't want to make some changes to their building. And so they find themselves in a in a, in a pinch that was not of their own making. And so we're correcting it here. We're still leaving the table set for the ambitions that we have for this site, but we're allowing this high quality manufacturing good employer to remain there and do what they need to do to. Be successful for as long as they can be there. So. Thanks very much. Thank you. Councilman Levitt, Councilman Brooks? Yeah. Just 2 seconds, Madam President. Just want to thank Councilman Nevitt for his problem solving ability in getting this done. And, you know, I want to say to this council who's been receiving a lot of criticism in the media and even tonight that none of you are lame and none of your ducks. I am very grateful to. Be serving with you. And thank you. For your incredible hard work on this council. Thank you. Oh, thank you. All right. Madam Secretary, roll call, please, on council. Bill three, 4 seconds. Councilwoman Shepard. Oh, I just said. Oh, I. Just saw you. I'm sorry. Thank you. WOMAN Brooks. Thank you so much. I know council president pro tem just said it, but I wanted to say to thank you. Oh, God. Are you back in the queue? Yeah, I just. I just want to ask one question of Kelly Valez, and that is whether this was the shortest rezoning in history. Pretty sure. Yeah. Man. Guy looks skeptical. It won't be if you keep talking. All right. Are we ready to vote? Yes. Okay. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 346. NEVITT Hi. Ortega. Hi, Rob Shepherd. I. Brooks Brown. I forgot. I can reach Lehman. Hi, Lopez. Hi. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 11 eyes. We have. 11 eyes. Council Bill 346 has passed. On Monday, July 27th, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 385, changing the zoning classification for 3540 East 31st Avenue. Any protests against Council Bill 385 must be filed with the council offices no later than Monday, July 20th. See no other business before this body? This meeting is adjourned. Denver eight. On TV and online. Stay connected to your community, your city, your source. You are watching Denver. Eight TV's Your City, your source. That concludes our speakers. Are there questions from. Members of council? Councilman Ortega. Thank you. Madam President, I would like to ask Colonel Dalton to come back to the microphone, please. Got a couple of questions for you. In my perusing of the document. I didn't see anything that deals with the. The whether there was discussion about. Continuing to do the general development plans the way they're being done now in in a wanted clarification on whether or not there's a size of a project that requires a general development plan. So can you can you speak to that? Sure. Yeah. So this text the moment does not propose any changes to the current general development plan rules. As I mentioned, the process.

Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use, and adopt resolution ordering the vacation of Solana Court and a portion of the east/west alley north of Anaheim Street. (District 1)

LongBeachCC_01062015_15-0006

The next hearing. Item number two is a report from Public Works Department with the recommendation received supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and find that the area to be vacated is not needed for present or prospective public use and adopt a resolution ordering the vacation of Salina Court and that portion of the east west alley north of Anaheim Street. This is in District one. Okay. Turn this over to the city manager. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The staff report. Will be done by our Malloy and director. Of Public Works. Under a mayor and city council members. This is the second time that you're seeing this item. Basically, on December 2nd, you adopted a resolution for vacating the set, Ali. Tonight's decision is to to vacate after the posting. This item has come to your attention on December 2nd, and also it was approved by a planning commission on December 19th. Okay. Thank you for that. I'm going to go ahead and now turn this over to if is any public comment on the hearing. Seeing Non Councilwoman Gonzales. Just want to say thank you to the public works department. This was, I think, the easiest vacation for an alley that we've ever done. So just thank you for that. Great. And then we have a motion and a second by Councilmember Richardson. All those in favor, please cast your vote. Motion carries a vote. Yes. Consent.

Recommendation to declare ordinance approving and adopting the official budget of the City of Long Beach for the Fiscal Year 2018-2019, 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, 2018, read and adopted as read. (Ordinance No. ORD-18-0023). (A-17)

LongBeachCC_09112018_18-0762

Motion carries. At 23, please. Report from Financial Management Recommendation to declare ordinance approving and adopting the official budget of the City of Long Beach for the fiscal year 2018 2019. 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 on October one, 2018. Read and adopt it as read. Any public comment on this? Please come forward. Are you going to address on file? If you recall last week at the suggestion of a generally pretty reliable consultant, I use Homer Simpson. I had to pass it along. The suggestion that we consider putting a framework on top of the Marina Vista. A tennis court, put solar panels there and even suggested a long boathouse lane there would be an opportunity for that. But then Homer got back to me and said he may have been a little over optimistic, although there's still an opportunity. And this is what he suggested we take a look at. What's the key to solar panels? Success is generating enough electricity to offset offset the use of that electricity. Around there. There are currently there's very little use of electricity around Marina Vista Park. However, however, Holmer suggested taking a look at who is paying for the streetlights along there. All right. Who is paying for the little bit of electricity used in the restroom? Who is paying the city for? Who's paying the electric bill? Fire station 14. And the thinking is that if you add those up there, it might be well justified to put in. The solar panel on the top of that framework of the tennis court. Again, somebody's got to be paying the bill at the fire station. Somebody has got to be paying whatever streetlights are there. So let's add somebody that's not me, but somebody that's really good at math. Put a pencil to the figures and see how it works out in a cell. Do what hopefully will be done with the third district counsel's office. Get a new roof and have a new. Roof paid for by the solar paneling of that. Thank you. Thank you. Next item, please. You're not excited. Apologize. All right. Hostile once again. Information on file. Wow. $3 billion budget and it's still not enough. I mean, how much money does the family actually need? Come on, guys. I have six parcel taxes on my house, Mr. Richardson. I don't need a seven. And I don't need an eighth possibly coming from L.A. County on this phony water runoff tax, 2.5 cents per square foot of hard surface. What a joke. And then there's another tax that wants to come down from Sacramento. Yeah, that's really funny. You're laughing. You know, you guys don't pay much attention. It's pretty rude, but that's the. That's your style. So no matter how much money we get, the city has so many more sources of income than most cities. And in the state of California, a port, an airport, their own water, gas. It's amazing. And it's still not enough money. And any time you need more money, you raise it. We pay the highest utility user tax on our utilities. Doesn't seem to bother anybody up here. Nothing bothers you from the state. We you know, you're going to support a gas tax that's putting a real burden on people of lower middle. I mean, extremely low or no income. I mean, people living in their cars that can barely make it or having to pay outrageous prices for gas. And you think that's funny? It's not. It's really tragic. You have these motorhomes that seem barely to run. You know, they're having to pay an exorbitant price for fuel, have a place to live. But, you know, you just keep passing everything that like I said, it's amazing how many times you guys vote no. I'd like to know a percentage. It's got to be less than 1% of the time. And most of this doesn't benefit residents. The city is run by and for public employees, not us. All you want us is to pay more taxes, and you seem to do that. And also, one thing I would like to you know, I'm very sorry about, you know, Captain role in his tragic passing. But I also think he should say some words for the other eight or nine or ten fire personnel and residents that perished in the fires in northern California. That was a tragedy also. So I think you should pay homage to all the people that passed away. They were all our heroes, too. So like I say, you know, I've been trying to do this for a lot of years. I'm tired of it. You know, I started out being at 50% on the ballot measures. If I was a baseball player, I'd be making millions. Now I'm hitting to 50. I guess I'm down the ballot almost being cut. Like I said, there's never enough money for the family. Thank you. Next speaker, please. I can't in good conscience recommend a vote approving this budget. I've seen the way you've spent the last year's budget. I've seen the amounts of money that go to pay for elections that we have to have conducted by the county. Because for some reason, the people in the city of Long Beach didn't vote enough or high enough percentage didn't vote. So now the county has to run these elections and we have to pay them to do it for us. We have to pay them to send out the mailers with the pros and the cons. When they get around to it. And a lot of residents didn't get them at all. We have to pay for the lawyers. To get engaged with the people who write the can arguments. They engage outside counsel so that the people writing these arguments. Are already behind the eight ball. They just can't even survive. They're looking at the possibility of having to pay your legal fees if they lose. So they always end up caving whether or not they're offered commissions or not. It's my understanding that the budget includes $250,000 for legal expenses for illegal aliens. I'm not going to debate the merits of that. What I'm going to ask for is $250,000 for the citizens to defend themselves against the city. That I think is more than fair. We are citizens. We're not illegal aliens. We do vote. Those of us who come down here do. The budget. I will not approve because of the already admitted $100,000 that will be spent on informational fliers that will be sent to, as Joe has brought to our attention. Only four or seven of the voters. The state of the animal shelter is appalling. You can groan. The animals are groaning. I'm groaning. I can't stand to listen to this. This is really unbelievable. One veterinarian is what the auditor recommends. One. How much could that cost? A quarter of a million. You know what? If you give me the legal fund, I'll give it back. They can have it for the animal shelter. You need to learn how to spend your money more wisely before you'll get any support from this citizen. Thank you. Next speaker. Hi, Karen. Race side resident of District one. Work in District. Two. I want to commend the City Council for the amazing job that they did on the budget preparation and the community meetings. I don't know where these other people were in, why they don't understand what the budget pays for. It pays for our city services. And all the city employees that I work with and the city council have been very conscientious and spent hours preparing this budget. It's the most fair and equitable budget I've seen from the city in a long time. I think we're moving in a very positive direction, and I want to commend you for the work you did. The only thing that I would like to see is that we start the process earlier so I could not stay and a lot of my friends could not stay till 2 to 3 in the morning. And Stacy, you shouldn't have had to either. We felt for you. So keep up the good work on the budget preparation. And the only thing I would suggest started earlier. And do something so that people can understand. What their taxes paid for. Because the roads, the sewer, the water. That's what our taxes paid for. And I think the city does a fine job of doing those services. Thank you very much. Thank you. No, no. I want to thank the previous speaker for raising an issue that the previous two speakers. Exactly why do citizens not trust your budgets? It's because one of the reasons is that the budget doesn't really tell you what services you're getting. It says instead what departments are going to get, how much money. It doesn't say anything about, in quantitative comparative terms, how the departments are performing. And the more information technology is out there, the less relevant information. Over the past few years, the city has provided to residents on the website to be able to see how much is each dollar getting. In the way of each kind of service. So you, the residents can't compare and you cannot even make reasonable tradeoffs as to should we have, for example, more people in public works doing tree work as versus street sweeping. So that is a real problem. The. Previous speaker. Praised your efforts to try to understand from this budget what's actually going on. But the problem is that we're not there. The budget does not tell you. Another reason, though, that people do not trust your spending relates to the unfortunate incident event that we are commemorating today. 911. If you recall what you actually saw on TV screens, it wasn't terrorists. It was planes. It was planes crashing into an iconic building. It was a display of. All. That was wrong with mid-20th century corporate vanity. The notion that you take clerical and information workers and stuffed them all together in a vulnerable, congested, high cost, high energy consuming central building. The lesson of 911 was that we were able to survive the loss of all those information workers because we had distributed networking, and that was already back in 2001. Things are much better than that now. Was this lesson applied for the housing of Long Beach City employees? Absolutely not. The thought was we just got to have another central tower, demolish this one and put up another one. When we learn the lessons of history and budget accordingly, people may have a little better confidence in your decisions. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. I mean, what public figures. I should thank you both, Mayor. I just wanted to thank the many, many, many, many members of the community who came out to community budget meetings, who also came down to City Hall for budget oversight committee meetings. I want to thank my two colleagues on budget oversight. I know we had a lot of tough decisions to make, and I really appreciate all the work that went into knowing and understanding what that 500 pages entailed and the details of it over weeks and weeks. And then for our students that are here today. We're always open to any feedback that you have. Our budget is completely online, as are our expenditures on an annual basis, and so they make for great class projects. I know back when I was a grad student in oh five. I used city budgets and if there's any other questions I can answer for you. I'm always happy to do so. So I urge my colleagues support of this important item to pass a. $3 billion budget with a B. Thank you very much. Would you please cast your vote?

Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to amend Contract No. 34164 with World Wide Construction, of San Pedro, CA, to increase the contract amount by $970,000, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $3,472,512 for additional necessary Fire Station Workforce Privacy improvements and repairs. (Districts 2,3,6)

LongBeachCC_03072017_17-0163

Councilman, your anger. Motion passes. 25. Communication from councilmembers Hooper nor Councilwoman Price Council member Urunga recommendation to adopt a minute order declaring a moratorium against. Oh, I'm sorry. Wrong item 25. Item 25 Recommend Report from Public Works Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute all documents necessary to amend contract with worldwide construction to increase the contract amount by 970,000 for additional necessary fire station. Workforce. Privacy Improvements and repairs. Districts two, three and six. Thank you. Yes. Can I get a second, please? Any public comment? Please cast your votes. Actually, Mr. Good, you. This absurdist comedy was prompted by the unfortunate death of a good resident of Long Beach who lost a. Long battle with cancer and her husband had was during that as was too many people in such situations had to deal with the disposal of drugs. What I'm going to suggest is you amend this contract to allow for a facility, an extra drop box, if you will, at every fire station. So when residents have drugs that they have to dispose of, they have a safe place to do it. And the majority of cases, what will happen is they're flushed down the toilet, thrown into the or throwing in with the trash. And eventually, a large percentage, even the health department recognizes, ends up in our waters. So it seems to me what we could do is put a slot in each local fire station with a secure. And so they go into the fire station and then once whenever necessary, the fire department would take them up to the disposal place, up at San Pedro, up into Signal Hill, which is now the only place that Long Beach has to dispose of those drugs. And I think it makes a lot of sense. One final note. Just I just happen to notice here on the air on RFI, when you were debating that, as you were debating as you were debating the blue line issue, two more shootings at 4:00 today, downtown area. Your police should be out on those and not on the blue line. Check the Long Beach report. The flash news posted at 4:00 around at the same time you were taking away police from the downtown area. Thank you. It's important to report correct information or not false information. These are 30 new FTE positions. New if you have two positions, it's called. Thank you very much. That's new positions, staff members. Thank you. I think I think I'm not you know, I don't think anyone's in the mood for alternative facts tonight. So moving on, we have a motion in a second. And is there motion? Great. Counselor Andrews. Yes. Thank you, man. I'm very excited to see that these renovations will go, you know, under way, because the fact that our our foreign service men and women deserve it. Do you have a safe, you know, functioning number of, you know, stations? And I think that since they've been taking care of us, it's our time to start taking care of the places in which they work. And I really want to be very excited about promoting this. I don't know. It was right for today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please cast your votes.

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

DenverCityCouncil_05162016_16-0262

Thank you. Mr. President, I move to amend Council Bill 16 to 62 and the following particulars on page two, line 25. And this refers to the hard copy as opposed to the paginated copy on page two, line 25. After the word premises, insert the following. In addition, the applicant shall attest on the application whether or not the property upon which the licensed premises is proposed to be located is subject to any private restrictive covenants or other private contractual restrictions on the use of the property. And if so, whether the use of the property for short term rentals will comply with any such covenants or restrictions. The director shall deny any application upon which the applicant has self-reported that a short term rental would violate covenants or other restrictions applicable to the property. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to impose any duty on the director to independently verify any representations by the applicant in regard to restrictive covenants or other private contractual restrictions on the use of the property, or to interpret or to enforce any such covenant or restriction. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. It's been moved and seconded. Comments you want to add in, Councilman Flynn? Just briefly. Sure. Thank you, Mr. President. As many of my colleagues and other members of the public know, I've been working on some alternate approach along the lines of what I explained about council to 61 of my concerns there about how we are commercializing residential neighborhoods. And I would point out that, yes, the council did pass citywide cottage foods into as a zoning text amendment, but we also require a zoning permit with informational notice for that permit as well. So I think it's very important that we not initiate or be the cause of private party disputes in covenant communities. Most of the members of this body and I won't go into the particulars of it, but they remember that I had one such incident instance in my district that was particularly troublesome, that involved in a way and a short term rental. And that is that is thankfully has been resolved. But I want to make sure that we don't issue licenses to conduct an activity that by private contract the licensee has agreed not to do there. Just one brief story up in Councilman Espinosa's district. A friend of mine is in a townhouse association, seven units up in North Denver, and they found that one of the unit owners apparently had moved but was renting the unit short term. And and it took them quite a while. It was quite an ordeal, too, to put a stop to it. But in the midst of it, my friend, there was a bus stop across the street and and there was a house across the street that everybody thought was a drug house. There were a couple of drug dealers who lived there. And when she went out to wait for the bus one day, one of the drug dealers came out to her and said, Do you feel safe over there? We noticed there's a lot of coming and going and a lot of strange people going in and out of the out of your condo association. Do you feel safe? So I think when drug dealers start worrying about your safety, it's time that we take pause and examine where we're doing this and where are we allowed and what are the rules. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Council members knew. And Espinosa, you're in the Q. I just want to make sure you want to comment on the motion or did you have a comment on the larger bill? Larger bill. Okay. We'll come we'll come back to as amended then councilman another on the motion or to the larger bill. Larger bill. Okay. We'll we're walking down then, Councilwoman Sussman on the motion to amend. On the motion to amend, go read it. Okay. I'd like to ask a couple of folks to come up and address this particular amendment. Let me start with excise and license. Will it be sisolak? Sir, Nathan Batchelder would like to address how you are addressing the HRA information. Good evening, council president, members of Council Nathan Batchelder here with access licenses. I think we share the same concern with Councilman Flynn and the fact that we are actually providing a proactive approach to educating and notifying our short term rental applicants that they need to actually check with their HRA and and look through those rules of those covenants to make sure it's an operation that's all allowed. The way we're planning to do that is through our short term rental starter kit. Our starter kit will essentially be a separate web portal that gives the applicant a checklist of sorts that they will check through. And one of those checklists will actually direct the applicant to check with your HRA, make sure that your rules and your covenants allow this before you even start applying. So I think we also value and respect the covenants and the rules that are agreed to by archways. We actually have a much more proactive approach with our framework to make sure people are in compliance with their homeowners associations in the first place. Secondly, I think the department would have concerns any time that it's put in the situation of interpreting private contractual homeowners association language. So our current framework gives us both abilities. We'll be able to have that proactive approach of making sure that the applicant goes through our checklist and make sure that they check with their homeowner's association before they apply. And it also distances the city and the department from interpreting private contracts and HRA language of hundreds of highways in the city. But we absolutely do value and respect all the ways in the county that the city can offer. And we feel it's a partnership as well as a proactive educational campaign with all of our applicants. Thank you very much. Noted Miss Locks, did you also want to address this? Okay. The second question I have, is there concern that if we put ourselves in the place of making sure somebody is informed their H0? A I'm wondering what legal consequences that might have. Archways have lots of rules. They have rules sometimes about design, house design, sidewalks, fences, what you can build and what you can't. And in no other instance do. We asked people applying for those permits whether they have talked with their house or not. This would be the only time that this request would be made. I think that it may have implications for that are distinctions between the public sector and the private sector. I wonder if Mr. Broadwell would address that for us and what what sorts of things that this might mean. David Broadwell, assistant city attorney. Well, first of all, in answer to your question, I'll call your attention to the last sentence and the amendment. And that is an attempt on my part to recommend to the councilman that we we stay away from those kind of problems by disclaiming that the director of excise and License is placed in a position of having to interpret the covenant. And this is essentially a self-reporting thing by the applicant, but doesn't get us in the business of adjudicating whether or not the permit will violate the covenants or not. One of the things that that of most local government attorneys like myself kind of learned early on, Councilwoman, as you indicated , is that private restrictive covenants kind of exist in a parallel universe out there. And there's a tremendous amount of conflict that happens between highway boards and individual homeowners in terms of interpreting and enforcing covenants that don't involve the municipality at all. And as you indicated, there are innumerable ways where cities regulatory laws may grant a permit or grant a license. But anyone receiving a perimeter license has a completely independent duty to deal with a homeowner's association if they're in one, and the deal with whatever civil liabilities they might have. So in this case, this would be unique, as far as I know, in terms of any of our regulatory laws, where a formal part of the application process would be a check off by the applicant in regard to the fact that they've vetted their covenants, if any, and are willing to attest to whether or not what they're applying for complies. But we've attempted to mitigate any sense that the director is going to be judge, jury and executioner in terms of deciding whether the covenants actually do apply to short term rentals, that we're not placing ourself in that position. So simply, it's essentially a reporting requirement by the applicant themselves. The only way that this amendment would force the director to do anything is if they've actually affirmatively self-reported. I checked, and it does appear to violate the covenants in that case, if they have attested and actually dare to say that on the face of their application, then then she's directed by this language to deny the license. But it is admittedly an unusual thing. It's not something we've done in our other regulatory laws. And believe me, from the little bit I do know about a litigation over covenants, there's a lot of subjectivity that is involved in whether or not a particular use does or doesn't involve or does, doesn't it doesn't implicate the covenants. Just in the last couple of hours, I found a recent court of appeals decision in Colorado that in fact involved a question about whether or not short term rentals violated covenants in a community down by Telluride. And in that case, the homeowner one was sued by the homeowners association, but the court ultimately sided with the homeowner's ability to use the property for for short term rental in that case. But it turned on the very specific wording of the covenants that were in play in that case. So lo and behold, this is actually a live issue that is being litigated out there between private houses and the people who live in those communities. Thank you very much. This is that's probably my major concern about putting the HRA notification here. My first one is that we're doing some proactive stuff to make sure that the people who are applying for this kind of license will know what they need to do. And they need to check with their HRA and they need to check with their landlord. And we have that sort of education process that we're going to be doing between July and December. But secondly, if we. Start with this particular ordinance that you must inform your house. Whether or not we get involved. I think we raised the expectations of the community that the city will get involved in your litigation between you and your. And that opens up a great big morass that would worry me very much. So I encourage my fellow council persons not to pass this amendment. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Espinosa, you now say you do have a question about the motion. Yeah, just in Nathan's response, actually. Go ahead. So. Well, I agree that it would generally be a morass. So you won't see me supporting this for for a whole host of reasons. It does it does mean that that situation exists. And if if David's over here talking about the confusion and that's already in live, as he said, you know, to expect homeowners to know and to figure that out themselves what degree their A rules and covenants do or do not allow this. It's easier just to check that box and move on. And and that's obviously happening because there are two ways that do prevent this, that these do exist. And so tell me, if somebody goes through the process, checks the box, what is the and it is I don't know how we find out that there's something wrong. But then he gets into the that person gets into the situation where they have done this against their H-2A rules. What what is the what is the penalty phase for that? Right. So with that particular instance, with a short term rental unit that is not in compliance with their H-2A, their H-2A will be able to issue whatever penalties and fines within their own private covenants for that particular unit. But I can tell you, I think it's more of a partnership right now between excise and licenses and the rest of the city's owners. We've spoken to several property managers and H-2A representatives who can actually partner with us of enforcement of our ordinance. For example, if there are some eateries or property management companies that know of a situation where a unit is not their primary residence, they might not be meeting safety features or they might be violent. Any other conditions of the city ordinance? We can actually partner with those organizations and those folks to make sure our enforcement tools are working just as well. So we'll always have the capacity to where you have sort of a blacklist or something like that where you can then submit the addresses for their units that are then no longer applicable, meaning they're not allowed to get license, or. If it's a complaint of a short term rental that's violating any condition of the ordinance. So not now. They first have to do it illegally and get to the point where then there's repercussions. If there. That you can't proactively as in HUAC are addresses are off limits. If that's taken care of within the private covenants and the enforcement of the specific nature ways. Right. So there's that conversation and what actually happens within their own rules and in their own covenants and how they enforce those own covenants. But what we can do in addition is to partner with each of ways. If there is complaints about people operating a short term rental unit, that might not be a primary residence, that might not be displaying an ad online, or they might be violating the conditions of the but. If we're going to register all these licenses, why wouldn't we be able to also populate that registry with licenses mean addresses that are not licensable by voluntarily by organizations, that. There's nothing in our ordinance precludes such a contract language, if that makes sense. Okay. Now, so back to where I really was going. So then, okay, so they voluntarily do this. They get to that point where it is recognized through your processes that it was not the way cut them off and says you can do this. At what point does it become some sort of violation of excise and licensing rules and what is the repercussion to that? That may mean that STR operator. Correct. So if we took a complaint from in a way, we would investigate that complaint accordingly with our inspectors. So we would ask we would first make sure they're licensed. Right. And if they're licensed, we would make sure that they are the proof of premise. They have permission from the property owner. They've been displaying their license number on the advertisement and that they meet all the conditions of the license itself. Right. So we would be able to actually partner with those management companies to make sure they're following the city ordinance that was actually stipulated in our licensing ordinance. That's separate from whatever restrictions or covenants are placed on short term rentals within the actual H-2A. So thank you for that. And the reason why I had that line of questioning is that's pretty much the answer that I've been getting since we've been asking the question since January, which is that there are no clear penalties, there is a penalty process, but there are so many hurdles and other bits and pieces and parts to the where enforcement lies is sort of all over the place. And that is inherently one of my problems with this bill is that there needs to be a clear penalty. That is direct. When a violation is found, a fine is issued and the person is is no longer able to operate that if they're not operating consistent with the rules of licensure. Correct. And we have lots of tools within. But it's a very, very evolved process. And the fact that you can directly say this is what happens when this when this fails has been an issue for me. Yeah. So I might actually defer to our senior attorney who can go into a little more details about what that licensure fee and penalty might be, including potential perjury. But the process to get to perjury is not direct. Thank you, Kelly Moore, on behalf of the city attorney's office. So I understand your concern. If I'm going 75 and a 55, I get a ticket. If I'm if I'm wrongly checking a box on my license or application, what happens? So there's always the discretion of an officer when you're speeding to get that ticket to say whether or not you actually get them. So while I understand that from your perspective, it's very cut and dry with speeding, there's actually a wide range of possible penalties in that realm, too. When we look over here, it's similar. If you are checking the box that says that you are complying with your terms and the you get caught lying, you could be subject to those penalties and then there could be charges filed against you as a crime. The Department of Excise and Licensing could also file to show cause against your license for that violation of itself. And we go through a due process hearing that way, which would then have your license potentially be revoked and you wouldn't be able to do the short term rental anymore. So. While it's not clear cut, I don't think there's anything when you violate the law that is a clear cut penalty that you're looking for to say if you do this, then that because we do have due process rights that attach to the issue a license to an individual. Which is why I can dodge on photo radar ticket if I want. Right. Because that doesn't ask me whether I violated the speed or not. So that sounds like a lot of city expenditure to go through that process just to get somebody to I mean, just to to really say that that you shouldn't have been operating. Is the licensee culpable for the charge? I mean, the charges that are incurred by the city throughout that process? I mean, that's something we could work into our our processes and our rulemaking. And I don't think that necessarily has to be set out now. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Enhancements as we got a little broader, broader to 62 in general. I hope that we can focus colleagues just on this motion right now because there's another motion and then there's Bill as amended. So there will be plenty of time to comment on this. So if we could have you just ask if you could just focus specifically on Councilman Flynn's motion. Councilman Ortega, you're up. So I appreciate this line of questioning that we've been going through. I was at a meeting with an HLA group in Lower Downtown and they're actually having to research the various sites that advertise because they know they have some people in their building that are. Basically renting out their unit as short term rentals and they have no other way of being able to find out who it is other than to have to play cat and mouse and try to track down who it is that that's renting their unit, which is in direct violation of their own. And so I think the concern is that this puts a lot of onus and responsibility on the boys to try to find out how. You know, who's who's doing this within their development and then what that recourse is and hearing the line of explanations of how that gets resolved. It's it's lengthy and it's expensive. And so it's putting the burden on the airways to try to solve the issue when there is someone who is knowingly violating the rules. And, you know, a lot of this hopefully will be resolved in the education process. But there may be some people choosing to ignore the process. And even if someone doesn't have a license and they are doing this, can I've been asked the city attorney this question. Do they still go through the. The normal process to prove that they should not be allowed to operate even though they don't have a license. So that the onus would be on the licensee, that they would have to prove that they are allowed to operate. And if they aren't allowed to operate, then they could be subject under our general ordinance guidelines that if anything is unlawful, you could be subject to up to a $999 fine and up to a year in jail . So it would go through the court procedure that way, if that answers your question. Yeah, it does. So thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Flynn, I'm going to hop over you. We got some couple other people who rang in, hopefully to talk about the motion. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just trying to determine if there is a net benefit to this amendment. So I guess I have a question for you, Nathan. Does this amendment change the enforcement of this proposed law? No. There is no language in the ordinance right now that discusses private contractual language. And really what we plan to do, I think, is similar to what the sponsor of the amendment is to have that approach, that framework where we tell an applicant to check with their actuaries, to check with their covenants to make sure this isn't allowed use. Okay. Thank you. And then, Councilman Flynn, I have a question for you. So it sounds like it does achieve the same thing. That will be part of their rules. And I wonder if it's confusing if with their long list of rules that this is the one that is in the law and the other ones aren't, and then it might set up false expectations. Mm hmm. Okay. I, I can say that I'm not confused by it, and I'm only confused by why why other members might consider not supporting this because it simply puts into the ordinance what the exercise of the license already is, has said it's going to do. It just requires them to do what they've already agreed to do. And the reason I want it in the ordinance is to maintain that requirement through the years. The only thing that it adds is it asks that that directs the director to deny the license of the self-reporting. Applicant says, I'm not permitted to do this by private contract. That's the only difference. And there are 850, give or take, homeowner associations registered in the city and county of Denver. This amendment in no way requires the division of the exercise of a license to look at any of the covenants, to examine them, to study any of them. It simply puts into the ordinance the requirement that they do what they've already said they're going to do by rule. I would rather see that as a requirement to ensure that it gets done down years down the road. Katherine Black. Any other questions? No, thank. You. All right, Councilman, do you now have a question about the motion? Go ahead. Thank you, sir. Ask the city attorney one question. There are some are questioning the councilman. Last question. Does this amendment give you the greater ability for enforcement? Enforcement is a big, big issue. And I just wonder, does this help strengthen the enforcement process by having this in the ordinance? I don't know that it would. It's a self at at attestation. So by merely checking the box, if someone does lie on that application, we have to go through the show cause procedure to then revoke their license. And then I think we would be getting into the very thing that Councilwoman Susman is afraid of, is that then we would be interpreting private contracts. So if they don't. Abide by you have to go through that process anyway. We do, yeah. And so by them checking the box is proof that they that is evidence that they are not comply. Well checking the box would give us evidence that they lied on their application fee. So if the license was then granted, we'd have to go through the due process claim. Typically, people who apply for licenses and they are denied also get a denial hearing to object to the denial of a license to. So we'd have to go through that process. Seemed like it would help you a little bit. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman there, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. And my apologies to my colleagues for being late due to a family emergency. But I do appreciate that Councilman Flynn gave us some advance notice about this amendment. I did not get a chance to talk with the city attorney about my question in advance, but it was raised by other council members. So I just want to play out a scenario. I actually don't have a philosophical issue. I know some of my colleagues do. They don't like putting things in ordinance that could be in regulation or that could be input in other places. I'm a believer that sometimes it's comforting to have things in an ordinance if you're going to do them anyway. So I don't have a philosophical problem with that kind of ordinance drafting. I am worried, though, about unintended consequences. So I want to think through a scenario where a sincere owner has a difference of opinion with their HRA about what their articles do or don't say. And the scenario I'm concerned about is an owner attests that, you know, they read the language they think it allows subletting, for example, let's say that it says subletting and they think that that means that they can do a short term rental. And the House says no, subletting is different than a short term rental. And and then the department is indeed notified by this. And now we have a situation where the department is in a decision making mode about actually pursuing perjury charges against someone who who knowingly , you know, checked the box. So that's the scenario of an unintended consequence. So I don't know if either Mr. Bardwell, who helped to draft this or, you know, the city attorney who's advising the department, want to comment on if indeed given notice by an HRA that a unit is potentially in noncompliance, whether that obligates you to begin a hearing against someone, even if there's a difference of opinion. The intent of the draft is absolutely not to obligate us to conduct a hearing and to send them to district court if they want to argue about the meaning of their covenants in a case, as you described. So that's what's intended again. The last verbiage we included in the drafting in Councilman Flynn, including that in the drafting, was intended to make that point that we're not going to be the forum in which those kind of differences get adjudicated. But that that's the intent, Councilwoman. And because because it's based on the concern you just expressed, it does get the city into an unusual place. When, when, when, when, when assertions about compliance with covenants are not becomes a little bit our responsibility because we're building it into our regulatory codes in terms of making it part of the application process. And another aspect of this, just to reiterate, is that the one definitive thing the draft the amendment requires the director to do is if they've been so bold as to say, yeah, there's covenants and I think I'm in violation of them, that only in the most clear cut case where they've self affirm something that definitive does is say to the director to do anything, and that is to deny under that narrow circumstance, but not when there's some debate or some difference. And I realize that scenarios are dangerous, but I just want to play this out so it doesn't obligate the department to take action, but does it allow the department to take action? So, for example, let's say renewal is coming up and one of the provisions elsewhere in the ordinance states that license renewal does have a review of if you have violated any of these, you know, provisions and you start to have neighbors who are petitioning to say this should not be renewed. So I just want to ask, does the language allow the department to take action against the individual? Well, I'll defer to Biz Morey if she wants to comment on this one as well. But I would say, no, this doesn't affirmatively allow or require or anything else a director to get involved in those kinds of disputes. It doesn't create a basis for denial based upon an external allegation that the covenants are being violated. That's that's intentionally left out of the language for, you know, for a lot of the reasons you're articulating in terms of not just not wanting to go there. So so I think the answer to your question is no. And I don't know if Ms.. Morey wanted to comment on that one. And I would agree with Mr. Broadwell. I don't think it obligates the director to say no or say yes or not. Get involved. No, no, no, no. But remember, my question in this round wasn't about whether you're obligated, it's whether you may. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I believe that the amendment's written in broad enough that the director may get involved. Okay. That that right there is my concern. So I'm going to move to comments really quickly. But I just wanted to clarify procedurally, when we have our public hearing on the zoning amendment, was there a courtesy public hearing on the regulatory bill coming run first reading tonight? Right. If if both passed, Councilman Susman will like to 62 to move at the same pace as to 61 so they'll both be on the. So I guess. I am concerned about unintended consequences. I think I'm fine with the idea that you want to require people to pause and look at their HRA. I'm concerned about an unintended consequence because it happens now where neighbors come, they say, we want you to take action on this renewal. We think they lied on their application and there's political pressure and there's community pressure and the department has the authority to take that up. That to me is confusing. So for tonight, I'm going to vote no in the amendment. But I would invite folks to give, I guess, public testimony on this point. I'd love to hear some input during the hearing. Perhaps it may or may not be on point with the zoning hearing, but to me we have a second reading. But but I'm philosophically supportive of the idea of saying to folks, stop, pause, look at your HRA. I do not want a situation where neighbors feel like they have language in the ordinance to petition the department to somehow be engaged. I just given that people really do have sincere disagreements with their ways on interpretation all the time, and it'll take time for each of us to revise their bylaws to get clearer on this point. I'm just I'm a little nervous that we're ahead of that and we're going to create some unintended consequence. So no, for tonight. But I'm open to understanding, you know, people's perspective on it and thinking about it more. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Each. All right. The only person that hasn't come in yet in the queue. Councilman. Clerk. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think that I share some of the concerns about getting involved in these private agreements, and I would not support this if I felt like that did this. I also I have some trepidation, although I agree philosophically with where Councilman Espinosa was going. And I had the same thoughts on, well, if we know the statute doesn't allow it, why can't we preemptively put those addresses in there? But bylaws can change with a simple vote at one board meeting one month. And I don't think we get involved in this. I think that this amendment, however, is very simple. It is written and was crafted very well, and it says the director shall deny any appli or application upon which the applicant has self-reported and then goes further on to say Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to impose any duty on the director to independently verify. I believe that the way this is written. I am not convinced that this gives us a whole lot more than what's already in there. Their him. But it is one level above I'm checking off. Oh, did I go through my check sheet? Now I'm saying to the city I did these things. So it's one step higher. It's not a big step. So I'm not convinced that it's completely necessary, but I have absolutely no problem supporting this. I think that it's crafted in a way that I don't think that it will lead to unintended consequences. I don't think will put us in a sticky spot, which I would not support it if I felt at all that it would. On And while I have very few active activities in my district, if this provides a level of comfort to the constituents that my colleagues like Councilman Flynn are representing on ways and I'm very happy to support it. I think in in some ways and this will be very interesting as we get into public hearings on the bigger issue that we are making a mountain out of a molehill on this one. I think that it's simple, it's straightforward. It gets us a little tiny step further than what we have in the language, and I'm happy to support it. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. All right, round two. Talking on the motion. Councilman Flynn, you back up. Thank you, Mr. President. The. There are many unintended consequences to every action that we take. Every single bill will have unintended consequences. The one that this amendment is is aimed at addressing is the unintended consequence of the city suddenly issuing licenses that could impact up to 850 homeowner associations. And the unintended consequence that we are causing civil disputes among these parties through our actions when requiring the applicant simply to go and check and verify that they can do this, is all that this amendment does. My hope is that we can prevent. 100, 200, 800 problems between private parties out there through the unintended consequence that is more likely to happen than the director being politically pressured into holding a show cause hearing that the that the audience doesn't require her to do in the first place. The Telluride case that that Mr. Broadwell spoke to he briefed me on that very he briefed me very briefly before the meeting. And although I'm not a trained lawyer, I've watched enough Matlock to be able to understand. But the Telluride case hinged on the covenants in that case. And Mr. Broadwell, jump in and correct me if I'm wrong, where the covenants were very vague and did not say you can't do short term rentals less than 30 days or what have you. It was a more broadly written part of the covenants that they had sued over. And in this regard, this would require the applicant to look at the covenants and not look for the provision in Telluride, which was only residential uses can be performed. No commercial uses can be conducted in the in the premises of this particular association. So I the unintended consequence I'm trying to avoid is for the city to ignite all these dozens, hundreds or whatever they might be of problems that don't need to happen with this one simple little checkbox that the division already has said they intend to do through their education campaign. The. And the final thing was on. Oh, that this is a unique action we're taking. It's been a while since Councilwoman Sussman had asked this question. This is sort of unique in that we don't have any provisions in our zoning office when a homeowner comes in and wants to put up a fence. We don't check whether their H-2A allows them to have a fence. I agree with that. But in this case, we are looking at taking a long standing. We've had long standing rules on fences. After all, your fence can't be more than four feet high if it's front forward of the front line of the house, for example. So if we suddenly changed our ordinance and said, you can have a six foot fence in your front yard, I think we need to understand what the implications of that are here. We are taking an activity that has been illegal since at least the 56 zoning code and probably the one that that replaced back in 1956. And we are saying suddenly tomorrow you can do this anywhere in a city. And so we're we're lowering the bar on commercialization in our neighborhoods. And because of that unique circumstance and because this is a change in use, this isn't a fence or it's not a purple. You know, we're not painting a house purple in violation of covenants. This is this is an introduction of a commercial use into residential neighborhoods. So I think it's highly appropriate that we afford highways, this little bit of cushion so that they don't they don't they don't face as many problems with licenses that we issued, licenses that we issue down the road. I think that was all that I have. Oh, and just to Councilwoman Black, the net benefit I believe the net benefit from this amendment is that we reduce the number of potential conflicts between private parties. I know the highway in my neighborhood that had to address the one situation that you're all familiar with, had to go through a lot of pain and expense to take care of that situation. I want to try to avoid that. I think this will prevent some of them. Not all of them. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn and Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you all for all your comments. I just as you can hear from the comments, my concern is that we're putting it in here. With the language that but we're not going to do anything about it. And it seems like it's for show because we already have these restrictions that we are going to impose in our rulemaking . And so why would we put in the expectation and expectation for an applicant or the HRA that we will enforce your rule that that for you, that we will help you in your and in your concern over an STR. We already intend to be proactive about this. But the other thing that concerns me is that we are that the community members out there who I have talked with for two years are just hearing about this tonight. And the whole ordinance wasn't done in a vacuum. It was done with the I and C neighbors who worried about this and looked on this worked. We worked with the stakeholder community. We worked with the neighborhoods, not just ANC, but individual neighborhoods. And here they are hearing about it for the first time. It is this is something that I think should have been taken to a committee. We've been talking about it since for two years. But we have new council people. We've been talking about it since July. This is. For months. This is me. And that's quite a long time to have maybe brought this before. So we could have vetted it with the community to see what they think about that. But now it's just coming tonight. And I, I think it might be wise for us to we we have in place we're going to have an advisory group with all the stakeholders afterwards to take a look to see if we've done it right. Have we missed some points? And that stakeholder group is going to be the same sort of folks that we talked to for the last two years. I don't know why we need to start changing the regulations at the last at the 11th hour. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Espinosa. You know, I just in my little familiarity with these attestation forms. You basically are sitting there affirming the following statement. So I'm trying to figure out if this is doing nothing or if it's really doing nothing. And what I mean by that is, is if. If there is a if there's a situation where it's in dispute, the license has been issued. We're not talking about revoking the license. We're not going to change the status at all whether this statement is in there or not. And that person wrongly checked the box that said, tell me about the form. Does your will you ever get to this situation where you're not checking the box and getting license? Because don't you have to check the box and attest that you've already verified this with your covenants and it's a it's acceptable in order to get to the point where your licenses have been issued. Or can you actually will you be issuing licenses without this box checked? Some of this will sort of depend on the technology that we implement. But I think the thought is for now actually honored different steps of the application. You will actually not be able to move forward if you don't check the box, if you don't certified. It's like trying to use my app without agreeing to the licensing terms. So. So for example, if one of the questions will ask you for a proof of premise or permission for a property, or if you, if you do not check that box, you will not be able to allow them to move forward in the application itself. I don't know if that answers. Yeah, it does suit me because that's what I'm saying, that we're writing in here a rule to say that, you know, the director won't issue that license if that boxes in checked. Well, you can't even get to that point on the on the system if that box is in check. So I mean, the system itself is the de facto rule. So it's just a strange it's a strange rule. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Any other comments on the motion to amend? You. I will simply add this this this reminds me, I remember when we were going through the budget cycle last time and we had $1.5 million allotted to the Department of Safety and the Department of Safety told us they were going to use that money for additional police officers. Yeah, this council had a debate to make them put that. And had we done that, we only would have had 45 officers hired this year. We had a robust discussion and we realized we needed more and we had 85. So I don't think it's wise to put this in those rules if we already know that the excise analysis is moving forward. So let's vote on the motion to amend. Madam Secretary, roll call. FLYNN Hi. GILMORE No. Can each. No. Lopez I knew. Ortega I. Susman No. Black No. Brooks. No. Clark? Espinosa. No. Mr. President. No. Madam Secretary, please close. Very nice results. Five, six, seven, eight. Five, eight, seven days. The motion to amend has been denied. All right, we've got our next motion. Councilman Espinosa, would you like to do with this bill? I would like to amend my script. Sorry. I would like to move that. This the. Well, actually, no, Mr. President, I would like to move to amend Council Bill 16 0262 as follows on page two, line 30, after the word, a new insert the following. Upon granting a license to an applicant who does not own the property where the licensed premises is located, the director shall deliver written notification to the owner of the property, advising the owner that a license has been issued. Thank you. It has been moved. Colleagues, we need a second. It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Espinosa. So this is hopefully more straightforward but maybe is unnecessary, as is the prior. But I just. There is another attached attestation attestation on that form that basically says that yeah. Even though I don't own the property and renting the property, my owner is cool with me owning this mean renting out this thing short term and that's pretty much the extent of that. And also I want is this is the director they're going to have the license mean they're the owner information because that's also part of it too simply after that license has been issued to that individual who's already attested to all those things, is it being okay? Is this and notification to the actual property owner saying, hey, this property has been issued a license for short term renting? It's it's it seems pretty straightforward to me, an easy ask and a good safeguard to property owners citywide. So that's the purpose of this bill in this amendment. Sorry. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. My first question is in the script, it says it's an amendment to Council Bill 261. Is that a typo? It is a typo was 262. It is 262. Thank you very much. I have I have similar problems with this particular requirement, and not the least of which is the amount of work and cost to discover the landlords of every single property, that of every single person who applies and would like to ask to excise and license. What would this mean to excise and license to have to be able to discover and find and notify a landlord. Yeah. So I think the department said Councilman Espinosa's concern of making sure that an applicant has permission from their landlord to offer to short term rental. We've actually already included that provision within the ordinance language itself. So under the application section subsection G, it says that the applicant must provide written documentation from the property owner, allowing short term rentals on the licensed premises. And what that means is that gives the department authority to audit and do spot checks of the licenses at any time. So through complaints or through simple auditing or spot checks, we can ask for that written permission at any time we want during our licensing enforcement procedures. In addition, I think there would be some concern about sort of the administrative burden of what that would mean to the department in terms of notifying property owners. Is the property owner a property management company? Where is that property management company located? Is the property owner under an LLC that's under different people and some people may not. So it's there are some concerns that we would have about tracking the property owners that are associated with the licenses. I think the tools that we have in place now are sufficient for us to request that written permission from the licensee at any time. And it really puts the onus on the licensee to obtain that permission from their property owner and show it to the department any time it requested. Oh, thank you. Would it have the same effect? We wouldn't be enforcing the landlord tenant relationship. Maybe this is a question for the attorney. Would it have the same effect as the H-2A proposal? Was that it? We wouldn't be enforcing a landlord tenant relationship either. I think there would be some of the same concerns. There's also concern that this would happen after we've granted that license. So, again, that property right in the license attaches to the licensee and we would have to go through due process to revoke a license if we found out that they didn't have permission. So again, we're kind of getting involved with private contractual matters. Okay. Thank you. Nathan was another question. Would this be a more complex process? One of the big things we're trying to do is make compliance 100% with this, make it more complicated for the applicant that we might discourage people from becoming regulated. Well, I think the the best practices that we've seen around the nation point us toward having a licensing system that is not overly onerous, that can have a high rate of compliance. The way we're trying to achieve that is through an online licensing structure that would allow people to simply apply online instead of having to come in person. I think there would be concerns that that compliance rate might sink as soon as we're having to review contracts or leases in person. So a streamlined regulatory framework that we have now with an online system. Our hope is to achieve that high rate of compliance and through auditing and spot checks and other enforcement tools. We can request that information whenever we'd like. Thank you. And I, I attribute a rise in consciousness about these. I know many people who have done staffers felt like they didn't know that it was illegal, but actually got an input from one of my constituents who said, not after two years. People should be quite aware that this is an illegal operation and they should be. And we've had some wonderful press and information in the papers and things that landlords should know that this thing is possible. And of course we will have the education process for landlords and houses and others once it's if if in fact it passes . And so, again, I'm not sure that it is a necessary process. It might discourage people from applying if they have to have extra steps to come down there and the landlords. One of the biggest things about the rules that we're having is that a successful applicant must list his license number in every advertising. This is a good tool for landlords and homes because they can go on every kind of site. We don't even have to decide whether it's Airbnb or VRBO, VR, Bio or Craigslist or, you know, mom's mom's list. You can see the advertising, and if the license isn't there, then you have a way to enforce it, not just by the city, but by landlords and by who is. Thank you, Councilman Sussman. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr. President. And a question for Councilwoman Espinosa, because I'm a little confused. I thought I heard you vote no on my amendment for the very reason that Councilwoman Sussman and I and others are speaking against your amendment now. Would what would happen if a landlord who, upon getting your notice, says, wait a minute, I didn't give permission and contacts? The station says, you know, you got to do something about this. I did not give permission. And so how is this different? And and how would that work, in your view? Actually, I'm glad you asked me that question, because right here is my next question to Nathan was to explain, does the owner have a trump card so that if an owner has a renter that is doing this, do they have the right to say, look, I own the property and I want to cease this or now we're kicking it back over into the civil side and saying, nope, you got to deal with that with your renter. If a if a licensee cannot demonstrate that they have proof or permission from their property owner, then we will take action on the license. But is the owner being there saying, I want this to cease enough. So our inspectors can actually work with those owners and have the conversations with the property owners? Absolutely. So if we get a complaint from a property owner, then we can investigate accordingly. And depending on that case, depending on that investigation, if our inspectors feel that the licensee actually did not have permission from the property owner, we will take action on the license. Okay. It's not as once again, not as straightforward as I would hope. It's a process. Whereas I think as a person who rightfully owns the property, all parties, however many there are, should be able to go down there and say, pull the you know, cancel this license. At least there's a process for it. Okay. That partially answers that. I'm having trouble seeing the difference between your amendment and mine and in terms of how it operates in the end and works. So I'm struggling with that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn coming from knows I'm going to have over you to get to some people have chimed in yet councilman Lopez comments on the comments or questions on your on the motion on the floor. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President, I. Somewhere. I think I became a little confused here. Is it either you, Nathan? It's probably for you. Isn't it already illegal? For if it's I mean, I know we've been talking and know this is going into the substance of what the hearing will be about and the whole conversation of primary residents versus non. If we're asking in the bill if the whole fine I mean, we're not fine. But we've been having a lengthy conversation, hearing from people about the issue of owner occupied residences. Wouldn't it make that illegal? If you could only do it in owner occupied residences, wouldn't you as a renter be operating illegally? So a long term tenant under the current framework, a long term tenant could still operate a short term rental as a primary residence. Okay. That's where I'm a little confused. All right. All right. Oh, that. Okay. That changes some things for me. Thank you. I wanted to make sure I was clear with that. All right. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll start by saying I do think that this one is messier than the one we just had. And my biggest concern is with the cost of finding the owner mailing something to them. But I just I had to chime in because to argue that this makes it harder and discourages people to do something , the requirement that's in there is for them to work with their landlord, get something in writing, showing permission and produce that. This this language is only one sentence long. Upon granting a license to an applicant who does not own the property, whereas the licensed premises located the director shall deliver written notice to the owner advising the owner that license has been issued. Nowhere in there does it say that the applicant has to do anything. If you really if you're going to make the argument that ease and compliance, you should strike the other part and put this one in. So I think that everybody is positioning themselves for what they want and don't want in here. But let's be a little less disingenuous about what we argue on both sides of the table here. I do think there are legitimate concerns outside of that, but I do not think there's any valid argument to say that this makes it harder and will lead to less compliance because there's zero in this that the applicant is required to do. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman knew I was reading. Gee, again, you know, says that, you know, that you're going to receive written documentation for the property owner. So go to for them to do it right. Are you are you going to at least are you going to check need that that that is the right property owner. Yeah. So through our inspection services, we can use the many tools that are available to the city to make sure that it is the identifiable property owner and make sure that we able to reach out to that property owner and and have those discussions if they have that, that authorization or not. And we can do this, the auditing and the spot checks of the licenses, whether it be complaint based, whether it be spot checks at any time in that license, you will have to provide that that written documentation to the department of that permission and the written permission from the. And so this is the property the listed property owner differs from what the documentation says and that license will not be processed until that's clarified. Right. It would be sort of a case by case instance on an investigation of that particular issue. The way we have it set up now is that you will apply online for your license. You'll certify that you have permission from your property owner to do this. Once you go through the online steps and certification process, you'll then be issued a license number that then start advertising on your listings. Then it will be up to the department to go through those listings and check for compliance and do those spot check audits. Are you going. To check for the property owner before or after you issue the license? So in the online license application, we won't be able to have a document like a lease or a separate document uploaded into that system. It will be entirely audit based. Okay. Well, I just have concerns about enforcement making sure that they see the sales very good what you're doing. But if you don't check to see if that's the correct property owner, I just wonder if that's really that sound or a private practice. You and I think, you know, once this this license rolls out, we'll be making fine tunes and adjustments to our enforcement. A lot of that is actually through our short term role advisory committee that can include department heads, hosts, non hosts, different agencies to really see how we're doing, to really make sure that our enforcement mechanisms get honed and sharpened over time. So we really feel that having a community based dialog through our advisory committee on our enforcement efforts is actually really important to the actual licensing scheme itself. I should encourage you to keep it as tight as possible. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. You all right? Round two comments. Councilman Espinosa. So I agree with you, Councilman Clark. It is actually really simple and probably would be cleaner my way rather than the way it is actually the. Because the fact of the matter is, is there is no extra step for the applicant. It's actually very easy. The assessor's office is right below you guys and there's excise and licensing and CPD. You'll have the address of the license location. You go to that record which we all have access to on the computer and you get the owner's information and then you put whatever the cost is, $0.42 or so used to those forever stamps. You stamp that on an envelope with the notification saying your license, your property has been issued a license for a short term rental to the following individual. It couldn't get any better than that, and that's a degree of assurance that I think we should offer. Those people that own properties where the long term renter is short term renting. And just so we don't think that this is a huge grave thing. We have approximately 2000 stores in this city and only a fraction, a very small fraction of those are being short term rented by long term renters. So we're not talking about all 2000. We're just talking about that small fraction that are acknowledging that they do not own the property that they that they call their primary residence, but they are short term renting. And so but I do have a question for the anybody here. Do we what is what is the percentage of those 2000 that are renters re renting their property versus non primary resident operators. You know, I currently don't have that information right now, but once we start licensing, once we actually start giving us the ability to collect data on our licenses and the number of licenses we've issued, we'll be able to work off some figures and some numbers for you. And as I mentioned earlier, our advisory committee can actually study that those numbers and study that data to see what the issues may be, to see what our rate of compliance is, to see how well our administration enforcement of our license has gone. So it's probably some numbers we don't have today, but with the licensing structure, we'll be able to have those numbers. So if I just said roughly 10% and I'm pulling numbers that are not fair, but 10% of the number of the 2000 are re renters. You know, long term renters doing short term rentals. That would be 200 of these properties. I can tell you that I've probably got well over 200 letters basically asking me to to get rid of the primary residency requirement. So if we're looking for 100% compliance or as close to it, we should we should this this rule, should it mean these laws should actually be capturing the industry? Not not. What my concern is, is that, yes, we got I.N.S. Compliance and we got a lot of compliance with the notion that I presented to Councilwoman Sussman when she went to the agency at Denver Water while I was on the campaign trail in 2014 that this should be for primary residences only. And so. So the. The the. My frustration is we're we're moving forward on this bill with that clause. And we're not thinking about all the other periphery things that actually could make this bill good from an enforcement side. And those are comments. But it's troublesome that we can't provide this one little safeguard reassurance that property owners will be notified when we know how to contact property owners for a whole host of reasons. And this is not a very big ask. Thanks. And you know, the councilwoman Sussman, you back up. I thanks everybody for their comments. But I do want to clear up what Councilman Clark and Councilman Espinosa said, that it wouldn't make more work for the applicant. And I believe that when we had conversations about this, you worry that it would require the applicant to come down to the Webb Building to show some sort of affidavit . Can you address that? Have you figured out since we last talked that they wouldn't? I'll give Nathan a little rest as Stacey likes the director of Excise and Licenses, just to be concerned when this is over. We're just now seeing the languages. One of the concerns. Is if you have to test, you have to give an. Address. For the landlord to be able to move. On to one of our concerns. If we just went to the assessor's office as we'd be mailing that letter to the same renter who just applied for the license and it won't actually necessarily get to the landlord. So we'd have to create additional. Steps in our licensing. Process of providing who the landlord is. If it's an LLC, if it's not a real person in the contact information, and that would be information that we may not be able to do online anymore. When we kind of build out those steps, we lose some of that simplicity of being able to do the online ordinance. And it's just one of the things we don't really been able to flesh out, and it helps to see the language itself, but that is absolutely one of our concerns of it might be that tipping point of what we can do online versus not online. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to let you all know that there was some thought that it might require a trip downtown. You'll recall our issues about trying to find the owners of marijuana stores and their LLC and partnerships and trying to find an owner is is not as easy. And we might have to have the applicant themselves do that work and come and show us what that means. I also want to say that we've worked pretty hard on this bill, and while we may have missed some things, you know, I think that we have looked at many, many of these things that people are amending or trying to amend at the last minute. So and I trust that going forward, we will have a good eyes, good eyes on the process. So just have the same concern that this is sort of a last minute thing. And you can see that we're sort of doing all the committee work here on the night of the first reading. Thank you, Councilman Sussman and Councilman the clerk. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to clarify. So the assessor's office does not provide an address for the owner of the property. Those. Well, the property's mailing address will be the property itself. That may not be where the owner themselves. Lives, but a property owner. Forwarding mail. Address. So if you think of a property company, you know, four poets wrote the you know, the management company doesn't necessarily have a mailing address on file, but it's one of the things we've. Got a property owner who is concerned about getting notifications about their property can tell the assessor, I own this property, I live there and we do record the address of the property owner. It may not be required, but the assessor's office has the address for the owner. The mailing address for the owner is currently located. I don't know. That. Like I said, this is this is a really new kind of thing for us to trying to flesh out. And those are just. Questions that we have to. Well, because, again, I don't think that I don't interpret this as us happening to you. And maybe that maybe that is a problem with how it's written, that we have to go to extraordinary lengths to find the owner. I do know that you can call up any county assessor unless Denver is different from our sister counties and say, I own this property, I don't live there. Here's my address. And then notifications like weeds on your property, things that can be assessed against the property will be mailed to the owner in addition to the renter. That's already a function of our assessor's office. And so maybe the wording needs to be specific about we will mail it to the property owner of record in the assessor's office. I think we I'm assuming that's what we're doing. If that's not clear, then we could clear that up and then it would add zero additional searching. We just go to the assessor and we send it there. And if you're a property owner who doesn't want to put your address there, then you're not going to get the one about the weeds and you're not going to get the one about this. That's your choice. But we're notifying you in the way that you want to get notified as no additional work. And I think Councilman Espinosa brings up a good thing, which talks to my concern about the cost of this, that even if all 2000 of them were renters and we're paying a 50 cent stamp plus the mailing, you know, we're not breaking the bank to send this thing. And I do think that it provides a worthwhile addition to the thing to the bill. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I just want to apologize to the audience and to my colleagues. I did, in fact, bring this up in a 1 to 1 briefing. And I brought it up in multiple committee meetings. And, you know, it was never entertained. And so that's why I'm doing what I can do as a councilperson to bring out the language directly for a vote. The you know, and I'm happy to amend the language if we think there's a simpler way. But that's exactly what I'm getting at, which is we have records of some sort and we tax these individuals from their property that they own. We should be able to connect these dots fairly easily. And and unfortunately, for some reason, in an effort to simplify the licensing process, we keep trying to downplay the sort of enforcement side. And and and this is a straightforward, direct concern because I've seen this already happen with owners of properties. They they find out that when they go to their property, it's not who they thought they were renting to. And and that is not that's that shouldn't happen when we have when it's so easy to actually correct. Think you know that. All right. Any other comments on the second motion to amend. This is my name. Is not Councilman Flynn. You got a comment? Yes, maybe I was clicking on the wrong thing. I'd like a little bit of clarification on an answer to the question that Councilwoman Sussman asked about, about an applicant being required to come down to the Webb building. That kind of went over my head because the only requirement in this amendment is for you to do something the applicant. This doesn't change any of the requirements for the applicant to attest that he or she has the permission of the property owner. What did I miss there? Would someone would an applicant have to come down to City Hall or to Webb Building? And then the other thing, while somebody is thinking of the answer is Councilman Clark is is correct that the assessor does list. I'm looking at a house right down the street from my own that is a rental. And the owner's address down in South Jefferson County is listed as the as the point of contact. So the assessor does list the addresses of the of the absentee owners. Not always is it clear if it's a natural person or not, but as long as we mail it to the same place, we send the tax bills, I assume, where they're paying our property taxes. So they ought to be able to get this notice. But could you clarify the answer about someone coming down because of having to come down because of this? I don't understand that. Or maybe Councilwoman Sussman can. Help me on. But they were the ones that told me that it might have to happen. I think it was. It's more of that. The goal of the department. Right. So the goal of the department is to make sure we have a regulatory framework that allows us to preserve an online license. Right. That's a really that's a really strong principle that we like to see move forward within this actual ordinance. So if there are as soon as there are complexities that come forward with reviewing applications in person, that's where we would have some concern. So as long as the regulatory framework itself gives us the the ability to still do that online license, that's really what we're as a department trying to keep. And how does this change that? Does this amendment change that? I think I would have to read the amendment language a little further. As I understand it, it's after the license is issued. Upon granting, you've already granted the license to the applicant, so he or she has already done what they need to do. All online, all you have to do or Stacy Schmidt delegated to you is to mail that mail that letter to that address. Right. And I think it'll just be a question of making sure we can keep track of the property owners. And we've discussed the assessor is but keeping track of the property management companies, keeping track of the losses. How frequently is that assessor's website updated? Just the department impact of making sure that we're giving the correct notice and the correct notice. The correct property owner is something that we need to determine on our own. All right. Thank you. This sounds like more of a morass than mine was about Councilman Espinosa. I'll vote for it anyway. All right. Any other comments on the motion to amend that? I was a councilman. Espinosa, you back up again. If, like, I don't know. I mean, I would be willing to amend that language to direct it towards the the the license, the primary contact on the assessor's office, not the mailing address, but the the contact. If that simplifies the management of this. You know, I'm looking to Dave, what can we vote on this motion? And then if there's a if there's a wording issue, I think we can get the intent out correctly. I mean, the lawyers can do that if people understand what the intent is or do we need to wordsmith right now, I feel as if we've had this issue before when we were talking as like we we had we voted on an amendment and we made sure that the lawyers were going to be able to flesh it out correctly. So that would be properly understanding. And I in my off base. David or the good news is we have time. Well, you well, you're a little off base. We tend to do that in committee, but not on the floor. This is going to be incorporated in the published version of the bill. You need to get the language and I hate to say this, but if if Council Councilman Espinosa wants to withdraw it and propose something else right now, or if it can be further amended on second reading, that's a possibility as well. But but we don't do conceptual amendments on the floor. We haven't historically. Okay, so let's move. Let's keep the language as is. And if there's a better way of of defining address, I'm happy to entertain that. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, any other comments on to 62? I will just add, I think that for a very small percent, I wonder if the amount of brain damage that we're putting into this. And I just I'm just joking with that. But for that small amount, I'm not sure if that's worth it to get what we want to get out of it. So I might think there might be a better way we can do this. And I will say, as a property owner, when I bought my house in Fort Sill, Oklahoma, I moved twice. Mean not one time did I ever contact the City of London to say that I had moved twice. And so maybe I'm just a bad property owner because I know they didn't know where I live. So maybe they tracked me down and I was unaware, but I didn't realize. I just think we're not getting to where we want to and where this motion is written. Madam Secretary, voting on a vote on the motion to amend. Madam Secretary, roll call. ESPINOSA Hi, Flynn. Gilmore No carnage. Lopez No new Ortega I. SUSMAN No. BLACK No. BROOKS No. CLARK All right. Mr. President. No. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank. You're good. You've got it, I. You're good. Okay. Madam Secretary, please close the voting out. The results. Five six, seven, 857. The motion to amend has been defeated. All right. So we still have our regular bill to 62, which is ordered published. Now, council members, before we get in the comments, I just want to remind you this is on first publication. There will be a robust time to comment in depth at the public hearing on June 13th should it pass. But I don't want to discourage anyone from commenting. I just wanted to remind you of that. Councilman, new Europe up. Go right ahead. Mr. Nader. Stacy, the one just to want to talk a little bit about enforcement and a little bit and right now, that's a process, right? That's illegal in the suit. It's been going on for quite a while. And what can you describe a little bit of what you're doing now to enforce the law and this is versus what you'll be able to do with this new bill? That's a great question. The current enforcement resource criminals can typically be onerous and difficult through neighborhood inspection services, and I don't know if anyone from CPD may be able to comment that or not, but typically what you will see is it's a complaint based. Someone will call 311 Neighborhood Inspection Services, an inspector will come out to the property. They'll investigate accordingly. They'll knock on the door. Someone will need to answer the door. They'll interview the person who answers the door and try and determine if they're doing a short term rental or not. They can then issue violations and citations and then the person can actually take that and appeal it to the board of adjustment of whether or not they've actually been doing a short term rental. So I think the current framework, the current options are lengthy, timely and onerous. With a licensing framework, we can actually make it much more streamlined and efficient. When we talk about two rules, we were talking about force and really talking about two different rules of enforcement. There's the enforcement of the sort of what we call common neighborhood complaints, and that may be noise, trash, parties, parking, etc. That's addressed with our existing tools that we have today through and I asked through DPD, through Environmental Health as a department, we plan on actually partnering with those departments to track those complaints on our licensees. Our licensing enforcement world will live within our own internal inspectors. We plan on actually creating a separate division within our excise and licenses inspectors. So the short term rental enforcement division that will include dedicated existing inspectors, where there are priorities throughout the work day, is to actually enforce the requirements of our licensing ordinance. That will include inspectors scanning through websites to make sure people are compliant with the license number, doing spot checks of making sure people have permission from their property owners, doing other audits to make sure that people are complying with the safety features of our of our ordinance. So it's really a joint effort between excise and licenses. Nice 311 and all of the other agencies involved to make sure that we can track and monitor the compliance within our processes as well. This is sort of a unique situation for us because we have a license that will bring forth a short term rental advisory committee and again, we'll have a community based dialog of how that enforcement is working. So the advisory committee will include hosts, non hosts, city agencies representing city council, other outside experts, and we'll be able to monitor the data that are coming in with respect to complaints and enforcement and be able to alter our framework accordingly through the work of the advisory committee. So this is certainly a working process. It's a it's a tool that we hope to continue to hone and sharpen over time. But really with the licensing component, we'll have much more tools at our disposal to revoke the privilege to operate a short term rental. Sounds like a lot more work, especially is not really being performed now. Right. And in sort of unregulated environment and the new work that you're going to have to be doing, how many more additional staff are you going to have to do this work? Right now, we're really relying on the existing inspectors. So it'll be a dedicated set of inspectors that will enforce the short term rental ordinance. Again, through our advisory committee, we'll be able to look to them for a recommendation of whether or not our staffing needs to increase and whether or not those staffing needs are on the excise and licenses side of the enforcement or on the neighborhood inspection services. But what we're really trying to do is have data driven enforcement, data driven policies. And the more that we can collect the data and collect information that will help guide the department on where those extra resources might be needed in the future. Well, it sounds a little unrealistic to think that your existing staff's going to try to do all this work that's not being performed. Well, I surely encourage you to ask for the staff that you need to get this done right and start off on the right foot. The advisory board committee will do a great job helping to monitor it. But if you start off with too few people and. You're going to have problems in the neighborhood. You're going to have a bigger issues. I think you ought to reconsider about whether your existing staff can actually perform all these responsibilities and duties force. It's a big, big issue with the neighborhoods. I've heard it over and over again. So I really encourage you to rethink what you're doing and and hope that you ask for additional staff to not only do the work, but also do it seven days a week. There needs to be some responsibilities on the weekends, too, if there's some kind of enforcement issue, too. And know I don't I'm not sure it's just an in-house issue. Maybe I think it's going to be your inspectors as well. I believe just with the weekend and evenings, there's there's tools in place now to address complaints for any residential property in Denver on the weekends or in the evenings. So the Denver Police Department is available at any time during the weekend. 311 is also available extended hours. And what our plan is to monitor and track and work with our partner agencies to look at the complaints that came in, to review those complaints and take action on the licenses if those complaints are significant enough to go to the action. Well, I just don't want us to waste a lot of police manpower, you know, when they should be doing other things, when this really responsibility should be yours. Obviously, there are situations of of of incidents at properties where they'll have to be involved. But I sure encourage your staff to pick up the load there and help enforce this ordinance, right? Absolutely. And again, the department can come back with more budget request in if future time. What we're really looking to do is collect that data and collect the information to give our department an informed decision of what those those staffing needs might be in the future. What we need to do to alter our existing framework. One last question. There will be a clear differentiation about what your inspectors will do and what you and I will do. Right. That will be really clear for the public to understand then, right? Correct. So the the the short term rental enforcement division will be doing enforcement on the actual ordinance language itself. At the same time, we'll be partnering with an IRS to look at the complaints that they've received and vice versa. So both the text amendment and the licensing ordinance, do you have the primary residency restrictions to them? We envision joint partnerships between an IRS and excise and licenses to enforce the same regulation. I think I still encourage you to make sure you have enough staff to get this job done right the first time. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman new councilman Flynn. Thank you. Mr. President, might I ask you a procedural question that I don't see addressed in our rules in four weeks, assuming that we postpone final on this 1 to 62 or you have torn to 62? Can the speakers on 261 also address you as part of the public hearing as a courtesy address? The subject matter of the licensing provisions is I can't find anything in the rules about combining hearings on two bills at the same time so that. They go ahead. Yes, of course. And that's one of the reasons why I'm going to postpone it. We don't have to have a public hearing on a licensing bill, but we will be having both these bills come up the first night. And I will welcome comment on either one of them. Okay. Thank you. Just that's why I wanted to clarify that our rules do allow speakers to address only the licensing aspect, even though the hearing is on the zoning bill. Is that that will be permitted. Yes. Thank you. Then Councilor Flynn. Any other comments on 262? Come. Katherine Espinosa. Closing comments or questions? These are these are comments to 62 as without any of the two motions. So as now it's on the floor for publication and comments or questions. So so this is my prepared statement, part of it anyway. This is a matter that impacts all residentially zoned districts. Means residentially zoned properties citywide and directly impacting neighborhoods, individuals and families, be they Denver residents or visiting star guests. I believe rulemaking should follow a vote of the people of Denver. Rulemaking on this scale citywide on a single issue should follow a vote of the people of Denver allowing str citywide. Only then council should move forward with regular with a regulatory solution better than what is currently and that should be better than what is currently being considered aimed at greater licensure, star rating or grading. Strong enforcement tools, including immediate and stiff penalties for non licensure or violations at a time when the city is struggling with displaced Homeless Persons, Council is considering a week measure only to which will only obfuscate and perpetuate a practice available only to people with an abundance of space or extra homes. While I personally support and use stars, this is not a good way to legalize and regulate stars in Denver. Proceeding with the bill and text amendments will be a missed opportunity for Denver to be a better and better model for the nation. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa in the comments to 62. I will say I'm going to vote to move this today and as well as the postponement. But I do think we can get smarter with this bill. I appreciate Councilwoman Sussman leadership on this to take this two years ago and to be very thoughtful and a lot of hearing from different people with different interest. But I think we can do better at that. And I hope over the next month, as we move this to the June 13th hearing, we can find a way to tweak this a little bit that I think will allow us to be do better, a better job of regulators. So, you know the comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. SUSMAN My black. Eye. BROOKS Clark. ESPINOSA No. Flynn No. Gilmore I can ege. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Mr. President. I. Councilwoman Houston. All right, Madam Secretary, please. Because it's only now the results. Tennis tune in two days to 62 has been published. Now, Councilwoman Sussman, what would you like to do with 262 right now? Thank you, Mr. President. Accountable to 62 is, of course, a companion bill. The council bills to 61, which will have a required public hearing on June 13th. So in order to move the two bills together and to allow comments on both, I would like to postpone final consideration of this license bill. Council Bill 262 to Monday, June 13th. All right, let's get this on the floor. Councilman Lopez, will you please put 262 on the floor to be postponed? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 262 that final consideration accountable to has to be postponed to Monday, June 13th. It has been moved and seconded. Any additional comments seen and voted on the postponement? Madam Secretary. Roll Call. Sussman Black Eye. Brooks. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. Gilmore. I can each. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary. Please, for the very nice results. 12 eyes 12 by final consideration of two, 62 has been postponed to Monday, June 13th. All right. Those were all the bills that were called out. So all of the bills for introduction already published. Ready for the block votes. Councilman Lopez, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption in a block? Thank you, Mr. President. I move. So that Council has the following council resolutions all series of 2016 be adopted. Its Council resolutions 289 939 166 303 12. Yep, that's it. And you just want to note that 939 is series of 2015. Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. I didn't see that. Thank you. Now, got it. It has been moved and seconded. Seen the comments from our secretary roll call. Can each Lopez. Right. Knew Ortega. Susman High black Brooks. High. Clerk. ALL Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. All right. Gilmore, I. Mr. President. Hi. Council members. Brooks. Oh, yeah. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please, for the very nice results. 1212 eyes resolutions have been adopted in a block. Councilman Lopez, would you please put the bills on final consideration on the floor for final passage in a block? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the following bills upon final consideration, will be placed upon final consideration and do pass and block all series of 2016 to 90 8 to 80 2 to 96 and to 97. Is then moved. And second, Encino comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black eye. Brooks Clark. All right. Espinosa. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Susman, I. Mr. President, I. Madam Secretary, please follow the voting results. 1212. The bills placed on fine consideration do pass and the BLOCK Council is now convened as a board of the directors for the River North Denver General Improvement District. Since we are sitting as the official board of directors for the Reno Denver General Improvement District, there are two bills that we considered last week that we published, and we

A proclamation honoring Michael Eugene Somma for 35 years of service to the City and County of Denver.

DenverCityCouncil_06222020_20-0613

Thank you, Councilmember. Seeing no other announcements. There are no presentations, there are no communications. We did have one proclamation that was scheduled to be read this evening, but I believe we're going to postpone it. Councilmember Flynn, if you could put it on the floor and then Councilmember Sandoval asked you to make your motion to postpone it after we get it on the floor. Councilmember Flynn, you want to I think we'll forgo the reading of it and just move that it be adopted so that we can postpone is I believe our Madam Secretary would like us to do that, correct? Yeah. All right. I move that the proclamation 20 dash 613 be adopted. Q It's been moved and seconded. Councilmember Sandoval, your motion to postpone. I would like to make a motion to postpone. Proclamation 20 06130613 to be moved to July 20th. Monday, July 20th. Thank you, Councilmember. I see that that has been seconded. And so, Madam Secretary, roll call on the phone. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. Torres, I. Black All right. CdeBaca, I. Flynn. I. Gilmore. Herndon. Hi. Hi. Hi. Cashman. All right. Can each I. Council President. I am secretary. Please close voting. Announce the results. 12 hours 12 as proclamation 613 has been postponed to July 20th. All right. That brings us to the bills for introduction. Madam Secretary, will you please read the bills for introduction.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1590 South Emerson Street in Platt Park. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-B to U-SU-B1 (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 1590 South Emerson Street in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 3-23-21.

DenverCityCouncil_05032021_21-0310

I. Madam Secretary closed the voting and announced results. 11 811 Eyes Council Bill 20 1-0309 has passed. Council Member Clerk Will you please put Council Bill 310 on the floor for final passage? As Council President, I move the Council Bill 310 to be placed on final consideration and do per second. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Council Bill 310 is open. May we have the staff report, Fran? Sure. Okay. Can you see that one? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Perfect. So, you know, it's use my specialty, so. Here. We're going to be looking at the Map Amendment overview for 1590 South Emerson Street. Subject property is located in Council District seven with Councilman John Clark. In the flood park neighborhood. The property owner is proposing to rezone to a district that allows greater use. If approved, all forms and use standards should remain the same. The property is currently in the urban single unit thesun on the street, which allows for a minimum lot size of 4500 square feet. And as you can see on the map, most of the surrounding properties are also on us and U.S. You'll be one to a south. The site is currently occupied by a single unit home and it is mostly surrounded by other single unit and two unit uses as well as a public quasi public use, including a fire station just south southeast from the site. Here. You can see the area with the side of the proposed rezoning on the bottom left and the top right and left. Some images to show the residential character of the neighborhood. Speaking of the process, informational notice of the application was sent on January 5th, 2021. Planning Board recommended approval on March 17 and have received no letters of support or opposition have been received from the public or are in place. You know, the Denver zoning code has five review criteria. The first one is consistency. We adopted plans. There's two plans applicable to his rezoning Comprehensive Plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. The rezoning is consistent with several of this prejudicing comprehensive plan 2040. This MAP amendment will promote equity by creating a greater mix of housing options in every neighborhood, and it will lead to an environmentally resilient Denver by promoting infill development where infrastructure and services are already in place. Now looking at in Denver, there's subject property is mapped as part of the urban neighborhood context. The future places map designates the subject property as low residential place type. These Plains states have predominantly single and two unit uses, and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Emmerson Street is designated as a local strip, which is mostly characterized by residential uses. The growth area in Denver is all the areas of the city. These areas are anticipated to see 10% employment growth and 20% housing growth by 2040. Luke Bryan also includes specific policy recommendations. Housing Policy Ford focuses on diverse diversifying housing choice through expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. Stuff was fine, so they requested Sony meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations, and we will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through its implementation of adopted plans. Just defining circumstance for the rezoning is a caveat of this plan sees the approval of the existing use you based on district. The city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2040 and blueprint. Denver stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of this plan's. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential district and the U.S. once owned district. Stuff does recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met. All right. Thank you, Fran. Tonight, council has not received any written testimony on Council Bill 21, Dash 031 ten. And we have one individual signed up to speak. Jesse Paris. We'll go ahead and get. Jesse, back into the queue here. Yes. Good evening. Members of council watching their crew. My name is definitely imperative. And still for black stars and symbol for self-defense of of social change as well as the unity party of Colorado and frontline black males. And I will be the next mayor of Denver in 2023. I'm in favor of this new zoning request tonight. As I have stated numerous times, I supported accessory dwelling units when I ran for city council at large in 2019, and I plan to support them in 2023 when I run for mayor. So with that being said, this meets all five of the criteria. So I'm in favor of this tonight. The job, a council man, Dylan Clark. You got this. Thank you. All right. Thank you. That concludes our speakers questions from members of Council on Council Bill 310. Seen no. Questions. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 310. Councilman Clark. Thank you. Council President I think as was articulated in the staff report, this clearly meets the criteria and I will be supporting it tonight and encourage my colleagues to do so as well. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And I also agree that it does meet all of the criteria and will be supporting it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 310, please. Like I. Flynn. I. And I. Cashman. Hi. Can each I. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer, I. I don't believe I see Tories. Black sheep. I see tobacco. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. 11 days. 11 I's Council Bill 20 1-031 ten has passed. Councilmember Clark, would you please put Council Bill 317 on the floor for final passage?

A resolution approving a proposed Eighth Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Busco, Inc. to provide homeless persons with transportation to and from overflow shelters. Amends a contract with Busco, Inc. to add $1 million for a new contract total of $4,050,000 and to add one year for a new end date of 9-30-18 to provide transportation for people experiencing homelessness from the Denver Rescue Mission to various approved recreation centers and shelters located throughout the City (SOCSV-2013-13589-08). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-5-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 1-17-18.

DenverCityCouncil_02122018_18-0029

Okay. No motion is required. Do any other members of council have any other comments on that? All right. 77 is postponed for a week. All right. Let's see, Councilman New. You called out resolution 29. Yes. Yes. Was proposed. I did. Go ahead. There's a question. I don't know if everybody's here from Road Home or. Anybody here from Denver's road home. Ah, okay. Come on up here. You're hiding in the corner and see you got that. Vince Rivera. Denver Human Services. Now, try to answer your question the best I can. Okay. Thanks for coming up. You know, it looks like, you know, the adding $1,000,000 for up to two for me million our contract. Just want to go over just like this confusing is a multiyear contract and put in what do we spend last year for the emergency transport service for the homeless. You know. Last year. So we're splitting the allocation for this particular amendment. 20,000 will go to last year's services and I think it ended up being one. $1,460,000 total. Okay. So and that kind of fluctuates when the weather gets frigid like it is right now. And they need to run an extra extra service. We might need to allocate more funds towards. The current. Run. It runs about nine months of the year. Or I'm sorry. How often does it run? How many months of the year does it run? So I spoke with the program manager and it's four busses dedicated to service, to making three trips a day and to making four trips a day. And it averages about 700 people. In the evening and 700 coming back in the morning time. Okay. And it looks like that's maybe a cost of per passenger about, you know, 6 to $8 a trip, which, you know. Right. And I think they were looking to look at the expense of this race for this this appropriation of all dollars gives you to September, where you're going to be reevaluating the cost of the transport service. Yes, absolutely. So the solicitation that we ran is valid until September. But what well, before that date, I'm actually suggesting in the summertime they need to prepare a solicitation to continue services in this manner and at the same time looking at. How the city could personally invest to also reduce costs for these services, so that that would kind of be two separate projects happening at the same time with the goal of not breaking service. All right. Well, I encourage you also, we've got homeless all over the city. You know, and I know that you're transporting work from the rescue mission with three areas you're coming from. Yes. Let's see. 48 thing. Colorado Catholic Charities, Smith Road, Denver and Rescue Mission. Harley Street. And. Clients arrive back at the rescue mission and Samaritan House in the morning. Time for breakfast. It's important to get the homeless off the street. There's no question about that. So I just encourage you to look at that transportation system, that address the homeless or in other areas of the city, as well as those main areas. So I know it's a difficult job and we've ridden with the homeless out there. And so it's a it's a it's a very needed service. But I think we can probably do a more cost effective if look at it. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you very. Much. Yes, sir. Thanks, Vince. Thank you, Councilman. You. All right? Yeah, you can do it. We now have a council bill. One of five. Councilman Espinosa, will you put us on the floor for publication?

Councilor Flynn for Councilor Murphy ordered the following: Order for the appointment of temporary employee Thomas Mannion and David Mareira in City Council effective January 29, 2022.

BostonCC_01262022_2022-0210

Civil war? Yes. Mr. President. Target number 20209 has passed unanimously. Docket number 0210. Council of Flynn. Council A murphy. Madam Clerk, please take a roll call vote. Thank you. Docket 0210. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Arroyo. Yes. Councilor Baker. Yes. Elisa Baker. Yes. Counsel Board. Yes. Counsel. Blockhouse. Counselor Braden. Yes. Councilor Braden. Councilor Edwards. Yes. Councilor Edwards is councilor. Councilor Fernandez Anderson. Yes. Councilor Fernandez Anderson. Yes. Councilor Flaherty. Is. Also Flaherty as. Councilor Flynn. Yes. Councilor Flynn. Yes. Council. Laura. Yes. Counsel. Larry. Yes. Counselor. Louisiana. Yes. And also the region. Yes. Counsel me here. Yes. I'm here. Counselor Murphy? Yes. Counselor Murphy? Yes. Counsel. The world. Yes. I'd say. Warren. Yes, Mr. President. Docket number 00210 has received a unanimous vote. And last but not least, docket number 0211. Counsel of Flynn for Counsel to Murphy.

Recommendation to request City Manager to direct the Economic Development Department to work with Los Angeles Local Initiatives Support Corporation and the Long Beach Community Foundation to establish Long Beach as a "Kiva City"; and Increase appropriations in the General Fund (GF) in the Economic Development Department (ED) by $25,000, offset by the First, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Council Districts one-time infrastructure funds transferred from the Capital Projects Fund (CP) in the Public Works Department (PW) to support the hiring of a new, temporary part-time staff member.

LongBeachCC_11072017_17-1004

So I'm sure a lot of what you talked about can be reflected. Thanks. Great. Thank you. There's a motion in a second. Please cast your votes. Motion carries gray in the next one. And we have three items that were related to this. So we're going to do 22, 24 and 25. When I read. That's one. I'm sorry. 22, 23, 25. Item 22. Communication from Vice Mayor Richardson. Councilwoman Gonzales. Councilwoman Mongo. Councilman Andrew's recommendation to direct the Economic Development Department to work with Los Angeles Local Initiatives Support Corporation and a Long Beach Community Foundation to establish Long Beach as Akiva City Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just have a couple a couple of points here to make. So blueprint. Objective number two on economic inclusion specifically calls out increasing nontraditional capital resources for minorities and women owned businesses. Kiva is a nonprofit, innovative, online microfinance platform that works to expand access to financial services for small business owners who have the dream and potential but are locked out of commercial traditional commercial loans. Using the Kiva platform, borrowers can apply for crowdfunded loans of up to $10,000 with a 0% interest rate. Kiva Borrowers are typically entrepreneurs who cannot qualify for conventional business financing due to poor credit time in business or little financial collateral. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Long Beach is home to diverse communities and economies, with more than 9800 small businesses employing nearly 100,000 people. Yet one of the biggest challenges facing these small business owners, especially women and minority owned businesses, is the inability to access capital. That's why Long Beach becoming a key city is vital to the success of our vital of our vibrant small business community. To date, there are only 16 cities across the U.S. with Kiva City designation, and since 2005, Kiva has crowdfunded more than 2.4 million loans totaling over $1,000,000,000, with a global repayment rate of 97%. The Kiva platform has attracted the community, a community of over 1.6 million Lennar lenders from 180 different countries. So the proposal tonight is to help get Kiva off the ground in Long Beach and to support a part time point person. This person will provide support to city staff regarding the Kiva platform. Ten Key Kiva trainings as needed. Market and promote the program. Recruit and train Kiva borrowers to use Kiva Lending Program. Help set up other Kiva trustee partners within the city. Provide annual or semiannual training to Cuba. Trustee Partners and the City of Long Beach. Provide one on one support to help organizations identify and bring forth strong Kiva borrowers. Fundraise for a match that meets previous terms, which has no interest, no fees, and no credit score. One of our partners on Kiva is the Los Angeles Local Initiative Support Corporation, who will bring technical advice, technical assistance to the city to train staff and borrowers to use the Kiva application. So I want to thank. Executive director to new address input for helping to. For volunteering to offer this support. They'll also help us to market and promote the program, recruit borrowers and use their $100,000 accelerator fund to help borrowers reach their goals quicker. In addition, I want to thank the Long Beach Community Foundation, who've already pledged to help support the first year costs. Your support is invaluable to the success of this program, and I want to thank co-sponsors Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilwoman Mongeau and Councilmember Andrews for dedicating one time funds to help bring Keep It Along Beach as well. But it's not too late. If council members have ideas or suggestions, you're more than welcome to put in some funds on these startup costs too. So I couldn't. So that's totally with a couldn't ask before do the Brown act. But we can totally ask now. So anybody who wants to get in on Kiva, now's the time. I'm pretty sure every district it once was off the ground. We're going to want every one of our businesses to participate. So. So you're more than welcome to help us get off the ground. Thank you. And that's my motion. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. I just want to say thanks again, Vice Mayor. I think when I first heard about Kiva was in and about in Kenya. Actually, I wasn't in Kenya, but I heard about it as an initiative that was taking place in Kenya for entrepreneurs there in a third world country. And I thought, it's interesting, we're going to bring it here. But now that I looked at this, this is absolutely fantastic, especially in the whole realm of economic inclusion. And I will say as well, just to reiterate the points I've said before with women and just making sure that women are at the table, making sure that women are presenting. So I'm glad to see that, to know it will be a part of that. I know she's a very strong woman. That will absolutely be a great part of this program and making sure that we are, of course, providing opportunities for borrowers to sorry for lenders to understand what the risks are. And really, I'm actually looking at the Kiva website and it shows that the repayment rate is, I think, averaging over 95%. Yeah, 97, 95%, which is fantastic. So I think that. Is really great. This is a fantastic program. I'm glad we brought this here. And I want to thank John Keisler as well for his work in this. And Sergio, thank you. Thank you. Councilman Pearce. I want to thank you again for bringing this item. When I think about the second District and I think about how many great startups we have, coffee shops, chocolatiers was actually ended up in the first district. But a lot of these small people that start in their homes could benefit from Kiva. So RECs, I'm in, come in and look. I'll take that as a friendly amendment. That's a friendly amendment to include city to maybe to in being a part of, of this initiative. And I really look forward to having some conversations with staff and doing some outreach as well. So fantastic. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Mongo. Was there disclosure of how much you just committed to? I think it's I think it's 6200 is what. We're committing. 62. And so. It's less. Right. That would be true. Five, five, 5000. And so thank you for that. The five ways. Now I just want to thank council members for putting their money where their mouth is because I think that's what really demonstrates to businesses. Businesses put money and they finance refinanced their homes. Some of them who even have good credit, they they don't need a loan that's as big as banks sometimes give. And so the process and the paperwork and the work, this crowd funding of loans is just an amazing opportunity. I'm already a lender on Kiva and I hope you'll go online and join me. Get ready. Loan the Long Beach business some money soon. Thank you. Is there a public comment on this? I know we've heard saying saying none. We have a motion and a second. Please cast your votes.

A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Hamon Infrastructure, Inc. concerning construction services for the Jackson Gap and 78th Parking Expansion project at Denver International Airport. Approves a contract with Hamon Infrastructure, Inc. for $8,259,000 and for 325 days from Notice to Proceed for construction services for the Jackson Gap and 78th Parking Expansion project at Denver International Airport in Council District 11 (202160382). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-29-22. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-23-22. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Flynn postponed this item at the 3-7-22 meeting to 3-14-22.

DenverCityCouncil_03072022_22-0222

Ten Eyes Council Resolutions 22, dash 171 through 22. Dash 178 have been adopted. Madam Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn. Please go ahead with your comments on resolution two, two, two. Thank you, Madam President. I have called this out for a one week postponement. Under our Rule 3.7 to next week's meeting on March 14th of the title of the resolution was inadvertently printed incorrectly on our agenda. Its correct on the resolution itself. It's correct on all prior agendas. But Madam President, for just inadvertently the title from a the resolution right above it got duplicated. And this will this one week will give the administration time to do the proper and correct notice. I know it's a technical paperwork error, but we want to make sure everything is done correctly. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, there's no motion required. Do any other council members how many comments on this? All right, scene one Council Resolution two, two, two will be back before the Council for consideration on Monday, March 14. Madam Secretary, please put the next item on our screens.

A proclamation recognizing April 2014 as "Fair Housing Month". A proclamation proclaiming Apil 2014 as "Fair Housing Month".

DenverCityCouncil_04072014_14-0246

Communications. Do we have any communications? None. Madam President. Thank you. We do have three proclamations this evening, and I will call on Councilman Brooks to read the first one. Number 246. Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Madam President. This is proclamation number 246, recognizing April 2014 as Fair Housing Month. Whereas the year 2014 marks the 46th anniversary of the passage of the Federal Fair Housing Act, the Title eight of Civil Rights Act and 1968, as amended. And. WHEREAS, The Civil Rights Act of 1968 of the Colorado Fair Housing Law and the Denver Housing Law guarantees that housing in Denver and throughout the United States of America should be made available to all citizens without regard for race, color, religion, national origin, gender, age, sexual orientation, familiar status, gender variance, marital status, ancestry, creed, military status , or physical or mental disability. And. Whereas, in the fall of 2013, the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center conducted an investigation into fair housing compliance by rental property owners throughout Metro Denver area. And. WHEREAS, the Metro Fair Housing Center Release Access denied a report on rental housing discrimination in Denver metro area on February 5th, 2014. And. WHEREAS, Evidence shows that even 45 years after the Fair Housing Act was passed, people of color and families with children in Denver are still discriminated against in a very high rate. The investigation found African-Americans encounter discrimination rate of 67% of the time in search for rental housing. Latinos encounter discrimination and 91% of the time and households without children in the home were treated more favorably than those with children as 73% of the time. And. Whereas, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the rights of all and only with the cooperation, commitment and support from the residents of the city and county of Denver. Can barriers to the enjoyment of housing be removed? Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one that the Denver City Council hereby recognizes recognizes Denver Metro Fair Housing Center for their work. Thank you. To promote their housing choice and to eliminate barriers to housing opportunity. Section two. That Denver City Council shares the vision. Of equal housing opportunities for all residents and the city and county of Denver and hereby joins the national celebration of Reclaim in 2014 as Fair Housing Month. Section three of the clerk in the city of the County of Denver Show attests and affixed a seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation that the copy be transmitted to the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center. Thank you. Councilman wrote Share Motion to Adopt. Thank you, Madam President. Move that proclamation to 46. Be adopted. Second, it has been moved and seconded. Comments by counsel. Councilman Brooks. Yeah, thank you, Madam President. This is. It brings me great joy to bring this proclamation forward. And we're going to take a walk, a stroll down memory lane for my younger council colleagues. That's a joke. I'm the youngest I'm the youngest council person up here. Not that funny, but oh. The impetus for the Fair Housing for Housing Act started in 1966 with the Chicago Housing Movement. And as you know, during this time and it's such an incredible time to be alive, my mom tells me. But King Martin Luther King was an incredible part of this movement. Well, two years later, on April 4th, he died. And the nation who was fighting so hard for civil rights went from peaceful marches to we going to burn this down. And April 5th was not a peaceful day in our country. And luckily, because of prudent President Johnson, he decided to call the House of Representatives and say, we need to do something. We need to do something quick and tender. And five days later, April 10th, they passed the Fair Housing Act for our country, which is an incredible way to get this passed. But sometimes you've got to go by force. I'm excited that our country passed something so incredible, but I'm disheartened to find out the state that we live in today, where 91% of Latinos, nine out of ten who go to rent a housing project will be discriminated against. Six out of ten or 7% of African-Americans will be discriminated against. Seven out of ten of individuals who have children will be discriminated against. There was a report recently about losing ground and and talking about since the civil rights movements, how we have lost ground as a country, but specifically African-Americans and Latinos. And I think that is one of the most important reasons I brought this forward today, is to begin to proclaim what was good and what was right and what was just in this country. And to say, you know what, we will not handle that in Denver. We will set standards that will be different. We will not play those games. And as a council begin to agree that this is not something that we will stand for. And so, you know, on behalf of this council and all of the advocates in the city, we stand behind this proclamation. And we hope that there are apartment complexes. We hope that there are housing regulators who are looking at this and say, you know what? We will not let this stand any longer as well and make sure that they're changing policies within their business and within their organization. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Kennish. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to my colleague for sponsoring this proclamation. It reminds me a little bit of the conversation we had regarding the disadvantaged business ordinance in terms of whether or not there are still barriers that individuals of color, in some cases women face in our society. And in my comments from then, I'm just going to repeat briefly today, which is that it's not that we don't have explicit racism that certainly still exists, but more pervasive is probably unconscious discrimination. So to potential renters come to see my apartment and I just feel more comfortable maybe with the one who looks like me or I just feel more drawn. And so I think it is the next and the last vestiges of of these kinds of discrimination that we are going to have to tackle. And I think the way to do that is really by having a lot of conversation with apartment owners and others about the unconscious ways that those. Kinds of thoughts and feelings come into our decision making. And so we really need to make sure that we're partnering with the Apartment Association and others to really have that conversation directly with the folks who lend and who let housing to make sure that we are really helping folks to identify the ways that these systems. And that's what they are. Right. Still operate in our in our unconscious minds and in our decision making so that we don't have the kinds of numbers that Councilman Brooks described. So I'm supportive and committed to those kinds of conversations. And if there are other ways that we can take that conversation, you know, to the housing providers to help to make that a reality, I'm certainly volunteering my time to to be a part of that effort. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Rona. President, first of all, I want to thank Councilman Brooks for bringing this forward. I want to ask that my name be added. I have spent the last 30 years of my life serving on the board of a nonprofit housing development organization whose mission is doing nothing but affordable housing for people who are struggling and challenged to be able to take advantage of the American dream that I think many of us strive for in this city. It is critical that we have an adopted housing plan so that we have clear policy that sets direction for the development community. And tied to that, we have to have dedicated resources that assist in ensuring that we're able to create affordable housing. I commend the administration for having put some money in the 2014 budget for affordable housing, but we need to do that on an ongoing basis to be able to ensure that we have the ability to allow people who want to live in the city to be able to do so. You all know how expensive housing in Denver has become. In my neighborhood, you can't touch anything anymore for less than half a million dollars, which is unheard of in northwest Denver. So I just hope that tonight, the same way we support fair housing, that we will allow the same opportunity of fairness for people to be able to have a voice when we deal with the next proclamation that we'll talk also about various segments of the civil rights effort. So I will be supporting this proclamation tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Madam President. I think Councilman Ortega really took some of the words out of my mouth and I and it feels good because first, I want to thank Councilman Brooks for bringing this forward. And some of the folks that are involved in fair housing on the ground level and in the trenches are here in the in the audience. I want to salute you guys for the work that you do. Hopefully one day this council won't be voting on a proclamation, but will be voting on ordinances that ensure fair housing. I think it's it's a sad day knowing that just a few years ago, so many people of color were losing their homes. When you look at the foreclosures and you look at the roles and who is losing their homes in northeast Denver and in West End Room, it was a lot of people of color. And are they buying back those homes? No. For most of the home sales that are going on, they're not people in color. They lose their home, they lose their status and they lose their residency in this city. And we've seen that because the census data has shown that that's true, that once a minority majority city is now not. And is it because of all that's just the way it is or is because of lack of fair housing opportunity, responsibility, ordinances, policies in some of the areas in Westwood and in Barnum and V Park on the West Side. You can't get a two bedroom for under $1,000. And if you do, the doors don't lock, the windows don't shut. There's a specialist on the floor that has not been taken care of. How do I know this? Because I was in the market for a home. I was a renter two years ago. And going through that process really opened my eyes again. All my life, we had rented. My parents, my family still around the home and. And the different places we would go. We face the same kind of situation. I had to unfortunately revisit that situation. And in looking at places to live, you know. There was clear violations, health and safety that should not you know, that should be addressed. And there was clear lack of responsibility by some of the renters. I mean, some of the landlords or even when you went to go buy a home. Right. There was a clear slide that she would get. And it was I almost felt like an inspector because every time I would visit it and I'd find out about these things, I'd go turn them in after that, because I'm a councilman . They don't know that, but I do. Right. And so because these see, these shouldn't exist, the standard of living should not exist in our city. And we need to have enforcement to make sure that these that these federal laws and state laws and habit warrant availability laws are also enforced. That's fair housing. And, you know, it's one it's so I love being able to to celebrate this and say, hey, guys, let's let's make sure that there's no discrimination in housing. Let's make sure that these are values that we that we get behind. I mean, absolutely support this proclamation wholeheartedly. I want to take this further. Denver has not passed a housing plan yet. We still block out affordable housing. We still back when we talk about things like that, small, like anything with the with the public public sector meddling with the private sector business. Right. I think we have to take it a step further. There is other cities and municipalities that have that have protected the the weak in their city. And folks that do not have with ordinances that prohibit any kind of discrimination like this or that go even further and ensure that there are units available. So I you know, my hat's off to Councilman Brooks for for sponsoring this proclamation. I look forward to seeing some ordinances in the near future. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Monteiro. Thank you, Madam President. I just mentioned earlier in 1988, the Federal Fair Housing Act was amended to include protections for families and for children. Yet, according to the audit results that were talked about, the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center, families with children can expect to encounter discrimination in their housing search. 73% of the time, when people experience illegal housing discrimination, it is not only their right to live where they choose. It also affects access to quality housing. And it provides it lacks access to quality education, employment opportunities, fresh food shopping, recreation, public service, public services, and the opportunity to live in an integrated society. I also support this proclamation that is very timely. Last Friday we had a retreat, all of us Denver City Council members, and there was a vigorous conversation about affordable housing and how it's a priority for this body of decision makers. I also I also at this point want to mention that I've been very fortunate to be able to work with organizations like New Said in Northeast Housing, Habitat for Humanity, del Norte, the the Denver Housing Authority. And most recently, there was a press conference and a colossal effort to implement the Neighborhood Lift Project. So I also support this, and by no means in my acquiescing that we have little work to do. We have a lot of work to do. But thank you, Councilman Brooks, for bringing this to our attention. And thank you for all of the providers that are in the trenches every day. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilwoman Sheperd. Thank you, Madam President. I also would like to offer my thanks to Councilman Brooks for bringing this forward. I think my comments my colleagues have made many excellent comments tonight, so I don't really feel the need to repeat those. But I would like to communicate to Madam Secretary, by the way. Very nice to see you, Kelly. Welcome back to enter my name in the record as a co-sponsor of this as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Shephard. I also want to thank Councilman Brooks for bringing this forward. When I was a graduate student in Denver a lot of years ago, about 1970, I had an African-American friend who went to an apartment house next to mine and looking for a place. And they said it was already rented. And I said, let me go and ask that same question. And sure enough, it wasn't rented when I asked for it and we turned him in. But one would hope that that would be ancient history. And it. Makes me very sad that we're still facing those sorts of things. And I'm glad that you brought this forward, that we bring it to light. I'm glad for the people who are working so hard on this. I think people need to know how prevalent this is, when it should have been behind us many years ago. Thank you again. I see that my name isn't on here either, but I'd like to add my name to that. Okay. I think we're ready for the vote. Madam secretary. Brooks brown, fox. I. Herndon. Can each i. Lehman. Lopez. Montero. Nevitt. Ortega. Rob Shepherd. Madam President, I. Councilman Herndon, Fats and Lopez. The friends or I should. That's an issue. Here. You've got a screen issue. I bet you voted either. Yes, Madam Secretary, close the voting. Announce the results. 13 eyes. 13 eyes. The proclamation passes. Councilman Brooks, is there somebody you'd like to invite up to the podium? Well, there's a lot. This has been said by a couple of councilmembers. There's a lot of folks in the audience who've done some great work in the housing community. But I'll just call up a couple. Leslie Lewis and Arturo Alvarado. Thank you, Madam President. My name is Leslie Lewis, and I co-chair the Denver African-American Commission. The commission would like to thank council members and each council member for sponsoring the Fair Housing Proclamation. As you know, our commission, a part of our. Mission, is to be an advocate for our community. The commission serves as a bridge. Between the African American Commission and policymakers and engages in responsible activism for the community. After reading the Housing Discrimination Report, the Commission knew we had to bring more awareness to this issue. We understand that many Denver citizens are facing challenges with housing discrimination, yet many still are not aware of where they can. Where their rights are. How to fight it. And some aren't even aware that they're being discriminated against. To bring more awareness to the housing discrimination and recognizing April as Fair Housing Month, the Commission has collaborated with the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center and Denver Anti-Discrimination Office to bring more awareness through providing public service announcement posters at local libraries, recreation centers and our local neighborhood newspapers, such as the Five Points News. Our goal is to make sure. All of our citizens who experience or excuse me, any citizen who experiences discrimination know where to find help. We will continue to shed light on this issue. Thank you. Good evening. My name's Arturo Alvarado. I'm the executive director of the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center. The Denver Metro Fair Housing Center opened in October of 2012, and on behalf of our the DMF Agency Board of Directors and Staff present today a great mekonnen who's our board president. Board members Veronica Barela and Pastor Robert Martin. And one of our staff members, Kate Quillen, who's a fair housing specialist. We would like to thank Councilman Elvis Brooks, the Darius Smith with the Antidiscrimination Office, Debra Bottle Sin and the mayor's African-American commission for working together to bring this proclamation forward to the council. Further, thank you, Councilman Elvis Burks, for sponsoring the bill and all the co-sponsors and the full council for recognizing the valued work the Denver Metro Fair Housing Center performs to help all communities become more inclusive and joining in the national celebration of Fair Housing Month. It is our hope that our work brings about awareness in the community, about fair housing rights and responsibilities, and the value of integrated communities that are reports and information shared with the public can be used as tools to guide discussion and public policy. The FHC works to eliminate housing discrimination and promote housing choice for all people. The Denver Metro Fair Housing Center looks forward to working with the city and county, city and county of Denver, the mayor's African-American Commission and the anti-discrimination office and as well as the community as a whole to achieve these goals. Please remember the fair housing is a right that we all share and that we all should use. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Councilman Brooks, you had a comment. You know, I just wanted to I know Arturo mentioned some of the individuals who've been helping out. But if you have been standing in the gap for those who have been disfranchized for fair housing, can you can you just stand up and be recognized?

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

LongBeachCC_06012021_21-0487

Thank you. Next up is item 12. Report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation under the record conclude the public hearing relating to ordinances regulating construction adjacent to abandoned oil or gas wells. Declare Ordinance Amending Title 18 of the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to construction in the vicinity of oil, gas wells and ordinance relating to methane gas mitigation. Read for the first time in laid over the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading citywide. Ten year motion in the second place. Gavin. I have a motion on the floor. Let's go. Turn over to staff and begin the hearing. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the City Council Development Services is delighted to bring these two ordinances for your consideration tonight that will allow the construction in the vicinity of oil and gas wells, as well as the establishment of methane gas mitigation standards. Next slide, please. Thank you. Current state regulations create barriers to development near the vicinity of oil wells. The proposed action creates tailored regulations specific to Long Beach that provide a more efficient process for applicants with the public, with a plot with public safety as a primary goal. The development of these regulations was a result of a multi-year effort that involved a survey of development standards in poor cities. The use of professional technical experts. Consultation from our local and regional construction and development partners. And the public's input. Next slide, please. If an applicant is proposing to develop in the vicinity of oil gas wells, they may elect to utilize the California Geologic Energy Management Division, Cal Jam for short standards. Or they may utilize the Long Beach standards. The proposed standards provide alternative equivalent regulations and approaches that allow construction near over wells subject to certain safety regulations that include locating and examining the conditions of the wells, as well as testing and monitoring those wells. Next slide, please. The proposed methane gas regulations will establish a prescriptive standard for the detection and mitigation for those projects proposed to be constructed over areas with detectable amounts of methane barrier. Next slide, please. As part of this effort, the city, with the assistance of our technical experts, created a localized GIS map that will assist the development community in identifying those areas in Long Beach, where detectable levels of methane gas are present. Next slide, please. As such, staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the ordinances relating to the construction in the vicinity of oil gas wells as well as methane gas mitigation standards. That concludes our presentation. Staff is happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Next slide, please. Thank you. I do have a motion and a second and a motion by Councilmember Ranga. I believe we have one member of the public that can speak. So why don't we do that? Member of the public? And then we'll come back to customary Ranga and record. That member of the public is in on the call yet. Okay, then let me go to Councilman Ranga. Yeah, it seems like every district in the city has some kind of oil well facility that has been abandoned. And this would be a great project for us to determine what we can do to or not do to create more development economic assistance for the city. So I very happy to support this this motion. Right. Councilman Price. Mr. Mayor, I agree. We certainly had a number of these issues arise during the development of Second PCH. And so I'm glad that the development services staff is bringing this item forward, and I'm happy to support it. Thank you, Councilwoman Sara. That was a second. I don't have any other comment and thank you for the presentation. And customers and ask do you have any comment or is that just a motion? I would comment. One of the things that I was glad to see included in the initial study checklist was that it looked into the environmental factors potentially affected by the project and found no impact from their results. The healthy and life safety matters from constructions near these wells were something that I was very concerned about, but I'm glad to see that it was addressed in the study. So thank you. Thank you. I have a motion by Councilmember Ranga, seconded by Councilman Price. I think Councilman Price. There was a second, I think. Right. And then and as to the roll call vote. District one. I. District two I. District three. I. District four. I. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. By District eight. All right. District nine. Motion carries. Thank you. Next step is we will do public commentaries and we have a I think we might have two of those.

Recommendation to approve naming the Social Hall or Kitchen at the Cesar Chavez Community Center in Honor of Mrs. Ruth Ricker.

LongBeachCC_02202018_17-0563

Motion carries. 38. Item 38 is report from Councilman Andrews, chair of the Housing and Neighborhoods Committee. Recommendation to approve naming a social hall or kitchen at the Cesar Chavez Community Center in honor of Mrs. Ruth Ricker. Can I get a second, please? Any public comment on this? Mr. Mayor, can I say something? Yes, Councilman Gonzales. Thank you. So I want to thank Councilman Andrews for entertaining this. I know we were back and forth whether to call the program, which we know is temporary or a social hall. But I she was an incredible African-American woman, and I think we should absolutely name the social hall after her. So I support that motion. However, I do want to ensure that I believe there's needed repairs in that social hall. So if we can look at those repairs and find out what those repairs are and find a timeline for them, because we'd like to make sure it's done correctly in 30 days. That would be great. We certainly will do that. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. And there's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. Wishing Karis. Thank you.

AN ORDINANCE relating to the City Light Department; clarifying that residents living in the City Light Department owned housing in the Diablo and Newhalem communities are subject to the City Light Department’s rates under Chapter 21.49 and 21.56 of the Seattle Municipal Code; amending Section 21.56.030 of the Seattle Municipal Code; and ratifying and confirming certain prior acts.

SeattleCityCouncil_09212020_CB 119857

Agenda Item 22 Constable 119857 related the city department clarifying that residents living in the city department owned housing in the Diablo and Salem communities are subject to the City Life Department's rate. The committee recommends Bill pass. Thank you. Come Summer Pearson as chair of the committee, you are recognized in order to provide the committee's report. Thank you. Council President. Council 119857. Simply clarifies that residents of housing owned by Seattle at the Skagit Hydro project pay regular rates for electricity. The only exceptions are, if otherwise, provided in a collective bargaining agreement or by explicit terms in a hiring letter. Accountable 119857 passed the Transportation Utilities Committee unanimously. Thank you, Councilmember Peterson, are there any comments on the bill? Hearing that. Will the clerk please call the roll on the passage of the bill? Lewis. I. Morales. Yes. Macheda. Yes. Pietersen? Yes. The one? Yes. Strauss. Yes. Verbal. Yes. Juarez. Yes. President Gonzalez. I nine favor and unopposed. The bill passes and the chair will sign it with a clear plea to fix my signature to the legislation on my behalf. Item 23 Will the clerk read the short title? Excuse me, did we just do item 23? You're on target. It is 23, right? Correct. Okay. Sorry. Well, will the court please read the short title of item 23 into the record?

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2841 North Kearney Street in North Park Hill. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from E-SU-Dx to E-SU-D1x (allows for an accessory dwelling unit), located at 2841 North Kearney Street in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 2-15-22.

DenverCityCouncil_04182022_22-0169

I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-168 has passed. Moving along. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put council bill 22, dash 169 on the floor for final passage. I move that council bill? 169 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. And we've got it moved and seconded the required public hearing on Council Bill 20 2-169 is open and we have Fran with us again for the staff report. Afternoon slump in the Philippines city planner with planning services. And today, I'm going to present an overview of the MAP Amendment for 2841 North Kearny Street. The subject property is located in District eight, represented by Councilman Christopher Herndon. In the North Hill neighborhood. The request is to rezone to a district that will allow for an AEW while all other forms a new standard would remain the same. This property is currently in the urban single unit de Aix en district, which is which in this location would only allow for a suburban house and an urban house . Building forms a minimum sample size of 6000 square feet. And as you can see on the map, the properties around it to the north, east and south. Other properties that are also shown is the X well to the west. We can see there is a whole block of grade 2.5. The current land use of the site is single unit residential and it is mostly surrounded by other single unit uses, but it has some multi-unit uses to the west. You can see here the land use map. There is also a school have a way half a block to a north. In this slide, we can see that the subject property is on the image on the bottom. Right. And it gives us an idea of the residential character of the neighborhood. Now speaking to a process. Information on notice of the application was sent on December nine, 2021, and this item was recommended for approval on Consent Agenda Planning Board on February 2nd, 2022. To date has not received any letters of support or opposition from the public or from any of the originals. Now moving on to the rezoning criteria, 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 applicable to his rezoning. We have comprehensive plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan. The first gratuitous consistency of the rezoning is consistent with several of the strategies and comprehensive plan 2040. And my 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 already in place. Now Blue in Denver says that this subject properties mapped as part of the urban edge neighborhood context. And if you do place this map designates the subject property as law residential place type place types have predominantly single and unit uses and accessory dwelling units are appropriate. Kearny Street is designated as a local street. The growth area in Denver is all other areas of the city. And this area anticipated to see a 10% employment growth and a 20% housing growth by 2040. Blueprint also includes a policy recommendations. Housing policy number four focuses on diversifying housing choice, the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. The third plan that is applicable to his property is the Park Hill Neighborhood Plan that was adopted in 2000. The plan is silent on residential rezoning specifically. However, the proposed rezoning is consistent with the land use zoning rule and the land use and signing action. Recommendation number three stated in pages 32 and 33 of the plan. The proposed you would maintain the existing integrity of North Hill and increase the mix of housing options in the neighborhood , which is comprised of single unit, two unit and multi-unit dwellings, thereby consistent with the small area plan. Stuff also finds that the requested signing meets the next two criteria. The rezoning will result in uniformity of district regulations and will further the public health, safety and welfare primarily through implementation of adopted plans. The justified circumstance for this rezoning is clear. Since the approval of the existing ESU Dixon District, the city has adopted a comprehensive plan 2040 and Blueprint Denver. I stated throughout this presentation the proposed rezoning to ESU de one X meets the intent of both of these plans. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban edge neighborhood context residential district and the ESU. D1 takes on district purpose and intent. With that stuff. Requirements, approval based on finding or review material has been met. Thank you, Fran, for this great staff report. We've got one individual signed up to speak this evening, Jesse Paris. And Jesse, I've seen you in the queue. Oh, there you go. Are you unmuted? Go ahead, please. Yeah. My name is Justin with Sam Harris, and I represent for Blackstone a movement for self defense, positive action for social change, as well as the Unity Party of Colorado, the East Denver Residents Council on Black News. And I'll be the next mayor of Denver in 2023 and I reside in councilman Herndon's district of dissipates. I'm in favor of this rezoning tonight's a support to use. I would love to see any use in every single district in the city, all 11 of them. And this one I support as well. So please pass this. I'm pretty sure my councilman would agree this is a no brainer. It meets all five of the criteria of this just to see what adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations for this. Public health, safety and wellness just needs justifying circumstances just to see where neighborhood context zone district purpose in its sense. So please pass this to my. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers for this hearing. Questions from members of Council on Council Bill 22, DASH 169. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 22. Dash 169. Councilmember Herndon. Hey, Madam President, I do I do agree with Jesse that the criteria has been clearly met, and I look forward to voting yes. And I hope my colleagues do the same. Thank you. Thank you. And do agree with that assessment as well. I'll be happy to support this rezoning this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, DASH 169, please. Herndon. All right. Hines Excuse me. Cashman. Can each. Ortega. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black. I. See tobacco. I. Clark. All right. Flynn. All right. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-169 has passed. Moving on. Councilmember Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 22, dash three, four, four on the floor for final passage?

AN ORDINANCE proposing an amendment to the King County Charter to move elections for certain county offices from odd-numbered to even-numbered years; amending Sections 640, 647 and 650.20 of the King County Charter and repealing Sections 650.40.15, 650.40.25 and 660 of the King County Charter; and submitting the same to the voters of the county for their ratification or rejection at the November 8, 2022, general election.

KingCountyCC_06152022_2022-0180

So unless certainly burning questions, I'd like to move on now and we will look forward to having another presentation on the bond and at a later date. Okay. With that, we will now move to agenda item number seven. The staff report begins on page 38, and this is a proposed ordinance on a King County charter change to move elections for certain county offices from odd number two, even number years. We did have a briefing on this already at our June 1st meeting, and we have Sherri Su from our central staff to provide the second briefing , an abbreviated briefing. And I was glad to see you with us today, Sherri. We also have from the county Department of Elections Julie Wise and Kendall Hudson, who were with us at our last briefing. And they will be available to answer questions as well with that. Go right ahead, please. Thank you, Chair Colwell and good morning, council members. Sherri, through a council staff and the materials begin on page 38 of your packet proposed ordinance 2020 20180 would place on the November 2022 ballot a charter amendment proposal to move elections for county executive, county assessor, county elections director and county council members from odd to even years. This proposed ordinance was briefed in committee on June 1st, so in the interest of time, I will skip the background and just focus on those areas where there were questions in the previous meeting and present the new information. I'm also happy to answer any questions on the staff report. I'll just begin with a quick reminder of the proposed changes, and this is on page 42 and table two. For the county executive and council members from districts one, three, five, seven and nine. These are most recently elected in 2021 for a four year term, ending 2025 under the proposed charter amendment. The next term would change to a three year term, and after that terms would be four years for the county assessor, elections director and council members from districts two, four, six and eight. These are most recently elected in 2019 for a four year term ending 2023 under the proposed charter amendment. The next term would be a three year term, and after that terms would again be four years. Moving on to the cost considerations on page 43. From an operational perspective, election staff indicate that moving county officer elections from odd to even years would not directly result in operational changes or cost to the department. And moving on now to the the discussion of the allocation of election costs among the county, state and local jurisdictions at a high level elections department administers elections and then divides up that cost proportionally to the state, the county and local jurisdictions that appear on a given ballot. We looked at the potential fiscal impact if past county officer elections had been held in even years instead of odd years. This is shown in table four on page 45. The summary of this whole table is that since 29, since 2009, there are three instances where the county cost would have decreased. Two instances where the county cost would have increased, and in most cases there would be no impact. We did go through this in detail at the last briefing, so I'll skip that. But if there are any questions, I'm happy to walk through it again. I'm jumping now to the potential policy considerations on page 46. The first one listed here is voter turnout. The chart on page 46 summarizes voter turnout for general elections in the county over the last 20 years. Since 2010, the county's average voter turnout rate is 77% and even years and 47% in odd years. If past trends hold moving county officer elections from odd to even. Errors will likely result in higher voter turnout for these elections. Whether council wants to increase voter turnout for the election of these county officers is a policy decision for the council. There was a question in the previous briefing about how this change might impact turnout for local jurisdictions in odd years based on turnout in other counties. Data does not suggest that holding county officer elections in even years instead of odd years would impact on year turnout. On page 48, Table five compares the voter turnout in the seven home rural charter counties during 2021. So three of these counties elected county officers that year. Four of these counties did not elect county officers that year. And based on this data, there is no clear trend distinguishing voter turnout between these two groups. The second path exaggeration is the number of races on the ballot. Moving these county officer elections to even years would increase the number of races on even your ballots and reduce the number on odd year ballots. In terms of the specific number of races that would be moved, the number of ballot items could increase or decrease by two or three. In the previous briefing, there was a request for some sample ballots, and election staff have put together some sample ballots that show possibilities of what past ballots would have looked like with county officer elections held in even years instead of odd years. So there are four years of ballots 2018, 20, 19, 2020 and 2021. Just to orient you to those materials for each year there. There are original and revised ballots, and there are both primary and general elections. These sample ballots assume that the 2019 county officer elections were instead held the year before in 2018, and they assume that the 2021 county officer elections were instead held in 2020. There are multiple versions of each ballot and just to show different examples and the sample ballots also show the order of ballot races. There is also a question about what response rates for county officer races might look like in even years. So the staff report now includes Pierce County's response rate during a recent even year elections. This is on page 49. Pierce County is the home rule Charter County and Neighbor County that holds county officer elections in even years. If King County moved county officer elections to even years, then Pierce and King County would have similar ballot sequences. So Pierce County offers one example of how response rates are at the top of the ballot and may compare with response rates for a county officer. Elections in 2020. The first county item was a referendum with a response rate of 82%. The turnout for a county officer positions was 82% for county executive, 82% for a county assessor, and 85, 80, 81 and 76% for a county council position in 2018, which is a non-presidential election year. The first county wide item was an initiative with a turnout of 66%, and turnout for county council positions was 67, 60 and 77%. The third party consideration listed on the staff report is alignment with federal and state elections. Moving county officer elections to even years would align the election schedule of these county officers with federal and state elections. And whether council desires to do this is a policy decision for the Council just to close timing. This is our second briefing in this committee to place this potential charter amendment on the November ballot. The last regular council meeting to adopt as a non-emergency would be July 19th. I'm happy to take your questions at this time. And we. We have election staff joining us as well. Thank you very much. I really appreciate the very thorough presentation. And I'm wondering if there are any questions of our staff here or of Julie Wise, Director, Wise of Department of Elections or Chief of Staff? Hudson from the Department of Elections. But I have a quick question. Go right ahead. Councilmember Dan. Quick. So the way the election sequence is lined up, will you, the county executive, be up on presidential years or in the mid term you. Thank you for the question. Let me just double check that really quick. The county executive, is there current and term ends in 2025? The next term under the proposed election cycle, under the proposed amendment that would end in 2028 and would be aligned with the presidential election. Actually, the county executive would be aligned with the presidential election and the four council seats with a presidential election, and then the odd year boundaries would be midterms. So. Right. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Thank you. And I actually would like to turn to Councilmember Bell duty at this point. And we again, we still have our elections officials with us. But I'd like to give Councilmember Bell, did she, the lead sponsor, an opportunity to speak on this? Thank you, Chair Carl Wells. I'd be happy to make a motion since this is our second briefing. If you think that is timely. That's fine. I would move that. We move proposed ordinance 2020 20810 to the full council with a DE Pass recommendation. Thank you. So that motion has been made. And would you like to speak to at this time, or do you have any questions of election staff? I'd be happy to speak to it. I'll try to make it really brief. I'm encouraging your support today to move this item forward so that we can stick to the timelines, to put this on the ballot and ask the voters to have their say about whether they want to move our county elected officials to even year elections . Colleagues, you know, we have been a leader in making elections accurate, fair and accessible to as many voters as possible. We are rightly proud here of our county's leadership on making voting accessible to all with successful vote by mail elections for many years before it became statewide, widely available ballot boxes which we funded in communities throughout King County so people can drop off their ballots easily. We've funded initiatives to educate and involve many more new voters, and we led the way on prepaid postage for ballots, which, again, all of these initiatives were supported by this council and have expanded access to voting. We understand that access to voting is critically important. Our government is the most representative and is to say the most democratic. When the people elected to represent the voters are sent by as many of the people as we represent as possible. And as we've heard, the. Data shows that voter turnout during even. Year elections is dramatically higher than outyear elections, meaning many more voters will have a voice in who represents them in these key offices that we that we occupy. You heard some of the numbers. I won't repeat them, but I will say that by moving to even year elections, I just want to stress what we heard from some of this really compelling testimony earlier today. Not just a higher number of voters would participate, but an electorate that is far more representative of our public at large, including more people of color, more and younger voters, more renters, more people of lower income and with less wealth. The flip side of that is currently these positions are elected very disproportionately by, you know, a very. Limited demographic that is. Dominated by wealthy, older voters. Those voters get to have a say, but everybody should have a say. We should have all of our voters, as many of them as possible, engaged in selecting their representatives. I think I'll just close by saying we've been briefed, we've had an opportunity to have questions answered. There's still more time today and a final council if there are further questions. But let's send this to the voters this year so that they can have their say. And if they agree that this is a very important and simple fix that will really expand access to voting, then we can be moving towards those years when it will actually be implemented. Because as you heard, the proposal is we get our first even year elections like three years out from next year. So let's get this going. I urge your support. Thank you, Chairman Wilson. Thank you. Council Member Baldacci. At this point, we still have our election officials with us. We are short on time. But I would like to hear if any of our council members have further questions or comments. At the Grove. Councilmember at the Grove. Thank you, Madam Chair. And this was probably explained, and I just just missed it. But could staff explain one more time how we transition to that odd year? What does it mean? This is a selfish question, perhaps as someone who's in office. The next time, for example, I'm up on the ballot. Using just me as an example is an odd numbered year. I assume nothing changes about the current term in District five. Is the next person elected for three years or for five years? Is it three? Three? Okay. Sir, I'm I'm happy to clarify that. So nothing changes with the current term and then the next term would be three years instead of four. And that would move every move to the even schedule. Thanks. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Councilmember Campbell. Thanks. The corollary to that is for seats that are up in 2023. Are they going to be three year terms? Yes. So this change would be happening to all the positions. Some of those would happen in 2023. Some would happen in 2025, depending on when that position is up. The next term would be three for all of these, and then after that, they would all be four years again. Got you. And in the last briefing we had, which was the first briefing, I had asked about the impact of the costs to run these campaigns. Was staff able to make any estimates because of the the need to talk to more voters, which is a good thing, what the cost might be to run for county executive elections director, assessor County Council. We did not look into the question of campaign costs. That would be more of a political question. I think. We. Would, director wise, like to comment on that. I don't know if she or others would know that in terms of projection in the future. Go right ahead. Thank you for joining us. Good morning. Councilmembers. I think Councilmember Dombroski for the question. I, too, would pretend to know the answer to that question. I know that in talking about this initiative. That there's been conversations around the impacts to running campaigns. But I think that's a little bit outside of my purview, to be honest with you. Thank you. I think. Know. Just I this is my biggest. I really love the increased turnout and the greater diversity of the electorate. It's more representative of the county, so more people are participating. But having done some work in this space, the the ability to run with I'm looking at a colleague here I think in the race are indeed three. It may have cost over $350,000 on one side or another. And it's just over $650,000 spent just by the campaigns alone, independent expenditures. And I don't think that's purely political. I think that's the policy there, particularly when we look at public financing, which is county used to have. And so who gets to reasonably be on the ballot, which is one of the goals of this, to have a more have a representative council. So often politics, sadly, in America is driven by money. And when we are and I think elections and even yours, it's fair to say, because where we would be or people running would be talking to more voters, it would cost more. And that can be a barrier. So I'm I've been interested in kind of a package of explaining a package of reforms, democracy reforms, including public financing, the interest in ranked choice voting shift to even year elections would be part of that. I, i, I really appreciate where this proposal is coming from and the goal that it would have, which is an important one of having more people participate. But I do think there are collateral issues that are that arise, the big one being the dollars. And I mean what I county executives raised cost $3 million $4 million that could in a presidential year when you're trying to buy TV, that's a real issue that I think we haven't talked about and I have asked and and dialog on. But that's a concern for me. Thank you, Councilmember DEMBOSKY. And I could look at it from another perspective that there's only so much money out there, and it may be that it would not cause more, given that there are a lot more, there would be a lot more campaigns going on, but we don't know. That, of course, could come out during the campaign for on this ballot measure very quickly. Council Member Perry. And then I'd like to turn to a councilmember done. And then Councilmember Bell, did she do close? Thank you. I really love competition and want to be the best district. I believe steel sharpens steel. And I believe competing for space in imaginative, innovative and interesting ways to have a vote is is what we're based on. And if that results in more people participating, then that to me is a win all the way around. And it's a huge and important and very positive challenge to each of us. Thank you. Councilmember Dunn. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the bill being brought up for consideration. I just want to let folks, I really strongly oppose this particular piece of legislation. Just because there's a higher percentage of people filling in the oval, does it mean that there's a more informed electorate? When you buried King County Council and Council executive races, the second largest government, the state of Washington, underneath the presidential race, the United States Senate race, ten congressional races, seven statewide races and others. What you do is you lose sight of the local issues that impact people the most instead of the federal issues. And the passion for the federal elections. Gobble up all the time. People need to be talking about Seattle. What is the highest homeless population per capita of any city in the United States, or the dramatic, historic rise in murders and shootings in and around King County and transportation and traffic and land use problems? That's not the kind of thing they are focused on. When presidents are running and US senators are running and congresspeople and governors are, these issues will be buried and seldom talked about unless federal candidates decide to talk about it. And so just because more bubbles are being filled in doesn't mean you have a more educated electorate on local issues. The odd year elections historically have always given us a chance to focus on local issues, given a chance for the editorial boards to focus on local issues, to talk about the things that matter, most of them very well. And so varying these in under these major federal races is a mistake. Also, those of you I ran for attorney general back in 2012 against our good friend Bob Ferguson. And I will tell you, the media is incredibly expensive when you've got a presidential race buying up all the time, even a Senate race buying up all the time, and congressional races, seven statewide risks, including the governor and the attorney general. And so there will be in the literally the price of getting ads out is far more expensive because there are less time slots available for that. And so what this will mean is it is an incumbent protection policy for incumbent members of the King County Council and an incumbent county executive. Nobody who has limited name ideas that get known in any significant way. If if we have a situation where these races are buried underneath the federal races. And so I would strongly encourage people to understand the cost factor. It will be impossible for some local town council members to go after a well-known community councilmember or county executive. So that's a big it's an incumbent protection plan. It's an education plan on local issues. And there are a lot of other reasons why this is bad. I guess I would say if it isn't broken, don't fix it. You might say, well, we get more of increased participation. Remember, we spent a lot of money the taxpayers have on putting ballot boxes all throughout the community. But you have a voter education program printing a ballot. And just about every language we can, we now pay for the ballots sent. We even now pay for the return postage. It's not fair to put those individuals who are trying to study local issues at a disadvantage themselves, because all these issues are now buried under the presidential presence. So I think it's a significant mistake in this county to go in the direction of having your elections buried under these big federal issues. I also think you're going to dramatically hurt the media, the media around here as a small business, those local publications, those local papers, those local TV and radio stations, the bigger newspapers, they all receive substantial revenue in those off years. For candidates running for office by county council, race alone is over $800,000. You know, a lot of that went to local media. They want they want the street drought those off years that I also think is insensitive to that small business said I'm going to oppose this. I hope we can do something different. I appreciate the intense spirit which you brought up, but I think it's a mistake to totally hide local issues and protect incumbents. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councilman. Every time I would like to turn this over to Councilmember Bell, do try to close, but I would like to say one thing. Just make sure everybody knows. Not every voter at all has to follow ten congressional races, either it would be one and so forth. And so anyway. And I think that the county races would be above the judicial races, at least we heard that last week. Jenny is shaking her head. Yes. With that. Councilmember Bell, do try to close. Thank you so much. Chair Caldwell's I will say that since. Since surfacing this proposal, the the case for doing it has been extraordinarily compelling. It's based on data, it's based on research. It's based on what we know about what. Works to get more voters participating in selecting their elected representatives. The opposing arguments have been almost entirely based on partizanship, based on the idea that one side or the other would be disadvantaged by more people voting. And I have to say, if more people voting is bad for your for your candidacy, then, you know, the voters should have a say. The voters the voters should get to pick who they want to represent them. And suppression is never the right approach to winning to winning an election. The other group of opposition arguments have come from campaign insiders, people who are concerned about what does this mean for me running a campaign or people who in other ways make their money or or get their offices out of running campaigns? Campaigns will adjust. We will figure it out. We will figure out how to get our message out to voters. I sit here as somebody who was elected having been outspent. When you count independent expenditures and direct candidate funding by almost 3 to 1, and I was able to win because I did what campaigns do. I adjusted. I campaigned as will others with a lot of other with a lot of volunteers, with phone calling, with the old fashioned methods. And we still were able, with the money that we raised, to do a fair amount of media. I am not concerned that campaigns will not get their votes out when I get their messages out. I'm sorry, and I'll say what I said before. I think that we overestimate what most voters do in an odd number of years in order to learn about the issues. I think people read their newspapers, look at their voters guides. They might collect some of those mailers that pile up on the kitchen table. And when the time comes, they pull out whatever their favorite information sources are. And they look at the ballot and they ask friends and family and they fill in the ballots and they fill in the boxes, the little the little bubbles, as you said. And they do it based on the information that is available to them from their their preferred sources of information. And people will still do that in even numbered years. I don't think you will see a tremendous drop off in the level of education or knowledge of the voters from odd years to even years. So. I haven't heard any compelling arguments not to do this. I don't know why we didn't do it before. And I just want to end by saying we are by far not going to be like on the cutting edge as counties go. Most counties in Washington state. Elect their elect their. County council members, executives and other county officers in even years. Pierce County does it to the south and they're just fine and we're just fine. And so I really encourage us to move this forward to the council and then at council to move it forward to the voters to make the appointments. Thank you, colleagues. Thank you very much. Council member Dale, did she with the clerk? Please call the roll. Thank you. Chair Powell's Council Member Bell Duty II. Council Member DEMBOSKY, I. Council Member Dunn. No. Council Member. McDermott. All right. Councilmember Perry, i. Council member of the grove. I. Councilmember upon Jack Bauer. Council members only. I. No. Thank you. Charcoals. I The boat is seven eyes, two nose. Those being council members. Dunn and Von Right Bower. Thank you. And with our vote, we have approved proposed ordinance 2022 zero one's eight zero. And we will send this ordinance with the due pass recommendation for the consent agenda. No, we cannot send it to the consent agenda to the regular agenda for the June 28th Council meeting. Our next item is proposed motion 2020 20174 approving the executive's reappointment of Anita Khandelwal as county public defender in the staff report begins on page 23, Jenny Champion G. Battista will be providing a very short, abbreviated report because this is the second time that she will be doing so.

Recommendation to direct City Manager to work with Public Works and report back to City Council in 60 days with recommendations for a pilot public outreach program within the East Village to landlords with dumpsters and offer the city's current "Locked Bin Program" to address the issues related to trash, specifically with illegally dumped items.

LongBeachCC_05222018_18-0422

Thank you. Next up is the regular agenda. We have item 17. Item 17 is communication from Councilmember Pierce, Councilwoman Gonzalez. Recommendation to direct the city manager to work with public works and report back in 60 days with recommendations for a pilot public outreach program within the East Village to landlords with dumpsters. Thank you, Councilmember Pearce. Great. Do you guys have the clicker for the PowerPoint? I want to thank my colleague, Councilmember Lena Gonzales, who also shares the East Village for signing on to this item with me tonight. And I want to thank the East Village Association. I know that you guys have been working hard on this and sorry for the later time, but you guys are fantastic. So the last bend item, we know the world produces over 3.5 million tons of trash daily and over 300 million tons of trash each year. I'm going to try to go quickly in Long Beach and between 2015 and 2017, we saw an increase of 56% of illegally dumped items, an increase of 123% of go Long Beach reports, which I take as a huge win for the city. 47% increase in scheduled bogie collections and 22% increase in calls for ESB service. I attribute this not only to increased trash and population, but the fact that we have been working really hard as a city. Our public works team and our mayor has really committed to making sure that we have a clean city. And I know that we're working on that report. We wanted to highlight what East Village looks like. This alleyway looks like this every week. We are out there every month doing cleanups and trying to educate on where we can do bulky items. I know we've done some mail around this, but our residents in the area really have worked hard to make sure that we're working with public works to introduce a pilot program for locked bins. As you see here every week, this is kind of tough. We're out there cleaning up more trash, more cleanups. So we just wanted to introduce an item where we could do a locked bin process. I do want to turn this over to community members to talk about the needs. I also want to take this opportunity. There are two items on the floor in front of us, but let's talk about our locked bend needs and then also the DeKalb program that we are working with staff to create. And then I'll have hopefully some questions for Mr. Beck as well, since he's been working on this closely. So with that, we want to say it takes a village to change the world. African Proverb Very nicely done, Karla. I want to give Karla props for her PowerPoint. So yes, with that we want to just highlight the fact that we are looking at locking bins in the East Village, how long this pilot program will work and what the decals would like to be on there. So I'm going to have it over to public comment. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Joe Harding. I'm president of the East Village Association, and I'm here with some of our board members this evening. And we're looking for your approval on the recommendations set forth before you. The issue at hand here is really of the overflowing of trash bins, partly because there's inadequate pickup schedules for the buildings that are there. Some buildings, if you can believe it, have no bins at all. And those residents use the other trash bins that don't even belong to them, including city bins. The illegally dumped items is actually just to the point of being ridiculous that we have to do six neighborhood cleanups a year to get rid of some of those things. We can't work without the Dolby and all this, all that they've done with their clean team and the Alley Busters program, that's been fantastic, but that's just helping with the program. We want to take it one step further. You throw in the residents have to listen to sometimes four times a night, residents going through the bins, looking for dumpster diving for their items. There is disturbing. Plus, there are safety items. We had a one just behind the end of Long Beach other day where a dumpster was. They took stuff out to make a fire to stay warm. Our proposed program. Have enough bins, have the schedule for pickup, adequate for the volume of use. Lock the bins after 9 p.m.. But instead of just locking people out of the bins that may be looking for source of income, food, shelter and other items in the bins, we want to put informational stickers directing those in need to the correct services so they can seek the help that they need rather than living off the dumpsters. We have a success story in the East Village at First Street in Frontenac Court. Many of you know that alleyway that's by the house of Hayden in the garden. Those those bins on both sides of Frontenac Court on First Street have been locked for over two years. The residents and businesses hemmed and hawed when it first started. They were annoyed and didn't want to do it. It's now become habit and that alleyway is clean 95% of the time, with no illegally dumped items in that area . And the program does work. We want to try that success program all over the East Village. We're asking you to accept us as a pilot program. If it works with us, maybe it can work throughout the city trash as an everyday part of our lives. But filth doesn't have to be. So we want to live without the filth and clean up our neighborhood. We want a clean, safe and healthy place. It's been great working with CD2 and CD1 on this issue. Their staff have been very receptive and we're appreciative of that and we're looking for your approval tonight so we can get started on this program. Thank you. Thank you, Nick. Speaker, please. Good evening. Johanna Cunningham, executive director for the Apartment Association. I think this is a great project to embark upon. My only concern would be my comments that I have received from some of the owners and landlords that some of the locked bins, things get thrown off to the side and then those become then the responsibility of the owners or landlords to have to bring somebody in and incur extra costs to be able to get rid of it. Some people talk about the locks that are being broken off of those things. And I was just over the past probably 15 minutes shown a picture of someone taking one of the bins and walking down the street with it. So those then have to be replaced again, incurring the cost by the owner or the landlord. So as you go through the pilot program, just wanted you to be aware of some of the feedback and comments that I've received through our office and that you're just sensitive to that as well in the research so that all of those things are reported as well. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Councilwoman Gonzales, that you are Councilmember Pearce. All right. I wanted to turn it over to hopefully city staff to describe how we are working on doing this as a pilot program and how we envision it working. Mr. Beck is Mayor in Memory Council, Councilmember Pearce. Certainly this is a program that's been in place but not widely utilized. And I think the idea of a pilot program would be to identify a geographic area and work to require that all bins within that area would be locked. We would certainly work with the East Village Association to to identify what those boundaries would look like. I think part of the analysis would also include sending out our refuges field investigators for instances where we know throughout the city and certainly in our East Village area that we have apartment buildings that don't provide enough trash bins or disposal area for the residents that live there. And so we would send out our field investigators to analyze, to make sure that all of the services that are provided, because it is a mix of city staff and city sponsored municipal waste collection and private waste collection. So we would have to work with all the private haulers to follow suit and have those bins locked as well. But we think it's very realistic to move forward with a pilot program, bring back those results and make a decision on how we maybe we can modify or extend the program citywide. Great. And can you elaborate on the timeline when we think we can? I know that we need to do all the outreach as well. So what's the timeline that you feel like is reasonable? I certainly anybody that wants to do it on their own can do that now under the existing program. But doing a mandated program, what I don't have before me is how many private haulers there are. So it'll take us a little bit of time to connect with the private haulers, understand again how many accounts we're dealing with , and then what the timeline to make that conversion would be. I think certainly within 60 to 90 days is very reasonable. Great. Thank you so very much. I urge my colleagues to support this item. Councilman Gonzalez. Yes. Thanks to Councilmember Pearce for bringing it forward into the East Village. I appreciate you all very, very much. I've been to your cleanups and you do incredible work for our community. Aside from what the deal is currently doing and aside from our neighbors as well. So we really appreciate it on behalf of the First District, and I'm glad we brought this forward. I think, of course, working in conjunction, continuing to work in conjunction with the Dolby would be great. They have some great programs that supplement this. In addition, I just wanted to ask as well, because I know that there's a couple layers that I see. So it's the property owner and then the property manager. Are they both being noticed when it comes to any of these issues? Illegal dumping over overflowing trash. Congressmember Gonzalez, I think in response to your question, it depends on who manages the account. Sometimes it is the property manager, sometimes it is the owner. But we we base it on the property location. So, for example, recently we had a unit that had or a building excuse me, that had 12 units in it, and they were all multiple individuals living in each of the units, but they had one dumpster and they probably needed to have two or possibly three. So we worked with them to make sure that their service was increased and that they were paying for that additional dumpster so people could appropriately dispose of their trash. Okay. Thank you. And then as far as, you know, just doing my research about illegal dumping, I know that the city of Los Angeles, I would just like us to loosely look it into this. They have a cleanliness cleanliness rating index that addresses illegal dumping. So they're looking at a variety of different things related to, you know, a specific area. It goes above and beyond. You know, it's just a trash assessment overall in addition to illegal dumping and a few other things. So I would just like us to kind of look at that to see if there's something we can perhaps partner on or or jump on to. And then lastly, I know the locked bins. Just sort of a thought going forward, if, you know, we see success or perhaps we don't see so much success, I think going forward and I know you'll kill me for this one, but just the Go Long Beach app in terms of overflowing trash , perhaps that could be included down the line depending, you know, where this where this lands. I think that might be a good one for us to to include just going forward. But thank you very much again to the East Village. We appreciate it. I certainly wouldn't kill you over the Golan Beach app. We see a lot of success with it. Thank you. I want to add a couple things. One is I'm very supportive of this. I think we've been talking about locked bins and there's a lot of examples across the country as some cities that do it and other cities that don't for a variety of reasons. But I think piloting a specific area I think is is smart, and I think that's great. I also think, Mr. Beck, that I think most of the council know there is a tremendous amount of work happening right now on on issues around cleaning the city. I think we all obviously as a body passed the Clean Long Beach initiative and that initiative has doubled the amount of resources for clean teams. It has brought in, you know, some academic work through Harvard, through the Bloomberg initiative. It's brought in a bunch of students to kind of study all of our systems, including the Ghavami Chap and others. And I know that we had a a study session not that long ago, maybe six months ago or so on the item I would request just, I don't know of a topic that is probably receiving as much kind of interdepartmental attention, I think, as this one is right now, the topic of blight and how we're addressing it. So I would request that we maybe do another study session at some point in the near future, just so that the entire council is completely brought up to speed on on all of the initiatives here, because I think the work you guys are doing is amazing. And I think the councilmember pointed out some of the the numbers as it relates to trash. What's what's amazing is we have completely changed the way we are reporting trash. We are reporting so much more and cleaning so much more than we have. And that's a really good thing as well. And so I'm excited about this pilot program. I think the East Village is a perfect place to do it and we'll see how it works out because I'd love it if this works. I'd love to see this expand as well. So very supportive. And I want to thank the East Village as well for for their work on this. Members, please cast your votes.

A proclamation in support of the Ukrainian people and condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

DenverCityCouncil_03292022_22-0338

Wonderful. Thank you so much. And thank you, Councilmember Sandoval, for bringing attention to this really important topic. And I'm glad we're closing out March, making sure that we're showing our support and advocacy. Thank you. Next up, we have Councilmember Flynn. Would you please read Proclamation 20 to Dash 338 for us? Yes. Thank you, Madam President. The proclamation number 22, dash 0338. In support of the Ukrainian people and condemning the Russian war on Ukraine. Whereas Ukraine declared its independence from the Soviet Union on August 24, 1991 and was recognized by the United States as a sovereign nation on December 25, 1991. And. Whereas, in 2014, the Russian Federation invaded and annexing Crimea and invaded part of Donbas areas of sovereign Ukraine. And. WHEREAS, the United Nations General Assembly formally recognizes the territorial integrity of Ukraine, including Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk. And. WHEREAS, under orders from Vladimir Putin. Russia began amassing troops and military equipment near Ukraine's borders in 2021. And on February 24, 2022, Russia launched a full scale war on Ukraine, resulting in widespread civilian suffering. And loss of life. And. WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the United Nations on February 28 condemned the Russian aggression against Ukraine by a vote of 141 to 5, with 35 nations abstaining. And. Whereas, Russia continues to attack Ukraine, committing war crimes through targeting of civilians, creating a humanitarian crisis by forcing 10 million Ukrainians to leave their homes. And. WHEREAS, the Russian government is engaged in large scale media censorship. And a propaganda campaign campaign to obfuscate the invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent Russian battlefield losses. And whereas, Russia continues to attack civilian targets, including including daycare centers, facilities, prisons, hospitals, apartment buildings and a shopping center. And. WHEREAS, more than 100,000 people remain at risk in the besieged city of Mariupol, where food and water remain scarce. And. WHEREAS, Russian troops have abducted and killed international journalists in violation of the Geneva Convention. And. Whereas, municipal mayors and city leaders are being targeted and kidnaped by Russian troops, further terrorizing communities, interfering with basic services and undermining democracy and even the most basic local levels. And. Whereas, Russia has attacked civilian protesters in Kherson and zappers gear. And. Whereas, according to the United Nations, 1104 civilians have been killed with another 1754 injured as of this past weekend. And more than 4 million Ukrainians have been forced to flee as refugees to other countries. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver. Section one. The Denver City Council supports the independence of the Ukrainian people and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Section two. The Denver City Council condemns the unilateral invasion of the sovereign state of Ukraine by Russia at the direction of Vladimir Putin. Section three. The Denver City Council recognizes the plight of Ukrainian refugees and supports the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Refugee relief organizations and all countries welcoming the influx of refugees. Section four that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest and affixed to seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and transmitted to Oksana makarova. Ukraine's Ambassador to the United States. Ukrainian National Women's League of America. Branch number 38 in Denver. And Martina. Marina Dubravka of the Ukrainians of Colorado. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, your motion to adopt this evening. I move the proclamation 20 2-0338 be adopted. Thank you. We've got it moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. In times like this. When the attention of the world and the anxiety of people all over the world is focused on the humanitarian crisis in Eastern Europe caused by a war of choice. It prompts us all. Or it should. To reflect on our interconnectedness. With everyone in the world. We come from all over the world. My wife, Harriet, is a second generation American. Her mom's parents were born and her mom's grandparents were born in Finland, but her dad's parents both were born her her dad, grandpa, her grandparents I'm sorry, her dad's parents both were born in what was at the time around the turn of the century, the late 1800s was the Principality of Galicia. Which is now part of it is in western Ukraine. And part of it is in eastern Poland. It is exactly ground zero. Where much of this fighting is taking place. And she is said to be several times. Watching the news over the last month. That is, without doubt, some of her relatives. Our refugees right now. Some of her blood relations. Some may have been killed. Peace. According to the great Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw, peace is not only better than war. But infinitely more arduous. We are all at a distance here, at least at a loss. As to what we can do. In this crisis. Abraham Lincoln once predicted in a famous speech. That quote, the world will little note nor long remember what we say here. He was famously wrong, of course, when he said that at Gettysburg during another war. But I am certain that he is correct when he says that about what we're saying here this evening. I am fairly certain that President Putin of Russia will never even hear of the words that we are voting on tonight. I have no illusion about that. However, it was back in the early sixties that MIT mathematician Edward Lorenz developed the chaos theory, popularly known as the Butterfly Effect, which says that even the gentlest fluttering of a butterfly swings in China. Could eventually contribute to a convergence of events that result in a tornado in the Midwest of the United States. So with that in mind, I ask the 13 butterflies up here to flutter our wings. And express outrage. And what is happening in Ukraine. And to urge others to join in and do what they can in the cause of peace. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilmember Flynn, Councilmember Black. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, for writing that proclamation and for your really beautiful remarks that you just read. It does matter that we're all here standing up with Ukraine. I agree with you about the butterfly effect. People all over our country want to stand in solidarity with Ukraine and it does matter. President Zelensky last week gave a speech and he implored people across the world to stand against this war coming in, come in the name of peace, come with Ukrainian symbols to support Ukraine, to support freedom, to support life. Come to your squares, to your streets. Make yourselves visible. And her heard. The world must stop this war. So on Sunday, most councilmen join me in hosting a Ukrainian solidarity event at Baby R Park. A special thank you to council members Gilmore, Ortega, Cashman, Flynn and Clark for joining us there. We had Ukrainians in Colorado there and a number of other organizations. It was a very, very special event filled with prayer and solidarity. And it was held at Baby R Park, which is in my district. It is a very special park. It's a memorial of the Nazi massacre of 200,000 Jews and Ukrainians who were murdered at the Babi Yar Ravine in Kiev, Ukraine, during World War Two. The park honors the victims of that massacre, but it also sends a message to all of us that we cannot stand by and remain silent and allow these crimes against humanity to happen, these crimes against our Ukrainian brothers and sisters. So that is why we are here with our butterfly wings, hoping that, you know, that we stand with you. And if there's anything we can do, we will. And we do have our Ukrainians of Colorado representatives here today, and they do have weekly events and fundraising opportunities and volunteering opportunities. And I'm going to ask all council members to share those on their social media networks so we can get more support for them. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Black, Councilmember Hines. Thank you. Council President. I recognize Councilmember Flynn's point about how President Putin might not care about what we do. It is important for us to make a statement. And and I think it is important for my constituents to feel very strongly about this, rightfully so. So while he may not know of our proclamation, I believe, as the butterfly effect, I also believe it is important for us to be intentional in our values. And I see that we're doing that today. I also want to point out that the United Nations 141 of the United Nations member states, 141 countries, voted to denounce Russia for its invasion. And there has not been that much unity in the United Nations over something that might theoretically be controversial in quite some time. I also want to mention that the governor Polis has has said that Colorado will welcome the Ukrainian refugees, and I certainly think that Denver will do its part as well. So I want to thank the governor for for that statement and his continued statements denouncing Russia and supporting Ukraine. And. Thank you. Council president. Thank you. Councilmember Hines and I want to thank Councilmember Flynn for bringing this proclamation forward, to think of allowing us to weigh in and add some items to it. And then Councilmember Black for your organization and wonderful hosting on Sunday of a very solemn and important event for us to never forget what has happened previously and then recognize what is happening and how history is repeating itself, unfortunately, in different ways. And so thank you for all of your work on that and happy to support it this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call can each. I. Sawyer. I. Flynn. I. Herndon High Cashman. Ortega, I. Sandoval. I. Torres I. Work. I. CdeBaca. I. Clerk. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Proclamation 20 2-3 38 has been adopted. Council Member Flynn We have 5 minutes for the proclamation. Acceptance of you. Go ahead and introduce the folks that will accept it this evening. Thank you, Madam President. We have here in the chamber tonight Marina Dubravka of the Ukrainians of Colorado. And she is and I invite her to bring up I think I see Mark Dillon back there and come up to the microphone and you have 5 minutes for remarks. It's so nice to see familiar faces. I would like to start with. Great gratitude to Congresswoman Sandra Bullock and Congressman Kevin Flynn to for inviting us here. And. Making this this proclamation. That's. It's very it's very emotional. And I know that. Putin may not hear this proclamation, but butterfly effect will go through the Internet waves, and I'm pretty sure it will reach him at some point. If not, then Ukrainian soldiers will remind him every time, every day, every second, what the freedom means and democracy and fighting for that. That in the 21st century, on the middle of the Europe, civilized nations are facing right now huge wave of refugees from Ukraine and. The genocide. In the middle of the Europe in Mariupol on. Donbass area. Kiev area. Just you name it. It's endless. And that is. The most heartbreaking. The pain inside. Does not go away. Does not go away. And that's been. Over a month. Oh. So every one of us. Dealt with. Saving our families there and. France unique? Sure. Johanna. She's our president of. National. American League of Ukrainian Women. Yes, she actually her relative was in Mariupol and he was able to escape. I would like, you know, to share that experience. Hi. Yeah, I'm I'm actually the president of the Ukrainian National Women's League here in Denver. And my relative in Mariupol was a distant cousin, like a third cousin, but he happened to be a priest, a parish priest in Mariupol. So he stayed even when there were opportunities to leave because he felt committed to his congregation. But ah, he also had his two of his children with him and somehow, ultimately, after 12 days of being locked up with no water, electricity or food, they somehow managed to get out through one of the green corridors. And I honestly don't know if he's actually made it to Western Ukraine, where he is originally from. But I also do want to thank everyone for passing this proclamation. And I appreciate your energy and time that you put into this. Thank you. Madam President of the Council and members of the Council, I can really add to what a council man, a Flynn and council member, Black Ops said, as well as my colleagues, that we would prefer not to be standing here today. We would prefer to. Be leading much more ordinary lives. We would prefer that there was no need for a proclamation of this nature. We would prefer that there not have been 10 million displaced people in the center of Europe. We would prefer that. 4 million refugees had not had to cross into other countries for safety, including 2 million children. We would prefer all these things, but that was not our choice. Things were done. Things were done to people. People we have a connection to. We. Power with the deepest respect to this Council for taking the action and expressing the sentiments that I think stand not only for the people here assembled, but for many, many Denver rights, many Coloradans. About 20,000 are of Ukrainian heritage. Many, many more have traveled to Ukraine, have relatives in Ukraine. Have taught work that in Ukraine. It is a country. Not that much larger than Colorado, about the size of Texas. It is a country that has cherished democracy for 30 years and now has to defend it. If we stand with them, we are confident that they will be able to do so. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we appreciate you being here. And please know that we do understand that fragile democracy and that that's why it's so important that we uphold democracies throughout the world and support and that our love and support and prayers. But beyond that, the philanthropic and the donations of medical equipment, money that can go to help. And so, as Councilmember Black had alluded to, we'll make sure that each one of our council offices share that information out so that we make sure and maximize getting that help and support. And so please know that we're with you. We're in solidarity with you. And thank you for being here this evening.

A proclamation in support of Mile High Behavioral Healthcare and its Miracle on Logan Street.

DenverCityCouncil_09082014_14-0745

Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 14 0745 is in support of the mile high behavioral health care and its miracle on Logan Street. Whereas, since 1960, mile high behavioral health care has been providing Coloradoans an accessible substance use disorder and mental health treatment. As an innovative leader in the field, supporting thousands of people to recovery and moving into higher levels of functionality and self-sufficiency. And. Whereas, one of the most difficult obstacles for be H.S. clients trained to realize their possibilities and ultimate goal of complete sobriety and self-sufficiency is securing access to safe, stable and supportive housing. Because the streets of homelessness makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to address the issues of mental health and substance abuse and move into recovery. And. Whereas, MH PHC is launching its Miracle on Logan Street program designed to address that. Designed to address housing challenges. Providing a home for women struggling with mental health issues and substance abuse, and working hard to realize their full potential. Being sober, empowered and self-sufficient members of their own families and community. And. WHEREAS, The home at 1150 Logan Street is being renovated to provide eight small apartments for women with dual diagnosis of mental health and substance abuse, and who are enrolled in the Miracles program as well as accommodation for on site coordinator. And. Whereas, residents can stay on Logan for up to two years, during which time they will receive individual family and group therapy, substance use monitoring, parenting programs, social skills development, GED sessions and job readiness classes and assistance , among other types of monitoring and support. And we're as it may be, CHC will hold an open house at 1150 Logan on September 12th between 1130 and 130 for the community to tour the house where miracles will happen and we encourage you all to come. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by City Council of the City and County of Denver that the Council thinks mile high behavior, behavioral health care for the important work it does in the Denver community and supports the Miracle on Logan Street Project and that the clerk show attest and a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and transmit a copy thereof to mile high behavioral health care. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Your motion to adopt. I move for the adoption of Proclamation 14 0745. It has been moved and second that comments from members of Council Councilwoman Ortega. So I first have to divulge that I am a former board member of this organization and thoroughly enjoyed serving on this board. Also served on the board of Delta Neighborhood Development Corporation, who formerly owned this property and gave it back to the city. If you all remember, the global housing purchases were Denver was involved in acquiring a number of properties to be made available for people who were chronically mentally ill. This was one of those programs. But Del Norte only does housing services and when the organization who is doing the services moved their clients out and a lot of it had to do with funding no longer available to provide those services. There was a covenant on this property that required that these types of clients continue to be served in this property. And so Dallas returned it back to the city and fortunately Mile High stepped to the plate and is able to continue providing these same types of services to folks in in our community who really need them. And, you know, we've had lots of conversations on this dais about homelessness and the need for affordable housing. And when we have organizations that step to the plate and really do their part in helping meet both the housing needs as well as the. Service needs of people in our community. It helps ensure that these folks are returned back to society and become contributing members. So I want to thank my OGI for their efforts in working to raise the money to renovate the building, to secure the funding for the services that will be made available. And I want to congratulate the board of my own high, who have been fully engaged in this project every step of the way. The city of Denver has played an important role in providing some resources to make this project happen. So I want to thank the Office of Economic Development for their role. I believe the Division of Housing and Bob or Bob or Bob, one of you will talk about some of those sources in just a few minutes. But this is just a great project. And if you all have an opportunity to come by the open house on September 12th, I would encourage you to stop in. This is in Councilwoman Robb's district in the Capitol Hill community played a very important role in supporting this project to to come into the neighborhood. So I just want to encourage support for my colleagues. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you to Councilwoman Ortega for bringing this forward. I first learned about this property, ironically, when I was. I took a little campaign office in one of those great mansions right across the street, and people would ask me, Oh, you're running for city council. Do you know that this great program that used to be across the street has been lost and you know what's going to happen? And it's taken a very long time. So I want to say thank you to mile high behavior, health care as well as city staff. I know Christopher Smith, who's no longer with the city, was very tenacious in holding on to the property and insisting that it had to be the right provider. Took us a lot of years, but I'm so glad that it's going to be back in service. And Madam Secretary, if I could belatedly be added as a co-sponsor, I would appreciate it. Thank you for taking this challenge. And good luck to the women that you're going to serve. Thank you. Councilwoman Kinney, Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. I, too, want to thank Councilwoman Ortega for bringing this forward. I was not familiar directly with this property until the Mile High Behavior Council or Behavioral Health Group came to visit with me. And even after that, I think it took possibly two more years to actually get this in place, maybe one year to get the funding and another year to get the improvements. They did do good outreach to the community as Councilwoman Ortega references, and the House actually looks much better today, I'm sure, than when you had your office there. So I'm very excited about this, too. Unfortunately, I just found out over the weekend that I will not be able to to make the open house on Friday, but I will be sending a representative from my office because this is definitely a milestone. Thank you, Councilwoman Robb. Any other comments from members of the council scene? None. Madam Secretary. Raquel Ortega, Rob I. Sheppard Susman. I like Brooks Brown. I. But I can eat lemon Lopez. Monteiro. Nevitt. Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results. 3939 745 has been adopted. Councilwoman Ortega. Who would you like to have come forward to accept the proclamation? I'd like to ask the board president of my own High Behavioral Health Council to come forward. But Bruce and I don't know Bob Turkheimer if you want to join him as well, the executive director for Mile High. So again, gentlemen, thank you for making this project happen. Any comments you want to share? Mr. Chairman, members of council and particularly Councilwoman Ortega, thank you for this great honor. I'm a lifelong resident of the city county of Denver. And I have to tell you that as of last week, that's 51 years. And I can't tell you that I'm so proud to be a resident of Denver and the president of this board . The partnership that. We've developed with this nonprofit entity and the public sector through the Office of Economic Development, John Lucero, Doug Selby, Seneca Wallace and Joe Margolis. They've been so grateful. We're so grateful for what they've done for us. Bob will tell you a little bit about the programing that. Will happen there, but as we open this particular property, we're going to have nine. Units available and eight women who are no. Longer on the streets but on the road to recovery. Thank you for this proclamation and for the opportunity to help assist Denver and its residents on their road to recovery. Good evening, Council. I'm Bob D'alzheimer, proud resident of Green Valley Ranch. I usually have to get that in every time I come down here. There's 11. Go ahead. That's just ranch. Speak for us folks that live in a ranch. Our program, we're very excited to have it will be opening this Saturday, the day after our ribbon cutting. And our main focus is really for the child welfare women through the Denver Department of Human Services that need an opportunity for clean, stable and supportive housing that will help continue to address their parenting needs, mental health and substance abuse needs. A program like this doesn't really exist in our housing inventory when it comes to the therapeutic and sobriety aspects of it. So this is something new. We're all going to keep our eye on and I hope to continue to grow it through our community and keep families intact. The women will continue to do their visitation at the Denver Department of Human Services, as well as attend our treatment services, which are located on sixth and Broadway on the campus of Denver Health. So it's a really exciting opportunity. I can't thank enough for the support of Councilwoman Robb and Ortega that have been with us instrumentally every step of the way. There is a city employee that I found to be so easy to work with and remarkable, and that's John Lazaro. So he definitely should receive some sort of accolades because he's a true professional. And when we wrote for the RFP, John realized that this was a niche in the housing system that wasn't being met. And he was concerned about these women and these kids and made sure that this project came to be our funders who helped get this up. Our wonderful foundation from the Denver Foundation, Gates Family Foundation and the Daniels Fund and other private donors helped us pull this together. The rehab is running close to $400,000, so that old house is now a beautiful new house. That's all this guy from Green Valley Ranch has to say to time to make the commute home. And once again, thank you all. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for bringing this forward. We are now ready for their resolutions. Madam Secretary, would you please read the resolutions. From business development? 653 Resolution Approve the Mayor's reappointment, the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District from Finance and Services Act 67 resolution declaring the intent city and county of Denver, Colorado to use its best efforts to issue housing revenue, bonds or mortgage credit certificates, supervising entire residential facilities for low and middle income families of persons, prescribing certain

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. R-7163 and award a contract to C.S. Legacy Construction, Inc., of Ontario, CA, for the Long Beach Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements Project, in the amount of $2,486,828, with a 15 percent contingency in the amount of $373,024, for a total contract amount not to exceed $2,859,852; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments; Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund Group in the Public Works Department by $1,722,000, offset by Federal Highway Funds from Caltrans (STPL-5108(183)), approved by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro); Increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund Group in the Public Works Department by $1,722,000, offset by transfer of Federal Highway Funds from the Capital Projects Grant Fund; and Accept Categorical Exemption No. CE-21-040. (Districts 6,7)

LongBeachCC_05112021_21-0420

Thank you. Next up is item 18. Report from Public Works. Recommendation to adopt specification number r-7163 and award a contract to cease legacy construction for a total contract amount not to exceed 2,859,852. District six and seven. Okay. Can I get a motion in a second, please? Emotion like tantrum or your anger. I get a second place. Second back are sorrow from Tauranga. Do you have anything? Not project. Thank you. Councilmember Controversial. Okay. Actually, there's no public comment. Is that correct? That is correct. That would be a roll call vote. District one I support District two I. District three. District I. District four, high district five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. Hi. Ocean cares. Great. Thank you very much. All right. I believe that's all the items on the agenda. Is that correct? That is correct, Mayor. Okay. Then, is there any new business from any any council members? I don't have any lined up here. So seeing no new business or announcements from the council, we will adjourn at 611. Living for it. All right, guys.

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for on-call engineering services. Approves a three-year $2.5 million contract with AECOM for on-call professional services including traffic, transportation, bicycle and pedestrian, multimodal, parking, civil, water resources, survey, geotechnical, material testing, construction management, environmental, and various mobility-related services (201629353). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 9-26-16. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 8-11-16.

DenverCityCouncil_09122016_16-0570

Okay. Great. We have each for a vote for 626 and new for question in 759. All right. Madam Secretary, I think we will start with Ortega's bills in a block that we'll deal with. And Councilman Ortega. I will let you start to. Talk about what you want to do with this. Thank you. These are on call contracts. We have 12 of them. Each of them are $2.5 million. They total $30 million. And we have gotten into a practice in the city of using on call contracts, some of which may never even be utilized. So I think one of the things that is important for this body to see is how many of them are being utilized, how frequently are they utilized? What's the total amount that each of them have spent and to know annually how much money are we going to spend on these various contracts? My first year that I came back to counsel, we had 15 $4 million in contracts, and I learned that in a given year we were only going to be spending $2 million in IT contracts. We spend more way more than that now. But I think to ensure that we're getting the information that we need, it's important to. You know, use this platform to be able to ask for the information. And so yeah, and I routinely do that when we have these put forth on consent calendars as all of these are tonight. But it's not routine information that we get. I have asked that we include that on these on call contracts on a regular basis, but we don't always receive that. So I'm calling these out to vote no as a just using the bully pulpit as a way to start insisting that this kind of information be made available on a regular and consistent basis. Each of these contracts tonight are for traffic, transportation, bicycle and pedestrian, multimodal parking, civil water resources survey, geotechnical material testing, construction management, environmental and various mobility related services. You know, it's not clear if any of these are directly related to our Denver Wright process, which is going on, which is looking at a variety of planning efforts. We've got four different plans going on. We do have contracts with companies that are working with the city as consultants. And I, if I remember correctly, that equaled somewhere in the ballpark of $9 million. So I'm not sure how this interfaces with that. So I'm just calling them all out to vote no tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Okay. Thank you. You know, we need to put this on the floor. So, Councilman Gilmore, will you please put these 12 bills on the floor for adoption? Yes, Mr. President. I move in a block that resolutions 575, 71, five, 72, five, 73, five, 74, five, 75, five, 76, five, 77, five, 78, five, 79, five, 80 and 581 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded by Councilman Flynn. Councilman Flynn, do you ever. Can I just a point of order or procedure? With the new system, we were told that we can only do one block vote per meeting, so we might have to do all 12 of these separately. We're going to go ahead and do this as a bloc. We can do a consent, vote for other items. It will work. Out. It will. Okay. I just wanted to raise Resa. Thank you. Always a stickler for procedure. I like it. We got that. We got that taken care of. And I wanted to give Angela Casey us the opportunity to respond as well. Yeah, hi. Angela Casey is from Denver Public Works. And I want to just to confirm with Councilwoman Ortega that we have heard the council loud and clear on this issue. We have created a report and will be rolling that out and that will it will provide the information that you're looking for. All of the information that you mentioned this evening is. Is included in that. Report. And will we get that beforehand or that will always come after? This is something that will that we are we can give out monthly. We can give out quarterly. We can give it out at any time. Great. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for the clarification, Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. I just I wanted to thank Councilwoman Ortega for bringing up those concerns. And as Angela had mentioned, several have these sort of similar concerns from time to time. And so I will be abstaining because there's technically nothing wrong with the contracts. So it's not worth me voting no. But it is sort of it did strike me and it struck me as odd several times in from this day as to get, you know, it's a situation where you got, you know, 15 or 12 Swiss Army knives. And now rather than use the process to sort of find the right contractor for anything, it just seems like we just throw out this massive saying exactly. Worded contracts and then suddenly now you're picking and choosing it through a different means. And so I just would like to have better resolution on that. Just just for the record, I would like to just let you know that we do do a mini bid process for almost all of these contracts. So, I mean, this isn't something that we just arbitrarily throw out against the wall. Like we do have a process for each one of these bids. No, and I'm comfortable with that process. But the thing is, is when you do a specific task order or whatever the work order is for that, you then subsequently pay to each individual contractor. What is the criteria that you use to sort of allocate which contract goes to which of these several different providers doing the same thing . They each bid. On each. Project? Okay. So it's it's a seven bid process. This is like a pre-approval. Okay. Thank you, Angela. So we are going to vote now on this. Madam Secretary. Rocco. Ortega. Nope. Sussman. My black eye. Clark. All right. Espinosa. Staying. Flynn. I. Gillmor, I. Herndon. Cashman. I can. I knew. Mr. President. I. Please close the voting and announce the results. Ten eyes, one nay, one abstention. These 12 bills are adopted. Councilwoman Sussman, I'm sorry I missed you on. Okay. Did you want to add anything to this or. Well, let's a little out of order, but I will. When you're running a huge organization like the city, very often you have to get your. Yeah. You have to be prepared to be able to use contractors. And so the process for vetting possible vendors is an absolute, absolute necessity to be timely in your responses to what you need and then to have the when you do need their services to have it bid again, I think is a very good example of good stewardship of the city budget and I understand the interest in seeing what is spent. I am happy to see that they're going to send that back. That's all I want. Thank you. Thank you. Council on Assessment and council members. If I if I don't see you up on this new system, please just wave your hands in the air with them like you just don't care. Okay. Now we're going to pull up Resolution 547, Councilwoman Black for a comment.

Recommendation to declare ordinance approving an application for a Development Agreement pursuant to Chapter 21.29 of the Long Beach Municipal Code; directing the City Attorney to prepare a Development Agreement embodying the application and key terms of the Development Agreement as approved by the City Council; and authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute, on behalf of the City of Long Beach, a Development Agreement with The Long Beach Project Owner, LLC and DEM Investment Company, LLC, for the Riverwalk Residential Development Project and Oregon Park construction, read and adopted as read. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_11102015_15-1136

Next motion is to to declare ordinance, approving an application and requesting the city attorney to prepare the city manager and city manager to execute a development agreement with the Long Beach project owner. Excuse me, counsel. And I repeat that. No, no, that's fine. But does your motion on that item include. The amendment that Ms.. Bodak mentioned to. Exhibit C, the development. Agreement that would allow the flexibility of the public works to director to. Determine appropriate surfacing of some of the street. Areas to. Include either slurry. Seal or something more extensive. Let me strike that and reread that motion. Okay. Okay. Declare ordinance, approving an application and requesting city attorney to prepare and city manager to execute a development agreement with the Long Beach Project Owner, LLC and D Investment Company LLC. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading for Motion six at. At the end with the amendment that the specified street repairs be made in the manner approved by the Public Works Director. Mr. Bass. Okay. All right. Okay. There's a motion and a second on that. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Next item.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Use District Map of the City of Long Beach as said Map has been established and amended by amending portions of Part 10 of said Map from Community Commercial Automobile-Oriented (CCA) to Community R-4-N (CCN), read and adopted as read. (District 2)

LongBeachCC_04062021_21-0277

We do have one hearing. So let's go ahead and hear the hearing, please. Which is item which is item 13? Item 13. Report from Development Services Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing and determine the project. 23 for sale market rate townhomes at 2200 through 2212 East seventh Street 600 through 620 Dalton Avenue and six $21 Avenue is within the scope of the project and warrants no further environmental review pursuant to secure and declared ordinance approving a zone change. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading District two. I'd like to introduce I'd like to introduce Oscar Orsi, Development Services Director, to kick off this presentation. Yes, thank you. Good evening, Mayor. Members of the City Council. The following is a public hearing. The following public hearing is a request to approve a zone change for 23 townhomes located within the Rose Park neighborhood. Ms.. Patricia Defender will provide a presentation. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor. Council members. As mentioned the item before you is a request for a zone change from. Pardon me. Is a zone change from the K zone, which is the commercial community commercial automobile oriented zone to the CNR zone, which is the commercial residential community are for and C can zone. Oops. Pardon? The location of the proposed zone change area is 2202 2212 East Seventh Street and 600 to 620 Dawson Avenue. The current zoning is the key zone in the CNR zone. The site is a 0.78 acre site and currently developed with a parking lot. The subject area is designated by the general plan as the neighborhood serving centers and corridors. Moderate general plan, place type. The surrounding context is a mix of commercial institutional uses as well as some other. Some family. Some residential uses on the West Side. On January 21st, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item and recommend took the following actions. It recommended that the City Council approve the zone change. It also approved a site plan review, investing tentative track map and administrative use permit associated with the project. Final approval of the project is contingent on a zone change. There were a total of 17 comments received on the proposal. 14 letters of support, three letters of concern, concerns related to issues of crime, parking and displacement of the current community. The so we talked about the current zoning and the proposed zoning would be consistent with the general plan, land use place type of neighborhood serving commercial center and corridors. And as a result, that's the general plan. Land use element did identify this area as a major area of change to accommodate mixed use development and the needs for housing in the in city. And this zone change proposal would be consistent with that place type just by way of some background, even though the project specifically is not before the council. The project is a 23 unit for sale townhome project. That would be three stories in height. It has some gas parking styles that are located off side across the street. It does meet all the open space and other development standards. There was an environmental compliance checklist to the program Environmental Impact Report for the land use element prepared for this project, and it was found to have adequately analyzed the impacts which were previously analyzed in. The earlier air. And there would be no further impacts that have not been analyzed and no further environmental. Review is required. So with that, the recommendation is that the City Council determined that the project is within the scope of the previously analyzed air and declared ordinance to approve the zone change from the CCR to the end zone for the subject area. That concludes the staff presentation. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. We will go. I don't see. Is there any public is there any other comment on this? Let's go to and go to that first. There might be, too, I think. But Mr. Mayor, we also have the applicant. And if you want to start with the applicant. Sure. What's going to hear from the applicant? Matt Hamilton. Hi, this is Matt Hamilton, the project applicant. Just wanted to thank staff for all their efforts in getting us to this point. We're excited to move forward with the project and happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Thank you. We have one public comment. Derek Burnham. Hi. Derek Burnham with the applicant's team as well. Just, just wanted to reiterate Matt's comment that we are happy with staff moving this forward and look forward additional support tonight and are excited to build this project. Thank you. Turn this over to Councilman Allen, who got a motion. I thank you, Mayor. This is a very exciting project and a welcome addition to our Rose Park neighborhood. I strongly support the project and the zone change that is required. This project advances our land use goals and adds to the city's housing stock. And most importantly, the project is supported by our community. I know that there are several letters of support, including letters from the Rose Park Neighborhood Association. And in May those folks have been in close communication with my office. So just think. Thank you for all of your reaching out. I do appreciate that this is a much needed project and I know that we are all looking forward to the revitalization of this space. I would like to give a special hats off to the owner and developer Matt Hamilton, who was really exemplified how a developer should work with the city and the community on a particular project. He has prioritized community outreach and developed a really good relationship with them, with our residents. I know the people in the neighborhood know him. He has addressed each of their concerns and even offered space, outdoor space during the pandemic. So I congratulations, Matt, on a great project. I know that you have spoken to my staff and I look forward to speaking with you and meeting with you as well in the near future. I want to give a special thank you to Eric Lopez and the public works team for all the work on this project and seeing this come to fruition. And and just on a separate note, I know that many of our neighbors, our neighbors in Rose Park continue to express concerns about the traffic and the speed along Seventh Street. So we'll continue to work with that and address that. So, again, congratulations and thank you for everyone that worked on this project. Councilwoman. I can have a second, please, on Councilwoman Allen's motion. I have a second buy comes from Ringo. There is no additional comment. We will go to roll call. Vote, please. Councilwoman Sun has. High. Councilwoman Allen. I can swim in price. I councilman's up now. All right. Councilwoman Mongo. Hi. Councilwoman Sara, I council member oranga. By Councilman Austin. Vice Mayor Richardson, motion carries.

Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Development Services Department to review current parking policies and opportunities to update existing parking regulations to improve efficiency in support of the Business Improvement District (BID).

LongBeachCC_04202021_21-0333

as close to that time as possible. So I have two more requests. Let's try to see if we can get through these. I think they should be fairly quick and then we'll get to the other study session. So I'm going to do items eight and ten, which are the last two requests, and then we'll go to the study session. So item eight, please. Communication from Councilman Price. Councilwoman Zendejas. Councilwoman Allen. Councilman Austin. Recommendation to review current parking policies and opportunities to update existing parking regulations to improve efficiency, efficiency and support of the Business Improvement District. I'll turn it over to Councilman Price. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. May I fire if there's any public comment on this item? There is. You want to hear that first? Yeah. Let's go to public comment first and then I can offer some comments. Before I go to public comment, I just want to mention to my colleagues, this is a request for us to start a process of updating some of our parking requirements and zoning requirements in Belmont Shore area. But I'd like to go to public comment and then I'll I'll make some additional comments regarding that public comment. Our first speakers, Erin. Tiffany. Yes. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Please begin. Great. Thank you. Thank you for your counsel for hearing through my comment and considering this motion. I'm a resident of Belmont Shore. I'm also sorry. I don't know if you got my name at first. Erin Tiffany. I'm resident of Belmont Shore. I'm a business owner. I own rented Chicago pizza on Second Street. I'm also a building owner on Second Street, currently going through a leasing and development process. I'm also on the Belmont Shore Business Association board. I am also on the Parking Commission. And in addition to being practically involved in this in this motion. I'm also a graduate of school of policy planning and development with a master's degree from USC. And I've developed over a million square feet of retail properties. So this is something I've lived and breathed for the last 15 years. And the problem that I'm seeing in the community is that there's a lot of they can storefronts and then I have a lot of interest from different tenants that want to occupy those storefronts. And the zoning on Second Street in Belmont sure is pedestrian neighborhood commercial. So it's a pedestrian based, walkable community. And we want to encourage walkability. We want to encourage people to not bring their car and take their bikes and use other forms of transportation, whether it's scooters or busses or or what have you. And the problem that has happened is that the zoning and parking regulations in Belmont Shore on Second Street are outdated and they hold due to the city oftentimes will be holding you to when you're applying through planning. They have to follow the code and the code will say you have to provide a certain number of parking spaces or a certain number of, you know, whether it's a restaurant, 10,000 or fitness uses ten spaces per thousand square feet. And those are standards that are typically found in suburban car oriented districts. It's not something that you would find in a pedestrian oriented district. And so in certain areas of the city, such as Belmont Shore and Second Street, where we want to encourage pedestrian oriented development, it's counterintuitive to then mandate and require a significant level of parking, and there isn't any available land to add parking. So it's created this conundrum that has resulted in increased vacancy up and down the street, and the increased vacancy leads to quality of life issues. There's, you know, there's there's more people taking up space and occupying the storefronts on the sidewalk. And because they're not being actively used, they're not you know, they're able to people are able to kind of utilize those spaces and occupy them with lots of things and items. And if we could just reduce some of the parking standards or modify an update. I think your next speaker is Karen Blair. Hello. Karen Blair here. I'm also a member of the Belmont Shore Improvement Association and Parking Commission. And I just think that we really need to make all of Long Beach more business friendly. The business districts in Long Beach need a review of the current policies are in great need of the opportunity to update existing parking regulations to improve efficiency. The parking issues that have been created due to the road downsizing that has caused increased parking hazards and traffic jams from second and PCH to the peninsula to fourth and cherry. I would hope the city council has compassion and look at ways to combat climate change with new transportation efforts. Reexamining parking lots not only for public use. But as a revenue stream when business could use parking lots during the weekdays for their clients looking for further. Improvement in their clientele. We can look at diagonal parking and improving the bus service. To include small electric shuttles instead of the large busses that take up too many parking spaces. No one rides the large busses, and we have areas that are painted red along streets that could be used for parking. Lastly, in business districts, we need Uber, Lyft. Drop off zones and bicycle zones and even scooter zones to all of these issues could improve the businesses in Long Beach. Plus the need. To look at the lack of business permits that are going on. And I realize COVID 19 happened, but we need to open up these permits. This is ridiculous that half of the buildings in Beaumont surely empty and we need to move on. And we need to get the business permits and allow these people like Aaron, Tiffany and others to continue to prosper as small business owners in this city. And we need to start now. So let's approve this and let's move on. Thank you. And your next speakers, Kurt Schneider. Good evening. My name is Kurt Snyder, and today I'm speaking as the president of the Belmont Shore Business Association. I've been a local resident for over 32 years. I own properties in our district as well as on a business in Belmont Shore. Personally witnessed the changes that have occurred in our retail district. During that span of time, buying habits have changes and we as a district should change to satisfy the wants and needs of our potential customers and residents if we are to remain relevant. Our current parking requirements imposed by the City of Long Beach are outdated. Based on the following how patrons get to our district. They use uber walking biking scooters which are were nonexistent when the requirements were set. Buying habits and who is frequenting the shore has changed. Our demographic has gotten younger in their wants of experiential retail, dining and entertainment have changed from what they used to be 30 years ago. 20 years ago. Ten years ago. Even five years ago. Over the past 20 years, the City of Long Beach has not changed parking requirements for potential retail restaurants, bars desirous of locating in Belmont Shore Retail District. Our city in our district has not changed with the times. Over 30% of diners are now using Uber, Lyft and taxis. This does not include walking, biking nor scooter. All of these modes of transportation are now viable and desirous for our local residents to use. Many cities are now lowering parking demand and attempting to wean the community off his addiction to using cars. And it's working. Our city has spent millions on bike lanes implementing scooter rental throughout the city, extra bus routes and other measures to change the transportation habits. We spent millions and millions on this. Why don't we have faith that these things work? We haven't changed the requirements. The demographics of Belmont sure has changed, as have the shopping and dining habits. It's true that younger people are moving to the shore. 20 years ago, Jennifer and I could have gone out to dinner on Second Street with a couple in the shore, and we still would have driven to a restaurant. Today we are walking or taking it over to our second street destination. The most frequent diners are going out to eat multiple times per week and are younger and more likely to use Uber walking, biking and scooters. When I bring up a problem, I always try to bring a solution as this is a problem that is overdue to be fixed. We're at a point where our district is tired and feels less prosperous. I believe if our city lessen the parking requirements, reflect changes in transportation and buying habits, we agree we can reinvigorate this district and in a few years exceed our most prosperous times. I renovated, developed and owned retail in many markets throughout the United States, and in almost all of those markets, there's more lenient parking requirements because, as Aaron stated, he brought out about being suburban versus a neighborhood retail area like we're talking about. They have less parking requirements. I think your next speaker is Wendy published. Hello. I'm Wendy Sublette. I am a licensed architect and a property owner on Second Street. I just want to reiterate things that have already been said. But the point I'd like to make is, you know, retail is really changing today. What will go in on Second Street will be food. Services and. Entertainment and small retail. I'm the owner of a 4000 square foot property that has been vacant for over four years. I am not going to put another. 4000 square foot retail. Tenant in that space. I can't. I have diligently worked to try and do it. And I am. My options are limited because I'm in the middle of the block, so I can't reduce the size and divided up into smaller units because it's too deep of a building. I've had many conversations with the planning department and you have a brilliant staff that is willing to think outside the box. We've talked about compact parking, shared parking in tandem parking, employee site parking, valet parking and a buyout program. They know about all the things that have been done in Pasadena and Burbank and Westwood and Santa monica. The ballet program at Abbot and Kenny is working fabulously. We have parking lots down at the beach. There's lots of options here. We just have to start thinking outside of the. Box and let your staff go at it. I just beg you to take the next step and do that. I thank you for taking the time to consider this because I am pretty desperate at this point to come up with a solution for the property that I own. So thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment. For this item. Thank you, Councilwoman Pryce. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. First of all, I want to thank the council colleagues who signed on to the item with me. I really appreciate it. Parking has always been a significant issue in many parts of our city, and Belmont sure has not been immune to that. This item asks the city staff to look at what opportunities may be available to alleviate some of the parking pressures felt by the businesses and the residents. The parking regulations in the Shaw are constrained by a number of factors. One is access to the coastal area is important because of the proximity of Belmont Shore to the ocean. And so we want to make sure that people that are coming to visit the ocean and have access to the coast have ample parking. But also we have a business corridor that also takes up some of those that competition for parking spaces. Meanwhile, we have residential neighborhoods that are in very close proximity within 50 to 100 yards of these that the business corridor. And so we want to make sure that we're alleviating pressure for the residents as well. There are other areas of Long Beach. And before I go one, I want to thank our planning department, who they're getting a lot of the requests for commercial tenants and they're realizing that the parking regulations in the shore have been updated. And there are creative things that we can do within our current footwork and footprint in order to make some some parking mitigation changes. And so there's other areas of Long Beach and many other cities that have looked at creative solutions like shared parking, employee offsite parking and streamlined changes for new businesses so that there are practices in line to help the businesses and improve parking in Shaw without having too much of an impact on residents. The focus of improving parking in the past and since I've taken office have been evaluation of necessary red curbs or reevaluate where you should have those. We've tried to reduce streets we think impacts to parking. We did a comprehensive study in 2016 of parking. We added 150 new diagonal parking spots, which I disagree with one of the callers. I don't believe that that has resulted in any traffic or parking impacts in the in the area that the 150 diagonal spots were added. I think that's been an added benefit for people who are trying to visit the coast. And we are now exploring the possibility of a pilot program that would allow for electric shuttles to help transport transport people to and from the shore and around the shore. I think there are some creative and practical ways that we can look at managing the parking issue in Belmont Shore. And I know that in 2014, when I came into office, there was a raging debate about purchasing a private home in the shore and trying to get into a parking lot that is absolutely dead on arrival idea for me. That's not what this item is about. So this item is about exploring creative things like shared parking or tandem parking and looking at ways that we can help businesses work together to utilize parking in areas or businesses that aren't utilizing them at certain times. And so I'd ask staff to please work with our office as part of this item so that we can do a resident focus group meeting and then a business focus group meeting so that we can take all of that input into the final recommendations. And I'm hoping that that that's part of the motion. I'm hoping staff is agreeable to that, and our office will obviously coordinate both of those. But with that, I ask my colleagues to support this item. Thank you, Councilwoman. I have a second. Councilman Zendejas. I just want to add, you know, I. I have to tell you, like Councilman, I'm very. Excited about this item, to be honest, because I think it's absolutely the right thing to look at. And I'm not sure. And I was just checking. I think any time that we can rethink anything, we can rethink what the major businesses are today and make it more walkable. So I really I really think this is really great. I was curious. I don't know. Mr. Morgan knows, but how long has it been since we've actually look, I imagine that we haven't looked at the government. You're kind of broken standards for for for businesses, for for properties in a long time. I know, I know. We recently went through process for downtown and some other places, but how long has it been? Approximately 20 years. Yeah, a little bit longer. So the regulations. This is Christopher Coombs, Deputy Director Development Services. The regulations were adopted in 1988. There were some very minor changes in 94 and 95, but there hasn't been a comprehensive update since 88. The city did a study in 2015 really dealing with this, the public street and the public right away. But there hasn't been a look at the private parking regulations comprehensively since 88. Do we still require all businesses properties to actually have parking spots or parking adjacent to the business or behind? Is that a requirement? And the SHA still. Yes and no. So all businesses are required to have parking and part of what we're trying to do is look at what makes sense and what doesn't make sense. So you see some empty storefronts in the store and then you also see some businesses that are doing really well. And if I'm an entrepreneur and I want to open up a business, if I find a place that is the same kind of business as me that went out of business, I can just open up. There is no change. But if where I'm going to be a clothing store and now I want to do a tapas bar, that's a change of use, then you have to make up the difference in parking, which obviously is difficult to do because you can't. There's nowhere to build new parking, so you can use offsite parking, but it's a very limited distance. So those are all things we'd be looking at. Can you share parking further away if the bank is open during the day and at different businesses open at night, why can't they be sharing that same parking? So we don't know the solutions because we have to do the work. So but but those are all topic areas that we're looking at. Okay, great. Well, before I turn this over, I just want to add, I've been talking about parking minimums and requirements to businesses. I mean, across the city. I think I've talked about it with folks and in the department and with Mr. Modica and Ms.. Tatum as well. And so I know this item is specific to Beaumont. Sure. And I obviously support that. But I just want to encourage the staff that we have got to move faster. I'm looking at the city wide. This is there is so much of the city that needs this type of work. And so I'm very thankful that Councilman Price brought this forward. It's important to do investment. Sure. And once we get Belmont Shore off the ground and focus there, I mean, this is this is a big issue and it's a big problem. And we've taken way too long to address parking minimums. And I think you guys know what my position is on this. I've mentioned it to you, but it'll be dramatically the burden to be dramatically reduced on on businesses and developments as it relates to those parking requirements. So the mayor the second on the motion is councilman's in the house. And so obviously I really strongly support this. And thank you, Councilman Price. Customers in the house. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for that. And a big thank you to Councilmember Price for bringing this forward. And I do note that this is Belmont Ward concentrator, but it really does affect the whole city as a whole because this is this gets the conversation started for all of our bids. Right. And so one of the things that I, I also would like to encourage staff to start thinking about in other other areas in the city, especially in the downtown area, which I represent along with Councilwoman Allen, is, you know, it's let's start looking at that also. And also, you know, right now we're living in unprecedented times and our businesses need our help more than ever before. And so this is our opportunity to step it up and help our businesses. And if parking is one of the one of the issues that's contributing to our businesses not being able to be as successful as they can, let's work really hard in in a fast moving motion. To help them succeed and make sure that not only they succeed, but that they thrive, especially through this recovery time. Thank you, Councilwoman Allen. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I'm also very thankful that Councilwoman Pryce brought this forward. I'm also appreciate. The Cosigners Council members, Van de Haas and Austin. I absolutely welcome review of any policies that can improve our park or any of our parking options that are similar. We have some of the same problems in District two that I know that Belmont Shaw has with limited parking parking. And these residents and businesses need our help with this more than ever. So I am just extremely grateful that this was brought forward, that we are having these conversations. I look forward to seeing the solutions that are found and seeing if they'll be applicable in District two or citywide. So thank you so much. Thank you. Vice Mayor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I certainly support a number of these amendments. The parking. We tested some of the city manager or Mr. Cootes. If we test some of these and the upland process that's I know we did the first phase, which is the Uptown Business District. What which which elements of this did we test in uptown? So Councilmember, because of the grant you helped us secure and support from Councilmember Orson during the uptown process, we had a phase one which is done and a Phase two, which we're in now. So there we did look at parking and at the issue about change of use and sort of how different scenarios are treated differently and how we can kind of bring new life to vacant storefronts. So we'll be able to use some of those lessons learned. But obviously what we're talking about in Councilmember Price's district is a smaller, more targeted effort to look at some policy interventions that can help us right now with the businesses and parking roles and the economic recovery in Uptown, we did a top to bottom review, so we did a whole visioning process with the community. We looked at uses, we looked at building form and what are buildings going to look like. We looked at housing related issues, so it's a very broad. We looked at mobility on the streets and and that was fantastic. That's. A great model. That's that's not what we're talking about today with this particular council item. You know, the goal is to work with the council member in an expedient manner to look at some lower hanging fruit in terms of parking and some lessons already learned up in North Long Beach and elsewhere and other cities like Santa monica, Pasadena or West Hollywood and and apply that to the Belmokhtar situation. So so that's that's what we're looking at. And that's where we are today. Thank you. I would just offer something. So, one, you know, when we applied to the grant, this guy for the grant, we talked about testing things that will make it easier to deploy city wide because we already tested it. Right. So you can pick it up. It should make it easy to drop in any other area of town. Some of those elements, that's the first thing I would offer. And then the second thing I would say is Skaggs just engaged in a curve management study last year and it's incredible. We use our curve completely differently now than we did before because of Ride, Share and Micro-Mobility and all of those things. And I think I would ask, have we done a curve study in Long Beach Curve Management study in Long Beach? And if not, I think we should we should think about that, how the how the management, the curve can actually create more parking opportunities, particularly in business areas. So I'd like to see a curve management study, particularly in business areas of the city. So have we done that already? Mr. Coombs. Well, that would be done in concert with our public works department, and they have looked at aspects of curb usage, including very recently. So looking at how we do overlap zones, how we accommodate scooters and bikes and other micromobility mobility that we didn't have in the past. So they have addressed many of those issues, but they haven't done the big comprehensive study that I think you're you're referring to. So certainly we can as as resources are available, keep that in mind for the future. Okay. That's a that's an offer I just think is a big you know, we can certainly target, say, Belmont Shore. But there's I could tell you the curve management is going to be something we have to look at downtown, every business district. We have to think about that because the you know, everything has changed so much from the time that we established parking standards, all of those things. And we just have to think about it completely differently, I think. And it doesn't have to be a part of that part of this motion, or maybe it could be. But I think we have to really look at either pilot piloting a few areas of town to do a park and do a port management study and see what the impact is or some city wide study. But we we certainly need to do that. We could probably just pick up and learn from Wasco what did last year with with its current crop management study just wanted to offer off those. I'm hearing a lot of this across the region is really good stuff. Thanks, Councilman Austin. Thanks. And I obviously support this with the business districts in my district. We have very similar challenges with Bixby knows Bixby knows was not in the plan. I want to be clear on that. And we are watching and waiting for the results of that plan to be adopted and implemented so that we can look at it and implement it in other areas of the district. That was always the plan. And so, you know, when it comes to how city staff is focused in terms of resources, I believe that they're always looking at a city wide view and always looking to focus in all areas of the city. We were just fortunate to have a grant in North Long Beach to kind of kick things off. And so, yeah, when those results are ready to be implemented, I certainly believe that they will be implemented citywide. I'm happy to sign on to this. I know Councilmember Price has some unique challenges in third district, along particularly with our Belmont Shore. And honestly, I believe that, you know, the the 2020 may may have exacerbated some of our challenges with the parklets that are now in place. I don't know that they are going to go away. And so, you know, those are dark spots in many respects that we need to consider. And so I do like the idea of a curb management study, but also with in mind in mind that the that we were looking at more outdoor dining and possibly looking at having parklets year round in many of our business districts as well. So it's offer that I'm happy to support. Thank you, councilman and House. And then we'll go to Councilman Price and then a vote. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just have a quick question for city staff. I'm wondering if this could possibly lead to a change in the definition of r r r turnout streets north north claim was not recommended to have diagonal parking. And but if we are seeing more walkable solutions, if we're thinking about, you know, more people using bikes and more micro mobility, can can those possibilities of those streets be reevaluated? So, Councilmember I. Hesitate to give you the bureaucratic answer, but that falls within Public Works Minister Eric Lopez, and he's not at the table with us right this moment. So we'd be glad to connect you and I'll work on those important issues. But I think that would be a separate, discrete item from from what we're talking about today. And the city manager, Tom. Okay. I wanted to weigh in a little bit here because we've kind of talked about two different issues tonight. So the item in front of you is really dealing with some of the private parking requirements that users are required for their part for their businesses. So we're seeing a challenge when someone comes in and they want to take over a new space. The code says you have to provide X amount of parking if that parking doesn't wasn't already provided on your site. So that's kind of the issue there. In the past, we've really focused a lot on public spaces. So there's been studies in Belmont. Shaw Pretty intense ones about, you know, how many more spaces can we give up for public looking at meter rates, looking at all kinds of different options? And we've done that in Belmont. Sure. And spent a lot of time there. And we've been investing in some of those solutions. We also did that pretty intensely in in downtown and in Alameda Beach through the through a parking study there. So those are kind of the public side. And then we can look at the options for how you provide public parking. This is more focused on relaxing and some of those parking requirements that we're placing on private business. So those two kind of work in concert with each other. But they are they are unique and different. Thank you so much for that levitation. Councilman Mongo. Thank you. I just want to say how deeply we need this. I've met with business owners multiple times related to some of the uses that we have and some of the challenges with the uses. I mean, we had a play center that wanted to go in in the seventh District and then in the fifth District. And they were being moved around their development services to facilities that might meet their parking needs because they were classified as a gym, but they were not a gym. They were a little group of people who have 5 to 6 preschoolers come in and play with musical instruments and play with balls. But that was the only classification. And so we have to come up with something that also gives our planning department some jurisdictional value to bring forward a recommendation that's within some parameters as an exception, because I would say that that business would have been one of those exemptions that the planning department would have supported or it could have gone to the Planning Commission. But I recognize they don't want to do one offs, but there are times where the code just doesn't explain the new types of businesses and quite frankly, these codes that are only updated every ten, 15 years. And even if we updated them every three years, there's a rapidly changing. A commercial market right now, and we need to be available to respond to that. Thank you. Great item. And and then Councilwoman Price to conclude. Thank you very much. So a couple of things. I just I appreciate the city manager's comments, but I just I want to make my intent very clear. It's not to relax any parking standards for businesses. It's to think creatively about how they can provide the parking that is required so as to not put more pressure on the residents and the residential streets. So I think that we have the same intent, but I just wanted to make sure that that that soundbite isn't misconstrued because I don't think that's anyone's intent. Councilman Richardson or Vice Mayor Richardson's comment about the curb study. I love that idea. In fact, I love it so much. I brought an item about three years ago that you all supported called the Read Curb Audit for parking impacted areas. And I think that we haven't received a report back on it. It's been a couple of years, if I'm not mistaken, but that's exactly what we were thinking, because just by shortening some of the red curbs, we're able to squeeze in two or three more spots. And that's huge. I know it doesn't sound like a lot, but if we can pick up 20 or 30 spots along the business corridor at Belmont, sure, that's huge for us. Our parklets right now take up at least two spaces each, which is why the PARKLET program, one of the reasons the PARKLET program probably will not become a permanent program in Belmont. Sure, it's also a traffic safety issue, but it's also an issue with parking. And the Belmont short area is is we have some constraints that other districts may not have, council districts one and two may, but we have our coastal access constraints. We those are you know, we can't make exceptions because we're we're in that coastal zone and it providing access to the public is our most important function for. So we don't have a lot of movement there. And so for us, if we can pick up a couple of spots through a curb audit where we don't need something , that's a huge deal for us, we can get two spots back that were previously a temporary parklet. That's huge for us. So, so I look forward to that. I mean, maybe I can ask the city manager, do you know what the status is on the red carpet audit item that we brought for parking impacted areas? Yes. So we reported back on that in December 2019. We did some quick estimates of what it would take to do that. That's a pretty intense study. At the time, it was estimated about six months and about 170,000. So we provide that back to the council. That's one that was not funded. And so when there's funding to move forward or if the council wants to reconsider that or reprioritize something else, then we could get started on that effort. Yeah, I appreciate that. You're right. We did we did get a report back that said thank you, but we don't have the money to do that right now. So so it really hasn't gone anywhere. So that might be something if the council's interested, but we can look at as a city because I think that would be really valuable. And I agree with Vice Mayor Richardson and Councilman Austin that this curb management issues is huge. And if we can pick up a lot of parking and parking impacted areas, and that could be the pilot, the parking impacted districts could be the pilot. So that could work. And then I'm open to any updating of parking regulations in any other district. I didn't want anyone to think that it was limited to Belmont. Sure. It's just we have a very specific need right now, and I'm trying to stay in my lane and not dictate what everyone else should be doing in their districts, which is why this item was narrowly tailored to address a need that we have in our district. But any other district that wants an update like this for your own district, I'm going to obviously very much support. I just left it off of my item because I don't want to get involved in everyone else's business through my own issues in my district that I'm trying to resolve. So thank you very much for your support. And this is time, if I can add real quick, we do do these red curb evaluations all the time, so the item asks us to really look holistically and go and bring someone on to look at every red curb. Our traffic team definitely works with council offices. If you say in this street, can you come out and take a look? We go through, we do those parking counts. We picked up a number of street or a number of parking spots in District two that way in the last couple of years. And so we've done some of that work, but we do it more on a case by case basis. That's easier for us to manage with internal staff. But you know, we certainly could do it citywide, but that does require us to bring on some more. So I just want make sure, you know, that is an option on some areas if you do have requests for those. Roll call vote, please. Mr. Mayor. I also killed after Councilman Price. Yeah, that was after I had seen that. So you're right. Go ahead, Councilman. Mongo. Thank you. I'm sorry. Something that Mr. Modica stated brought a question to my eye. So Councilman Pryce brought forward an item asking for a citywide red curb audit in 2019. City manager brought back a report that said it would be very expensive to do citywide. Mr. MODICA Did you provide a price that it would be just to do parking impacted areas of the city? The request at the time was to look at citywide. And so that's the estimate that we provided was 170. The when is it that you determine that items brought forward during the year that say we would need this amount of money to do it, get folded into your budget proposal. So sometimes that happens. Yeah. So we consider those as part of the budget when one kind of innovation that we've done in the recent past is to create a section called unfunded needs so that we are reporting back during the budget process whether those items made it in or made it or did not. And so we do our best to go through all the two from fours and the ones that we have a funding source or a grant or others or or we feel just we that is at the top of the priority list. We can fund those in the budget and then we like to identify those for you to say so that you know when you're going through your budget, whether or not it was funded, I'd have to check on this one specifically, but we do try to include that as a list of items. So if this item was passed with unanimous vote of the council and several other items were passed by the unanimous vote of the council, and I was the budget chair at that time and. It wasn't mentioned, and I guess I just don't know. Like there were lots of things included in the in the city manager's proposed budget. I guess I would like to understand. What? Just to better understand, when is it that the city manager determines that one thing is the higher priority? They're all I mean, most of us support each others items with the unanimous vote, even if we may not agree in in principle for the funding component, we may agree in principle, but might not agree that it should be funded. But sometimes you still fold those into your city manager recommendations. And then on the flip side, we might agree or disagree in principle, but since it's not been funded at this time, maybe you will be supportive at this time and see what it does cost and what comes of it. What is it that we could do to kind of. Flesh out what that looks like or that process is there. I mean, I'm not budgetary anymore, so maybe it's a better question for Mr. Austin if he wants to maybe collaborate on an earlier phase of the budget. But some of these items do get put into your budget recommendation and many do not. What do you determine to be the differentiator of the highest priority of the city? I think it's just. That residents would say parking. I think it's just the amount of money that we have. Normally, when we get a amount to do one time dollars, we get to do a fraction of our overall needs. So we start first with the requirements like legal requirements, mandated requirements. You know, I'll give an example. You know, we need water in our parks and we never have enough water for our parks. And so we try to take a small amount of that because we know that that's a priority. If we were to fund all of that, we wouldn't have enough money for anything else. So I do wish we had when we get those big one time dollars, we go back and look at those priorities. But the process is there. We provide the reports throughout the year. We now include it in the budget, which we didn't before, to make sure that people know. We can also highlight that with the Budget Oversight Committee moving forward and certainly if you have a different priority, then, you know when kind of what staff brings forward as were most urgent needs, that's what the budget process is for. Well, I appreciate that. I just know that. And I could I could be wrong. But I thought I had heard Councilwoman Allen once comment that one of the major things that she hears from residents is their concerns about parking. And if it's a number one priority in her district, then maybe we should look at and it's a high priority for residents and the third district, maybe we should look at and potentially what just the parking impacted areas. Having a red card, albeit a red curb audit would cost because if it's a really high priority to a lot of residents and it enables people from different parts of the city to drive to work, they know that there was a lot of communication about I'm a patron and I Uber or I'm a patron, but but really we also need people from different parts of the city who need jobs to be able to get to the job centers, wherever those are. So I'd have to I wouldn't be able to take that pulse and see if it's still a concern of residents in certain areas. But. I have consistently heard from people in the store downtown all over the place that parking is a top priority for them. So I would be interested in parking impacted areas, having that red curb steady number and be supportive of those districts while I don't have them in my side of town unless you're around Long Beach City College when they're in session. I would say that that's probably a high priority for those residents and I would want to be supportive. Thank you. Councilman Price. I won't take long. I just. I did want to correct Mr. Mota. I know it's been. It was December, October of 2019 when I brought the item. And it did specifically ask for parking impacted areas. It was not for a citywide audit. It was specific to parking impacted areas. And then within two months, we got basically the report back, which I just looked at that said, you know, this is going to cost, it's not feasible, it's going to cost us a lot of money. So I get it. I understand we have restraints in terms of what we can and can't spend and what the priorities are. But I agree with Councilwoman Mongo that we we really I do ask city staff to think about the individual priorities of each district, you know, instead of global priorities that may be, you know, more advocated for or more championed. I think it's important to look at the different districts because here we are two years later talking about an item that is a major issue and the cost associated with it is high, but it's certainly not that high. And I understand it's not a priority for the city management team, but some of the issues that might be a priority for the city management team may come at a higher cost. They may not be serving the needs of every district. So if we could find ways to try to address the priorities, especially when they're not a huge number in all the districts in some way, I think that would be ideal because sometimes the major priority issues that cost a lot of money are really great priority issues for the city, but may not address a need that's much lower cost than in one of the districts. And so I'm trying to say a little bit of money could go a long way in some districts so I appreciate it. Thinks thank you, Councilman Austin. I guess I'd like to just maybe reference a friendly or offer friendly to include in the staff work to identify or look to identify any sort of planning grants that may be available to assist with the this sort of separate in these parking impacted areas of our city. I think I mean, obviously, the up plan was was referenced and that was staff resources were where were were have they actually been paid for by bye bye through a grant? And so I would just ask that we we look at doing the same in terms of identifying resources to help address these problems. So that that would be a friendly just just a recommendation. There's a I'm assuming, Councilman Price, that you agree with that friendly. Absolutely. Great. So let's go ahead and then do a roll call vote, please. District one, district two. I District three. I. I. Strict for. All right. District five, District I, District six I, District seven. I. District eight. My. District nine. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. We need to move on to the study session I mentioned. We're going to do it before seven. There is still one item that requested to be moved up. So. Item ten Indigo it is Captain Mango. Are you. Are you on? Guzman Mango. Yes, I am on, sir.

Recommendation to adopt resolution increasing appropriations in Fiscal Year 2014-2015 in the Water Fund (EF 310) in the Water Department (WA) by $6,500,000. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02162016_16-0147

Item 22. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Report from Water Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Increasing Appropriations in Fiscal Year 2014 2015 in the water fund. In the water department by $6.5 million citywide. Is there a staff report? I don't see the water department here. We can have one. The water? What's your. Name? I'm sorry. I see you. Are our new water director. Fresh. Brand new. Chris Garner. Still the wet. Still wet behind the ears. But I'm. Here. Good evening. All this is is a we're asking for an appropriation increase for six and a half million dollars. The good news is this was fully reimbursable by the Y replenishment district. Thank you, Councilman Andrews. Okay. Councilmember Richardson. Fabulous. Is there any member of the public that wish to address Council on item 22? Seeing None. Members Cast your vote. Motion carries.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending and restating Chapter 5.55, and repealing Section 5.55.090, relating to Covid-19 worker recall, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03082022_22-0235

District three. High District four. I'm District five, district six. I District seven. I'm District eight. A motion carries eight zero. Great item number 23, this. Report from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending and restating Chapter 5.55 and repealing Section 5.55.090 relating to COVID 19 work a recall read and adopted as read citywide. I have emotion that comes from your anger. Can I get a second, please? Second by Councilwoman Sara. Is there any public comment on this? If there are any members of the public that would like to speak on this item, please use the raise hand feature or dial our name. See. Now, that concludes public comment. Thank you. With that, then we'll go into the roll call vote, please. District one, district two. By. District three. I. District four. I'm District five. II. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. Hi. Motion is security. Zero. Thank you very much. That concludes everything on the regular agenda. We do have a study session that we were going to do here at the end of the end of the meeting. So we'll go ahead and start that. I wanted to just double check, madam, quick, is there anything else on the agenda that we've missed or we all completed? With the agenda. We've completed all the other items on the agenda. Okay, excellent. Then we will transition into our 30 session and then do some any any new business or announcements we have for the study session at the council too was good about that. We wanted to get to the agenda because we do have an important budget update and I want to begin by saying a few remarks and

Recommendation to receive and file a report from Long Beach Water Department regarding the excellent quality and safety of the drinking water in Long Beach and to assure the citizens of Long Beach that various factors that caused the lead contamination crisis in Flint, Michigan do not exist in our city. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05032016_16-0377

Motion carries. Item 26 report from Water Commission and the Water Department recommendation to receive and file a report from the Long Beach Water Department regarding the excellent quality and safety of the drinking water in Long Beach Citywide. Councilmember Urunga. Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to postpone this item to next week. I think it's an important public health issue that we need to ensure everybody receives. And given the late hour of tonight's meeting, I think it would be more appropriate if we do it next week. I would second that. So there's a motion to move this item to next week. And so any public comment on that? None. Members, cast your vote. Motion carries.

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

LongBeachCC_04132021_21-0291

Thank you. And we'll go to the last item on the agenda, which is item 15. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to the sale of flavored tobacco products red and adopted as read citywide. Get this. I need a motion, please. I have a motion by Councilmember Austin. Can I get a second on this reading by the. Can I get a second, please? Second by councilman saw public comment. Our first speaker for item 15 is any taken. Good evening, Mayor and city council members. My name is Annie. Hagan with Tobacco-Free Kids. I just am calling and staying on the line here just to say thank you. We're in strong support of ending the sale of flavored e-cigarettes and all tobacco products sell flavored tobacco products. The sweetened minty products are really aimed to lure kids with candy flavors and unfortunately hook them for the long term. So by passing this ordinance tonight, Long Beach will join over this about 70 cities in California that have passed similar ordinances. And I just wanted to call to to thank each of you sincerely for sticking up for Long Beach kids, even in the face of industry pressure. So thank you very much. Thank you. Your next speaker is Eva carbonara. An honorable mayor and city council. My name's Eva Carbonara, a District four resident and senior. I was in high school. I'd like to begin with a sincere thank you for all your continued support in the progression of the flavor ordinance, allowing us youth to voice their concerns and experiences. Involving the youth vaping epidemic. Tonight, I'd. Like to again stress the urgency of this ordinance. For years, youth have suffered at the hands of big tobacco and their deadly flavored products. Even prior to the pandemic, the rise of youth vaping devastated. The health of Long Beach schools and marginalized communities. And now, in. Recognizing the connection between youth vaping and contraction of COVID 19, the consequences of our inaction will be even more severe. However, with the renewal of the flavor ordinance, we work to ensure the safety of our city's youth, ensuring the safety of students like me from COVID 19 and nicotine addiction alike. Finally myself, along with the Concerned Youth of Long Beach, kindly ask for your support. Support in both passing this ordinance and our efforts as tobacco educators and advocates fighting for a healthier, happier flavor for Long Beach. Thank you. I think your next speaker is China pop ping pong. Hi, all. My name is Geneva and I'm a student at Cal State Long Beach. Throughout my journey in academia, I've learned the harmful impact of. Tobacco in our body. But in the past couple. Of years, I've really seen the real world impact of how tobacco companies target youth college students like myself, LGBTQ folk. And ethnic minority. Communities. It is so common to see high school and college students walking around with a flavored tobacco product on one hand and their phone on the other at all times, lowering access's key flavor to hook them in and nicotine keeps them dependent. I just want to thank our amazing council members who put the health of all these communities first, saving our youth from being lifelong dependance and see that tobacco is truly a public health issue. Thank you. Think your next speaker is Jakarta Robinson. Beating everyone. My name is Decatur Robinson and I'm with the youth leader for Sparkle Control Coalition. I attended Long Beach Polytechnic High School in District six, Miami, now a freshman at the University of Southern California. I'm thankful for your continued support on the ban on flavored tobacco products. I've seen the epidemic of vaping among youth literally throughout my school career, and it still happens even during class. Since we're not in physical classrooms at this point in time, it would be fantastic to see the end of the glorification of flavored e-cigarettes among youth. We don't know the long term health effects of vaping, and I do not wish to see my fellow classmates become data used to prove just how awful vaping can be over time. Additionally, I'm also in support of this ban because I'm sick of seeing the black community used and killed for profit by big tobacco, specifically with menthol cigarets. The fact that 85% of black smokers use menthol cigarets. The fact that they're up to ten times more tobacco ads in black and brown communities. The fact that walking the ballpark is back in high school meant passing by smoke shops. The fact that black people are more likely to die from tobacco related illnesses despite smoking at rates similar to those of white people, is unacceptable. Your support in stopping and stopping this is encouraging, and I urge you to continue to help to help lift one of the numerous burdens that people of color already face in this country . The burden of tobacco from. Black and brown communities. As well as our youth. Thank you so much. Thank your next speakers, Kimberly Morales. Kimberly Morales. Our next speaker is Patricia Tippett. I've got one. Good evening. Seeing council. My name is that you had to be a junior who goes to junior high school. First and foremost, I will. Grad gratefully like to thank you for the support you have given on the flavor tobacco ban. I'm here to speak on behalf of the youth in Long Beach. I believe that flavored tobacco should be banned because according to research flavor. Products are more used in youth of older adults. Younger adults are 85% more likely to use favorite tobacco compared to ordering books, according to an article on the two incidents. Duckworth youth preferred the taste and smell compared to regular tobacco. This shows how flavored tobacco products can be attacked and approved to use. I urge you to approve this orients as is. Thank you for your time. I think your next speaker is Primo Castro. Good evening, major city council pretty Castro with the American Cancer Society, Cancer Action Network and strong support of this ordinance to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products and the city of Long Beach. You're taking a great step in protecting our youth, protecting the residents of Long Beach on behalf of the American Cancer Society Construction Network. Thank you. And just please, let's approve this as soon as possible. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment for this item. Thank you. That concludes the agenda. We do have some some closing of new business, so we need. To take a vote on this item. But. Oh, I'm sorry if you're absolutely right. Let's go ahead. And I do have a motion that I really call the motion. And the second I think I did. Yes, Councilman Austin and Councilwoman Sato. So let's go ahead and take a roll call vote. District one. District two. All right. District three. I. District four. All right. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. II. District nine. Yes. Motion carries. Thank you. And now we'll have the new business. Let's go ahead and begin with Council member Austin.

Recommendation to conduct a Budget Hearing to receive and discuss an Overview of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2015 Budget for Parks, Recreation and Marine, Library Services, and Code Enforcement.

LongBeachCC_07222014_14-0545

Thank you. Members. Here this report from the city manager with the recommendation to conduct a budget hearing to receive and discuss an overview of the. Proposed fiscal. Year 2014 budget. Thank you. Mr. West. You want me to you want me to get started? The return of you coming to go and start. So what? I know that the Council and the public have had a chance to review the budget as presented by the city manager. It's a it's a budget that, in my opinion, has been well, well thought out. And a lot of the the the top management team, the financing put a lot of work into. I'm going to start by going through my recommendations as mayor for the 20,000 for the 2015 FBI budget. As part of that. And when I go to this presentation, it's one that I made earlier. And in fact, a few of the council members were here earlier. From there, Mr. West will take it over and walk us through the budget itself and there'll be opportunities for any questions as well as public comment towards the end. So you should all have the recommendations in front of you that have being passed out and we're going to go out and go through those. I want to just start off by saying what I said this morning is that we have over the last few years gone through a very difficult financial time in the city. It's been a really in large part to a lot of the work and the returning council members that have been here that have been able to get the get the budget back into a strong position, we've been able to eliminate a lot of that structural deficit. We've been able to go and work with our city employees to reform our public pension system. So we're in a position today where we have a small surplus, and I think rightly so. Management has proposed that surplus move forward so we can look forward, look for savings in the future. I want to reiterate some key messages that Mayor Foster left on the way out. I think it's important that moving forward, we continue our partnership with all of our employee groups. The only way we solve our future budget challenges is by working with our employee groups, by working with management to ensure that we are providing the best possible service to our employees, while also looking at the financial future of the city. So that that is going to continue. And the budget message reflects that, although the items that Mayor Foster suggested are items that like in any case, in any budget cycle, will always be on the table and we'll review those thoroughly. I also, as part of the budget message, I want to reiterate my support for benchmarking oil at $70 a barrel as we know oil. Is still a pretty volatile commodity. And I think we've learned our lessons from the past and the fluctuation of the oil price certainly caused the city some financial strain. But but more importantly, the way we value oil also has a direct relationship to our bond rating and our credit rating. And our bond rating is incredibly important for the city. And so keeping that responsible level of the $70 a barrel is something that I continue to support. And as part of this message moving forward, however, it made some additional budget recommendations. Most are budget neutral. And in fact, it's really about restructuring the way we we do business and engineering a lot of what the council incoming council has been talking about for the last few months. The first proposal is to continue to strengthen our reserves. The manager's budget allocates 3.1 million of F 15 surplus into the CalPERS stabilization fund. And as we know, that's going to help us smooth out our deficit challenges in the future. I propose, in addition to that, we take two mil, 2 million, up to 2 million of any FY14 surplus, and we will have a surplus like we do most years and also put that into the CalPERS stabilization fund. By doing that, we are ensuring that we're taking care of our future challenges today rather than pushing them forward, and that will allow future years to have it really be in a more stronger position when it comes financially. So one is to strengthen those those CalPERS Stabilization Reserve by an additional 2 million, up to 2 million, depending on what we have. The second thing is I'm proposing that we look at restructuring the way we organize economic development. And this is something that I heard also pretty loud and clearly from almost all of the council members that the new council that's here is their interest in returning and having an economic development department within the city of Long Beach. And so I'm proposing and reorganizing. We currently have already in place an economic development and property manager within the city manager's office. What this will do is part of the budget is also bring over seven staff from the asset management division of our public works to to form the new the new department, which will be economic and property development. There is no additional cost. We're essentially bringing staff members from different parts of the city together to restart this department for Long Beach. One key component of this is the new department will work directly with city council offices and business improvement districts to create synergy among the initiatives. And I think it's important that the Council have a point person in this office, as well as a director of this department that is willing to work directly with council offices as they do business recruitment and work with the community and the business improvement district. So that's the second part of my proposal. The third is to. Restructure. Our technology services department. We have a great group in technology services that do a lot of a lot of fantastic work and have implemented a lot of changes over the last few years. But I like to restructure and rename the department, the Technology and Innovation Department. And in doing so, not only will I would like to instruct the manager to look at the department for ways of really bringing innovation into the department, partnering with the university, partnering with the community college, and looking at ways that we can take our government into the 21st century. I'm a firm believer that innovative technology with open government, with making our services more accessible, we can create a stronger city, one that works for people, that creates efficiency, but also supports the men and women that are working there currently. And so that also is no addition. No, there's no cost to the general fund, but it will really shift a little bit of the focus, and that department will become a real center for innovation. The next proposal is, again, something I heard from a lot of the current council. During the recession. We lost a historic preservation officer who essentially, as we know, we have 17 designated historic districts throughout the city of Long Beach. They're in every part of the city. They're incredibly important. And we have lost the the person, the position that essentially helped facilitate historic preservation with the city. And while we've done some great work, part of my budget recommendations is to reclassify a planner three position that's already in the proposed budget and designate them as the role of historic preservation planner. To serve all these historic districts and to have one highly dedicated staff planner be able to help manage all the really great needs that our historic districts have. And so this is something that, again, I heard from the community, I heard from council members, and I think it's important to move forward on next is additional support for libraries and the arts, our libraries and the way and the type. Some materials they have are changing. I've asked that we added this an additional $200,000 of one time funds to increase the materials budget for the library. I included in that would be also a focus on digital books and digital media as the types of use is changing. We're getting more interest in ebooks and media and so we're this will also help the library adapt and add to some of those needs that they need. We've also asked that we'd give an additional 50,000 to the Arts Council. This is a request that they made. In fact, I think they probably sent letters to to all of us up here to allow them to do some new marketing and to look for other private funds to match those dollars. The 250,000 total for libraries and the arts. I'm recommending that we take out of a a line item for each VAC systems. In talking to the manager. The we aren't yet ready to replace those systems and so we have some time to replace a couple of those HVAC systems. And so we're able to use this money and still have no issues and then come back later this year or next year and replace those, those systems that we need that need replacing. And then the last two items I know that over the last few years, we have had, particularly last year, a discussion here at the council about privatizing our street sweeping. And the manager went out and did a study and looked at efficiencies in the street sweeping operation. My recommendation is that we that we table and shelve the street sweeping contracting our proposal and that we instead look to our street sweepers and our program that we have currently and ask them to look for efficiencies and ask them to look at ways of strengthening our street sweeping function. It's my belief that just because something is less expensive doesn't mean it's better. And this is a way of looking at our street sweepers that we currently have and allowing them to bring some solutions to the table as far as street sweeping is concerned. As part of that, we're asking to look to for to look to reduce the four hour window to 2 hours, particularly in parking impacted neighborhoods for the community and other efficiencies that are available. And finally, I want to just a few things about affordable housing. As we know, the game has changed when it comes to funding for affordable housing because of the elimination of redevelopment. And there's a bunch of things happening currently in the legislature when it comes to funding affordable housing. The current budget has presented a is pretty tight as we know, but we need to start having a discussion about how we do affordable housing moving forward. And so what I propose in the budget is a way of starting that discussion. We've had a housing trust fund for many years. As we know. We expect to get back about 24.7 $25 million from the state over the next few years for affordable housing. As part of this proposal is to take that 25 million and put it into the housing trust fund so that we can then begin to look at ways of actually building and working on our affordable housing challenge. But in addition to that, as part of the budget message, I'm asking ways of reaching out to the community and housing advocates to see how can we strengthen the housing trust fund now that it will actually have money for the first time since it was created and also look at ways of other funds as we come down the pipeline and as is available in the future and in future budgets, how we how we end up funding affordable housing is a discussion that we need to have throughout this budget process. So I know that was a little lengthy, but I wanted to make sure I got through all those recommendations. Those are as presented. And I'm hearing this over to the city manager. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. Thank you. Councilmembers. I do want to highlight that we prefer to take the capital improvement budget at the conclusion of this. So we have discussion first and then get into the capital improvement because it's so separate from our operating budget. So I have the pleasure of introducing our fiscal year 14 budget to the community. And let's just highlight some of the things that have happened. Our Mayor and his city council have steered Long Beach through the Great Recession. This council has made difficult cuts and balanced past budgets. We've cut $134 million out of the general fund and 714 positions. Over the last eight years. We've invested in maintenance, efficiency and effectiveness. We've established and we followed those established financial policies. We've also used 14 temporary surplus fiscal year, 14 temporary surplus dollars to reduce or eliminate deficits as we proceed into the future. We've also addressed pensions. Our pension reform in conjunction with our employees saves almost $250 million over ten years. We also want to point out that the CalPERS board actions will ensure that this plan is funded over 30 years. You'll see later in this budget this is going to be a very, very difficult time for Long Beach. It is extremely necessary so we can pay down that unfunded liability with the help of peers. We've also created a CalPERS stabilization fund. This will help protect against service reductions due to fluctuating CalPERS investments and earnings. There's also been many operational and efficiency improvements recently. We've reduced the general fund management team by 28%. We've eliminated hundreds of vehicles from the city fleet. We've consolidated clerical staffing. We've streamlined permit fees and consolidated inspection services. We've even eliminated two entire departments, and we're implementing a more efficient ambulance service as we speak. We've also implemented what we call Long Beach Cops. This leverages technology to fight crime. This is under the leadership of Chief Jim McDonald and provides a camera system that is in our emergency operations center that oversees much of our 52 square miles to fight crime. We've also reduced skill and stand by pace throughout all of our nine employee organizations. We're also in the process of implementing new systems that will take us into the 21st century. We've introduced a brand new parking citation system which will improve improved collection rates. I want to make it clear that this system is not about issuing more tickets. It's about going after scofflaws who have not paid their tickets. We're in the process of implementing a brand new business license system, which will make it easier for the public and our business folk to get business licenses and improve the way that they do business. We've also implemented a brand new utility billing system that's been very, very successful throughout the community. And finally, one of the things that this city council has talked about for the past four years, we've implemented a brand new financial and our system, which is underway. We funded that. That's going to take another year and a half or two to put online. But it's a huge undertaking and will take us into the 21st century with technology and computer efforts. We wanted to focus a little bit about the fiscal year 14 accomplishments that have happened just recently and throughout the past few years. We are experiencing a 41 year low in violent crime throughout our community. Chief McDonnell tells us we're continuing to see violent crime drop even this year. We're also seeing major projects completed or underway. These include the brand new Molina health care buildings, a Fortune 500 company expanding their on Pine and Seventh Street, bringing over 1000 well-paid jobs to North Pine. Mercedes-Benz is building a brand new facility there at the old 717 site, and Douglas and Canaan, and they're in the middle of that construction period. And that will be a game changer for us. If anyone's driven by Douglas Park, which is north of the airport at the old Boeing property, this is becoming a grand slam home run, run for us. It's rivaling the Irvine spectrum property in Irvine as an industrial and office facility. More and more buildings are going up every month. It's just fantastic. The park continues to be a great partner and leader in all of our economic activities with the Middle Harbor as well as the bridge. Numerous restaurants have opened up in the past year. We're getting to be quite the location for this. We've got Chia Nina. We've got the Socialist Retro Row Bobo's on Pine, James Republic, the Federal Bar. And more and more restaurants are expanding and relocating like E.J. Malloy's and Hamburger Mary's. The Pike retail component is ready to take off. We hope within the next year the park is moving to be a quality outlet facility there and adjacent to the convention center. And it's anchored by the Restoration Hardware Outlet Store, which we're told is the most successful restoration hardware outlet store in the United States. We continue to get awards for things like the downtown plan and our mobility element. We just learned recently, while we knew we had a county award in the mobility element, the state of California has issued us their chief award for that. Our Parks and Recreation Department continues to win awards, getting a golden medal for the best Parks and Recreation Department in the entire United States this year. When we had to close the old Thelma pool, the city council acted so quickly. We had a brand new temporary pool open within just a ten month period, which was unheard of. After many years, the City Council adopted a new billboard ordinance, and this will go a long way in reducing illegal or grandfathered billboards on our corridors throughout our city. And finally, through the City Council's efforts and their own council committees, we are now receiving A and B grades for water quality. And all of our bodies of waters were once we just got D's and F's. So let's get into the budget. Our first core is to preserve services police, fire, public works, libraries, parks and all major services are preserved in this proposed budget. We're using proportionate share again, and that keeps budgets aligned with council priorities and incentivizes departments to be efficient. So you can see about 50% of our general fund goes to our police department. Approximately 19 or 20% goes to fire. And then the rest is divided among various various sources. Our focus continues to be on public safety. 70% of our general fund budget is devoted to public safety. We continue to have police and fire academies funded for this current year going forward. We're also adding police officers for Long Beach Transit and firefighters at the port. This budget also includes $2.2 million for enhanced overtime for gang prevention and other efforts and our Long Beach Police Department. We are also investing in police technology and also adding a brand new police station at East Station there at Willow and Lakewood Boulevard. And that should break ground shortly at the old Schroeder Hall and get our men and women out of that old, decrepit East police station there at the traffic circle. We're also using GMT money, state revenues for for new fire engines. I have to point out, if you look in the budget, we have five engines. But the council recently allocated some of the money for one of the engines to sidewalks for infrastructure. So they'll go to four. We also are going to fund our prior year commitments in the past when we would build a park. Sometimes we wouldn't provide parks and rec the money to maintain that park, and they would have to just divide up their expenditures to do that. This year, we're changing that. We're providing Parks Rec and Marine $287,000 for park maintenance and new parks like the expanded Shattuck Field. We're also adding $109,000 for a position to oversee things that are important to the Council for their policies. Language Access Plan, Violence Prevention Plan, Long Beach Grip and the Human Dignity Program will also provide $49,000 for a position to help improve our homeless services. As we prepare for the future, we also have some one time dollars available, about $11 million. And here's how we plan to spend that. Basically, we're investing in future efficiency improvements. We're investing in $2.45 million for park irrigation upgrades and water needs, as well as $1.37 million for artificial turf version. So we'll get a fourth artificial turf soccer field to match the three that were funded last year. This alone will save millions of gallons of water every year for Parks Rec and Marine. We're also setting aside $800,000 to purchase and install smart parking meters in Belmont Shore in the downtown, as well as $1.3 million in state air quality funds for fuel efficient vehicles and anti idling technology, which will save lots of fuel for us. We're also having a huge focus on critical infrastructure while the budget has $4.9 million in our residential street program. We're adding $1 million of one time dollars to match this. While our normal budget in the capital budget has $3 million for sidewalks, we're recommending another million dollars or one times to match that. We're also setting aside $2.1 million to guarantee that the library looks like I'm going to have them close the inner thing as we're testing out these new curtains here because it's a little sunny. So this won't close the whole thing. But it's just the. Actually, there's a there's an inner one, I think, from what they told me earlier. All right. There we go. Now it's so dark. Thank you. I was on the $2.1 million to make the North Library. All I can be are. But our bids came in for the North Library on target, and we're in great shape. But we want to guarantee that we can do the offsite and put all the fixtures and equipment in the new North Library that will get started shortly, as well as $400,000 for other critical equipment. We've done a lot of efficiencies and reorganizations. Our Long Beach Police Department is reorganizing to add 18 sworn police officers to the front line in police services to meet the needs out there on the streets. Development Services is restructuring their permit. Counter Public Works is reviewing project management and organization structures. Our health department is increasing grant funded positions to maximize money. Our Parks and Recreation Marine is reorganizing the Animal Care Bureau for more efficiency and oversight. We continue to fund our future commitments. The Council authorized or recommended 5% of non-recurring revenue for unfunded liabilities, and that is in here. And we're also recommending to transfer $3.1 million of temporary surplus to the CalPERS stabilization fund, which will protect us in the future from market fluctuations. There are challenges coming. City revenues are not sufficient to sustain service increases. We know that fiscal year 15 and fiscal year 16 are transition years. We know that expenses have been and are likely to continue to outpace revenues. Revenues excluding one time events have declined in the last five years. There's been negative basic growth. Our key personnel expenses category has increased an average between one and 7% over the last five years. So as we look for fiscal year 15 and fiscal year 16, it looks like we are going to have two years of what we call budget peace. But here's where I get to my winter is coming. Slide. Here's the CalPERS rate increases that is going to take care of our unfunded liabilities. As you can see, 15 in the blue area is the $41 million that we pay annually to pers. PERS is going to increase to smooth out the unfunded liabilities. And as people are living longer, they have to put more money into that as well. So in 17, we're going to see what we're predicting as a $13 million deficit in 18. We're looking at a $20 million deficit, and these are cumulative. In 1926, 20, a $33 million deficit, and in 21, a $35.6 million deficit. Now, after 21, we'll see that start to decline slightly, but 21 will be our big year. But again, winter is coming. We have other challenges. We have expiring employee agreements that we'll be taking up shortly. Our employee benefit costs continue to outpace inflation. We have unfunded liabilities, as we saw on Cal's a CalPERS pension that's going to be taken care of through the CalPERS payments. But we still have unfunded liabilities and sick leave, retiree health care subsidies and workers comp. Mr. West I also want to just make sure that that we know that, because I think it's an important point. If you look at that CalPERS chart on page 15 that Mr. West just went through. It's important to note that the the deficit that we're going to accrue is in direct relation, has a direct relationship to our payment that's going out to CalPERS. And so what we're essentially doing over the next few years is we're paying off what we really should have been paying off many, many years ago. So it isn't it's a deficit that we are that's been created because of our increased payment into the system. So the payment into the system is a really good thing because we need to obviously deal with our with our liabilities. So as you look at at those at those deficits in the future, those deficits, while certainly are are painful, and they will be over the next few years as they smooth out. We're going to be doing great damage to that to that pot of money that we owe. And so that is the really positive thing out of this, is that we're actually taking care of those payments through this new model with the staff level in the finance department. Couldn't agree more. As you pointed out earlier, it's going to be difficult, but very, very necessary. So we totally agree. We know that we're facing a $2 million. We're facing a deficit of $2.5 million in 16 and 8.5 and 17. This proposed budget applies $3.1 million of our fiscal year temporary surplus to help solve 16 and 17. So if we carry that surplus forward, we look for a zero deficit in 15. A zero deficit and 16. And a reduced deficit in 17. So the plan for success is to maintain our current services through proportionate share. This budget doesn't decrease any services. There are no new services without offsetting reductions. The police and fire academies provide for new police officers and firefighters. The budget continues to develop efficiencies and explore cost reductions. Are one time expenditures focus on reducing operating car calls costs. We're adding to our CalPERS stabilization fund and carry over temporary surplus moneys to address future deficits. And there's an additional funding for unfunded liabilities for the 5% council policy. This maintains a strong city services for our very diverse and vibrant community. It continues investment in city infrastructure. It maintains fiscal discipline and continues to develop efficiencies and explore cost reductions. We continue to maximize existing revenue and continue to look for new revenues and maintain our Long Beach fiscal health. So here's the budget timeline. Here's how we got to today. Beginning in March, the budget outlook was presented to the city council. On March 12th, we had instructions to the to the departments. In July, we started to submit all of the proposed budget to the mayor. July 3rd, July 9th, Mayor Foster submitted the proposed budget to the city council. And tonight we have Mayor Garcia submitting his recommendations on the budget. Let's take a quick peek at the budget timeline, and this is where we'll need input from. The City Council. While all of August will be devoted to community budget meetings, whether they're at in different districts or they're at various organizations, the mayor requests them during August. We're also expecting to have budget oversight committees with the new Budget Oversight Committee. So the next council, the next council meeting, we will have a budget hearing. We'll have budget hearings and all of our council meetings until we adopt the budget. So the next one we're recommending to begin with our public safety continuum. August 5th, we will start with public safety related items like code enforcement, parks and Rec, Marine and Library. On August 12th, we'll see public safety items like police and fire to continue that public safety continuum. August 19th will recommend public works, harbor and water. September 2nd, we stand prepared to have other departments as well, and that's the first opportunity for the council to adopt anything. And if you have any recommendations or requests for us, we certainly could alter these upcoming public hearings. And we could also add second meetings, of course, like one at 4:00 or 5:00 in another, one at a time certain at 7:00. So before I conclude, I do want to thank our department heads have worked so hard to put this budget and others together. I want to thank our finance director, John GROSS, the budget manager, Lia Erickson, Joe Martin, Tom Modica, Jeff Hall. And I mostly want to thank Suzanne Frick, who is going through her seventh and last budget with us. Her 250th city council meeting and next Friday will be her last day before she heads up to Idaho. So thank you very much. And we'd be happy to respond to any questions. But again, Mr. West, did you want to perhaps go through a capital improvement budget now and then? Any questions? We'd prefer to say that because it's so different than the average. Absolutely. Well, at this time, are there any questions from any council members REC and Councilmember O'Donnell? Just quick question with regard to the. I believe is $24 million cited coming back to the city had to do with redevelopment? Was that a $24 million figure? Yes. Some time ago, the state this goes into the the education augmentation fund. So we paid that once sometime ago. And then the state asked the agency to pay more money and a supplemental education reimbursement. It's called the CRF. So the agency to pay that needed to borrow the money from our low mod 20% housing fund. So we did that. And now as money is coming back to the city in the demise of the agency, that money has to come back and be paid to our 20% set aside fund. So that's something we knew is happening and it's coming back to repay the loan to the state of California for from our Longmont set aside fund. That that is you answer my question which is that money is locally dedicated. Typically dedicated to affordable low very and low affordable housing. It can't go to moderate our workforce. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Andrews. Yes. I mean, you know, Pat, I'd like to ask a question. You know, on Slide ten, what projects are going to be covered with the park irrigation upgrade and the. Artificial turf. The new irrigation system will cover Hartwell Park that's been identified as the one needing the most work and then the artificial turf field. We were hoping to get ADM Kid Park last year, but we just couldn't get the funds. So this will ramp up. ADM Kid Park for us. Thank you. Councilmember Gringo. On page 18, you have the police and fire academies to provide the new police officers, firefighters. Do you have an estimate as to what we're looking at for new hires? I'm I'm going to turn that over to John. The the both the fire and police academies will be based on attrition, and we'll be making those decisions later. We think the fire academy will be pretty close to the maximum size we can handle. Cotton blossom. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. City Manager, let me first of all commend you and the entire city staff, the administrative staff, for putting together this this, I think, very responsible budget thus far. I'm certainly looking forward to haggling over it a bit with my council colleagues. I support the the prefunding strategy to deal with the unfunded liabilities. I think that's very responsible. But I did have a couple of questions. I mean, I have a few questions, and I'll most of them will probably be answered as we would deal with department specific budgets in the weeks to come. But there was a couple of things that jumped out to me. On the $2.2 million in enhanced overtime for gang prevention and other efforts. Do you can you elaborate a little bit on that. Those dollars, that $2.2 million, this will go for overtime activities in the police department. We usually provide this every year out of the one times. This will be strictly under the the the observation of Chief McDonald and his team on where to put those dollars. In the past they've heard a lot of talk from the Council on the Community about frontline gangs teams and that's what they're preparing to use that for. But as I said, this will be at the discretion of the chief of police. Okay. Thank you. And then regarding from funds for prior year commitments, the 280,000 $87,000 for park maintenance for new and expanded parks. Is this for park maintenance? These one time one time maintenance? This is this is excuse me, councilmember and mayor. This is structural money that will go to pay to and to take care of the extra added open space that we've put in, say, to the field. This will guarantee that we structurally can maintain the airfield and water it and any of the new parks that we've expanded or added. Do we have any other parks that we would apply this money to? Yes, absolutely. Okay. And then the the the 1.3 million for artificial turf conversion, that only one soccer field. Yes, that's one soccer field. It's much more expensive than we thought it was going to be. Okay. And where exactly is that? That will go to Admiral Kidd Park. And that was a park that was on the list last year. But we can only do three instead of four. So we're keeping our commitment to get to Admiral Kidd Park. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I also wanted to ask a few questions and and my compliments to the city management staff as well for the start. I am not aware you may have shown this on a slide, but do you have a schedule for the department specific presentations you did? Yes, we did. And again, we're looking for input on that. These are just our recommendations. So August 5th, public safety items like code enforcement, parks and Rec, Marine and Library, August 12th. Public safety items. Police and fire and the 19th. Public Works Harbor and Water. But as I said, we're looking for input and direction from the council. And in terms of how much time we have allocated historically, I don't think we've spent a lot of time necessarily to go over area by area, for instance, public safety for violent crime statistics. And so what I think we'll find from our individual council areas or neighborhood associations, I see one of mine in the audience right now that while citywide we have a 41 year low for violent crimes, we're going to hear hotspots. We're going to talk about hotspots. I have one of my commanders here as well. And so in the allocation of the $2.2 million for enhanced overtime for gang prevention and other efforts, as it's stated, can we anticipate more detail from the chief of police as to how that would be allocated? Not necessarily calling out particular areas and tipping off exactly where our focus would be, but to provide some assurance to neighborhoods that are really struggling, that aren't quite feeling this prosperity of the 41 year all time low. Councilmember Vice Mayor Yes, we certainly we want to see that. And I think I feel much better having the chief of police respond to those than myself. But will that be an instruction to your department head to do that? Absolutely, yes. That I wasn't clear about my question, but that's what I was looking for. And then on page nine for homeless services, the halftime position. I think the question was asked, but more specifically, would it be to improve the services in the field or administrative services or at the multi-purpose or multi-service center? I'm going to turn that over to Leah or John. Specifically, it's in the home, is in the center. However, the administrative duties that it performs will free up the equivalent of time in the field. So people who are currently now in the field and doing administrative duties can spend more time in the field. So do we have a situation where the folks that are in the field spend a considerable amount of administrative time? That is correct. Okay. And all right. So we should see a like for like our for our replacement of that. So ostensibly, that could translate to halftime in the field. Okay. And then page ten, we have the park irrigation upgrades. I know Long Beach Water and I and others have been working for a long time to get our irrigation systems upgraded so that we aren't manually hand cranking certain medians. Is this the type of upgrades that we're talking about so that we will be on a central command center type operation? Absolutely. This will be 21st century irrigation systems. And then when Parks and Rec Marine presents, Mr. Chapman can go into his other things that you've been working on with you for the past couple of years with MWD and our water department. Okay. And finally, for now, just a compliment to the $800,000 to purchase the smart meters. Those of us who have 100% parking impacted neighborhoods have been working on this for quite some time. I want to recognize Dave Roseman, whom I don't know if he's in the audience, but he made a trip all the way to the other end of the coast to Santa monica and and learn about how parking meters have increased revenues to about $100,000 a month in Santa monica, just by installing the sensors and the smart meters. So I want to thank the staff for making that field trip and doing their research. Thank you. Thank you. Got some advice? Special thanks to the city staff for preparing this budget for us. I did have a question about the one time revenues here, the $11.7 million. It appears from looking at this list that there is no discretionary money set aside in there for the districts to use on their needs in their community. Is that correct? Yes, correct. Having said that, I also note from the mayor's proposal that at least one of these anticipated costs is not quite ready for the expense, and that would be the emergency communications. Is that correct? Councilmember, in looking at this, is the $400,000 that is set aside for operational needs. These are for some versus HPC systems, systems in some of our facilities. As you know, we've put together we started this budget about four months ago and putting it together and we put in the systems and as we got closer and closer to having public works, somebody analyzing them, we have some of the systems that actually do have some useful life on them. So this would come out of the VA system, HVAC system centers, so. That 300,000 is going to be allocated and is ready to be spent. The yes. Is there any other expenditure that's identified here that is maybe not ripe? For for us to spend money on quite yet. No, I haven't. I couldn't say yes to that. But again, all of this budget is at the discretion of the city council. Thank you. I'm going to also, just in addition to Councilmember Price, the one one of the one time discretionary that's in there that was the city manager proposal was to on top of what we're putting in for infrastructure and capital improvements. I believe he also put maybe I think it was 2 million additional to that capital improvement. So it's at the discretion of the council if that in the past has been used to infrastructure in the past. Former councilors have also used that for projects within districts, smaller infrastructure projects for park projects as well. Mr.. We may ask for clarification of Councilmember Price's question on the H. Vasey upgrade. So under your recommendations, your set of recommendations, I believe the fifth one was for Library and Arts Council, and it was a redirect of an HPC system funding that wasn't quite ready. And I think that's what I understood some. Mr. West that to 50 from HPC that is different is that different from the 300 that's on page seven of the community booklet. For Emergency Communications and HPC upgrade. We'd be able to handle most of the stuff in the EOC system, but was also allocated. Some of the money was allocated for other field HVAC systems. So that aren't ready at this time. That are not ready. Yes. But the rest of the money is going to be allocated. Definitely. So what you've identified here is ready to go? Yes. Thank you. Consumer prices driven into questions or no? Thank you. Thank you, Chancellor Richardson. Thank you. So I want to begin by acknowledging this budget. I so you just referred to it as as a couple of years of budget piece. As chief of staff, I guess I was in a place of budget war. There's what Council Member Neal dealt with. So I'm happy this is our first budget. So good. Good work. A couple of things. I just want to note some steps in the right direction, but a few things I have some questions on. I think the the funding of the language access position is definitely most certainly a step in the right direction. I think the commitment that's being proposed to the North Library to make that project whole, that is certainly a step in the right direction. It's a long story there. But the fact that, you know, due to state action and loss of redevelopment and so on and so forth, many very important projects that we'd like to fund and we've taken steps in that direction. We haven't been able to see them to completion, so I'm happy that we can finally do that. So thanks. Thanks. On that, I think the the fact that the health department is increasing grant funded positions, I think that's that's that's a step in the right direction. I think the budget stabilization fund is a huge step in the right direction. However, I want some clarity on that. So is this 3.1 million, which is the one time that we didn't spend last year? Is that money? So we've got that that we're going to place into this budget stabilization fund. Is this the first allocation to the budget stabilization fund? I'm going to give that to Lia. Councilmember Richardson. So the there's 3.4 or 5 million from the 514 adopted budget that will be deposited in the stabilization fund at the end of this year. And then in the 15 proposed budget, there's an additional 3.1 million in the temporary surplus from 15 that would be deposited into the stabilization fund. And then based on Mayor Garcia's recommendations in the year end of 14, an additional 2 million, if realized, would be also deposited into the stabilization fund. So all told, totaled it would be about eight and a half million. So I certainly support the budget stabilization fund. I think it makes a lot of sense if we want to continue to have budget peace. But at the same time, I'd like for us to plan how large we want this fund to be so that we can make plans to allocate one times strategically. So they're not competing with other priorities, like the North Branch Library, like the one time funds. Councilmember Price mentioned, like the Highland Park Community Center that we took steps to fund in the last budget, we funded $3 million. But in this budget, as you can see, there's there's nothing allocated there. And in one budget we're making in one fell swoop, we're going to make an appropriation to two sounds like eight and a half million dollars to one fund. So I think that I absolutely agree that this is a step in the right direction. But we need to make sure that we make sense on how we do it and build that fund so that we're not damaging other projects that, like the library, haven't seen the complete funding to see to completion. Secondly, I don't know if this is the appropriate place to talk about this stuff, but I just want to acknowledge the mayor on some of the things in his recommendations. I thought they were they were pretty awesome. Just to name a couple of them. I talked about the stabilization fund. I think the the the Economic Development Property Property Development Bureau or the department. It's a great idea. It can add some. We struggled the last few years to build the uptown bid. And I see these folks here. We'll talk to them later. But we struggled the last few years to see that. And the fact that we'll have a department is focused on helping to support that, I think is really telling our businesses and and all of our sort of economic development partners that we're struggling since the last redevelopment, that we're going to be a partner with them. It's not just council officers and chiefs of staff figuring it out on their own. So thank you for that. The fact that you're investing in libraries, I think is a great step. I'm going to support that. I think the most impressive thing is, is asking that the council and city manager remove street sweeping. I think that's a great gesture to our city employees, especially considering that we're going to have to go into bargaining with them very soon. So it's a good step in the right direction. So I did want to acknowledge that I don't know if the timing was appropriate, but since I got to make them and talk about it lastly. It's always. Appropriate. It's all good. It's all good. Lastly, Councilmember Price, that I'd love to talk with you about how I've seen how the council in the past is unrestricted, some of the sidewalk and the street dollars too. So council members have more discretion on how that spent as long as it's maintained an infrastructure, just like the mayor and the vice mayor mentioned. So I'd love to talk with you offline or maybe in public. I guess that's how it works. Works now. I love to explore heading in that direction because we've done creative things in North Long Beach with that funding to improve our infrastructure. Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell. Councilman Gonzales. Thank you. City management staff. This is, you know, really great. I appreciate it. And it hits on all of the first District kind of issues. Homelessness, of course, parking. So thank you. I did have a question, though, on on page 12. It just said briefly about restructuring the permitting counter for improve customer service. Were there any details that we can include in that? But Councilwoman Gonzales, by what they're going to be doing is converting some positions to two and I won't forget the title, but two professional level positions so that they're able to to provide better service. And then there is an actual addition of four positions at the permit counter. And those will be offset though by, by cuts elsewhere in the department to be FTE neutral. So it will be basically additional staffing and a professional level position. And I'll look up the title and get back to you in a second. Thank you. Any additional questions? Council Member No, no, thank you. Oh. See that there's those are all the council questions. What I'm going to do, Mr. West, is have you do Skype and then we'll open it up for public comment. Thank you. Mayor Councilmembers I'm going to turn it over to our public works director, our morning who's going to walk us through the our capital project. We're going to look at some of the projects that have just been completed. We're going to look at the projects that the council has already approved but have not yet broken grounds. You'll see those on a bullet list. And then we're going to look at the projects that are in the fiscal year 15 budget that the council needs to approve. Your basic duty tonight for this is to out to review it and give us direction. But obviously it needs to go to the planning commission and the commission needs to find it in conformance with the general plan, and then it will come back to the Council for adoption. So with that, I think our is ready. Mr. Russell, is there a handout for the council on this or no? Here they come. Honorable Mayor and the members of City Council. Thank you for this opportunity to present the City of Long Beach as a 514 Capital Improvement Program's accomplishments. Approve projects already in progress and 515. Proposed Capital Improvements. Budget. Before presenting the 515, I'd like to provide a short review of our efforts in FBI 14 in the Marines, beaches and waterways. We have completed the construction of the Belmont temporary pool that opened in December of 2013. Rehab, location and renovation of nine different beach restrooms from eighth place all the way to 62nd place. Restroom locations are eighth place. Cherry Beach. Coronado Junipero Bay Shore, North Bay Shore, South Grenada, Mothers Beach and 62nd place. The same fund. We had continued with a rehab of four beach parking lots, which were Mother's Beach, Claremont, 54th Street and Laverne and the Streets Section F y 14 Funds.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending and restating Section 2.03.040 and Section 2.03.060, all regarding City Council Meetings, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_09032019_19-0865

Item 28, please. Communication from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code regarding city council meetings. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading Citywide. There's a motion and there there's a motion and a second on this. Mr. Goodhew, do you want to comment on this? 28 Nope. Is that not sea and control here or carelessly and as Christians? No one else is here. Mr. City. Attorney. Mayor. Thank you. This is the streamlining ordinance. Kind of ironic. We're bringing it back this evening. So just to walk real quickly through it. You'll note that we one of the major items as we change, we move the consent calendar to right after the Pledge of Allegiance and then ceremonial and presentations follow the consent calendar. If an item is pulled from the consent calendar, it would become the first item of your regular agenda and the next would be on the supplemental agenda and would require a statement of urgency from the Council office that putting it on the agenda. And if the Council as a body doesn't determine that there's an urgency, it would be laid over. To a subsequent meeting. And then the other, as we've been starting the process in the new civic center, the it does require the person to sign up. And then we also have included in here is the limits of debate by the city council with unlimited number of recues, but at 5 minutes time for duration. And once this ordinance goes. Into effect, it would be applicable to the conduct during hearings. So during the any of your hearings, during your. Council meetings, the five minute rule would apply to the. Discussion at council with unlimited. Recues. And then. We're available to answer any questions if you. Have on this audience. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. Motion carries.

Rezones property at 3901 – 3991 North Cook Street from E-SU-DX to U-RH-2.5 in Council District 9. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property at 3901 – 3991 North Cook Street from E-SU-DX to U-RH-2.5 in Council District 9. 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 1-20-16.

DenverCityCouncil_02292016_16-0001

And you see the property highlighted in yellow, the northern portion fronts, 40th Avenue, where you have RTD, bus route service 44, which connects between downtown and the 40th and Airport Park. Right. You also see outlined the property of the market lead, which the city recently acquired from BNSF and that was just recently acquired in the month of January. The property is 1.72 acres and within a half mile walk of the fort of Colorado station platform. And this will be the second station along the University of Colorado Line, which opens in April 2016. Here's another view of the property and the you are h 2.5 zone district that's being requested requires a full block face as a minimum area requirement. So the applicant's primary interest is in the property that they hold towards the south or the left end of this block face. But the entire block face, with a 58% approval or signatures representing 58% of the property, is in support of this application. The owners are requesting zoning to allow for infill residential development. And specifically the general urban neighborhood. Context Rowhouse 2.5 Story Maximum Zone District is being requested. This district promotes safe, active, pedestrian, skilled residential uses. Building forms and reinforces desired residential patterns, including shallow front yards, tapered building heights on sides and the rear. 20% of the lot is limited to one story, consistent with development patterns in urban residential neighborhoods. The site and surrounding zoning is ESU d x or urban edge single unit d x, which allows for single family houses on a 6000 square foot minimum lot size. Existing land use is predominantly single family. But as you saw in previous images, across the street east of Cook Street is fairly intensive industrial use and outdoor storage to the north side of Colorado. Across from the site is so a variety of mixed uses, occasional small industrial site or religious quasi public use in the blue. There are also some vacant parcels nearby. Here. You can see the site in the center image. We're looking at the property from the corner of 39th and Cook to the north. You see one of the small religious assembly buildings on the north side of Colorado to the east. On the right, you see single family residential as well as the larger scale industrial and outdoor storage use. To the south, we see residential and also this abandoned rail track system that you see here is a sliver of that market lead property that city is now the owner of. And to the west, 39th and Adams. We're looking at single family residential. The applicant and city of Denver have reached out to the registered neighborhood organizations listed here and have met all of the written and required written and posted notice requirements for hearings and meetings leading up to the public hearing this evening and to present no public comments have been received. Let's move to the review criteria beginning with consistency with adopted plans. Comp Plan 2000 encourages conserving land by promoting infill development consistent with neighborhood character and encourages neighborhood investment for a range of housing types and prices. Concept Land Use in Blueprint. Denver is Single-Family duplex, which allows which encourages primarily residential uses of moderate density and allows for a mix of housing types, including single family duplex rowhouses, small apartments, and I would add garden court apartments or garden court bro homes. And this is an area of stability. The Street Classification and Blueprint Denver for 40th Avenue, which fronts the northern short side of the block, is a mixed use. Arterial arterial streets connect major destinations between neighborhoods, regional destinations, and in this case, it's an east west connector between 40th and Colorado and 30th and Blake Station area and on towards downtown. And as I mentioned earlier, RTD bus Route 44 runs along Fourth Avenue. Cook Street is local and designated street type provides access to individual homes and businesses. The O'Leary and Swanson Neighborhoods Plan adopted just a year ago 2015, actually captures this site around the 40th and Colorado stationary, which was the slightly expanded portion of the response to a neighborhood planning effort. And as such, we have very clear land use and building height guidance. You see here single family duplex similar to the concept land use and blueprint Denver. This kind of tennis yellow color and then the maximum building height shown as two and a half stories. And you see a progression from the site moving to the east or to the right, two, three stories and five stories. And that's really marks the transition at Cook Street from lower scale established or traditional residential areas to what's anticipated as transit oriented development getting closer to the rail station. So for traditional residential areas in the area in Swansea, a plan, there is encouragement to allow for some investment in these areas of stability, infill development, but allowing or providing for some economic benefit, not just to the reinvestment areas of the station areas, but also for residents in the neighborhood, thus encouraging infill population to support desired services and providing economic opportunities such as what you see here in this image is a tandem house similar to an accessory dwelling unit, but in this case could be sold off or owned entirely as a separate, separately owned unit. And here's some of the text from the earlier in Swansea Neighborhoods Plan showing that a range of housing types is encouraged and allowed in single family duplex ranging from single family to row homes and small apartment buildings. The second review criteria is uniformity of district regulations and you RH 2.5 would result in uniform application of district use , building form and design regulations, and would further public health, safety and welfare by implementing recommendations from these adopted plans. The justifying circumstance or fourth criteria is that the change or changing condition of the land and its surroundings, specifically the station, platform, park and rider nearing completion, soon to open in April 2016. And the city's recent acquisition of the BNSF market property, which runs right along the south and the southern boundary of the site. And there are new sidewalks being designed and soon to be built along 40th Avenue. Fifth and final criteria is consistency with neighborhood context, own district purpose and intent in the you are each 2.5 district is consistent with the recommended urban neighborhood context as called out in the alerts. Once the neighborhoods plan, the existing community fabric matches the the description of that context and the you are each 2.5 is consistent with the purpose and intent of his own district. CPD finds that all review criteria have been met and we recommend approval of this. Application and Planning Board has also unanimously recommended approval. Thank you. Thank you. We have three speakers called up. We have three speakers for this bill. And I'll go ahead and call all three speakers, Michael Tumor, Ken Gilman and Mr. Sekou. If we can make your way up to the first Q Mr. two men, Mr. Gelman and Mr. Sekou and. Mr. Toomey, you can begin your remarks when you reach the podium. I am Michael Tara. I am here to answer any questions that you may have in regards to this project. And we'd like to just kind of let you know, our excitement in doing a project that's so close to all the new light rail development at the 40th station and to provide a project that's. Someone affordable. The way that the real estate market has kind of developed in Denver, we can do some pretty nice. Things with this piece of property. We'll do questions later on. Thank you, Ken Gilman. Ken Gilman. I'm the other owner, you know. So again, we just think the project will improve. The neighborhood fits into the neighborhood plan, especially around that transit oriented development. And we're here to answer questions. Thank you. Mr. Sekou. Let's just take a. She's. Yes. My name is Jeremy Sekou. Organize it. Founder Like Star Action Movement. Representing poor, working poor and homeless people. First of all, it's an honor to be here. To have this kind of conversation is a very serious one. And from my experience, from being down here previously for the last six years, there is a tendency to come and get the zoning approves. And are according to the plans of 2000. And here we are in 2016 with changing conditions. Everything that I'm seeing tonight is market value. No consideration for poor, working, poor homeless people. There was an article in the paper today, different weekly news that says. There are over 3000 homeless people in this town and only 1200 beds available. That leaves 1800 people every day subjected to a hostile environment with the weather. So as you gobble up the land during this. Open market stuff. There's nothing there for us. Including jobs so that we could even afford to buy one of these things. Especially in the black community, where we go to any site in the city that's being built now, and you will see black workers on that site like flies and buttermilk. You can't count the ones that are there because they're not there. And so now we're talking about historical black community that folks can't even work in and then get gentrified and pushed out. And we call ourselves civilized. And this is a city for everybody, except if you're poor, working poor and homeless, you've got to go. There's no place for you. And yet these are taxpaying people. And so most of the folks here well, not most folks, but folks who've been here for a while, they've heard this story before. And I've said it over and over and over again. And I still get a response. Of apology, rationalization, denial and impact. When they say they're working on it. Has the impact of a net by an elephant on the butt and you call that progress? You are treading very dangerous water when you have a sizable population of people who are not stakeholders in the development of the city . They have no reason not to rebuild. And so you have another Ferguson and you have New York and you have San Francisco housing riots, all of that. Because to say to people. Mr. Sekou, listen, Mr. Sekou, you're 3 minutes is up. Thank you very much. All right. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions of council councilmember. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Illustrative verse. Tim, quick question. I want to I wanted you to go back to the Olivia Swan, to your plan. You highlighted this. I didn't hear what you said, though. You highlighted this particular parcel. How does it relate to the plan? Yes. So I pulled up the graphic of the of land use in the Swansea neighborhoods plan and it is recommending single family duplex, which is defined in very similar terms as Blueprint Denver, which is anything from single family to duplex to row home and even small apartments. But specifically in this plan, it calls out. Rowe homes as appropriate building form within this. And the overall plan speaks to affordable housing, does it not? Yes. There are many recommendations related to affordable housing investments, particularly near rail transit, but also in established residential areas. And I pull this graphic up, these graphics are actually in the plan showing that there can be modest infill within. Stable residential, traditionally stable residential areas where a homeowner could actually even sell off a portion of the lot or bring some rental income. So stabilizing a stabilizing these established residential areas. So there are multiple strategies. Yeah. And In The Heights, you didn't really speak to that. Sorry if I went over that too quickly. And here are the highlights. On the same slide as the land use to the right, we see maximum building heights at two and a half. Got it. Okay. Thank you. And maybe one of the representatives. Yep. Did you guys. What neighborhood did you get a chance to talk to and talk about this project? We spoke with Clayton as well as. The Neighborhood Association, right? Yeah. Oh, man, I'm primarily Clayton. Clayton, so. Yeah. But I know Elyria. I know Leary and Swansea are, you know, kind of in a shuffle, but do Dutcher Candi CdeBaca, did you get a chance to talk to any of those folks? No. Okay. And who did you talk to from Clayton? And John Ricky. Okay. You know, one of the things I want to get to is, you know, when we talk about rezoning, we talk about some of the values in the neighborhoods. And I just wanted to know, you know, what do you hear from them and what are you looking to apply from those values into your project? I guess when we first kind. Of started talking about this project, I had actually spoke to you two and a half years ago, probably, and. Kind of one of your thoughts was, well, you know, maybe a little bit of mixed use would be great on that site. And from that point, we kind of started going through different discussions with the city of Denver with Tim, and kind of looking at Blueprint Denver. And so from all of what's already been kind of developed on that side, it was determined that because of the that particular street having the industrial use on the other side of that street, that to try to step the the neighborhood kind of down, like trying to step it from industrial to residential in one street, wasn't going to work and wasn't going to promote kind of the the. I guess kind of the development that needs to happen in that area with the being so close to the light rail station and creating the density and so that the commercial side kind of kind of dissipated where everybody has more. Did they speak to you about just attainable housing for affordable housing and trying to, you know, get some of that in the neighborhood, different army levels at all? No, they didn't. We did. We did go knocking on all the neighbors doors and on the block. Every one that we talked to seemed to be in favor of having more options for their properties as far as making the neighborhood, as far as making it a little more affordable instead of being single family, you know, by having multiple units, we can take the price down. You know, a lot of the prices in Denver have really gotten out of hand. We did talk to John with the Clayton Neighborhood Association and he said he only got positive feedback, no opposition and he posted it on their Facebook page a couple of times. I don't know. Okay, great. Just last question. Thank you, Mr. President. Would you guys be open to having a larger conversation with some, you know, should this go through with other neighborhood leaders? What kind of vision of the neighborhood, what the neighborhood is looking for? Mm hmm. That's kind of some of the the meat of why we asked folks to meet with the neighbors. And I think we sent some emails out. You know, I. I live in Whittier, so I get it. Like, I don't want to see the neighborhoods go away, you know, totally lose their character and culture and that sort of thing. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. And I apologize, Mike. My option isn't there to chime in. So to the owners, are you familiar with the garden court for. Either. It is fine. I know. I know you are. I'm asking these guys, the developers. But we need you to come up to the podium. Not so mean. I can't describe it to you right now, but I know that there's different forms of building structures that are all part of this particular zoning. And how does the garden court form deviate from a row house form? And I apologize to my colleagues. I this was the one plan committee that I missed. And there's important information in these questions. So I just first. Are you saying like garden court as far as. The structure surrounding kind of a center area. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the site provides for the potential for that. Okay. So do you have any sense about how many units you can fit on this development? So like we've had some, we've had architects look at it and kind of depending on how it would lay out somewhere between 12 and 14. Interesting. Okay. So thank you for that, Tim. If they were to phase this project in such a way that they developed row houses on 41st and 40th avenues, would that then move the the the primary street set back so that any infill between those would now go to the five foot side setback. I'm going to pull up a map, councilman, if I may, and refer to that. So you referenced 40th and 41st, correct? So if they oriented low housing to those streets. Then their five foot side setback would be the north south street, which. I'm sorry. Let me bring it up. Oops. What is that? Cook Street. So the Cook Street has a primary street set in a block since street set back, which is considerably more than five feet. But if they were, since this is a RH three, I mean, RH two and a half, they could then redevelop a portion on the north side, in the south side of the assemblage, so that it was oriented both to the south and to the north in a five foot side setback would then be on Cook Street. And then a primary if they were to remove the houses in between a primary, I mean, a block since the setback at that point would be five feet. So my understanding is that in. Site plan review. They would be under rules of measurement. Section 13 adult. Primary would be. Primary to primary yes. Being Cook St and likely then for their particular holdings. 39th being a side street then yes, five street. And then Cook Street would be a context sensitive step back 20 feet, or they would look at the general set back of structures along Cook Street and take the average of those. So my hearing with 100% confidence that Cooke Street the front that mean the setback for any developed redevelopment of the site under this proposed zoning would be consistent with the street the front setback that we see today. That's the intent and the guidance in the code. I understand that. But you can develop. We had this conversation about some GMU three down in Curtis Park where that we were going to create new blocks since me, new C-Max on the corners, which would then allow zero set back. And as a result the new GM, the existing GM U three moves that set back up several feet closer to the curve. And so there is a development scheme here that would actually alter what is now considered block sensitive if they phased it in such a way. I'm just making sure that that can't happen. What happened in another place can't happen here. Okay. So what I can definitively respond with tonight is that for the Rowhouse building form. I get the real hospitals when I'm. Talking in garden court that yes, a block sensitive setback is required and where it does not apply, which will be determined by development services under site plan review be a 20 foot setback would apply. Okay. So what I want my colleagues to know is that in his in what Tim said specifically he mentioned in his presentation was, well, we talked a lot about the rowhouse form. He specifically mentioned garden court. And the garden court is not a row house form, but it is allowed in the RH 22.5. And so when I want to get back to is what is the specific language of the code here in section 5.2. Point to point to specific intent in. Row House 2.5 urh2 point 5urh 2.5 is a multi-unit district that allows up to two and a half storey rowhouse building, for it also allows the urban house, the detached accessory dwelling unit, the duplex and the tandem house building forms. There's no mention in the specific intent of a garden court, but it is allowed. And so why I'm telling you this is that. There are development schemes on here that are significantly more dense than a row house form and they mentioned the garden court. The developers familiar with the garden court. And this is a designated area of stability. You've seen the neighborhood plan images there, nothing at all like the density of a row house and certainly nothing at all like the density of the of the garden court, which would allow considerably more density if you start making those developments perpendicular to the street rather than horizontal. So I get that if they were to just blanket come in with a single block proposal today, that they would be restricted by the block since the setback. But there are development schemes here that could actually alter that and there are no protections. And so that is a loss of eight potentially affordable units with a development scheme that is far more dense, potentially, and with no commitment to affordability in an area of stability. So I just wanted to say that. Councilman, if I may, the primary building form standard section 5.3.3 does list the garden court as one of the allowable building for rent. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Okay. And thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Another questions, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to ask a question of the proposed developer. One of you two, if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. So do you own the entire half block today? We have. All the property. From 39th on the corner of 39th and. Just to the first square here. Well, there's no there's. It's basically 28,000 square feet worth of a lot. So it's I would say it's probably the first third of the block. But what we're doing is we're being asked to rezone the entire half block. That was the requirement. To rezone the whole front facing of the block. So we yes, we own the in the yellow from 39th. If you go all the way up to there's like a little white beach. Yeah. Right where that garage and then the yellow line cuts off there. So I guess maybe just a little more than a third of it. Okay. And in are you are you all trying to purchase the other properties to do this development or your intention is only to do within that four square in the yellow? Yeah, our intentions are to work within that square. Okay. So I don't understand why the city made you. Three zone, the whole half block. That makes no sense to me. And you want to speak to that. Yes. So there are minimum area requirements for certain zone districts. And in this particular case, you RH 2.5 requires. Either a certain minimum acreage, which is either two or four acres or a block phase. I think the intent is to apply the zone district in context of a block and not necessarily a smaller site by site basis . And so the other property owners were completely on board with having their properties zoned. The applicant acquired signatures representing 58% of the ownership of that block face. And does that include them? As the property owner? Yes, the 58% includes property owners plus additional property owners. And you can speak to your conversations with the residents that you saw, their property owners that you saw signatures from. Of all the property owners we talked to, we're in favor of it. We went door knocking a few different times. Sometimes you would get a husband who wasn't on the deed or a wife or was or. So everyone that we talked to, we got a signature from. And you know, once we. How many properties is that of the total? Probably us plus I think maybe for three or four. Okay. So there's three or four of the seven properties that are on here that do not include yours. Yeah. Okay. Now there's three. Yeah, there's several properties. Now they have more options. Okay, so. Tim, I want to get back to asking you a question about a statement you made that they can sell off a portion of the lot. Now, is that only allowed in this particular zone district? And just help me just understand that. So that's related to the tandem house building form, which is very similar to accessory dwelling unit. The difference being that you could sell a tandem home, but you cannot sell an accessory dwelling unit, you must rent out the accessory dwelling unit. So that's an A. So under you RH 2.5 zoning, you could build an accessory dwelling unit and rent it out, or you could build a tandem house behind your existing house and rent it out or sell it. So those are additional options available to these existing homeowners should this. So so when it's zoned, does it have to be split up into two separate zone lots on each parcel? I don't know the zone lot requirements. I would have to get back to you on the. I'm asking this because I worked with a woman in the Highland neighborhood who had a carriage lot in her back yard that was used for a commercial purpose. And she was told she could sell it. And when she tried to sell it, she was told that she had to rezone it as a separate zone lot. I said, you know, district that applied to that property. I do not. I'd have to go back to getting. An understanding. That it's in the lower highlands neighborhood. So that helps you. With if it was a two unit zoning or row house, then it would seem that that option should be available. If it was single family, then no would not necessarily be an option. Okay. I was just trying to understand how that would work for somebody that wanted to buy a unit and might then find out later that they need to rezone it to to have separate legal, you know, definition for for the property they're purchasing if they're buying one of those tandem units. Okay. So. Do you know whether they would be required to do that? I do know the tandem house building form is allowed under you RH 2.5 zoning and it allows for multiple ownership of two structures on one's own. Got it. So exactly what I would be purchasing if I was purchasing a rear front unit, whether I'm purchasing the building only with. The right to reside on his own on buying a piece of property. I don't know the mechanics of that. But I'd be happy to get back with you. That would be helpful. I have no further questions, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman. I take it. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Ortega got at what I was going to ask would if I could explore that a little further. I'm somewhat uncomfortable changing the zoning on someone else's property where they might not know about it. The the applicants have indicated that they have 58% of the of the frontage I imagine ownership representing that they've approved or they they approve of this change. That leaves 42%, if my math is correct. I know I got a head cold here. I'm having trouble with math. But as 42% of the owners are seven other properties on that block, some of which are houses that were just built three years ago that are being impacted by this change. So I'm a little uncomfortable being asked to consider changing their zoning if they might not be aware of it. Is there anything in our code or our procedures that requires when we rezone, when we require a full block face to be resolved, such as this rowhouse zoning that we have to obtain registered mail, or we have to make sure that the owners of those properties I literally know that we're changing our zoning. So the requirement is that at least 51 signatures representing at least 51% of the area to be resolved are on the application, in which case they exceeded that by 7%. Right. And then the door knocking that and of course, the signage which was posted on Cooke Street, 40th Avenue and 39th Avenue for 15 days prior to the planning board hearing and 21 days prior to this hearing. Okay. And the owners indicated that of those they spoke to, they all approve. Can I ask one of you to tell me whether you spoke to all of the owners or because you said all the owners we spoke to approved of it? That begs the question. Some we ended up speaking to via phone because we were over the 51%. We didn't bother you didn't need their signature. But yeah, we didn't get their signature. But every single one we had spoke to, either the husband or the wife or one person, the head of household gave our numbers out, asked for any further questions that they may have about it. But every we did speak to every single person on that. Okay. Whether it be, you know, by phone or by by face to face meeting. That's good to know. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, for the developers wondering if I realize where rezoning a piece of land and not a particular project. But I'm wondering if you can envision at this point how large these units might be and what kind of price point you're envisioning. From what we've looked at. We've looked at units that would be two and a half stories. That would be somewhere around 13 to 1450 square feet each, kind of. Basically. Then as far as they'd all have backyards, they'd all have garages, and they would have a price point of somewhere around 350. 300, depending on where they are in the block, 300 to 350. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Cashman and Councilman Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. President. I guess this would be for the property owners. So you answered part of my question, I about the units having garages. Are they one. Or two car garages? We haven't totally. Yeah, we haven't gotten that far yet. I think some would be two and some would be one, but it's just going to be a space layout on the how they're going to be. So yeah, I think it'll pretty much be some two in someone. Okay. And that leads me to my next question, where the property owners. That that you spoke with. Even if you didn't need their signature, were there concerns about. Street parking. Or added traffic? I mean, ideally we'd have folks, you know, taking transit, but that doesn't always happen. And so were there concerns from. The other property. Owners? No, there wasn't. You can see from that picture how few cars are on either of the two sides of those streets. So I don't think that has ever been much of a concern on that particular block anyway. But no, that was never a a concern from any of them. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. You know the questions. 0001. Mm hmm. CNN public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilman Brooks. Thank you, Mr. President. I you know, I said I want the you know, first of all, this is in the Clayton neighborhood. This isn't in Elyria, Swansea. And one of the reasons it was in response to a plan is because Clayton does not have a small area plan. And so to simply be here's another neighborhood that is looking for a small area plan because there's a lot of stuff going on in Clayton. I've heard it from their neighborhood president and also their community. So I appreciate the I didn't want to give off as if they didn't meet with the correct president because you did. And John Rickey, although he has stepped down, they have a new president. But. I would love number one for those other neighbors to be contacted about what's going on. And also for you to understand a little bit about what the neighborhood is envisioning in their values so that we can see what we can do with the property . So some site design, all that kind of stuff. I'd love to do that with the community just for a little, just to orient people to this part of the city. This is at 40th and Colorado, the type of developments that are going in there. We just we just did a 100 and 120 0 to 30% am-I homeless housing right there on the corner. One of the best units, best developments that I've seen in a long time from Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. Catty corner behind the retail is 160 workforce housing units. Beautiful, just gone up behind that is some more workforce housing units, too. So this corner is is seeing a diverse level of investment in affordable housing. So I'm happy about that. I would love for the property owner to look at ways to making this affordable. I think $300,000 in this neighborhood, new construction is going for $500,000. So it's attainable, you know, when you look at the whole neighborhood. But to start looking at affordable, subsidized housing in that sense, I would love to have a conversation with you all and consider that I'm going to I'm going to go ahead and support this redevelopment. And I hope that we can continue working together with the community. And this is this is going to be a really interesting location because the market lead is going to be a part of the drainage process project in the in the two basin that we're going through. And so I think there are a lot of neighbors concerned. I probably got a lot of support because there's a lot of neighbors concern that people are going to want to live in that area. And so it's going to be a really interesting area. But I'll be supporting this. It obviously is in line with our adaptive plans and in context. And so I'm in support. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, I, I well, I don't believe that you're necessarily intend to develop the half a block as needed to achieve maximum density. However, in an area in an area of stability that that has a smaller you plan that specifically speaks to rowhouse and single family and duplex and then has a vision graph that shows something that is far less dense with the tandem house forms. That means that I can't support this rezoning. And you can't have another Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Just as a matter of general policy, as I understand it is 51% of the landowners need to sign on. And I think you said you have 58 and I'm unclear. And I did listen as to exactly how many people you spoke to and how many responded, if there were questions. I just wanted to say that if for me, when we're rezoning, I think it's important to get as as much of a buy in as you possibly can and at least be sure you make that extra effort to talk to all the neighborhoods that are affected by a development. And I'm not interested in, you know, 58, 42 range wars, you know, and so I'm just not confident that there was a full outreach on this project. So I just wanted to say that. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Kathryn Lopez. Thank you. You know. You know, listening to the back and forth and some of these questions on the council. I mean, I. You know, I'm very familiar with this neighborhood. I know it's pretty active. I know a lot of people feel a lot of pressure regarding gentrification or development, at least some of these areas, especially at the price point. What we're looking at, looking to rebuild, I think, you know, as a general practice, I think it's super important that you have that outreach to folks no matter what community. But I was a little surprised that, you know, they didn't really have very lasting or meaningful conversation with some of the neighborhood associations that are there . And I think that that is a big deal. I know in our area, if we reason, at least we look at rezoning a parcel. I have a whole neighborhood of folks that are coming to the table and thinking about it. And here's the thing. I there's nothing to fear with it. I think it's something to be straight forward. Now, I do agree that that I mean yes, that you are requires that 51%, but it also requires that that minimum area coverage. Right. And I do believe that that's been met right across the street. I was trying to figure out what that what the what the uses were, but it didn't look residential. This could be a good buffer that you are h is definitely a zone district that can provide that buffer between some of those urban or some of those residential ESU type single home properties. And so here's the thing. I I'll see a reluctant support for it because most of the folks that come here in these chambers and that want to see a rezoning, especially at this magnitude, in a neighborhood like this, they've done their due diligence in making sure that people in the neighborhood have been outreach to. And it's much more than just knocking on doors and getting signatures and saying, hey, look, we got a lot of these folks on this block to support it, but you really want to get there and engage that community, whether they're for or against it, whether they support or oppose it. The matter, the fact is you just at least get to them an outreach to I don't know who the neighborhood association is there, but it was kind of surprising that there had been no conversation with some of those folks. So. Anyway. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. In other comments, Council Bill one. Seen none. Madam Secretary, welcome. Brooks Clark. All right. Espinoza. Yeah. FLYNN Hi. Gilmore. Catherine Carnage. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman Black. Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Now for the results. Ten eyes, two names. 11 Lebanese, two nays Council Bill 0001 has passed. All right. We're on two counts, Bill. 39. Councilman, do you please for the council? Bill 39 on the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 39 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right. We will wait for technology. It has been moved. He's been moved and seconded. Public hearing on Capitol 39 is now open. May we have a staff report. As soon as I can get to my PowerPoint? Okay. So seriously. Sarah representing community planning and development. This is a rezoning of property located approximately 6756 Archer drive from oh one to general excuse me urban context multi-unit five stories and this is in the Lowry Field neighborhood in Council District five.

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4230 Elati Street in Globeville. Approves an official map amendment to rezone property from I-A UO-2 and I-A to C-RX-8 (industrial to urban center, residential mixed-use), located at 4230 Elati Street in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-14-19.

DenverCityCouncil_07082019_19-0448

11. 811 are as comfortable. Four, four, six has passed. Councilman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 448 on the floor? Yes, President. Clerk, I move that council bill 0448 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The required public hearing for Constable four for eight is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. I'm Courtney Livingston with Community Planning and Development. This is the rezoning 442303 excuse me, L.A. Street. It's rezoning from IAU to district to CRC district. It is in Council District nine in the Globeville neighborhood, and it's located at the in the 41st and Fox station area at the corner of 42nd and LRT Street. The site is about 36, a little under three, 36,000 square feet in size. It's currently used as a storage area. The requesting Teresa on the property to facilitate redevelopment. The current zoning, as I said, is IAU two, i.e. is a light industrial district. The use of two is a billboard use overlay. With this application, they are proposing to remove the billboard use overlay and the surrounding properties in the area generally are the light industrial with the billboard use overlay Xerox eight and C-Max 20. So it's used as industrial. Right now you have industrial uses to the north east, you have some residential and industrial uses also to the south and west. The building forming scale. Here's some photos of the existing site. You'll see that on the left here. And then the photos to the east or this or the right to that are the surrounding properties. In terms of process, the this went to planning board on May 1st and it was unanimously approved public comment. We received three letters of support. Those are in your packets to from nearby property owners. The applicant did reach out and met with Globeville Cares and Fox Street Business Association and received verbal support from those Arnaud's. So review criteria, as you know, the Denver zoning code requires and for a council to approve the rezoning that the five zoning code review criteria are met first with the consistency with adopted plans, there are four adopted plans that apply to this rezoning the Comprehensive Plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver, the 41st and Fox Station Area Plan, and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan Comprehensive Plan 2040. There are multiple goals that all support this rezoning very mentally resilient, strong, authentic neighborhoods, all encouraging quality infill development that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood offers where services are already in place. Next will move to Blueprint Denver the recently adopted there four different things in blueprint Denver that we take a look at the context, the place, street types and the growth strategy. First, with the neighborhood context, it's currently mapped as the urban center neighborhood context. The requested zone district is consistent with Blueprint Denver as it is within the urban center context. Next Blueprint Denver Future Places. This is shown as high, medium residential mixed uses, including multi-unit. Residential heights are generally up to eight storeys. There's a high lot coverage and shallow setbacks in the Blueprint. Denver Future Street Types. We have 44th Avenue to the north as a mixed use cluster and then Fox Avenue, Fox Street to the west as also serving the site. In terms of the growth strategy blueprint, Denver shows this as a high and medium high residential area and the downtown and urban center context. That means citywide we can anticipate to see about 30% of new housing growth and 5% of new employment growth. Next, we move on to the 41st and Fox station area plan that was adopted by council in 2009. It's shown in this plan as proposed open space. However, there is a note saying that parks are conceptually shown on the land use plan and the actual locations are not determined. Future park space in the station area require working with private property owners, parks and recreation and developing funding partnerships. That said, we took guidance from the more recently adopted Globeville plan showing a urban residential. That definition is also in the 41st and Fox stationary plan. Those are aligned and it's intended for those two plans to be aligned. The urban residential is intended for to date stories, new moderate density neighborhoods, providing a range of housing, types of about support, pedestrian shopping and employment base. Next, moving on to the Globeville neighborhood plan. Like I said, that was adopted in 2014. The kinds of land use for this parcel is shown as the urban residential. That's the 2 to 8 storeys in height. And it's intended to be consistent with the 41st and Fox station area plan. It talks about being a diverse, transit supportive, environmentally sustainable urban center in this area. It also talks about creating a broad base of new jobs in diverse economic centers sectors by redevelopment opportunities throughout the neighborhood. The zero eight would all help support these goals. Next, we'll move on to the second through five review criteria uniformity of district regulations. The request is consistent that in terms of furthering public health, safety and welfare, it implements adaptive plans. It helps re facilitate redevelopment in a station area. The justifying circumstances the application. The application notes for change or changing conditions? Well, we see the recently adopted plans investment in the area. Also the G line that came in just recently came on board. Those are all appropriate justifying circumstances for this rezoning. Consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. The zero eight zone district applies to residentially dominated areas served primarily by arterial streets where building scale of tree stories is desired. This site is, like we said before, being served by those two collective streets and it is within the 2 to 8 story range. So we feel that that is consistent with the neighborhood context zone, district purposes intent. That said, CPD recommends approval based on finding all review criteria have been met. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening on this item. First up is Megan Jones. Good evening. I'm Megan Jones. I'm an unincorporated Adams County resident. And thank you very much for the presentation and I'm available for questions. Thank you. And next up, Chairman Sekou. Do. Excuse. Chairman Sekou Black saw some movement for self-defense. Upon hearing and looking at the. Thirdly, you know, I got some questions about this thing. Now looking at the area, it could use some residential development. No question about it. And if we're going to obey stories, this becomes housing for who and who can afford it. Not affordable housing, because in this area is also underdeveloped. And you have a large pocket of poor people there who need housing. And are they going to be able to afford to be able to live in their neighborhood? And with the look in terms of actual economic viability, we're looking at a place that had a lot of industrial use in it. And I ain't heard nothing about the cleanup that's been done up there in terms of the soil to invite families to live up in that. And so I need some clarification about those tests and what is actually happening. And if that's a requirement of the pre-development and the plan, then we need to look at some stuff here. Because once you approve this, then it's own. And from looking at the public comment that was involved in this thing, this has been an ongoing kind of issue for that area. And so not to cast aspersions on the intent or what people are working toward to make this happen. I would suggest that we postpone this and put this back in the committee to take another look at this thing, because there's some gaps in this, some serious gaps in this, and there are some serious questions on those questions leads to other questions and other questions. And now we're road ball in this thing. And so I'm neither opposed to it nor am I for it. I just need some further qualifications. If we can get that from you guys, then I'd appreciate some help. You'd like to come up here? Okay. That's it. Thank you. Next up, Jesse Pierce. Just the pairs represented for Denver Homicide allow black socks movement for self defense and positive action committed for social change. And I was on top of the ballot this past May 2019 election for city council, where a large, almost 50,000 votes with no money. We are in favor of this rezoning for the exact reason that was stated previously. We have a housing crisis in the city. We need at least 26,000 homes built to even attempt to address this housing need. In this whole election campaign, we were told we can do better. So if we can do better, I would like to see the council do better and actually create attainable housing that people can actually afford in the city and county of Denver. Not affordable, but attainable. That means RMR levels between zero and 30%. So my question was, what is the RMR level for this rezoning? Do you even know? And who is going to occupy this space? Because this neighborhood has been neglected. Globeville, along with the area, and Swansea has been neglected for years by this city. Now all of a sudden it's become an opportunity zone and there's all this development coming to an area that is not even built infrastructure wise for it. So I want to know what is the RMR level for this and who is going to reside at this? Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council tells me just another. Question for staff. What are the two local and I mean the two collectors and all articles that serve this? That would be Fox Street to the West and then 44th to the north. That's about a block and a half to the north of the fourth, and that's a block west would be Fox Street. And I apologize. My recovering from an illness and laryngitis over the weekend. So where is CPD or public works with the team. Yeah ideas the parking maximums or the limits that they're talking about on on on this section and it's. Called the next step. Study. Is that. Yes. Part of. The yes. So then the 41st and Fox area next step study is fully underway right now and it's anticipated to be completed by 2020. And with the parking overlay that was determined to be either, you know, started to take a look at at during the 41st and Fox next step study but really to let that process go through and then after that process dove back into the parking overlay potential. But we need to see what comes out of that next step. Next step study from the 41st and Fox area plan in that they're looking at the infrastructure there. How was the the how was this reconciled in the in the Globeville neighborhood plan, the fact that there was, you know, considerable promotion of toward a more dense urban redevelopment of this area. But the limitations that are with those two collectors that you've identified as being those streets that would carry all the vehicular traffic that would do it this this new density would would support what are there? Did there were there other solutions that were contemplated. For the Globeville? CLINTON Well, we do have the the transit stop, which is like 1000 feet away. So there's we have right now to with the the public works rules and regulations that are in place with the traffic study requirements for the site development plan process that in tandem with transportation demand management strategies help with the congestion in the area, but also the proximity to 41st and Fox station area was heavily leaned upon within the Globeville area plan. See, that's what's sort of tough here, right, is the criteria requires us to contemplate its proximity to these arterials and and collectors, not to commuter rail. So to talk about commuter rail and is not part of the criteria, is it? Is it. The criteria? No, but it is served by those essentially because the close proximity, they can essentially, you know, be considered to be served by. Okay, I'm worried because it's a bit of a slippery slope to justify rezonings and we've done it already previously, as you can look at the map and see that justify this level of intensity, intense re mean entitlement when it isn't directly served by local mean by a collectors or arterials and but then we already know that those collectors and arterials are potentially going to be overburdened to the point where we would actually cap the ability to to bring cars into this area. And so it seems odd to me that we would sort of put our head in the sand about those realities of infrastructure. And and and they make that leap continue to make that leap and say, well, this meets the criteria when we have these deficiencies. And and I'm I'm somewhat perplexed that your answer to the parking overlay is that it will now be kicked down the road for the next step study because, you know, at some point I need the confidence that we have. We're considering how the infrastructure marries itself with the land use, because what we're not doing right now is is developing anything out there according to plan. In four years of major rezonings in this area, we have yet to see any outcomes that are consistent with these adopted plans. So should we be continuing rezoning to the to this degree and adding entitlement when when we might need to to pull back some other infrastructure? I mean, other other aspects of the regulations that are currently allowed. I mean, you are contemplating right now reductions in an entitlement with regard to parking or or changes in entitlement. As part of the next subsidies. Are you. Or are you. The scope of the next steps? Are you? Yeah. Yes, I'm I'm not 100% sure, but I do believe that it looks at the infrastructure at a high level. I'm not sure to what extent it really will be covering parking in depth like. So we. Postponed a parking overlay, Mr.. President. Yeah. So we postpone, you know, can answers real quick. They are looking at parking demand management and this will be completed at the end of 2020, much further ahead than anyone could get entitlements to build anything at this site here. Much further. So parking demands, the infrastructure investment that we're talking about will all be in place prior to any development that this could that could happen at this site that we are proving right now to like. So within the next eight months. Yes. She said it will be completed in 2020. Okay. I'm sort of, again, having to put a lot of faith that somehow we're going to be addressing the infrastructure problems. If we if I'm going to overlook the fact that the arterials and collectors that service this area are, in fact already overburdened and couldn't withstand the maximum level of development of the existing entitlement, let alone the planned entitlement of this area. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So my question first is, do you have a number of how many zoning we've done in this area to date? Um. I don't. I'm not off the top of my head. No. Okay. I, I mean, I can count at least 8 to 10 that have come before this body, which have all been asking for significant density increases. And that includes the 43 acres over at the Denver Post site. Can you tell me if every developer coming in asking for density increases are being asked to financially participate in the next step study and to be part of the solutions that will come out of that. What I do have to say is that with the public works, the rules and regulations that they have to do a not only a traffic impact study for before they get out of concept for their site development plan, but also a transportation demand management plan in order to contribute to that. The next step study is fully funded and underway. Here's here's the. Problem, Mr. President. Can I just add. I cannot finish. I've answered a question for you real quick. So there have we we did ask the developer to pay into the next step study. And so there are folks who are paying into that. And we'd be happy to give you a breakdown of this study as well, because we wanted to make sure, like you said, Councilman, that we have developers making sure that they're invested into this project. So so part of the issue with this area of town is. We should not be looking at 44th Avenue as a collector road into this site, because what you're going to do is exacerbate all of the traffic problems for the Globeville neighborhood, because that's exactly where it's going to put them, is right in front of Garden Place elementary school to get, you know, on and off at Washington Street or to use Lincoln Street. And my concern is that we're we're looking at this where we're continuing to change the zoning and increase the density or, as Councilman Espinosa said, the entitlements. But we haven't addressed any of the infrastructures on the front end. We're waiting till the back end after we do all these rezonings. And the expectation is we, the taxpayers, will be looking at how to solve the problem. So, for example, we've got CDOT doing the next step study. I mean, I'm sorry, the health study on 25, but it does not include this particular interchange at 38, Fox, I-25 and Park Avenue. And that interchange is what traffic coming out of downtown is going to have to go through to get into this site. So there's just that one road and I guess. For us to be asked to continue to change the zoning without addressing any of the infrastructure issues. And this is part of the problem with the changes that happened with zoning. Gentlemen, I just want to check, make sure your saw in questions and you can you can more than we're going to do this in comments or we're taking questions now. Okay. Get you back in the queue for comment. Yeah, I asked my two questions. Okay. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for counsel, four for eight is closed. Comments by members of Council Countryman Brooks. Hey, thank you, Mr. President. Appreciate it. This rezoning is in my district. And I just want to say a couple of things. This is at 41st and Fox. Many people call this Fox Island. If you've not been there, I would encourage you to go into this neighborhood is very interesting. There is only one way in, one way out of a road. And it's it's problematic. There are some issues. We have never put the kind of mobility focused investment in that we're putting in right now. Now, there's no dollars committed at the city, and I think there should be some concerned over that. But there is a lot of effort from CBD and public works to actually put the vision together. I've been a part of that. I really encourage council people who are, you know, worried about this area to be a part of the conversations. Because right now the regulations and the ask of what we're asking from developers to put into this place is being formed and put together. The other thing that we're looking at here is a transportation demand management system, which I think is really important. And we have a lot of developers pushing back and we need community folks. We need council folks at the table saying this We can no longer over park these developments. We've got to make sure we got a multi billion dollar rail system that's right across the street that we're not even using. And so demand management means and parking demands means you can only park your building to a certain ratio. And so that's what we're looking at. We hope to have that that all done. Well, I won't be doing it, but the city hopes to have it all done by 2020. That kind of like going to January 2020. And I think that's going to be a very important process for everyone to be a part of saying that understanding that this rezoning is in this area. I will also say this. We have resolved a lot. I was just in this area a week ago and it's really interesting. I've never seen so many rezonings and no cranes and no construction. For whatever reason, the market has not come to this location yet. The only construction is the RTD construction that was built and now the train is work is running, which is great, but there has not been some construction. So all of the fear that we're going to overbuilt, I think you don't have a market to build it just yet. So what we need to do is make sure that we have a robust demand management system that the private sector pays for, that the public sector invest in, so we can move forward. Mr. President, because this rezoning particular rezoning meets the criteria, I will be supportive. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So as I was saying earlier, you know, this particular area is problematic because of the fact that there is one access into the site that's off of Fox Avenue. You then have 44th Avenue that goes to the Globeville neighborhood, which is a two lane road with no pedestrian walkway. Although we do have kids who live on this side of I-25 that that walk along 44th Avenue to Garden Place Elementary School. There is a project to put sidewalks along this bridge, but right now they're not there. The I-25 Pal study is really critical to this area, and it doesn't go this far because major changes to that interchange need to happen to be able to figure out how we move traffic through this particular area. You have a baseball game letting out and if it rains, traffic is going to back up into downtown because anybody trying to go into north Denver can't go through because that underpass floods. We have a serious flooding problem in this area. It's the Utah Junction outfall. And Councilman Brooks, we've been engaged in ongoing conversations with the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative with. Chris, who's our team person. My concern when we talk about parking maximums, which is what the overlay is, is discussing. My concern for anybody rezoning in this area is, you know, if it's if it's first in all, those folks are going to want their parking and whoever wants that cap happens. Anybody else wanting to do their development, if it's already been capped, a bank isn't going to finance a project without any parking. And and so these are some realities that we deal with in in the development world. And so I don't know that we're creating unrealistic entitlements or expectations by continuing to put the highest concentration of high density development in this small geographical area that only has this one road in and out. And so I don't think that we're adequately addressing. The the. Health, safety, welfare of the community that we're encouraging by, you know, by by rezoning all of these properties to be in this area, by not addressing all of the infrastructure as part of the big picture. I know early on there were discussions about a road that would connect over to the Sunnyside neighborhood. I've heard as as early as today that that may not happen. Now, that was going to provide a different access point for people trying to get in and out of this area. And we don't know what the next step study is going to recommend at this point in time. So we're continuing to add to the volume of density that's going to be in this area without knowing how the infrastructure issues are going to be addressed. And that's that's a fatal flaw in how we're doing zoning these days because. We don't we don't know how that stuff is going to be worked out. And I mean, I think we need to go back and look at making some changes to our zoning code that allow city council to see the level of detail that helps us to fully understand what we are proving, that ensures that we're addressing the health, safety and welfare of of a community. So, you know, I know we've done a number of zoning in this area, but I'm not comfortable continuing to increase the densities and the zoning where we. We just don't have the pieces to the puzzle all figured out. So I'm not going to be supporting this one tonight, and I will continue to be involved with the folks working on the next step study and insert our input. We have been involved in those meetings through through my office and hopefully we'll find some some of the right solutions that can ensure that the people who will be living in this area once all this development happens, can move in and out without putting their lives at risk, because we're going to have, you know, more cars in this area. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. It won't be the first time I will have opposed an hour x eight in this general vicinity. I had one on Jason Street, so it's two blocks on my side of the railroad tracks and it's served by the same arterial and in fact, it's you could argue it served. It's better serve because it's somewhat proximate to pacos. But the criteria is is is pretty clear that it has to, you know, ideally, I mean, these things need to be served by arterials and collectors. And what we know about Fox Island is that the roads that do serve it are taxed, which is why there's these other conversations . So it's I, I for 1 a.m. not at all surprised by the complete lack of redevelopment on Fox Island. I have said it at least three times and I'm going to say it a fourth time. At least now that this is a mexican standoff. What is happening over there is people are gaming, are plans to cash in, and when they cash in, they suck dollars out of Denver and community. What they have right now is a industrial zoning which doesn't allow them to build one single residential unit on that property. But now they would get eight stories of redevelopment for potential going, zero setback on all four sides of their property. And for that, it's a $1,000 fee for one acre of property. And so what do you do when you grant that much entitlement for $1,000 plus the time that you've taken as you've created an opportunity for that person to sell that land, to flip that land for way more money than they bought it for. And when they take those rights and sell those rights, they siphon money out of the project. That could go into better design, into affordability, into the infrastructure needs of this community. And we don't have a process right now, but it clearly we're having a conversation about how to do that in the future when we should have done it a long time ago. We've been we spent millions of dollars on that rail. But guess what? The rail is not part of our criteria when considering rezonings, and that is stupid. There should be zone districts specifically for Tio D's that do three things. They have minimum development requirements. You have to go up over a certain height. You have to have ground floor activation where appropriate. You have to have better street standards. Streetscape standards. Actually, there's a fourth. And you have to encourage mode shift. You you you put those parking maximums on there or you make no parking. You you tell them that there is no possibility that you can put parking in your project. But the emphasis has to be. Use that rail. We spent millions already of your taxpayer dollars. We don't have that. So we are not on a collector. We're not on an arterial. We are against three local streets, LRT. Fourth and third. We are on an island that is poorly served by existing roads that do collect those locals. And so until the city. Well, for as long as I'm on council I will be voting no on further rezonings. That and this is you know you can say I'm pre-meditated or presume whatever this stupid word is that the lawyers don't like that, but I'm not worried about it for obvious reasons there. This is a call to the city that we need to get out of the business of granting entitlement when we have too much development entitlement right now in this city that we could capture all the growth that we need in the available square footage that we could develop. And that if we're going to emphasize re you know, if we want to see the outcomes in our plans, we have to codify those outcomes in our regulations so those don't exist here. I have been a mixed bag on prior rezonings on Fox Island. I have voted both for and against for a whole host of reasons. But this one this far away from the rail station, this far away from local. I mean, for collectors and arterials that are taxed to the point where we don't know how we're going to ever capture the growth that we're that we that we've planned for. This area tells me that we need a solution to our transit infrastructure before we go further with any intensified entitlement. So with that, I'll be voting no. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, seeing no other comments on this item, Madam Secretary, recall. Black eye. Brooks Espinosa. No. Flynn I. Gilmore, i. Herndon, I. Cashman. PANITCH. Lopez All right. Ortega No. Assessment. I. Mr. President. All right. I'm secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 9 hours, three days. Nine days. Three Neighbors Council bill four for eight has passed. Councilman Lopez, before we jump into the next hearing, I understand that we have a special guest in the chambers. Would you like to recognize our guest?

A bill for an ordinance approving Service Plans for the creation of West Globeville Metropolitan District No. 1 and West Globeville Metropolitan District No. 2, relating to the redevelopment project known as the 25/70 Development. (FINANCE & SERVICES) Approves the service plans of two state-authorized metropolitan districts: West Globeville Metropolitan District No. 1 and West Globeville Metropolitan No. 2 both in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 2-9-16.

DenverCityCouncil_03072016_16-0079

And when the LED right red light appears, your time is up. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and direct their comments to the council members. Speakers are prohibited from using profanity or making personal attacks during their comments, and we've asked speakers and audience members to refrain from applauding. All right. We're going to speak on Council Bill 79. Councilman Clark, would you please put Council Bill 79 on the floor? Thank you, Mr. President. I remove the council bill 79 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing on Council Bill 79 is now open. May we have the staff report? And even John Carter with the Department of Finance Constable's 160079 is an ordinance to approve to service plans for metropolitan districts supporting the redevelopment of the former Denver Post building sites at Southwest Intersection of I-25 and I-70. The service plans are being submitted on behalf of Ascendent Capital Partners DNA LLC pursuant to the requirements of Special District Act and related state statute. The redevelopment of the redevelopment area of the proposed district consists of 41 acres. More specifically, the boundaries are West 40, West 43rd Avenue to the South, Fox Street to the east. The Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to the west and Interstate 70 to the north. The site is intended to develop into a high density total development near the light rail station at 47th and Fox. Opening later this year. The District should be responsible for coordinating the financing, acquisition, acquisition, construction and operation and maintenance of the public infrastructure and services within and around the project site. In order to provide these improvements as services to districts will be created. West Globeville Metropolitan District One is anticipated to contain single family residential properties, as well as commercial and retail components of the Division of the Development. The rest, Globeville Metropolitan District number two, is anticipated to contain multi-family residential properties. The districts will partner with one another, provide the public services and improve this needed for the development. Each of the districts will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the authorities of the granted by the Special District Act, including through the imposition of no levies, rates, fees, tolls and charges. Initially, the boundaries of each district will be de minimis, with the majority of the 41 acre development property being located within a specific inclusion area. It is anticipated that the portions of the inclusion area will be included into boundaries of districts. Once the public improvements are installed and development proceeds with the service area of the two districts may overlap. The districts will not be overlap. I'm sorry. While the service area of the two districts may overlap, the districts will not overlap physical boundaries, nor will the districts be overlapping, providing duplicate services or improvements. So in order for the districts to have financial capacity for providing self-isolation of the public improvements required for the development, the district shall have the combined ability to issue up to up to $22,785,000 in debt. The repayment of the debt will be supported by revenue generated from the imposition of a mill levy of up to 50 mills . Council's approval of two service plans would establish the following. There are sufficient existing and projected need for organized services in the area, and the existing services in the area is inadequate to meet those needs today. The districts are capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within the proposed boundaries. The areas to be included in the districts will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed debt on a reasonable basis. The facility and services standards will be compatible with the city standards. The districts have a proposed have proposed an organization in TABOR election for May of this year as required by state law, pending approval by the eligible electors in each of the districts in the in May of this election this year. The districts will have the authority to operate in a manner described in the present as service plans. City staff recommends approval of these service plans, and we're happy to answer some questions. I want to introduce you to a few of the development team here. We have Zach Kessler and Graham Bennett banished from the developer team. Brad Nieman from Miller and Associates is the developers counsel and Rachel Prestige from Sierra Associates. Rapid asked your questions about the development or or the judges. Thank you, Mr. Gardner. All right, we have five speakers, and I'll just say our five. You can make your way to the front pew. Brad Nyman, Graham Bean is that Texan, Mr. Sekou and Nathan Burger. So make your way to the front. And Mr. Nyman, I apologize if I said that wrong. Nieman. That's one of those too. You can begin a master. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. City Council. It's Brad Neiman from Miller Associates. I'll be very brief here. I am here on behalf of the proponents of the West called Metropolitan District Numbers one two. And I just wanted to state for the record that notice of this public hearing has been provided in accordance with applicable law, namely Kress. 32 1204. I'm here with Graham Bennis and Zach Kessler on behalf of the property owner and developer, as well as Rachel Prestwich as a consultant of the developer as well. And we're available if you have any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Graham Bennett. My wishes for. To answer questions. I don't have any. Thank you. That text. That tax of 4535 Julian Street, Denver, Colorado. The city decided to clear city homeless camps from Arapahoe Square just as developers ask for new zoning and design standards for Arapahoe Square. What a coincidence. How many of the homeless will end up in West Globeville, Metropolitan District one in West Globeville Metropolitan District two? But of course, we're told that this is occurring because of potential health and safety emergency. They don't explain why this emergency just developed or why it will be any less if they simply drive the homeless someplace else. And once again, where will the homeless be driven into Globeville and our other neighborhoods? Will the developers be taxed to pay for the dislocations they're causing and the potential negative impacts on Globeville and other neighborhoods? Of course not. Once again, the developers say jump and the city asks How high? The city should be ashamed of itself. But hey, what's new? Thank you, Mr. TEXT. Mr. Secretary. My name is Jeremy Sekou. I am the. Organization Founder CEO, the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Representing poor, working poor and homeless people. We are supporting the. Passing of this. Metropolitan District. With reservation. On the surface, this appears to be a wonderful thing. And we're moving forward to develop this area that has been neglected by the city for a long period of time. And the people have now stood up and decided that they're going to do it themselves and they're going to pay for it. Now, a lot of people don't know how these metropolitan industry works. So you move into this thing, you get this house and you get a tax bill and you don't even know nothing about the military on this thing because most people don't understand how this thing works. And there hasn't been a lot of education on how these metropolitan districts work. And there's a downside to these things when you click it up becomes self-serving. Community input is denied. And community control over this development. It's done by a few. For the many. And in the process there is no oversight by city council. To stay focused on its development. And so it gets to be real serious looking wicked. And so the people who are watching this tonight, I suggest on television. That you do independent research and find out how this thing works and then engage in the process of participating. And getting active and making this thing work. See, I know we're in a we live in a republic and it's not a democracy. And the people have been pushing it forward to get it to that democratic process. And yet the still tools are still in effect. So that as Cosmo was talking about a revolutionary change, this is not even revolutionary change. This is just the same old, same old with the same old players playing. And then those that got get and those that don't, don't. So I am demanding that city council sit on top of this on a follow up to make sure they do the right thing for the right reason. And represent the people in a way that will give them faith that this thing is for everybody and not a few. In closing, I like to say that my grandchildren are now begin the process of watching this on television. Mr. Sekou, your 3 minutes is up, sir. Thank you, sir. And have a good day. Thank you. Next, we have Nathan Burger. Nathan Burger. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Nathan Burgher 201 Steel Street. Suite 201 Denver. 80206 And I represent a special district that has been providing water and sewer services in and near the Globeville area for over 50 years. We got a notice of this meeting. I don't know why we got a notice, but we are the ones that provide water and sewer for the inhabitants within our boundaries. And we would object to any other entity that would think they would come into our boundaries and provide water and sewer. That's the only issue I have that doesn't look from looking at it. It doesn't look like it's within the boundaries. But we got a notice. So I'm just and I wrote a letter to council just to make it clear we are not consenting if there is any water and sewer services to be provided within our boundaries. We are the district that would provide that and it couldn't be done without our consent and we would not agree to any service plan that would share those types of services. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions of members of council. Councilwoman, can each. Thank you, Mr. President. With the city staff to address the notice issue that just came up from our speaker in terms of whether or not you've examined the overlapping boundary potential. Thank you, Councilmember Brennaman, once again. We provided a resort a in overlapping report from the county assessor's office seeking any overlapping special districts in the boundaries of the proposed districts. In addition to any districts within a three mile radius of the districts of the proposed district west levels one and two. And it is that three mile radius report that may have. I'm not sure exactly what which water and sanitation district Mr. Burger was representing, but I know that it involved the I believe, the North Washington Water and Sanitation District, and there's a Pecos North Pecos one as well. Those there are no overlapping water sanitation districts, as far as I am aware, based upon the reports that I received from the Denver assessor's office and the the notice that Mr. Burger may have received or did receive was based upon that three mile radius report. Great. Thank you very much. And then, Gram, can I ask you a question, please? I won't ask you whether or not you feel that the council has provided you constant attention, as one of our speakers suggested. But I will ask you if you could please share what efforts you've made around the topic of affordable housing exploring that topic. During the process you've been going through the past few months. Yes. Thank you, Councilman Creech. Your pregnancy is a lot more because we still have a lot of work to do on our project. But yes, we have made considerable outreach to the affordable housing community, and we are very well schooled in affordable housing. And, you know, we're very committed to pursuing affordable housing on the site, and we are very excited about the opportunities that we are seeing an interest from affordable housing developers that will be doing the vertical development once we get through our steps with the horizontal development and obviously with a big step being tonight with the infrastructure improvements . And that's a big step for the the vertical developers for us to have infrastructure and especially a nice four acre park for the project as well as our rezonings that we'll need for the remaining 30 acres. That which is why you'll be seeing us a few more times and that those rezonings obviously will, will, you know, follow our GDP with, you know, mix of uses of commercial and residential. And so we look forward to continuing to explore as well as detail our plans that were that we have and and the interest that we have for affordable housing developers. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. We can count on you to tell you. Mr. Berger, I think you might be the best one for me to ask my questions up, if you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone. Now, Mr. Berger. What is the exact name of the water and sewer district that you represent? North Washington Street Water and Sanitation District. And it's independent of Denver water in our Denver wastewater system, correct? Well, we work we get our water from Denver water, and it goes through our system and we work with Denver. In fact, we just what raised the issue was we just included a part of Denver based upon an agreement with Denver wastewater on an Asarco redevelopment project. And this is nearby. So I was a little concerned about overlapping, but after hearing the proponents discuss, it sounds like it won't be overlapping our district's boundaries. Okay, thank you. I have another question for one of the other speakers, I believe Mr. Nieman. So my question is about the infrastructure that will be built on site. So the roads, the parks. You know, we've seen sort of some master plan designs that have come through on previous applications before this body. So is it anticipated that. The infrastructure is maintained by the the metro district, or is it an expectation that the roads and the parks get turned over to the city and the city is expected to maintain them? Thank you, Council Ortega. It is the expectation that all public buildings, with the exception of certain storm drainage improvements and certain baca curb improvements, will be ultimately dedicated and maintained by the city. There is a four proximate four acre open space park that will be constructed, that the district will be districts when one or both of them will be responsible for maintaining until such time as the city accepts it and the warranty periods expire, at which point it will be formally dedicated over to the city. And is there a warranty period on the streets? It will, yes. It would follow the normal dedication process. So what is that normal time frame? I believe it's two years. Okay. I know this is an issue that has come up with some of our tax increment financing districts in terms of the added costs that the city has to incur as a result of them becoming city streets and parks. And so that's why I wanted to understand this, because we're trying to ensure that the districts that are creating the infrastructure sort of handle that responsibility until in the case of a TIFF district, until the tiff has expired. You know, we're not completely there as as a, you know, a formal body in the administration ensuring that we're all on the same page with that. But, you know, that is a concern because when you have these big districts, it just adds that much more. I get this will be new infrastructure. So the maintenance should be probably less than some of our other streets in the adjacent neighborhood that are not paved and have no sidewalks and some of those things. But thank you for answering that question. Let me see if I have any more. I think that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Noon. Thank you, Mr. President. Johnson. So do you. Um, Councilman. Oh, that's a car owner. I'm sorry. Yes, no problem. I'm subbing for Anderson. Right. So it's not a problem. Just looking at revenue sources on page 24 and 25 of the first document just. And the Avalon of the 50 mills. Well, what is going to be the average cost used in the 50 mills on an average price of a home in that area? What do you think the increase will be? Do we have those numbers quickly? Well, maybe. It's an easy calculation. It's an easier calculation. We can do the calculation pretty much as if you had we we have rough averages of the 84 that home. I think they had averages of around 350,000. Zach. For average home sales. Okay so so what you do you can use your if they had a they have a. The way this works is developer will put a model of what they think the the home price will be for the sale and then we can do an average of what we think the home sale price would be. So if you use a average home sale price of $350,000 and then times up by the assessment ratio. I'm looking for Zach to pull the numbers real quick. As a calculator. Yeah, if he's. Got a calculator quick, you can fool the $350,000 times the 7.97% ratio. Thank you. Yeah. So let me just do this here real quick. So if we had a home of $350,000. Times. .0796 times .001 times 50. It's about 1300 hours for about 1400 hours for the year for 50 meals on a $300,000 home. Okay. On page 25 is talking about a1a fee there, a facilities fee. There's like $3,000 for single family and 1500 dollars for a multi-unit family unit. Is that a one time fee? It's going to be, I believe. Yes, that's the one time fee that would be charged. I think probably at the time of sale. At the time. Or the builder fee, actually, you can sell it to the builder to pay. Their existing homes in that area. Now, they're not. All brand new, right? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Grill. But what about your rental projects? Are you still thinking about rental building on rental units or are you going to jump into like that capsule in connection to the condo market? Or if Councilman Kennedy would like to sign personally on guarantees? That's that's fantastic. But so far, we're not I don't have the appetite, you know, to to engage in any kind of construction. But, you know, we're we're seeing, you know, a little bit of a little bit of interest from the condo developers. And, you know, we've always had the interest from some that are lot smaller scale and would not come under the auspices of some of the trial attorneys. But, you know, we have not seen any large scale condos yet, but we just it would be a fantastic addition to our project and talk about affordability. It could really get really, you know, be a great bolster for the city. Well, we sure hope you'll consider it. And Mr. Broadwell is going to protect you there. So let me ask you a question about this tax. What do you think this everyone tax is going to be on your project? What do you think the total will be for you and what do you think that you'll probably have to pass on to your rental units? I'm sorry. In regards to what. Level of tax on your property you're going to have this you're going to have larger you know, you're going to have 300 units or. I think we projected seven, 750 units. Okay. What do you think the the property tax bill would be for you for that? That would. I do not know. I may need a calculator. Yeah. Get that big calculator on that one. Are you looking for. I'm sorry, the total tax revenue. Just like to know what? His tax bill. He's going to be the property underwriters. So he'll be paying that tax rate. And so. So then I'm sure you'll pass that on in to rental for your use. If you just let me know what that information is. You know, just. I appreciate it. Absolutely, Councilman. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. New council. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure who the appropriate person would be to answer this, but looking in the presentation, it outlines 450 single family residences and knowing that the Metro District Board will be initially set up with large land owners in the area. Where do you see or is there going to be a transition when residents of those 450 single family units might look towards elections to serve on the metro district board? Thank you, Councilmember Gilmore. The natural life cycle of of a district basically is as residents come into the district and own property there, they become eligible electors of the district. The at this organizational election coming up in May of this two months I guess there'll be and each district there'll be three board members who have a four year term which will expire in May 2020 and two. That will have a two year term that will expire in May 2018 and that's statutorily set. Basically, it depends on the phasing of development in how quickly single family residents move in there and and renters other times, I think is going to be renters when moving. They're basically there can be as dependent on how development continues there can be new board members as of May 2018 if they are voted out. So they'll be a full term. A full house will turn over the board in May 2020. Can you confirm Will is the board set up currently with five members? Yes, it's a five member board, and that's usually the default for a special district. And will it stay at five members or as you have. New property owners, come. In through the single family residences? Will the board grow? It'll stay at five. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gummer. Councilman. Yes, thank you. Real quick. I was listening to the question for my council colleague, councilman, to whom I worked together a lot. And so I said, we're developing the mind meld. But I just wanted to check really quickly. Graham, if you could clarify, are you can you please describe which piece of the development your company is doing and then which pieces will be done by others? Because I think, Councilman, you may have been asking you for information you might not have. And I just want to make sure that we all are clear on your role before we close out the hearing. Sure. Councilman. So we are only the horizontal developer. We control the entire 41 acres. So we are just, you know, putting in the streets and national attention and the parks. And the plan is for us to sell to vertical developers. So we do are the the financing plan that we came up with to support the districts is just is based upon, you know, some what we think, you know, could happen here and with a mixture of different housing types, different price points, mix of of of single family and multifamily housing. But we are just the horizontal developer and we do not have plans to to be the vertical developer of the product at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Kenny. Councilman Ortega. I just wanted to ask if it looks like at this point that the the building, the Denver Post building, if any of that stays or if it's expected that that goes? Or is that proposed just to be an interim use? A former competing newspaper guy. So don't listen to what he's saying. You know, I may abstain from answering that question just as I don't you know, I don't want to upset Councilman Flynn, but we do not have any firm plans for the demolition of that building at this time. You know, we still have some some some very interesting ideas for the repurposing of that building. However, you know, there there there does still need to be the infrastructure put into to make the building more accessible and to, you know, add add things like the park and, you know, bring in a mix of uses. So that is a very large building and there are no plans, you know, either way at this point. We continue to explore, you know, the the opportunities as well as get the pieces in place that we can start redeveloping the entire site. So assuming you have seriously interested folks that wouldn't require the demolition, do you anticipate in the interim continuing to see things like Denver fully back there? We that was that was a phenomenal event. And we absolutely want them to continue. And it's really helped, you know, for people to actually see where this is and be in the building. And so we're absolutely exploring, you know, bigger and better things for for that. And we I've thought about this building every day for eight and a half years. And so I would love to see the building stay. And, you know, but it's you know, we're really excited about bringing a mix of users into the site. Great. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Any other questions on Caterpillar? So nine. CNN public hearing is now closed. Time for comments. Councilman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I have not consulted with my colleague, Councilman Brooks, but this is in his district, and I know that he would not want us to allow a project of this magnitude to go forward without some comment of support. To say that we are excited about the potential. I know that he has spent a lot of time thinking about the importance of transit oriented development in his district. And and so I, I want to appreciate, again, how much time this team has spent getting to know the council, getting to know some of the visions we have for TOD in the city and really helping to, you know, marry the vision that you have had for this eight and a half years with some of the plans and visions the city has. So it's never easy doing a project of this scale. But but the infrastructure is the beginning of it. So I want to thank you for the time you spent and wish you luck with the next phases. And I will be supporting this metropolitan district tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. So technically, this site is in the Globeville neighborhood, and I know that the applicant has had conversations with folks from Globeville, as well as the Sunnyside neighborhood. And yesterday, actually, I went and drove around on the west side of the tracks and both the Sunnyside and the Globeville neighborhood adjacent to this Tod stop . That will be opening, I think, next year. Right. Is is seeing a lot of interest. We this body has risen several other properties to the south of this site that are hoping to do some TOD development. And my hope is, as we see more and more investment, we're having a separate conversation about sidewalks. And, you know, this is an area that still has no streets and no sidewalks. And so I'm hoping that as a city, we get to a place where all of our neighborhoods have that basic infrastructure. I'm not asking the developer to do that for the rest of the neighborhood, although that would be nice. But, you know, it's it's one of those things that I think we're continuing to look at in terms of how we have that basic infrastructure consistent all across the city. But I want to commend the developer for their commitment in addressing the affordable housing issue. I don't have to tell you what a challenge this is across the city for people who want to live in Denver that can't afford the prices. And so just knowing that that's a commitment you're making is very much appreciated. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to pile on. The affordable housing element of this was real interesting when this project came before council originally, I guess last fall or maybe it was even late summer. And I got the feeling from the team that I think they kind of thought it was just going to be a perfunctory visit and sell along. And one by. One, I'm aware that that. That topic of affordable housing came up and which is a priority of this council. And the project kind of went on hold for a while. And it's my understanding, as has been alluded to, that you folks did a lot of outreach into the affordable housing community, which is a great start. But it's only a start. And I am aware you are horizontal developers and. You're the guys that pick out. The vertical developers. So the responsibility lays with you to continue. To. Step to and do everything you can to fulfill the vision that I. Believe is shared. That there be a a robust, affordable housing component to to this project. So I want to thank. You for. Putting it on halt. Rethinking. And coming back with a broader approach. And I look forward to supporting this this evening. Thank you, Councilman Cashman and Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Just a few brief comments that this project has been long in coming, and I really welcome it. It's a I think it's a fabulous redevelopment site near the 41st and FOX Station, not light rail, but commuter rail. They haven't announced an opening date yet, but when I left the project, it was expected to be around October sometime in the mid fall. And quite a historic site as well as the Argo smelter used to be there. And and then, of course, the Denver Post printing plant. And it's good to see some activity, some residential, some commercial activity coming to that area at one time. Maybe I should've asked this during the hearing, but at one time, the investors included coach Mike Shanahan. I don't know if he's still involved in the group or not. So there's a long history of trying to get this thing off the ground. And I'm glad to see that you're finally there. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Any other comments? Constable 79. CNN Madam secretary, welcome. Can each. Lopez new Ortega I assessment I black eye. Clark. Hi, Flynn. Hi. Gilmore Cashman. Hi. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please. Those are only now the results. 11 eyes 911, 979 has been placed on file. Consideration does pass. Well, that's the bell. So seeing no other business before this body, this meeting is adjourned.

WITHDRAWN Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Table 21.32 in Chapter 21.32, and Table 34-1 in Chapter 21.34; and by adding Sections 21.15.3155 and 21.51.294, all related to unattended storage boxes, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02132018_18-0115

Thanks again to the Assistance League for recognizing Children's Mental Health Month. So we're move along with the agenda. Let's go ahead and here have our have our hearing. I don't want to, number one. Report from Development Services. Recommendation to receive supporting documentation under the record. Conclude the public hearing. Declare ordinance amending various sections of Title 21 of the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to unattended donation boxes read for the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and adopt a resolution to submit a request to the California Coastal Commission to certify an amendment to the certified a local coastal program citywide. Thank you. And no oath is required, so I'll hand it over to two staff. Thank you, Vice Mayor. We have Linda Tatum, planning manager, planning bureau manager, and Carrie Tai, current planning officer. We're going to be conducting the presentation tonight for us. And we also have the project planner, Anita Gold's Garcia as a part of the presentation team. Kerri to I will start off the presentation. Good evening, Vice Mayor Richardson and members of the city council. Before you tonight is a zoning code amendment for unattended donation boxes. Thank you for the clicker. Sorry about that. So I'm going to start out by explaining what is an unattended donation box. And so you may have seen these around town. There's a picture of one up on the on the screen there, but it's basically a nonpermanent container that typically accepts donations. Most often they're textiles, you know, used clothing, shoes and books and the like to be used for resale, recycling or distribution for a variety of purposes because they can be run by different kinds of organizations. So the background is why do why why all of a sudden is this being presented as a new ordinance? And over the past couple of years, our code enforcement department has reported public nuisance related to issues like trash, graffiti, loitering and general blight. As a result of these boxes, basically the unpermitted and unregulated placement of these boxes results in something to attract a destination to drop things off. And as a result, the there's been occasions around town where this has become a code enforcement issue. So in April of 2017, the City Council established a one year moratorium for the use of unattended donation boxes for the purpose of creating regulations and amending the municipal code in order to responsibly permit this. So the proposed zoning code amendments are necessary because these boxes are not specifically addressed in the Long Beach zoning code, and therefore right now there are not a permitted use. As a result, we have no way to permit them and so we're on the way to fixing that. One of the elements that's part of the discussion is that these unattended donation boxes are actually entitled to First Amendment protection, and that's because they represent a way for the public to express in part through donations what their beliefs are, what their belief system is. And so therefore, they they are a little bit different from just a your everyday land use. They do have some First Amendment component. The purpose of the zoning code amendment is to recognize unattended donation boxes as a permitted accessory use. And I'll talk about that in a bit with specific development standards and criteria to minimize any potential impacts because of their First Amendment protection and the need to somehow permit them responsibly. Or what staff is proposing is what's called ministerial review. Ministerial review is contrasted with the discretionary review in that there is the level of certainty that something can be permitted once it is consistent with established criteria. So the first component of the proposed zoning code amendment is the actual definition that staff is proposing. The introduction of a definition that describes generally what these boxes are, and it's meant to be general. So that encompasses a variety of, you know, configurations that they could have, but they would be they're unstaffed and there are drop off boxes, containers, receptacles or a similar device that's used for soliciting or collecting donations of clothing or other salvageable personal property. And we also included in the definition a language that differentiates these from the beverage container recycling operations, because those are separately regulated by the state. And we wanted to minimize any confusion between the two. These would be permitted as accessory uses in commercial zones as well as institutional zones. They would not be permitted in any residential areas or industrial areas, for example. And the proposed development standards include having to obtain a land use permit for the box, and that will allow the city to verify the proposed development standards that are in the in the draft ordinance. One is that the there can only be one unattended donation box every 1000 feet, and that is to prevent the proliferation of these boxes. They also cannot be placed on any vacant lots. And that's why they have to be an accessory use. They have to be in addition to something that is already on that property. They also cannot be placed in areas required for parking spaces and landscape areas, dry bills, loading zones, etc., or walkways. And lastly, they do have they will have minimum set back in visibility. So they can't block corners, cannot. Create blind areas and also must have a light source nearby so that they are not placed in dark areas. The the development standards also cover. That. The container themselves. In other words, they must be constructed of durable, waterproof materials. There are size limits, so the maximum height would be six feet with a maximum size of 25 square feet, and that's generally five by five. Also, there has to be a locking mechanism and there are maintenance requirements to ensure that the area around the box isn't is maintained. Signage is also required to be posted on the box in case the a member of the public or any any kind of enforcement official needs to contact the operator or agent or a property owner or agent of that box. So just to go through the background, the planning commission at their January 4th meeting forwarded a recommendation that the City Council adopt this ordinance along with a negative declaration. Both the negative declaration and the public hearing for the Planning Commission were circulated for separate public review periods, and staff did not receive any comments with regard to the negative declaration or the Planning Commission hearing. The City Council hearing subsequently, subsequently was also separately public notice. We did receive one comment from a person who commented that the property owner information should not be required to be posted on the box, and with that the Planning Commission should go back to the Planning Commission did forward a recommendation to the Council and so tonight the recommendation is to enact the Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt the negative declaration and approve the zoning ordinance amendment for regulations for unattended donation boxes. This is also accompanied by a local coastal program amendment for these regulations to be implemented in the city's coastal zone as well . That concludes staff present presentation and I can address any questions you have. Thank you. Mr. Vice Mayor. Just for clarification, this item would require two votes one to adopt the negative declaration and approve the ordinance, and the second one to adopt a resolution forwarding it to the Coastal Commission for its consideration. Thank you. Thank you. So that concludes your presentation. We'll go to the public before council deliberation. Is there any public comment on this item on this hearing? Seeing none. We will take it back behind the rail. So we'll start with Council Hooper now. Thank you and thank you for that staff report. Great job. Just as a point of clarification, I think the public perception is that these boxes are for donations to the needy. And the problem here is that a for profit organization can set up one of these boxes. So it's a double whammy. Not only do do the folks donating here, it's not going to the source they think it is. You're actually taking items from goodwill and others who would collect them otherwise. So I'd like to ask our assistant city attorney, Mike Mayes. This is the best we can do in terms of regulating this, in your opinion? Casselman Supervisor Yes. And what we did is, as Steph alluded to, as Kerry alluded to, there was a case in 2015 from the state of Michigan where they struck down an ordinance that basically banned these types of boxes because they discriminated as but the ordinance discriminated on its face as between charitable and nontraditional solicitations. Then subsequent to that, in 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, which governs California, upheld an ordinance that was adopted by the city of Oakland to regulate these boxes. So to the best of our ability, we use the Oakland ordinance as a model, but drafted it in a way that it was a little bit more protective. I thought of Long Beach interests, so I think from a nuisance standpoint. So I think we've done the best we can. Okay. Thank you for that. That's all I am. Thank you. Councilman Price. Thank you for the staff report. I think these changes are very welcome. My question is, in regards to enforcement, what are we doing about the blighted containers that are there? Who who is going around and identifying how we can get rid of those? Councilwoman, there is not a proactive effort to go after those that are in the right of way. However, as with any code enforcement action, whenever there is a report of a project or a a particular box location that has blight graffiti overflowing, that is an appropriate activity for our code enforcement staff to pursue. And we will pursue them as we have in the past with any that have come to our attention. We have proceeded pursue those aggressively and do is it possible to add this is one of the features on the Go Along Beach app? I we can certainly pursue that because I know we have graffiti and I know we have dumped items. So there are categories that are, you know, collaterally related to this. I wonder if we could just have this and then those, those notices would go to code enforcement as opposed to public works. We will actively pursue that option. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Pearce. I had a lot of the same comments as my colleagues. I was going to ask, do we have a logo or I mean a sticker where we could advertise our Go Beach app on trash cans or on these stand alone so that somebody, if they were overflowing or had graffiti, you could say report to go beach. Staff is not aware that there is a decal or sticker that you can slap on, but we can certainly investigate that as well. I've been in conversation with Public Works about a couple of our locked Ben ideas that we're rolling around with some of our areas and that is one of the things that we'd like to ask for. So and moving forward, if there's any way where we can publicize our Go Beach app on these items would be fantastic and perhaps I missed it. Are there fines associated with them not picking them up and and emptying them? They they would be the standard fines that are identified on the code for any land use or code enforcement violation. So there wouldn't be fines that are specific to this particular type of activity. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. So at the thousand feet, I think people often forget how close 1000 feet is. And so I have a question related to how many could be within one shopping center, because that is a big concern to us. The regulation is based strictly on the distance requirement. It's not based upon a shopping center property because as you know, a shopping center can be any any size. There's no limit on the size of a shopping center. The strict criteria is 1000 feet a distance from an another bin. But if this council chose, we could state that if a shopping center is less than this size, they can only have one. Certainly because I have concerns, the Long Beach Town Center was specifically designed to make it difficult for traffic to leave quickly as a safety measure so that it would be less of a target for criminals to break into cars and a very difficult escape route and so on and so forth. And it's worked very effectively. However, if the town center were to say put in for or the shopping center off of Spring Street and put in two or three their large shopping centers. And so my concern is that the aggregating of them and the traffic flow in and out of these centers, are there any regulations related to their distance from a driveway? Right now there is no distance regulation. However, there are some very specific standards that discuss where they can't be in relation to other required components of a project such as they can't be in a required parking space, they can't be in a required setback area. So again, the location is determined through the permit process. Staff examines the location and determines that there are no safety or visibility issues before issuing a permit for a specific location. That would certainly be taken into consideration. Well, I would feel more comfortable if we were able to take another week and bring this back again, where we would put in some kind of regulations that would limit the number per shopping center and or the distance required between a driveway or an inlet or an outlet. And so those would be my recommendations. But I'm open to hearing from my colleagues. Thank you, Councilman Austin. Thank you. My question was regarding the 1000 feet and permit limit within for the unmanned donation boxes. Quick. I just just was curious to know how the 1000 feet would be enforced and and if if and how would would unpermitted YouTubes be be dealt with 1000 feet? Sure. Councilmember Austin. So in terms of the enforcement, if I understand the question properly, it's that if a member of the public or somebody were to report a box that did not was not he either was either permitted by this ordinance and not complying with the terms. In other words, they move it or they're not collecting the donations in a regular enough manner that is resulting in in a mess. Basically, they would contact planning and code enforcement. They would contact development services, and then we would send out the traditional without the notice of of violation. It's like a warning for us. We don't cite them because we give people the ability to rectify the situation first, and then it would go down the regular channel whereby if it wasn't cleaned up within a certain time and then citations would begin and then the citations increase and eventually it ends up at the city prosecutor's office . And that's the standard enforcement tool. But it is it is by complaint. And then if it were a box that is out there that was not permitted and then somebody called in, they could possibly come in and permitted under the new ordinance if they met the location and setback criteria. But if not, they would certainly have to remove it. And again, it would go back into the same corrective action pathway that the city has. And Councilwoman Mungo, just to clarify there, we already currently have a provision in the draft ordinance that I think would address your concern in regard to driveways. There's a specific section that says that you DBS shall have a minimum setback of 20 feet from the public right of way and five feet from any property line or meet the setback requirements of the underlying zone which ever is greater. And in addition, it requires that no UDP be within any landscape, parking space, driveway or walkway, handicapped accessibility, route building and grocery, egress, easements, trash enclosure or waste disposal areas or the public right of way. So they clearly would have to be set back at a minimum of 20 feet from a driveway area which typically traverses the public right of way. So we do have that in there. And if the will of the council was to bring this back with additional changes, we probably wouldn't be able to bring it back next week , but perhaps the week following that, to give us a little bit more time to to clarify it. And as Carrie pointed out, the moratorium would remain in effect till April 11th. So we do have time. Well, I really appreciate you making the mention. I guess I only think and this is my quick hand drawing on the back of our mayor speaker's list. But while the entrance to any area might be maybe only the 20 feet area, there's really a circulation of traffic that goes in and out of this area. Same with the facility that has Grounds Bakery. Same with the facility. There's so many parking I'm sorry, there's so many shopping centers that have a natural flow of traffic. And if they were even to put somewhere way back here off the main street, but in this like circle flow and people are getting in and out of their cars to put things in, I just worry there's already cases of. Issues related to traffic flow. And while we would hope that each different shopping center would want to not put it there, I think that sometimes there's only certain areas that would even be available. So I'll leave the friendly to Councilmember Superman. I see that he's queued up to speak as well. Thank you, Councilmember Sabrina. Okay, Councilman Ralston. So, yes, I defer to a little bit of my time to Councilmember Mongo. Thank you very much. I did have a question regarding the permit fees. I'm not sure that was addressed here. And what would those be for these of these receptacles? I'm sorry. Permit has the permit fees of that permit fee. We are still in the process of determining that, but it will be a fairly meaningful I'm sorry, minimal, probably within a couple of hundred dollars. We're still looking at the actual approval fee for this effort. And so is it our discretion to set such fees or is there very legal kind of guideline for that? Well, there is essentially any fees that we establish in the department. They're generally cost recovery. And after having looked at the process for review of the applications, we think that it's going to be equivalent to the review of the same permit or some other equivalent ministerial review, which would be a an hour or so of a staff time. So we're looking at something around a couple of hundred dollars for this this fee. So don't we want to factor in graffiti removal and code enforcement and all of those other services that may be impacted by proliferation of under the man? I think that in considering the fee that we're considering, it's actually the fee for the review and the approval. All of the code enforcement activities would be covered by a citation that would actually cover the costs of cleanup or other fees. So we truly are only looking at the fee for us to process the applications that staff reviews. All right. Thank you so. Much. All right. And if I may, Vice Chair and the concern regarding Councilwoman Mango's request for this to come back in a couple of weeks, she had recommended next week and we would need additional time to prepare a staff report and get it through the process. And I just wanted to point out that we don't have a meeting on that February 28th, and we have a firm agenda on March six for the land use element. So the soonest that we could come back with this item would be March 13th. So just a question. Is there a mechanism? I mean, can we insert this language? I mean, how many times is this ordinance need to come back to the city council anyway? First reading and second reading. So after this hearing, we would already have those. Does this count as the first reading or we still have two additional reading? Mr.. RICE Mario, this would not count as first. Reading, so it already needs to we make a change here and then just make sure is reflected in the first reading. No, because this type of a change is not an easy kind of change to make. We need the very precise language to insert and think it over and see how it would actually work and bring back a recommendation. But so even if we brought it back in March, we would still bring it back well in advance of the expiration. So the next question is, was there no evaluation of like traffic or some approve some sort of a provisional or conditional approval that that we have as a city council to approve, say, multiple in one site? Do we not have that mechanism already built in to the ordinance? He was the proposed ordinance does build in the ability for an applicant to request a second burn at a site. Okay. So that's already in there. I understood the request from Councilman Mango would be to consider. I'm not clear. She can probably articulate. The goal was to get less correct. Right. Less than more so which. Would be a greater. Distance separation that she's ask us to consider. And I think we're still waiting for a specific direction in that regard. Can we give it some more specific direction now? Yes. So from from my point of view, I'm not trying to have less of them per se. But what I don't want to have is multiple locations on a single site site. So if, for instance, the shopping center wants to have two different competing bins, I actually don't even mind if they're next to each other instead of having them at two different locations, blocking traffic in two different places on the same site. My bigger concern is not a thousand feet apart. My bigger concern is having four locations or two locations on a single property that both have potential for blight, potential for trash. Fake issues. I would rather have them all consolidated. And so I think what Vice Mayor Richardson was asking is, as they come up one at a time, will there be an opportunity for the expertize of the district to have a little say in that, whether it's the expertize from the traffic engineer or the expertize from whomever knows that area similar to a copy. And I let me just explain kind of the thought process for our staff in recommending or at least considering the additional or the second been at one site. The idea there is if the volume of activity at any one bean is overwhelming just based upon its convenience and people just like it, we wanted to make sure that there was less of a potential for blight by having two bins. Right. And if if you're comfortable with the recommendation, I think what staff could do is to limit it to no more than two bins per site at a maximum, regardless of a combination of no more than two bins per site or the 1000 square feet, whichever is less. So that we kind of cover the bases, if what I'm hearing you express is that you don't want more than two bins per site. And I think your concern regarding, I guess, traffic concerns or the like, we think that the current regulations that are specified in the ordinance that the city attorney read out will address any concerns about traffic. We don't think that this has the potential to affect traffic because again, the staff review will take care of that. And looking at this very detailed list, and I think we would also just as a matter of course, make sure that it doesn't have any visibility issues or traffic traffic conflict issues. So I do like your recommendation. I'm very comfortable with that. I also like the staff process and I hope that in the first few that are approved or reviewed in our area, that we have the ability to at least learn what types of locations and accesses and positioning they're looking for. Because in my experience with these, I have seen some terrible things and once they receive a permit, going backwards is is very difficult in some cities. And I know that we're. A very. Large city and I don't want our communities to have to be facing these issues for an ongoing basis. So thank you for the recommendation. I appreciate it. If Councilmember Soup and other make of the motion is open to it, then I think that that would be a great step. Thank you. Mr. Boehner. Okay. I just want to make sure where we are on the friendly, are we coming back some time with this or. My understanding is that with the the revised motion or the language to limit it to no more than two bins on any site, that there's not a need to come back, that this could proceed to a second reading at whatever the next council meeting is. Yeah, I'm just not comfortable with that motion. And to your point, Ms.. Tatum, if one is very popular, we'd locate a second. I would argue if one's very popular, then that's not the right vehicle for that spot. It shouldn't be an unattended bean if it's if it's going to have to be emptied every hour or something like that. So I think the spirit of the ordinance was we were trying to prevent over proliferation. And if we put in the ordinance, we allow to per location, guess what? They're going to max. That out is my fear at every single location. So I'm perfectly open to bringing this back sometime in March if we want to get this out a little more. We have time. Mr. Mays, I think you said we don't have to actually have the final reading until April, so I'm good with that. And Councilman Super on the ordinance as it's currently drafted would clearly allow an applicant to apply for more than one per site. So if that is something that the council wants to remove, we certainly can remove that. We could also impose a restriction for a large mall, for instance, that let's say the expanse of the mall exceeded a thousand feet. We could say that. And assuming it only has one property address or one opinion, we could limit it to one per apprehend so that for the large malls you'd still only end up with one rather than two. Okay, that sounds perfect. So if council by mango is fine with that, then good. We can do this tonight. Okay. Thank you. So, just to be clear. Are we going to come back with another hearing? Yes. Linda saying no city attorney's and. Deferring to the city. Attorney. We'd have to bring it back because that's not the kind of language we can insert or nothing. We can tweak tonight. It's we have to do an actual. Yep, we'd have to bring it back. Trust me, I'd rather do it. Council members. And you accept. That motion. Just want to be crystal clear. Yes. Okay. So so there's no further comment here. Members, please cast your vote. So one.

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

LongBeachCC_11202018_17-0399

Thank you very much. And thank you for being here. Well, going on to item 20, please. Item 20 is communication from Vice Mayor Andrews, chair of the Housing and Neighborhoods Committee. Recommendation to approve renaming the Convention Center Exhibit Hall as the Ernie Kennel Hall. Thank you. There's a motion and a second vice mayor interest. Okay. Thank you very much. Because this is being the chair of this housing and neighborhood committee, I do put this in recommendation to approve the renaming of the Convention Center and exhibition hall as the only called the Long Beach Convention Entertainment Center. And now I'd like to would like to turn it over to Councilwoman Mongo, and then she will go to comments. Thank you. I'm pleased that we have the opportunity to recognize Ernie Kell, our first elected mayor of Long Beach. Many of you know that over a year ago, when Ernie passed, there were a group of residents who approached me about naming something after him and made some recommendations on some items. I've really appreciated the process and the community input. I really appreciate and commend the neighborhood committee. It's been vetted through the committee and it has been in alignment with the city process and policies of a year since the passing, which has allowed us to take the feedback of the residents who care very deeply about our city assets . I want to express my thanks to Mayor Garcia and the Convention Center and all those who helped make this happen. Ernie Kell played a key role in envisioning the improvements and expansion that turned into the convention center and into an incredible hub for our community and a real center for tourism. So I think it's appropriate that this is the space that was finally agreed upon for which he will be honored and remember. And for that, I would like to state my full support for this item. And I really appreciate everyone who weighed in on all sides of the matter. Thank you so much. Thank you. Councilwoman, I want to make a few remarks. Let me just begin by thanking the members of the committee. That, of course, was Vice Mayor Andrews, as well as Councilmember Lawson and Councilmember Darryl Supernatant, who all moved the item forward. And I also want to thank both council woman Stacey Mungo, who has been working on this for for the last year, but also Councilmember Janine Pearce. The convention center, while a citywide asset, clearly is also in the second district. And I know that her and I had some conversations and I want to thank her for for supporting this as well. Ernie Kell was our city's first citywide mayor and made history when he was elected in that position. He has known as someone that was dedicated across the city. But his roots, of course, as we know, were in the fifth District and in Long Beach, East Side. He also is well known for spending a lot of his time out in his field office and going door to door and talking to neighbors across the fifth District , but also across the city. As mayor, he was known for being a kind person, a good leader and a good legislator. Of course, Mayor Kell also served on the city council before his time as mayor. Mayors, America's election was clearly a big step in the city's journey towards progress and a huge change in the way the city ran. Prior to that, as we're aware, the council was very different and Mayor Cal transitioned the council into a citywide and perspective and also a really took the city forward in many, many ways. He was a successful businessman who also served the city well. And of course, we know that his wife, Jackie, Jackie Kelly, also served the city of Palm Beach as a councilmember and in the fifth District. Besides being being known for being very focused on infrastructure and fixing potholes on a daily basis. He also had a love of flying, which is well documented and was instrumental in the creation and construction of the Long Beach Convention Center and Entertainment Center. It was during Ernie's time, first on the council, but then that and then as mayor that he led efforts not always supported by all across the city to construct what we know today as the modern Long Beach Convention and entertainment center of the building and all of its construction and plans were were constructed and created during his time. And the building opened just a few short months after he left office. And he was very proud to be able to go back and see all the work that he and the council, as well as the staff and the community put in building what is today a very successful convention center. I would also say that this naming of of Ernie Keel Hall, which essentially is the large exhibition hall that you see on Pine Avenue, is a is a substantial and important building in our city. And it really, I think, serves to remember someone that left that left us with a lasting legacy of service, but also left us with a strong tourism economy. This naming is supported by Jackie Kell and the Kell family, but it's also supported, I think, very importantly, by the Long Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau. They submitted a letter of strong support to rename the hall after Mayor Kell, and they are also very excited that it's a way to bring his legacy and his work in building that hall and that center back to where we are today. And so with that, I want to thank all the council members that have been involved in this. I want to thank the Kell family, especially Jackie, for for working with us. Sometimes this process takes longer than we would like, but it's important. And and we honor Ernie's memory tonight and every day. And so with that, if there any public comment. So could you. I fully support this concept. Ernie Cal was the quintessential type of mayor this city should always have. Unfortunately, that's not the case. He was never involved in any criminal complicity. He was never in queue to be arrested, tried and sent to prison as our current mayor is. He was absolutely fantastic. And this should always. You can't say enough about. Ernie Kell. He embodies. What every single elected official should be like and how they should conduct itself. Personally and in terms of civic affairs and so forth. And it it'll be a pleasure to see his name on that and a constant reminder. Unfortunately, of how far we have slipped. Thank you. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Members, please go ahead and cast your vote.

A bill for an ordinance amending the Denver Zoning Code. Approves a Denver Zoning Code text amendment to implement the recommendations of the Expanding Housing Affordability project to encourage provision of additional affordable housing beyond mandatory requirements, transition multiple existing incentive systems in various overlays, encourage on-site compliance with affordable housing requirements through other incentives, and correct minor errors and omissions from other recently adopted zoning code text amendments. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-26-22.

DenverCityCouncil_05092022_22-0424

Council member Sawyer has called out Council Bill 424 for an amendment and council members say to backing Flynn have called out Council Bill 401 for comment. Under Bill's for final consideration, no items have been called out. Under pending, no items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screens. Thank you. Council Member Canete, would you please put the council bill 4 to 4 on the floor for publication? I move that council bill 20 2-0 4 to 4 be ordered published. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Council Member Sawyer, your motion to amend. Thanks, Council president. I move that council bill 20 2-0424 be amended in the following particulars. One actually it says one, but there's only one. So here we go. On page one, line 30, Strike Clerk File number 20220052. As filed with the Denver City Clerk on April 27, 2022 and replace with clerk file number 20220052a. Thank you. It's been moved. Can we get a second, please? Thank you. Comments by members of Council on the Council Amendment. Council Member Sawyer. Okay. Hang on. Let me look here. There's a little more for me to read. Do I need to? Yes. Specify elements will make my house. Okay. I'm going to do. Perfect. Okay. So thank you, Madam President, for clarifying that this amendment is just a small tweak to the amendment that Councilwoman Sandoval had brought regarding parking that was adopted in LUTI. And the purpose of it is just to align the requirements for any developer within a quarter mile of a proposed transit corridor or rail line with the current citywide parking requirements for affordable housing developers. So that's point one parking spots per unit. I agree 100% with Councilwoman Sandoval's amendment. I'm just concerned that there's going to be real world implications resulting from that change. Not only is it going to cause some safety issues in the neighborhood that board it border these transit zones. But actually I believe it will end up exacerbating gentrification and displacement in some of our most vulnerable neighborhoods. The way it reads now, it would require zero parking spots for any developer that's building the affordable units into their development along that planned transit corridor. So functionally, this does two things. First, people are still going to have cars and no parking means those cars are going to end up on the street. We see major problems with sightlines on the streets. That line major transit corridors. For example, we have a section of 14th Avenue between Grape and Hudson. In the three years I've been in office, we have had over 14 crashes. And I'm not talking about like fender benders, like rollover crashes that have taken out people's fences, people's front yards, people's almost people's houses. And we're still waiting for the city to do something about it. I don't want to make this problem any worse. Second, allowing a parking exemption in this area makes the land within that buffer zone more attractive to market rate developers. That drives up the cost of the land along our planned transit corridors. That means it's going to be impossible for affordable housing developers to purchase that land. So instead of getting 30 affordable units in a development being built by an affordable housing developer, we're going to get four affordable units and 26 market rate units built by a market rate developer. It will take ten of those developments to get the same number of affordable units along a transit line. We're already seeing this trend in East Colfax, even with the parking exemption in place. So, for example, we've got three motels in East Colfax that were all recently purchased by market rate developers, even though there were affordable housing developers bidding on those properties as well. We've see that the affordable developers simply cannot compete with the offers coming from market rate developers exempting all parking requirements for a developer who only plans to build to finish percent, maybe a little more of the total units as affordable is only going to make this problem worse and thus exacerbate the gentrification and displacement that we already see happening in East Colfax, which is one of our most vulnerable neighborhoods. That said, as I mentioned before, I agree 100% with the intent behind Councilwoman Sandoval's amendment. So I'm just proposing this point one parking amendment to align I think it strikes with the affordable housing developer requirement, which is city wide, not just along transit corridors. I think that this is sort of striking a balance. So it's offering an incentive to market rate developers to build those affordable units into their developments along the transit buffer zones. But it doesn't necessarily make those challenges to gentrification and displacement or those safety issues that we're seeing along these corridors any worse. So by aligning those parking incentives in the buffer zone, market rate developers with the already existing parking incentive for affordable housing developers, which, like I said, exists across the city, I think that's just a little bit of a better balance. So that's why I'm making this recommendation, and I hope you will support it tonight. Thanks, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Steuer. Next up, we've got Councilmember CdeBaca. Mine is just for comments, not a vote on an amendment tonight, but just wanting to give my colleagues a heads up that I will be proposing an amendment to the three on the 30th. And Blake, this one and the. The other piece of this, the map, one just to one increase our fees and then to to make the 38th and Blake amendment not up zone. I think it's area seven all the way to 12 stories that's out of compliance with the plan the neighborhood plan that we have. And so I'd ask my colleagues to honor that and take a look at them. And it'll be in your inbox tonight when you all get home. And then the map amendment to match it. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go ahead then and return to the amendment on the floor. Councilmember Sandoval, go ahead. Thank you, Madam President. If it's okay, can I please call and please hook up to help us answer some questions? Sure. Just introduce yourself and Elise for the record. Good evening. Members of Council Annaliese Hoke, principal city planner with Community Planning and Development. Thank you for being here tonight, Annalise. So with this amendment, even though the language seems to be simple. I have found when I been working within the zoning code. It's not as simple as it always seems like. It's called out in in different areas. So can you just talk about are there any unintended consequences of this particular amendment? It's hard to know the magnitude of unintended consequences, as we haven't had a ton of time to really evaluate it. But one just piece, it's more of a technical drafting thing that sometimes we don't get into the weeds. Our Denver zoning code has our parking minimums, but then within that it also has parking exemptions, parking reductions and alternative parking ratios. The parking exemption language that is being proposed through this change is remaining in that parking exemption section of the code, but it's actually an alternative parking ratio of 0.1. So there's a little bit of a technical confusion where we're essentially adding another layer of an alternative parking ratio, but in kind of a different section of the code . So there's sort of that technical piece. I think it's also important to note that this is not only peeling back the amendment that was passed out of ludy as it pertained to expanding this to BRT corridors once they were constructed. But it's also peeling back the parking exemption in areas that are within a quarter mile of a fixed rail transit station, which we have really not received any opposition or concerns about. If anything, we've seen a higher rate of comments supporting those to be expanded further. So I don't know if that's helpful. Thank you. So one quick one. Also question can cause this policy so dense? There's a lot in it. The. The proposal for the parking exemption. Can you talk about how it's an incentive to for the policy and how you would actually if a developer chose to go with the incentive, they would. What's their deliverable? Are they're in for the amount of affordable units we would get? Great question. Yes. So this policy sort of has two tiers of build on site requirements as well as alternative compliance. And the incentives are really designed to ensure that we are getting as many units built on site creating mixed income, affordable housing . That first tier is base incentives, and that includes the alternative parking ratio, which gets a reduction down of all units by point one. And that's context sensitive. So that is for building units on site. Depending upon that compliance option, it ranges from 8 to 10% on their market area. However, in exchange for a greater level of affordability on site to more affordable units, developer applicants have the ability to then pursue additional incentives. Parking exemptions is one of those. It's important to note that these parking reductions and exemptions were really also derived out of conversations with the affordable housing development community, as they are commonly the ones who are looking at those really small, really challenging, hard to develop parcels that are often passed up by market rate developers because they are still continuing to provide parking that is well above the minimums that we see. And so this is really serving as another meaningful incentive to allow for projects to move forward in those transit rich areas and provide more units over affordable or excuse me, more units of both market rate and affordable over parking spaces. Thank you. And one last question, one last comments. Last question. In the public comments that you have received after the amendment from Moody, did you receive public comment for this bill supporting the amendment that we brought forward to reduce the parking around the quarter mile? And I want to make sure that I'm clear I'm built or something that is going to be built into it can't just be aspirational. And the city actually has to be something that we are going to build out. Can you talk to us about some of the public comment you received? Yeah, certainly. So throughout this process and up until the formal public hearing, we are going to continue to gather public comment that we receive. But there is a notable spike in public comments following the amendment. The majority of those comments coming in were speaking to support of those changes. There was certainly, you know, folks that do raise concerns, but it was certainly at a much smaller ratio than those in support and those will be included. Anything that came in after will be included in the council packets along with any other public comment. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. And thank you, Annaliese. Next up, we've got Councilmember Hines. Thank you, council president. I share Councilmember Sawyer's concern. We have a lot of cars in our city, and we continue to have more cars in our city and we continue to have crashes. And lots of traffic and gridlock. Colorado, which my colleague from District five and I share, might as well charge for parking. It is just such a mess. That said, I think that we should get rid of we should get government out of the business of parking minimums at all. Frankly, if the funding stack would allow it, I would prefer parking maximums in our city. I think that that what we need to do is make sure that we have good alternatives to cars, including a broad. Inviting, pedestrian experience. Protected bike lanes and and other ways for people to get around our city without a car. We're expecting an additional 200,000 people to move to the city of Denver by 2040. That's in the Blueprint 2019 adopted plan. And if we don't provide viable alternatives to cars and encourage that, those 200,000 people will bring at least an additional 200,000 cars. So if you think parking is bad now when we have 30% more people in cars here, it'll just be way worse. So I recognize that we have a lot of challenges and issues with traffic in cars. I want to make sure that we encourage people to live along areas where we can have car alternatives, such as major transit corridors. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Hines, Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. On a list, could you expand a little bit on the advisory committee? And it's how you address some of the comments and concerns that you heard with them, because my understanding is that when this went. From the advisory committee. Whenever I'm from CPD two Planning Board, it included part of an exemption only for affordable, deeply affordable at a near fixed transit stations like rail zacharek. Okay. And the recommendation from planning board was to bring it to committee where it was amended by Councilwoman Sandoval to extend or to restore that exemption. That was in the original proposal that had been modified at the advisory committee. Is that. Yeah. I'll clarify a little bit more. So the advisory committee is comprised of about 20 or so individuals with various backgrounds throughout the city of Denver. Councilman Sandoval and can each have also been serving on that committee and thank you for your continued time commitment on that. In the kind of last round of public comments before publishing that that planning board review draft, we did hear some concerns, particularly out of some of the committee conversations around the expansiveness of the parking exemption. And so we peeled that back to only apply to the fixed rail transit stations. At the advisory committee, we did have some members that, you know, expressed some concern and disappointment with that change. However, overall, we just felt like it was still appropriate and still a strong proposal to move forward with a parking exemption but allowed in fewer areas of the city. Councilwoman Sandoval then brought forth an amendment that did not restore it to its entirety of the original proposal, but rather take a more nuanced approach that was focused on corridors within that that capital investment that the city was making as realized. And we had that adequate infrastructure in place. Okay. Can you explain what that adequate infrastructure is? I'm thinking of Federal Boulevard, which is a really good service. Yeah, but it is proposed in the future for BRT. I'm sorry, bus rapid transit speak, an acronym. So would this not apply until and unless the BRT is built out on Federal Boulevard and it would not apply now when it's simply the Route 31 and 30? That is correct. So I think the nuance of it is it's not just saying transit corridors as they exist today and have high frequency transit service, but corridors as they exist as Denver moves envisions them with not only high frequency transit service, but also the infrastructure in place to support that high, high frequency frequency capacity where you have, you know, unloading offloading off of station. So all of that is detailed in the definition in the Denver zoning code. I thought I had it printed here, but I don't. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I really appreciate it. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilmember Sawyer, we have you back in the queue, but I wanted to see if I could go to each and Ortega first. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember. Can each. Thank you. Council President I just wanted to clarify two questions so everyone understands what they're voting on. You and Councilwoman Sandoval had a long conversation, but I just want to underscore. So if this amendment were to pass, we wouldn't just lose the parking exemption that Councilwoman Sandoval introduced for bus. Is that correct? What would we also lose? Yes, we would also lose the parking exemption of sites that are providing enhanced affordability within a quarter mile of a fixed rail transit station. So it entirely eliminates options for projects to to provide zero parking and provide that higher level of affordability. And we did not get feedback about that exemption around rail. So we would be losing an exemption. We got no negative feedback about, generally speaking. None, none. That I have directly received through our various feedback forms. The second question I want to ask is the exemption is not only available to market rate developers. So there was some rationale that, you know, this is going to change. But can you please describe how the incentives in this bill are also available to affordable developers and how this amendment would affect them? Yeah, absolutely. So, you know, while this is designed with market rate developers in mind, it has also been designed with how do we remove existing known barriers to affordable housing development of those low tech projects that are providing the deeply affordable, much necessary affordable housing that we need in the city. And so by even though they do have that existing point one alternative parking ratio for units at or below 60%, AMI this did allow for those projects to build on those really small, unique, challenging sites at a to zero parking ratio. So by peeling this back, it not only would have impacts on the market rate projects which have candidly kind of said Denver's not quite there yet. We need we need this infrastructure to come along. But the affordable housing projects, some of these really small sites, they can't fit the parking and the needed turn radius to develop the housing on it. And so it allows for them to actually go in and access some parcels that might otherwise be passed up by market rate developers, because there's still that expectation of needing to provide vehicle parking in the market rate development. So does that clarify? Thank you. So I'm just going to add my comments. I appreciate that. There are places where we as colleagues may just differ. So I respect the concerns that my colleague has. I will not be supporting this amendment tonight for the following reasons. One, because it does take us backwards on rail, and also because I believe that our bus rapid transit investments, when they are made with capital infrastructure, are intended to deliver rapid transit and the type of infrastructure to more neighborhoods than we would get through rail alone. So I supported the original Sandoval amendment and worked with the team and supported the creation of that very narrow piece. And so I absolutely do not believe that we need to remove this exemption, not just from those bus corridors, but also from those rail corridors. So that's the first reason. Secondly, I, I do not respectfully agree with the rationale behind the amendment. Affordable developers have always, in this city, had to compete with market rate developers for land. It's very rare that a piece of donated or city land is available. So this is not a new phenomenon. And yet they have managed repeatedly to identify more parcels than we've been able to find. Every year, multiple projects go into the low income housing tax credit application round and only a few are selected and other projects, unfortunately, are unable to succeed. That's on us to continue to grow the the resources that we have. But we have seen, you know, time and time again, that doesn't mean every affordable developer is able to take down every piece of property they compete for. But it means that we don't need to change our zoning code in an attempt to try to create market outcomes that have, you know, for decades managed to occur even in a tough market. I don't at all envy those affordable developers having to go out and do that competition. But there's no reason and there's no evidence behind the fact that this parking reduction alone would somehow create a differential in their ability to compete for land. There's just not data to support that. So for those reasons and then finally for the fact that we have a very dedicated planning board and a very dedicated set of stakeholders who spent time on this. And there was strong support from the stakeholders as well as from the Planning Board, for us to treat bus rapid transit a little more equitably with rail. That's the original intent behind the amendment. So for those reasons, I will not be supporting the amendments and I would urge my colleagues to reject it as well with the comfort that the market has been building plenty of parking in plenty of places where they're already not required to build any like downtown. The market has not under built parking in this city to date. And so I think that we do not need to go through back flips in our zoning code for for that purpose. So thank you very much, Council President. Thank you. Councilmember each. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. I wanted to ask an ELISA question about the developments that we're seeing so far at our TOD sites and what am i levels that we have seen commitments to. At a high level. I don't know if I have a clear answer for you is that's not something that I've specifically been tracking. I think it's important to note that today we do not have any requirements to construct affordable housing. We have a very nominal linkage, which most people choose, and then we have our affordable housing projects that the city has opportunities to put funding into. And then there's a handful of projects that pursue voluntary housing agreements as a part of rezoning. So if there's something in those three segments that's of particular interest, I'm happy to follow up on that. But generally, I don't think I have a summary point. My apologies. Okay. No problem. Thank you for answering the question. I wanted to speak in support of this amendment and. Let me spell out what those reasons are. First of all, I have served on the board of a nonprofit housing development group as the president for many, many years. Keep trying to give away that role to my colleagues, and none of them choose to take that. But I've had intimate involvement with many of the projects that we have worked on. They're all low income projects, and it takes multiple rounds to go through the low income tax credit application process with the Colorado Housing Finance Authority, because the dollars are very competitive, both for the 9% and the 4% dollars. What I have seen in the development that has occurred across our city where they are private development and they're being asked to include affordable housing lots of times, even when we have some of our money in there, we're typically seeing commitments at 60 or 80% . Those are typically people that own cars. Where we see folks that typically don't own cars are 0 to 30% of the area median income. And even in projects that have the 0 to 30. Typically for nonprofits, they are blending incomes of people in a building there, not a project that is all 0 to 30 of the am I. It's a mix of 0 to 30 on up to typically 60, maybe 70% on the high end. So I am concerned that we are seeing for low income people that will live in a project that is an affordable unit, they're not going to they're not going to own a car. They're not going to need a parking spot. And they will be the people challenged to go find a parking spot for their cars. Yes, we all want to see people get out of their cars. But until we have the right transit system and the connectivity that allows people to get out of their car and address their first mile, last mile, we will still have people driving their cars, which is why we've actually been bringing some people from different countries and states to have presentations with this body to help us look at expanding our thinking about how we do transportation in this city. So I think this is a reasonable request. I really believe that there is a threshold difference between the 0 to 30 projects and anything from 60% above. And I would suggest that assuming this bill moves forward tonight, with or without the amendment, that we should address that threshold difference and review this ordinance at some time in the future to see exactly what is happening with the difference between those two emission levels and what's happening with the the parking issues and challenges. I can remember going to see a project in Seattle and I think some of you were part of the trip. I think this was a partnership trip, if I'm not mistaken. And we saw some affordable micro units that didn't have any parking and the people who lived in those units had cars and they were having to park four and five blocks away carrying their groceries. None of them had children because the units were too tiny. They were basically targeted for single individuals. But I don't want to exacerbate our parking issues, and I clearly understand there is an additional cost to create a parking space for a unit in these projects. But at the same time, I don't want to create a classism problem that says if you live in a low income unit, you're going to have to park your car further away because we just don't have a parking spot for you. But if you can afford one of the, you know, higher, more expensive units, then you'll get a parking spot in in your in the building. And that's that's a huge concern for me. So I will be supporting this amendment tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ortega. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. Just wanted to ask Anshul to clarify. I heard several councilmembers say that this would that this was a drafting thing that would remove the parking exemption. And it does remove the parking exemption and replace it with 0.1 or 10% parking requirements for the total unit. Can you just walk through that with me and maybe clarify and confirm that what I'm saying is correct because it sort of presented a little bit differently. Sure. Thanks, Councilman Sawyer. So the the amendment that you're proposing would remove the exemption that's enjoyed by the and compliant structures in those areas, by rail transit authorities and then those particular design districts. And that exemption will point 9 to 27.1 units per unit. So it does apply to rail? Correct. And it does apply to BRT. Got it. It's just doing nothing else but changing. 02.1. Correct. Okay, great. Thank you for clarifying question for analysts really quickly. You had mentioned that you didn't have time to really take a look and dig in at this amendment. When was the first time I contacted you about this amendment? You followed up after alluding and I apologize. I've been out on PTO. So. Totally fair. I just wanted to make it very clear that two and a half weeks ago, two weeks ago, I reached out about this amendment. So there was plenty of time. Now, we. Looked at how we could have drafted it, but we weren't sure if you were planning to move forward. That is on my bad for not following up and understanding that this was something that you were seriously considering moving forward. So my apologies. Okay. Interesting. Great. Thank you. I really appreciate that. And no further questions at this time. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer, council member state. Thank you. I support this amendment tonight for many of the reasons my colleagues have shared. I do have some questions for Annalise. Can you tell us how much it costs a developer to build a parking space? Because we don't often talk about that. Yeah, certainly. So it very much depends as to whether it's a surface structured or a sub grade surface is anywhere from 8 to 12000. Sub grade goes up to about $40,000 per parking space structured as around 20 to 30. Obviously, construction costs have gone up substantially in the past year. So it might even be slightly higher than that. So we're talking about a range from 6000 to. About 15,000 or 30,000, 40000 to 40000, $6,000. So that's $40,000 we could be capturing per space that we're waiving to figure out what we want to do with it if we have another mode or method of approaching this. Right. If we charge developers what it costs, market rate developers, what it costs to wave a parking space. I'm not sure if I entirely follow your logic. My apologies. So instead. Of a. Broad brush stroke, exempting parking for market rate and affordable housing developers in these TOD areas, BRT areas. What we could be doing is continuing our parking waiver system and actually charging for each space that's waived and capturing those. Dollars for. Our affordable housing fund. Is that possible? Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. So saying we're going to require you and please correct me if I misunderstand this. So our code will still require you to provide one or 1.25 parking spaces per unit, but will let you provide none or a lower parking ratio if you pay us $40,000 . Is that correct? In terms of the scenario that that you would want to in these particular areas that we're asking them to provide in any way for free? Yeah. So I think it's important to note that while that is the cost to construct parking spaces are often times a revenue source. So in addition to the rents that folks are paying, then they're going to pay an additional cost to access those parking spaces. And so to say, to say a developer don't build a parking space and pay us is really does not have the market operates in terms of development. What this is really trying to do is eliminate a barrier. If we were to say you have to provide parking or pay us. I would be shocked to see a single developer pay us that fee and not provide the parking spaces because. It just doesn't quite work that way. What we see in our peer cities is really them taking a move to action, to getting zoning out of the way as a barrier to providing affordable housing and and ensuring that we're promoting our multimodal transportation system. So, you know, it's been, you know, something that I've heard before, but I, I just don't actually think that we would see anyone take advantage of that and pay into the funding. But we've never tried it, correct? No, we have never tried, nor has it any other city, because I think we understand the basic economics of market development. And the basic economics suggests that a developer can afford parking spaces, but it's more lucrative to not provide it. Correct. No. Right now, the market demands the vast majority of market rate developers are expected to banks are still expecting market rate developers to provide parking, which is why we see the vast majority of market rate developers over parking beyond what the minimum requirement is. What this is really doing is setting up a systems change to allow for areas in our city where we're making significant or have made significant investments to not provide parking in exchange for greater levels of affordability. But there's no control at in the area of transit or BRT. There's no control for making sure that we're getting affordable housing. This applies also to market rate developers, and so this applies to projects that have a covenant restriction, ensuring that they are providing a higher level of affordability. Anything in our zoning code that is one of these incentives requires an affordable housing plan at time of development plan and then a covenant that is recorded against the property in perpetuity prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy and the building permit. So this is not a just I'm a market rate developer and don't feel like providing parking. It is another lever for us to drive the outcomes that we want, which is providing more onsite affordable housing in our transit rich areas and which are making those investments. That higher level is not defined. So we it is it's the enhanced onsite. So in the DMZ, there's the base onsite affordable requirements and then there's the enhanced onsite affordable requirements. They must meet the enhanced onsite affordable requirements, which is a higher percentage of total affordable housing units to access those. They also have the opportunity for other fee and loos in which none of these parking reductions or incentives are available. So if a market rate project says, I'm only going to pay the fee and layer because I don't want to provide affordable housing, that's going to be a painful fee in lieu. And they have no access to these incentives or any of the other ones as a part of this package. But the affordable housing that they create, the value of it doesn't have to match the value that they saved from the parking that they don't have to construct. We don't have a formula. We're not checking that we don't even have a range pin down of what it costs per parking space that we're holding them accountable for. We have done analysis and that's included as a supplement to the financial feasibility to look at what is the added value of the incentives. So there is a notable value that we have calculated. I apologize. I don't know what off the top of my head because there's a lot of different pieces that we looked at. But essentially it shows that it is a significant value. But we also have to reality check it with what the market is expecting, where our lenders are at. We even see sometimes traffic being a little bit hesitant in some areas to go with lower parking ratios. So we know this is an evolution in our conversations and this is really us trying to lead the way of where we want our city to grow and evolve and to start to house people over cars. Well, in the information that you provided us, there was not a sufficient analysis of that. And given that our city has not reached a place where it is feasible to take multiple children across town to different schools in our School of Choice system and get to work in a reasonable amount of time, we are setting up a context where we are not building homes for people with children, for people with more than one job, for people who have disabilities or have medical conditions where they have to get to multiple doctor's appointments on public transit or on foot in a day. We're not building for the people that we say we're trying to house. We're not there yet. And so it seems as if we would be better off trying a more experimental approach to our parking waivers, expanding on the current parking waiver system that we have in a way that lets us control project by project in a more sophisticated way rather than a blanket approach to this. So for those reasons, I do not support the current bill as it stands, and I would support this amendment tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca Councilmember Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I find it interesting that we're having a conversation about not supporting building more housing. We just had a whole entire conversation from people, from public comment who were telling us to build more housing. And so to build two parking spaces is about 600 and give or take 650 700 square feet, two parking spaces for your car. You can also have a condo for 700 square feet. That can house people with two bedrooms, a bathroom and a closet, actually, a really nice condo. So I prefer to spend money and I would prefer to give incentives to developers, to not house cars and to house people. And that's what this amendment is doing. Just along certain areas where the city and county of Denver is also putting money and dollars to get better transit along our city. I agree with everybody. Our transit is underpass. It is not very accessible. It's not very easy to take. It needs major overhaul and major updating. But we have to live in the reality where we are now. And I would rather have housed two people in a 700 square foot condo than two cars with 700 square feet. So I would hope that my colleagues do not support this amendment and have the bill moving forward as soon as it is presented. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember Sandoval. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please. Sawyer I. Torres They. Black CdeBaca, I. Clark. No. Flynn No. Hines? No. Cashman? No. Kenny Ortega. Sandoval No. Madam President? No, Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. Nine days, 3 hours. Three eyes the amendment to 20 2-424 has failed Council Bill 20 2-424 is on the floor for publication. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 20 to dash 042 for Council member say to market. Just reminding you I explained my call. Outs tonight were for comments to let council members know that there are amendments to review in your inbox tonight so that everyone is not feeling like anything was sprung on them. They are the amendments that I mentioned at committee. So just getting it on record. They are coming to you and I hope you all will support them. Thank you. Councilmember CdeBaca. Councilmember Sawyer. Thanks, Madam President. Just wanted to say that I will be supporting this this evening. Obviously, I'm disappointed that the small change to the Luti amendment was not passed, but this is an incredibly important piece of legislation and no legislation is perfect. So I will still be supporting it tonight because it is too important for a small issue like that. So I just wanted to clarify that I will be voting yes tonight and next week, but I'm disappointed that the the point one parking amendment did not pass. However, this is the legislative process and this is what we do. Thanks. Thank you. Councilmember Sawyer. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 22, dash four. Two, four, please. Sawyer I. Torres, I. Black eye. CdeBaca, I. Clark Eye for an eye. Hines, I. Cashman I. Can eat. Ortega. Sandoval, i. Madam President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 12 Eyes. 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 2-424 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, would you please put the next item up on our screen? Councilmember CdeBaca, would you please go ahead with your comments on 20 2-401, please.

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Universal Protection Service, L.P. for security personnel services. Approves a contract with Universal Protection Services, LP, doing business as Allied Universal Security Services, for $25,000,000 and for three years, with two one-year options to renew, to provide security personnel services in City facilities (GENRL-202055482). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-16-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-6-20.

DenverCityCouncil_10262020_20-1042

Then on Monday, excuse me, November 9th, Council will vote to either adopt or reject the mayor's proposed 2021 budget. Councilmember Torres, will you please put Council Resolution 1042 on the floor for adoption? I move that council resolution 20 dash 1040 to be adopted. It has been moved. Thank you, Councilwoman. It has been seconded. The 30 minute courtesy public hearing for council resolution 20 Dash 1042 is open. May we have the staff report, please? And this key image, I believe and I believe Brandon Gagne is going to provide the staff report for us. Hopefully he's been promoted. All right. We've got him promoted now, so thank you. Hello, everyone. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Sorry for that. I'm sorry for that. Getting off from you and getting promoted. So. Good evening, members of council. My name is Brandon Gainey, representing the Department of General Services. I appreciate your time this evening. I will give a brief report providing a general overview of the security services contract tonight. So we have on the phone with us today, this evening, representatives from the Denver Security Office, excise and licenses, post purchasing and city attorney's office risk management and Dispo to assist with any questions and clarifications. And so I do think there is a presentation that we forwarded to City Council or actually to maybe to Zach. I don't know Zach how we get that on there. And I can keep rolling if we want to wait or not wait on it. So I understand it's late. So it was just really one slide that we were going to keep up there, which was just an informative slide, but really want to start out with sharing the purpose of this contract, which is to ensure the safety and well-being of employees, residents and visitors conducting business in our city facilities. The security guards primary scope of work entails facility entrance screening for to sorry to prevent prohibitive items from being brought into city facilities. Ensuring those that. Are entering city facilities are. Provided with positive customer service and wayfinding and performing routine facility patrols to ensure security practices and protocols are in place. They also assist with locking down and securing city facilities during emergency and responding to emergencies in city facilities using in-person and video surveillance. And lastly, we provide walk or safe walk escorts for anyone leaving a city facility, especially after hours. So the contract states the primary function of agents is to observe and report agents. They shall not use physical force against any person except for the use of reasonable force, only protect oneself or another person. And then only as a last resort. So responses to crimes in emergencies, they're coordinated with local law enforcement and public safety officials. Thank you very much for getting the slide show up there. And I also want to emphasize that these security guard positions are dedicated positions that the city would not otherwise have for the sole purpose of keeping people safe. These positions are filled by dedicated employees who are the city's advocates when it comes to maintaining safe environments for our city facilities. The contract consists of 109 different positions, employing approximately 130 individuals across. 19 city locations. Thanks to the Executive Order 136, which is the non displacement of qualified workers of city service contracts, we expect to keep the overwhelming majority of the city's existing security guards on the city contract. Currently, SEIU Local 105 represents security guards working in the city and county of Denver, and I understand they would also represent security guards under the new Allied contract. Security guard wages are governed by the higher of either the livable wage or the minimum wage, and currently minimum wage is higher set at 25 per hour. However, we know that market rate is the most important comparator and a third party analysis of the proposed contractual wages indicates that they fall within the 75th percentile the industry's market rate with contractual wages ranging from 17 to $24 per hour, depending on the responsibility experience of the position. The contract also offers a comprehensive benefit and wage package, including a $500 retention bonus to those existing employees who choose to stay on the city contract. The contract will also invest up to $4 million back into our local mwb business community through the 16% minority and women business enterprise goals associated with contract. And then I want to talk just a little bit about the request for proposals and selection process that was was taken on through through this RFP process. So the purchasing division, the selection committee, followed a fair and transparent process aligning with Executive Order eight, which establishes the policy and procedures for preparation and execution of city contracts. Selection Committee consisted of a cross-agency representation from Department of Motor Vehicles, Denver Animal Shelter Facilities Management, Denver County Courts and the Denver Security Office, all of whom are stakeholders in the city security program. Various members of the city teams work extremely hard to make improvements on the existing security contract by increasing training requirements, implementing a quarterly review scorecard and introducing punitive damages for contract noncompliance. None of those things were in the existing contract or are in the existing contract. Lastly, I want to share where we see opportunities for improvement. I believe in continuous improvement. Continuous improvement is actually included in the contract scope of work. I believe in giving people an opportunity to learn and improve from mistakes. I, along with those that are here representing the contract tonight, denounced the inexcusable crime committed against Rivera's minute. And three former allied security guards that have been sentenced to prison as a result of the crime. I believe his contract can be used as a vehicle to change the way security guard services are provided throughout Denver. I want us to lead by example, by leveraging the city's emphasis on equity in applying it to how this contract is managed. I want to thank you for your time, and I'll turn it back over to you. Madam President. All right. Thank you, Brandon. And we have a 30 minute courtesy public hearing that we will hear from members of the community. We have 24 people signed up. But I want to give a reminder, we only have a half an hour allocated. And so if folks can keep their comments brief, we will try to get through as many individuals as we possibly can. And our first speaker is Jeremy Lee. Council president. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. On four questions. I'm sorry for Jeremy Lane. Okay, great. All right. Thank you. And then I'm assuming then Mike Daly is with Jeremy there. That's awesome. That's great. Very good. All right. We will go ahead and move to Dr. Nita Mosby. Tyler. Thank you, Madam President. Thanks for this opportunity. I I'd like to just share a couple of things on on this matter. I'm seeing this as a real opportunity for us to influence, of course, the security services and Denver buildings, but honestly, to really effectuate change on the industry and this opportunity to do it through Ally. I think this is an opportunity for us to influence how security systems and services are provided, and working with a company to change their own company is a good thing for us to be doing the work with their employees, their interactions with our fellow Denver residents and and our guests. I have started to work on the scope of services with with Allied, and I wanted to share just a little bit about the scope. One of the things that I have shared with them that I would think would be a mandatory thing to do is to provide an equity audit of all of their training programs with the potential to even certify or credential some of the programs that either get developed out of this or redesigned out of this. We also have recommended an equity blueprint or a roadmap that includes the strategies, goals and tactics for allied in this work as well. I think more importantly, there has to be an intentional focus on some direct outreach to communities, especially the ones that have experienced harm from the Union Station event involving Mr. in that. And I would absolutely take the lead and leverage other community members in helping with that. The last thing that I would want to share with you in this opportunity, which I think would be a an important one for us to do as we think about the advancement of systems of equity is to talk about the timing of this. I've heard comments that, you know, was this timing of reaching out to me at the equity project reactive or was this something the company was thinking about doing? And I have to just be frank with all of you as council members, there's rarely a client that I have ever worked with that didn't do both. They were reaching out on something that was reactive while having a commitment to undertake work intentionally. And I think that that would be the case here to undertaking intentional actions to provide restorative justice in the communities. Thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to share my really vulnerable thoughts about this manner. I do think it is a big opportunity for us to model what we mean when we say create a system of equity. What an opportunity for us to work through another organization just to do that. Thanks for the time. Thank you. Our next speaker is on the leave, the Victoria Lobo. And I'm sorry for any mispronunciations. Thank you, Madam President. Good evening. My name is Angelica, Victoria Lobo. And I'm the national campaign director. For janitorial and security. Services for the. Service Employees. International Union with headquarters in Washington, DC. SEIU represents nearly 2 million. Members throughout the United. States, Canada and Puerto Rico. In the health care. Public and property services sectors, including approximately 70,000 security offices. I thank you for letting me speak. To you today. About the relationship the SEIU has had with Allied Universal Security Services. Over the past decade and spanning. Multiple markets from coast to coast through our many locals. We have a strong collective bargaining agreements. With Allied that cover. Contracted out security. Services at public accounts, commercial real estate, universities. Hospitals and tech. Campuses. These CBAs. Over. 20 in fact, allow for all local such as local one, two, five and allied. To have very. Productive labor management. Partnerships which. Have one, provided. Good union jobs with health care and a living wage to over thousands of security officers from New York to Boston to Chicago to Seattle, Portland and throughout. California to have created responsible contracting. Relationships with ensure essential, excellent service and lower turnover. To clients. And have raised security industry standards across the country. We believe that in Denver, a labor management partnership will also be particularly valuable for purposes of allied training, curriculum. SEIU and in particular our standard for Stand for Security Campaign is committed to racial justice work. We believe de-escalation and implicit bias trainings with feedback from security officers are crucial to reducing. Turnover. And ensuring the delivery of quality security services to communities. SEIU and our security locals look forward to continuing to work with responsible contractors like Allied to ensure that security officers have a voice on the job. That we are working to provide the best opportunities for these hardworking men and women, and that we continue to keep the security industry moving with its best foot forward. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Catherine Fleming. You might need to meet yourself. Hi there. I'm so sorry you won't be able to look at me because I am live streaming this on all my other platforms right now. So I'm not specifically for or against this contract, but all I really want to know is what the are you people thinking this company be reversed in it within an inch of its life and it's given all of your opposition fodder for months. It's one of the things we talk about. It's not the only thing we talk about that in the middle of a movement for Black Lives, what in the world makes you think this is a good idea? Who is advising you? All of you need help. This is terrible. Not only the optics, terrible, but the fact that you have to come in and explain. Well, at 10:00 at night, waiting everybody else out, why we're going to be leaders and set the example. If it you screwed up that bad, I promise we would not let you set the example of how to fix it. Why in the world are you going to pay $25 million to this gigantic corporation to do better? Which one of them I would like to know is putting money in your pockets or helping you find your next campaign. Either way, you are failing all of your people. You have failed. Reverse connect. You are failing me and you're failing my kid who came in earlier asking me, Mom, I'm scared of dying. He has autism and he knows he's likely to die at the hands of the police while you sit there and do nothing. Absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, and nutjob on the internets been posting pictures of my family and my home while the police say they can't do anything. And he continues to do this to elected officials. The police are useless, defund them. This company ally, it is terrible. Who is advising you? And why do you need me. To stay on TV? Staying up late past my bedtime. To tell you what the right thing to do. Is? How in the world is. There a question left in your mind? Clearly, the education system here. Failed you as well. That's all. Have a good night, y'all. Thank you. Next up, we have Shannon Hoffman. Good evening, Michigan and Hoffman. I am a member of District ten. Thank you so much for staying up late with us for this discussion. I'm tired. I will also be tired tomorrow when I administer the S.A.T. to my students at Northeast Early College and mom below. And I hope that you will remember the black and brown students I support and their families and loved ones who are disproportionately targeted by a police state. When you cast your vote on this contract in a recent production about Rivera, Jeanette Rivera, an actor who plays him, says, What will you do with your hands? And that's what we're asking you tonight. We as a city, both RTD and the city of Denver, are about to give $65 million to a company that has a history of violence. And we have not given a single dime to Rivera's. Jeanette And thank you to the folks from SEIU who are on here. I am not against workers. This is all about all of us fighting together against a corrupt system. I'm scared because of how you have voted earlier tonight to use this CARES funding for Allied. But I hope that perhaps on this three year contract one of you might have it within your heart to change your mind. One of you might look outside and see that there's snow on the ground and there are people sleeping outside because they're afraid to go to shelters and they will be more scared with a violent security company there. We will all be scared and be afraid in our public spaces with this company terrorizing our city. And I sat in the Finance and Governance Committee meeting where Cami Joly presented this and made it seem like there's just no other company that can do what Allied can do. And then in the Denver Post says, But of course, a large company would have so many lawsuits against it. And I just don't think that's true. We don't have to live like this. We don't have to live in a constant police state. And I really encourage you to read Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler to see what happens when when we allow this to happen. And, you know. To what Councilwoman Candace CdeBaca mentioned in that committee meeting. Where is community voice in this process? Why do folks get to make a presentation before this? And none of our community members get to have a voice in this process and who you hire. Thank you for this opportunity to to give voice this evening. Thank you. Our next speaker is James Ginsburg. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm James. Ginsberg. I'm the deputy director of Housing, Stability and Homelessness, the resolution for the Department of Housing Stability. And I'm really here to just verify that as oversee multiple contracts with our nonprofit shelter providers. And over the past six months, Allied has been a a very positive partner in providing security at the shelter at National Western and at the Coliseum, as well as more recently across shelter. And the report is, while I don't have firsthand experience, the report from our partners is they have been very engaged, very good communicators. They're certainly working with a very vulnerable population. They've adhered to our are calls for trauma informed engagement and principles. And they continue to adjust to any feedback from our partners and to communicate clearly. And I certainly want to verify that they've been a positive partner. All right. Thank you, James. Up next, we have Rebecca Henderson. Oh, I'm back again. This is my comment. From last week that I didn't get to do so. My name is Rebecca Henderson. I am a resident of Denver Central Park. Neighborhood tonight vote to give $25 million to Allied Universal in light of. Their reprehensible treatment of Rivera tonight, as well as other violent. And murderous incidents across the country is a travesty. And I do ask you to vote. Now and become truly transformative leaders. I realize I've asked you to do this before I sent you these comments in an email. I do not believe. I have heard back. Sometimes I know the emails and we get lost. And there are things. That I did send you. A podcast that I thought would be helpful for you to listen to. I'm thinking as we're starting to. Really think about what it means to. Defund the. Police. And I also. Wanted to bring up the killing of weed killer. This week. And I was actually last weekend at the Denver Art Museum, and the man who killed him was a private security guard. And again, this is why we're asking you to be the most thoughtful about you that you've ever. Written and to really listen. And as we're watching, like, fascism, like for real, because I even. Think fascism is not a thing you can like. I mean, I'm just saying. Okay. I do wonder, you know. What would I have done in Nazi Germany? And I want you guys to also think about when you're looking at like, what about your legacy? What are your children going to say if you have any children, you know? I know I don't want it so late, but at the same time, I just. I just want you memory. Nothing. Well, they. Will. They will. Will people look back and say. I'm so proud of you and you fought on the side of the people and made the world a better place? You feeling much like the descendants of slave owners, white supremacists and racists ashamed of their ancestors of crimes against humanity that they committed? Will your descendants and families look back on you with pride. Or shame. If future legacy does not move you to do what's right? And I do hope you can be moved by the testimony of your constituents. And I know it's really scary to be part of transformation and to be brave, but. And it makes sense. But what are we going to do? We can't do anything. I am confident that you. Will come up with solutions. Okay. And I think that. If by voting no tonight, you are going to demonstrate. That. You do you do care. The value, you know, was brought up. We put our money where our values are. And I mean, it's I would love. To see you vote now on this country. Thank you. And I know it's been long. And I was here the whole time. Ooh, ooh. I cut. All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Mary Buckley. I'm sorry. Lisa Buckley. I'm sorry about that, Lisa. Good evening. Madam. President. You do that for the long day that you had. So thank you so much for the opportunity. I am not only a 20 year veteran, if you will, of. Owning my own business along with my husband. I also am a mother of two beautiful kids. My son, who is. 18 and my daughter who is 13. And so many of the things that we. Go through today as a community, as a citizenry. I go to bed at night. With those same thoughts. When my son be okay, will he be safe? Will my daughter be safe? And more than that, what am I doing as a part of this. Community to help that. To be a reality? It is just a. Honor to. Be here tonight. This for my company as an opportunity to be at the table. With companies like like Ally. Like the great doctor that spoke earlier. To be a part of. A process in our community that will. Take us all forward. 2020 is unique to all of us in so many different ways. My heart breaks for the. Various companies and families and people that have not only suffered from this terrible. Pandemic, but have also had to lose businesses, lose livelihoods, lose jobs. I am proud within my company that we are approximately 40% female and approximately 80% people of color. Ah, my husband and I. Perfect. No, not. Not by a long shot. But every day we grow to learn and to improve. But the other. Thing, too, is to be. That voice at the table. To be able to understand what our community not only deserves. But demands and should have of us. And that is any person that we come into contact with in our industry, as we would call it. Civilians. To be treated with respect. To be treated with dignity, to be treated in such a way that I would like my son to be treated. In this regard. Again, this is a opportunity for us to be at the table on this contract, basically 20 years in the making. But we've we've worked hard. We've learned our craft, and we understand and we won't be silent. We will be. There to do the right thing. Madam President. Council community leaders, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Thank you. Next up, we have Luis Ponce. Is a thank you, Madam President. Good evening. My name is Response and I'm the research director for ACA will go one on five. I'll going to speak first on behalf of Earn. And as Hicks is an actress as. Employee and member of SEIU Local 105. And he's actually the lead unions. To work for the agencies, the US contracts. Then I will make some brief. Remarks as a. Representative of SEIU. Look, a lot of members of City Council as an employer for the current contract holder, HHS, me and my fellow SEIU Local one on five union members realize that. Tonight many factors are being done. For Robin. As you move forward, what sort of I'd like to hear some more about some of the guidelines or protocol. 94% yes vote in March 2018. Since then, as a union, we have made significant strides to. Improve working conditions, gain higher pay, increase PTO and possibly most important, fair and equal treatment among all employees at a higher level than my own. SEIU has had dialog with other universal. Mainly because of the relationship between the two working within our contracts around the country. From these conversations, it is understood that Universal intends to assume and honor. The current union contract held between SEIU Local one and five. And it says if awarded in the US contract. Therefore, it is my humble opinion that all you in the original will be a safe choice to retain for the biggest contract. Because we know they are going to respect the contract union. And hire all current employees as long as they. Pass the background checks. Again, ladies and gentlemen of the Denver City Council, thank you for hearing me out on this matter in unity. Ernest Hicks. Now I'm going to make remarks us on the SEIU one on five Representative. We as SEIU Local 125. We are a union representing the 100 security officers working grandly in the city and county of Denver. We support all universal getting this contract. SEIU has had a long and constructive national relationship with ALID across. The country and in many other SEIU markets, where they have shown to be a responsible contractor in Denver and it has committed to continue being a. Responsible contractor and keep this work. Union respecting the wages, benefits and rights this local, one of five security officers have already won. Hourly, it has also committed to retaining the security officers. Who have protected. And security buildings for years, which means that the hardworking. Dedicated security officers who you know and trust will continue to keep our buildings, public spaces and communities safe. We will also be consulting with and providing. Feedback throughout training for this union's security officers. With our members and the Denver community's. Best interests in mind. We look forward to working with Allied. And ensure good jobs and high quality services for the city. And that's your time tonight. Thank you. Next up, we have Ian Tafoya. Hello. Of City Council interview. You know, I had a chance to meet Ramiro right after this happened, and he was literally coloring in a book, and he wasn't sure if he was ever going to read again. I'm very happy to see that we move forward. But beginning at that point, we began these conversations about the privatization of security of of islands, of merchant guards and oversight. But I want to go back one step and say to whomever is saying that the shelter experience is so damn great, then why aren't people going to them? Right. This is just one entry point in a system that is so flawed and so broken. And I don't think we need that much security over the people who are going there. I work with these people on a on a weekly basis. I'm out in the fields again. I want to say privatization. Who is that serving? And why can't they? Why can't the city sheriffs? And this is a solution I want to put in front of you. 19 locations, 109 positions. The sheriffs have $150 million budget. We have a record low jail population. Why wouldn't we want them policing their own buildings where they have the most oversight? Listening to a private firm call people, civilians get real. You are civilians. You are not military or police, but you act like you are policemen sometimes. We all know that privatized security has crossed the line far too many times to continue. It's also a place where people go to to seek power, to abuse power, where we might see people go once they're kicked out of the police department. This is a three year three contract with two extensions, five years. If we had sheriffs, we had a oh, I am. Is there oversight or more public accountability on public property and to the union people? They would be a union with the higher standards and being included in with the Fraternal Order of Police here in the city . And in the time where only 11 of these officers have weapons and were escalating, wouldn't you feel safer with the sheriff anyways? I will say, though, that a merchant guard system does need to have overhaul, that we need to be looking at this. We've seen mistakes happening along the way and we're authorizing this private security. And I really think it's a fundamental part in restructuring the justice system. And the last thing I want to say is I have not heard a single community member, and I want you to be careful if any community member comes here to testify in favor that doesn't have skin in the game, because what I'm hearing are people who stand to gain from this and people are in the community who are frustrated and want something different. I think you can extend whoever is serving now in the interim, but I really want you to think about the sheriff, 150 million and the smallest population . It would build goodwill to the public to interact with these people. Oversight is better. We should serve our own citizens with our own safety. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Warner Smith. Hello. My name is Warren Smith. I've been with Allied for seven years. Retired military spent 22 years in the military and part of that was with the Colorado National Guard. I am a licensed security guard officer. They had my background check and everything before I could become a security guard with Allied. I've been lucky in my seven years with Allied to work with different avenues. I was on the original 16th Street Mall project as an armed security, working with the homeless folks and stuff down there. I also lived in Samaritan House. I was homeless, so I was able to talk to homeless folks and let them understand that I do get what they've gone through. I've been there. I also have been to a lot of training, which I really like with Allied. We have training monthly, quarterly and yearly. One of the trainings is about safety, our safety program, where I, as security personnel can talk to my employer. The place I'm stationed at and let them know I see situations that are wrong. I also report a bad officer. Now, security. Work is not easy. We are supposed to deal with our clients, take care of people answering questions, keep the peace. And a lot of times Reagan abuse. In fact, some officers have been killed just trying to help people out on the street. This company is really good. I enjoy living here in Denver. I love the interaction that we have. And again, I am not a police officer. I know my role and in our training we learn that. We learn the laws. We learn the things that we are supposed to do and can not do. De-escalation is one of the biggest things. We try not to put ourself in danger because that is not my role. My biggest role is use my eyes and use a pen that is more effective, and that's what we try to do. Do we have some bad people and we find them? But this is a great company and I'm proud to be with them. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. And we're rounding out the half hour that we had allotted for the courtesy public hearing. And so our last speaker will be Morrow Zacharias. Yes. Thank you. My name is Mara Zacarias. I'm from Fort Collins, Colorado. I have a daughter and a future. Son in law who live in Capitol Hill in downtown Denver. I watch the. Play. I am Rivero. It is so upsetting. That it's I'm actually welling up right now to think about the egregious abuse of this man. To think about how his life is altered forever, to think about how there. Is still no. Settlement. And this company that we think is going to be good and is changing their ways. There is still no settlement. There is still no restitution. To Rivera obstinate. I think about the phone call that we just started. And, you know, I've been here for four and a half hours. I heard about the diabetic person and the little boy who was on the call earlier. The diabetic. And keeping him safe. And you agreed to that resolution. But you know, even a diabetic child, they can become incoherent, they can become aggressive, they can become anxious keeping if their blood sugar levels aren't out of whack. I wonder how an allied security guard would handle that diabetic child. In light of what we've seen. You know, Ribeiro did nothing. He was an artist. He did nothing. And he has a traumatic brain injury at this point. It's been difficult for me to be on this call this whole time, listening to people from unions. People have an interest in doing this work. I appreciate that. But I am just here as a citizen who has an interest in keeping people safe. This is a company with a plethora of podcasts, CPR and PR information on sexual harassment, racial biases. They're talking about coming back and doing some trainings in punitive damages for noncompliance. Allow me to mention what we know about organizations, because I am an organizational development expert. Organizations really learn from the top down what the values are from the CEO. It's not a matter of training. It's a matter of knowing the values of the CEO on down. I really hope that you keep us all safe. I really hope that this issue gets returned to providing for the safety of our citizens. In the Denver area. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you to all of our speakers who stayed with us through what we know is a very long evening and I'm sorry to the speakers that we weren't able to get to tonight, but we wanted to maintain the half an hour courtesy public hearing. And so we will have questions from members of council. Councilman Haines. Thank you, Madam President. Allied security. You all have a credibility problem. I just want to start with General Services. So if I could chat with someone from General Services, I think that you're the stewards of the contract. There were the question I got. Just start with the questions. There were three bidders for this contract, correct? Yes. Councilman Hines, this is Kim. Okay, great. And what were the other two companies? The current contractor, HCA, and then Securitas. Okay. Um, were there any local vendors who placed bids on the contract? I know those were the only three. There were two other companies that did bid. However, they did not meet the dispo criteria. Hmm. Okay. So you said Securitas? Yes, sir. And are. Are those? Is Securitas also engaged in the very visible discussion about the shooting near the art museum? I know that Pinkerton was definitely identified. I don't know if security was also identified. Do you know? I believe Securitas and purchased Pinkerton sometime ago. So they are both in nature. Okay, so. So I can't comment on whether or not. If there's any sort of direct correlation there and how that that relationship works. I don't know those details. Okay. But I think it's fair to say that they also have a credibility problem here in Denver. So are there any local vendors who could perform this contract? Like why? Why did no local vendors apply. Sought so yet? Great question, Councilman Himes. And I think that the issue that the city runs into is that it's the size of the contracts. So, you know, we're a fairly large contract. Several of our facilities are 24 seven with multiple positions. And so it is definitely the size of our contract that is a bit more difficult to staff and to be responsive to the RFP. It has been mentioned on a few occasions during some of our committee meetings and then some of our individual discussions that, you know, why? Why can't we unbundle or split this contract into multiple contracts? We could do that. I think that there are some definite, pretty significant risks whenever you look at doing something like that for a security contract. And, you know, our chief security officer who is on the call, George Hunt, as well as our contacts here locally with the Department of Homeland Security, have definitely advised against doing that and for a few different reasons. And, you know, this could lead to significant risks, such as force on force incidents, communication protocol differences, some inefficiency of management, as well as difficulties in just managing any of our emergency or crisis response when we have to have a coordinated response around a particular issue, possibly in the downtown core area, which a lot of our buildings are. So. So someone just mentioned that each SS is a local vendor. Is that. True? You're a Colorado vendor. That's that's yes, that is correct. Okay. And they have held the contract for 13 plus years. That's correct. And they did apply. They met the the maybe threshold, but they were not selected. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. And then Mr. Tafoya suggested that our sheriffs might could take the contract. Why? Why is that not a viable option or is it a viable option? Sure. So we do work very, very closely with the Denver Sheriff's Department in several of our buildings where there are court functions. And because they do obviously operate very closely with with the courts. And so, you know, if we did the cost analysis on that, I would imagine that we would probably triple the dollar amount of what this contract is, double to triple what it is. And if you can just imagine the the salary of a sheriff versus a security guard, and you're really looking at apples and oranges there as far as how much that would be. So and so it would be cost prohibitive to this prohibitive to the city as well. And so layered security was had the contract in Union Station on behalf of our duty is our right. I believe so. There are allies Mike Daly and Jeremy Lee are on the line. If you have specific questions about that contract, I'm not well versed in it. Sarah Okay. So I guess the last question I have, Madam President, is and I don't know if it's general services, that is the best answer. RG Considered getting rid of allied security and replacing them with social workers that I think didn't pass. Is that is that right? I think it was a 14 to 1 vote against doing that is at least what I saw in the media. And I don't know if perhaps Mike wants to unmute and just confirm that for Councilman Hines. Yeah. Councilman, can you hear us? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That is true. McKamey said it was, I believe it was either 14 or 15 to 1 vote by our board of directors to not do that, sir. Okay. Thank you. That's all for now. Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilwoman Black. Thanks, Madam President. Several speakers mentioned a settlement. With Mr. Synnott. It can. Jeremy. Jeremy and Jeremy Leigh, can you please. Provide some information about that. Yes. Councilwoman Black, thank you. So we have I do have a joint statement from Allied Universal, as well as. Counsel for Mr. Stein, that they have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the claims arising from the 2018. Incident. April The agreement is subject to. Finalization of formal documentation. Both parties were able to work cooperatively to address this unfortunate incident. So we do have an agreement in principle currently with that interested in. All right. Thank you. That's all I have, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. Also, for Mr. Lee and Mr. Daley, were your Denver staff or your Denver contracts unionized prior to working recently with SEIU? Oh, not currently. Nope, not at all. So this is our first opportunity to work with the local SEIU. But you've got union. Is it true that you've got union contracts in other states or other cities? Yeah, that's correct. Is that accurate? Okay. Thank you so much. Cami, just a question for you. Was the did the decision come down to a bottom line bid between the three vendors who bid it and made it to kind of the final round? Yes. And thank you. Councilwoman Turismo and the evaluation committee looked at a lot of different criteria. So it wasn't just the cost of the contracts. And because all of the bids came in relatively around the same dollar amount and which kind of shows that they all fit the contract very, very well from a pricing perspective. Really, what the evaluation committee looked at was the hiring and how the how the companies went about their hiring and background checks included as well as retaining because it's very important for us first as a city to maintain as many staff as possible from the current contract as well as the training. And I've spoken at length with many of the councilmembers and leading up to this meeting about our expectations as far as training with the city. We went from 24 hours of a mandatory training before going on to post to 40, 40 hours, and that's for an unarmed guard at the most basic sort of level. And then the training increases from there as guards go to different levels as well. As, you know, I believe Warner Smith mentioned as well, the The Monthly, The Quarterly, the annual training on top of that. And also it was the transition plan, again, really focusing on how the this contract, because it is such a major contract for the city would transition very seamlessly and successfully from the current vendor to the new vendor. So having a well thought out transition plan as well as, you know, the focus on customer service and then of course the overall overall proposal, how that was proposed. And because we get both the written and the written proposal as well as the the virtual interview since we're in a time of COVID. So it was a lot more in addition to the pricing of the contract itself. Is there any criteria or judgment on on unionization of those employees? No. And and our buyer supervisor, unfortunately, with purchasing is is no longer with us. And she did retire. Lance J is on the line. However, I can I can just say that the city remains agnostic whenever it comes to and comes to the the union question. I don't know if Lance J. Wants to unmute, maybe add further add to that, but that is my understanding of that. That's correct, Kimmy. Thank you, Lance. And then final question for you, Cami. Did agencies also have a minority owned business subcontractor or did they subcontract? Yes. So they it was also a 16% goal for assistance contract. And that was achieved through a national. And actually one more question for you. I worked in the Web building for over ten years. I worked in the Memorial City building before that. I don't recall major safety or security issues. Were there issues in the 13 years that each of us held that contract? So when you say issues, do you mean as far as just kind of incidents? We do experience incidents less frequently now just because we have fewer people in our buildings. But I would say just about every day we would have some type of incidents. You know, occasionally it would just be, you know, different types of prohibited items that are being brought in. We do have people that have medical emergencies that our security staff do do respond to and engage with both our security operations center as well as 911 to get assistance on that. But we we are quite busy, I would say. And also George Hunt is on the line. He's our chief security officer. He is he manages the day to day operations of the security contract. He can probably comment a little bit better as far as the incidents that occur in in our facilities. And I'm thinking much may be more egregious. Sorry, Brandon, go ahead. No, I was just going to say, I just want everyone to understand the city's procurement process. It doesn't really base it on historical data. You know, it's about the a fair and transparent process based on a request for proposals and what's submitted and then what makes it through as a response proposal. Once our Department of Small Business Opportunity looks at it. And then it's a very specific criteria that that can be mentioned in terms of scoring that each selection committee member made up of, you know, diverse groups and city agencies works through. So it's a very deliberative process. And so it's not really those other pieces kind of extraneous peripheral pieces typically aren't brought into that process. And so it is customer service is performance based, it's data and metrics. So I just wanted to make sure that that that piece is kind of understood as, as the city moves through any procurement of any contract. Thank you for that. Mr. Hunt, is there any information that you have on perhaps lawsuits filed against each assets in one of our buildings? I understand their daily conflicts, issues and coming through security, things like that. But I'm talking about things that would be really concerning. So assuming I'm unmuted, I'm a little confused by the question. Councilwoman, are you. You're asking about my awareness of lawsuits for agencies or incidents on their own? Both. Okay. So sure to answer the first part there. As Candy pointed out, incidents daily, whether that's in support of someone needing medical assistance. In the downtown core or at DMV's or at the animal shelter. Escalating all the way up to. Unfortunately, incidents that would be much more violent and would be a direct threat or an attack on a. City employee at the animal shelter. They've had several incidents. We've had people typically about once or twice a week attempt to bring firearms into city buildings, whether that's the city county building or the Wellington Webb Building or the Empire Building. We've had bicycle thefts out of some buildings. We've had assaults occur outside buildings and sometimes inside buildings. So we to answer your question, we yes, we do have incidents that run the gamut of medical assistance for someone who's having some issue all the way up to violence. And then the second part of the question, I am unaware of any lawsuit related to HFCS and an incident that would have occurred on city property. The only thing that comes to my mind with HFCS that I'm aware of in any detail at all would be a employment h.r issue internally with with HFCS as a company. And that was something to do if my memory serves me right was back in March and it had something to do with the sheriff's department and an NHS agent on duty. Some type of. Interpersonal drama there. Oh, okay. Thank you, Mr. Hunt. And by definitely my last question, Cami, are these three year contracts each time? That have come before this one in particular. So do we build them out for three years? Yes. So typically they would be bid out for three years plus the two one year extensions? That is correct. So typically, you would look at probably about five years if the performance is there. That's correct. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Madam President, you. Right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman. Oh, thank you, Madam President. Tammy, could you talk a little bit about as I understand it, there is a quarterly review of performance and monetary penalties. I guess what I'm what. I'm looking for. If you could please, as I said, talk about that a bit. But what is what do they have to do for us to say, take a hike? Thank you for the question, Councilman Cashman. I'm actually going to ask and George, once again to add, I'll defer to him on that question. And he wrote those pieces within the RFP and can comment better than I can. George, can you move again, please? Sure. Thank you. So, Councilman Cashman's, excellent question. The Court You are correct. There is a score quarterly scorecard review. And that's. Seven pages, eight pages of very specific questions that deal with the operational status of the security vendor. I'll be very frank. It's not it wasn't it's not allied centric. It's it's security vendor. Whoever the security vendor partner is or ends up being for the city will also be subject to the the quarterly scorecard review process and that that from the city side would be staffed by a stakeholder committee that would include more than likely the same advisory committee that was on the evaluation. So EFM partners, dmv d0f partners, animal shelter partners, etc.. Those those of us that are intimate users of the security services. And the idea is to to rate the security vendor with how they're doing operationally and then also back office management invoicing. Are they listening to what the city needs? And that results in a score line, line item score and an overall score per site. So each patient in the city would receive a score. And if there were items that were that fell below a three rating or below on a scale of 1 to 10, that would instantly invoke a performance improvement plan by the security vendor. Who would need to address why the deficiency and what their plan is to improve it and an associate a timeline to achieve the the improvement. Does that answer. Your question, George? If you can talk about the punitive tour item that was. Sure. So in the punitive language, it's in the contract. That's something that that is not in the current contract with IHS as. We felt in in the general services group that that contract compliance that that was very crucial to have some teeth to the contract. That just to your point, you know, some at some point you need to get someone's attention about trying to accomplish what the city needs, whether that's short staffing or continued short staffing, whether it's intentional or not intentional by the security vendor or refusal to do something that they're contractually bound to. Is the idea behind the punitive language? And to give you an idea of the the den security contract for their security vendor also has punitive language in it similar to the to what we have. And that's, you know, a familiar path that the industry is going towards as far as the client is concerned. And it's not something that Allied or other security vendors are not familiar with. It's a normal and normal thing. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. And thank everyone who's still with us. Still a lot of people with us. It is late at night, so I apologize that I'm asking more questions, but I am surprised to hear that the bids about the bids were about the same for the various vendors and that the incumbent applied but was not selected . So when you you mentioned that there was a scoring process in the selection committee. Does the incumbent have any sort of an advantage? I, I guess I'll go ahead and ask the next question. Change management is hard and it has to be carefully planned. And so, you know, is is there some value placed on that cost of change management? Absolutely. That's an excellent question, Councilman Hines. And so I would say that the evaluation committee throughout the process was very mindful of that. However, I think that that there is something to be said for changing things up, to sort of improve upon things like transparency within data collection, our ability to review records on a daily, if not , you know, real time sort of situation with incidents and you know, post who's who's posted where, what those hours look like. And the data collection I think was extremely challenging with with the current contract. And and I also think that some of the folks that were on the evaluation committee were also looking for more support out in these remote type of locations, which normally have maybe only one person on that post. And so what Allied was able to do through the proposal process was really put in a solid supervisor structure that allowed for a lot of oversight and support and training of those remote sites that we we did not necessarily have in the current contract or was not necessarily proposed on the current contract or with the new contract. So I think to answer your question there, there was a lot of discussion with the evaluation committee on that. And because it is such a major shift and change, however, I do go back to the fact that it's 136 does apply. And so really we are trying, you know, if if we can get a contract executed and, you know, and we're successful there, we can start that transition a.S.A.P and and start to get people information. You know, the current agent assessed folks information about the benefits package and what this looks like of coming over to the contract. So that's the intent is to get as many people on the contract as possible. So perhaps that transition won't be as as difficult as it would be if someone was coming in and just replacing 100% with new staff. Well. So thank you for your candor. I mean, if we did not have transparency on data collection reporting, who's posted where support and remote location and supervisory structures, I mean that. That concerns me. So we do have some of that. So that's and I don't want to misspeak there or I don't want to give the impression that we don't have some of those things in place. I think the evaluation committee was looking for improvements, looking for more of a greater sort of electronic transparency with some of those items. Okay. And then one other I guess one of very lot questions I'd like to hear maybe both from Allied and SEIU. Local 105i don't know, Allied Security. And frankly, based on the information I've heard so far and the responses from committee, you know, I'm I don't trust Allied. However, I do trust SEIU and the leadership team at SEIU Local 105. If this contract contract were approved, how can you ensure that SEIU will be a partner in making sure that security workers are represented? And how can you ensure that SEIU and its members will have a proactive role to ensure that we don't recreate situations like we've heard too often from Allied in Denver and and around the U.S.? Mike and Jeremy. Can you. Yeah. It's Jeremy. I'll answer that. So the answer to that is, it's just there's a real. Appetite to. Partner with our local SEIU. We wouldn't want to jeopardize. Any. National relationship that we have. We've done some great work nationally. Yes. We have not had the opportunity locally to work with these folks. We've had several meetings with them. They've been very positive. There's a real willingness to enter into a relationship to include training audits from their from their folks. And so there's no reason for us not to partner with them and to make this a successful relationship with those folks. So we're all in agreeance. It's going to be better for the program and it's certainly better for the security professionals involved. So it's it's again, there's no reason not to do it. Every reason for us to continue to work on that relationship. And the SEIU brings another community voice to the table, which we think is critical, especially with everything that we've been talking about it, because contracts are. Is the local SEIU, Luis Ponce. Is he. He's he's. Here? Yes. Council members, council member Hines, thanks for your question. We take this with the highest responsibility to partner with earlier in order to better serve our community and to serve the working people that already in majority. You know, people of color, we we believe that by our universal respecting the union contract, keeping the hard fought benefits , enhancing some of them what they have told us as well, us collaborating on training specifically our members on the only training that we already give to our members that we have given throughout the years here in Denver is going to be critical in in moving forward these this contract and really maintaining what the community has been asking . Right. Which is responsibility and and and a mindfulness of of what the community really needs. And I think the the silver lining in all of this is that by having the union. There is an accountability piece that probably, you know, wasn't there before. And now, you know, it will be. There. And I think that that's very important for for the community and for city council members, too. To know that that by our members being local 105 sorry, by the workers being local one or five members, there's going to be an accountability. And an oversight. By by the workers on their job and on their duties. All right. Thank you. And, Madam President, one last question for general services. What if what if, what if this what if you don't say yes? What if this contract dies tonight? What's the next step? Sure. So I can I can answer that and Brandon and please assist if I, if I get anything wrong here. But we will, in essence, look at all of our options. Our our focus has been on doing everything that we can to support this contract going forward. So I don't know that we've spent a great deal of time thinking about the the alternatives with with any and with a lot of focus. You know, we we do know that we have options like potentially going to the other the other proposers for this RFP process or going out to RFP again. And so I know that those are at least a couple of the options that that are available to us. And that would mean that we would have to negotiate for some type of extension with our current provider. And because those processes, as you know, and tend to take some time, obviously a new RFP would take much more time than negotiating with one of the other proposers. And if we add on our current providers one of the other options, right? And so that's why you would theoretically continue the relationship with the current provider if if we ended up selecting the current provider. Yes. So business does have that agreement with the local 105 Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. The public hearing for council resolution 20 Dash 1042 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you. Madam President, this debate has taken a very disappointing turn. We cheapen the lives of black people and unhoused people in a way I couldn't have imagined to have a conversation tonight that even elevates a union contract or diversity training above the real and undeniable deaths of people at the hands of this company right here in our city, on our own taxpayer dollars makes my stomach turn. I wish that the workers we all heard from tonight could start an employee owned company to compete against this narrative that only these companies, these global companies, are capable of competing or implementing these contracts. It's almost as if we're taking a step back in what we're even expecting of police. We've said repeatedly that police are ill equipped to deal with the challenges our city is facing, yet we're employing a company to observe and report and then call the police. Why exactly are we employing people to observe and report when we need, especially in the places that we're employing them, when we need experts to guide, to support, to connect, to de-escalate, to comfort, to assure the people in those spaces. Why are we paying for them to observe and report when we are actually all aware of incidents where they've gotten fatally physical? Why would we not recognize the financial interest of those who were supporting this contract tonight? We're not telling our citizens we want to protect them. We're telling them we're willing to give them money whenever they want it, no matter what. We have no standards. We have no expectations of protection of life. We have no intent to do the hard work to find out what really makes people safe. If the job is observing and reporting, then it makes no sense to me that we're only contracting with one company to do this work. If we can unbundle. If we're nearly 50% reduced in our in-person venues, if we're insistent on civilizing this role, why aren't we taking the moment to do it now? Explore creative options. The sheriffs could have a civilian nice branch of their department. We could do this in a way that creates more accountability and opens us up to less liability and vulnerability with predatory companies. The same issue raised by Ms.. Jolly for not wanting to unbundle the issues of communication protocols, use of force, a lack of a coordinated response among multiple contractors if we were to have them. Those are the exact same real life challenges that led to a loss of life on this agency's watch in our facilities just a few months ago. A settlement after three years and an attempted gag order on this victim doesn't show that ally is changing its ways. It shows us that they know that paying off this case and paying for trainings is needed in order to to silence the opposition to this contract. That's the only leverage they have in this moment. And it was cheap for them to use it. While this company should be doing these things because it's good business, Denver should be doing our own good business and denying this contract we can revisit after they're better trained. When the local cases are settled and paid and they're doing a better job at being humans. We'll come back to it. A simple Google search shows us that in other city councils across the country, they are standing strong and finding this company to be out of alignment with their values and refusing to enter into contracts with them . Why is Denver not taking the lead knowing that they have a history of wage theft, sexism, racism, harassment, intimidation, abuse of force, etc., etc.? Those are all red flags proof a track record that we need to take into consideration. We weren't even told they were in the top running or even in the RFP process for this contract when we had these same issues on their $4 million emergency contract. Until they build a better track record. We need to take human lives as serious as some of us take derogatory comments from national chains. We decide to boycott them in the name of justice for comments. But right now, we're giving $25 million to a company that has stolen lives from people in our very own city. We need a boycott on any entity perpetuating racism, classism, and facilitating murder with taxpayer dollars. That's all I have to say tonight. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore or President Gilmore. And thank you, everybody who stayed to testify. And I apologize on behalf of our body for those of you who stayed and were unable to testify. Thank you, Councilman CdeBaca. I don't see any other hands raised. And so I will go ahead and share my comments. I have looked at this closely and. It's a little bit too late. It's a lot of learning, a lot of shuffling. But it wasn't going to be done unless we asked the questions, unless we held it up in committee, unless we had this courtesy public hearing. But it still seems a bit hollow because. It feels like it's a house of cards a little bit. It feels like there's a lot of change management going on now. When I didn't see it in committee, I didn't hear it on the phone. And so I have regretted and I don't regret any of my votes. I do not. That's not an issue that I have. The one vote that I regret is the vote on this contract at the beginning of the pandemic when we were hiring them for our shelter care. That is the one vote that I regret and I won't regret it again and put that to fate. And so I will not be supporting this tonight either. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. CDEBACA No. Clark. I. When? I. Brendan. I. Hi. No. Cashman? No. Can I? Ortega. I. Sandoval. No. Sawyer. Now. Taurus. No. Black. I. Madam President. No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 65786 I's seven nays. Council Resolution 1042 has failed. The pre adjournment announcement on Monday, November 23rd, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1086, changing the zoning classification for 1010 West Colfax Avenue, 1050 West Colfax Avenue and 1443 Kalama Street in Lincoln Park are required public hearing on Council Bill one 1 to 7 changing the zoning classification for 2655 and 2659 Downing Street in five points and a required public hearing on Council Bill 1128 Changing the zoning classification for 4820 West Hayward Place in West Highland. Any protests against council bills? 1080 61127 or 1128 must be filed with council officers no later than noon on Monday, November 16th. There be no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.

A proclamation honoring the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and its contribution to building the capacity of the Denver Public Library.

DenverCityCouncil_11072016_16-1089

Communications. Do we have any communications? None. Mr. President. We have two proclamations this evening. Councilman Hernan, will you please read Proclamation 1089? Yes, Mr. President, I'm excited to read Proclamation 1089 honoring the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and its contribution to building the capacity of our beloved Denver Public Library. Whereas the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has established itself as a 21st century Andrew Carnegie for public libraries and the people and communities they serve. And. WHEREAS, The Gates Foundation was a pioneer in understanding the risk of the digital divide and the importance of digital inclusion. And. Whereas, The Gates Foundation challenged public libraries to become technology leaders and provided millions of dollars to help libraries become go to resources and trusted guides in an increasingly digital world. And. Whereas, The Gates Foundation provided a significant investment to develop EDGE, a national technology benchmarking system created to ensure that public libraries have the right technology to meet today's needs and the promise of tomorrow. And. Whereas, with its commitment to ensuring that all people have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life, the Gates Foundation has had a profound impact in communities across the country. And. WHEREAS, the work of the Gates Foundation has enhanced the capacity, value and power of public libraries as vital community assets. And. WHEREAS, The Denver Public Library and the residents of Denver have benefited from the vision, commitment and support of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation . Now, therefore, the April claim by the Council, the city and county of Denver, Section one, that the Council recognizes and appreciates the importance of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for its groundbreaking work in support of public libraries and the role of Denver Public Library as an essential community resource to support community goals and meet the diverse educational needs of our residents from birth through senior years and ensure equal access to the opportunities of the 21st century. Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall test and fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Thank you. Councilman Ernie, your motion to adopt. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation 1089 be adopted. It has been moved. And second, it comments by members of Council Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. I, I cannot express in words how important libraries were important to me when I was growing up as a kid. And my favorite book, or I should say my favorite series was the Hardy Boy series. And I remember reading all of those. And during the summer I would read a number of books and I would get pizzas from that, from Pizza Hut back in Kansas City. And it's interesting now, as we become more technology technologically savvy, there's this belief that certain institutions are no longer needed. And sometimes people think that about libraries. I believe that our libraries are more value than are more important than than they've ever been because there is a very real and it was mentioned in this proclamation digital divide or that there's a particular segment of the community that don't have the access to technology that a lot of people just literally take for granted. And that gap that stop gap, for one, is our libraries, for our communities of lower income, for our seniors that people don't think about the way they connected to the world. And their libraries are also community resources where people come for classes, resume building, job search, job searches. Our libraries are more important than ever. And you see that when you think about great programs that we do Summer of Reading, where Northeast Denver always wins, by the way. And we also have the great success on the West Side, I'm sure, Councilman Lopez, and talk about the Corky Gonzales Library and how successful it has been for that community that was built a couple of years ago and has been a huge success. So it's vital that we continue to make sure that our our libraries, our technology staffs and have a great asset to support our community. We have a great library in Montebello. They just opened up their idea lab for young people to come and let their imaginations run wild. And our libraries are that key, our key place to do that. So I'm thankful for the Bill Melinda Gates Foundation for recognizing that. I applaud Denver Public Library for all the work that it does to make sure all of our residents have access to it and the great work that they do each and every day. So I appreciate my colleagues to support this. And thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Seeing no other comments, madam secretary. Raquel Herndon, i. Cashman's I can eat. Lopez. All right, new Ortega. SUSSMAN Black. Clark Hi. Espinosa Hi. Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Mr. President. I. Please close the voting. Announce the results. Lights flashing 13 eyes. 13 eyes proclamation 1089 has passed, has been dubbed it Councilman Herndon. Is there anyone you want to bring up? We do. Our esteemed librarian, I understand, is traveling, but we do have other members from Denver Public Library that would love to come forward and accept this proclamation. Thank you. Members of City Council, we really do appreciate the proclamation as a way that we can express to the Gates Foundation how much we've appreciated the investment that they've made in the technology infrastructure of the Denver Public Library. For literally decades now, they have been investing across the city or across the country and in our city to make sure that we have been able to bridge the digital divide as much as possible. In a budget meeting we just had earlier this month, we talked about what we still have some of those Gates funds left and we're using them to purchase mobile hotspots that are checked out of all by anybody with a library card can come get on the hold list. They're very popular and check one out and take it home so that they can use that technology from the convenience of their own home and not be limited by library facilities and library hours. Last check we had 300 people waiting on the hold list for the hundreds of library hotspots we have now. And so we're going to be buying hundreds more with that money before the end of the year. So thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Councilman Herndon. All right, Councilwoman Black, will you please read Proclamation 1094?

Rezones property located at 5050 South Syracuse Street from B-8 with waivers, UO-1, UO-2 to S-MX-12 in Council District 4. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Rezones property located at 5050 South Syracuse Street from B-8 with waivers, UO-1, UO-2 to S-MX-12 in Council District 4. 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 2-17-16.

DenverCityCouncil_03292016_16-0069

Madam Secretary, please positively announce the results tonight. Tonight, 1937, as amended, has passed. All right. That's not the tempo for the next two. All right. Next, we have two bills, 69. Councilman Brooks, would you please put accountable 69 on the floor for final passage yet? Yes, Mr. President, I place Council Bill 69 to be placed on the floor for final consideration and do pass. Moved and seconded. Public hearing for Councilor Bill 69 is now open. May we have the staff report? Tourism research with community planning and development. How I ended up in the wrong place. So this is a rezoning located at 5050 South Syracuse Street. The request is to rezone from B eight with waivers and use overlay one and use overlay to two suburban mixed use 12 stories. Eight is the former chapter 59 zone district waivers will get into, and the use overlays are for adult uses and for billboards. So this is located in Council District four in the Hampton South neighborhood, generally north of Bellevue Avenue, south of Union Avenue, east of Interstate 25, and west of Goldsmith Gulch. It is within a half mile of the Belleview Station Transit Station. The property is about an acre or 55,000 square feet. Currently a restaurant use and the waivers are for fabrication and wholesale and warehousing and reducing the four area ratio from 4 to 1 to 2 to 1. Property owner is requesting rezoning to get rid of that far limitation. So again, the request is to rezone from eight, which was a heavy business zoned district and very intense business zoned district with waivers. Use overlay one and use overlay two to suburban context. Mixed use 12 storey height. So the suburban context is characterized mostly by single unit and multi-unit and commercial strips and office parks. Single unit is generally suburban house forms. Multi-unit are primarily located on archer arterials and collectors, and the block pattern can vary from a modified grid to in some of the office parks like in this location , very different block shapes and sizes depending on the street on the street system. So again, the context surrounding context is B eight with waivers u0102 The land use is restaurant. It is a one storey building currently. So the waivers that we're talking about do apply to all of the surrounding properties as well. Waive the right to fabricate anything other than art goods, custom clothing, costumes, custom furniture, jewelry and needlework. Waive the right to sell at wholesale and warehouse, but reserve the right to sell at retail. Waive the right to the amount of gross floor floor area allowed in the Bay Zone District, which was that four times the size of the property or the zone lot, and instead have a two times the area of the zone lot requirement. And then the addition of the you will want and you ought to use overlays, allowing adult uses and billboards. And so all of these waivers are the same for the surrounding properties. Again, it is an existing restaurant adjacent to another restaurant to the south, and then surface parking and office buildings of varying heights. You'll see that in the pictures here. The restaurant itself is in the upper right hand corner. The surface parking lot to the east is the middle of the right. The restaurant across the private drive is lower. Right. A five story office building across Syracuse and the lower left. And then a 12 story office building to the northeast of the property, surrounded also by surface parking. So that there is no registered neighborhood organization in the area other than I.N.S. and the Denver Neighborhood Association. So those are the organizations the applicant reached out to. And all of the written notice and posting has been correctly done for both the planning board hearing, the plan committee hearing, and for this hearing and of course, written notice of the receipt of the application. As soon as the application was thought to be complete on November 5th, we notified council and the registered neighborhood associations and to date we have no public comment on this application. So you know the criteria very well. Let's get into them. The plans that are relevant. Our current plan 2000 and Blueprint Denver Current plan tells us to enhance the existing business centers, particularly the DTC Denver Tech Center, which is our second largest employment center, to preserve and enhance the vitality of our business centers and to encourage quality infill development that's in character with the surrounding area. Blueprint Denver Land use concept for the property is employment, where we typically see office warehouse, some light manufacturing and some high tech uses as described in Blueprint. And there are definitely fewer residences with some commercial and industrial uses and the property is in an area of stability. Future street classification for Syracuse Street is mixed use arterial, where we want to see a high degree of mobility and these types of arterials generally interconnect major urban centers like downtown, major shopping centers, major office centers and Syracuse Circle itself is a private street, so we would consider that a local street. Staff believes that the criteria for consistency with adopted plans is met and that we, by getting out of the customs zone district of waivers, that we are furthering the uniformity of district regulations. And by implementing our plans, we are furthering the public health, safety and welfare. The justifying circumstances has changed conditions. The applicant cites the obsolescence of this, of the waivers on the property changing in the property from the restaurant to the office use and the new zone district, allowing care for the property to redevelop in character with the surrounding area. Staff believes this is the appropriate and justifying circumstance. So as far as consistency with the zone, district purpose and intent, we talked a little bit about the suburban and context, the single unit, multi unit in strip centers and office parks, the multi-unit and commercial uses primarily on arterials and collectors and the varying block shapes and sizes depending on the whether it's a modified grid or not, even a grid street system. And then the mixed use zone district does promote safe, active, diverse uses and is appropriate on major arterials, which is, of course, or South Syracuse. So with that staff recommends approval of this rezoning, believes all the criteria are met. Thank you, Miss Cicero. We have one speaker tonight, Michael Campa. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of the Council. My name is Michael Campa and I'm representative of the applicant. And I am here and thank you. In the interest of time, I will remain available to answer any questions. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. So questions from members of the Council, Councilwoman Ortega. I have one question in all of the drawings that were in the PowerPoint. It shows the boundaries actually encroaching into Syracuse Street. Is that intentional or help me? Yeah, I guess if you could address. When we rezone property, we do rezone the street to the center line of the street. Okay. Okay. I hadn't always noticed that in many of the other applications that have been brought forward. No, that's the way we do it. So that there is no in-between. There's always the zone district right up next to another zone district. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Champa. This building is in the Denver Tech Center, and this council is often asking questions about development plans, and you actually have development plans. So I think it would be interesting to hear from you about the architectural controls that are enforced by the Denver Tech Center and also to talk a little bit about your parking situation. Okay. As you are probably aware, the Denver Tech Center has a very strict set of architectural controls. We've been through two of four meetings with them already. The building will be essentially a glass curtain wall facility. And rather than going to the sea of parking sort of approach that some of the buildings out there have, all the parking will be contained in a structure within the building envelope. So there will be virtually no surface parking on the site. As to the traffic movement, we had a number of discussions with the tech center as to how best to orchestrate the traffic on the site. And the parking in particular is three and a half spaces per thousand, which is one space per 200 and some square feet. Okay. Thank you. And another thing I found interesting about this project is you're fairly close to the Bellevue Light Rail station. And can you tell everyone here about your thoughts on getting people to and from that light rail station? We are the property is about a ten minute walk from the Bellevue Light rail station, which is easily walkable. We also have a bus stop at the property. We are looking at a bike station there and we are also talking with the tech center about the shuttle to transfer some of the building occupants to the light rail station. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Any other questions on 69? CNN public hearing is now closed. Time for comments, Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. This is in my district. It's currently a restaurant called Garcia's of Scottsdale, which has been there since I was in high school. So I'm sad to see it go, although I haven't been there since the eighties. Anyway, the Denver Tech Center is an office park. It's a very thoughtful development. The developer and I have met several times. I've been out to see the property and I think it's very thoughtfully done. One thing we didn't bring up is the fact that it's going to be LEED certified as well, which I think is another great aspect of the building. So I think it's very appropriate and I will be supporting it this evening. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Any other comments on 69? Scene on Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Black Eye. Brooks Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi. Gilmore Cashman. Hi. New Ortega says Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please quote a very nasty result tonight. Tonight, 69 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. We've got one more. That is Councilor Bill 87. And Councilman Brooks, would you please put 87 on the floor for final passage?

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

BostonCC_09152021_2021-0967

Madam Clerk, would you please read docket 0967? Certainly. Docket 0967 Council male councilors O'Malley and Campbell are for the following order regarding civilian review board nominations. Councilor O'Malley, you have the floor. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. On July 21st of this year, Councilor Andre Campbell and I announced the procedure for our civilian review board nominations. As you know, we pass this incredible work from Chair Campbell, as well as Councilors Arroyo and Mekere. And the mechanism begins with the council, president of the council itself submitting nominations to the mayor. So working in concert with the chair of the Committee on Public Safety, Criminal Justice, I think we've done as good a process as imaginable. We've created a portal where we are seeking applications that the end date is September 20th, which is this upcoming Monday, and we have a few more days until then. So please share with your networks the link to the application portal, which can be found on our website, Boston.com City Council. Purpose of this order is to hold a working session to review the application. Applications thus far received of which we will then be submitting our nominations to the acting mayor. The mayor will appoint three members to the Civilian Review Board from a pool of nine nominees who are submitted by us. These nominees will each serve a term of three years, provided, however, that of the members first appointed, three shall be appointed for a term of one year. Three shall be appointed to a term of two years, and three shall be appointed to a term of three years. We've made available a paper copy of the application portal and have translated the application into Chinese, Cape Verde and Creole, Haitian Creole, Spanish and Vietnamese. I want to thank again the incredible work of the Chair, as well as Councilors Arroyo and Mejia, for their great partnership on this. And I look forward to getting more applications in the next couple of days and then having a transparent and open process. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Do. But the chair now recognizes it. I'll be brief. Thank you, council President, for your leadership on this and again and get this application out. It is a beautiful thing. It's a public process. It's incredible to thank you for your leadership. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on the matter? All right. Docket 0967 will be referred to the Committee on Public Safety and Criminal Justice. Madam Chair, maybe councilors who wish to add their name. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Any councilors who wish to have their name added to the docket. I see. Counselor Arroyo. Counselor Baker, Counselor Braden. Councilors Abby. George Custer Flaherty. Councilor Flynn. Councilor Macchia and Councilor Wu and Councilor Edwards. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Councilor Edwards. And we referred that, I believe, to public safety. Um, moving right along, Madam Carr, could you please rate Duckett. 0968.0968 Councilors Arroyo and Mejia offer the following resolution recognizing September 15th through October 15 as Hispanic Heritage Month in the city of Boston.

A bill for an ordinance amending Section 14-131 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) to delete the residency requirement for the Municipal Public Defender Commission. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-19-19.

DenverCityCouncil_07292019_19-0581

Thank you, Loraine. And thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Or you all get on the questions. All right, great. Madame Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Councilman Flynn, what would you like us to do with 0581? Madam President, I'd like to have a separate vote on this so that I can vote no. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Sandoval, will you please put Council Bill 581 on the floor for passage? Right. I move that resolution ordinance 581 be adopted. All right. Please don't. Placed on. My. Consideration and do pass. Awesome. Very good. It's been moved and seconded. Questions or comments by members of council. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. That that mumbo jumbo, I think, actually is has meaning to it. It has to be verbatim. Yes, Madam President, I comment on this last commented on this last week, because it does away with the requirement that members of the Municipal Public Defender Commission be people who actually live in Denver and our county court district. And in the meantime, I asked our staff after the meeting last week to go through all the boards and commissions and try to find out how many of them require Denver residency, do not require Denver residency, and are silent on it. And I really want to thank the fantastic works. I didn't think we could get it done by Emily lapel on our our legislative staff who put together at least 79 of the 3,482,000 boards and commissions we have but 79 of them and found that of those 37 require Denver residency. 20 specifically do not. And the remainder are silent on. And so one would assume that you could or could not be a resident of Denver in a time when at least my first term I worked a lot with for the southwest side and with former Councilman Lopez on the West Side to try to increase the representation from folks west of the Platte River on boards and commissions. But I often found it frustrating when we appoint people to advisory, even just simple advisory boards who live in Golden or in Littleton or in Brighton or in Aurora. When we have, we are the largest county and city in the state of Colorado. About 716,000, I think, was the last estimate from the ax, from the census. And I believe that it is possible to find qualified candidates, particularly for boards such as this one, that deal with our county court system to find those applicants and those nominees from within the city and county of Denver. So for that purpose and that purpose alone, Madam President, no reflection on the presiding judge on the court who who supports this. I just wanted to vote no on it. I'm not asking that it be voted down unless other people feel the same as I do. But I just wanted to register my continuing support that we dig deeper in our communities to find folks from underrepresented neighborhoods such as those west of the Platte and elsewhere in the city to serve on our boards. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Cashman. Yeah, thank you, Madam President. Pro tem like Vacca. What Councilman Flynn said, as well as kind of. Piggyback off a lot of what's been said by Councilwoman CdeBaca and some others this evening. While I understand the reason for this ordinance, and I understand that we're having trouble filling boards and commissions, but this may just be a signal that we need up our game all across the board on reaching out. And I think that's the tact that we should be taking. I wouldn't want this to lead to a string of these changing to looking for representation from outside of Denver. So I'm going to join my colleague in voting no on this. Thank you, Councilman Cashman, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you very much. I agree completely on broader outreach, and I hope that our news outlets who are following so closely tonight will be willing to put all of our openings in their and their blogs and newspapers so that we can get the word out to people who don't subscribe to our thrilling newsletters. That said, one of the things a number of our boards and commissions have on them is a need for particular expertize. And I will say that there are times where I want for my residents a person with outstanding, maybe harm reduction expertize who happens to live outside the borders or some other specialized expertize in child development or things like that. And so I don't want to sacrifice the good expertize for residency. And this board, I believe, has some of those very particular qualifications for some of the seats where you have to have a very specialized knowledge, you have to work in a particular role. And so where those types of positions are at play, I am much more willing to look at nonresidents than I am for just a community voice. Community voice, as I believe should be our residents and where we can find experts who are our residents as well. But I don't want to lose the best substance abuse expert or child development expert or whatever it may be. And so for that reason, I will be voting for the bill tonight with the absolute doubling down on the recruitment side so that we don't need to go to nine. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. I want to second our echo councilman ten inches fights. And I know that there are people who call this city the mile high income city. Whether you agree with that or not, I think that we all agree that we have a challenge making sure that people can afford to live in the city of Denver. And we want to make sure that we have the best people with the right thought process and the best qualifications for our for our boards. And so I look forward to having a robust set of people who can apply for this, who meet the particular criteria. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Hines. See no other speakers. Madam Secretary, welcome. Flynn? No black. I see the Barca. No Herndon. I find. I. Cashman. And. Kenny Ortega. No. Sandoval. Sawyer. Nay. Torres. Nay. Madam President, I. Seven knees. Five eyes. All right. Seven nis council Bill 581 has failed. That concludes the items to be called out. All bills for introduction are ordered published. We are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending and restating Chapter 5.53, and repealing Section 5.53.090, relating to Covid-19 worker retention, read and adopted as read. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_03012022_22-0234

Thank you. I've had a request to do ordinance 18 and 19. So let's go to Ordnance 18, the first reading, I believe. Report from City Attorney Recommendation to declare ordinance relating to COVID 19 worker retention. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of City Council for Final Reading Citywide. I have a motion by Vice Mayor Richardson. And I have a second backcountry ranger does as a staff need to give an update on this ordinance or I mean we have it. Which audience? And I'm sorry, do we? The question was whether or not we need to. Give an update on the ordinance. Oh, I just I just wasn't sure if there was any, any, any update from staff on the ordinance as presented to us or not? No, I don't think so. This is what you would ask us to do. And we're ready for first reading. Okay. Just making sure. Okay. There's a motion from the second Vice Mayor Richardson. Anything. Having scored okay. Gives me ringa. Okay. Is there any public comment on this item? If there's any members of the public that wish to speak on this item, please raise hand feature or dialing in by telephone press star nine. Our first speaker is Christina. Hello. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Christina. You guys hear me? We can hear you. Yeah, great. I am speaking on behalf of Unite Here Local 11, the Hotel Workers Union. We want to thank the Council for taking the initiative for the hotel workers and building services workers and leading the region as our members face mass layoffs at the height of the pandemic. Many are still struggling to recover. We urge you to adopt these permanent regulations to unite our industry, which is the economic backbone of the city, is especially sensitive to disruptions in the economy. We faced this reality back during 911, which is why the city of Santa monica responded by passing the right to recall ordinance. The hard worker, working hotel housekeepers and janitors that welcome guests into the city every day deserve to have some basic job security, not just during the pandemic. But if, God willing, we are to experience another massive disruption in the future. Thank you again to the entire Council. So that has been supportive of these regulations since they were first enacted and we are encouraged to see the council headed in the right direction this evening. Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Rob, north of. Thank you. Good evening. Mayor Garcia, Vice Mayor Richardson and members of the council. My name is Rob. No talk from the policy director of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor. And I'd like to thank the Council tonight for your collective leadership in moving this item forward and strongly encourage your vote to make right of recall and retention permanent policies for hospitality and janitorial workers. This is a tool that will greatly assist workers in two essential industries as they pieced their lives back together after the pandemic. And it's a tool that will greatly assist the city in its overall economic recovery. And further passing. This policy will yet again show that Long Beach is a national leader. And let me explain. As fate would have it, there was an article over the weekend highlighting the crisis currently being faced by housekeepers and other service workers seeking to get rehired after the pandemic and recover their wages and benefits. And by passing tonight's policies that not only benefit Long Beach workers, the Long Beach economy, but you also give a ray of hope to a work to other workers in the hospitality janitorial industries across the rest of the nation. And you'll be the first to have this policy for both hospitality and janitorial workers. So, again, thank you for your time. And that's proved yet again that Long Beach does, in fact, lead. Thank you for your time. Our next speaker is Grazia Lopez. There is. Good evening, Mayor, and members of the Council. My name is Gracie. Local three is Director of Link Lambert Coalition for Good Jobs. Thank you, Vice Mayor Richardson and Councilwoman and they had Councilwoman Allen for bringing this item forward. We strongly support making Long Beach right of record retention, permanent policies in Long Beach. We need to ensure that there is an equitable recovery for all. And as many of us know. Right. Hospitality and janitorial workers are the key to this ongoing recovery. Making these protections permanent policies in Long Beach is critical for businesses and workers. We today we hear more and more of businesses reporting difficulty filling open jobs as these key industries begin to slowly recover. It is essential for businesses to have a pathway to quickly rehire qualified and experienced staff that we that were laid off as a result of this crisis. These policies are economically sound for business right to record retention, remove the economic costs associated with onboarding new employees, which can cost thousands of dollars per employee. Lastly, Miami Beach has invested millions of dollars in this downtown hospitality industry with the promise of a return of good jobs for Long Beach residents. Locking in permanent right to recall and retention ordinance for these two industries help to protect that promise of a return of good jobs to Long Beach residents. We urge you to make the Long Beach right a record retention, permanent policies in our city. These policies will help spearhead a strong, robust recovery. Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Ann Burdette. Good evening. My name is Brigette. And first of all, I just want to say I every day I get more proud of being Long Beach. So thank you for making me feel so proud of my community every day. And on behalf of the faith communities of Long Beach and Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, I want to thank this council especially for recognizing and it is a moral imperative to safeguard the livelihoods of those residents that have been most terribly affected by this pandemic. Guaranteeing the right of essential hotel and janitorial workers to return to their jobs is an enlightened policy, and it demonstrates your ethical and economic commitment to equity. Making the right to recall a retention policy enforceable as a permanent ordinance is the next important step to ensuring the safety and well-being of our city. And we include strongly support items 18 and 19 and urge you to repeat your unanimous vote in favor of this policy that you made on February 15. Thank you again for your diligence and for your integrity in moving these items forward with your yes votes tonight. Thank you. Our final speaker is Gary Heidrich. Good evening, Mayor and city council members. My name is Gary Hetrick and I reside in the Fort District. I'd like to begin by thanking the Council and the mayor for your leadership on this. I think there's a critical issue. I also echo what the other speakers have just mentioned. I'm speaking out tonight as co-president of the Language Chapter, the California Faculty Association Association. BE we represent over 2900 faculty, coaches, librarians and counselors. At issue, I'll be on behalf of our members. I urge you to make the right to recall and retention permanent policies. Hospitality and janitor. Janitorial workers are essential workers who not only suffered greatly during the pandemic, but are key to our region's recovery. These policies are critical to protecting the lives and the livelihoods of Long Beach workers and also helping ensure that businesses recover. CFA Long Beach support for these ordinances making these ordinance permanent is really simple. First, CSU educates the majority of essential workers in our state. Many of our students, as well as parents of other students, are essential workers. Both will directly benefit from these two policies. Second, Sue Shelby has proven to be a pathway to the middle class for thousands of working class and first generation students. Although Shelby is one of the most successful drivers of upward social mobility in this country, this only works if working families and working students in these essential industries have the economic stability to take advantage of, casual , be and can afford the cost. These policies will help ensure that happens. I urge you to make these protections permanent. Recovery means everyone. Thank you for your time and your leadership. That concludes public comment on this item. Thank you. Let's go and do a role. I believe that also I don't have any more comment from the council. So let's go ahead and do a we'll call the police district one. I district to. My. District three, my district four. I. District five. I. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. District nine. Hi. Motion is carried. Thank you. Next up is the ordinance number 19.

A resolution approving a proposed First Amendment between the City and County of Denver and TURNER FLATIRON, Joint Venture concerning construction management and everything necessary for the Expansion and Renewal Program at Denver International Airport. Amends a contract with Turner-Flat Iron Joint Venture by adding $240 million for a new total of $940 million for furnishing all labor, tools, supplies, equipment, materials and everything necessary to the Expansion and Renewal Program to accommodate additional project delivery options at Denver International Airport. No change to contract duration (201631723). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-1-20. Councimember Flynn approved direct filing this item on 5-7-20. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Flynn called out this resolution at the 5-11-20 Council meeting for a one-week postponement to 5-18-20.

DenverCityCouncil_05182020_20-0414

The items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. All right. Now, Secretary, if you please, put the first item on our screens. And Councilmember Cashman, will you please vote Council Resolution 414 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council resolution 20 dash 0414 be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Councilmember Gilmore. Thank you, President. Clerk. I will be abstaining on this. My brother in law's company, Gilmore Construction, is a minority and women owned business on this contract. Thank you, President. Clerk. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. See no other comments or questions, Madam Secretary. Roll call. Gilmore Abstain. Black Eye. CdeBaca Eye for an Eye. Herndon by. Hines. Cashman. I can h. I. Ortega I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer I. Torres, I. Council President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please go the voting. Announce the results. 12 Eyes one abstention. Provides one abstention. Council Resolution 414 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, if you please put the next item on our screens and Councilmember Black, go ahead with your comment on 370.

A proclamation honoring Gerald Endsley’s significant contributions to the artistic and cultural landscape in the City and County of Denver.

DenverCityCouncil_06152015_15-0403

A graduate of Denver Public Schools with the trumpet performance degrees from the New England Conservatory and the University of Colorado. Gerald devoted his life to community service and the development of the music community in the city. And. Whereas, Gerald, as a specialist in the history of soprano brass instruments, shared his extensive knowledge of music through lecture recitals and meetings of the National Trend post-COVID Symposium and the International Trumpet Guild, an avid collector of historic instruments. Gerald also made a replica historically instruments and mouthpieces and published early brass literature. And. Whereas, as director, Gerald served as the artistic vision and driving force behind the Denver Municipal Band, which is the oldest professional band in the nation . He also conducted the Metropolitan State University of Denver Concert Community Band for nearly 15 years and was a member of the Executive Director Board of the Summit Brass. And. Whereas, Gerald relentlessly served the music community as a member of the Denver Musicians Association for 48 years and serve several terms on the board of directors. He was recognized on multiple occasions, including as a June 2002 recipient of the Mayor Awards for Excellence in Arts and Culture. And. Whereas, Gerald was committed to educating young talent through school and community programs such as delivering music programs for art streets for many years, an art based job training program for Denver youth and teaching at such schools as the University of Denver and Metro City University. Therefore, being proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one that the Council applauds Gerald's efforts on behalf of arts and culture in Denver and Section two that the city and County of Denver show a just in a fix. The seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and a copy be transmitted transmitted to the family of Gerald Ensley. Thank you. Councilwoman Lehman, your motion to adopt. I move the council bill 15, dash 403 be adopted. It's been moved and seconded comments by members of Council. Councilman Leeman. Thank you, Madam President. Jerry was my friend. The Denver Municipal Band has always been part of my life when I was a youngster living in Hilltop. We went to Cramton Park in the summer to hear the band. When I was working for Council District six, I was at Washington Park hearing the band then. I wasn't working in the Council District seven and I was at Ruby Hill Park. Hearing the band and now is the Council District four. I mean, listening to the band and South Moor Park. Jerry and I were a team. I was bringing brainstorms to the neighborhood. Every time I would introduce the band and then Jerry would come up to conduct his rained. So bear that in mind if we ever have a drought again. The band concerts are an integral part of neighborhood building. They bring people together in a community and they get to know each other and play with each other and be with each other in a park. And in addition, here's a really great performance of the band. You can get the schedule for this year, this summer's band, if you go to Denver Municipal Band dot org. So I encourage you all to visit that site and find out when the band's in your neighborhood. I would also like to thank Jerry's family for your continuing support of the band. Denver. So the band is a wonderful thing that Denver has a very special thing. I want to thank Jerry and his family for giving us that wonderful thing. Thank you. Councilwoman Lehman. Other comments from members of council, they're. Not showing up for some reason. I know. And it says the whole it has everybody here ready to to vote. So. Councilwoman Ortega. Yes. Thank you. Councilwoman Robb. Do I. Did I. After. Okay. Thank you. Gerald Ensley was a gift to the city. He was an incredible human being. That was just always so. So willing to offer the Denver Municipal Band to any event that might be going on in their district. I remember working with him on numerous occasions when I represented District nine, and then when I got reelected, he reached out to me and said, If you have any community event, you'd let me know and we'll be there to play for you. And on numerous occasions he did that. And when I heard that he had passed, it just, you know, just left a hole in my heart because he was just such a an incredible human being. And I can't imagine to his family how much he's he's missed. But I just wanted to say to his family, thank you for for having lent him to all of us and for the incredible work that he did in this community, sharing that gift of music with with our entire community. So to his family, thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Rob. Thank you, Madam President. Pro tem. Yes. I share many fond memories of Jerry Ensley and. Like so many memories. Often the ones you remember are either the difficult ones or the humorous ones. And it was a particularly difficult time when we broke ground on the improvements to Fillmore Plaza one January or February. And but the the Business Improvement District knew that I loved the municipal band, so they invited the municipal band brass group out to play. The only problem was it was below zero degrees and their hands, their mouths were freezing to the instruments. A follow up to that is the community so valued the municipal band that they decided they would start having concerts in Pulaski Park if they couldn't always have them on Fillmore Plaza? And I think this year will be the sixth annual Pulaski Park concert that has really grown. The neighborhood brings in food trucks. And then finally, after doing annual concerts in Cheesman Park with the Cheeseman Park advocacy group in my office, Jerry Ensley and I kept talking about, wouldn't it be great to have people dancing on the pavilion? So for the last several years, he had the municipal band Jazz Ensemble playing there, and we had actually behind the pavilion in the Rose Gardens, looking out at the mountains and at the downtown skylight in the setting sun. And I don't think there's really a more visually beautiful experience that I had the whole time I was in office. And of course, it was shared with the whole community. So it's great. Remembering Jerry. Councilman Rob. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Councilman Monteiro. It was very sad. I did not get the news until well more than a month and a half after he had passed. Two months after he had passed, it was very, very, very sad because he always sent me a message to see if there was anything going on in the district that they can come and play and. And he was always really happy to do it. And every so every year what they did for us for the last eight years was I said, Well, there's only one time I need you to do it. And occasional occasionally other other events we did too. But he and the band would come 7:00 in the morning, set up on those Saturdays in December to do the Sam Santo's Christmas Basket event. And they would sit up right in the middle of this whole assembly area as everybody's assembling Christmas baskets, and they'd bring that that small little jazz ensemble, and they'd be playing Christmas carols. Christmas music. And that really made the event. And if you can imagine these boxes of bread and turkey and potatoes and carrots being assembled, and these are boxes that are delivered to folks in need throughout the city. And then listening to the Christmas carols, it wasn't for the last eight years. Christmas really didn't make sense until those moments combined together. And it was. And they will always be a part of it, even though he's not here with us. I will always remember that. And those are images that will never leave my mind and understanding that spirit. So it's solemn to talk about. Is it sad? Is he just so full of life and so full of music to share with all of us? And we I'm glad that we all had an opportunity to actually listen to his spirit. Thank you. Thank you so much, Councilman Lopez. Are there any other comments I would like to also express to your family? I think you're. I would also like to express to you that it must have been a blast growing up with your dad because he was music. He was a bundle of expression and and music. And the idea that he would come to any event at any given time playing more than one role, he would be playing the long trumpets for an opening, and then he would drop that and change character and go and be part of the larger ensemble. And he was so flexible and. And he just cared so much. Many of us serve in public service because we love the city and we care about it. And your father chose to express his civic mindedness and his spirit through his music and through the Denver Municipal Municipal Band. And so there was never a time when I asked Gerald if he would help in any way. He never, ever said, no, I don't think it was in his vocabulary, and I would have to dial it back and understand this is a human being that can only has so much energy to do all of these different things . But can you imagine just the idea of having live music by live musicians, going to some of the neighborhoods that maybe otherwise wouldn't have ever been able to experience a jazz band or the larger band. So I just want you to know that he was amazing. And my only regret is that I should have sent him more thank you notes and should have said thank you more often. You just never expect that you know they won't be here anymore and they're gone in a heartbeat. So I want to thank you so much for for being here tonight and also allowing for us to be able to express to you how much we loved your dad and the municipal band and that his spirit will live on. Thank you. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. Liman. I Lopez. I Ortega. I Rob. I Shepherd. I'm brown. I fought i. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. You need to press your. Did I forget to vote? Nope. We got it. Shall we limit. The eight eyes? All right. Eight I's proclamation 403 has been adopted. Councilwoman Lehman, is there someone that you would like to invite up to the podium? I would like to invite the family up to the podium and kind of introduce yourselves and. Just accept the proclamation. Yeah. I'm Pamela. Ensley. I'm Gerald's wife. And thank you for sending that card. And thank you for your kind words about Jerry and the band. And I'm Marguerite Ansley, a daughter. And we really appreciate everything that you've said about him and his hard work, and we definitely see that. So thank you so much for doing this proclamation and sharing it with us. I really appreciate it. Thank you. And thank you for joining us this evening. Health one. Rob, will you please read proclamation 428. Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Proclamation number 1504 28 honoring Mark Upshaw for his service to the city and county of Denver. Whereas Denver City Council wishes to recognize our parks colleague Mark Upshaw, who has provided thoughtful community leadership, vision and service for his 25 years working for the city and county of Denver.

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

DenverCityCouncil_11122019_19-1177

11 days. Uh, final consideration of Council 913, and its public hearing has been postponed to Tuesday, January 21st, 2020. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please wait? Council 1177 on the floor. Mr. President, I move that council bill 19 1177 be placed on final consideration and do pass. I think were on first reading so ordered published. Be that it be ordered published. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. The courtesy public hearing for council 1177 is open and we do have. Looks like four individuals signed up to speak this evening. So first up, we have Jeff Newman Lee. Good evening. I'm Jeff Newman. Leigh. I live in Denver in the Whittier neighborhood. I'm. In favor of having a. An Office of Resiliency. Why? Why why would the city of Denver need to do this? Why can't we just all use the market and work on our own to make the changes that we need to make? You know, one of the greatest proponents of of individualism in America are corporations. And that is, of course, very ironic because corporations are creatures of the state and they are a collectivization. So they use their collective power. We have a collective power that we need to use to deal with climate change because climate change is a common collective problem that each one of us has to deal with. We need to protect people. We need to protect our people. We all know the weather's been changing. We all know the different, the difficulties. And we're in a fairly safe spot. We can look at other places and be very upset. We need to protect our people. There's also advantages in the new energy economy and electricity. The physics of electricity is that in time it's just cheaper. It's cheaper, and it will empower people in many ways to dove into that kind of an economy. I was talking with a state representative today and I asked him, what do you think the city should do? I mean, do we need the city to participate in this or is the state just going to take care? But, you know, this this problem is so deep. It touches so many people right at at their own home level. Everything we do, oil and gas. Oil and gas. It takes people to change. And we need to change at every level. So we need the city of Denver to make changes that other people can see. It's leadership. And finally taking this office and endowing it and getting it going is world leadership. So much of the world is suffering. People are dying because of climate change. And we here are participating in it. When we do what's right, other people see and other people will follow. We're powerful. People were the city of Denver. We have no business not being leaders. Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou. Wow. Yes. My name is. Chermside Coop bound organizer for the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. And also a candidate for United States Senate 2020. You know, I was sitting here. Doing research. Recess. And I was listening to Marvin Gaye story about Mercy, Mercy Me, the ecology. And that was 75 years ago. And you all know the song. Yeah. And then here we go. Now we're at a critical stage where the Earth is getting ready to take care of all of this. All of this you're talking about. Climate action. When black people ever get climate action on this planet. Because Lester. And then you're talking about sustainability. For the last 500 years in this country, you have suppressed black people every day, 24 hours, seven. And we are on a bottom in every category. There's political, economic and social development. And you sit. Here and have the audacity to. Bring something up like this. If you can't do this, how are you going to do the plan? Talk to me. And then, last but not least. I came here. There was a woman. And I was walking down the 16th Street Mall. I didn't know. Nobody sees a place they call as when one ask one question about is global warming. They. I said glasses. So she said, well, maybe you can ask them this question. So she said, What do black people have to lose if the planet gives buried in water? What would be free from all this? And then everybody can start all over with a level playing field. She said, I'm betting on the planet. And I'm with the planet. I hope it all goes under water. I've been praying for. For 75 years. So you tell me. Answer that question. What does black people have to lose if all of this goes underwater and if you change it and save it? Is that going to help us at all as you continue to do the same old, same old? You got to do something different. Answer that question. I dare you. Thank you. Next up, Sebastian Andrews. Right. Next up, Perry BURNETT. Good evening. My name is Perry Barnett. I live up the street from Councilman Clark at 1378, South Pennsylvania. I've lived in the same 1885 home for 29 years and another little old house before. Then I first encountered climate change in 87, working on a project called Greenhouse Glasnost before the world came down when email was new 1987 . It was a collaboration between the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Soviet Academy of Sciences. We knew then what was happening. We knew that most of the actions in themselves had a lot of benefits society, weather, public health, clean air economics, international geopolitical instability. And we still failed. Since then, I've spent most of my career working in bureaucracies trying to shift the paradigm for CDP and pollution prevention. Work on the bike issue here for the city, worked inside green print for a few years. I worked in programs that were given a lot of verbal support and very scarce resources, certainly not much leadership. I used to say at best what we could expect from leadership was permission to try something new. I want to thank you, city council members for finally realizing it's now or never to take actual leadership to provide a vision for this city to move forward. More than permission, this issue will evolve. Our actions will not be perfect. But to start now and to move with great haste and with substantial resources. I am eternally grateful. And I'm also grateful to the city staff who have brought us this far with virtually no resources scattered and embedded in the bureaucracy and with great faith. 60 hour weeks not paying attention, not, you. Know, neglecting their families at home. So they just deserve our gratitude. In addition to the present city council members. Thank you so much. Thank you. That concludes our speakers this evening. Are there any questions on this item from members of council tonight? All right. Seeing none of the public hearing for council, 1177 is closed. As a reminder, this is just first reading. This will be back up for final reading next week. Are there any comments before we vote on publication? All right. Sing. No comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. I see tobacco, I flinch. I go more. I heard it like. Hi. Hi. Cashman. Hi. Kenny Ortega. Hi. Sandoval. Sawyer Torres. Hi. Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. 13. 13. His counterpart, 1177, has been ordered published. City Council sitting ex-officio as the board of directors for the Denver 14 Street General Improvement District, Reno, Denver General Improvement District and Gateway Village General Improvement District will hold public hearings on Monday, November 18th, 2019, related to the 2020 work plans and budgets for each district.

A bill for an ordinance approving and accepting the East Area Plan, which plan shall become a part of the Comprehensive Plan 2040 for the City and County of Denver pursuant to the provisions of Section 12-61 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. Adopts the East Area Plan, as part of the city's Comprehensive Plan. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-20-20.

DenverCityCouncil_11162020_20-1132

We're having issues with Zoom on the Aramaic and Burmese, but we do have Spanish and Karen and we're continuing to try to address that. And so we appreciate folks patience. Councilmember Cashman, will you please put council Bill one one, three, two on the floor for passage, please? Yes, Madam President, I move the council bill 20 dash 1130 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Now again. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember Sawyer. Your motion to amend. Thank you, Madam President. The purpose of this amendment is to amend the East Area Plan. The amended Clark file number in the bill refers to an amended East Area plan. This amended plan adds a sentence to Policy L six on page 39. Oops. Sorry. Hold on. I messed up. I got to read the actual part first. I move that council bill 20 dash 113 to be amended in the following particulars that on page one, line 32 strike. Quote 20200094, end quote. And replace with quotes. 20200094a. End quote. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. Sorry. No, go ahead. Council woman. Thinks so. Thank you. Council President. The purpose of this amendment is to amend the East Area Plan. The amended Clark file number in the bill refers to an amended East Area plan. So that's the way the amended plan adds a sentence to policy l six on page 39 regarding zoning and regulation recommendations to ensure the plan area neighborhoods are inclusive places by integrating missing middle housing and appropriate locations. The added sentence states, quote, Single unit areas should remain primarily single unit. End quote. Madam President, do you want to do questions and comments? How would how would you like to do the next part of this? Thank you, Councilwoman Sawyer. And we're going to go ahead and we'll have the staff report and we'll open up the hearing, and then we'll go ahead and have questions and comments after we get the presentation. Perfect. Thanks so much. All right. Wonderful. I am getting back to my place, my system refreshed here, and so just need to get back to where we're at. All right. So no other questions or comments, but one hour courtesy public hearing for council bill 20 Dash 1132 is open. Speakers may address the bill as well as the amendment. After the public hearing, council will vote on the amendment and then on the bill separately. May we go ahead and have a staff report? And I see you're already in and ready to go live. Go ahead, please. And evening I'm with where I go with community development. I'm going to give the staff presentation. But I think our executive director, Laura Eldredge, wanted to give us some opening remarks first. Turn it over to her. Excellence. I am not sure. Can people see me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Okay. I didn't know if I was promoted yet. Thank you. Well, good evening. And thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Council members. I'm proud to introduce the East Area Plan to council this evening for consideration. I also want to thank all the residents and businesses of Denver, of particularly the East Area Colfax, that participated in this project, in this process. Engagement is one of our communities in our communities is incredibly important to realize in the future vision of our neighborhoods and the great city that we live in. I also want to introduce our great CPD staff ahead of their presentation, which I will get through here in a few minutes. I just want to take a minute to preview what you're going to hear this evening, both from staff and from the community. First, you're going to hear about the dire need for affordable housing and about concerns about displacement, both for families and for local business. We agree with the community that the need is urgent, especially in the wake of this pandemic. And this plan really tackles displacement head on. You will hear in detail from our staff about dozens of strategies that came from the community itself to address housing and to support local businesses and about the partnerships that we have built to implement these strategies. You may hear that the east area plan doesn't go far enough, but this plan goes as far as a plan can go. And it goes further than any neighborhood plan we have brought to council before. The plan also addresses the issue, these issues in ways the current plans in this area do not. Those plans where they do exist date back almost 20 years and don't mention displacement or equity at all. When we have these conversations, we often focus on the consequences of doing something. But it's just as important to talk about the consequences of not doing something. The negative impacts are already underway in these neighborhoods in terms of housing costs, rising rents and businesses that are having a hard time surviving. We hear that and we understand that adapt adopting this plan will put us in a better position to do what the community is asking and ensure that they can stay in their neighborhood and that their businesses can thrive. You may hear tonight that with this urgency comes a need for things that the plans themselves cannot do. But through the partnerships that we built with Host and Nest and neighborhood advocacy groups, we're connecting residents with resources and programs that can help them now. Our job as a city doesn't end with a plan. This is where it starts. We will continue working with these neighborhoods to implement the recommendations of this plan in a way that works for the community. With that, I would just say thank you again to counsel for your time, and I will turn it over to Liz and Kurt for the presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Laura. So I'm going to share my screen and I'll give you the presentation. I'm joined tonight by Curt Upton and many of our other team members who can help to answer questions when we get to that part of the evening. So tonight's presentation, I'll go over the plan structure and also give you some background, and then I'll review the three criteria that City Council is charged with reviewing and adopting the East Area plan as a supplement to the comprehensive plan. And this includes the public process plan, consistency and the long term view. To the East Area plan is a long term planning document. It sets out a community supportive vision for the area and includes recommended strategies to help us achieve that vision. As a policy document, it will help inform city decision making over the next 20 years. It is not a regulatory document or a budget document that you stereo plan covers for statistical neighborhoods between Colorado and Yosemite along Colfax Avenue. This includes South Park Hills, Hale, Montclair and East Colfax. Areas north of Colfax are in District eight state, and those to the south are in District five. For context, I wanted to highlight that there are demographic differences between these neighborhoods, which has been reflected in the community input that we've heard throughout this process. The neighborhoods of South Parco, Montclair and some portions of Hale have higher household incomes and higher homeownership rates. Many residents in these areas are concerned about neighborhood change that may impact single unit character, such as traffic or changes to the vote form. East Colfax ranks the lowest in our citywide equity index. It's considered vulnerable to displacement in all three categories in our in our blueprint and host displacement index. The neighborhood has a significant population of immigrants and refugees, a large percentage of renters, and has seen its moderate housing prices rise quickly over the last several years. Displacement has been the primary concern that we've heard in this neighborhoods. As more mentioned, a major theme of the neighborhood plan and community engagement has been around displacement and equity, and the plan's top priority is stabilizing existing residents and businesses. As we all know, these are issues we are grappling with city wide and equity is a. Central. Goal of our city wide plans. Displacement is happening throughout the city and places where development is happening in places where it isn't with a neighborhood plan. We have a chance to help guide that change and integrate and to put anti displacement strategies. This focus has taken to roles in the East Area plan. One is to integrate into displacement and equity through all parts of the plan as opposed to our existing adaptive plans in these areas that don't speak to displacement, the east area plan makes anti displacement a top priority and includes over 27 policies that directly address displacement. This has gone further than we have before in any neighborhood plan and includes a number of strategies grouped under Polish policies such as stabilizing residents, creating new affordable housing, protecting small businesses, and reducing barriers to jobs and new business opportunities. Ensuring that the community benefits from change and new development in the coming years and supporting community organizing and leadership to ensure equitable engagement doesn't end with the neighborhood plan but continues through implementation. On top of that plan, focus, we recognize, particularly with the added stresses of the pandemic, that the need for immediate action is critical. As part of this process, we put together an inter-departmental team to work with the community, particularly the Equifax neighborhood, to address those issues now. These include things like connecting residents and businesses with legal and housing assistance and connecting them to code resources. The partnerships with other departments such as Nest, Ditto and Host are things we didn't have in the past with neighborhood science. I think we all know that change is happening and will continue to happen. Plans give us that opportunity to work with residents, local businesses, nonprofits and service providers to set goals for our future and make sure that development works in a way that works better for our neighborhoods. And. So I'll go over the the plan structure and content. Overall, we have an introduction and then we have area wide recommendations which really apply throughout the East area. And then we also have neighborhood specific recommendations. In addition, we have recommendations for the Colfax quarter itself and an implementation section to go with the plan. The plan is organized and one of our first steps in the planning process around six vision elements. And we started with the vision elements that you find in the comprehensive plan, and we added more detail and specificity for the east area. The plan also speaks to the equity concepts that you find a blueprint over, including access to opportunity, vulnerability, displacement and jobs and housing diversity. And these are implemented throughout the plan and our recommendations, and we also summarized them in the beginning of the plan. So I will highlight some of the priority recommendations in the plan. The first, as I've already mentioned, is helping residents and businesses stay in the community long term. And this means that we have a focus on AUNTJESS placement, which means some of those recommendations include creating a youth services hub that provides local access to anti displacement services , prioritizing current residents for new affordable housing, connecting small business owners with financial and technical assistance, both to that because of the anticipated best rapid transit construction and also rising costs in general. The image on the slide shows a renovated building along East Colfax, with small businesses staying in place and continuing to serve the community. Our second priority is ensuring that the East Area remains an inclusive place in the future by increasing affordable housing options using all available net methods. Today, one third of East Area residents are a cost burden, which means they're spending more than 30% of their income on housing. And we calculated that we're short at least 1400 units of affordable housing. The plan recommends building more housing near bus rapid transit stops along Colfax, using zoning tax credits, partnerships and direct investments. The plan strategically recommends putting that new housing near transit, where residents can take advantage of great access along Colfax, which connects them to jobs and amenities from downtown to Anschutz. The 15 and 15 hours are already among the highest ridership lines in our system, and they will only be improved with the planned Bus Rapid Transit Project. In addition, we want to make sure that new development and change that is expected helps achieve community priorities. Therefore, the plan recommends only allowing increased title on COVAX with the provision of community benefits with affordable housing being that primary benefit. The plan also recommends adding more diverse housing options in residential neighborhoods so that so that there's room for all types of households to live in these great east area neighborhoods. This rendering shows a new building along Colfax that achieves five stories and heights by providing affordable housing. Our next priority recommendation is making Colfax Avenue a street that brings the East Area's diverse community together. This includes making it easier to reuse existing buildings and build small scale development. Creating new roles for high quality design and ensuring that buildings transition appropriately to adjacent homes. Improving the streetscape to be more comfortable and safe and growing the quarter's independent and diverse cultural identity by establishing an international cultural district. Next, the plan prioritizes celebrating the architecture architectural history of Eastern neighborhoods by encouraging the preservation of existing homes and requiring complementary design of new housing. This includes updating our standards to ensure new housing fits in better. And creating requirements for their older homes when new housing options are added. Plan also recommends preserving trees and landscaped areas, creating new parks and gathering spaces, and using green approaches to stormwater management. This can help make the east area safe from flooding healthier and more climate resilient. Plans supports increasing tree canopy, particularly in commercial areas where it's lacking today. It recommends increased permeability and stormwater management and ensuring we have park access within a ten minute walk for residents. This rendering shows a potential new park in the Mayfair Town Center area. This is one area where there's potential to add a community park that can help address the walkable access, particularly in South Park Hill and Montclair. It is also an area with significant flooding and new stormwater management can help address this issue. The rendering also shows the preservation of existing businesses, including grocery stores, new housing options and shared parking. This is an illustration of one concept. The plan recommends additional community engagement around a specific plan. Should a property owner in the area be interested in redeveloping at some point? Our last priority recommendation is to save life and reduce pollution by making streets safer and more convenient for walking, bicycling and using transit. Some of these recommendations include making some of our east west major arterials safer to cross in travel and slowing vehicle speeds with traffic coming near schools, parks and other community gathering areas. This rendering shows one of the one way arterials and east being slowed down with intersection improvements. The Planning Board approved the plan by a vote of 6 to 3 on October seven, 20, 2021, to conditions one that the document be edited for clarity and correctness. And the second was to delete a recommendation in L six, a one which read that single unit areas should remain primarily single units. They said it has been made to the plan and is included in the draft before council tonight. There were 37 speakers at the hearing with 15 in favor and 22 against. Primary issues raised include displacement and the addition of housing options to neighborhoods. I will now review the City Council criteria for review. So our Comprehensive Plan 2040 calls out that when evaluating plans to be adopted as supplements. Both Planning Board and City Council should consider the following criteria that an inclusive community process was used to develop the plan. That the plan is consistent with the vision, goals and strategies of comprehensive plan 2040, and that the plan demonstrates a long term view. Well, first covered the inclusive community process criteria. Planning. Christmas began in July 2017 and has been in progress for over three years. Engagement has included more than 100 meetings in over 8500 comments received. The vast majority of this engagement occurred prior to the pandemic. But we did have to address this past spring and summer to provide opportunities to review and discuss the draft plans. The engagement has included traditional community workshops, including a 500 person meeting at Johnson and Wales in November of 2019. The successful meeting allowed for constructive dialog on draft recommendations that were then updated and shared with the draft plan. We have also home health, virtual open houses, focus group meetings with community members and technical experts. Online service. Community group meetings and events and office hours. We've also worked to build awareness of this project throughout the process. It's included a mailer to all 15,000 households email updates, fliers and local news stories. In addition, through this process, we have had two new neighborhood groups formed, both of which we spent considerable time engaging with. We recognize that there are barriers to engagement faced by many community members. We made efforts throughout the process to reduce those barriers by providing interpretation and up to five languages at our workshops offering food, childcare and free shuttles. All of our online content was compatible with smartphones, ADA accessible and available for auto translation. We also provided videos of our May Virtual Open House in four languages. We kept track of our demographics throughout the process and saw that many of our traditional workshops and online engagement opportunities were mainly seeing participation from white and higher income households. Therefore, from early on, we dedicated more resources to targeted engagement to reach those nonwhite lower income households and immigrants and refugees in East Colfax. We did much of that through partnerships with organizations and also what we call pop up events where we meet people where they are. This included events at affordable housing properties, small businesses and motels and meetings with service providers and business owners. Also an East Coast community collective formed involved last year. We met with them multiple times to take a critical look at and strengthen the plans, antigens, placement recommendations. Specifically in the East Colfax neighborhood, we've had over 20 focused meetings, six of those meetings, being with the East Cortex Community Collective and included a detailed discussion of recommendations that led to over 65 updates in the plan. These meetings also included interpretation, food, childcare, and we included staff from CPD host Nest. The Office of Financial Empowerment and Detox so that we had everyone in a room together to tackle the long term recommendations and also connect residents and businesses with resources to help them today. We use this engagement to elevate the voices of our representatives. And this has resulted in a neighborhood plan that goes further than any before in terms of displacement. The vast majority of X three point youth CapEx committee collective's recommendations were directly incorporated into the plan. Examples of those anti displacement strategies that we updated based on community feedback include recommendations for local access to job training, financial empowerment and housing assistance. Making affordable housing the top priority for increases in height and reducing barriers to homeownership and piloting new affordability programs. Also include protecting core facts, independent and diverse cultural identity by establishing the international or cultural district and by supporting more community ownership. We're recommending inclusive engagement implementation, including any TIFF projects that come forward. And lastly, recommending an ecovacs community center with recreational opportunities, gathering space and local services. Now go to crunch criteria. Number two, consistency with comprehensive plan 2040 and also cover consistency with blueprint difference. The plan is consistent with the goals and strategies and comprehensive plan 2014, as are outlined in the staff report and listed on this page to include all those in our various vision elements. The plan is also consistent with policies and strategies and blueprint. Denver, as outlined in the staff report, including those relating Usain Bolt form mobility and quality of life. The plan updates, maps and blueprint Denver for contexts, places and street types. It also addresses blueprint drivers equity concepts, as I mentioned previously. The last criteria is that the plan should provide a long term view. The austerity plan is a long term plan. And as I mentioned, it has a 20 year planning horizon. It establishes a vision for supporting local businesses and diverse housing options, preserving the diversity of Colfax Avenue, as well as neighborhood architecture, providing trees and open space and making it easier and safer to get around round it direct. It directs the majority of growth to centers and corridors in areas that are served by transit. And the vision will take many years to achieve. With that. We do find that based on finding the review criteria have been met. Staff recommends that City Council adopt the East Area Plan. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Liz, for the staff report. And we have 58 speakers signed up to speak and we have a one hour courtesy public hearing to accomplish that. And so we'll go ahead and get started with our speakers. And we do right now have one speaker that requires interpretation. And so we'll go ahead and let the appropriate interpreter know when that time arrives. And so our first speaker is Merritt Pullum. And as we get Merritt moved into the panelists here we are alternating speakers for and against. And so just want to also remind speakers to please share with us your name and your city of residence if you feel comfortable doing that. And so we'll go ahead and start with you, Merritt. Go ahead, please. Hello. Good evening. Thank you. My name is Merritt Pullen and I live near 10th and Line Street in the Mayfair neighborhood. I've called Colorado home for more than 39 years. My civic experience includes former president of Mayfair Neighbors Inc. Denver Wright Denver Moves Transit Task Force, the Upper Montclair Stormwater Basin Study and the BRT Task Force. Former Councilwoman Sussman appointed me to the East Area Plan Steering Committee and her and Councilman Herndon nominated me to chair the committee. Developing recommendations for this plan was not a simple task with neighbors and businesses that depend on a solid vision for the future. My goal was to help deliver the best plan possible so that our kids neighbors have the best opportunity to thrive. I wish to say thank you to my fellow steering committee members, current and former City Council members, community planning and development staff. The consultants hired help and give input. Denver East Neighborhoods First Unite and the East Colfax Community Collective and all the RINO's in our neighborhoods and to our neighbors and business owners who live, work or rent in our area. The time you spent attending meetings, sending emails or inputting comments on various drafts was valuable and appreciated. Our goal is to create the most equitable neighborhood plan. The steering committee dug deep and shared experiences that benefited the vision. I learned so much more about myself, my neighbors and the city than I ever expected. We identified early on that the steering committee was not the most diverse group and that we were not reaching everyone in our community. I am proud of the work CPD, the Consultants, City Council and the Steering Committee did to expand our reach and spark conversations with those who felt like they were not being heard. Direct mailers, focus groups, community forums and most importantly, time was added to the plan. It was important to do better, and I believe we did. The steering committee started with 14 and ended with nine voting members. We voted 8 to 1 to advance our recommendations to the Denver Planning Board. I believe this is a strong indication of consensus. Not everyone was able to get everything they wanted in the plan with a compromise and realize that maybe what one or many of us thought was a good idea was not actually something that fit our community. Throughout the past three years, various neighbors and organizations were able to challenge our thoughts and ideas, which in turn allowed us to rethink our ideas and make a recommendation stronger and relatable to our community. We all want safety, security, great parks, reliable transit options, and access to entertainment. What we need more of is better food access for everyone. Affordable housing and job security. And better education for all. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Merritt. That was one of our translators. Go ahead. My apologies. I constantly thought about how my children will see the plans impacts 20 years from now. What will be their Denver? Do we capture what our neighbors and small businesses need to thrive? I am proud of this plan and the volunteer steering committee members I had the pleasure to work with. I asked that City Council approve the East Area plan. I also challenge City Council as well as CPD to not only approve this plan. That's the time we have. Thank you. No worries. All right. Our next speaker is Brendan Green. Brendan, we've got you up as a panelist here, so you might just have to unmute. Hi, my name is Brendan Green. I'm with the East Corpus Community Collective. In my comments tonight I want to address the amendment and the claim that the addition of the lime single unit area should remain primarily single unit was the result of an inclusive process. This land was not in the initial draft recommendations and was only added since February 2020 and the first two years of the IAP. The input around the plan came largely from the more affluent neighborhoods of Montclair and Park Hill organization. Bringing the diverse voices of East Colfax was formed in October when we held our first press conference, calling out the inequities in the planning process on November 21st, 2019. On November 23rd, CPD, based upon the feedback they had received from more privileged communities who were organizing against missing middle housing, released an online survey to workshop how to integrate and scale back missing metal housing in the plan. They also conducted a workshop at Johnson and Wells University with 500 people in attendance on the same topic. Our perspective of wanting to incorporate more missing middle housing throughout the area and throughout East Colfax was not even included as an option, so the process was already skewed. After three months of the survey, the CPD reported their findings at the Community Steering Committee meeting on January 30th, 2020, where I happened to attend. CPD shared the feedback on the survey with 85% white, 46% Park Hill 19% East Colfax Feedback from the workshop at Johnson and Wells was 63% Park Hill and only 11% East Colfax. Based upon this completely inequitable three month engagement process, CPD announced the addition of the line single unit areas to remain primarily single unit and received universal feedback from all but one steering committee member that this worked against anti displacement goals in the plan. We want to be clear this is not initially in the plan recommendations. It was added after CPD received feedback from a very specific community, released a skewed survey that did not have all perspectives included, received very skewed feedback that was not racially representative or reflective of all of our neighborhoods, and then made a fundamental shift to the plan that significantly altered its direction. The Planning Board was right in removing the sentence and acknowledging how it works against citywide goals. We ask that you oppose this amendment for this reason and the fact that it was added after a process that was not inclusive. Additionally, the East Kotex Community Collective stands in opposition to the plan as a whole because we do not feel the full plan reflects our voice and input. Since we began to engage in January, after more than three months of analyzing the plan, we have acted in good faith and achieved 65 additions to this plan. But imagine what the plan would have looked like if we had this level of engagement from the beginning. If the diverse communities of Colfax would have been engaged in a meaningful way and been a part of this process from its launch, this would not be the plan that we would have written for ourselves. If we truly want to create plans that fight displacement, we should empower neighborhoods at risk of displacement to do this independently without being forced to negotiate, forcing our neighborhood that is dead last on the equity scale, 78 out of 78 in Denver. To negotiate, our future is setting us up for failure. We ask you to vote against the plan in a very and at the very least on this amendment. Thank you. Thank you. That's the time we have for you. Next step, we have Mary Coddington. Hi. My name is Mary Coddington. I'm a Denver resident, and I'm here today on behalf of the Neighborhood Development Collaborative or in DC. And DC is a group of 17 affordable housing providers and service providers. Who have come together to. Promote housing, security and community well-being for. Everyone. In pursuit of that goal, the organization strongly supports the East Area Plan and encourages its adoption by City Council. We support this plan for the following reasons. First, it's important to mention the way the plan was created. The three plus year plan process use demographic based outreach, which sets a standard for plan making and highlights the goal of CPD to create a plan that reflects the vision of the whole community. As the work of IN is primarily focused on low and moderate income residents, the additional effort to gain the perspectives of the immigrant and refugee communities is especially appreciated. The plan highlights the sentiment of residents that the east area should remain a place where a diverse range of families can live and work. To meet this goal, the EAP recommends using all possible methods to increase affordable housing, including to use duplexes and higher density near transit. These strategies and their implementation and appropriate areas will allow for complete and vibrant neighborhoods that are accessible to people from across the workforce. Not only will this continue to improve upon the already lovely neighborhoods of East, but will also interrupt the concentration of poverty that occurs when you have a city full of people with the mantra Yes , but not here. Members of NDC focus on different levels of housing affordability and different strategies to achieve it. But all of the members recognize the importance of a diversity of options to meet the wide range of needs and indeed is very pleased to see this point acknowledged in the EFP as well. The Neighborhood Development Collaborative does not support the proposed amendment to add the language to the plan. Single unit areas should remain primarily single unit. The plan uses the word compatible or compatibility 36 times, and it's repeatedly recommending the inclusion of housing types that are responsive to the existing. Contexts. By trying to block missing middle housing from single unit areas. Economic segregation is perpetuated, and the need for affordable and diverse housing options has just shifted into other parts of the city. The state demographer Dr. Coggin KPD, have all reached the conclusion that Denver and the East area will continue to grow and cities themselves are always in a state of change. This plan is a response to that change, and it's an attempt to direct it based on the different needs and priorities of the neighborhoods within the plan area, as. Well as the city as a whole. And planning is never a perfect process, but the EAP is grounded in comprehensive plan 2040 Blueprint, Denver and the voices of the community, including those that often go unheard because of the thorough planning process and the focus on equity. The Neighborhood Development Collaborative strongly recommends this plan. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ron LaFollette. Hello. Hi. Go ahead, Ron. You just have to sign my notes again. First, I want to give thanks to all the city staff, the city council members and their staff and all the neighbors in the east area that they put in a lot of hard work for. The development of this plan. The goals of inclusivity, the affordability and prevention of gentrification, I think represent community values that our residents can be proud of. Unfortunately, there are components of the plan regarding adding density to single family neighborhoods that are inconsistent with these goals and do not achieve these goals. In today's paper, the principal city planner, Curt Upton, says that opening the pathway to more units to 80 youths and missing middle housing should provide more affordable homes for people there. In the same article, Councilwoman Sawyer says gentrification is already happening, and by placing affordable housing in that priority, we will hopefully slow the process of gentrification. Words like should and hopefully will not achieve the goals of this plan. Supporters of the plan agree there is no way to enforce affordability. Without enforceable affordability. There's no inclusivity, there's no prevention of gentrification and obviously no affordability. Passage of a state law is a prerequisite to approval of this plan. However, previous efforts to pass this kind of law have been fought in defeated by developers. I can tell you what the plan will do regarding 80 youths and missing middle housing. It will increase density and it will do so at the expense of neighborhood character preservation, of which is one of the goals of the plan. It will increase congestions on our streets and make them unsafe. Also in conflict. With one of the. Goals of the plan to increase walkability and safety. It will not create affordable housing. It will most certainly benefit the developers who love density without affordability requirements. If you care about inclusivity, the prevention of gentrification and affordability, as I do, I ask you to vote against the plan. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Monica martinez. Hi. Can you see me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Hi. My name's Monica martinez. I live at 35. Eudora. I'm the executive director of the Facts Partnership. The Facts is a 16 year old nonprofit that's been dedicated to strengthening, is supporting the businesses and residents along the East Colfax Quarter. I was also a member of the East Area Plan Steering Committee with Merritt, who served admirably as our chair. Thank you for all the time you put into the project over the past three and a half years. I attended 26 meetings. Some of those were the steering committee meetings themselves, but a lot of them were community community meetings. I believe that the plan is a balanced plan that provides policy guidance for keeping East Colfax corridor diverse and affordable over the next 20 years. The plan also was a very inclusive process, and it was it's consistent with the plan 2040, as well as Blueprint Denver. And it provides a long term vision for this corridor. I won't go into the data that you already know. You guys know that Denver has an acute need for affordable housing, and now with COVID, a desperate need to support our small business owners, especially those business owners of color, and the immigrant and immigrant communities such as those that own businesses on East Colfax. Instead, I'll tell you about Dante. Dante was a young African-American man that I met at Hermann's Barbershop, a barbershop on East Colfax. Herman talked about how he grew up in the East Colfax neighborhood, but he no longer lives there because he can't afford it. But he still comes back because he feels that it's his community and he comes for his haircuts and his shopping. And so I would want you to encourage you to think about this plan in the eyes of Dante. If we do nothing and we do not adopt this plan, there will be no coordinated policy to address the needs of someone like Dante. 80 use likely will not be built at scale as we need them to, and new affordable housing will not be built on the metro areas. Largest transit line. The 65 anti displacement strategies for businesses and residents that were added in the final draft of the plan will not be implemented either. So once again, I would say that this is a balanced approach. And yes, I'm one of those people that wishes that it could go farther. But I also recognize that public policy is an art of compromise. In the 263 pages, there are multiple strategies to address the needs of someone like Dante to add housing that he wants to live in, as well as strategies to support the businesses that are that he'd like to frequent. So therefore, City Council, I would encourage you to accept this plan as it comes to you from planning board and with your added amendment. And please support the plan to add more anti displacement strategies. And let's bring Dante home. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Tim Sweeney. Good evening, council members. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. I live at 12th and Ivanhoe in the Mayfair neighborhood covered by the East Area Plan. And my economists today are in favor of the amendment, restoring the remain primarily single unit sentence and about not setting a bad precedent. When City Council's Luti committee held its October 20th hearing on the East Area plan, a few council members asked why they needed to have any particular concern about setting any precedent. When they approved the plan and here's the concern. As Liz Weigel just explained, the planning department engaged in an incredibly inclusive community process and arrived at the draft that came to the planning board with the sentence remain primarily single unit. And this. Weigel will also confirm that neighbors defending single unit neighborhoods and others opposing single unit neighborhoods all participated with equal vigor throughout the process. I'm sure all will agree it was a deeply difficult, deeply emotional, but deeply democratic process, resulting in many compromises that included the remain primarily single unit sentence. Or so we thought. Fast forward to Planning Board on October 7th when an elected planning board members accountable to nobody, none of whom participated in it in any of the three years of community meetings, voted to remove the Remain primarily single unit sentence, substituting their wisdom and point of view for the compromises hammered out in our community during the three previous years. It appeared that the rationale is we have master's degrees in planning and public administration. The rest of you don't. So the compromise reached by your community doesn't matter. This, I suggest, is the unacceptable precedent. But City Council should take care to avoid when future neighborhood planning initiatives come to your district. And they will soon. And community compromises are forged. Please make sure our elected planning board members are not invited or permitted to short circuit the painstaking process of building consensus. Please vote for tonight's amendment. Reinserting the remain primarily single unit sentence that our community wrote. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Sweeney. I want to just let folks know and let our interpreters know that we have coming up after the next speaker, we have one more speaker, but we are going to need to turn the translation off for Karen and allow time for the translators to say that. So we're going to go ahead and just wanted to give you that head's up because our next speaker is Barbara McFarlane. But then after that we have Sarah who needs translation services. And so Barbara, please go ahead. Here I am. Hi, I'm Barbara McFarlane, my husband Pete Marzouk and I Marzouk Fine Foods at Colfax and Fairfax and we also live in the east area and my whole neighborhood. I'm also on the board of the Colfax Mayfair Business Improvement District. Along with other business owners. We have participated in the East Area planning process for the last three years. Thank you, everyone who has put so much thought to building a great city and Colfax is going to be part of our great city. The East Area Plan will support the thousands of service workers along the Colfax corridor. This is important to me because we have so many employees that work at Mars and I would love to see them living there. Most of the employees can't afford to live in the area as it stands, and the same applies to workers at our other favorite restaurants, bars and shops. The plan has strategies to create more opportunities for local workers to live near where they work in a wide variety of home types that are more affordable than single family homes in this area. I want us to think three years forward and let's imagine that we're free. We get to walk anywhere we want, we get to hug anyone we want, we get to go into bars and restaurants and we are unfettered by the problems we're in right now. I think there is room along Colfax for higher density. I would love to see more people on the street. I would love to walk on Colfax and look up and see pipes hanging off of balconies and lights on and some people having dinner on their balconies. We need more restaurants, we need more services and we need more housing. Colfax can be a better main street that works for everybody. Please approve the plan tonight. You still have a lot of work to do. Thank you. Thank you. And we're going to go ahead and move our translation to the Korean language. And we have Sara. Sara. Up next Mayor Oromia in start I it that occurred what she said. I'm with. You. Okay. Hello, Sara. Good evening. My name is Sarah. Yeah. Who they'll tell. They're ready to care. I just know that were ten or. I. When he learned that, Keith, I'm going to sing for me. I came from Thailand refugee camp in 2007. They need a new kitchen. The order is called the whole day. I live in is Colfax neighborhood and in there there is an idea that is called the ruin. Is the black hat yellow. Whether you pull it back or pull up at the end of this evening, I don't like the. Photo book we are. Doing there, but I work well. Brandon and everybody do well. If I'm like, okay, look, a little more than 10 minutes around basketball minute, I do that. You do it. The first time I am part of the East Colfax Council is when I went to a meeting in my household and I met with the part of the Affordable Housing Committee and she asked me if I would like to join and I started being involve at. Okay. Miller Capito, look away. I didn't a bill to get over here we'll do it local but if we do local, new and local then there's some of that. If that group of premium that do well go back to the community level. Learn among us as a refugee who came here and we don't have a lot of money and support if. There are organizations or a group like a plan that will support us. It will be a great idea. I didn't end up or then it was either. You opened with a pendant Mockingjay and it was any second. And I knew though if they knew where he was calling myself, I would deliver that if called given that nuggets. I know I've been there for you. You know, the Aurora, the mine is a completely different resource. And I still live in the apartment on Grace apartment. And then many of my friends could not afford living in Denver. So a lot of them have to move to another state, as well as some of them move back to Aurora to find a different place. I knew the grenade, though. Yeah, it is. Of course it is. The same area with your computer, you know, somewhere within the universe. But for the latest, by keeping a resolve within the already difficult on my balance due to both I feel a lot. And for me I really love East Colfax neighborhood and I have been living here since I arrived in United State and I would love to be able to buy a home one day. That is when it's become affordable for me and my family. Since then, they're the only thing I'm with our analysis because I knew I was being a model of a role model and these have been no end up ancestry positive tests for my runaway here less than human available here aroma and I would like to ask our center console to look out for us and to listen to the plans that arrive from the community and to make the housing affordable of the delay. And then it is closer than ever. And within a month I would never be able to pull my or that I'm mother more than likely where the local market this happened in November. And I will love you to know that the organization that is focused on meditation helped us in so many way. I did though within myself with as a 20 neither as a mother how Yahoo Jupiter made us the new pasta. Our kitchen is the most elegant is temple we lower than either my neck is difficult their problem they get to other with many. I would be much better privileged to have that kind of healing without any damage. If I do that, you will always be with other people. And I would like to think that you've Colfax organization that helped me. When I lost my job from working at the hotel, they were able to help me to get the assistance and now I'm very grateful for them and that those are without intimidating like well, I never used to do that was they don't want to look out the if to pretend why don't we build on my life? But I look at them, they were like a bunch of people that you don't know. And I just want to say thank you so much to the organization that help many people who are in need. Okay. I got Lola. Okay. Okay. Okay. But doesn't matter. But I know. I mean, I think if there was a guy, he was, you know, he was available for that. Okay. What would you. A general idea. Yes, that would be. And I just want to ask you guys to think about it for more affordable housing for the family who are in the East Coast experience. Yeah, that's. Thank you. Thank you very much, Sara. We appreciate it. And our next speaker is Philip Beck. All right, Phillip, we've got you unmuted. Go ahead. Please. Thank you. My name is back, and I live not. Quite in. The east area plant itself, but nearby in the Capitol Hill neighborhood on 12th and humble. I would like to comment tonight in support of the unamended east area plan. I'm in favor of increasing density in the city if we can do so responsibly with an emphasis on affordability, preservation of neighborhood character parks and open space, pedestrian and bike safety, mass transit and so on. The city needs amenities like these to be livable. I attended several of the public meetings and I believe the plan strongly emphasizes livability. I believe the East Area plan will make Denver more sustainable. It makes sense to provide more housing in the city center, where jobs are also concentrated. By putting more housing in the city center, you take advantage of existing infrastructure. Our roads, utility lines, mass transit, the services there are already in place. It's much better than sprawling out around the edges of the city where new development needs expensive new infrastructure and services, and also pushes out into natural habitats. When people live close to work, they can walk or bike or ride transit to work instead of driving. The East Area plan. Also supports a a more affordable city because it would add more housing stock where people want to live without providing more housing. City neighborhoods become unaffordable in a long time. Residents are driven out and neighborhood character is lost. In in regards. To the proposed amendment, Denver's like many American cities where most residential land is zoned single unit. As a result, over the decades, not enough housing has been added to accommodate growth resulting. In an acute. Housing shortage and affordability crisis. You can absolutely. Add density in single family zones while also respecting neighborhood character and scale by adding things like accessory dwelling units and duplex and other housing types that are that are consistent with the existing scale. So I would urge the Council to to pass the. East Area plan. But not the amendment. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Philip. Next up, we have Nina Goldstein. Hi. I'm unmuted. Can everybody hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Okay. My name is Mina Ishida Goldstein and I'm a member of the ERP Steering Committee. I live right off Colfax in the plan area. I'm raising my children here and my parents also live a few doors down. A multiracial. Multicultural family with both immigrants and U.S. born parents and family members. I own and live in a historic single unit bungalow and love my diverse block, which has apartments. Duplexes. Shops and single unit homes of different sizes and styles with a beautiful array of neighbors. I love my neighborhood, and one of the reasons is that I experience a lot of joy living here. For me, it's the cheerful sounds of children playing outside, neighbors laughs and music. Ethiopian feasts at the local place, trading homemade spring rolls, chili paste and barbecue at our front doors. Bingo in the front yard with my 97 year old neighbor volunteering at schools. I support the East Area plan and I'm excited about the emphasis on missing middle housing and smaller units like Granny Flats, which already exist quite a bit in the area but somehow became disallowed. More varieties of home types, sizes and prices are needed and wanted by past, current and future neighbors. I have spoken with hundreds of neighbors and friends in the area and having flexible and affordable housing. Varieties is the top. Concern. Unfortunately, many of my neighbors have already moved, had to move to cheaper places in the suburbs, which has weakened our community and forced them into long commutes. Other parts of the plan important to me are the ideas for better mobility and communities serving businesses. A few years ago, when I was badly injured in a car crash. I was lucky to have walkable. Businesses nearby, so I didn't have to become dependent on others or isolated. And I'm excited for more locally owned businesses and improvements in transportation, streets, bike lanes, sidewalks and crossings. I'm very concerned about income inequality and segregation, and I feel that all of us residents of city government need to work together on solutions. The language about keeping the area primarily single unit should not be added back. It inaccurately describes the east area and could hinder housing. Variety that will benefit more people. Throughout this long. Three year planning process. CBD met with many different neighbors and groups and significant accommodations were made to try and balance various needs, always with a sincere aim of listening and helping people who are vulnerable or who could become vulnerable to displacement. I look forward to City Council and neighbors working together on implementing this plan. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Adele Fisher. And. All right, sorry about that. Hi. My name is Vidal, and we live near Niagara. And Colfax in the East Colfax neighborhood. As a homeowner and resident of South Park Hill, I wanted to voice my opposition to the East Area plan in its current form. I am asking the City Council vote no on the East Area plan. The existing 3 to 5. Area. Stories of zoning heights along East Colfax are more than sufficient for growth, including low income housing. Even the city has acknowledged that no zoning changes are needed in order to accommodate this growth. The people have already spoken on this on numerous occasions. I was with over. 500 neighbors at the public. Meeting last year where nearly everyone I spoke to. And heard speak were against the unnecessary height increases and the removal of single unit zoning. It has been well-established that. We do not want or need height increases or the removal of single unit zoning. To accommodate growth. Why has this new plan not reflected all of this input from the residents who live here? With all of our recent stresses and struggles of COVID, unemployment, home schooling, etc., many of us have not had the time or energy. To fully review the new revised plan, and many are not even aware that it was getting pushed through. Many neighbors, especially elderly and those who cannot. Afford home computers or high speed Internet or smartphones, have not been able to view the new large slow loading plan. Online and in-person meetings were not. Oh, I'm sorry. What is the rush when. There is plenty of room for growth, for affordable housing and the current zoning without any changes needed? The huge development at ninth and Colorado is not for Johnson and Wales is now up for sale. The VA is another potential development site with these as well as all the other building. Currently. Underway everywhere. Around us. Our area will already accommodate a massive amount of growth without any height increases to our existing zoning. All of this build existing buildings should be required to include a significant amount of low income housing. As a resident and property owner in the South Fork Hill, I am telling my city council to vote no on the East Area plan. This plan needs to go back to the drawing board and continue to get resident feedback. It should be up to the residents who. Live and own property here. If the zoning is to be changed. Right now. The plan does not reflect the hundreds of residents input and the new petition asking the city council to vote no on the plan. Gathered over 600 residents just in the past few days. City Council members listened to your residents and vote no on this east area plan. There is no rush and this plan needs to be continue to be fully updated to reflect our input and suggestions so that the plan works best for everyone in our community. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kinsey Hastert. Hi there. Good evening. My name is Kinsey Hastert and I am a Denver resident. But I'm here this evening representing enterprise community partners. And I'm here. Tonight to express Enterprise's overall support for the East Area plan, as well as our opposition to the amendment proposed this evening. Excuse me. Enterprise works nationally and here in Denver to make home and community places of pride, power and belonging for all. We do so through capital investments, policy and programmatic engagement and advocacy, and we strive to do all of this through a lens of racial equity. First, we'd like to truly commend the EIB Steering Committee's residents, who participated in many numerous public hearings and the CPD staff on the incredible work that has been done to date. We also thank the City for its commitment to high quality planning that is intentional, equitable and measurable, as evidenced in the Neighborhood Planning Initiative. However, we do oppose the amendment proposed this evening as acknowledged in the EIB and Blueprint. Denver intentionally increasing residential density and allowing for diverse housing types can contribute to more affordable housing conditions. We agree with Denver's strategy of increasing housing diversity, especially in neighborhoods that currently have little of it. One benefit of extending housing, of expanding housing diversity is helping to increase homeownership opportunities for communities of color. Although certainly not the only contributing factor. Areas that are primarily single family tend to have low homeownership rates for people of color, including in neighborhoods. For instance, according to data compiled by Shift Research Lab, 88% of the residential units in South Park Hill are single family. While the overall homeownership rate is high at 81%, that rate for Latino households is only about 2% and only 3% for black households. In contrast, in the East Colfax neighborhood, where a smaller proportion of homes are single family at 68%, over a third of owner occupied homes are owned by Latinos and 7% by black owners. Another benefit is enabling more people greater access to opportunity. According to Enterprises Opportunity 362, which scores census tracts based on housing stability, educational opportunity, access to quality jobs and transportation. EOP neighborhoods that are primarily single family have high access to opportunity in all of these categories. Increasing housing diversity in these areas would diversify who has meaningful access to such opportunity in the future. For these reasons and in support of our partners who have so thoughtfully elevated the voices of residents that too often go unheard. We do not believe that the EPA should state that single unit areas should remain primarily single unit. Without the proposed amendment, Enterprise supports the East Area Plan specifically for its vision for increasing housing affordability and preventing involuntary displacement. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Dirk McDermott. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on the East Area plan. My name is Dirk McDermott. I was born in Denver and I've lived with my family in Park Hill for 30 years. I'm a resident of the area and like many. Of the speakers that were. Ahead of me, I'm not in favor of the plan that is before you today. I have a number of reasons why I'm not in favor of this plan. In the Denver East, Neighborhoods First has done a good job of presenting the challenges to this plan, and I refer you to their literature. But here are my top reasons. Number one, first and foremost, the planning commission, an appointed, not an elected body, approves the plan but is chose to remove protections for single family homes in the East Area plan that community engagement. I'm not in favor of removing protections for single family homes. We have a strong, healthy, family oriented neighborhood that has been built on the foundations of the zoning. And we do not want this to change. I would like to acknowledge and support Councilwoman Sires Amendment. The key EOP decision process has been conducted during the pandemic and has not included the person to person neighborhood interactions that we should expect of citizens. I believe that the community would shape a much better result by. Spending more time. Post-Pandemic on this important effort that will impact our neighborhoods over the next two decades. They're key items the public has asked for that are not included in the plan. Just an example, the elimination of a large Safeway and King Soopers supermarkets and replacement with one very small market. And then finally, the BRT proposal, the centerpoint of the transportation infrastructure in this plan has several deficiencies that should be resolved before approving a plan with this as a centerpiece. Specifically, it's not a fully funded project, and with RTT and Price, it's not at all clear how this project will be built and managed. It also appears the impact of traffic diversion onto adjacent streets has not been adequately addressed. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Council. Thank you. Our next speaker is Thomas Robbins. Hello? Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Hi. My name is Tom Robbins, and I live at the corner of 12th and Crime Area. My wife and I are both teachers in Denver, and we support the East Area plan. Several years ago, we sought to live near our schools and given the price of homes in these neighborhoods, we were extremely lucky to find a multi-family unit dating from the 1940s in the Mayfair neighborhood. The East Area plan would increase housing density in the area, which undoubtedly would increase its affordability towards neighbors such as ourselves. Furthermore, a powerful tool we have to combat climate. Change is through increasing density in urban. Areas. The benefits to this are manifold. Namely, increased public transit use. Bicycling and. Walking. And a lesser dependance on the automobile as the primary mode of conveyance through a dense area. As an avid bike commuter, I know that. It is possible and preferable to commute through Denver in any season on two wheels. Although I wish street plowing were a higher priority. This single action, increasing density and mixed use. Zoning has far reaching effects and addresses numerous challenges to a growing city. I focused on its direct impact on climate change. Its positive impact on affordability towards a diverse population does not go unnoticed. More people should have the opportunity to live in these neighborhoods. For these reasons, the East Area Plan has my family's full support, and I encourage you to approve it. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Eric Stark. I. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Hi. Thanks for having me. I'm Eric Stark. I'm a Denver resident, 20/23 and Birch. I wanted to talk about just my experience with the ERP. I'm speaking not in favor of the ERP. I attended the Zoom meeting by the CPD on October 7th, and what I found most striking was that most of the people who were for it were either parts of business entities, coalitions, organizations, or they were part of the steering committee. The vast majority were not homeowners, renters or small business owners. In fact, most of them were on the con side, including myself. I think that's important for city council to recognize that if this plan is passed, you really start to ask the question Who does it benefit the most? I also want to talk about I get a sense when you're talking about planning in Denver, the whole process is flawed because you can't provide guarantees or protections in the plans. Every time we asked about guarantees or mandates, we were told It's a plan. You can't do that. That's City Council's responsibility. Meanwhile, they pass this plan to City Council for consideration, and city council can then pass a plan that still has no teeth or guaranteed protections or or guarantees of much of anything. This is something exploitable by developers, and I honestly feel like if we're going to have a rock solid East Area plan, you have to have mandates. When we asked about mandates for affordability, we're always told state law, state law, Telluride resolution, we can't provide that. It's against state law, but you can certainly recommend them in the plan and say we need to consider whether affordability mandates are of are appropriate, especially for the East Colfax neighborhood. Instead, the city council gets a plan that doesn't even talk about mandates, so why even consider them? This is just a flaw in the plan itself. It's kind of the tail chasing the tail. It doesn't seem like anyone's in charge or there's any real leadership or accountability. The final thing I want to talk about is there's a lot of propaganda about affordability, including from addus and up zoning to increase density. We have seen in Denver for the last 20 plus years how this doesn't work. And 80, for instance, are being used largely for short term rentals, R&B and B type things without a mandate, saying that those must be used for long term rentals to get you approval. You will not get affordability from any use. Same thing with up zoning. We have seen whole areas of northwest Denver up, zoned into boxes on top of boxes, next to boxes in the 4 to $700000 range. Still no affordability. So until there are affordability mandates, the East Area plan is flawed. And I ask that our council vote no. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is John Desmond. Madam Chair, members of Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is John Desmond. I live in the South Park Hill neighborhood about a block off of Colfax. I'm speaking in favor of the plan tonight, but in opposition to the proposed amendment. I first want to commend city staff and the consultant team for the tremendous dedication they have shown, along with the incredible amount of outreach they have done to the neighborhood. And I believe that the plan is, as is currently drafted, strikes a great balance between preservation and growth and between limiting displacement and welcoming diversity. I'm going to take a personal approach about this tonight. I. I have been involved in civic activities in Denver for 40 years, and I've lived in this neighborhood in Park Hill for 17 years in a single family house, and I would like to live out the rest of my life here. But I may not be able to always be able to take care of my current house. I may not need all of the current space I have. And so I would love for there to be a variety of diverse housing options for me and people like me. I also may not be able to or may not want to drive my car as much in the future. And so I'd like there to be viable transit options and more services and stores that I can walk to. And I would love for my adult daughter and people of her generation to be able to move back to Denver and live close to me. All of these wishes require density and diversity and affordable housing options to be created, options not really available in the current neighborhood. The plan is very forward thinking on preserving these options. But my fear is that the amendment, as written in its very vague and subjective form, will be used by some people to obstruct, change the change in diversity necessary and required for this neighborhood to be accessible in the future. To me, people like me and young people like my daughter, and to other people who want more than a traditional, expensive, single unit dwelling. In particular, I'm concerned with what does primarily mean and the primarily single family amendment. Does that mean 51%? Does that mean 99%? How are we going to resolve that if that stays in? I don't think you can resolve it. And I think the best way to deal with it is to remove that language. So in the name of diversity and affordability, I urge you to approve the plan and oppose the amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Amy Wright. Hi, I'm Amy Wright, and I've been a Denver resident for 42 years and a resident of South Park Hill for 38 years. I live at 19th and Glencoe Street. While the goal of the UAP is noble, it does nothing to guarantee affordable housing. Single family zoning should remain single. Family Zoning. My neighborhood, South Park. Hill was designed incredibly. Well 100 years ago and is already a very diverse neighborhood. Within four blocks of my home are duplexes, four plexus apartments, a retirement home, schools, places of worship, daycare centers, bus lines, businesses and single family homes of many sizes. I see similar diversity. In most of the other. Neighborhoods in this plan. Adopting this plan. Will only increase housing. Density, decrease greenspace, and deteriorate the neighborhood character without guaranteeing more affordable housing. I suggest that you work with the state legislatures to pass legislation that requires developers to put in a certain percent of affordable housing units in each development. Before you move forward with proposals like the East Area Plan, other moving parts that could significantly impact our neighborhood are the group Living Amendment and the addition of Addus. Furthermore, growth can be accommodated through the current zoning areas include Johnson and Wells. Campus fell out of the East Ninth Colorado Boulevard area and now the VA hospital that the city has already said could accommodate the growth. I ask that you limit changes and development to Colfax Avenue and restrict heights to five stories. Keep the single family zoning in place to preserve the character of the neighborhood that so many of us long term residents love. I ask that you vote no on the Denver East Area plan. If you do. Vote for the plan. Please include the proposed amendment that Sawyer proposed. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Hillary Patel. My own. Uh huh. Go ahead, Hilary. Okay. Thank you. My name's Hilary, and I'm the executive director of the Colfax MI Fair. This trip. Which includes about 200 small businesses and property owners along East Colfax Avenue. And within the Mayfair Town Center area. My board and many business owners have participated in this process for the last three years. Doing fieldwork. Focus groups, surveys and community. Meetings. What we've learned is that the status quo on Colfax today is not sustainable economically, socially or environmentally. The Syria plan addresses many very alarming trends in our area, including extreme economic disparity, lack of affordable housing, local businesses and low wage workers at the breaking point, and older buildings giving way to national. Chain stores and drive thrus. Many of these existing. Conditions are being accelerated by COVID 19. We desperately need to create more opportunity and more affordability for everyone. We need smaller homes and smaller storefronts. We need more jobs, homes and services. Near public transit. This will reduce traffic, improve air quality, support local business and provide homes for our. Workers and our neighbors. We need to change the rules. Have a main street that works better for everyone. The East Syria. Plan is just the first step. We need to. Invest now in long. Overdue public improvements, incentives, zoning, adaptive reuse reforms and inclusive housing policies. We asked you to approve. The plan tonight so we can get back to work. It's. Thank you. Our next speaker is Todd Fisher. Andrea. Hello. My name is Todd, and I've lived in history for over 25 years. And when City Council vote no on the estate plan in its current form. Our elected members of City Council who represent these districts should listen to the will of their constituents and vote the plan down. The non transparency of covert electronic meetings has changed the conversation to individuals who have more to gain monetarily, such as developers and stakeholders putting their $0.02 in through technology. This is a dirty tactic by the city to push through legislation during the worst pandemic. In our times when most folks are distracted by unemployment, home schooling, mental health issues to name a few. As witnessed before the shutdown, hundreds would come out in person to voice their dissatisfaction with this proposed destruction of our neighborhood. There's no reason the East Area Plan needs this up. Zoning. The current zoning has not yet been fulfilled. And there are other areas such as ninth in Colorado, South Colorado and I-25 elegies and new developments in Aurora that have not yet been finalized. I would like to put the planners to the test to show us some hard numbers in regard to how many new units are going up in Denver and surrounding areas. Since we are told there is a housing shortage with the resources the city has. This could help put things in perspective. I bought my property with the current zoning and find it unfair to change it from single unit zoning. As it stands now, AIDS are able to be built with a city permit if you can afford hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it. If young people want to share a house, as I did for ten years with five roommates in my twenties, there is no task force that's going to come knocking on their door to evict them. The argument for so-called low income housing is only a hot button issue used to fool people into believing that somehow this will benefit the homeless. But the reality is what is being proposed should really be labeled moderate income housing at best. We are already an inclusive neighborhood with relatively affordable housing. Many of us are working class and safe to get into a home we thought we could grow old in. The proposed building alone will take years and cause many more issues. More density means more pollution. Noise, pollution, trash, dog, excrement and air pollution. Denver is already one of the worst in the country for air quality, congested parking, more accidents, more crime, more mental health issues. The list goes on. We love our homes and neighborhood the way it is. That's why we chose to live here. Others are welcome and can purchase a home, as we all did. I implore city council to side with the residents of the area. Know Jesus. If you start from. On this. We have not changed our tune in the last year since most of us found out what was happening beneath our noses. We continue to stand against the current AP over and over again. It's sad to think that the people who make up this community have less rights than the corporate identities who ultimately were the ones who created this plan for their own profit. Please vote no on EPA. We cannot allow developers to have a free for all on building. Thank you. We next up have Maggie Lee. I. Very, very. Good. And Maggie, you might have to unmute yourself. Maggie. That was great. That was great. You hear me and see me? Mm hmm. Go ahead, Maggie. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Maggie Lee and I live and work in the city and county of Denver. I am here today in my capacity as director of programs with Mile High connects. We are a broad partnership of organizations from the private, public and nonprofit sectors driven by our vision of a racially equitable, resilient Denver region, where community driven solutions are at the center of transformative change. Mile High Connects acknowledges the immense amount of work that has gone into gathering and balancing the diverse stakeholder input to inform the East Area plan. This effort to broaden community perspectives is in line with Blueprint Denver and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan calls for advancing equity. Additionally, as an entity rooted in affordable housing and transit oriented development, Mile High Connects was pleased to see the inclusion of transit oriented development in a diverse corridor with rich cultural history. However, if we are serious about equity and mitigating displacement pressures in communities of color's color excuse me, we recommend that single family units remain primarily SFR to be struck from the plan prior to the official adoption. The single family unit policy that has been reintroduced to the plan is in conflict with existing citywide plans and hamstrings the East Area's neighborhoods ability to effectively address a historically exclusionary and environmentally unsustainable form of housing by limiting properties to single family units. Neighborhoods may be limited in their anti displacement efforts, such as creating affordable family units, affordable multifamily opportunities like townhomes or accessory dwelling units. We have the opportunity now to protect our most vulnerable neighborhoods and recommend the adoption of an East Area plan that provides structure for economic recovery among residents, businesses and property owners to make our communities truly equitable and resilient. Essentially for the East Area plan to survive. We need transit oriented development. We need density. And we need to be guided by community. More specifically, we need language in the EOP that does not limit a neighborhood's ability to create affordable multifamily housing opportunities to meet the needs of our future. Thank you for your time today. Thank you, Maggie. Next up, we have John Sawyer. Hello. Good evening. I'm John Sawyer. I'm a citizen of South Park Hill. I'm no relation to Councilwoman Sawyer, and I'm not a member of any cause related, organized group or committee. Well, there's a lot to like about the East Area plan, and I respect the work that's gone into it. Three issues compel me to ask council members to vote no tonight. First timing. We're in the midst of a global pandemic. Cities and states are shutting down again. So why would the city make this matter a priority when we as citizens are preoccupied with survival? I find it unconscionable this vote is even happening. Second Economics. While Denver's economy may appear strong right now. Colorado has always been boom bust. By all indications, we are in a downturn already. Downtown. Residential vacancies are rising, rent prices are falling for the first time in over a decade. Citizens are moving rural because technology enables them to work from anywhere. RTD is in crisis. Businesses are closing or barely holding on. So why would council push forward a 20 year plan amidst such economic uncertainty? This, too, I find unconscionable. Last, the whole single family zoning thing, East Area Plan is one of four calculated attacks to undo single family zoning in Denver. There are neighborhood plans like this one, the residential infill project group living and allowing to use everywhere. Clearly, this administration is hellbent on killing single family zoning. And for what? No city has proven that eliminating single family zoning results in anything better, more right or more fair. What is proven is that single family zoning has created stability in Denver for over 100 years. Any notion of undoing what's working, such as omitting the language Councilwoman Sawyers amendment proposes be replaced, strikes me as a covetous, covetous attack by the city on citizens life, liberty and property. Encouraging density where it is not warranted is just a text wolf in sheep's clothing, and that too is unconscionable given market forces and won't deliver the affordable housing outcomes that wishful thinkers would like to believe. So what's a better way? Leave single families only alone. You can only destroy a great city once. So don't. As the language proposed in the amendment back in and focus on one thing making Colfax a commercial residential corridor that is the envy of the world. Because we can. We can. Thank you. Thank you. Our last speaker this evening is Jessica Vargas. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Joseph Vargas, and I'm here today representing the Denver Streets Partnership. We're a coalition of community organizations advocating for people friendly streets in Denver because we each have a vested invested stake in ensuring our city is healthy, safe and accessible to everyone, regardless of how they get around. As with past area plans, the Demonstrates Partnership endorses the mobility and transportation recommendations in the EOP that support the creation of more people friendly streets. We're excited to see that the plan contains measurable goals for increasing walking, biking and transit usage. The plan outlines a bold vision for repurposing public street space and making infrastructure improvements that would make walking, biking, rolling and riding the bus safe, convenient and accessible transportation options for everyone. Excuse me. People friendly streets do not only result from rethinking street design, but also from supportive land use, development patterns and public transit service. A healthy mix of densities and land use types allows people to live closer to their daily destinations by making these options, these transportation options, more realistic for getting from place to place, rather than forcing people to live so far away that driving becomes the only practical option for getting where they need to go. Integrating more housing transport, more housing options near public transit further ensures people who need it the most have access. To it, which can. Significantly reduce transportation costs for CoSport and households that make up one third. Of households in the east area, as well as most of the thousands of service. Workers along the Colfax corridor. We're disappointed that the plan highlights places in the east area that are a five minute walking distance from high frequency trains. But then does little to recommend that higher densities be prioritized even within those relatively small sections of the area's neighborhoods. Therefore, we. Oppose the amendment to the plan that will limit existing single unit areas to remaining primarily single unit in the future. Limiting densities near transit, employment opportunities and neighborhoods serving businesses. Now means limiting. The number of people who can access and use these services and amenities on a regular basis in the future. At a time when expanding affordable housing and easy access to public transit are critical to addressing historic social and racial inequities within these neighborhoods, restricting land use to a single unit could result in. Smaller, more affordable homes being replaced with larger, more expensive homes. Driving up housing costs even further, imposing more restrictive measures with work against the vision of the East Area as a welcoming, walkable, historic and dynamic place where a diversity of people live and work. We appreciate the extensive amount of community engagement, data analysis and thoughtful discussion that informed the development of this plan. The DSP urges City Council to adopt the plan without the proposed amendment. Thank you for your time. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Questions from members of Council on the Amendment and or bill. We first up have Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. Hey, Liz. Great job with a presentation. I'll let you pause for a second. I'll put Kurt to work, and I'll ask her a couple of questions. So, Kurt, I challenge the notion that the East Colfax community was not engaged until the collective was founded. So can you please just talk a little bit about East Colfax engagement from the very beginning, please? Sure. Absolutely. Thank you for that question. Councilman Herndon, Curt Upton to be playing in the moment. So I think as Liz summarized in her opening presentation, we had over 20 meetings in the East Colfax neighborhood going back as far as 2017 when we when we started the process. So we've been engaging residents in the East Colfax neighborhood for three years and as a result of some of that engagement, there were organized groups formed. And so some of the formal organized groups we engaged later in the process. But the actual residents in East Colfax, we've actually done more outreach to that neighborhood than the rest of the neighborhoods. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that. And we've heard a couple of things about zoning. Does the East Area plan change any zoning throughout the east area in its current form? No. I mean plans themselves again, as as Liz mentioned in her opening presentation are not regulatory. So the plan itself does not change any zoning. It makes a number of recommendations on how to use zoning in the future to achieve many benefits that we've heard through the process with the time being using zoning to achieve our affordable housing goals. Thank you. I appreciate that. Can you talk a little bit as well about the Bus Rapid Transit? It wasn't mentioned a lot in these comments, but I'm sure my colleagues have gotten a lot of emails that mention the BRT. So I wanted to afford you the opportunity to talk a little about that, please. Sure. And we do have staff, I think, on the call. I think Brian from Dottie can answer any more detailed questions. But the BRT is moving forward to the next phase of the development process. So it does have funding from the general obligation bond to go into the environmental clearances and do the detailed design work that's required to get federal funding and to construct the project. Thank you. What was it prior to the East Area plan? And I'm being a little silly with this, but what plan did the city council just pass? I think it was last month. The essential plan. Right now during pandemic. Correct. Thank you. And I have one more for my president. And I'd like to ask Irene Aguilar if she could just speak briefly as well. So if if this sentence about single use was a page of a 200 plus page, it'd be less than 1% of it because it's a sentence, it's an even smaller percent. And I actually think that's how much time we should dedicate to this. But since it has gotten a lot more strength and I actually think that it deserves I want to ask you this question. The sentence that was deleted there is amendment to put forward is that the only place in the plan where we are mentioning single family units. No. There's actually, you know, several places. I think the most prominent place that single unit is represented is in the places, maps and the plan, which is essentially the land use plan, which maps out, you know, the different categories of land use intensities and including the single unit land use category or place as what we call that . And in that description of the single unit areas as part of that Places map, it indicates that the single unit areas remain predominantly single unit. So it's the sentence under discussion is a clarification and just further reinforcement of recommendations elsewhere in the plan. Okay. So it clarifies what is stated in other places in the plan, the ones that. Correct. And by saying it's primarily a single unit, does that prevent anyone from using, utilizing to use? No. We stated very clearly that every homeowner should be given the opportunity to build an ADU, and we consider that the zoning code considers a single unit property with an attitude to to still be a single unit. Great. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. Hey, Irene, good to see you. I just wanted to give you the opportunity just to talk about with your work that you do in your partnership along with the East Area Plan. Not particularly a question, but I just wanted to give you a little opportunity to speak as well. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. We actually have had a wonderful time working with CPD in East Area. Liz Talley That for me we had at least six different dates of meetings with probably at least 16 hours of conversation. And it was wonderful to hear. On the ground. From the community what their needs were. And it actually led to a number of changes in our planning for this year, including putting navigators. Out there in community. And working with business services to try and help find business displacement in that community specifically. And what has the most excited is that this community really brought forth a lot. Of great anti. Displacement ideas. And and I've. Offered to sit down and work with. Them and prioritize them and figure out how we. Get them through to the finish line. As you know. This is an aspirational document and we'd like to turn some of them into action and look forward to doing that in the future. Thank you for asking. Wonderful. Thank you. Those are all my questions on the president. All right. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Next up, we have Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. So, Kirton. Liz, I want to turn to page 39 of the East Area Plan because I think page 39 sort of sums up best for everyone kind of page 39 could be the East Area plan. You could just sort of take that page policy. L six What is policy? Six The overarching policy? Wholesale six recommends integrating additional housing options and ADAS and all East Area neighborhoods inappropriate locations. So it's that recommendation to allow more housing types in our neighborhoods. Okay. And so the wording that was removed that we've moved to put back in the plan, that's that's a part of a six. Right. Correct. It's a it's a sub strategy under several strategies. And in fixing it again, as Kurt mentioned, it was intended to provide that clarity around the ways that we should be integrating housing options . Okay. So like we lived this plan for the last three years or so. Just to clarify for the people who didn't l6 as a policy says, and I'm quoting here, ensure east area neighborhoods are inclusive places by thoughtfully integrating compatibly, does that come compatibly designed missing middle housing and accessory dwelling units to use in appropriate locations? Right. And then l6 a1, the the language we want to put back in says primarily single unit areas should remain primarily single unit. Right. And then Al 61 says, well, missing middle housing units, 2 to 4 units should be integrated into appropriate locations. A2 use should be allowed on all lot. So this is all on page 39. If we vote to move this language back into the plan. So is that is that right? Am I misstating. That's correct. Okay, great. So can you explain two things? Question one. How does all that then work together? So this recommendation again is about integrating housing options into our neighborhoods, and it provides additional guidance about how to do that, right? So considerations for our future regulatory process and the plans are very specific about saying that this should be done through a citywide regulatory process, which we expect to be a residential commercial project. That will be something that will be coming forward next year. And so this guidance basically will be used in that process. As we write zoning regulations, we talk further with the community and we implement the plan guidance. So the the. Single the language about single unit, again, was intended to make clear what we see elsewhere in the plan, that there's still opportunities for single units and they should continue, but that this is really about thoughtfully integrating so not eliminating single unit, but. Integrating those new options. Where they're appropriate. And it gives that additional guidance around to use to make clear. That those are appropriate on all of us. Okay. So would it be fair to say thank you for that explanation? So would it be fair to say then that what this wording of this amendment does is ensure balance in this plan? Correct? That's correct. And would it be fair to say that that is a reflection of three years worth of some pretty tough community conversation ? That's correct. I'd say this recommendation evolved quite a bit over time based on. The. Community input that we've heard over the last year, plus on the specifics. Of the recommendations. Okay. And one of the requirements for us to find that this is that this plan can be adopted at all, is that this is consistent with the previous adopted plans. Right. It's got to be consistent with 2040 and Blueprint 2019. We talked a lot about this at Ludy, but just to refresh and for people who weren't present at Ludy, can can you or Curt just sort of walk through then how it is that this is or is not. Consistent with those adopted plans, please. Sure. I'll walk through. So we do we do feel that it's consistent with or without this line with blueprint. Our blueprint Denver does have a very similar recommendation about integrating missing metal housing in low and low, medium places. So both types and then it give some suggestions for how that may happen and appropriate places that could be considered during that process. So this recommendation gives additional guidance in the East Area plan, but we feel that it is still consistent with that intent to integrate, right, not to eliminate single unit, but to integrate those additional housing options. So this line that we originally had in the plan was again intended to sort of re-emphasize language elsewhere in the plan and to make clear that it's this integration. But we do feel in either way, the. Recommendation is. Consistent with that blueprint. Denver guidance. Okay. Thank you. And so, for example, I was looking through the foreign northeast area plan. Did either of you work on that plan by any chance? Or maybe Laura could speak to that plan or if Sara's here and she could speak to it? I'm not. I'm not sure if there's anyone here who worked on the plan. From CPD. We didn't directly. Work on it, but we. Could try to answer a question or see if there's anyone else online. Okay. I'm just curious because I found a few examples of some language in the far northeast area plan, which was adopted a year a little over a year ago of some language that's pretty similar. So I just wanted to kind of see if there was some legislative history on that. Like, you know, page 34, promote the continued use of single unit zoning on properties with existing single unit homes and identified by this plan as residential low single units. Page 152 Maintain the character of Mont Bellows. Existing residential areas was the high priority of the community. 3.1.3 Maintain the character of existing residential neighborhoods below. So I was just curious if someone could talk about the, the history of that plan and what that look like and how maybe that. Was adopted and whether some of those conversations happened are similar to these conversations. I can I can touch on that. Councilman Sawyer. So the far northeast plan uses the same place descriptions and place types that we use in the East Area plan because they're establishing blueprint. Denver And so in the far northeast plan does have a map of single unit areas. And the places map just, just like the east area plan has a map of single unit areas. And the same description applies. So the guidance in Blueprint Denver is, is to integrate additional housing units into single unit areas. That's part of the description of what a single unit place is. It's not solely single unit properties and how it's defined. And so there's a consistent approach with how we're designating land uses in the in the far northeast and in the east area. Okay. Great. Thank you for clarifying that. I really appreciate it. I might have some other questions, but I know my council members have a bunch of other questions, so I will see my time. Thank you very much and congratulations. I really appreciate all of your hard work on this plan. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Sawyer. Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Madam President. Liz and Kurt, I have a question about missing middle housing. On page 40, there are photographs of some examples of existing missing metal housing, triplex, duplex, a row house. And so in aspirational terms, it sounds great. But in Denver, we haven't seen any. Sort of attainable that's taken from this page. Middle housing be built at all. New attainable, middle missing middle housing. So I'm just curious on any strategies you have for creating new missing middle housing that is attainable. Thank you for that question, Councilwoman Black. I think you're you're absolutely right on that. We've struggled to have that happen in historically in Denver or recently in Denver. And something that's key to this recommendation about missing middle is that integration of and implementation of affordable housing strategies. We stated that should be part of that process. Going forward, whether that's. In financial or technical assistance to help existing homeowners take advantage of these allowances. Looking for opportunities for homeownership. But really, what are those programs we can pair with missing middle recommendations in addition to pairing design requirements really are that residential infill project is intended to look at all of these things together so that we're tackling the multiple issues that come forward with achieving missing middle. So we keep hearing about the residential infill project and that we keep hearing people say it's it's not going to eliminate single family zoning. Now we're adding a sentence back into this about single family zoning. So I don't understand how those all work together. Are we are we aiming to get rid of single family zoning? Or are we aiming to preserve it and how are we going to get. Missing middle attainable housing. In either situation. Our intent is not to eliminate single unit turning. Our intent is what we say integrate. But you could think of only, you know, potentially certain lots or certain locations may qualify to add additional units. So that could be based on what characteristics or their location. You know, that's really a regulatory process to come up with those standards about when it may be appropriate. So there would still be single unit zoning in place, but there could be more allowances in those neighborhoods based on that process. So that's not a complete elimination. That's adding those housing options where they make sense. Okay. And then is the goal to ultimately allow 80 use on every single unit law in Denver? Blueprint. Denver is very clear about accessory doing and being appropriate. We also have recommendations about removing barriers and making sure that, again, they're feasible for existing homeowners to take advantage of and that they're designed compatibly. So, yes, that we do have that plan guidance, not zoning in place today to allow accessory dwelling units throughout all of Denver. And that's reinforcing that area plan. Okay. Thank you. All right, Councilwoman Torres, you're up. Thank you, Madam President. I was. Since your sincerity of what I. What I want to better understand is how it is interpreted when we talk about primarily and predominantly when we see that in the area plan. What does that mean to you all in CPD when you're reading an area plan that uses those terms? Since we're talking about single unit, single unit to unit 80, you kind of permitted areas if loses of there any more incurred, isn't there anymore? How does a new CVD employee who is, you know, has no history with how the crafting of this language was done? Read this and and come away feeling like integration was the goal as opposed to protection. And single unit. Housing. Thank you, Councilman Torrance. Great question. Plans are policy guidance. So ultimately any regulatory change that comes forward will come before a CPD go, before a planning board and city council and have to show that it's consistent with our plan guidance. Right. And there's, you know, not just this line, but the plan overall and any other city adopted plans would provide that plan guidance. And purposefully, a plan is not that exact tricky regulation of what know 50%, 51%, that type of language is not included in that plan because it does give that ability for the future council to interpret whether they feel that that sentence. Has. Been met, but ultimately is intended to reinforce that it was saying appropriate locations. You're right that we weren't eliminating single unit. The single unit opportunities will still be there in neighborhoods along with these other missing middle options. There was really concern throughout this process that we were trying to kind of just erase complete neighborhoods and we went through iterations with maps and different options for this. And I know, as you're saying, we don't have that history necessarily in the future, but it's really it's intended as guidance. There's plenty of language in the plan about integrating and providing those additional housing options. So I think that's very clear that that we should be having not just single unit in these areas, but it gives that guidance that we should be looking at that we've still maintained the single unit opportunities. And. And that clarity, I think, is what's it like? I mean, I'm on the radar right now for folks. And and whether or not even that single line, even if we do refer to predominantly single unit and two unit throughout in other places in this neighborhood plan that this one in particular feels. Like particular guidance as opposed to balance to what might be elsewhere from folks that I've listened to both in this hearing but also in the planning board hearing, I haven't necessarily talked about wishing that the plan eliminated single unit zoning. That was not the commentary that I came away with. So it was much more about just making sure it was very clear that it wasn't protecting it as opposed to calling it out for integration. The. See. Liz, I don't have another question for you. I do have one, though, for Irene, if she's still in our queue. Mm hmm. Hey, go ahead, Councilwoman. Hey. Yeah. Hi, Irene. How are you? I'm good. So you talked a little bit about some of the engagement that you were involved in related to this plan. A lot of what we've heard about. Is some of the need for things to be more deliberate. We've heard mandate in some of the comments and things, things that an area plan might not be able to provide, but that maybe departments or offices like Nest do or could. In in your interaction with this plan process, have you identified things that either Denver economic development, an opportunity or nest in particular can move forward with or can identify as investment or integration opportunities for city departments? Definitely. As I mentioned, there are two things we're already moving forward with. One is that we have community navigator contacts there with two different organizations in East Colfax. And then secondly, we're working on a contract with multiple organizations to do business displacement prevention in East Colfax and hopefully design a model that can be extrapolated to other neighborhoods. As time goes forward. I think more importantly, though, there are a number of ideas that came. Up in. The plan that were put forward by advocacy groups that are not necessarily a city controlled, some are state controlled, some perhaps are federal control. And so I am looking forward to a promised conversation with the East Colfax Community Collective to sit down and prioritize what two or three they'd like to see us really try to implement so that those can be built. Into. Our budget requests and how we plan to spend our money in the future. And I imagine in any of those would support any of the rest neighborhoods if their state or federal covers. Yes. And in fact, one of the ideas in particular of the East Colfax community had was around trying to figure out how we do a designation as an international district. And we've done some exploration with the state and. And with arts and venues about. Different practices that might be available. And actually, PUMA, one of the consultants, has agreed to help with that voluntarily, because I think it would be great for the neighborhood. And so what's nice about this is that the neighborhood was engaged and making their request. And we hope to continue to see. This as we go to other neighborhood plans. I. Right. Thank you. You it as. All right. Thank you, Councilman Torres. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I actually thought Councilman Cashman was in line before me, but let me get to my questions. Thank you. Curt or Liz, maybe that explain. Or answer this. Has there ever been an analysis of how much residential square footage potential exists in the plan area under the current zoning? We've heard a lot of talk, in fact, in the last couple of years about the density that is currently allowed that it's not yet built. And I'm just wondering if we've ever analyzed how much of that there is. Thank you for that question, Councilman Flynn. So, yes, we have done an analysis of the zoning capacity of the east area in terms of the ability to absorb the projected growth in employment and residential units. And we found that that zoning, if it was maximized, built out completely, that it would be able to handle the projected growth by the Dr. COG models. We've also found, though, that there's a number of limiting factors sort of built into the zoning to not be able to completely max out the zoning. So there is a for example, there's a number of lots along Colfax that are really too shallow to be maximal, have a maximum zone or build out . There's other regulatory barriers in place and there's a number of properties that we are recommending not be built out to their capacity because that would require demolition. And there's a number of properties that people would like to preserve historically. And so all of those factors came into account when we were putting together our recommendations for the growth strategy. Okay. Any do you have any numbers you could put on that? Liz? You might. Yeah. Liz If you have those numbers in front of you, I don't have them. But in terms of the projected growth in the area, a. Residential, it's 4200 4800. Unit units, correct? Correct. Yeah. Units are in the in the four neighborhoods. And has that been compared to the existing unbuilt entitlements that exist in those four neighborhoods? Yes. And I think that that's what curves speaking to that we have capacity it's whether that growth. Whether it can. Help us meet our community goals and that's why we have the recommendation about. Rate. Increases and how that should come with. Community benefits. Okay. And I would have to say, it's very rare that that existing entitlements could be completely maxed out in any in any neighborhood to begin with. I remember the old be seven zones downtown. We would have had skyscrapers on every one. And clearly we don't, nor would we want to. Kurt or Lee, as the planning board voted 6 to 3 on this. Are you able to explain the competing reasons that members had for why this was a split vote? It's it's not often that we get a recommendation from the planning board that is that is that a divided. Yeah. So. Oh, go ahead, Liz. I was just going to speak to throw an amendment itself, to add that to remove the single unit line. That was a vote of 7 to 2 with one feeling that it didn't go far enough. The plan still had other things that talked about single unit and one. Just not. Supporting that change in the plan. And then the overall vote was a vote of 6 to 3 in support of the plan. So again, that that planning board member who felt the plan didn't go far enough in terms of increasing density and allowing more, you know, housing in general did not support the plan. The seven member who did not support the amendment to strike that line did not support the plan. And then a third. Member. Felt that there could be more community process as an extension of the process itself. So it sounds like for different reasons, perhaps 7 to 2 on striking that sentence that that the community had put in there and then 6 to 3 on the plan with one of the three not thinking it should have added, I guess added more density or allowed more density or cleared the way for that. Okay, Liz, in your answers to our council, Councilmember Sawyer and Black, you're talking about the plan's intent to introduce missing middle units into single family areas, inappropriate locations, I think was the term that you used. Does the sentence that was originally included in the plan that went to the planning board, which the board took out, saying single family areas basically should remain primarily single family. Would that would that sentence prevent any future rezonings to introduce missing middle units in appropriate locations which which blueprint speaks to. It would not prevent it, though, would be guidance that should be considered during a regulatory process. So basically the sentence single family area should remain primarily single family does not exclude multi-unit four plex duplex inappropriate locations as blueprint advisors. So what does what does not, including that sentence, mean for future rezonings or plan guidance? Could that could that be used to say an entire neighborhood can be reasoned for multi-unit? Such as what? We have an overlay, for example, where it saw mostly twin unit zoning. So we would say that it does not give fighters for elimination either, because as Kurt mentioned, we do have a place map that describes similar to the blueprint of our descriptions that these areas are predominantly. Go or communities. Depending on what that label is on the place map. So it already has that guidance elsewhere in the plan. And then the overall policy L6 says inappropriate locations too. That often provides that guidance that it's not necessarily everywhere. But it's. Appropriate places. Okay. So with it or without it. The East Area plan would mean the same thing for future plan guidance on rezonings. Yeah, we would say that it would still be recommending again that integration in appropriate locations and not the elimination of single. Unit primarily does not primarily means for the most part does not mean exclusively. Correct. Correct. So this would not putting the sentence back in which the community had wanted before it got the planning board would not would not exclude missing middle units being introduced, inappropriate locations. Correct. All right. Thank you. That's all I have. Madam President. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. And I have a list here. So the shorter, the better. So, first of all, can you remind me, Curt, what the percentage of single unit zoning is in the food plan? Councilman CdeBaca. I don't have that exact percentage in front of me. I can look it up for you, but it's. It's the majority of the east area. Got it. Irene does next have the power to make recommendations on whether something is truly consistent with our equity goals in our plans. No, we do not. At this point in time, we do not. And then for CPD, I Del Fisher mentioned the whole the massive amounts of growth that could we could accommodate right now with current zoning. Can you describe what percentage of the corridor is not utilizing their current entitlement? Councilman CdeBaca I don't know, again, the very specific percentage to that question, but I think it's safe to say that, again, the majority of the properties along Colfax are not maxed out. Most of the properties along Colfax today are zoned for three stories and some five stories. And that there is not the market today or has not been the market today to build those out. In addition to that, as I was mentioning previously, we have identified a number of other regulatory barriers in the zoning code and in other codes that we have that regulate development, that are barriers to actually redeveloping many of those properties, as well as just a lot configurations of those properties being very small and shallow probably are not feasible in most cases to build out to, you know, maximum zoning. Do you have percentages for that, for those that are not able to be built out no matter the change? No. But what we have done is what we've mapped out similar to the in the East Central plan. We've done a lot by lot analysis along Colfax and categorized each of the lots into different sizes and the smallest sized lots that we think are not really developable at the maximum level. We've identified those as not appropriate for any additional height. And in many cases, we've identified those with existing what we call character buildings, which may or may not be historic but have contributed to the urban design and the history of the area. We've we've flagged those properties for keeping the same and actually no redevelopment because it would any redevelopment may result in demolition of those properties. So the result is a balanced approach to preservation and redevelopment. And we've added the requirements to any redevelopment that would take advantage of additional height, that community benefits be provided. And with the top priority right now, because we're in a housing crisis being affordable housing. Awesome. I have a question related to that in a second, but I'm sure you can anticipate it, but I'll get there. Can you quickly define what a policy means to CPD? Because I'm having trouble seeing the difference between our goals, objectives and. A new use of policy. I haven't. Used. I haven't seen. The word policy used to describe what we're seeing here. So can you explain what CPD's definition of a policy is? Sure. What we mean by policy as it when they're included in area plans is really guidance for future decisions. And so when a future decision around regulation, so whether we're writing those specific regulations with numbers or we're making a decision about infrastructure, that we use these policies in the plan to help guide those decisions in the way that's helping to achieve the outcomes of the overall vision that's articulated in a plan. So I'm having trouble with that one because we currently have equity goals and policies around equity that we're having a lot of trouble operationalizing in our rezonings. So can you explain to me if policies are operational actions that we need to take to achieve our goals? How how will rezonings look different after this plan than they do right now? So what? It all depends on, you know, the specifics of the actual rezoning case. But for example, if there is a property along Colfax that wishes to rezone to a greater height today, the the policy that would be used is either the neighborhood plan that exists today, which there is one, for example, in the East Colfax neighborhood and Blueprint Denver. So we would use both of those plans. We would use Blueprint Denver and we would use the the old plan that's in place now for East Colfax that's called the East Montclair Plan. That's how it was done in the 1990s. And use those the policies in those plans to evaluate a rezoning decision. As was mentioned before, the East Montclair plan does not recommend affordable housing, does not mention for inclusive neighborhoods or anything about equity and blueprint. Denver recommends that Colfax in general, like other corridors of this type, be allowed up to five stories. And then beyond five stories, community benefits kick in. And so what that would result in is, let's say, a three story property along Colfax today could easily, I would say, meet plan guidance of building a five story building with no affordable housing requirement. If the East Area plan is adopted and it falls within one of the properties that we've mapped out, that's appropriate for up to five stories. Affordable housing would be required. Well, that is assuming that we've defined community benefits and included affordable housing as part of that. Those priorities, but I don't think we've achieved a. Static definition of community benefits in this plan either have we? Well, similar. And if you recall this conversation coming up in the East Central Plan, there are a range of community benefits that are articulated, with the idea being that, again, this is a long term plan over the next 20 years, that one would hope that we're not always in an affordable housing crisis. But there may be other community needs, let's say, ten years from now, that are more appropriate for the given moment. Maybe that's affordable business space or a grocery store in a food desert or a public park, etc.. And so those decisions would require council approval based on the current highest need. The East Area plan does recommend that today because we're in an affordable housing crisis in Denver and in particular, it's the top priority in the East Colfax neighborhood because of the the threat of gentrification and displacement. So we do think that it's articulated clearly that affordable housing is the top priority benefit at this time. And so does that mean say for example, say there's a property on Colfax that wants to capitalize on their entitlement zoning to build a boutique hotel, but they're not offering any affordable housing in that boutique hotel. But they say we're going to have a swimming pool, a rooftop swimming pool. And a community benefit would be to offer access to the neighborhood, to that pool. Does that mean or does this plan mean that CPD is going to tell us or recommend to us not to approve that up zoning? Because that's actually not a community benefit agreement that's relevant right now. That that specific example wouldn't meet any of the community benefits that are articulated in the plan, and it certainly wouldn't meet the affordable housing community benefit. So as I was going back to sort of this hypothetical example of some of the common properties along use Colfax that are currently three stories. It's it's possible that the scenario that you described could meet existing planning guidance from what there are in place today that were written in the 1990s, that that example would not meet the East Area plan recommendation and therefore, you know, would be highly likely to be found inconsistent by city council. Would it be inconsistent with CPD's recommendations, though? Yes. Awesome. Good to know. And I heard street safety mentioned. Was there a traffic study along Colfax for this portion? I know there wasn't one for East Central, but was there any kind of traffic study that is informing our street safety plans here? There was there was also four for East Central. So there's been several traffic analyzes done in the east area. Many at a very high level and more detailed levels depending on the topic. So the Colfax BRT project has done traffic modeling of future traffic volumes both on Colfax and surrounding streets and in the East Area plan. We did an in-depth analysis of crashes and looking at specific intersections which informed the priority safety improvements that are recommended in the plan. And will those still be so? You know, when we make a plan, we don't actually get to make the thing happen overnight. So if this plan passes. Is there any funding that comes to with it to do any of the things in our plan? Well, no, I mean. As as Liz said in her opening presentation, a plan is not two things that are often, you know, a source of of of conversation with the community around implementation plan again as a guiding document that guides future decisions, including budget decisions. So it's not the budget decision itself. It's a guidance for those future budget decisions. So as you know, future budgets are created through the capital improvement program or future general obligation bonds, etc.. Plans will be consulted to look at what were the priority projects that were articulated in the plan. So that is, you know, something that I think keeps coming up. We keep hearing that the plan is guidance and it's aspirational. But is it not also a legal document? Well, I mean, it depends on what you mean by a legal document. Is it is. Do we not use it to justify consistency with plans in our quasi judicial hearings around us zoning. Correct. So for certain decisions like regulatory decisions, like rezoning decisions and tax increment financing decisions, there is a requirement to find consistency with an adopted plan. Again, so it's basically saying that you should you have to use this plan as guidance when you're making decisions on rezoning cases, for example. Thank you. And the last couple of questions. What are the top three most dense neighborhoods in our city? I would have to check, but I would you know, they're they're not in the east area if that's if that's the question. So, you know, Capitol Hill, I believe, downtown, are some of the two highest density neighborhoods. The third. I would have to check. And are those the most affordable neighborhoods in the city? Well, it's it's depends on what you're looking for, I guess. And I would also have to check, I mean, there's different ways to measuring affordability. So, for example, if you're looking at total affordability, that includes housing and transportation costs combined. And again, depending on your family situation, whether you can get to work with other transportation modes, places like Capitol Hill can be quite affordable because they have smaller units and they're close to transit and they're close to jobs and other amenities. And so what we see in those neighborhoods is that families spend quite a bit less on transportation costs. In fact, some of the highest rates of households that don't own any cars and they get to work on bicycle or in transit are in neighborhoods that are dense like Capitol Hill and North Capitol Hill, etc.. They're. The most affordable. Neighborhood in our city. What's that? I'm sorry. The most affordable neighborhood in our city. I I'm not sure. I mean, again, it depends on what your definition of affordability is. If if you're if you're in need of a subsidized housing unit. For example, five points, I believe, has our highest concentration of subsidized income, restricted properties. And so, you know, you would you'd be able to find an income restricted property there easier than in some suburban areas because there's typically not as many income restricted units in suburban areas, for example. And if you're able to, again, live in a smaller studio unit and you don't have a large family, you may find a more affordable option in an apartment closer to downtown. So it's it's just a difficult question to ask at a broad scale. Thank you. And what plan? What neighborhood plan in the city has stalled. Displacement. You know, I'm not sure the answer to that question. The plans are adopted with different priorities and different goals depending on when they created. And so, for example, some of the older plans that were created in a different era, like in the 1990s for the the East Colfax Plan that's in place today. The issue was disinvestment and and population and people leaving those those areas and high vacancies. And so the goal was revitalization and trying to encourage more development, including market rate development. And so in those instances where we're not seeing a lot of emphasis on a plan guiding decisions to more inclusive neighborhoods, I think more of the recent plans where this topic has been a priority, you know, it's it's it's there to new to be able to to tell. But I guess what we do see is displacement and gentrification happening throughout the city in places that don't have plans and places that do have plans. And I think most of our our again, our more recent plans that emphasize affordability and inclusive neighborhoods and equity are two new to see kind of the effect of that over the long term yet. And so maybe this is a better way to reframe it. And it's my final question. And if you don't have the data, I would love for us to make it a priority to collect this data. But what neighborhood plan in the entire city has been approved and followed by increased rates of displacement. Again. I would have to I'd have to get back to you on that to answer that with any level of accuracy. But again, I would just go back to saying that, you know, oftentimes what we have done in the past in Denver is we've prioritized doing area plans in locations where we're seeing a lot of changes. And so when when you see a lot of changes and a lot of investment going in, oftentimes that can lead to higher prices. And it's not as necessarily as a result of a plan being adopted. It can be actually mostly due to market forces that are in place separate from a plan. And so, you know, I think you're you're asking a very important question. And I think it's something that we are looking at as a department. We just created a tool, a mapping tool that aggregates all of our data sets in the city and overlays that with plan areas. So we can kind of take a look and track what's happening in areas we have and have not planned. And again, what we've seen is gentrification, displacement happening independently of where a plan is. And so this is it's obviously a much bigger issue than just whether there's a neighborhood plan in place or not. Thank you. I would love to see the pre preplan rates and post plan rates just for a comparison. Thank you for all that. I appreciate it. Thank you, Madam President. That's it for my questions. And cue Councilwoman CdeBaca. Councilman Ortega, you're up. Thank you, Madam President. So let me start with my first question, Kurt. Since you're still there, why don't I throw this one to you? In the conversation about brain space. I didn't see or hear anything about how green space would be used to do gardens such as community gardens or rooftop gardens. And since part of the conversation talked about food insecurity and addressing some of the healthy food needs of the community. Did I miss something or was that just not captured at all? Thank you for that question, Councilman Ortega. Yes, this is an important topic. Again, the plan it's a it's a big plan, as was mentioned several times in the testimony. It's about over 280 pages. We do have a whole section of the plan on healthy food and food at food access, including mapping out appropriate locations for community gardens and using open spaces to grow healthy food. So and not just mapping those areas, but also creating policies and strategies to implement some of those ideas. But was any of that incorporated into. Any of the new developments so that you're not just looking at, you know, buying a lot to turn into a community garden. But if you're looking at, you know, over a course of time, multiple three or five storey buildings being added where they're appropriate along the Colfax corridor, and they would get some. Sunlight that it. Could be incorporated either into the open space of a site is big enough or could include a rooftop garden. So with the policy, it's address those kinds of things as well as looking at separate lots for community gardens. Correct. Yeah. So that's that's some of the idea in the policies and strategies is not just, you know, vacant lots, but also incorporating incorporating those types of amenities into new development as well. Okay, great. Let me just roll into my next question. And if you're not the right person, we've talked a lot about ideas. Do you have data on what percentage of the overall northeast area that encompasses the plan area that includes ADUS today? That allows I'm sorry, that allows a to use. So so my two questions are what percentage of the area allows them and then what percentage of the housing stock already includes them? So Liz can correct me if I'm wrong, but just I don't believe these single unit zoned areas in the east. I don't believe any of them today allow accessory dwelling units or A2 use today with the current zoning. Okay. And that's a little different than it was in the East Central area where a number of those. Areas of that plan did in fact allow aid to use, although there had been very few that had actually been constructed. Yeah, that's correct. So the east central area where is is primarily multi-unit zoning and commercial mixed use zoning, whereas the east area is primarily single unit zoning today. And and even though the language in the plan would allow for the, again, its guidance write a guidance document, but it would allow for ADAS to be incorporated where the lot sizes are big enough to accommodate them. But that in itself does not allow that to happen without the zone change happening. Correct? That's correct. Yeah. So a. Plan. Or lot by lot as people want to incorporate it. If somebody wanted to do that now or after this plan was adopted, they would have to rezone their property until there is, you know, a citywide sort of rezoning that allows that to happen in single family areas, correct? That's correct. A rezoning would need to occur either, you know, on an individual lot citywide or, you know, similar to Councilman Sandoval's proposal, too, to do it at a neighborhood level. That I would. Yeah, that would also be consistent with the East Area plan. Okay. So now I want to talk about assemblage of lots and. The difference between assembling property. Adjacent to commercial corridors versus assembling them within the fabric of single family neighborhoods that are not contiguous to commercial. So. By. Assembling within a single family block, for example, that has just all single family homes. How would that change the density in this plan? Well, if it was. If someone assembled single unit properties in a location that used to plan recommends single unit zoning, then the assemblage would would result in single unit homes. Right. So you would if the question is if you could assemble single unit single unit properties and redevelop all those singular properties and into multi-unit, for example, that wouldn't be allowed per the plan guidance in the East Area plan if it was in a single unit area. Now if that aborted commercial, how would that be different? The dent on the commercial side, not on the residential side where it's a single unit zone. Correct? That's correct. As long as the designation on the land use map, which is the places map, recommends that adjacent zone to be a single unit. You would not be able to combine a mixed use property with a single unit and expand the mixed use area. Okay. Okay. So now I want to move to a question about what kind of review was done of the infrastructure and its capacity to handle. Death density increases if the entirety of the area was built out to the maximum capacity. Did did the plan look at. Not just the roads, but, you know, the sewer lines, the the water lines, you know, any of the the utilities, any of the infrastructure. Can you. Yeah. So. So in addition to the traffic analyzes that were mentioned previously that were done in coordination with the Colfax BRT project and then also as part of the East Area Plan, looking at traffic and crashes and the state of mobility infrastructure. We also closely coordinated with our stormwater management team and looked at some of those issues and we did find a number of infrastructure deficiencies in terms of stormwater management that inform the recommendations for additional green infrastructure and also stormwater pipes that are in the East Central Plan infrastructure recommendations. The way we deal with water and sewer infrastructure is a little different. And what what happens there is when there is a an individual redevelopment of a property, let's say, along Colfax, that the infrastructure in terms of water and sewer is tested and analyzed for capacity. And if there isn't sufficient infrastructure capacity, then that there's a requirement that that capacity be added through the development process itself. And so that's how we typically handle, you know, water and sewer infrastructure development is through the actual development and permitting process. So where we know the zoning allows for higher density. And we've got multiple contiguous sites. Did the infrastructure review look at trying to create anything like a, you know, a metro district that would just focus on the improvements to the infrastructure so that we're not dealing with them one off. Because if you look at. Multiple sites going vertical. Some of them may or may not have parking garages or parking lots that could increase the, you know, impervious surface, the quicker runoff that goes into our sewer systems. Was that part of the the review that our agencies looked at or I guess I'm bringing this up because we have seen where we're looking at areas where lots of development is going to occur and you're going to significantly increase the capacity of what will be in that area. So not just roadway traffic, but just all the other infrastructure. And the example I use over and over is the 38th and Fox area where we've got one roadway into that site, but we've also got some serious drainage problems and you know. We started allowing a bunch of rezonings to happen before looking at the infrastructure. And I'm just trying to see if we looked at trying to address some of that infrastructure impact issues on the front end so that we're not trying to address it just piecemeal. That. Yeah. Yeah, that makes sense. I think this is it's obviously a very important question. And obviously, you know, the 30th and Fox area is somewhat of a unique situation in that, you know, some of those challenges are not the same as in the east area in terms of the lack of connectivity to the rest of the city . But again, we did look at the traffic volumes and that did inform our infrastructure recommendations. We did look at stormwater data that did inform our stormwater infrastructure recommendations. And I think your question to how do we pay for it and financing, that's also a big part of the plan. And we do recommend using different tools and creative tools to finance our infrastructure, including tools like metro districts. As you as you may know, a portion of the east area has in place an urban renewal area designation. So a portion of Colfax has tax increment financing as an additional tool to help fund some of those infrastructure challenges as they come up. Okay. Thank you for those. I have one question for our city attorney. And Nate, are you available? Yes, I'm here. Okay. My question is about the. Amendment that is being proposed and asking if there are any legal implications to leave the language just as it is as it was moved to us from the planning board. If if it were just to remain intact, one of the speakers made some reference to some concerns. And I just wanted to get your clarification on whether or not, you know. Leaving it the way it is, as it was filed, has any any legal implications whatsoever? Thank you for the question. Councilwoman Ortega, Neighborhood Services and City Attorney. There would be no real legal implications if council approves the language that was forwarded from the planning board or if the amendment passes. Correct. Okay. And and as staff has already stated, I with or without the amendment, it would it would still be consistent with blueprint . Okay. Thanks so much. I have no further questions. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. So I had a bunch of questions that have already been answered. I want to pick up where Councilmember Ortega just left off. That CBD mentioned that it was neutral about the amendment. And can you help me y or can you help me understand why the this amendment in or out, doesn't affect Sebelius position ? Yeah, I can answer that. Councilman Hines So that's the thing. As we stated previously, we view the line, the sentence under question as just being additional clarification of similar recommendations that are made in other sections of the plan. So we we find that the criteria that are put forward to an adopt a plan being consistent with Blueprint Denver on the comprehensive plan of an inclusive community process and having a long term view those criteria would be met with or without that sentence in the plan. So. I mean, I guess. As as we've already just talked about. District ten is different than. Whatever is east of Colorado. I don't I'm assuming there are things east of Colorado. I don't know. It's not district so but it's so the sentence on its own in my view it's it seems counter to my personal values. But I know that because we just passed the central area plan a month ago also has been covered. I know that one sentence in a document that spans hundreds of pages. I mean, I just wonder, like, are we really making a mountain out of a molehill? You know, I just this is really become a lightning rod or is it just kind of so I just I'm trying to understand why there are people vehemently in favor and opposed to one sentence in a and a plan that's hundreds of pages. And I guess I'm I'm interested in your thoughts. Because you're closer to the plan than I am. Yeah. Well, I think, um. You know, there's, there's very strong opinions by certain community members on, um, single unit areas in general. So there are some, some community members who want single unit areas to remain exactly as they are and be preserved that way for the long term. And there are other members of the community on the exact opposite end of that policy decision, where they want all of single unit zoning to be 100% eliminated. And so there are those there's very strong opinions that we've heard throughout this process, articulating both of those viewpoints, um, what Blueprint Denver recommends and that, which is one of the things we do when we have these kind of difference of opinions at a neighborhood level is we say, okay, what is the citywide guidance say about how to resolve these competing points of view that we're hearing at the neighborhood level and at the citywide level? Blueprint Denver does not say to eliminate single family zoning, and it does not say to keep single unit areas exactly as they are today. So the blueprint, Denver doesn't recommend either of those extremes. And so we've taken a similar approach with the recommendation to the east area is saying that, you know, single unit areas should accommodate some additional housing in a thoughtful, reasonable way, in appropriate locations, etc.. But they should not it should not be done in a way that completely eliminates the single unit established urban design of that neighborhood. Okay. Are there areas in the used area plan that don't have a currently have any. Planning document that's less than city wide. Yes. Yeah, there are there are several areas and particularly in particular the Hale and the Montclair neighborhoods, that that don't have any neighborhood plan. Okay. Yeah. And I mean, we in District ten have areas as well that don't currently have have never had any sort of, you know, non city neighborhood plan. And I think I think it's critical for us. To have some sort of. Planning document just because with without any sort of. Documentation of the conversation between neighbors, developers and and and the city. I think that's that's tough. But. Okay. And then the last thing I want to ask about. Is that. The timeline of the East Area plan, I know the East Central Area plan, which covered a majority of the residents in District ten, you know, there were multiple delays. I think that's the same in the East Area plan. I just wonder if you could if you. Could. Recap, you know, if there were delays and if so, what the what you know, what brought those delays on? Sure. So yeah, similar as what happened in Central is that there were a number of requests to slow down the process and do more engagement because there was a feeling that more people needed to hear about it and be able to weigh in, and that required more time, more outreach, etc.. And so similar to what we did in the central plan, we did extend the process to work with those communities that felt like they needed more time or they felt like they needed to help organize and bring more people into the process. So that the delays were because you wanted additional community engagement. I'm assuming also now that COVID is here, there were probably also some delays just to make sure that people could get. Access to some of the virtual. Presentations, too. Is that right? Correct, yeah. And in particular, you know, some groups that we had been working with pre-COVID and we wanted to continue that dialog like in the East Colfax Community Collective, for example, needed some additional time to help make that shift to Zoom meetings. And so we extended the process. Mid 2019. What was Chris thought? When was when was your plan or vision? Our goal to have the East Area plan come before council like we're here tonight. Well, I guess originally, you know, our goal was to complete the plan in 24 months. And so we're we're we're well beyond where, you know, we're past three years now. Yeah. Um, and some of that had to do again with, um, community outreach and extending to get more involvement. And then part of it has this had to do with COVID as well. Okay. And just one quick note. I would. I think Capitol is the most dense neighborhood. I don't think CVD is the second. And I think it's North Capitol Hill, then Cheesman, then Speer, then Westwood. I guess that's somewhere not in District ten and then Congress Park after that. So District ten is very dense, very know as far as population density and I don't see any of the used area plan neighborhoods in the top. At least ten neighborhoods. So just to underscore again that the east central area plan and east area plan are not the same animal. I thank you, Madam President. Thanks. Thank you, Councilman Hines. I've got a couple of questions here. Liz or Kurt, either one of you can take it. If this plan is supposed to provide guidance for the next 20 years for this area. And there's an affordability issue. Why? Would we want to have the statement that says single unit areas should remain primarily single unit? I can take that question. Councilman Gillmor So the the approach here that we've seen, I guess, historically in cities of low density areas has been one of incremental change even over that long term time period. So for example, there are many neighborhoods in Denver that have allowed accessory dwelling units for a long period of time. And those accessory dwelling units are oftentimes are never constructed for a variety of reasons, including relying on an individual homeowner to kind of become a developer. Oftentimes. And so when when there is a desire like we've heard in the east area to not recommend demolition of neighborhoods and, you know, large scale redevelopment, that the goal here is to do incremental development in the form of duplexes, accessory dwelling units, triplexes, etc., and the missing middle that's oftentimes done by homeowners themselves becoming their own developers. And that happens very slowly. And so even though there's a long term, 20 year view, this incremental approach to change, we would not anticipate the entire neighborhood flipping around from primarily single unit to something completely different. Even over that time period, we would likely see a more incremental approach that would look kind of similar to some neighborhoods that are in Denver today. Watch Park and in some areas of the east area plan itself where you see single unit character but a more of a sprinkling in of different housing forms like duplexes and row houses, etc.. So that's kind of the thinking of of a more incremental change over that long term horizon. And so with that incremental changes, though, from an equity lens, the far northeast area plan that Councilwoman Sawyer referenced on page 34, because I started it yesterday again for for this hearing, I believe that there is an equity issue at hand with this one sentence, because in the far northeast area plan on page 34, it does say promote the continued use of single unit zoning on properties with existing single unit homes. But then it also lays out residential, low single unit and then residential, low medium row house in the far northeast area plan. And the residential low medium row house can include single unit two two unit residential. Rowhouses, but then also small multi-unit buildings, multi-unit buildings. And so why, with the incremental nature of these neighborhood plans, would we again have a statement that doesn't say, promote the continued use? It says Single unit areas should remain primarily single unit. How how was that, I guess, decision made? Because it seems like you could look at it from the flip side. And for those property owners that want a neighborhood to stay single unit only, it seems like by including the sentence in the East Plan, you're giving more protections to those neighborhoods than you might be giving to black and brown neighborhoods. Like we never had an option to say, Hey, do you guys want to put a sentence in there that says single unit areas should remain primarily single unit, that that was never an option given to my community, not that they would have taken it, but I think from an equity lens, we've got to make sure that we're communicating this in an equitable way. Yeah, I think that's an important question, Councilman. So just to clarify those examples that you provided in the far northeast where there was different zone, that there was different categories like, you know, row house designation areas and multi-unit designation areas. Those those are also in the east area plan. So the east area plan is not just a single unit, you know, recommended areas. We do have a bunch of areas that we're recommending for two units for row houses, for apartments, multi-unit. There's a there's a variety of land use designations that we're recommending what the sentence under consideration right now would only apply to areas that are we're recommending for single unit areas. And I would just go back to saying that we're using the same terminology that was used in in the far northeast area in terms of how we're designating single unit areas and in in Blueprint Denver. So Blueprint Denver articulates these residential low areas to include a mix of housing units, not only exclusively single unit but predominantly single unit. So the same when the Urban Infill Housing Regulatory Project is implemented, those single unit areas in the far northeast area will be treated the same as single unit areas in the east area. Right? Those that those designations will apply and the single of the predominantly single unit language is in place in both of those areas. If that provides some clarity of clarification for you a bit. But I mean primarily. Means something different than promote. And so I think having that additional language in this new plan definitely gives me pause around the considerations of the amendment. My last question is, you know, doing a quick search, is there anywhere in the East Central Plan or the far northeast plan that has this exact wording? Single unit areas should remain primarily single unit. I don't believe so. Not that exact wording. Okay. Thank you. All right, I. Councilman Sawyer, I was going to have the last question, but do you have a follow up? And then we'll go ahead and close the public hearing out and vote on the amendment. I actually just wanted to respond to your question, because where that sentence actually was taken out of the plan, if you were able to read where it was originally put in, the way the entire sentence reads is it says Consistent with adopted citywide policies and blueprint Denver integrate missing middle housing with rules to preserve valued neighborhood characteristics and address unique issues in the East Area, as follows Single unit areas should remain primarily single unit design requirements to ensure new construction is compatible with unique setback heights, etc. etc. So write regulations to discourage replacement of smaller homes with larger homes that are less affordable, etc. etc. So it is part of a it's part of an entire an entire thing. So it's not just that, that one sentence. And, and, and so I just wanted to make sure that that was clear in there. Thanks. Yes, thank you. I have printed out the information on the planning board amendment, so I. I have it in front of me, so thank you. All right. The public hearing for council bill 20 dash 1132 is closed. Comments by members of council on the amendment. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, ma'am. As you know, since we have since the planning board removed as my thoughts of myself were and I go back to Councilman Stan Sandoval, which you said at committee, we sure are spending a whole lot of time talking about what's out of the plan than what's actually in. And then, Councilman Hines, I think you summed it up today when you just said we're adding I can't I'm paraphrasing, you're giving a lot of power to this to the sentence when I don't believe is there. So I'm going to say those the bulk of my comments for what's actually in the plan and whether this passes with the amendment or not, I believe this is worthy of a yes vote, but I do believe that planning board arbitrarily took it out the way it should be since it's referenced in so many other places. And I think Councilman Flynn did a good job of asking the questions, whether it's in or not. It doesn't change the spirit of what we do. But if community members have concerns about why it was taken out, why not put it back in? So I will support the amendment. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilman Herndon, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. Just some thoughts this much like our East Central plan in my district on this same corridor is a fascinating case study. Nearly every single week we have upswings in historically black and brown neighborhoods. Residents of our most marginalized neighborhoods sign up consistently to protest of zoning properties in our vulnerable neighborhoods that are justified because their entitlements or earnings. We go back and forth and back and forth with our developers, begging them for affordable units that they're not mandated to provide. We cross our fingers. We spend our tax dollars to employ entire teams and departments to negotiate with developers, begging them for whatever we can, compel them to toss our way voluntarily . We teeter back and forth on whether or not to allow them their upside earnings that always are justified by a plan like the one we're contemplating tonight. And then we complain that we have to approve their up zoning if plans exist to justify it. We ignore the pleas of low income people explaining how adding market rate units in any area that was below income actually decreases affordability generally throughout that ecosystem. Here we have advocates of neighborhoods challenging densify in their neighborhoods in a majority single unit zoned area. Demographic data suggests that these neighborhoods are predominately white and predominantly wealthier, with the exception of East Colfax. Yet their arguments against density are exactly the same as those from our overburdened bipoc communities. But all of a sudden, you also now have council members who justify densify in our neighborhoods every week. Someone else's district usually mine against the will of my constituents, mostly black and brown and poor, who have changed but yet have changed their tune now on Densify and the neighborhoods in their district and still calling it equity. Something here doesn't add up, and I'll let you all do the math on that. However, I will point to the obvious facts. Density does not equal affordability without mandated protective policies, and we don't have a single, proven or guaranteed anti displacement policy in this plan or any of our plans, for that matter. We don't even have a concrete definition of community benefits that lists and prioritizes affordability. The list of anti displacement policies are not actually policies. If you can read a so-called policy and still have to ask. How. It is not a policy. Additionally, regardless of your socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity or housing type, we all are clear on the fact that passing this plan is a green light for developers to exacerbate the challenges we have yet to figure out at all of our expense. I can't support an amendment to shield middle and upper class neighborhoods from having to shoulder the burdens of our city. I also can't support yet another neighborhood plan that calls itself guidance without, with and becomes a legal document that promises and dictates what we owe developers without guaranteeing anything for the people who need it most. That's it for my comments. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each. Thank you, Madam President. I will restrict my comments just to the amendment, because I think that's the section we're in. So first, I want to thank everybody who testified tonight and the many hundreds of people who've contacted my office over the past year, really, but especially the last few months. You know, it's there's been a lot of effort to, I guess, make the case that the amendment has no impact. And if that's the case, I think the risk is that it creates false expectations. The majority of people who testified tonight asking for this amendment did not mention that it made way for middle and missing middle housing . They didn't express their support for those other things. They talked about a desire to only put new housing on major redevelopment sites and to have no none of the growth in the single unit areas. So. So I my my concern is that I can't support an amendment that one has no clear impact on the plan. And two, leads to potentially false expectations or confused expectations from the public about how this sentence will work and be interpreted in the future. So I think it's it's too ambiguous to to be effective in the ways that it may have been intended. And as others have described, there is plenty of existing language in the plan without adding this layer of confusion, because the sentence clearly has taken on the expectations of huge portions of the community who've emailed or testified tonight about what they think this sentence does. And the staff, even the sponsors, described it as doing something very differently. And that's a sign to me that it's not drafted effectively to accomplish its goal when there's a disconnect between those who are testifying for it and what they believe it achieves and what the staff and the and the sponsors have described it as. So I can't support the amendment tonight for those reasons, and I will reserve the rest to my comments for the larger discussion. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, councilman. Connection. Just a quick reminder, it is comments by members of Council on the amendment, Councilman Sawyer. Thanks so much, Madam President. Just quick comments on the amendment. I think, you know, we've spoken a lot about it. This is a simple clarity, a move to add clarity back to the plan without this. You know, we've got maps that refer to something that doesn't exist anymore. We've got later sections of the plan that refer back to something that doesn't exist anymore. And so I think this just makes the plan whole again because removing this one sentence added confusion. So this just adds clarity back to it. And I think that, you know, what's really important here, and I think what the community is really saying is that this sentence was, you know, and the maps that reflect the sentence and all of the other sentences that refer back to the sentence throughout the 280 odd pages of this plan were the result of three years of community conversation. Three years of hard. Fought community conversation. And this plan has its proponents and its opponents. But it's a good plan, and the community deserves a plan. We're better off with a plan than without a plan. And so it would be a shame to have a community full of people not support something because they felt like they were undermined by an appointed body that took out one sentence of a plan thoughtlessly, you know, after hours of testimony on a whim. And, you know, it's not reflective of those three years of community conversation. So I would urge my fellow council members to support this sentence, because this is reflective of those community conversations. And so I think it's really important that we do that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. It's I think it's actually odd to call this an amendment because it's putting something back into the plan that the community put in over those three years that Councilwoman Sorge just talked about. But that an intervening process removed the sentence doesn't block missing middle housing from single unit areas. It simply responds to Blueprint's policy recommendation to, quote, ensure residential neighborhoods retain their unique character as infill development occurs primarily means only for the most part. Opponents of reinserting this sentence appear to believe that it means exclusively rather blueprint speaks of context sensitive density, inappropriate places, particularly near transit, corner lots and so forth. I disagree with the the person who testified during the hearing that this sentence would be used to keep added density out of primarily single family areas. In fact, the opposite is the case primarily does not mean exclusively. It simply means the existing character can be maintained. While, as Blueprint says, missing middle structures can be added in appropriate places and not everywhere. I think that's a statement that that does need to be made. And even. Madam President, the far north east plan when it says promote a single family where a single family already exists. I view that as an even stronger statement than the one that we're being asked to reinsert here. We need to be careful about introducing what is sometimes called gentle density, which I call displacing you with a smile. I agree with Councilwoman CdeBaca, who talked about how density has made many of our neighborhoods unaffordable, where we've added duplexes in some neighborhoods, we've lost affordable single units and they've been replaced with out-of-reach duplex units. In Denver neighborhoods where we've added general density, we force people out through rapidly escalating housing prices and rents. We have neighborhoods where small and affordable existing homes are replaced with duplex units at each cost, nearly double the price of the house they replaced, and which then drive up property values and taxes on the remaining residents without this sentence. Future up zoning would have plan guidance that could result in eradicating existing neighborhood character. Without putting this guidance back into the plan after it was the result of work and compromise by the stakeholders. We're telling these neighborhoods that that they should not retain their existing character. I don't think that's the aim of the plan after it's after the three years of work. So I support the amendment to restore the voice of the community in its own plan over that of a divided vote on on the appointed planning board. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman. Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. Yeah. When I first heard this amendment, I didn't like it at all. It felt exclusive. Then I started thinking about it and grabbed a dictionary and grabbed several. And this, as I read, this amendment doesn't shield anybody. I think both sides need to look in the dictionary. If you're counting on this to preserve your single family neighborhood without change, you're going to be gravely disappointed. And if you're against this amendment because you think it says that there can be no change, I think you're equally as off base. Right now, we've got single unit neighborhoods that when when a rezoning comes before us planning looks at it and says, now, this is a single unit neighborhood. There's no there's no plan guidance. So to do a duplex or an 82 or whatever, I think the planners ten years down the road, 20 years down the road that would look at this, would see a door wide open for for incremental change in the way of multi-unit housing. You know, it doesn't say stay the same. It doesn't even say almost entirely. It says primarily. Primarily means to me when you drive through it, you go, Yeah, it's primarily a single family neighborhood. But there's this that, this and that. That gives it texture and flavor. So. I think it. I as has been said, I just think it underscores other elements of our of our greater plans and this plan that speak to diversity of housing. As I think they should. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you. Madam President, I thought there was someone else in the queue before me. So I know that this is a long discussion. I want to thank everyone who has spent this much of their evening to talk about a big document that a lot of people won't pay a whole lot of attention to outside. Of the planning. Circles after tonight. So thank you for your interest. Thank you for your excitement in and making sure that our city is in the direction that we wanted to go in. I know that there are some comments of a planning board. I just want to I want to stick up for planning board. And I know that they're an appointed body. I also I also know that part of the reason why they're appointed is because they are planners, they are experts in their field. And and while I may not agree with everything that they decide on there, their purpose is to be experts. And and I think that that our current planning board has achieved that. I think it is a country comprised of people who really know a lot about zoning and are passionate about Denver zoning. So thank you playing board for all you do. I am. As I mentioned in my questions, I am concerned that we are spending a whole lot of time and putting a lot of cycles on one sentence and I just throwing that out there. I'm also concerned that I don't want to push my values on an area of the city that is dramatically different. From where. I live. We have the four densest so the three densest neighborhoods in the city and numbers four and five as well. So we're, you know, District ten is way different then than areas that are District ten, just, frankly. And and so I don't want to I'm concerned about saying that my values for where I live should be the same, where everyone else lives. As a value statement, I think it should be really citywide. I'm also of an open mind to get rid of single family zoning entirely. Minneapolis has done it. Oregon has done it. I mean, there are places that, you know, that have already taken the plunge and made that happen. I also want to make sure that we do that in a measured approach. I know that Denver and Colorado's history is not the same as Oregon and and and Minnesota and and we are very cautious with our land use. So I just want to throw all that out there. I. I'm I'm afraid that we're making much ado about nothing. And and so this amendment, you know, I, I ultimately will side on the the the planning process and the three years of community input, you know, instead of the planning board. I hope that the planning board understands that, that my thought is I want to make sure that we hear from the community as opposed to from. Planning for it. But I think you really are the planning board really is a body that. That provides a lot of meaningful information to us and is a is a wise group of individuals. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you. Councilman Hines. Councilwoman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. My own notes on the amendment. I don't begrudge the planning board because they're appointed and not elected as though that's the only criteria for decision making in the city they're contemplating. And I think they did their job here. I will not vote to return the sentence back to the plan. CPD's made it pretty clear that it's not necessary to the intentions of Blueprint Denver in particular, and that it causes this source of confusion. I'd rather see it eliminated and focus on other areas of the plan that that need some attention. So those are all my comments on the amendment. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Torres. Councilwoman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I have a lot of people on this slate. And sometimes when we. Talk about area plans. We talk about prescriptive and we use this word prescriptive a lot. And the plans are recommendations. And what I heard tonight was a lot of really good discussion about what the community thought and how impactful this could be to certain groups of people who live in the East Colfax neighborhood and to council mentors is great. I really I learned I. Have I don't have a degree in planning. I've learned all my planning and everything that I've learned just from watching planning board for since 2012. And I've learned how to take things and have different debates on them and the planning board is appointed. So I don't know what the future of the planning board would do in the when they interpret this language. So with that, I would I'm not going to support this amendment this evening due to the fact that I think that it was actually well thought out. And I watched the planning board and it was a very deliberative process. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Sandoval. Madam Secretary, roll call on the amendment, please. Black I. See the bucket? No. Clark. I. When I. Herndon. I think I. Cashman. I. Mitch. No. Ortega. No. Sandoval No. Hoyer, I. Sorry. No. Madam President. No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce. The results. Of the. Six, nays 17. Six days, seven eyes. The amendment passes Council Bill 20 dash 1132 has been amended. Councilman Cashman when we may have a motion to pass as amended, please. Yes, Madam President. I move that council bill 20 dash 1130 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 1132. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Madam President. And how do you succinctly at 1026 at night summarize three plus years, 100 plus meetings, thousands of comments on this. Well, I will. And recognizing you have other colleagues that want to comment as well. So I should first start off with a significant thank you to every individual who has weighed in once or multiple times on this plan, because whether you support it or not, you have created a better plan moving forward for the east area. And some of you may not think that and never will, but your critiques and your hard questions were got us to the place where we are. So I sincerely thank you for that. To the CPD and the team, Liz, and all the individuals who who worked on this. Thank you for your diligence. Thank you for your flexibility. Because as we were moving through this, pivoting to to stop and do more thorough community outreach, I appreciate that as well. The steering committee members who from the very beginning and it evolved over time. Thank you for that. Why is this so important? Even in the middle of a pandemic, this area is changing. If you think about real estate, prices in the middle of the pandemic are still going up. And our city and county of Denver, if you think about what's happening, as I mentioned earlier today, 8315 East Colfax received a tax credit. The area is changing. And if we don't have a plan in place to guide this changes. It can go in the direction that we don't want it to go. I mean, I really appreciate the in me back up because if we vote down this plan and just for the north side of Colfax, you've got a plan from South Park Hill, this from the 2000 and on East Colfax, you have the East Montclair plan from the early 1990s, as we mentioned, doesn't even talk about things such as equity or affordability. But that doesn't just mean you approve the plan because it's newer. You have to look into the plan and see what does it actually do for the community. And I believe the plan that we have in place speaks to what the community has asked for through the hundreds of meetings and thousands of comments from CPD going to where you lived prior to the pandemic, to hear from people to us finding every avenue possible to have a conversation during the pandemic. And I printed out several of the different recommendations, and I'm not going to read all of them. Liz highlighted the top six at talking about making the East Area an inclusive place. We talk about preserving trees and landscaped areas. We're talking about helping residents and small businesses stay in the community long term. But then we talk about equity from improving access to opportunity, reducing vulnerability to displacement, expanding housing and jobs. And we go into several different categories throughout the entire East Area plan, whether it's zoning, where we're talking about encouraging to maintain rather than demolishing existing older homes by revising design requirements to encourage renovations or additions, we can talk about the affordable housing recommendations where it says Expand diversity of housing types and affordability to support households at different sizes, ages, incomes in all the neighborhoods. And that's we have recommendations about community serving retail. We have recommendations about pedestrian improvements, neighborhood traffic, calming measures, parks and open space, community safety and well-being. And I won't read all of them, but these are just our recommendations are priorities for this area. But then we go into specifically the particular neighborhoods and I'll talk about East Colfax and South Park just because those are the portions that I, I, I represent. And though I'm not going to read all these recommendations via land use via the economy, but reduce involuntary displacement, address the affordable housing shortage in East Colfax. It's what it's particularly saying on South Park will prioritize land policies that aim to maintain that character in South Park Hill residential areas. These are our values and I think this is what's going to move us forward for the next 20 years. So I'm I'm proud of the work that we've done on this. And not everybody got what they wanted. I would have a conversation with a constituent who wants me to vote no because the plan doesn't go far enough. And then I'll turn around and have another conversation that says with another concession, the plan went too far. So this is what? This is what? You have various constituencies, you find a sweet spot. And I believe we are there and we are much better off as an east area moving forward with this plan than without. The hard work really begins now because it is a plan. So we need to do the work and have the tools in place. If you don't know Councilwoman Zoya and I, we plan to plagiarize Councilman Sandoval's movement to add 80 used East Colfax. It was a great thing to do. And in northwest Denver, we want to start that conversation in East Colfax and other tools we're doing as well. So I think that was kind of succinct. So my apologies. But I want to once again end where I started by thanking everyone for their work on this, because we truly have , I believe, a great product that I'm excited to support and everyone from the beginning to the very end. Thank you for that comments moving forward to make this the plan that we have. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Madam President. I also want to start just by reiterating what I have always said, which is I truly believe that, you know, continuing without a neighborhood plan does a disservice to our community. And there are several neighborhoods that don't have a neighborhood plan at all, especially Hale and Montclair. And I want to thank every single member of our community who participated in this and CPD and our fellow council members. Prior and CURRENCE, thank you for all that you have done and our steering committee members really grateful. It was a tough road to get here, a really tough road to get here. But where we have gotten is pretty amazing. You know, just to kind of clarify, I heard some misconceptions and I want to make sure we really understand that you sort of plan as in rezoning any properties tonight. We're not selling properties to developers. We're not up zoning properties today. We're not closing grocery stores like fliers that went around this weekend. We're not ignoring stormwater problems. We're not allowing any use in every neighborhood overnight because that's already allowed under blueprints. There's you know, we're not relying on BRT funding for the success of this plan because 15 and 15 are already the two most used bus lines in the entire system. The truth is that the East Area Plan is a vision for how these neighborhoods are going to grow in the next 20 years. We are going to grow. We're a city we should grow, but we have to make sure we're doing it in a thoughtful way. And that's what this plan does. It looks at the next 20 years and it says, okay, how should we grow so that we keep the unique character of these neighborhoods, but also add the things that the residents say they care about? So when we surveyed these the residents extensively and in many languages, I might add, they said they wanted small businesses, neighborhood walkability, green space, safer streets, the things that augment the quality of life. And this plan attempts to balance all of those desires in a holistic and thoughtful way. Is it perfect? No, because there are some things the plan simply cannot do. And the groups who are opposing this plan, they want guarantees and they want us, you know, to promise that added density will bring affordability. Me, too. But unfortunately, no one can guarantee that. But the plan explicitly recommends, I think, 27 different ways to stop gentrification and displacement from happening in East Denver. We've already talked about this tonight. It's happening here. It's a result of market forces. And but there is literally never been a neighborhood plan in Denver that has attempted to do more to address these issues on a policy level than what the East Area plan is trying to do. Some people want the plan to identify specific parcels for green space, but these neighborhoods are built out. We can't take people's private land to make a park. But here's what we can do. We can commit to working with Parks and Rec and make this a priority and identify parcels where we can use to raise funds to purchase these in the future when they maybe become available. And in fact, we are already working with Parks and Rec to do that. We have their commitment. Some people are really concerned about traffic. And me too. And that's. Fair. This is a big one for our neighborhoods with BRT coming. We can't magically fix that. But here's what we can do. We can commit to working with Dottie and DPD. We've got traffic improvements already coming on 13th and 14th. Our office has saved $20,000 to do a traffic study of Eighth Avenue to implement traffic calming measures and safer crossings there. Some people want groups to halt East Area plan entirely until COVID 19 is over. I can tell you that there is more community engagement now than ever before. Just look at voter turnout. You know, we've look at all the emails that our office has received and phone calls in the last couple of weeks, you know, hundreds and thousands. I've always said that under principles, the principles are blueprint and 20 2019 and 2040. All of our neighborhoods are better off with a plan. When I came into this office, I didn't support the East Area plan. It proposed eight story buildings, which was completely out of character for the neighborhoods. It wasn't specific enough. Most people in our neighborhoods didn't even know it existed. But my goal was never to stop the plan. It was to create a thoughtful plan that made sense for our community. And I think tonight we've achieved that goal. Over the last 17 months, my office has worked tirelessly to engage the community on the plan, pushing the city to fully engage. And Liz and Kurt have gone above and beyond in more ways than I've got time to detail. They have stepped out of their comfort zone, meeting with residents in their backyards, hearing specific concerns about unintended consequences. And because of that work today, we've got something that strikes the right balance. I believe we've reached a place that's thoughtful about development and strategic in our goals. One of my fellow council members once said to me, You've always got to keep in mind you're going to have to see people at the grocery store for the rest of your life. So you'd better be sure you're ready to defend your vote in the checkout line. And 17 months ago, I wasn't ready to do that. But today, I am proud to say that I am willing to defend this plan for all of the years to come in the grocery store, in the checkout line and anywhere else in our community. And I hope that my fellow council members will as well. Thank you. And. Q Councilwoman Sawyer. Councilwoman, can each. Thank you, Madam President. And to my colleagues and the staff who worked so hard on this plan, I just want to thank you for the time that you spent and for your work. I just wanted to I already thanked everyone for participating, but I just want to share a couple observations as I vote for the plan tonight . It's understandable that this has been a hard process imagining a future and preparing for a future that we do not control. Right. And it's not just the pandemic we don't control, but we don't control private property. We have an envelope within which we can create some restrictions, but generally speaking, we don't masterplan each person in a city centrally. That's not something we do in America. And so we have to plan for a future without control. And that is really tough. But I guess here are my two observations. The first is that quality of life is not a fixed resource. It is not the case that there is only asset allocation for a neighborhood or for a city, and that if more people share it or new people come in who receive it, that somehow those who are there currently or those who are existing will somehow be diminished. And I think that this is the theme, right, of city planning, which is that we can and should fight for a quality of life that expands to encompass, you know, for example, more racial diversity in neighborhoods. That enterprise documented in their testimony are not very racially diverse. That will not diminish the quality of life for the predominantly white homeowners in that area. It will change, right, the the makeup of the neighborhood. But the quality of life can be shared by new and additional residents. Right. So. So I think that quality of life can grow with with our communities, with our neighborhoods, with our blocks. And I think that it's not that one person wins and another loses. And so I think that that's really something that this plan fights to really make that point, that this is about, you know, that historic character should be preserved, but it can't just be preserved for the people who've always enjoyed it. But it could also be preserved for for new residents to enjoy, for example. Second observation is that, you know, some folks debated our plans binding. Are they, you know, prescriptive? Are they, you know, guidance? Here's the word I use for plans. I'm I'm nine years into this gig, so take it or leave it. But here's my and I guess I did six years of community organizing around planning and development in Denver before. So let's call it let's call it 15, 16 years in this in this in this field, plans are leverage. And the question is, do they give you more leverage or less leverage than you had before the plan for the things you care about? And I think that, you know, that the two councilmembers who represent this district made all the points about the many ways that these plans create more leverage in terms of equity, historic preservation, affordability and other and other things. The second question is how does the leverage for the things you care about compare to the leverage created for the forces of the market? And I think that, you know, I will say that it is no joke. I used to fight. I'm not joking. Year long campaigns to get the word affordable housing into a plan. Right. Like the one reference to it and one page. This is what I did for a living before I got elected to this council. That's how hard it was. And then I would ride that one phrase that we'd fight to get in for the next three years until I got to 66 unit development, you know, in Union Station neighborhood. Right. So that was the painful process. This is more leverage for equity and these topics than it is. And so the question is to for you all, what's the leverage of us as council members and of your local government? So I already dedicated the entire legislative session before COVID to supporting the Tele right over whatever I'd bill, working closely with the sponsors, providing technical assistance. I will do that again. I know my colleagues all signed on in support of that. The city, you know, registered in support of it. And we will be there again. It is a statewide battle. It's not exclusively in our control. And it's about, you know, building alliances with with our neighbors across the state. Right. But that's the kind of thing that I will commit to doing. I will say that there was a question about resources. This plan has actually created leverage for resources. This council worked with the administration to get funding for implementation to the three equity areas that have newly adopted plans for participatory budgeting. A half million dollars, right. Of leverage of implementation for projects. So that is something that if this plan is adopted tonight, this community can count on. They can count on having a voice to help to spend those dollars in the east central area. I don't know the exact boundaries yet, but the idea was implementation of plan. So. So I think leverage matters. Quality of life matters. And this plan creates more leverage for more people to enjoy quality of life in these areas. And therefore, I'll be supporting its name. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Kenney. Councilwoman Torres. Madam President. So I've got five neighborhoods from District three who are currently in the West Area plan process. They are both balancing, I think, expectations of the plan. Many knowing it's not the only ticket toward affordability or. Permanence or stability. But we're watching all of these processes closely and trying to identify what what makes sense. Westwood Neighborhood has the most recent. Plan in my district 2016, and they continue to experience displacement, housing pressures. Families moving south into Councilman Flynn's district. And it's not to do with the rezoning. We haven't had a lot of rezonings in Westwood. Kurt said something that sparked. Something for me and I wanted to thank him for that. And it was a focus on what else does this plan do and what else. Does that inform. The plan for? West. It's been incredibly helpful for securing bond. Funding for Parks, for Rec, center, for infrastructure, and if. Anything, the plan speaks to maintaining a community identity. That's important to West Denver. The work that's gone into this is. In part due to community input during that process, what the plan actually says. But also those of us in on this call, our community members who stay involved demanding that moving forward. And so their responsibility to realizing kind of the soul and the vision of a plan and even what it misses becomes a lot of our responsibility after the fact. So I hope that. The work that's gone into the East Area plan. We'll do something similar to that in the future. And I also will be supporting it tonight. Thank you, Councilman Torres. Councilman Sandoval. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to say thank you to the two council members who brought this forward. I worked on a couple of neighborhood plans as a council aide, and I never had four languages with interpretation. So when we're talking about equity and we're talking about access, I want to just bring that to light that tonight at council we had four different languages and English spoken and made access and room for everybody. That is really telling to get community out and to get us out this late and to be participating and to be able to feel, have the ability to speak up. I think that talks a lot about the process and it talks a lot about how I always think about community outreach is like an onion and you want to peel back the different layers to get into the center of it and to get this many people speaking out in support or opposition. But the fact that we had so much community show up speaks volumes to me on how deep of outreach and how impactful the outreach was. And to Liz and Kurt, thank you for your steadfast leadership. I know going into this is not easy and a lot of times you are seen as the force that you have to be up against. And so to still hold that space and create it safe so people can talk about things because one thing you're going to hear is home is where the heart is. And so you start talking about people's homes and you start talking about things. It's usually a person's biggest investment. And so to be able to hold those spaces so people can talk about their homes and have respectful discourse, it's not easy. And I know that you're not that taught that in planning school, so thank you for doing that and thank you for holding those spaces. And to the two council members, it shows volumes on the kind of community outreach that you've done, and I look forward to looking at your EDU process in the future. And with that, I will be supporting this prep plan. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Sandoval. And I'll wrap up quickly here. Congrats to Councilwoman Sawyer and Councilman Herndon. I know that this was a heavy, heavy lift multiple years and your engagement with the community, whether they liked it or didn't, you had that engagement with them. And I think that that's so important and I appreciate that and all of the CPD staff time as well. My husband and I, we lived for a bit of time. Our first home was at 1960 Verbena, and so this entire area is near and dear to my heart and just wanting to make sure that we're able to maintain the important diversity that we have in this neighborhood, especially with black and brown folks. And so I look forward to the the work that's going to come forward, but the work that you have already done and put into this plan and I will be supporting it tonight as well. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 20, Dash 1132 as amended, please. Herndon. I. Sawyer. I find. I. Cashman. I can eat. I have Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Today. I. Black I. See the background. No. Park. All right. Flynn. I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. One May. 12. I. 12 Eyes Council Bill 20 dash 1132 as amended has passed the pre adjournment announcement on Monday, December 14th. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1159, changing the zoning classification for 30 to 2510 Argo Street in five points.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Use District Map of the City of Long Beach as said Map has been established and amended by amending portions of Part 22 of said Map from R-1-L (Single-Family Residential, Large Lot) to CCA (Community Commercial Automobile-Oriented), read and adopted as read. (District 8)

LongBeachCC_05212019_19-0483

Just kidding. So. So next up is our first hearing, please. Madam Clerk. Hearing item one report from Development Services recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record. Conclude the public hearing. Adopt negative declaration and declare ordinance. Amending the official zoning map zone change to rezoning portions of the property at 45 one Long Beach Boulevard to community, automobile or into district. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading District eight. Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, I'm going to introduce Christopher Koonce, our planning bureau manager, to give the staff report. And thank you. We won't need the PowerPoint unless there's questions. Mr. Mayor and. Members of the council, this is a procedural item in Council District eight 4251 Long Beach Boulevard is a vacant piece of land prior to the 1990s when the city produced its zoning maps. That was done on paper with the pen, and then those documents were turned into maps. That process results in errors from time to time, which are being corrected over time. This particular property is a commercial property. It's always. Been a commercial property, but it has a 25 foot. Portion of that lot that, at. Least on the city's official zoning map, is zoned residential. In front of you today is a corrective action to zoned the entirety of the site commercial. This action was approved by the Planning Commission back on April 4th unanimously. And while Councilman Austin is not here at this moment, we did discuss this item with his office and he was comfortable moving forward in his absence. With that, I'm available to answer any. Questions you may have. Any public comment on this item? Seeing none. Councilman Richardson. Anything? Nope. Country Ranga. Okay, members, please go and cast your votes.

A bill for an ordinance exempting diapers and incontinence products from the collection of sales and use tax in the City and County of Denver. Exempts certain products from sales tax. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-31-22.

DenverCityCouncil_06202022_22-0577

Oh. All right. Well, we can certainly expect. No words, no big deal, because either way, you know, it's just comments, not a vote, but wanted to just make that make sure that that's clear. So, Bill, five, seven, seven is a bill for an ordinance exempting diapers, including incontinence products from sales tax in Denver. So just wanted to call this out because I have to put my glasses on because I can't see anything, because it went through committee on consent and we haven't really had an opportunity to kind of bring it up and talk about it yet. So I wanted to just kind of call attention to it. The state legislature passed a sales tax exemption on diapers and menstrual products this session, which is wonderful. It's up to each city, though, to decide whether to exempt these items from local sales tax as well or not. Denver already exempts medicinal products thanks to Councilman Clark's 2019 legislation. So this ordinance just adds diapers, like I mentioned, including adult incontinence products to the list of necessary items that are exempted from sales tax in Denver. And just wanted to point out, this ordinance is in alignment with our values as a council, and it has the effect of helping keep some hard earned cash in the pockets of many of our residents, including our young families and older residents. It's much needed given the unprecedented inflationary pressures that we're seeing right now. And the Budget Management Office estimates that it's got a fiscal note somewhere between 500,000 and $800,000 annually. So it isn't a huge amount of money. But I really hope that Denver's families and older adults who are using these products, of course, no one uses these products. But if there was someone using these products in our older adult category that, you know, we hope that this helps them keep some of that hard earned money in their pocket and they can put it towards things that have gotten more expensive in 2022. And I just wanted to thank all of my colleagues for allowing this to go through on consent because of all of your wholehearted support, and especially Councilmember Clark and one of his aides, Maggie Thompson, who whose personal experience actually brought this to our attention. So really excited. Thanks for your partnership on this, Councilman Clark. And it'll take effect October 1st of this year. Thanks so much. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Sawyer. And I appreciate the correction on the Resolution 577 and happy to support that. We're going to move on. Madame Secretary, would you please put the next item on our screens? Councilmember Black, would you please put resolution six, six, eight on the floor for adoption?

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

BostonCC_10202021_2021-0638

All those in favor please indicate by saying I oppose. Nay, the ayes have it. The docket has passed. Madam Clerk, would you now please read docket 0638? Thank you. Docket 0638 An Ordinance to Create Boston Commemoration Commission. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Councilor Lydia Edwards, chair of the Committee on Government Operations. Councilor Edwards, chair. Edwards, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. I'm excited to bring this before the body. Excuse me. We're going to I'm excited to simply say that we had a robust conversation about this. We're going to keep it actually in committee. My apologies to lead sponsor, but this is a conversation that's going exceptionally well about really reflecting and celebrating all of our history. And how many of us were part of building this beautiful city and looking at the diversity that was part of that tapestry. So I'm going to recommend that it stay in committee as we further adjust some language and make sure that this is still done this year. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Chair Lydia Edwards, chair of the Committee on Governance Operations, has asked and we shall remain in committee for Docket 0638. Moving right along to motions, orders and resolutions. For those who may be watching, we've taken docket 1078 out of order. So the first one we will begin to discuss now is docket 1079 Docket 1079.

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

LongBeachCC_04092019_18-1007

Thank you. Next, we move into item 21, please, with the item. Item 21 is communication from Vice Mayor Andrews, chair of the Housing and Neighborhoods Committee, recommendation to approve renaming the Uptown Dock Park as the Gail Carter Uptown Dog Park. Thank you. This outcome from the committee that I chair. But I would like to turn this over to councilman orson. Well. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. And I want to appreciate the recommendation for the committee. And and I said, obviously, we support it. Joe Carter was a was a giant in the animal community, particularly, you know, with her work, particularly the uptown area for dog parks. She she helped make the uptown the existing uptown dog park, making sure park is a destination place, but also helped with our implementation of Jackson Park and I believe in the ninth district as well. She was a large figure who organized activities for for for dogs and individuals in their dogs. Fashion shows, fitness activities really programed our park in our dog park, particularly in the shore park area. And so this is something that does is of residents who continue to utilize that park, that dog park us came out and support and signed petitions to do. And so I'm glad to see us finally get here and encourage everyone support go as would be. Be proud. Thank you, Congressman Ellison. Councilman Price Pierce. Excuse me. No. He stepped out. Oh, I just also wanted to to say that Gail, you know, was involved in Bixby Park way down in in in downtown area. And so really applaud the community members for rallying around this and applaud the neighborhood committee for bringing this forward. Thank you. As any public comment on this item, not, would you please cast your vote? Motion carries.

Recommendation to receive and file a report from the Commission on Youth and Children (Commission); request City Attorney to draft a resolution repealing Resolution No. C-28279 for the dissolution of the current Commission; and request City Attorney to draft a new resolution creating a nine-member advisory Commission on Youth and Families. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_02202018_18-0171

Thank you. And their last request tonight was to move up item 31 and then back to the regular agenda. Mr. Mayor, after accused myself twice on this commission. Item 31 is a report from Parks, Recreation and Marine. Recommendation two received five report from the Commission on Youth and Children. Request City Attorney to draft a resolution repealing resolution number Sea Dash 282794. The resolutions of the current commission and draft a new resolution creating a nine member Advisory Commission on Youth and Families Citywide. Thank you. Mr.. RUSSERT You have a short staff presentation on this. Basically, we had a 19 member committee commission, and now we have a nine member commission with two youth and seven adults. I think that the key thing is that these are recommendations coming from the commission themselves. So I believe that they've been working for many months on this and working very closely with Marie. Okay, great. Mr. Catherine Ashton. Thank you. Certainly. I'm happy to make the motion to support the recommendations from the Youth and Youth Commission. I think streamlining this plan makes a lot of sense, since it seems like they were having a tough time making quorum. I did have a question after reading this item for staff specifically regarding there are some bullets on the second page of the staff report that talks about the commission making efforts to promote current city initiatives that benefit youth and families. And it calls out the My Brother's Keeper program Building Healthy Communities and All Children Thrive. I know My Brother's Keeper program is a city program. Are we also just highlighting organizations or and I would just hate to send a message that we're limiting to certain organizations as well, because I know I was a couple of at least one one of the organizations reached out to me over the weekend and asked that they be included in this and they wanted to be stakeholders in the process for for youth activities. So, Councilmember Austin, that's a great question. Actually, the current commission, the way it is chartered, is very prescriptive as to what initiatives the Commission can work on. And so that was very limiting as as well as some of those initiatives are no longer here or in the city. So the ad hoc committee is suggesting and these are that's why the wording says such as it's meant to be inclusive and not limiting. So there are opportunities for other organizations in the community if they want to come forward. But remember that this is an advisory commission. So the commission won't really engage in activities with these, but they are there as an advisory body. So My Brother's Keeper is a city initiative and all children thrive as a city initiative through the Health Department. And Building Healthy Communities is a community engagement resource that we use. So these are just examples. But we want to leave it open ended so that the commission can look at other opportunities in the community. And thank you so much. And I guess my second question would be how do we streamline from 19 to 9? What is that, the mayor's decision making discretion? Or how do we. See the recommendation of the ad hoc committee? Is that all the current members of the commission that are in good standing, that means that they have met all their meeting requirements. They submitted the application process to the mayor's office for consideration on the commission. If there are more than the nine, which I guess seven adults and the two youth, and then there's a decision to be made and if there are less, then those other states can be filled through the normal process. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilman Brice. I support this item. Thank you. Thank you. Any public comment on this item? CNN, please cast your votes. Lucian Case.

A bill for an ordinance authorizing the issuance of (1) the “City and County of Denver, Colorado, General Obligation Elevate Denver Bonds” for the purpose of financing and defraying the cost of acquiring, constructing, installing and improving various civic facilities; and (2) the “City and County of Denver, Colorado, General Obligation Better Denver Refunding Bonds” for the purpose of refunding, paying, and discharging all or a portion of the City’s outstanding Taxable General Obligation Better Denver Bonds (Direct Pay Build America Bonds), Series 2010B; providing for the levy of general ad valorem taxes to pay the principal of and interest on such Bonds; and making other provisions relating thereto. Authorizes the issuance of City and County of Denver General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020A-B in a principal amount not to exceed $465 million for the purpose of funding approximately $170 million of Elevate Denver bond projects approved by Denver voters in November 2017, to refund existing Series 2010B Better Denver General Obligation Bonds, and to pay associated costs of issuance. Th

DenverCityCouncil_10262020_20-1106

I move that I have to build 21 one of 60 ordered published. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Council member Sayed Ibaka. Thank you, Madam President. First, I want to quickly explain to the public what a bond is. A bond is a loan. A city passes a bond to pay for a range of different things, from deferred maintenance to new capital projects. And in some cities, not Denver, but in some cities, housing. Once a bond is authorized by the voters, the city can draw on the loan to pay for those approved projects. The bond dollars are issued in phases, and this current issuance has been accelerated with the justification from the mayor that borrowing to complete projects during a global pandemic will jumpstart our economy. That, to me, feels like saying that when I'm unemployed, that. I. I should spend on my credit card. With no real way to pay it back in order to jumpstart my life. Some of us spend our money that way. And with personal finances, that's a risk. And the risk is much lower. But when we do that as a city, we place that burden of paying our annual loan payment of hundreds of millions of dollars over the collective power of the taxpayers. And so right now, our taxpayers are struggling. They were struggling before COVID. Skyrocketing property taxes are at the root of involuntary displacement and rent hikes. So I, in good conscience cannot approve an accelerated issuance that will saddle our taxpayers with more debt as a city in such uncertain times, times that are calling for a much more careful spending and attention toward an uncertain future. So I hope that my colleagues tonight will see the wisdom in not spending beyond our means in the middle of this crisis and allow us some time to recalibrate as a city before we issue more debt. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman. We've got councilwoman. Blackout. Thank you. Madam President, I was just wondering who might be in the meeting from the Department of Finance to talk about the legalities of this bond. It was approved by voters in 2017, and we have ten years to complete the projects. And so I think Michel Johnson might be on the call and she can address that. Or maybe somebody else. I'm not sure whose this is. Michelle. Yeah. Oh, there's Michelle. Go ahead, Michelle. Know. So thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca, for your comments and Councilwoman. BLOCK for that. Just now. Your statement is correct. So once a jobs program has been authorized by voters, we do have ten years to issue the bonds before the program or before the authorization becomes viewed as stale. And so there is that time limit from when we when voters authorize the election in 2017. I also just note that, you know, our geo debt is currently well under the city charter limit of 3% of actual real personal property value. And in addition, you know, we our geo bonds are repaid by dedicated property tax mill levies. And the issuance of these new bonds does not change the amount of. Bond principle or bond interest, no levies that we plan to levy for 2020 or 2021 collections. So that doesn't change irrespective of whether these new bonds are passed through or not. All right. Thank you. Michelle, could you restate, Michelle, what city agency you're with, please? I'm sorry. This is Michelle Johnson with the. Department of Finance. All right, great. Thank you. Councilmember Black, do you have any follow up questions? And no, just that there also is sort of a refinancing element of this. Michelle, do you want to comment on that? Absolutely. So the. Item. For approval consists of two components. One is the name. And for the elevated bourbon program up to 170 million of PAS. And then the second component is about 290 million for the funding of our 2000 and the better bonds. And that portion is to achieve interest cost savings. Under current market conditions were anticipating the ability to achieve about 57 million of net present value savings on the refunding piece, which is pretty significant. And as we talked about in committee, you know, from a debt management perspective, we do look to combine refunding opportunities with new money issuances to save on cost of issuance and for efficiencies . And so these two are drafted together under one bond ordinance and is combined, if you will, for or. Approval under this item. Thank you, Michelle. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Madam President. Councilmember Black actually asked some of the same questions that I was going to ask. I do want to say. I do want to ask, though. You mentioned it's $57 million in savings from the restructuring. Is that what. Could you translate that into a percentage? Absolutely. That's about. 19.7% of. Our refund in bonds. Have you, in your experience, ever gotten that or realized any where near that kind of cost savings from bond issuance or bond restructuring in the city of Denver in your time? I've been. With the city since 2014 and. I have not seen our present value savings to that level. So this is this is pretty significant power to me. Okay. Thank you. I mean, I guess so. I have a financial background and I would say this is actually good for the citizens of Denver to take advantage of the interest savings from 2010 to the present, where we're we're saving more money for our citizens by doing this restructuring. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. So I wanted to ask a couple of questions and then make a statement. Michelle, are you still on? Mm hmm. She's okay. Um. So when I had my briefing, one of the questions that I asked was about our commitment to local hire. And by now. Making sure that we're working. Towards goals instead of just continuing to call all this a. Pilot project, we're well past the pilot in terms of ensuring that these particular projects. Which will create a number of. Jobs for people who work in the various construction. Fields. Will actually be paying livable wages to the people working on the site. And that has historically. Been one of the benefits of doing bond projects, particularly. When you're in. Economic times. Like we are now, because it's actually putting money back out into the community for, you know, all the various supplies as well as the wages that are paid, which then those workers spend money, you know, throughout our community as well. But can you tell me. Where. You guys are at with a commitment. To. Being beyond calling this a pilot. Program and now ensuring that we're setting goals on the hiring? So can you just speak to that? I think Scott. Retract from our team is going to take. That one woman. Okay, Scott, appreciate you. And I'm sorry I didn't give you a heads up that. I was going to raise this again tonight. But since it was called out, I thought I would just. Piggyback. On on it being called out. To ask where we are. You're. You're missed. I can't hear you. Councilwoman. Can you hear me now? Yes. Great. Thank you for that question. This is Scott Rich RATH on the program manager for the Elevate Denver Bond Program. And we're actually proud of the accomplishments we made when this was a pilot in its early issuances. Several projects that made up that pilot were Elevate Denver programs. Many of them were under contract for construction prior to the outset of the program. So they were, in some cases, for the contractors, volunteer voluntary programs. And nevertheless, our program management office works on a regular basis, monthly or more, with Marcus Johnson and the DOE group that spearhead the Workforce Development Program. We are pleased to say we will be moving from this pilot now and in fact, with issuance, four have targeted a number of projects that would be great candidates now to enable the city to firmly establish this program moving forward. In fact, just last week yeah, just last week, we shared that list with Marcus Johnson and the team. We have a meeting set for just after the scheduled adoption of issuance for if that should happen to go ahead and outline a plan for those projects that have capacity and ability to move into the workforce program. We've analyzed all projects that are 0 to 5 million of anticipated construction, 5 to 10 million of anticipated construction, 10 to 25 I'm sorry, 10 to 50 and 50 million or more. A lot of our large projects were early in the program. They were partnered with our city partners such as Denver Art Museum and Denver Health, which had large dollars of construction. Those were already under contract before the program launched. But we do, however, now have a number of city led projects with dollars in issuance for that would enable us to firmly establish this graduate out of the pilot program and into a more permanent program. But again, the Elevate Denver Bond Program will lead that. We will be a partner to Dito and and that workforce development team will will run point on that for both bond and non bond projects alike. So Scott, can. You identify kind of what that percentage looks like. Of those projects that will. Incorporate the. Commitment to. Local hire? Yes, I can I can speak in rough terms from number of projects standpoint or a project count standpoint. It will be relatively small. There are over 450 total projects within the ten year program. But from a dollar amount standpoint, it will be substantive. Perhaps when all is said and done, more than 50% of the dollars would be eligible to participate in this program. Looking forward, we have large projects that have more than $15 million of construction, such as Westwood Recreation Center, that would become part of the program. So when, you know, when we tally up the total dollars, it will be a much larger percentage than if we look at the individual projects we have. As you know, Councilwoman, a number of projects that are from $50,000 irrigation sprinkler renovations to $250,000 paving projects where we're just laying asphalt. Those are not ripe opportunities necessarily to put large numbers to work. But the bigger projects, particularly those that are vertical construction projects, recreation centers and whatnot, will provide great opportunity. Thank you for that. I just wanted to make us a statement and that is that in my number of years with the city. Almost 40 years with the city. I have never seen our interest. Rates this low that allow us to take advantage of being able to do. The refinancing and save money that. Councilman Hines just talked about earlier. So this really is a great deal for the taxpayers. Because it's ensuring that these projects are going to get completed. And as you all know, these are projects that were asked for by the residents of our city. There was a. Huge public. Outreach to the residents asking. For input on what should be in this bond package. And so these are. Projects that will provide incredible benefit to our neighborhoods. I know Westwood has been. You know, waiting for that recreation center for many, many years. And so I just want to say I'm delighted to support it tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. Most of what I wanted to say has already been said, so I'll be very brief. I would have thought that the effectiveness of stimulus spending, infrastructure spending, would have been adequately demonstrated by FDR 90 years ago. But more recently, we have the lesson of the better Denver bonds that were put out in 2007, approved in 2007, and carried out in the in the ten year period after that during the Great Recession. And what we found what the team found was that not only did the bids and the work come in under our budget , under our estimates, but it also allowed us to pool those savings and do even more projects. And now that we are in another recession, now is the perfect time to provide jobs. And and to echo Councilman Himes, it's also the perfect opportunity to lessen the impact on taxpayers by refinancing at a lower interest rate and paying them off earlier. So this bill makes makes complete sense, and I urge every member to support it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. Councilwoman CdeBaca, you back up? Yes. Just wanted to thank you, Madam President. Just wanted to throw some final words out there. There is a relationship in the in the world that we're ignoring when when these rates go down, they're going down for a reason and incentivizing us to take out more debt at the same time in exchange for that cost savings that we're perceiving. And so for regular people out there, it's like a cash out refinance of your home where you basically take out equity, more equity in order to pay back on, but you're buying down your points. And so it's a relationship that I think cancels itself out in the long run if we're still borrowing while we're experiencing some kind of decrease in our percentage rate. And so just wanted to throw that out there. I understand people feel very differently across the country and in our city about debt. And so still, I'm a no appreciate you all humoring me. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Clark. Thank you. I'm sure I just will respectfully disagree with the two analogies that have been used. This is very different than taking out credit card to spend where you would have to pay for that. We have a dedicated source of revenue for this. This is not eating into budget for anything else like you would if you're spending on your credit card. And now you have to choose between spending this money or that money so that that analogy is not relevant to what is going on here, nor is it accurate. And also, this is not a cash out refinance. This is refinancing our existing debt to lower our payments, reducing the total cost that Denver taxpayers will have on a suite of things that Denver voters already approved with with that revenue stream. So this is also inaccurate. I just wanted to be on the record saying that both of those analogies were inaccurate representations of what is happening here. This is a refinance of existing debt, which brings our costs down. This is spending that can go to jobs of work that is already done and comes from a different revenue stream and is not eating up something else in the budget as increasing credit card spending when you have a decrease in income would be. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman CdeBaca. Thank you, Madam President. Just to go on and clarify, it is the same thing because we're refinancing debt and taking out more debt, and it is similar in that we float the mills. So the city sets the multiplier when we're deciding what to multiply our assessed values at. And so that is something that directly affects the taxpayers at any time, especially during a crisis like this. So thank you. Thank you. And just a quick reminder for folks, we've got two more items on the call out and then three hearings tonight as well. And so thank you, Councilman Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. I would agree with Councilmember CdeBaca that we are refinancing, that. I would disagree with Councilmember CdeBaca. We are not taking on any more debt. We are only doing what the people have already told us to do. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. CDEBACA No. Clark. Hi. When I. I. Hi. I. Katherine. I can eat. I. Okay. I. The end of all. I so. I saw it. I. Black I. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, close the voting and announce the results. Well, that that's one day. 12 eyes council bill 1106 has been ordered published. The next item up is Bill 855. Councilmember CdeBaca, please go ahead with your questions on Bill 855. Thank you, Madam President. I am curious about the source of funds for this agreement. Is this the tax, the the revenue source that we had voted on for basically to address food injustice? We've got a line up, I believe, to answer. Akhmatova's in a difficult please. I'm Leanne Sadowski and the food systems administrator with the Denver Department of Public Health and Environment. And I'm overseeing this project, also known as the Food and Communities Project. This is not synonymous with our Healthy Food for Kids Tax Initiative. There is a separate initiative that was voted for on the ballot and has established approximately $11 million a year to go towards healthy food for kids and related tuition. Education. Councilmember Torres and Councilmember to sit on the commission for that tax fund. This project is a neighborhood based community food project where we've been working with communities in the east and West Colfax area and in the surrounding jurisdictions as well. To hear from them about their concerns and needs when it comes to community food, to set goals, to establish action plans, and to support community based pilot projects as well as long term policy change and systems change around supporting community food access in those areas. So the grant is citywide, but the pilot projects you're currently working on are both in District three. They are. Peter, remember my. Council district that I. Had there in the East Colfax area and the West Colfax area? So they are sort of the East Coast, northwest, Aurora area, Lakewood. Barnum sort of neighborhood's awesome. And who are the primary partners on both sides of Colfax? Yeah. So in the communities we're working with a number of different community based organizations in each of the focus areas, as well as with the local public health agencies in Jefferson County and the tri county health department. So in the the West Side neighborhood, we are working with the Sun Valley Community Commission, we're working with the Lasko Housing Development, we're working with the co-op at first Community Organization, just to name a couple. And then on the east side we're working with Eastside Neighborhood Association. Ah, and oh they're, we're working with partners like the Village Exchange Center and several in. Northwest Aurora. As well. So it's a, it's a mix of different kinds of partners depending on the communities. And some of those partners have received grants to pilot projects in those neighborhoods. Awesome. Thank you very much for that clarification. That's it for my questions on that one. Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman. The next item up is Bill 1194. Councilmember Torres, will you please put council Bill 1194 on the floor for publication? A move that canceled the 20 dash, 1194 be ordered published.

Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 6.16.310 relating to the exercise of dogs upon a designated portion of the beach of the City of Long Beach, read and adopted as read. (District 3)

LongBeachCC_03242015_15-0230

Item 22 Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code relating to the exercise of dogs upon a design. A designation portion of the beach of the City of Long Beach read an and adopted as read District three. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I'm pleased to announce the installation of new art pieces at Rosie's Dog Beach, the city of Long Beach work with the Arts Council of Long Beach in an effort to create distinctive artwork for the dog beach and to celebrate dog lovers alike. The artwork is a celebration of the special relationship we have with our dogs. I'm excited to have public art at the Dog Beach. Rosie's Dog Beach opened in 2003 and is located at 5000 East Ocean Boulevard between Roycroft and Argonne. The dog beach is open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. every day. I want to thank the staff for helping implement this exciting new addition to our Dog Beach, and I look forward to going out there and seeing our residents using it with their dogs this weekend. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. While my spayed and license dog isn't available this weekend, we look forward to joining you at the dog beach soon. And I know your little ones don't have a dog of their own, so bring your little one's misc list price and I'll make sure that they have a dog to play with. Any public comment on the item? Scene and please cast your vote. Councilman Mango. Motion carries eight zero. Thank you. Now we have announcements for. Actually, there's a second public comment period if anyone wants to do that.

Recommendation to receive and file the Biennial Report on Public Convenience and Necessity Regarding Taxicab Service and conclude the hearing; find that the number of authorized taxicabs is insufficient for the needs of the City; find that Long Beach Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc. (LBYC), is in full compliance with the terms and conditions of the current permit; and authorize City Manager to amend the permit with LBYC to authorize operation of 199 cabs, approve a requested change in trade dress, and allow for discounted fares to ensure the customer base is offered the most competitive pricing. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_05122015_15-0403

And this will be a lot this will be very similar to that. So thank you for everyone, for all the hard work. And with that, we're going to move on to our first hearing. So much for this. Back over to the court. Hearing Item number one report from Financial Management. Recommendation to receive and file the biennial report on public convenience. A necessity regarding taxicab service and conclude the hearing. Find that the number of authorized taxi cabs is insufficient. Find that yellow, that Long Beach Yellow Cab is in full compliance. Amend the permit to authorize operation of 199 cabs. Approver requested change in trade dress and allow for discounted fares to ensure the customer base is offered the most competitive pricing citywide. Think I'm going to turn this over right now to Assistant City Manager Tom Modica, who's going to turn it over to staff. And I think there's also some changes to the proposal. So here's Mr. Modica and. Oath required for this. Yeah. Mr. Modica I would do the oath first please. You and each of you. Do you solemnly state that the testimony you may give in this cause now and pending before this body shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? I do. I do. Thank you, Mr. Motor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Members of the City Council. The staff report will be given. By Jason MacDonald, our purchasing and business services manager. Thank you, Mayor. Council Members Jason McDonald on behalf of the Business License Division in the Financial Management Department. Tonight you have in front of you the biannual report for public convenience, a necessity regarding taxicab services. Staff has completed its investigation and is recommending that council find the number of cabs should be increased. Approve a change in trade, dress or vehicle logo which was provided to you and allow for discounted fares. We are prepared to address any questions or concerns regarding the item that has provided. Thank you. Thank you. There has been a motion in a second on the item. What I'm going to do is I'm to open up for any any public comments first on this, and then we'll bring it back to the makers of the motion for the official part of the hearing. Any public comment, please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and Council. I'm Cheri Beasley. I'm the executive director at the Long Beach Ronald McDonald House. And I appreciate the opportunity to just share with you briefly. Since opening in December of 2011, Long Beach Yellow Cab has been a tremendous supporter for our families. I can tell you that just last year we served approximately 700 families, which equates to about 3000 people. Many of those don't come to our Long Beach Ronald McDonald House with transportation. Since opening, Yellow Cab has been providing taxi script, which means there is transportation for those families without vehicles for much needed. Visits to local businesses to just have some normalcy while they're dealing with the burden of their child in the hospital. Without without the support from Yellow Cab. We do not have the resources to provide transportation for these families. So I hope in your consideration on these items today, you you I urge you to vote yes in favor of them being the great community supporter and support to our Long Beach Ronald McDonald House. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Next Speaker. Mary Garcia. Council Members. City Manager Pat West. Sherrie mentioned about the community outreach that Yellow Cab does, and they're one of the great partners in the community that whenever there's something needed, Yellow Cowboy steps up to the plate. And they always they are always part of the community. And but aside from that, I can't tell you how many visitors have told me and told our staff their great experiences that they had that they've had in the Yellow Cab Taxi. And what's exciting to me is the drivers actually take the time to talk about Long Beach, talk about the changes that are in the city. And they're Long Beach proud. We have salespeople driving those cabs. And I hear it often when the visitors leave, the great experience that they've had when they've used the yellow cab. So in addition to being a great community supporter, they also are a great business leader and they are definitely part of the Long Beach fabric and I believe makes us more competitive city by being so. Anyway, we urge you to support staff's recommendation on the pilot program. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. F's. Evening. Members of the Council. Mr. Mayor. Mr. City Manager, on behalf of the 257 least drivers and driver owners of Long Beach Yellow Cab Cooperative Inc. I want to thank you all for your work on this item, but in particular, I want to single out the fine work of Jason McDonald and our tourists, Sanchez and Mark Taylor . As we move forward with this, we look forward to continuing to work with the city and its fine staff. And so I want to thank them. Right now I have a couple of people I want to introduce. We have several of our driver owners and our at least drivers. Could you please stand? These are the people that serve the city day and night, every single day without fail. And I just want to point them out. Thank you. Thank you. I also want to point out that this year in in particular, with respect to the the rebranding we had, we were so fortunate this year to have five fellows from Cairo, Southern California, five young geniuses working with us, and three of them are here. So if I could get them to stand and just acknowledge their their great work. All right. Thank you. You know, we as an industry find ourselves the reluctant participant of one of the great public policy debates that's going that is going on today. Hardly a day goes by that you don't hear the news. Cities everywhere are struggling with really what to do with their taxicab companies to address issues of the of the unlevel playing field that exists. And so I want to thank Long Beach for for taking the lead. I have a lot of experience with our International Taxi Trade Association. And to my knowledge, this is the first time that a city has has looked at constructive ways to to relax regulations while maintaining all the benefits of the taxi industry, including fingerprint based background checks, full time insurance, AXA, accessible transportation for people in wheelchairs and the like. I want to make myself available for questions on the first item, which is the public convenience and necessity hearing. And, and thank you in advance and urge your your vote yes to direct the staff to proceed with the pilot program, which will end up giving us the flexibility in order to succeed. Our goal is to have a business model that allows us to serve each and every customer who who wants our service. The current business model does not allow that. In the end, it's going to be the customer who benefits from better service. So thank you very much and we look forward to working with you. Thank you, Mr. Ralphs. We're all set. They're seeing no other public comments. I'm going to turn this over. I'm going to have the council deliberate and close the hearing to start us off as the maker of the motion. Councilwoman Mongo. Thank you to staff and thank you to our community partners and Yellow Cab. Many of you heard at our Economic Development and Finance Committee meeting how we've discussed the importance of having a partner in our community to ensure that we can serve our disabled community, our airports and and the others. And while we are supporters of business and the new opportunities that are coming, we want to be sure that our partner, Yellow Cab, who's been there for us through the years and has supported our residents, who has been our partner in going green, who has been our partner in ensuring that our disabled community can get to and from visits to their family and the community and their hospitals and their doctor's appointments, that they have that opportunity to have an even playing field. I appreciate and look forward to the opportunity to see how they explore their new branding and the 199 car variants. And for those of you who are interested in knowing more about the pilot program, that'll be an item tow later. But right now on this hearing, I hope that we have enough support to make this happen. Great. Thank you. And the second year of the motion, Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I want to echo what Councilwoman Mongo just said and acknowledge the wrong the long partnership that Yellow Cab has had with the city of Long Beach. They have proven themselves to be a responsible business operating within the city. Having been very involved, myself and Mothers Against Drunk Driving and organizations that promote the use of taxi cabs. I will say that they have. Embraced efforts that some other cities have been slow to embrace in terms of transportation options available. So I want to thank them for that. The industry is absolutely changing and there's no question about it. I want to give this particular business an acknowledgment for understanding what it means to stay current and make some significant changes to your operations and your business model in light of the changing industry. One of the things that I've found when we talk with a lot of our businesses in the community, mostly smaller businesses, but the changes are happening around them and they're reacting to them and sometimes they're responding too late and they're not understanding what happened. But the truth is that their business model did not change in light of the surrounding environment around them. And so the fact that you are rebranding yourselves, I think is huge. There's all sorts of data and research out there that talks about how a brand impacts a company's success. So I think that's huge. And changing basically your service model. The fact that we are one of the first cities to kind of embark upon this process of relaxing some of the requirements or thinking outside the box in terms of what we can do to help a business is something that I'm happy to be doing. I think it's it remains to be seen in terms of what other cities do and where we go with this debate in the in the nation as a whole. But given the fact that we have a long partnership with with this particular business, I think that it's a it's definitely a venture worth taking and pursuing and doing what we can to make sure that we are in a position to support you, support your growth and support your staying in the city as a healthy, growing industry and business. So I hope that my colleagues join us and moving forward, I want to thank staff for coming to us with these recommendations. I know they've worked really hard and our team has really educated those of us who are on the Economic Development Finance Committee, really about the industry and the changes in the industry and the real necessity for us to try to do something to solidify the partnership and really to support the partnership. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Andrews. Yes, thank you, Mayor. I, too, would like to echo and what I to council members are speaking about the yellow card. You know, I am in fully support of the yellow cab, you know, request to authorize additional cabs as well as offering competitive prices to our constituents. They have been a very reliable company in our city and has been a strong reputation of constantly giving back to our community and providing a level of outstanding services now to pay. They've known to pay their fees, often discounted towards our seniors and disability and the 50 square miles of guaranteed coverage. I can go on and on about the bill, the benefits of having them in, not only in my community but throughout the entire city of Long Beach. It is truly a privilege to work with the company who has been in business for so many years and is known to know for their standards and have never, ever wavered . I also would like to echo Mr. Goodman statement whenever you need call on the yellow cab and they will be there. I want to thank you guys so much for being out, you know, in our city of Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Gonzales. You guys do such a great job. It's it's been said many times over, but a few of the other things that you all do, you know, you help people go out and vote, which is very important. Seniors are being taken care of. I know myself, I'm a downtown resident. So oftentimes to get to the convention center, it's taking yellow cab. And so y'all have been a real amazing staple. And you're changing your business model. You're doing the rebranding to stay competitive. And we are, you know, cutting edge here in the city. And we want to make sure that, you know, businesses have a fair chance. So thank you for being here. Appreciate it. Councilmember Richardson. Thanks, Mayor. I think Yellow Cabs is a great company. I've certainly had my share of cab rides. And I'll just say, I think the the the rebranding is fantastic. These cars look great. I'm looking forward to download an app. And so best of luck to you. I'll be obviously voting in in favor of this, but I look forward to the next chapter of Long Beach Yellow Cab. Thank you. Councilmember Austin. And I don't know to say anything that hasn't already been said, but yes, I will support this item. And Yellow Cab has always been a great community partner. It's been there for all of the big events. And so if you have any pedicabs, I invite you to beat Streets on June six. Before we go to a vote, I'm going to make a couple quick comments. Let me just first, obviously echo what the council said, but I want to make sure that we're very clear what the council's doing tonight actually is the first of its kind across the country. This has not happened anywhere else where a city is actually deregulating a taxi company to allow it to be more competitive in the current market marketplace. Right now, I think it's there's a nationwide conversation happening about the sharing economy and what that means to industry, and particularly industry that has for a long time provided good jobs for the people with a steady paycheck, provided good service. And so what Yellow Cab is doing by by moving to this new model and by the city supporting it, is allowing this company to innovate, to deregulate, and to be able to be competitive with the other models that are out there. In addition to that, I think the rebrand is really incredibly thoughtful. I think that it's going to be exciting to see a new app as well as a new brand that will be competitive. All the other products that are out there. And this is not about not supporting what is happening in the sharing economy. This is about supporting a community partner that has been with us for a long time and ensuring that those services that are only provided by taxi companies, the services to the disabled, the services on Election Day, the services for seniors, the easy access to for tourists who are dependent on seeing a cab when they arrive at the airport, remain in the city, and to ensure that we stay competitive across the country. So this is actually a very important and significant moment, I think, and I'm really proud of Long Beach for taking the lead on this issue. This issue, any time it's come before a city. At any city has been, quite frankly, a total disaster. And I think you've seen a breakdown of people working together. And I think this has been something that I'm really, really proud of. And I want to thank Yellow Cab. I want to thank city staff. And I want to thank the council for for being so thoughtful here. And with that, we'll call the vote. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Item item 20, please.

Recommendation to receive and file a presentation from Catapult, a live-streamed concert for artists and creators in Long Beach.

LongBeachCC_11172020_20-1120

Thank you. Item 159. I know. Councilman Pearce. Well rescheduled for the eighth. Do we need a motion in a second to withdraw that vote tonight? Yes. I can't remember. Operators make the motion. They have seconds. Okay, let's mark late. We do have a public comment for this item. Okay. Needs to be on the pulling it. She says she. Just one moment. We're getting the caller on the line. Tiffany Davey. Yes. Which and which item is this? This is for laying over item 59 to December eight. On the phone I had. Right. I'm going to support that and request possibly more documents for that meeting. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes public comment. Thanks. Not only. District one. I. District two I, District three. I. District four. I. District five i. District six. I. District seven. I. District eight. Hi. District nine. All right. Motion carries. Thank you. If anyone have any closing comments for tonight. And this is Councilmember Pearce. I'd like to go ahead. Okay. I just wanted to recognize that Friday is the trans day of remembrance. And we know that this is the day that we typically would honor and recognize those people that have contributed to our community, but also to the lives that have been lost.

A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver, on behalf of itself and the Denver Workforce Development Board and Eckerd Youth Alternatives, Inc. to provide one-stop operator and comprehensive services specific to employment and training as required under Denver’s Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funding. Approves a contract with Eckerd Connects for $2,500,000 and through 6-30-21 to provide one-stop operator and comprehensive services specific to employment and training as required under Denver’s Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funding and other special state revenue or grant-funded workforce initiatives, citywide (OEDEV-202054623-00). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-29-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-3-20. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilmember Herndon called out this item at the 6-15-20 meeting for a one-week postponement to 6-22-20.

DenverCityCouncil_06152020_20-0488

Councilmember CdeBaca has called out Bill 508 for questions under Bill's for final consideration. No items have been called out and under pending. No items have been called out. Did I miss anything? Okay. Looks like we got them all. So, Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? And, Councilmember Ortega, will you please put resolution 488 on the floor? Mr. President, I moved the council resolution 488 be adopted. Thank you. Council member has been moved. Can I get a second? It has been moved and seconded. Thank you. Questions or comments by members of Council Council Member CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. I called this one out for a vote, as it was mentioned in public comment. We're looking to an agency in Clearwater, Florida, to do what many of our nonprofits here in Denver could be doing, should be doing. And I speak from experience when I say this because I ran a youth development program that utilized we have funds every single summer to pay our students to serve our students. And it's interesting to me that we would contract with an agency that in 2018, in in in Florida was basically threatened. They have a $77 million contract with the state of Florida. And there were issues with one of the components of their work related to foster youth. And the state of Florida actually threatened to pull their contract because of their lack of performance in Florida. And so I'm wondering why we don't investigate these things and why we even allow this to be considered and come this far, this late in the game for summer when there are known issues in the place of origin. So I would like to encourage my colleagues to vote no on this, especially because right now we have so many youth programs that are struggling to stay alive in the city of Denver. They need our support. And $2.5 million is definitely some support that could be reallocated in different ways. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember each. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate my colleague raising an important question. Is there someone here who can speak to this contract tonight? Councilwoman. I'm going to sound like a broken record every week. But we get these call outs about half an hour or 45 minutes for the meeting. So I don't have anyone here. I'm happy to try and answer what I can. Okay. I first want to ask, I understand the word youth is in the title of the entity that this contact is related to. But is this particular contract for youth employment services? Can you just clarify because I see another one on the agenda for 89 that says that it is for services to out-of-school youth. This one I read, it says one stop operator, which appears to me to be the adult service provider. So I just want to make sure we're all on the same page about which contract is which. Can you clarify? Yeah, that's correct, Councilwoman. This one is the contract for services to adults and dislocated workers. Okay. And so there is a separate contract for youth. Correct. Do you know if either of the contracts and if the president may allow me if I can just ask a question about the other one. So that is that for efficiency? Is that okay, Mr. President? Yup. Go ahead. Do either of these contracts, the adult contract or the separate youth, one which is not on the floor right now, do either of those contracts have subcontracts to local providers within them? Do we know? You know, I don't know the answer to that. We can certainly follow up and get you that information. Okay. Thank you. There are, if I might, there are a couple of other contracts that are lower dollar value not coming through the council process. There's a $100,000 contract for a center for employment opportunities to serve out-of-school youth and $115,000 contract with Urban Peak to provide services to out-of-school youth for youth experiencing homelessness. Those who just are not coming through the council process. Thank you. So if I may follow up, Mr. President. So it's in the past, sometimes we have the prime subcontract. In this case, the community is being directly contracted by the city in separate contracts. I believe that is correct if I am reading this correctly. Okay. Thank you very much. Can I add to that real quick. To that to that point? Now, just to clarify for Robin, go ahead. And each councilman can each based on the committee explanation of this there and when you do summer programing, the city of Denver used to do the the training part prior to placing students into nonprofit agencies. And so there was a required core curriculum. And from the safety committee, this is the provider of the online core curriculum. And the other one was for youth with disabilities. Okay. Thank you. And I will apologize because this one was called out by our deadline. And so I will look into why that didn't get communicated over in time. And also look at it. Or maybe we can have a brief discussion about our deadline. I know in COVID times trying to avoid having as many people over, and I appreciate that to keep everybody as safe as possible. But and so I apologize. Something on this one was called out by our deadline. And I don't know how we missed getting everything over to you. And we should discuss some efficiencies on that. So you don't have to keep any up being up at the microphone answering when we could have somebody else. So. Sounds great. Thanks. And the reason I really bring it up is I don't want anyone to think the agencies don't care enough to have somebody down here. It really is about managing the number of bodies in the room and the quick turnaround time to get people who are working from home here. So that's why I keep raising it. I just don't want anybody. I appreciate that and I think doesn't want to be here. Well, let's work on on both ends on how we make that work better. And I apologize for that. Councilmember Torres. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few numbers that I got. I think it's a valid question. And I, I would have like to hear from Dito about the questions that Councilwoman CdeBaca brought up. But I do want to make sure that folks understand what the 2.5 million is going forward. And for adults in 2019. They had 23,000 unique contacts in the workforce centers so far. In 2020, they've had 35,000 contacts in workforce centers. So it's to. Manage all of those through the. Folks looking for work. So it's the youth component. There are two segments, one for out-of-school youth, one for in-school youth, out-of-school youth. We will see the $550,000 contract to ability connection Colorado. They are also contracting, though we will not see 100,000 for Center for Youth Employment I'm sorry, Center for Employment Opportunity Opportunities and 115,000 for Urban. Peak for. In-School youth, a collection of $945,000 in contracts for DPS. So it's it's more multifaceted than the 2.5 million for adults seeking work. But I think that would have been a helpful thing to demonstrate even in chambers so that we have a good understanding of what's happening with the money and where is it going to. I will be voting in favor of this. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember heard it. Mr. President. I want to as I was looking at this, this contract is through June 30th of 2021. So I'm. Assuming that the contract. Ends June 30th of this year. It is going for one year. So I was going to suggest since Dito. Was did. Not have the opportunity and this is a. One reading resolution, a utilize my ability as a council member to. Request a delay for one week so we can have consideration so Dito can come speak to any question council members have will have the ability to vote and still should be able to meet the timing. Deadline, if that's actually true, that the contract ends at. The end of this month. Sorry. I apologize. I was double checking the order here. So you were proposing that we hold this? Yes. Okay. Amenable. Councilmember, you said if I could call it out for a vote tonight, are you amenable to that as an alternative? That would be helpful, Mr. President. And I think that the specific question about contracting with agencies that are being threatened to have their contracts pulled in their state of origin, I think that is a question that must be answered as we get more information about this particular contract. Okay. So before I ask our Secretary procedurally how we might do that, since you're amenable. Councilmember Hines, you had buzzed in also on this item. Are you amenable to the new plan? Can we go to that or did you want to jump in at this point? I wanted is the only thing I wanted to say is that I have in the past made one controversial decision that delayed a consideration for a week. So I wanted to be on the record as supporting Councilmember Herndon's delay for a week. Thank you. Okay, Madam Secretary, how would you like us to unwind having something on the floor to vote on so that we do this right for the delay instead? If we can just please have Councilmember Ortega withdraw the motion and council member can each second that withdraw term. It's very official. Thank you. Excellent. All right, Madam Secretary. Now, what. What do we need for the postponement? Just for the record, we will be postponing Counsel Council Resolution 2488 for one week to June 22nd pursuant to Rule 3.7. Okay. Thank you very much. So now we can move on to our next item. If you put the next item up on our screens and I believe we're on which one? 6505. Okay. 505. So, Councilmember Ortega, will you please put Council Resolution 505 on the floor?

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

DenverCityCouncil_07242017_17-0687

Thank you. Wow. That was very sweet. We have another public hearing tonight. You. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You guys are welcome to stay for the next public hearing as well. Councilman? No. Will you please put Council Resolution 687 on the floor? Mr. President, the Council of 687 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Resolution 687 is opened. May we have a staff report? I believe. Happy. Haines, are you on deck? It's a busy night for you. Thank you very much, President Pro Tem and members of council. I will be very brief because I know we are here tonight to hear from our citizens about this project. I just wanted to give you a quick background and overview. It was sometime last summer when this idea, this opportunity came to the city and we worked very closely with the Office of Special Events to consider it. And I will say at the outset, our department, the Department of Parks and Recreation, was among the skeptics. And so we spent a number of months doing a little due diligence on the idea of this festival, including sending a team of individuals to the sister festival that has matured in San Francisco. And we did that along with a number of other city agencies. Before I go any further, I would like to really acknowledge those individuals because it really has been a team effort. And I particularly want to thank Fred. Fred Weiss, Scott, Ralph Lake, Laura morales from our Department of Parks and Recreation, the Office of Special Events. Katie and Grace. And her whole team. The city attorney's office, who have been just terrific in helping us think through each step of this process. Our Parks and Rec Advisory Board and and particularly there are residents and neighbors in in the community. Whether they were in favor or against their involvement at every step of this process has been invaluable and has shaped where we are tonight with the the contract that you have before you. I'm not going to go through the details of the contract because I think you have seen we made a pretty lengthy presentation at committee a few weeks ago, and the contract really reflects all of those items that we went through with you at that meeting, with one exception, and I and I want to apologize at the outset for how late the contract actually came to you. And I know that you'll be taking a little extra time to review it, but we wanted to make sure that every last thing was in place and it was right. And we had some issues, some details to work out with excise and licensing since the council committee and wanted to make sure that each of those pieces was in the contract that you received during the course of the conversations in the community that started about November of this last year. We have had input through a survey from over a thousand individuals, both in the neighborhoods directly involved in the neighborhoods throughout the city, as well as a thousand petitions that we received both in favor and in opposition to to the proposal. We used all of that input to shape an a set of commitments that we floated in a number of community meetings, guidelines, if you will, that helped really shape the core of the contract that you have before you. And it really and I meant it genuinely when I said earlier, we thank those individuals who were both skeptical and oppose as much as those who were in favor because voicing their concerns helped to sharpen our thoughts and where we needed to go in the kinds of issues that needed to be addressed in this contract. And so it is a better contract and it's a better document because of all of that input that we received. We worked with neighborhood organizations, schools, recreation centers, all of the users of the golf courses, not only the Overland one, but throughout the city. I want to thank you particularly for the support that we got from your council offices in helping with the community outreach. We had individuals literally walking door to door and and a robust online presence to try to get input and all of that added up to the contract that you have before you this evening. Two things in particular I want to address before I sit down and then let you hear from the community. The mayor added his own input and it was as a result of meeting with a number of. Neighbors in the Oberlin community. He made a commitment that both our department, the city and the promoter are absolutely committed to, and that is the establishment of an accountability committee that will be very engaged, an accountability committee with a level of independence that will enable us to get real, honest and genuine feedback from the community about how this event goes. And those of you who know the work that we've done around events throughout this city and in our parks, and you all walk through us. Just recently with the new event policy that we put in place. And I mention that because our aim in addressing all of those issues, both in that policy and in this contract, is to ensure that we have good events in this city and that they're there events that people want to go to, that they add value to our community, and that they minimize the impacts in our neighborhoods. And that is where we believe that this contract does. Councilman, knew you raised a question, I think a related question about this earlier this week with some concerns about making sure that the language of some accountability and some evaluation and review are not being reflected in the contract. I will point you to the language that is in Section 5.2 S, which we believe does address that issue, and we're happy to work with you more directly in the future. There are two things that make this a little bit unique. One is this contract includes a fairly lengthy list of requirements and plans that the promoter must provide to the city and to our department for review and approval before we move ever anywhere. And the language that I just mentioned in the contract requires us to evaluate the results of all of those things. It commits and requires the promoter to be engaged in the community outreach that's necessary to get that feedback about how the festival went and what the issues were and what concerns were raised. And I'll say this to begin with, as much work as we've done and as much as we have focused on the details of this contract , we know that it is not going to be perfect day one. And that's why we've built into this process and into the contract processes that will enable us to respond, to adjust, to adapt both during the Feast of the festival itself and more importantly, afterwards, so that we make the adjustments and the changes that are needed to make this the very best festival possible. I will end with that and thank you all very much again. All right. Thank you, Miss Haynes. All right, we have. Yep, go ahead. I did forget one thing, and that is to make a quick introduction of of the promoters of from Superfly who are here tonight. I just want to make sure that, you know that they are present. They are here to answer questions. I want to thank them personally for the amount of time they have spent going through in painstaking detail what we believed we needed to make a great event. This is Rick Farman from Superfly. He's a co-founder of Superfly. And I just have to say, I'm literally a guy who's willing to roll up his sleeves and and get to get to work and and respond. And finally, David Erlich, who many of you know in the community, who is the festival liaison and is the local guy on the ground and has been a tremendous partner. So they are both here available for questions after the public hearing during and and and are at your disposal. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you. First, I want to I want to just say to all the folks who are here, thank you for enduring a long time. Thank you for coming through security, sitting in hard seats. We realize that this is the not the best process, but it is the only process we have and look and always improve that. So we want to apologize because you could be doing a lot of things at 940, but you are at the city hall trying to make your city better because you care about your neighborhood. So thank you for being here. This is a courtesy public hearing. Courtesy, public hearing. You cannot yield time. So it's it will be 3 minutes straight up and we'll do in favor and against will be alternating everyone. The other thing is we have 28 speakers, so 28 times three is more than 60 minutes. So I will have a timer right here going going on there. But you don't have to everybody doesn't have to use all their 3 minutes. Many of you, especially if you're at the halfway point, you're going to start hearing speakers say similar things. And so be courteous to the folks who are on the bottom end of the list. And if you've wrapped up your comments, you can wrap it up and leave someone some more time so we can get all 28 people in. I haven't figured out the math of how to get all 28 in, but, you know, 2 minutes would be appropriate, I think. Okay. So I'm going to call the first five. We'll leave this first row open for the first five people to come. Come through. Robert Lavelle. Kathy Hamilton. Reyna. Reza. Q Razak. Okay. Okay. Thanks for your vote of confidence. All right. And. Carmen knows. And Max Hirsch. Okay, Robert Rob Lovell, you are first 3 minutes. Good evening, everyone. It's been quite a night, a long night. And I just want to first thank you, Mr. President, council members, for allowing us to come speak. Really? I'd like to thank all the members of the government that I have dealt with over the last year in. My name is Robert Lovell and I live at 406 west of Joel, right across from the first green. So I would be one of the neighbors most directly impacted by this festival. But as I was saying, I wanted to thank the government representatives, Parks Department's Office of Special Events. I've met so many people throughout this process. And I've been impressed every step of the way. It's been very in-depth, very thorough and. I really feel that whatever happens, everybody's working for everyone's best interests. So I had some written down remarks prepared, but throughout the evening I just decided to. Wing it and I kind of. You know, feel like my philosophies are guided by like good, like the greatest, good for the greatest number of people and operating. In good faith. When this idea came about. I was part of the first group where it was like, Hey, there's this idea being floated around. Is this something that we're even remotely interested in as a neighborhood, as a neighborhood association in pursuing? There is multiple public meetings in every step of the way. People acted with good faith, and I appreciate that. And every step of the way, the concerns were notated. They were categorized. They're attract, they're addressed. I never heard false promises. I never heard things that would lead me to believe that anything. Not up front and not in our best interest is going on. And the survey really drove that home for me, seeing all of the concerns listed out, seeing the proposed steps to address those concerns. I mean, that was pretty comprehensive. And that's why not only myself as. An individual could I support it, but also support it like as recommend recommendation for the rest of my community. It's going to benefit the community by the money that comes in it, the attention that comes to the community. It's underserved in terms of pedestrian access, transportation safety, things like that in it, in a focus in that area is going to naturally improve those things over time, like the proposed pedestrian drawbridge. Also the opportunity to get additional funding for community engagement. The Community Advisory Board. The Accountability Board steps are being taken to protect our best interests and I'm 100% comfortable endorsing this. It's going to be part of a bigger whole. In my opinion. The synergistic thing going on with the vet pavilion. So all of the music, the music venues on South Broadway, possible CPR, I mean, there's a lot. Happening in that neighborhood and southwest Denver can really be placed on the map. On the same level as Austin City limits south by Southwest. So in terms of. Thank you. All right, Kathy Hamilton. Hi. I'm Kathy Hamilton. And I live. In Denver. Remember when Colorado turned down the Olympics? Our state didn't want the crowd nor the expense. Overland Park neighborhood is rejecting the equivalent of the Olympics. Think out of the box. Just try to think out of the box for a minute. Can these huge events be held at Red Rocks instead? How about. Barbie? Barbie, your park. Or at the Denver Country Club. All these places have parking. The city of Denver often exceeds the carrying capacity of neighborhoods like Globeville. Swansea and Elyria with 14 lane highway. Projects or or say a while ago when. I-70 was run through the middle of my. Neighborhood of Berkeley. If you live there, it's it wasn't a success. Um. If the Overland Park golf course were a beach. Like with sand and bathers and things like that. A beach taken over for profit. You would surely be outraged. Somehow, if it's just a golf course. It isn't. It just seems like, you know, excess green sward that can just be, you know, worked over. And, you know, this has happened to the golf course on the other side on the on the east side of Eye of the Mousetrap, because they're going to chew it up to make a drainage just for that road, that 14 lane road. So that's all I have to say. Thank you, Mrs. Banks, for listening. Rhino Rescue. All right. Thank you. I'm really proud to live. State your name for the record. Sorry. Sorry. My name is Rainer Isaak and I live at 406 West Ewell Avenue with Robert Lovell. That's my husband right across from the first screen. So I'm really proud to live in a community where we have access to so many natural resources as well as urban amenities and natural activities. And I'm also proud to be here with neighbors who are so passionate about our community regardless of where we stand on the issue. I'm torn by this level of civic engagement because we all live where we live and have our community's best interests at heart. I work at Denver Public Schools in the Office of Student Equity and Opportunity, so I'm passionate about eliminating the opportunity gaps that exist in our community. Southwest Denver has historically been marginalized and lacks access to a robust culture of art and music. Well, that pavilion certainly adds to our to the culture of our neighborhood, and it'll take things to a new level, as well as give us the opportunity to make much needed improvements to our area, basic things like crosswalks and safe bridges to walk across. And this music festival will definitely add to that as well live. It just wouldn't have the capacity to make these infrastructure improvements by itself. Some of the items that I think are particularly advantageous from my personal perspective is that there will be a separate fund for community outreach efforts which can be routed to increase arts access for our youth. Communities in southwest Denver have been traditionally underserved, and cultures with traditionally rich art and history and tradition have had to put these traditions on the back burner as art becomes something that's more of a privilege, and as they scramble for access to community resources to highlight their culture and their art, our culture and our art opportunities for community folks who volunteer at the festival will gain them free access to renowned music, as well as incredible work and service experience. And this is going to be particularly helpful to young adults in our area. High schools like Abraham Lincoln, Coons, Miller, Creative Arts Academy, South High School, giving our youth the opportunity to access positive outlets that engage their interests. The golf course is going to be available to a much greater portion of the community as well. Increasing access to this beautiful land and the funds that are routed toward neighborhoods will help us increase our infrastructure. Thank you for your time today and have a good night. Thank you. Little time to spare. Okay. Come on, North. Okay. Sorry about that. All right, I'm going to call the next group. Max Hirsch, Helen or Andrew G. Have joined Joann Weiss and Terry Pesci. I'll come up to the front, please. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Max Hirsch, you were up 3 minutes. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of the Council. My name is Max Hirsch. I live at 1235 Grant Street in Denver, along with my family owned businesses on South Broadway and the Overland neighborhood. I'm also a student at C.U. Denver. I study music business and music cities with the creative economy. And tonight, I'd just kind of like to speak behalf of the younger residents of Denver, as well as the students that I go to school with. First off, Denver is an island for music. What I mean by that is it's very hard to break out of Denver as a musician, as a local musician, there's not a lot of places to go from Denver. We're not surrounded by a lot of other markets, and unfortunately, we're not a national market right now. So there's not a lot of national attention on our artists. This festival could change that, could flip that immediately. Not only will local artists be able to play at the stages during the festival with local stages, they'll be able to share with share stages with big names like Radiohead and stuff like that. Adding to their resume about big shows that they've played and out of town, residents are going to come to this festival and they're going to find their new favorite artist, and it might be a local Denver artist, and that's huge for us. And we're also going to be able to be playing in bars and restaurants and venues around the area. So when this ends. At 10:00 at night, people are going to want to continue to go out, which is going to help the businesses and it's also going to help the artists that are playing the shows at these businesses. Next, I wanted to touch on the what my age group is doing right now. When we're going into the workforce right now and we're the trend has flipped from. Go into a finding a job in a city, going to the city and hoping that you like the city. It's now you're going to a city for the culture. You're going to a city for the lifestyle. And you're going to search for a job in that city. And I think the Denver brand and the Denver culture is great and it's amazing and we're going in the complete right direction and I love it so much, and I think that this can really help that culture and really help that brand and be a positive for the city of Denver. Thank you all for your time and consideration. Thank you, Mr. Hersh. Thank you for the time. All right, Eleanor. Thank you. Council members excuse me. After sitting here for 5 hours after work, I'm a little rough in the throat, but thank you for the opportunity to speak. You all have heard from me and some of my other neighbors who are the neighbors of Oral and North, a registered neighborhood organization recently. I really just want to touch on a couple of points, and that is we have a great concern in our neighborhood about the use of the golf course for this festival, just in principle. I'd like to get this on the record. It's been a designated park since 1956. On September 10th, 2010, the Denver Department of Parks and Recreation adopted rules regarding admission based events in Denver parks. These rules were the result of a lengthy public process that included input from many citizens, citizen groups and agencies in order to address conflicts related to major, massive events being held in parks and inundating neighborhoods, etc.. The following parks were designated as parks were admission based. Events may be permitted. I think you all know what they are. Civic Service Center. Park. City Park. Confluence Park. Skyline Park. Central Park. Park. Field Park. Ruby Hill Park. Overland Park is not among them. The rules also state that an ABA shall be no more than four days, including set up and tear down, and ABA shall not allow public attendance to exceed 7500 persons. No ABA shall occupy more than 20% of a contiguous area in a given park. So we recommend. And respect those rules and those agreements and that you say no to this contract based on that. We further recommend that the Denver City Council take back oversight and regulation of Denver's parks. Parks are public. Public used to be in public. Public now. Seems to me in private. Maybe I haven't caught up with the language changed. I'm not a psychologist, but I think we need to think about putting the public back in parks and also to respect small, unique neighborhoods and not inundate them with massive numbers of people. And we don't have the infrastructure to support this. And while I think the festival may be a terrific idea, it's the absolute wrong venue. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Andrew. Yeah. Hello, counsel. Thank you for having me here. My name is Andrew Huff. I live on the 200 block of Acoma, just a few blocks from the festival. I've been to most of the meetings that have pertained to this event. It's really been a wonderful experience. Everybody that has been involved with it has really spent their due diligence making sure that everybody's best interest has been heard. That includes the folks from Superfly, as well as the city council, as well as the neighbors. I'm excited for the opportunity. You know, it's it's a wonderful thing to have this type of cultural event in the city. It's something that I don't think Denver necessarily has right now. I'm also excited to use the park as an angle for, you know, I'm not necessarily out there using that, even though it's amenity just blocks from my house. And I really think that this festival can be a beacon of the cultural fabric of the city. I think that it's it's a really awesome opportunity. And I very much trust that so much that has gone into this, that it is a really good opportunity for the city. And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Jeff. Joann Weiss. Weiss. Weiss. Sorry about that. Hi. I definitely shaved off a few years in Purgatory by sitting in the Keys. My name is Joanne Weiss. I live at 540 West Ewell Avenue, a few feet from the golf course. From the get go, we've been told that this is a done deal. So my statement tonight and I still feel that way. I feel overpowered by that. But I have a statement to make that just for the record, just to get it out there. When lobbyists, corporate profiteers and city government officials gang up on our neighborhoods to fill their coffers and advance their careers, it can make a person feel a little crazy. Throughout this process, our collective voices have been drowned out by a tsunami of hype and propaganda. Few few questions have been adequately answered and legal issues hardly addressed. For some of us, the long game is clear. Degrade the park. Displace the people and develop the land for the greater good. This aggressive behavior has at times left us feeling hopeless. The opposite of hope is empowerment. As a new newly registered neighborhood organization born on July 4th, 2017. The neighbors of Overland North is committed to the struggles of all neighborhoods under attack and parks and open spaces put up for lease to the highest bidder. This festival is a juggernaut that does not fit the French fragile infrastructure of our historic neighborhood. And it will dramatically alter the quality of our lives and our sense of community. We agree with her recommendation of the Inner Neighborhood Coalition Agency Parks Committee that the city should create a permanent festival site to accommodate an event of this magnitude. Please vote no on the Superfly contract. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Terry Pascual. PESCA Well, Mr. El there. Good evening, Mr. President, and members of Council. My name is Terry Pasqua. And I live on Jewell Avenue from right across the street from over the golf course with my husband, Paul Murdaugh. We are not golfers, although we have buckets of golf balls that are accumulating in our yard. And since we're not golfers, we do not get to benefit from this open space for most of the year and feel that it's actually underutilized as a public parking space. I've lived in the neighborhood for nine years and I'm part of the neighborhood association and I am for the music festival. Councilman Clark and David Erlich have been very open and honest with all their communication in various public meetings regarding the plans and processes related to the festival and the impact on the neighborhood. As credible issues have been brought up, the promoters have listened and have included them and to publish guidelines which will be implemented through the final planning stages. The promoters have been very open and willing to listen and to work with us and we will continue to work with them so that any unforeseen issues that come up in the first few years are evaluated and are appropriately addressed. I have total confidence that this will be a good thing for all parties involved the golf course, the neighborhood and the city at large. With Denver's growing and changing demographics, our parks need to be able to provide a variety of types of usage, not just golf, which only caters to a small percentage of the population. A music festival makes perfect sense and that it would allow enjoyment of this park, if only for a few days of the year, to a much larger and diverse population. And the direct impact to overland neighborhood is only three days. What better way to celebrate our neighborhood in the city of Denver, but with a musical cultural festival in a natural urban setting where it provides a venue for local artists. The increased traffic into the local area before, during and after the festival would bring a boost to the local economy and businesses along the developing South Broadway corridor. My husband often asked me, But how do you really feel? I'm not a public speaker, but I am a lover of live music and dance and I love my neighborhood. The good vibes I felt from attending the concerts at Levitt Pavilion last week still linger, and I'm looking forward to more live music in the hood. I'm really excited to see how this all comes together, and especially to watch out my front window as the construction of the main stage unfolds. Council members. We want this music festival. We want this for the betterment of the golf course, the surrounding neighborhoods, our local businesses and the city of Denver. Let's bring more good vibrations into the city. The amount of love and joy coming out of this would be exhilarating. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Pascal. All right. Thank you for those who came up. I'm going to call up the next five. Laurie Paulson, Paul Middaugh, Phil Hanlon, Heinlein, Jack Unruh. And I want to call one more Kathy Dugan. Okay. Laurie Paulson, you're up first. You have 3 minutes. Yeah. That's me. I'm Mary Kay Paulson. I live at 520 was Jewel Avenue. And. I am not for the destruction of the golf course. You can't replace which which you have. All these people excuse me? Whether it be 30,000, 80,000 over three days. Well, not only destroy the wildlife, the habitat, the environment. What it's going to do is it's going to kill people. And you have the your words have the power of life and death. There are fragile elderly people. Disabled people. People on a fixed income. People that are dying. End of life care. Do you sure you can turn down the volume? Sure you can try to put it or put it further down the street. But we live across the street. There are people that are dying and the reverberations or whatever your technical term is for the boom and the base. You can't do anything about it. And people will feel this. People with emphysema. I've been in nursing for many years. I had to retire because my back's messed up and my body's messed up. But I wouldn't trade a day of it because I care about people. And I made a difference in their lives. That's a life enhancing moment. You can't get that. I've been to concerts in a couple days. Or. Something else. A concert is not a life enhancing moment, but taking care of your people in your neighborhood. Treating them kindly with respect. Helping them. When you see they're struggling, this is the kind of people we have. This is our neighborhood. Concerts that come and go after a couple of years, it won't be new anymore. And what he got left. People on a fixed income that can't afford to move for a few days. How do we leave our property? We've got to what? We can't replace it. How about can you replace my husband's life as he struggles to breathe? Try holding your breath. Take a deep dove and hold your breath until you can't. And you try to take in areas that you can't. It is impossible. Your lungs can't do it. And that's a lot of these people are living moment to moment just worried about. How am I going to breathe? Am I going to breathe? That's your whole day. That's your whole night. This concert, the noise, the chaos, the uncertainty of what's going to happen to them. And their yards, their homes. This is an abomination. It's so wrong on so many levels. And I ask you to take this into consideration. What do we do with people who are dying and who this all act Christmas passing. Your time is up. Thank you. Paul Bader. Good evening, Mr. President. The members of the council. My name is Paul Vidor. I lived on this jewel avenue with my wife. Terry, directly across Overland Golf Course. They're both. Enthusiastic supporters of this. Music festival. I'm also a dreamer. And personally. I would like to believe that this ought to be a done deal. Because I see you all as our change agent. Not just for our common good, but also for a greater good. I also believe in magic and consummate. Clark, I think you would agree that Thursday and Friday night there was Magic and Ruby Hill at the first two concerts at the Levitt Pavilion and. To me, Leavitt Pavilion is already becoming a good testament of what's possible with the right intentions. Imagine if Super Fly could also use the new Levitt Pavilion during their events. Wounded and hence all the magic. Council members. I believe that in the years to come, you will look back with great pride that you were so forward looking and also a dreamer by your support of this festival. I believe that through the years after years, the success of this festival, you will personally observe Overland Golf Course being uplifted by improvements that this music festival helped to fund that you will observe. Are nearby neighborhoods and businesses also being more and more uplifted? As well as our great city of Denver, is being uplifted in its irresistible attraction to so many who want to live here. I even believe that most who are now against it will also come around later to support it. I believe that eventually we can build a bridge between all of us, the enthusiastic supporters and all those who are passionately against it. We do want them back in our fold. As we understand it, there's a pending contract is now on the table and in the months to come, it will be expanded through the addition of several what I call operational plans, such as parking, security, transportation. I believe that our for and against neighbors can, in good faith participate together in a related advisory boards committed to the year to year improvements of these operational plans. Most of the fears and concerns can be mitigated. Clearly, there will be kinks to work out. Respectfully, I'm asking this council to vote unanimously for this event, and I'm also taking this opportunity to publicly invite the opposition to join in and work with us. Let's do this. Let's have more music. Let's celebrate and let's dance. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bradshaw. Phil Heinlein. Well, let's see. My name is Phil Heinlein, Denver resident and former sound engineer. I love music. I love parks. But it's sad to see one sacrificed for the other. I'm sure you've seen those big stacks of concert speakers. I'm talking a really big one. Okay. Now, imagine somehow I snuck one of those stacks in here, Pastor. Good securities in there. Or maybe I'm wealthy enough to drive a flatbed trailer all around here with a full 20,000 watt counter play on it. Okay. You would have me arrested. And appropriately so. Because you, the government, rightly consider the volume from that size. Inappropriate, inappropriate for a minute, let alone three days. You and the good folks in the surrounding buildings want to conduct business. But what about the homeowners near Overland Park? What do they want to conduct? Why did they buy a modest home in a very modest neighborhood? This is money making in a public park. 2 to $300 tickets. The audience mostly white. A scheme by the affluent. For the young. An affluent. Simply limited access commerce. In a public park. Everybody but the neighbors is getting a cut. Appropriate. In New York City, when they permit theater and music in a park. Almost all the tickets are free. A public space for the public. Imagine that. Now surrounding Denver, there dozens of would be max Oscars. Remember Woodstock farmer willing to rent their farms for much, much less. So why did the promoters fly some council members around the country wine and dine them? Because leveraging the grass and trees of Overland Park will result in greater profits. Leveraging the grass and trees. Good for business. Funny thing. I know in your hearts most of you think this is wrong. Inappropriate. But the money's too good. Principle versus money. This administration. Not a chance. These Oberlin neighbors are simply not affluent enough to afford government protection. Imagine if the only. Neighbors had the same resources. Say the good folks living on seventh Avenue. Imagine that we wouldn't even be meeting here. This would have been over. Not even happening. We had time to invoke Warren Zevon. You know, send lawyers, guns and money. Sadly, I have no confidence that you city council will do the right thing. Your votes have been counted. The press release already written. This hearing is just public theater. And you're the cast performing. Well, at least you're making union scale. And the tickets were free. Know this. With your vote, you'll be reducing the public in public space and probably never be able to watch. It's a Wonderful Life. Quite the same way again. Thank you, Mr. Healy. Jack Unruh. Thank you, Mr. President. Council members. I'm Jack Unruh. I live four blocks south of the park and. Have done so for 37 years. And the last time that you saw some of us here who are. For the the festival. Was the meeting. Before Thanksgiving when through Councilman Clarke, we brought the proclamation of. Denver as a compassionate city to you. And I mentioned that because we really do respect and love and honor the people who are extremely. Opposed. To the park. I, on the other hand, am not and I think the best way I can I can support that position is to talk to Councilman Pash Cashman's point. Does it make the neighborhood better? I believe it will. And not just by. Bringing notoriety and. Recognition and. Visibility to the neighborhood, but in the same way that the Botanic Gardens concert makes the Botanic Gardens neighborhood better. All the events in Civic Center Park make the Golden Triangle a better neighborhood. The Greek Festival makes Hilltop a better neighborhood. We make it a better neighborhood by hosting and honoring the the desires and the good times that will come out of this not only for the attendees, but also for the musicians who will be well paid, the artists who will participate, the concessionaires who will be there. Change is hard and it's it's uncomfortable, but it's the way to the new normal. And in that sense, since. It's always happening, it is fair. And when we make our neighborhood a host. So that things are better for others, that makes us better neighbors to others. The mixing that will take place. At the very diverse audience with a very diverse audience. In terms of families, ages. Ethnicities, music preferences and so on, is what Denver needs to do. And so I hope that you will resoundingly and unanimously vote yes in favor of the contract. Thank you. Ms. Unruh Okay. Cathy Duggan Oh, yeah. There you. Hi. I'm Cathy Duggan and I live at. Sorry about that. Doug and I live at 1947 South L.A. Street. I'm a half a half a block from the proposed music festival. I say propose kind of tongue in cheek, because, quite frankly, as we've been reading in the paper and hearing, it's pretty much a done deal. And my belief is that it's been a done deal since we've before the city was first approached. That said, I want you to keep in mind I ask that you keep in mind when you vote, we are human beings were not collateral damage. Most of the people in our neighborhood cannot afford to go to this festival. And quite frankly, I think it's a little bit of lead us to have an event in a neighborhood where people can't go to it. We can't afford it. I can't afford it. The other thing that I would like to ask you to do as you consider this, is to think about would you want this in your neighborhood? Would you want 70 to 80000 people for three days and three nights? And that's just the festival time. That's not the set up and the tear down. But would you want them in your side, back or front yard? Would you want to open your window in the most beautiful time of the year, in my opinion, fall and hear music that you know, I love music, quite frankly. I have musicians in my family. I have a nephew who plays in festivals all over the place. I don't want to hear it. All day, all night. I can hear the baseball games going on. I love it. It's an hour long. So my question to you, as you think about this, think about would you want to for three days and three nights, would you want to be subjected to music all day, all night, 70 to 80000 people in your backyard, your side yard, your front yard, people you don't know? Yes. We can always leave. We certainly can leave. We could move out for the weekend. I don't want to be Tommy when I have to leave, especially when I have 70 to 80000 people in my yard that I don't know. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. Thank you, Miss Dugan. All right. I'm going to call the next five. Please come to the front bench. Mara Owen. Diane Thiele. Justin Bressler. I think he's gone. Ronayne Montoya. And one more then Ericsson. Mara. Owen, your first. Hi City councilwoman, city councilman, thanks very much for having us here tonight. My name is Mara Owen, and I would first like to say thank you to everyone here on both sides. We really do. To make a good neighborhood need both sides of every issue. And I think that the contract has been made better from every input on every side. And so I just want to say thank you, especially with how this is going for the shared passion. I am the president of the Overland Park Neighborhood Association, and I'm here representing my personal opinions. I have lived in Denver my whole life and I've been in the Overland Park neighborhood living at Broadway and Evans since 2011. I'm personally a strong supporter of the festival. Just one of the many reasons I'm a supporter is that this festival will keep Parkland in our neighborhood solvent into the future and allow the golf course to cover critical and much deferred infrastructure improvements. This ensures a lasting park space in our neighborhood that is well-kept and not in danger of being closed, developed or even run into the ground. This piece of land is a huge asset to both our neighborhood and to the city, with the amount of people moving to Denver and needing space to recreate in an increasingly dense urban area. Spaces like this are precious and need to be both utilized and maintained. Currently, the golf course is a for profit enterprise and not simply a park free to the public. It charges a fee for using the course and tries to cover those expenses using the revenue. They regularly host public events such as the demo night and a beer liquor garden that they did on July 21st. And they're available to host tournaments and special events. In my opinion, this is a good thing and the Superfly Festival is simply a continuation of this existing use. Having a diversified income for any business is much more fiscally responsible and can bring more people into the space who may not be interested only in golf. The festival also hopes also helps to incentivize and fund improvements in the neighborhood and the wider city of Denver. It directly contributes $1 per ticket to a community fund that can help make our neighborhood and the surrounding community a better place. To put all this into perspective. I've attended quite a few of the meetings for the upcoming General Obligation Bond, and I was so surprised by the list of worthwhile projects on the capital improvements list, as well as the amount of deferred maintenance in our city. Watching people choose which projects to fund and not fund was painful when all of them are incredibly important and some of them far overdue. This festival is an opportunity to increase funding for some projects, perhaps like these, without any type of tax on already burdened citizens. It would be a shame to ignore this opportunity after having to cut so many projects off of the bond. In addition to all that, it's important to keep in mind that we were talking about a music festival, an inclusive all ages music festival where people come together to celebrate the cultural achievements of our society. Music is something we have already seen as a huge community asset in the new Levitt Pavilion and has the same potential as a catalyst here. This festival can build on and encourage the music identity that is already present and growing in our neighborhood. And with events and venues such as the new Levitt Pavilion, the Underground Music Showcase, Swallow Hill, Herman's Hideaway and the upcoming color of public radio headquarters on Ruby Hill. The festival has this opportunity to strengthen the existing sense of identity. Thank you. Right on time. All right. Thank you, Miss Allen. All right, Diane. Good night. Counsel people in. Mr. President, my name is Diane Thiel. I live in Denver. Our administration continues to want to use our public parks and facilities for private gain. People have to constantly come down here, right here and say no. We're here again to say no. Overland Park residents already have to live with many concerts at Ruby Hill Park. They have to put up with not just the noise of the concert, but also have to hear the equipment testing and the band rehearsals. Isn't that enough to put on the Overland Park neighborhood? I would not like to have a three day festival in my neighborhood. Not once and not certainly every year for five years. If you want this festival in your neighborhoods, I encourage you to call this company tomorrow and set it up. I think you might not get reelected if you do that, but I don't think you should put it in the Overland Park Golf course. Finally, I'm speaking up for the wildlife that live in or travel through the river corridor or hunt for food on the golf course. They do not want this festival either. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. All right. Justin Bressler. Good evening. President Brooks City Council. Thank you for having us. My name is Justin Bressler and I'm the vice president of Marketing and Business Development for Visit Denver. We are the Convention and Visitors Bureau for the metro area where 108 year old nonprofit organization whose mission is to bring conventions and leisure visitors to Denver for the economic benefit of the city, community and our partners. We enthusiastically support bringing the multiday music festival to Denver beginning in 2019 at Overland Park. A festival of this scale provides significant benefits to residents and visitors alike, which is why our organization is proud to be a sponsor. We're currently progressing the Denver Tourism Road Map as a ten year strategic plan to increase the economic impact created by tourism and ensure our industry remains vibrant and competitive for years to come. Pursuing signature events and festivals like this that draw overnight visitors is the primary initiative in the roadmaps visitor driven events goal area. Music festivals are major economic drivers, and a festival like this creates both short term and long term economic impacts to both local and city, with both local and citywide benefits in the short term. Nearby. Nearby businesses will see an immediate economic impact from the spending generated by locals and visitors who head to the festival. And in the long term, the entire city benefits by the extra taxes paid by visitors who come here, spend money and then go home. As a matter of fact, metro Denver households would pay more than $500 in annual taxes to receive the same benefits. Were it not for the $523 million in state and local taxes paid by visitors. Music festivals also help divine the define the tourism brand of a city. Top tourism destinations have major music festivals from Austin to Seattle to San Francisco. And with our growing population and active residents. Music plays a huge role in our brand. And over the course of the festival, we feel that Denver's brand would be elevated at the regional and national level and also how it incorporates Denver's culinary arts and cultural experiences. So now we live in a time when most people are listening to music privately and in earbuds and on their phone. Live music is a way for people to connect with top artists and like minded fans and communities up close and personal. We're committed to working closely with all stakeholders to ensure the festival's unique and positive, welcoming experience for all attendees. And Denver. And we urge the Council to support the festival. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bressler. All right. Rene Montoya. Hi. My name's Bryan Montoya. Um, I lived in the neighborhood for 31 years, and I want my neighborhood to prosper. But not this fast and not in this way. So we want to keep contaminants out of our neighborhood. And that means like bios and toxins that you guys have taken. And also prior to keep accountability, I would like to have you guys test the soil to make sure that all the shadow and the radioactive waste that was buried 300 feet from there is is actually not going to be coming up when all these people are coming through, peeing everywhere, making bile everywhere. All these uranium, radium and thorium are going to be coming up from the ground if it hasn't been analyzed prior. So that's one thing I want. Is soil samples done prior to exposing 60,000 people to this kind of atmosphere? On top of that, there's already squatters along the river. What are you guys going to do about that? Are you guys going to stop the whole area around it? Not only that, but fire hazards like we need. Part of zoning should be. You should have your fire. Fire? Exactly. Fire person. The chief of the fire people there for making your zoning because they know what's safe and what's not safe. So having people come in three avenues versus downtown Denver, which you could also look up on your Denver Parks and Rec that September, those dates are free for the Civic Center. There's nothing going on there. So your super fly thing could go on downtown where it's prepared to have that many people come in. There's there's actually bus systems and light rails and good avenues for people to not have dangerous building the bridge within before it's even put in is wrong. Saying that you're going to be making all these promises and having a lengthy list is not right. Saying these all these promises prior to actually doing them is not right and is not part of my agenda. And I do not want to support this. I do not support the music festival. I am very, you know, artistic and I love creativity. But it needs to happen like. Like. Like in a like accordance. Like right now they have the music festival and they're like testing it out up at the Ruby Hill. Your second event you guys started and you barely know what the impact of it. Exponential growth. If you know anything about that, you guys saw the 420 event go from. I went there when I was like high school. 200 people now look at it, that's exponential growth. And so yeah, $200,000 ain't nothing. $200,000 a nothing to destroy a historical landmark. Not only that, but to go in there and allow kids to be along the river. They get so trashed, they get they they're going to go in there and make you guys. Forget about what you guys came in voted for. They're going to be so drunk. I've seen it. I've seen these college students. They don't know their limits. And they they throw themselves they're going to be right on the banks of the river, having you guys fish them out for days so you guys could, like, make this decision . But I do not want people coming into my neighborhood. And I've been to Mardi Gras. I've seen it. I've seen what people do and the lack of respect that they have for the environment. Our neighborhood is not set up like Mardi Gras, where we take all we have the space all the way up until the very last you guys. We have people saying, I just have to have prior as your your lawn, you can't build on because it's your guys. But we've got to maintain it. Right. So. That's the difference is this area is not prepared. The safety is not taking care of. You guys haven't done any preparation in the sense of Shattuck. Have you. And I think exposing 60 to 80000 people is like very, very important. I'm OSHA, 30 certified, and I know the standards that you have to take in order to build. And so not only that, but. Like. You guys are going to be like, you know, stumbling in this. Time as a thank you. Thank you. All right, Dan Erikson. Good evening. Council President Brooks Member of Council. My name is Dan Erickson. I live at Ruby. I live in Ruby Hill at 1390 South Canosa Court. Tonight, I come forward in support of the proposed music festival at the Overland Golf Course because it will provide an opportunity to showcase Denver's culture through local art, music, food to tens of thousands of people that will attended here. I'm a fourth generation Denver native. I grew up in South Denver. I am a fine artist. I've been working in the medium of painting portraits on street signs for the past 17 years. I recently had a piece of my work accepted into the permanent collection of the American Jazz Museum in Kansas City. I have been fortunate enough to show my work around the country as well as been in a bunch of publications with my work. I've had gallery representation the past seven years in New York. But Denver is my home and I really enjoy sharing my work with the public through all spaces around town, like Dazzle Jazz or the Servery, or through murals like the one I painted at Metro State Center for the Visual Arts. I'm also very excited to be providing the artwork for the green rooms at the new Levitt Pavilion and Ruby Hill, and I consider it a huge privilege and honor to be working on any creative projects in my neighborhood. As an artist, I've appreciated the fact that Superfly reached out to me to ensure there is a connection between the local community showcased at the festival. This will provide an opportunity for the local artists to be connected with new audiences and to make the Denver Music Festival site reflect the amazing culture with the city has to offer . I look forward to working with the festival organizers and local artists on the details of this exciting plan in the coming months. In addition to its commitment to the arts, this festival excites me as a resident of Ruby Hill. Superfly has done a great job of reaching out to the neighborhood through extensive community outreach. They have been very responsive to the neighborhood concerns. But perhaps the most exciting aspect of the festival for me and my family is the community fund that will be financed by $1 of each ticket sold. That's $800,000 for Overland Park in Ruby Hill over the proposed five years. That will make my neighborhood a better place. I thank you again for your time and urge you to vote yes on supporting the Superfly Festival. Great. Thank you, Mr. Erickson. Okay, I. Okay. We're going to call the next five. I assume some of these people are not here. Bridget Walsh. David Warner. Okay. Daniel Lowenstein. David. David there. Okay. I guess her and Marilyn Barela. Okay. David Warner, your first. Good evening, Mr. President. Fellow council members. I feel your pain. I am also a council member in another city and if I was giving this speech now, there'd be nobody here. I don't know how you guys do it. I'm not necessarily opposed to this, although for one, I think there are better venues. I think Ruby Hill might be better. It's at least 20 acres larger than the area and Golden Gate Park where the Outside Lands Festival is being held. I also feel this is a subtle attempt. Maybe not right away, but an attempt to close overland down. There's been talk about this before. This could be a first step. I'm going to take a different approach. I'm not I'm not going to try to appeal to anybody's emotions or anything. I'm going off what I read in the paper and what Superfly, his website, says. I'm a finance person. I have not read your contracts, so if I state something wrong, you'll have to correct me if we're going to sign a long term deal. I think it has to be done right. I don't know if any of you remember the Grand Prix in 89 and 90, Dummar was on the hook for about $1,000,000 and that contract was done right too. So. If I can make one comment. All I want to discuss is all I'm going to do right now is compare revenues from the San Francisco Festival to what we're going to get. In 2014. This is off their website. They generated for the San Francisco Parks and Rec District about two and a half million dollars for their event. The attendance was around 200,000 people for the three days. That comes to $12.53 per person that went back to the rec district. This is based on all their figures, the 11% gross, all their different fees. What we are being offered is $9.89 per ticket. This is based off an attendance of 120,000. Based on the same, I calculated $93 average ticket price. I think we need a better deal than that. This is also based on everything that there was in the paper, the rent, all the different funds going to the Enterprise Fund, the golfer discount the seat tax that are 10%. The one thing that I think you guys are missing is I don't I guess you calculated the $200,000 rent as something that would supplant the lost revenues from over the golf course as the golf course, the driving range. The restaurant, the pro shop. I think you. So you're not considering this loss of revenue and you're also not considering the fact that you're cleaning up 130 acres compared to 69. Golden Gate Park has minimal lost revenue, but we do what I recommend in the last 6 seconds is I think you're too low. You need to read this contract. You need to add at least a 3% ticket fee to get back to the golf course and to give back to people in the neighborhood store. That's a time's up. Thank you. All right. Mr. Daniel Lowenstein. Hello. Well, my father was probably best or very fondly remembered for doing the festival caravan program in the parks of Denver. He well, this was a really organic process where he worked with the neighborhoods and the shows that he developed were of buying for the community. And he in the process of working with various neighborhoods to see if they'd like shows in the parks. Some neighbors in neighborhoods would opt for shows in the parks and some wouldn't. And he would respect that. And. My father, he considered the public parks public and saw these shows for free for everyone. And this was in the seventies and eighties and. Well, he was never too fond or involved in things where the public areas were taken over for private use and. I feel that way too. I think that public land should be for the public and private. Should should seek another venue and. That's what I say. All. Thank you, Mr. Lowenstein. David Richter. Good evening, Mr. President. Council. Thanks for having us here tonight. My name is David Richter. I live at 252 Pennsylvania Street. I am Councilman Clark's representative on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Crab has been updated pretty much every month, I would say maybe more often in and out of meetings since the promoter first brought this proposal to the city sometime, I guess last fall or late last summer, I'm not sure which as a body we haven't made any specific recommendations on this proposal. But as keeper of the minutes and I'm the secretary, I can tell you that the board has generally made some positive comments about what we have heard. There have clearly have been some members of crab that have had some concerns about the usual issues related with a big festival like infrastructure, traffic, perhaps safety. I personally have attended a number of community buildings, meetings excuse me, and participated in the city survey. Seen the results of that and the. Metrics during the process. And it seems to me overall that the promoters intentions, aside from the contractual obligations, will mitigate pretty much all reasonable concerns. It won't be perfect. I think Happy Haynes alluded to that herself, but it Prabhu let me just leave you this thought. Pretty much every month we're confronted with a common theme. It's How can we make a park more versatile? Accommodate new users. Activate a space in a unique. And purposeful way. I think this proposal is worth the effort. And I think it has tangible and intangible rewards for both the city. The golf community. And yes, believe it or not, I think. Ultimately even the local neighborhood, plenty of. Thank you, Mr. Rector. All right, Merlin, Barilla. Good evening. Thank you for having this courtesy hearing. My name is Marilyn Barella and I live at 1420 South Osage Street. I'm a native of Denver and have lived just across Florida next to Ruby Hill Park for 50 years. We were told by David Erlich and John Clark that if the neighborhood did not want Superfly on Oberlin Golf course, then Superfly would find another venue. The majority votes of both the Oberlin neighborhood and mine are against Superfly on Overland. Don't betray our trust. Find another venue for Superfly, as promised. This contract is all speculation. A big guess about something that is not known. A risky business assumption. Upfront, taxpayers are supposed to pick up the tab for police, fire department and trash services. This is not what we were initially told. Again, this is speculated to be 200,000. A big guess. I contend it will far exceed that amount. Denver's man hours of time already spent on planning this proposal must have added up to be an enormous expense to the taxpayers of Denver. If approved, DEMARS Future man hours of planning costs will be even greater. Shocking, I suspect, to the citizens of Denver. If you approve this contract, you are going to use taxpayers money in defiance of the vote against it. Super fly on overland is precedent setting. This contract needs to be held in the proper venue, not on Overland. Don't stand behind David Erlich, whose only reason not to have it in the proper venue is because they don't want to be on concrete. Don't betray the golfing community, the neighborhoods, the environment, wildlife, and all the citizens of Denver. Denver's government has lost its credibility. Ask any citizen of Denver or even Denver's employees about the collaborative process that Denver espouses. They will tell. You it's a big joke. Denver's government does not represent the citizens of Denver. There's hatred and division in the city of Denver that I've never seen before. Much of it caused by the proposals of different government. I'm here to ask you. To vote no to the super fly contract. Stand up and protect Denver's priceless parkland and golf courses. Stand up for the citizens of Denver. Don't stand up for the private, corporate profit interests of Superfly. Restore your credibility and vote no to the Superfly contract. Remember, we already have 50 concerts each summer at the Lemon Pavilion. Please have some consideration. For our neighborhoods. Keep Superfly off of opening. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Miss Perella. We are at an hour, and there are four more speakers. And if it's okay with the council, I'd like to keep it going. Dylan Clark is praying. Okay. Ronnie Crawford, please come to the front running. Crawford, LeAnn Montoya, Jesse Helms Theater. That I get the right. And Margaret kiss. And actually, I didn't pause it when I was calling people. So you actually guys do have a little bit more time. Okay, um, Ron Crawford, you're up. Howdy, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council, thank you for enduring all of this. It's late night. Everybody's tired. What I want to speak to is the Overland Park neighborhood run in Crawford, 2149 South Park Street, 17 year resident of Overland Park. I am vice president of the Overland Park Neighborhood Association. I want to approach something a little different here that our neighborhood is called Rhizome. Everybody knows Rhino because they've got that rhinoceros logo and everybody knows that all that's going on up there will rise, though. We're we're at the beginning. So for river south, the river is a main amenity of our neighborhood. We are the last neighborhood in Denver on the river. And it is such a great amenity. On July 2nd, I would a tube, tube and rafting trip down the South Platte. We started at Mineral and got out at Grant Frontier 19 tubes. It's a great river. It's a great thing to see. And everything is different from the river. I work with a couple a couple of groups, Denver Trout Unlimited Project Healing Waters, which just gets veterans back to fishing. It is a great amenity. I would like to see this concert happen. I am for the concert. Absolutely for it. This will bring a lot of people to see one of Denver's overlooked and greatest amenities, which is the Denver South Platte. My colleagues at Denver Trout Unlimited call it from Chatfield to Commerce City. It's more than Denver, but the Platte starts way up in the mountains. So that's Denver. South Platte. It's a great thing. A lot of cities have their river walks and things located around their river. I would like to see that happen. I think that if we get 30,000 people, 100,000 people to see that river that has been reconstructed, it is reconstructed in the river from Grant Frontier to almost to the Mississippi Bridge in water. And our neighborhood is a city of parks with past canals, grant frontier, Overland Park, Pond Park. There's a lot to see there. The whole riparian area has been rebuilt. All of those parks are pretty, pretty brand new. Couple of years old and the river's looking good. I finished last night at the bridge at Grant Frontier Court. A 16 inch rainbow and an 18 inch rainbow. The fish are in there. I want to make that river a place where people come. It's a destination because it's a wonderful place that's right in our city. And I want our our visitors for the concert to come down there. I'm not talking about drunk college students. There will be game wardens, river rangers, everybody watching all that. I want people to see the beauty of our river and the beauty of our neighborhood. Thank you. Mr. Crawford. Thank you. River South. All right. You heard it here. Heard it first. Here. All right. Leon Montoya. 3 minutes. Hi. My name's my name's LeAnn Montoya, and I live at 700 West Asbury. I had I bought my house 32 years ago, and I raised six kids and nine grandchildren in that home. And my kids have gone up and down that neighborhood, know everybody there. They've gone to the park, down to the weed. Every night we do our nightly walk on the golf course, so there are uses for it. If people really want to go out there and see what uses there are, besides put a music festival in there. One of the reasons why I'm against the music festival is because we are a four by two block area. That's all it is. And if you're going to have 60 to 80000 people in that neighborhood and say they're going to come in on the Florida side, they're still going to overflow into our side, they're going to overflow into the park and they're going to overflow into the river. We already have squatters. There are already up and down the Platte, which from what I heard, is illegal, but they still all out there living out there. And the crime rate has gone up because of that. Most recently, we had an incident where I couldn't even go into my neighborhood, a four by two block area with three entrances I couldn't get in. The police kept it blocked off because they were searching for someone that ran away from the cops. This was like a week ago. So that just a little bit of the crime you start bringing in, all these people in here don't think they're just going to be there for three days. If you've got people coming in from all over the country to see this music festival, they're going to be sitting up in an up along the river and up on Ruby Hill and all around the neighborhood for at least a week before. And so it's going to cause a lot of problems. There's going to be people disrespecting our property. There's people that we don't know going in and out of our neighborhood that you keep promising that they're not going to come in. I don't understand how you think they're going to come over that bridge, that rickety bridge over Santa Fe and and not come through our neighborhood, not come through our streets to get to the golf course. I don't know how else you guys are planning or they're planning to bring them through if they're coming through Florida. I think also one of the same things, too, is that a lot of people are against it, just besides us. The people that matter are us, people in that four by two neighborhood, because we're the ones we're going to have the direct effect from it. Not anybody else. Not any of you guys. Not any of. You guys, only us people that live in that four by two block area are going to feel the direct affect for three days with music pounding and people walking, even them, even though the people there, 60 to 80000 is going to make more noise than the people, than the music. And it's going to be really rough on us. And who's going to take care of any property damage? Is that in the contract? You're going to take care of property damage for us? I'd like to see that. And I am totally against this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Montoya. All right, Jesse Homesteader. Thank you. Good evening, President Burks and the members of Denver City Council. My name is J.C. Homesteader. I own both residential and commercial property in the Overland neighborhood. Currently, I'm serving my second term as the president of the local maintenance district on Broadway as well. I'm one of the board members that should be in a hopefully very soon time be bringing to this board a potential business improvement district petition. So I'm speaking firsthand for the businesses, and I want to say that the business owners along Broadway haven't done all the research to know all the numbers. However, there. Are very eager. We have met with David Erlich and Liz Adams and have engaged in what the businesses believe is going to be very beneficial for them. For example. The local businesses are able to have a presentation at the concerts, which means you can go to the beer tent and get a local brew from Declaration Brewing, which is located on South Delaware, or go to the food tent and get some delicious chicken from post chicken. I believe the Super Superfly is very invested in our community. It's our ideals and our ideals because they want to showcase the amazing culture that we have in our neighborhood. The businesses in Overland area are a diverse and unique bunch, but they're united in support of this festival. Thank you very much. Thank you. And I'm really hungry for some chicken, so thanks for that for mentioning that. All right. Um, last but not least, Margaret Rundle. Somebody left the glasses. Anyway, my name is Margaret Brown Dix. I live in West Platte Park. I'm at 1625 South Downing Street. I imagine a lot of concert goers will be walking from Pearl Street and down on down to the concert. This is a big deal. It's been promoted for a long time. The first time I heard about it was through my grandson. He's 17. He's a golfer. And he talked to me about it and I said, What do you think? And he said, Well, I don't like it, but I think it's a done deal. And I said, Really, we're, you know, this is zero way. No, no, no. I think that we have some voice in this matter. He said. I don't think so. I said, Why not? He said, Well, I've heard a lot of talk at Overland. And I said, I see. He has a coach when he can afford him at Overland. He works at Overland. He's worked at Wiltshire at 17 as an East High School student. He has qualified on his own. Freshman, sophomore, junior year. He hasn't done it yet for his senior year because he's just going into his senior year for state competitions and done very well. His team didn't qualify. He was the only one who did. He's a very avid golfer. He's been all over the state. He's been on every municipal course in the city and in the state. He plays golf all the time. He dresses well, he speaks well. He has learned a lot about greeting people, meeting people. And he's learned he's learned how to handle himself. He's straight. He doesn't drink. He doesn't smoke. He doesn't use drugs. He's kind of a quiet guy. And he aspires to be on a college golf team. His mother promotes his golf. She's a single parent and she gets him to tournaments way over her budget. But she does. He's going to play in an international tournament at the end of the summer. He's disappointed in this. You bet. I followed him for 11 years on all these courses. I've watched him play. I've learned a lot about golf. I'm not a golfer. I've watched kids, girls, boys all throughout the state playing golf. People say it's dad. It's not. It's elitist is it's not. I'll tell you one thing. Municipal courts courses give opportunity to boys like him, kids that don't have it otherwise. First tee of Colorado sent him to Pebble Beach to play with the Walrus. I have no more time, but I'm telling you, it's special. So support it. It's a golf course. It's not a music venue. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hendrix. I want to say thank you to everyone who stayed this late in and got in here. I want to I implore you to stay for the questioning. And if if you do have to leave, that you'd go back and watch this portion. I want to remind members of counsel we will not be doing comments this week because we've extended it to next week. We'll just be going through the question portion. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks to all the overwhelming folks on both sides of the issue stuck around. David, if you don't mind. A few questions quick. What what will the ticket cost be for this event? So I'll defer to Rick generally. They'll be a one day ticket and a three day ticket. And there's also contractually a provision for a materially discounted ticket for the community. Right. In terms of the actual ticket price, I believe that hasn't been set yet. It hasn't been set yet, but likely is going to go ahead. I'm sorry for the three way tickets. Somewhere in the 250 to 325 ish range, there'll be tiered. So the earlier you buy them, the cheaper they'll be. Right. And then there'll be a single day ticket somewhere in the 85 to 95 range. Really? So considerably cheaper than outside lands. Is that what you're. Yes. Okay. Certainly. You know, the outside lands ticket price has matured as the festival has matured. And so with the same thing, probably if you have a festival at Overland, if it's. Successful and there's demand, that's likely. Okay. Is being presented as a. Of a family friendly event and my experiences with these festivals, you get got to be a fairly well-to-do family to take a couple of kids to the show. But thank you. We will likely have a free for for ten and under ten tonight. Yeah. It's typically with events like this nationally, it's, you know, typically what the pricing is. So because likely we would do something similar here. Because outside is two and under, right. Outside lands. Outside lands is different. Okay. If Denver gets a long debated festival park at some point, is there any room in the contract for consideration of it moving? I know you have a lot of upfront costs in doing a festival like this. Certainly always would be open minded to what makes sense for the community and what makes sense if there's a suitable site at some point. We'd love to take a look at it too. As far as Outside Lands goes, how? I'm not familiar with where it is in the park in San Francisco. So how far is it, say, from the main stage to the nearest homes? Is it similar as to what? You got it over? I would say. Maybe. 100 yards. 200 yards, something like that. So similar to what you had? Yeah. Yeah. There's a on both edges of the space that we use in Golden Gate Park and we use a rather large space. There is a, there are, you know, four lane roads basically on either side. And so it's right across those roads. But yes, at probably the nearest spot, something like that, a couple of hundred yards. Is there a mac? I mean, I've heard 30 to 40000 the first year, maybe building up to 80,000. Have you looked at that site? And I mean, I'm guessing if you end up doing a show there, it's going to be very successful from an attendance standpoint. Do you have a maximum in mind? How high could it go? I believe the maximum by the contract is 80,000. Is that going to get you? Thank you. And the last thing is, I've kind of gotten lost in the numbers. How much net maybe, Fred, this would be for you. How much will Denver net out of a successful. Event. Fred Wise, director of finance for Parks and Rec. It obviously depends on the tickets. Of course, tickets are old, but I didn't bring my glasses, so it's between about a million and a half to two and a half million dollars. Okay. Is the range depending on the ticket sales. Okay. Thank you. That's all I've got, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. How much would the full parking and transit plan that you're going to do cost you to do right now? We have a lot of expertize in the house, so we don't really track that as a cost. But our outside consultant that we'd be bringing in anywhere from 25 to $50000 is just a guess. As I said, we have a lot of experience with our internal team of how to devise these plans, and so we'll supplement that with a transportation and traffic engineer. Okay. What's the difference between the crowd has it? You know, if you've got the full 80,000. How long would that take for people to sort of go from 0 to 80? And then when? How like so how fast is that sort of build up? And then how fast is the. What's the window for exit. Yeah. So we layer the programing to make sure that there's a gradual ingress and gradual egress. So it usually happens over a 2 to 3 hour period that you have people coming in and usually about a two hour period people leaving. You know, it's never that you have the full amount of ticket buyers there at any one given time. People come and go. And so, you know, we feel like we have really good experience in how to layer the programing to enable that kind of flow. Do you know what the capacity is for an RTD light rail car per car? Yeah, I don't personally. It's 125 people. We have we have a member of council that used to be on our team. Yeah. Kevin, what's the capacity? 64 seating a total of 125 at what we call Crush Load. Well, no. So actually. I would wait. I would wait for the next train. 125 is standing. What is crush load? 125. That's 64 seated and the rest standing. Okay. So four card train would have 500. So you might have to bet cleanup on this one as well. Well, not on this one, but the follow up. What? So do you know what the stadium of the capacity is of mile high? The seating capacity there, the mile high stadium. Yeah. I don't. Personally know. 77. So I'm going to think about 76,000. Exactly. Councilman Brooks wins that one in then. Do you know what percentage is of that seating capacity that takes the Broncos? Right. I'm not. Anyone want to venture a guess on what the percentages just tell us because I kind of get that offline. It is between ten and 14%. So thank you. I'm asking those questions because and you know. Well, you guys are in the sort of I won't go into comment, but. Well, my concerns at committee. Were large, were. Overwhelmingly mildly addressed. I heard some things tonight that give me a lot of pause again. And in you know, you've always heard my concerns about traffic and transit and stuff like that. And more and more sort of sitting here going, how does this how does this work? And if it's really 25 to $50000 to sort of figure this one out or in the in the ballpark, which I think is sort of due diligence sort of costs. I think it's important that that that I see that. So just. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Ortega. Thanks. My first question is about the hotline. I'm not sure who would address that, but what I want to know is who will manage it and will the responses be in real time? Will there be a live person answering the phones? And if there are, you know, real issues that need to be addressed? How is that being handled? So there will be. A 24 hour. Manned hotline both for the. Originally it was for the festival three days. And in the. Course of the public. Discussions over several. Weeks, we added for the build up and build out period as well. So how many days in total? So while the total rental period is five weeks, so the response time I think is a half an hour by contract. So we have to have a response within a half an hour during this concert and within an hour, I believe in the end, the beginning and the end and will be manned by a person all the time and that's by contract. So that's something that. If so, that's four, five weeks during set up the event itself and then takedown it'll. Run the whole time. Will there be any fireworks as part of the event at all? I think it's not you know, it's not anticipated at this point. And I think, you know, when we put together the programing slate, we'll work with the city on that and both our security plan. But that's not anticipated currently. Okay. The reason I'm asking is because, you know, in the past, when Barry Fey used to do concerts that had fireworks at the end at Mile High Stadium, he would actually pay the cost of having the animal control people come out because people's dogs would, you know, jump through fences. And I mean, they were just roaming the neighborhood and they would help pick them up and try to get them connected back. And there was a hotline where they could connect people to it and whatnot. Is that something you all have talked about with the neighborhoods? Is that something you're willing to do? Well, I think. The the you know, the issue is, Rick said, is there's a. Series of acts that go and the final act has to end by 10:00. And there's no intention to keep people on the on the event space any longer than that. So I think it's unlikely we would do anything like that. But now we've talked to we can't move forward without the security plan, the ingress you guys plan. All of those plans will anticipate that issue. And we can't move forward with the festival unless those plans are approved by well. And I would suspect that to a large degree it would restrict part of your seating area and all of that because you have to sectioned off an entire area and, you know, if it's drier. You know, as as we've had hotter days, you know, the likelihood for a fire or something I think are real. And so I would I would advise against it. So I just wanted to ask about that. I want to ask the city attorney what the if if there are penalties built into the contract for cancelation, if things just totally go awry and we decide that we don't want to continue it into the future. I know when we did the Grand Prix, you know, the anticipation was we would do it for the fall. I think it was three years, but I think we ended up only doing it for one or two of the four years of that time frame. So are there penalties for us not continuing to move forward for the full five years of this? Proposed contract defender of his city attorney's office. We have provisions, a default. Clause in the contract that. Requires us to give notice and a right to cure of any defaults that have occurred. The city would have the right to terminate the contract for a substantial breach, so we would have to document that and they would have to give them the right to cure it to see if we could resolve the issue. And if if so, the right to cure that assumes that the next year they're going to cure the problems that happened this year or they have to cure them. Day one before day two and day three continue. Help me understand what that means. Obviously, it would depend on the type of breach that we were talking about. Okay. All right. So. I think I don't have any other questions right at this point. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. I remember the Denver Grand Prix. Councilwoman, you were on the council at the time. They had a five year contract, and after the first year, they expected to lose about a half million. They lost 5 million and they wanted out the next year and they went bankrupt after the second. I just want to mention that I think Bill Daniels took it upon himself to write a check to cover all those losses and God bless them. This kind of reminds me of that. It in the presentation to the committee that I saw after I was out that week, but I went back and looked at it. Either happy or Fred can address this. $200,000 is what will be paid to us for each year's rent of the golf course. Is that right? Yes, that's correct. As well. Yes. Okay. I just want to wait to get to the mic. Okay. But then it says that we will waive we will credit them with $200,000. That's correct. So are they getting it for zero? Well, there's many other revenue streams coming to the city. Okay. Obviously, the 10% tax. Right. There's $2 per ticket. There's $90,000 for a landscape position at Overland. Right. So, you know, it's a we looked at it and the promoters looked at it as a package. Okay. And so. And the $200,000 of waived expenses is part. So if we're going to credit them with $200,000, why are we charging them $200,000? Are they going to give us a check? And we just do one $2,000 goes to golf. And since it's an enterprise fund, there's the issue of splitting money. So it's $200,000 going to golf. Now, the the Denver, the DRC, the revised municipal code, requires that anybody who has an event in a city park that will have more than 25 participants, and I assume you will have at least that many the concessionaire is required to deposit with the city the full cost of what we expect to be any city expenditures for that permitted event. Do you have an estimate of what the city. First of all, I question whether if we credit them with it, whether we're actually abiding by the code. But do we have an estimate of what we think we will have to spend? To support city services to this event. How much will that cost? I imagine it could be more than $200,000. Anything that's in addition to that $200,000 will be paid by the promoter. Do we know what that is? I don't anticipate there to be very much more. Most of it's for with outside contracts. Okay. So in there, they've committed to reimbursing our expenses in terms of rangers, golf, maintenance staff. So whatever we need to support and monitor them, they will reimburse. When will we know that? Because according to the code, the city code says that you can't give them the permit or happy can't give them the permit until they've deposited that in advance. Is that. Yeah. This is my contract. I mean, I would defer to the city attorney's office. Okay. The DMC that you're referencing, I'm not familiar with. Okay. And I believe the terms of the contract supersede the city code. I hope not. I don't know if that's the right for it. Okay. Contract terms. Now, Councilman, I have to take a look at the provision. It's 39, dash 73. Okay. We'll take a look at that. All right, Mr. Pratt, that's all I have for now. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. You are backup. Is there any. And forgive me for not looking at this. Is there any provision for neighborhood cleanup after afterwards? And does it. How far does that extend? So yes, the contract has provisions for overnight cleanup during the festival and at the end the actual dimensions of that area have yet to be determined. But we will determine that for for the for the promoters, we will define that. Area as somebody who lives next to the stadium. What you get a lot is is, is people leaving the stadium and either just dumping the things out of their car and leaving on the street or people picking, getting Uber. You know. Overrides and stuff like that in the neighborhood and again, just leaving whatever they don't want to. Pack with them. So, yes, so that is a requirement. Multiple sweeps through the neighborhood overnight is part of the contract. And then I don't know if this is happy or the city attorney, but can somebody obtain a First Amendment permit to do something like the Women's March in Overland Golf Course? So in terms of getting General Assembly a right to assemble Kermit inside of in the parks, the forms that we usually have for First Amendment protected activity, it would be what are called traditional public forums, usually in a park or within a street. And we have, through park rules, designated what those areas are that are amenable to having First Amendment activity. Okay. That's going to lead to other questions, but I'll bring them offline. Thanks, I think. Sorry. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Couple of questions and then I'll leave it to Councilman Clark to close us out. So we had one of the speakers kind of get into the parks policy happy. And so just want to. Is this a this is this a designated park? I'm sorry. Say that. Is this a designated park? Yes. It's a it's a part of our designated park system. It's a golf golf course, part of our golf enterprise. And is this you know, I deal with the admission based event policy question in a second, but we're this the Enterprise Fund, we're generating revenue. And are there other private events that are on this golf course? Well. I mean, in addition to the golf enterprise itself, it is a it is a fee based operation. All of our golf courses are fee based operations. They're open to the public, but they are fee based operations. Yeah, but we've. But my question is, I think this came up by one of the speakers. Have we had other private events on that golf course that were other than golf related? I, I don't believe we have on Overland, but I. Think that our. Director of golf is here and he could speak to. That. Okay. This is Scott Lake, who's director of golf. Scott was shaking his head back there. But we're going to make you come to with golf. Yeah, we do have private golf tournaments. Several of them. Okay. Do you have any private parties at all? We do have private. Parties in the clubhouse, yes. Okay, great. And then one more question. Happy the emission based event. I think we all remember that conversation. How does this how does that policy affect this particular golf course? So the admission based events policy addresses our parks. The golf courses are under the auspices of our golf enterprise. So they are a little bit different. That's one of the reasons why we approach this whole effort through means of a contract. Mm hmm. Okay. Thank you. And we add to the cost of the ticket. And thank you, Councilman Cashman, for doing that, Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I don't have any questions, in part because I think the entire team from the city side, from the Superfly side for being you know, I've been asking questions for months and months and months. And I appreciate you making yourselves available to me at weird hours with requests from constituents and getting back to me in a very timely manner. On all of that, I just wanted to take a second to thank all of you for all of your hard work on this getting us to here. I wanted to thank all my colleagues for letting everybody speak, to give you an idea of just how local Denver politics can be if we had cut it at an hour. We have been cutting parents and grandparents of both one of my daughters best friends at school and someone I went to high school with. And so I appreciate you letting every single person speak their mind and their peace and their opinion. And most of all, I want to thank all of you who came out here and sat through a very long night and stuck with it and who have been so passionate on both sides of this. This is the community dialog that makes us better as a community and as a city. And at the end of the day, no matter what happens here, your voice is so important to that process and your passion and your thoughts and your ideas and the things that you think of that nobody else did and you bring to the table. And so I just wanted to thank everyone for being here and sticking it out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Clark, I'm going to ask you one quick question before we close. There are about five, six, maybe seven people who kept saying this is a done deal. And so as someone who has been on the ground working on this. How would you respond to that? Yeah. Thank you. And that's something that's really hard for me to hear, because I don't feel like this has been a done deal at any point, including next week, when this vote is going through to to say yes or no. I think that it's hard sometimes when we're facing a tough decision and you feel like maybe there are more people on one side than your side or you feel things should be done a certain way. I think to see that and as I shared in committee, there's no set policy for when someone comes and says, can we do this on a golf course? We don't have a set thing like we do with rezonings. And so some people thought that we should do it one way. And I navigated that the best that I could, the best that I know how. And so, you know, I think that. Absolutely. At no point have I certainly thought that this was a done deal. So I don't know who they're getting that from or where they got that from. This was a, you know, important process and certainly not going to stand here and say that it was a perfect process or that everyone is going to get what they want at the end of the day, because at the end of the day, we we got to vote yes or no. Not everybody wins. But I think and I think we heard it from a lot of other people about the process being robust and could have been more robust. But I don't know where that came from. And it does make me sad because I do think that I've spent a lot of time listening and everybody involved with this has spent a lot of time listening. And I think that's really important. And I know that it can be frustrating to get to a point and think or be afraid that you're not going to get what you want to do, but that's different than it actually being a done deal. So I don't know if that answers your question. It does. Last quick question from when you first heard about this proposal until today, how long has that been? A long time. I don't remember when I first the meeting that we had when you guys called me in and said. Okay. About a year. So. So it's been a year process. And don't quote me on that. I would have to double check when exactly that was. But. Okay. The public hearing for 6087 is now closed. We will have comments next week on Monday, July 31st. We will conclude by doing a final vote. And I want to thank the city council members who've been here since 230.

A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver, through its Denver Human Services Department, and the Regional Transportation District, to provide eligibility determination and enrollment into RTD’s LiVE Program. Approves an intergovernmental agreement with the Regional Transportation District (RTD) for $1,835,299 and for five years for RTD to fund up to four Denver Human Services Eligibility Technician II’s, who will provide eligibility determination and enrollment into RTD’s LiVE Program, a fare discount program for low-income individuals, citywide (SOCSV-201950941). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-12-19. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-9-19.

DenverCityCouncil_07292019_19-0682

Thank you, Madam Pro-Tem. My question is regarding the use of the almost $2 million to provide eligibility determination for our TDS live program. I just want to know a little bit more about how this $2 million is going to be spent. It seems like a pretty large amount to get people enrolled when your existing case managers might be able to be trained on how to do that. So is anybody here to perhaps explain? Thank you. If you wouldn't mind introducing yourself. It's not. Good evening, everyone. My name is Lorraine Archuleta. I'm the division director for Human Services, the Family and Adult Assistance Division. And the eligibility services fall under my purview. And so your question is a very good one. So we have approximately 244 eligibility technicians in our division. This program is new and it falls under seven jurisdictions within the metro region area. So it's not just determining eligibility for Denver Human Services in the Denver metro region. It's 46 other jurisdictions as well. So the $2 million is not just for this year, it's for five years. So it's a five year term for the contract. And so it's determining eligibility not just for the live program itself, but controlling for all of the other benefits that our clients may be eligible for. So I'm not sure if this statement of work was included in the figure and in the information that you guys received. But that's also included. We plan on determining other benefits, including in the live lab program. Does that help? So does that mean hiring new people? Does that mean some trainings? What does that look like? Julie So what is happening now is what we did is we took four experienced workers and we train them in this program because they are having to train in the peak pro system. That's the system that these applications are going through. So we have the peak online system. That's the state's eligibility system. This is a little bit of a different path that these applications go through on the back end. And so these technicians have to go through this system to retrieve the applications. So they had to be trained on that in all of the procedures for these for the program. So then we had to backfill the positions with new staff. Now, why the the current technicians cannot do this is they have to they are committed to other programs and other services. And so, as I stated, we have 244 eligibility technicians within our division. Our caseloads are approximately 120. We serve one in three in Denver Human Services. I'm sure you've heard that statistic before. And so we serve approximately 121,000 Medicaid recipients, approximately 44,000 SNAP recipients. And so, as such, you know, we have our technicians serving all of the other citizens that are receiving the other benefits. So we want to make sure that this new program was being launched and we did not disrupt the other services of our other citizens of Denver Human Services. And do you see this 2 million being renewed every five years, or do you see it as just a seed funding to get it off the ground? Well, it's not city funding or our TDs paying for that service. So as such, we're going to be meeting with RTD in 90 days to see the data and reevaluate. And then we'll be doing that every 90 days. Every 90 days will be doing that to ensure that all of that data. Yeah. I'm sorry. So I was saying seed funding, like to Sudan or. Yeah. I apologize. So, again, I will be meeting with RTD every 90 days to look at the data and look at the staffing to see are we on target? Did we overestimated? We underestimate. So I think as such, we're going to be ensuring that our. A did we again overestimate the funding? An underestimate because we don't know. We're unsure as to what the estimates are. Again, we're looking at seven jurisdictions, Denver, Jefferson, parts of Weld, Adams County, Arapahoe County, Boulder County. So we're looking at all these jurisdictions. We don't know how many people between the ages of 20 and 64 within these jurisdictions that meet these qualifications, that fall between the 185 FPL federal poverty level. Awesome. Thank you. I ask the questions just because I don't know if it's going to get we're going to get it again in five years. And then will our techs need more funding? So thank you. No, you're very welcome. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Loraine. And thank you, Councilwoman CdeBaca. Or you all get on the questions. All right, great. Madame Secretary, please put the next item up on our screens. Councilman Flynn, what would you like us to do with 0581?

Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. RFP PR19-126 and award a contract to Great Scott Tree Service, Inc., of Stanton, CA, to provide tree trimming and related services, in an annual amount of $843,500, with a 15 percent contingency in the amount of $126,525, for a total annual contract amount not to exceed $970,025, for a period of two years, with the option to renew for three additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments. (Citywide)

LongBeachCC_04212020_20-0345

Madam Court, please read the next item. Item 23 Report from Parks, Recreation and Marine Recommendation to award a contract to Great Scott Tree Service to provide tree trimming and related services for a total annual contract amount not to exceed 970,025 citywide. Yeah. I'm just looking for a motion to see a motion by Councilmember Pierce, so I can have a second, please. Looking for a second on the item. And a second by councilman's and de Haas. Thank you. Councilmember Pierce, you have any any comments or questions? No comments any from customers and they have. Yeah. Okay, then, unless there's any objection, I'll move those without his consent. I know before we get the items 24 and 25. Customer Pearce's You want to say something? Yes. I'm going to be recusing myself from item 24 and 25 from my previous work with From the Earth. Thank you.

Recommendation to increase appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund Group in the Public Works Department by $35,000, offset by the First Council District one-time District Priority Funds transferred from the Citywide Activities Department to support infrastructure improvements at 14th Street Park.

LongBeachCC_06112019_19-0547

Motion carries. Thank you. Next item, please. 2027 Communication from Councilwoman Gonzales Recommendation to Increase Appropriations in the Capital Projects Fund Group in the Public Works Department by 35,000 to support infrastructure improvements at the 14th Street Park. There's emotion in a second. Is there any public comment on this item? Seeing none. Please, is there? Please come forward. Hi. My name is Celia McGill. I have been living here for 30 years and I represent the association neighborhood of Washington. And I have noticed eight other families here need a safe, safe space for for Labor. The funding for 14th Street Park will help create a social cohesion if will create recreational activities in the center. The community always like to showcase them all until they party the party protest community in which leader will be updated on the progress and where they are aided by community. This process will help the resident on this then be part of the improving community pride. And also, you know, it is because I support I support, but also because I like to be provocative. Right now right now, in this moment, you pass by your brother of the park 14. You saw it is a chain for my community. Represent the poorness, the shame, the negligence of my community. That's why. And really, I gave invitation to both roles. The restrictions for people to use over there because I like the park will be for families for children. And that's the basis for what we need funding for support the bar for my community. It's take away for the negligence and for bodies, for families together. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there any other public comment on this item? Yeah. Yeah. Please go ahead. My name is Catalina Munoz. So Representative Ella is going to Washington, a neighborhood. Poor. Would you mind speaking into the mic about a microphone? Okay. So, resident. There, there. La la la. Washington neighborhood. Poor quality areas. A. Los Fondos de there's the park. There are collectors. They argue that here are la salud and physical elementally. That there are ninos adultos. They are commonly. De La Comunidad in Estep Park. Your pueblo man in futuro familias they will need us can be combined. It is through tandem in our community that in El Paso. Como a como Mali has. Labor. Appropriate that they will study Gehry's fruit. Dudamel's la familia. This is. This is it. This is eaten all over their recreation. Are you there? Are you out here? April Morales. Si la seguridad de todos. Gracias. Clashes. Vessels. So. Um. My name is Catalina Munoz. I am a resident of Washington neighborhood, and I've lived there for 40 years. Um, the funds for the park on 14th Street would help the physical health and mental health of the children and adults and for the community and whole it. In this park, I can see a future for the families that meet and so they can live and enjoy it in our community. This park. It's like our property and I would like to enjoy it and for the families to because the families need a place where they can have recreation. It would help to promote security for everybody. Thank you. Thank you very much. Speaker when I started this. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Judith Cottrill. And this is called Campaign Saddle and Infrastructure for Thursday. I said that I would. Like to thank you, first of all for thinking about the infrastructure of the park on 14th Street. For example. That will now be a family friendly, familiar goal. This will give us of a familiar environment in which we can feel secure. If I say the emperor told. And it'll be a good thing for everyone. E Damian Campbell. Sorry, sir. I see that you look like a total setup. It's Completamente cruiser mustang. I would also. Like to suggest for 14 on the site what's to be blocked off so that the children can be secured. Ideally without being used. I will say. I'm a voluntary I. I help the children to cross the streets. And we were stationed there. The iris partial of the castle. And there's a space there where a car can sit. It way past and. It could go right behind you without you even notice in. Those four awarenesses it can be open an and. If you could make a change here, that would be for the safety of everyone. Thank you. Thank you neither. Yeah. Please come. Forward. Yes. Hi everyone. My name is. And money and only I'll be talking about. Um, three days in the park and changing the community. First, I will start out with a lot. A lot of kids play there. And the families play there. A family makes us a family to us. It's like a family to them. We get we get add baby swings and regular swings. Add a baby structure. And we can make everything new. Thank you. Yeah. Hi. Vitamin neighbor. And today I'll make the flag. And when? Okay. Okay, down. It's okay. Go ahead. Take your time. You know. It's okay. It's okay. It's okay. It's okay. She did a great job, too. Excellent. Hi. Good evening. My name is Crystal Jones and I'm a resident in a small business owner, family childcare provider in the Washington district and me and my daughters in the daycare children play at the 14th Street Park. Park. Make life better. And I think it's very important that we improve and change the park for the better and the safety of the community as a whole for all children and the neighbors within the community in the 14th Street District and all the kids that I take there, they love it. They always want to go back there looking for new things and exploring the different sections is a joy for me to see the impact of the park on their afternoon activities and physical activity or exercise. And I feel like everything's going to be changed for the better. The community will produce stronger socialization for the kids and the parents to come together to not only help the kids socialize, but interact one another to grow and learn and develop. Thank you. Thank you very much. Your last speaker. Good evening. My name is Alan Butler. I've been in. Long Beach Community now going on 16 years. I'm also the council vice chair for the Boy Scouts with the community. A lot of my children and my particular troop that I'm responsible for in the Washington neighborhood live in that area. The improvements that the park is being suggested with this agenda item basically are long overdue and very much needed. And would help as other people have already said. So I'm not going to repeat a lot, but the. Other things that it will do. It provides. Over. 1700 families that live in that. Area, a place for their children to have to go, particularly during this summer. Also, as. Some of the people that I mentioned before me, we need to have possibly. Have our police department provide a little more assistance because right now, on a daily basis, anywhere from about 215 to 230. To the next morning until about 715 to 8:00. That four strip block area of park has. Turned into a homeless encampment. And that makes it an issue for the children when they're on the way to school. There will also be one because as most of you know better than I do, are children will be out of school this coming Thursday. So that would be a place they would be looking it up to get to go. And that's what they would have to face at that park. And if any improvements would be made not to try to degrade anybody, but how long would those improvements last and be in place? Unless we can make that measure to help move those people out of that area to help those children have a. Place to play. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much, sir. We have a motion. Please go ahead. Good afternoon. My name is Alejandro Lujan. I have three children. If you go to Washington and I live in the area. Washington. I remember setting up a bar. As a parent, I would like the idea for my children to enjoy that area. I'd also lament the Commodores. I've only been to the park twice for a start because it's always dark. Especially gruesome. Is dangerous. Is so social. It's very dirty. You put it so well. And that is the reason why no longer take my take my children. They're being so colorful. And I feel that the funds would help a lot that for there to have that there be security. And so and as a parent I feel that cannot always that it be narrow. It's not just the giving of the funds making their construction. And then that's it. It's elemental. But to maintain it. SIMON As a man, I'm. Amazed week after week, month after month. YOKO My mama. As a parent would ask him if he could come in and put aside. I don't feel sure having my children walking in that area. It'd be fun to tell you that. I would do that, and I feel that the funds would also help to have some security and for my children current activities. What are they watching? What to how to look for activities outside of the outside of Washington, but to find activities right there. Thank you. Thank you so much. So with that kicking in motion in a second, please. We got those to appropriate the the funds listed for 14th Street Park and please cast your votes.

On the message and order, referred on May 19, 2021, Docket #0685, Regarding a Text Amendment to the Boston Zoning Code with respect to parking minimums for affordable housing, the committee submitted a report recommending the order ought to pass in a new draft. The report was accepted; the order was passed in a new draft.

BostonCC_10062021_2021-0685

Thank you very much. You can't say Lydia Edwards, chair of the Committee on Government Operations, requests that Duncan five, six, seven remains in her committee. Madam Clerk, would you now please read docket 0685 Docket 0685. Councilors Bach and O'Malley are for the following order regarding a text amendment to the Boston Zoning Code with respect to parking minimums for affordable housing. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The chair now recognizes Councilor Lydia Edwards, chair of the Committee on Government Operations. Chair Edwards, the floor is yours. Thank you. And I want to thank the co-sponsors for being there yesterday, especially the lead sponsor and who was able to help conduct the hearing on my behalf, unfortunately, had a conflict and couldn't be there. That being said, I am going to turn it shortly over to one of the sponsors, Councilor Bok. But and in short, we're going to keep it in committee to continue to work on some certain issues. But we hope to move on this shortly. Thank you very much. Chair now recognizes the lead sponsor of docket 0685 and the chair of the Government Operations Committee yesterday afternoon, Counselor Kenzie Bok. The floor is yours. At 1040, which is now passed. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I think Counselor Edwards and her staff was instrumental in the hearing yesterday, although I was holding the gavel. That was a great hearing. Thank you so much to the colleagues who came in addition to yourselves, Mr. President. Councilors Maria Arroyo, Braden Flynn. And we had letters from Councilor Rubin, of course, Councilor Edwards, and it was very productive. We had Dandi and the BPA and BTG there. We had some technical changes to the amendment language that had come from the dandy feedback at the last working session. But in many ways the focus yesterday was on the hearing element and really had very powerful testimony from the folks, particularly members of your action, but also from action for equity, transit matters, global streets, Fenway, CDC and a number of members of the public. So it was a really great conversation. We have a couple of outstanding questions and the speaker is checking on technical thing that we've listed all the right zoning districts. So as the chair said, I'm looking forward to partnering with her to having this out on the floor for a vote soon. But but not today. So thank you so much. Thank you very much. DUCKETT 0685 shall remain in the Committee on Government Operations Motions, orders and resolutions. Docket 1043. Edwards offered the following an ordinance amending the City of Boston Code Chapter 24 Boston Jobs and Living Wage Ordinance.

A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Kiewit Infrastructure Co. for an integrated construction program for Brighton Boulevard and Montclair Creek Area improvements located near I-70 East and National Western Center. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves a contract with Kiewit Infrastructure Co for $140,000,000 and through 12-31-2019 for construction management of projects located in the vicinity of I-70 East and National Western Center in Council Districts 8 & 9 (201524268). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-9-15. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 10-7-15.

DenverCityCouncil_10192015_15-0720

Uh, this this contract. One of the things that gives me pause, but it's not it's not really our purview at this point is that the team that's going to be managing this contract has not been sort of forwarded. I don't even know if it's been created yet. I've asked that specifically out in DCC. And so it's a legitimate concern. On May 25th of 2015, we passed the date that the VA was supposed to open, and as we all know, that's a joint venture by Cuit and Turner. And so this this leads directly to how well those contractors are led by our side. And so it's very concerning to me that we don't know who this contract from our side. And I would really like to have that information going forward and things. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I have no major problem with this resolution in and of itself. I have a similar concern with Councilman Espinosa that the oversight team be well formed. I'd love to see a direct council involvement in that. My problem is that it's my understanding that this bill, in part, involves projects that facilitate the future reconstruction of I-70 East. And I'm at a position where I'm not comfortable that the current proposals that CDOT is making for environmental mitigation for homeowners in the near reaches to I-70. I'm concerned as to whether they're sufficient or not. And until I can get comfortable with that, I'm going to be unable to vote for anything that moves in any part. The I-70 project along. Now I am in conversation with see that and it may be an understanding on my part of their position or it may be in substance. And I expect to know that in short order. But for a night out for tonight, I'll be unable to vote for this resolution. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Brooks? Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to call someone from the administration. Kelly, would you be the appropriate person to answer questions? And I wanted to give you the opportunity to talk about the lead on this on this deal with. Q with the question that councilman that's been asked. Sure. Thank you. My name is Kelly LEED, and I'm the executive director of the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative, just as a base of context, you know. So we have six portfolios within the NDDC, one of which are Brighton Boulevard and a variety of projects in River North or better known as Rhino. And for each of those six portfolios, we we have a two overarching structure, one that we've worked on. So again, we've been at this since 2013. We have been what we call our steering committee, which is made up of all the key agencies that are working on these efforts. That group meets every three weeks, and that group deals with kind of strategic resource issues, policy issues, you know, the management of the six projects as a whole to make sure that those projects move forward and that we are coordinating across all the agencies and all the various interests, be them environmental, be them more construction related, be them financing related. So we've been at this now for a couple of years as we dial down to specific projects. So as an example, I'll use Brighton and that's a big enough project where we actually have a project lead out of public works. The contract specifically calls for a point of contact within public works to administer the contract, but we will continue to have a team that works again cross-functionally to make sure that the projects delivered on time and on budget and it's coordinated with all the other projects in the region. One of the benefits of this contract is that typically the city would issue multiple contracts to do work in this part of the city, and that in and of itself can be an administrative challenge. So in this case, we have one contractor that becomes our partner in a CMG, C, a construction management general contractor sort of relationship that works. And in collaboration with us, they act as an extension of the city to deliver what is a whole series of small projects in this area. So, you know, our intent and I'm happy to bring forward a specific org chart. You certainly started to see some of that during our budget hearing. Todd Winckowski, if you recall and I can resend this, started to walk through how this how the projects are organized and how we are coordinating those efforts. But I think on the point and this gets to Councilman Cashman's question is it's our full intent and we've been very transparent. I think another benefit of the way we're we're managing our budget as an example is normally agencies would make individual requests for all the different projects that they're responsible for within the DCC. In this case, the NBCC compiles all those schedule requests or our funding requests, and we make one request through the NBCC. Those dollars get pushed back out to the respective agencies to implement. But we, the NHBC, will do all the reporting so that you have one point of contact. The public has one point of contact. And we've been, again, really deliberative with both the agencies and in council. So it would be fully my intent as we actually get into implementing these projects, that we have an oversight structure that includes council and all the appropriate eyes, so that both the public and city council knows what we're doing, how we're doing it, and should an issue arise, how we're resolving it. Kelly, when when do we break ground on some of this kind of improvement for the Montclair Basin and Park Hill Basin, things like that. So the the the Early Action Drainage Project, which is the part that happens in the Coliseum parking lot that is tied back to our the idea was see that we have to have a functional system in place by December of 2017 or 20. So we have to break ground by 2017. So, you know, our intent is to break ground actually this next year in 16 after the stock show, because we have to have a functioning system in place by December 17. The other probably equally important is that we want to coordinate that work, that storm drainage work with what's going to happen in Brighton Boulevard itself. So, you know. Q It will help oversee as the CMG see that project and having the benefit of them both doing pre-construction services but also construction coordination will help make sure that all those different components get aligned as we start to get into Brighton. So our goal in Brighton as an example is that a design will be done before the end of this year and then there's an official handoff to curate to start the project of implementing that project. So our hope is that we're, you know, in the ground with, with Brighton early this next year and that's about an 18 month, 20 month project that will probably start with utility relocates first. So over the course of what would be 16 and 17 will be rebuilding Brighton and then coordinating the drainage with it. And we, we can expect that accountability, looking at change orders and things like that will be the oversight will be within DCC. Yeah. That is correct. I mean again, I think the beauty of having an entity like the NDC that is working with all the agencies, rolling up, reporting, rolling up how we manage schedule. And then when you have a really complicated project or a large project like I-70 or the National Western, you'll have an executive oversight committee or another structure in place that helps manage that project from the day it starts to the day it ends. Got it. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Brooks. Councilman New. Thank you, Mr. Kelly. I share some, I guess, gasoline, cash funds, concerns about I-70. And just can you tell me what the relationship is of this project? Is it you're referring to the drainage project? Yes. So, you know, for a long time, this part of the city and when I say this part of the city, we're talking specifically about Globeville. Areas once here and parts of Park Hill have been susceptible to flooding when we have any amount of significant rain. And, you know, the way the city typically solves those drainage solutions is incrementally we based on money we have through our capital fund, or if we're lucky enough every ten years or so to do a bond project, we might make some larger improvements. And what one of the things that happened out of you know, out of the whole effort of creating the NBCs was how do you strategically align the planning and the implementation of these six projects? How do you leverage the opportunity that will accrue as a result of these projects? So, you know, obviously I-70 has a planning effort and we're coordinating that with CEDA, the Department of Transportation, which is leading that effort. We, the city, had an interest in figuring out how to solve no longer solved incremental solutions around drainage. But how do you really leverage the fact that you've got five other big projects happening in this region, in the city, and what could we do around drainage to solve that? So one of the things that has come out of this collaboration is an idea with CDOT to have these complementary solutions, one of which protects more of our neighborhoods by pushing a drainage solution we're interested in farther south of the highway, but at the same time acts as a redundant system to protect the highway structure that see that also has to protect. So this is a project of of complementary features and one that provides us an opportunity to solve a significant drainage solution while we're doing all this other work in this part of the city. You. Thank you, Councilman. New. No. Councilman Espinosa Okay. If I go to Councilwoman Ortega, she they to chime in. Councilwoman Ortega Thank you, Mr. President. Kelly Would you let us know what the thinking and timing is for the governance structure for the National Western Center? I know we're waiting to get past the November election, but what is the thinking of where we're going with the governance structure for that? So, you know, we're actually in the process of trying to get briefings scheduled with council around governance. And again, you know, governance isn't just starting. We've actually been overseeing this project now since the decision was made for the stock show to stay in Denver. Right now, we have an interim governance solution in place called an executive oversight committee that's made up of nine members, five of which are from the city. One of those city representatives includes Councilman Brooks, along with representatives from the Colorado State University and the Western Stock Association. So that Executive Oversight Committee has been meeting for now a couple of months. I think we've had four meetings. We're on our fifth. And the idea there is that we're advancing the master plan in these early phases. And then the ultimate is intent is based on some due diligence, is to look at the creation of a public authority. And our intent is to go through a process, you know, from the administration perspective of we're actually working on bringing outside counsel on to help us think about the legal components of how you build that authority. Again, looking at all the different authorities from around the country that are applicable. The reality is there's no one entity that exists today that actually meets the exact interests of this very unique place we're going to create. So Council will help us come up with some suggestions because you'll have multiple revenue streams, you'll have multiple tenants on the campus, lots of kind of complicated things that we have to work through and we want to make sure we do it right legally. So this in the interim, we have an executive oversight committee again that's helping us work through some of this early work. And then we'll ultimately bring forward the idea of a public authority at some future date. So other than the approval of that in any land acquisition, what are some of the additional approvals that this legislative body would be asked to be dealing with? So the first will be land. I mean, you know, the intent is to bring forward a land acquisition ordinance to council for the campus within the campus boundaries. The other will be, obviously, as we bring those individual parcels forward virtually via purchase and sale agreements. We will also, as you'll recall, with the previous council, we stood up the initial new zoning for the campus, the National Western Center Center, campus zoning. So as we bundle and acquire parcels, we'll come forward again to council to roll those new parcels into the new zoning because we can't fulfill the vision of the campus without the new zoning in place. And then there will be a variety of probably other things. Will there be environmental remediation or things that require because we'll be using city contracts to do all that work. So the extent we hit thresholds under our procurement rules, we would be bringing things before Council for their approval as they're required. There's a lot of work to do. Thank you, Kelly. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, you're. Not just because you brought up the specific project of, I mean, I-70 drainage down Brighton Boulevard. One of my questions that I had early on in our discussions was and it couldn't be answered clearly at the time, and hopefully it can be now is we're building we're underneath Brighton Boulevard. We're going to be putting in 100 year drainage for I-70 while we're putting new roadway. Our new storm inlets going to tap into that or they're going to be separate. You know, I'm probably not the right one to answer that. I can because I'm not a drainage engineer. But what I can tell you is we are coordinating both the needs for Bryant Boulevard itself, which will have a drainage system along with running sea. That's pipe in a portion of Bryant Boulevard. But we can certainly have one of our drainage engineers get back to you with that solution. I'm not the right one to answer that question. Because I really looking at those sort of things as sort of opportunities to to provide sort of savings to the you know, to sort of improve the efficiency of what we're putting in. In your. Question. Yeah. I can tell you that, again, one of the underlying objectives of the INDC and the four goals the mayor laid out is to strategically align the implementation and the planning of these projects, which includes how you leverage the investments that will accrue and how we leverage those investments to get things done and to the extent we can , through coordinated efforts, create savings and buy more program for the benefit of a part of the city that seen no infrastructure investment for 30 years. We're absolutely going to do that. And so that's my goal. And that's why I'm so concerned, is I want to, with this matter what these millions of dollars I really want to capture as much program as we possibly can. And if we already have numbers that have generated this $140 million, we already have an estimate on what this initial project is going to cost, but yet we don't actually know what the scope is. And so that's sort of that's where my concern. Right. So the project councilman lays out a process by which projects actually come forward. We still if you read the contract, it lays out a process. Right. Which Q it as the see them as an extension of the city brings forward those projects are we can bring forward those projects. So as an example it contemplates a 100% design, right? And then we would bring forward 100% design for the scheme to kick in and start to do the work pre-construction services and then ultimately lead an effort to procure the development of that project. So there are a variety of flexible opportunities within this agreement for the city to engage. Q8 As our partner in the delivery of these projects and certainly focusing on maximizing the opportunity, both in terms of schedule and savings, are a key part of everything we're doing in this part of the city and certainly a part of this contract. But I don't want 100% design to be one. That's not a good solution. And so how what is the process to actually that's, you know, who's. Doing it now? That's a different question. Again. That's why I'm confused if we don't know it. Actually, this is you couldn't ask for a more or a better best practice in terms of, I think, the flexibility we've created within this contract to recognize that the world of construction is not so prescriptive. I mean, that's part of the challenge sometimes of contracts as we make them so perspective, prescriptive, you don't get the benefit of of opportunities that. I'm not asking you to do a prescriptive contract. I'm asking you to tell me what the process is to sort of vetting the solution. So that's that's what I'm trying to get to. And I think I'm trying to describe to all of council and the public who's watching this is that we've laid out an agreement with it that allows a lot of flexibility for us to drive best practice solutions, be them drainage, be them delivery of a road or other infrastructure , and again, a region of the city that has a lot of challenges. So, you know, I've offered a variety of times to come visit with you, and I continue to make that offer to walk you through. I think the due diligence we've put in place to not just deal with this contract, but how we're managing the whole effort of these six portfolios for the benefit of the citizens in this part of the city. I think that we've kind of gone off the current resolution, but certainly good questions for a broader dialog. I know infrastructure and culture will be a great avenue to have that should Councilman Clark find time in the schedule and there's a council need for that, as well as just doing one on one on off lines as well . But I'd certainly wanted to make sure we kind of came back to Resolution 720, not to say the questions are unimportant. Let's just make sure they're asked and answered in the correct forum. So anything on on this particular resolution any more, Councilman Espinosa? No, thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Kelly, for that. Thank you. We've got one more, I believe 692. This one's a vote. Oh, I apologize. I was calling for a rewrite. Yet there are no other comments or questions. 720. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for that correction. See? Nine. Madam Secretary, roll call Cashman. No. Can each. Lopez New Ortega I Assessment by Black Brooks I Clark I Espinosa. Pass. Flynn I. Gilmore, I. Espinosa. Abstain. Mr. President. High. Madam Secretary, please. First of all, you announced the results. For Lebanese, one nay, one abstention.

A proclamation recognizing May 19th as “Hepatitis Testing Day” and July 28th as “World Hepatitis Day”.

DenverCityCouncil_05162016_16-0381

And it is the leading cause of cirrhosis, liver cancer and liver transplants in the United States. And. Whereas, as many as 1700 hepatitis C related deaths occur annually in the United States, these rates are expected to peak between the years 2030 and 2035 at 36,000 deaths per year, making hepatitis C one of the top preventable causes of death. Whereas people born between 1945 and 1965 are five times more likely to be infected than any other adults. More than 75% of all people with hep C in the United States are people in this age range and are largely unaware of the condition due to lack of any signs, symptoms and testing, leading hepatitis C to be labeled as, quote unquote, silent epidemic. And. Whereas, Hepatitis C disproportionately affects people of color and the majority of individuals living with the infection can be cured of the virus through the advent of effective treatment options currently available on the market. And those cured through treatment are able to stop and even reverse damage to the liver caused by the virus. And. Whereas, hepatitis C can be prevented, testing can identify existing infections and early diagnosis and treatment can save lives, money and resources. And. Whereas. Liver Health Connection is available as a statewide resource for education testing, linkage to care and other support services. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council agrees that preventing and treating Hep C as an important public health initiative that will improve the quality of life for Denver residents affected by the virus. Section two at the Denver City Council proclaims May 19th as hepatitis testing day and recognizes July 28th as World Hepatitis Day. Section three that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall test and affix a seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted to Nancy Steinfurth, executive director of the Liver Health Connection. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, your motion to adopt. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council proclamation 381 series of 2016 be adopted. Moved and seconded. Comments. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I have had the honor to read this proclamation for the last eight years, every single year, and I do so. It originally was going to be read by by then Councilman Garcia, who was absent, and I need you to read it in its place. And as fate would have it, this is something really close to me. Something very close to my heart. I read it with pride, but also a little bit of sadness because this was the very same. Condition and virus that took my grandfather. Who died of cirrhosis of the liver caused by a hep C infection. And he had been a very healthy man his whole life. You know, worked very hard, proud guy. He had served our country in World War Two. And he was injured. And he received a blood transfusion and they didn't test for that then. And so he had became infected with the Hep C virus. During his transfusion, he did not know about it until well, well, well into his life, until he realized he was going to he's going to pass away from it. So it's very meaningful for me to read this proclamation because I know there's a lot of people out there, especially especially folks that were in that age range and that were mostly baby boomers that are born between 1945 and 1965. And as I said in the proclamation, are five times more likely than any other age group to be at risk and to have it and not even know it. And that's why it's important, because this is, you know, a while back, not too long ago, actually, this was almost a death sentence. And because of the resources, because of the research, because of the the work that that we as a world have put into this, there is now treatment and there's now even a cure. And it's important that we get folks into the into the laboratory get tested. And that's not no, it's not just for those that age group, but everybody. It's important to know that. So we will be actually having a free hepatitis C testing day this Thursday from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. in the atrium of the Webb building. And so I highly encourage anybody to go out there and get tested for that. It's terrible. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any other comments? Proclamation 381. Seen none, Madam Secretary. Raquel Lopez. I knew Ortega. Hi. Sussman. Hi. Black. Hi. Brooks, I. Clark. All right. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi. Gilmore. Hi, Mr. President. Hi. Madam Secretary, please, for the very nice results. A Lebanese Lebanese 381 has been adopted. Councilman Lopez, there's someone you'd like to invite to the podium to receive the proclamation. Yes, I'm looking at it right now. I'd like to invite the executive director of the Liver Health Connection, which is formerly the Hep C connection. Ms.. Nancy Steinfort. Thank you very much. I'm so honored to be here once again. And also thank you to Councilman Lopez, who's been our champion for so many years. We really do appreciate it. We gave you lots of statistics in that proclamation. I understand that. So it's it's kind of daunting to remember everything. So I'll give you one more statistic to throw at you. The CDC has 60 reportable conditions that they get statistics about on an annual basis. Hepatitis C is one of those statistics, one of those reportable conditions, as well as HIV and many other things. In 2014, the number of deaths related to hepatitis C surpassed the number of deaths for all 60 conditions combined. This is this is a big deal. This is a serious illness. And because the prevalence is so great among baby boomers and so. Many are unaware that they have it, that it's really. Becoming critical that we identify more and more people and link them to then care. So we're really excited about testing at the Web building on Thursday. There are 11 other partner organizations around the state that are testing that same day. Not all. We're building in their. Own communities, but we're honored to be able to do this. It's free. We will test baby boomers mainly, but we're happy to test anyone with any risk factor. There's a lot of risk factors. If you were a veteran in and served in the Vietnam War, that's a possibility because of blood transfusions at that time as well. They didn't start accurately testing the blood supply until 1992, and that wasn't really that long ago. So we encourage everyone to either visit us at the Webb building on Thursday or please ask your primary care physician because the test is considered free for baby boomers, because that is a risk risk group. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, for bringing that forward annually. Those were our two proclamations. So we're on to the resolutions. Madam Secretary, please read the resolutions. From finance and Services to 89 resolution. Approve any post lease agreement between City and County of Denver. Mile High Montessori Early Learning Centers for a child care center located at 957 Ulster Way. Governance and Charter Review 939 Resolution approve any post agreement between City and County of Denver Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Colorado to provide medical insurance coverage

A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2483 South Josephine Street in University Park. Approves a map amendment to rezone property from U-SU-C to U-SU-C1, located at 2483 South Josephine Street in Council District 6. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-20-20.

DenverCityCouncil_11302020_20-1123

Blueprint also has specific policy recommendations. So the housing policy number four talks about diversifying housing choice through expansion of accessory dwelling units. Throughout all residential areas and a city wide approach to enable it to use is preferred. But until holistic approach is in place, individual rezonings to enable you to use in all residential areas, specifically where tools to transit are appropriate. In this case, the request rezoning is a single loading a residential area only one block away from a bus stop. So this rezoning to use on district will have minimal impacts in the surrounding neighborhood and is consistent with blueprint recommendations. The University Park Neighborhood Plan was adopted by Denver City Council in 2008 and applies to the subject site. The overarching theme of the University Park Neighborhood Plan is to create and nurture a community that accommodates wide variety of uses and people in an environment that enhances the quality of life for residents. The proposed rezoning to USOC one is consistent with the following urban design and land use goals. Goal number two Residential neighborhood character stability preserve the single family nature of the University Park Residential Neighborhood and respect their design and the architectural character of established and preferred residential forms. And Goal Number four Diverse housing options in appropriate locations. Diversify the mix of housing types near trusted amenities to allow residents to age in place, live without the daily use of care and accommodate the housing needs of empty nesters, students, young professionals and families. Adopted in 2018. Housing and inclusive. Denver was not adopted as a supplement to Denver Comprehensive Plan 2040, but was still adopted by City Council and can be considered relevant criteria for this MAP amendment. The plan encourages expanding the development of accessory dwelling units to incentivize affordable and mixed use housing. Stuff also finds that of the proposed rezoning to USOC, one meets the next two criteria. It will result in the uniform application of social district building for use and design regulations. And the proposed official MAP Amendment furthers the public health, safety and general welfare of the city through implementation of the city adopted land use, which recommends the expansion of accessory dwelling units throughout all residential areas. The proposed rezoning would also provide the benefit of an additional housing unit that is comparably integrated into surrounding neighborhoods. The justified circumstance for this rezoning is clear of the plan since the approval of the existing yes, you see some district. The city has adopted the Comprehensive Plan 2014 Blueprint, Denver Housing and Inclusive Denver and University Park Neighborhood Plan as stated throughout this presentation. The proposed rezoning meets the intent of this plan's. Lastly, the proposed zoning is consistent with the urban neighborhood context residential districts and the USOC one stone district. Stuff that's to recommend approval based on finding or review criteria has been met. And that concludes stuff. Presentation. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Fran. Council has not received any written comments on Council Bill 1123 and we have one individual signed up to speak and we will go ahead and get started. We have Jesse Paris. App and friend will go ahead and ask you to pull down the slide deck for us and. The member of the council. My name is Jesse Harris and I represent a four member home of now Black Star Action Movement for Self, the fifth Positive Action Commitment for Social Change, as well as the related party of Colorado and Mile-High News and I will be the next November 2023. I am in favor of this rezoning tonight. Good job, Cash. Man, you got this. I support especially dwelling units all over the city, just like I support tiny villages that say Balboa camps. So I am here tonight and got this cash. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Jesse. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. All right. Seen no questions by members of council. The public hearing for Council Bill 20 Dash 1123 is closed. Any comments by members of Council? All right. I'm not saying. Oh, there you go, Councilman Cashman. Yeah. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to say, I believe this application clearly meets all the criteria. It's a great location for a block off of University Boulevard. It's about a ten block walk from a light rail station. The University of Denver campus is just across the University Boulevard and a block up. And my my only concern I just wanted to express about AIDS in general is I wish we could figure out a way to keep them from being used as short term rentals. I really love 80 used as an addition to our housing stock for residents. And as much as I believe paid short term rentals probably have a place in our community, I don't like to see them taking up accessory dwelling units, personal opinion. But I will be supporting this and I hope my colleagues will join me. All right. Thank you. Councilman Cashman, seen no other comments by members of council. I'll just throw in that saying that this meets all the review criteria. I will be voting in favor of it as well. Madam Secretary, roll call. Cashman. I. Can. I. Ortega. I. Sandoval. I. Sawyer. I. Torres, I. Black Eye. CdeBaca, I. Park I. Flynn. I. Herndon. I. Hi. Hi. Madam President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes Council Bill 20 Dash. 1123 has passed. Councilmember Flynn. Will you please put Council Bill 1124 on the floor for final passage?